HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 105-24 Certifying an EIR and Adopting Environmental Impact Findings, Alternatives, Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting Program for Hexcel RedevelopmentDocusign Envelope ID: 2D3AB85C-5D8B-4DCD-BCO2-C911 D1 FBA1AA
RESOLUTION NO. 105 — 24
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT FINDINGS, FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES, A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR THE HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PLPA 2022-00038
(APNS 941-1560-009-01 AND 941-1560-003-04)
WHEREAS, the property owner, Overton Moore Properties, proposes to redevelop an 8.81-
acre site located at 11711 Dublin Boulevard. The project would demolish the existing 62,175-
square-foot Hexcel research and development building and construct a new 125,532-square-foot
light industrial building to appeal to advanced manufacturing and life science uses with 217 parking
stalls and related site improvements. Requested approvals include a Planned Development
Rezone Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit and Heritage
Tree Removal Permit. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the
"Hexcel Redevelopment Project" or the "Project;" and
WHEREAS, the Project site includes two parcels totaling approximately 8.81 acres located
north of the 1-580, south of Dublin Boulevard and residential and commercial uses, east of existing
office buildings, and west of the U.S. Bank Branch, Dublin Heritage Park and Museums and Dublin
Pioneer Cemetery; 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. It was
determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation, dated May 15, 2023, to public
agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the EIR. The City also conducted
a public scoping meeting on May 25, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft EIR, dated August 2023, for the proposed Project
that reflected the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts
of the Project (SCH No. 2023050372). The Draft EIR is included in the Final EIR attached as
Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period from August 21,
2023, through October 5, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City received three comment letters from State, regional, and local
agencies during the public review period and one additional letter from the public after the close
of the comment period. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the City prepared written
responses to all the comments received during the public comment period and also included the
letter from the public; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted tribal consultation as requested by the Confederated
Villages of Lisjan Nation; and
Reso. No. 105-24, Item 6.1, Adopted 09/17/2024 Page 1 of 3
Docusign Envelope ID: 2D3AB85C-5D8B-4DCD-BCO2-C91 1 D1 FBA1 AA
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Final EIR, dated November 2023, for the proposed Project,
which includes an annotated copy of each comment letter identifying specific comments,
responses to each specific comment, and clarifications and minor corrections to information
presented in the Draft EIR. The Final EIR is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution and is
incorporated herein by reference. The Draft EIR, comments and associated responses, and
changes and clarifications to the Draft EIR constitute the Final EIR. The responses to comments
provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the
comments; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects anticipated
as a result of the Project such as air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural
resources, energy, geology and soils, and hazards/hazardous materials, most of which can be
substantially reduced through mitigation measures; therefore, approval of the Project must include
impact and mitigation findings as set forth in attached Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, some of the impacts cannot be lessened to a level of less than significant;
therefore, approval of the Project must include findings regarding alternatives as set forth in
attached Exhibit C, and must include a Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in
attached Exhibit D; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project on December
12, 2023, at which time they reviewed and considered the Draft and Final EIRs, and all reports,
recommendations and testimony before them. Following the public hearing, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 23-11 recommending the City Council approve the project
and certify the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission minutes and
recommendation, a staff report, the Draft and Final EIRs, and all written and oral testimony at a
duly noticed public hearing on March 19, 2024, and continued the proposed project to a date
uncertain; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated September 17, 2024, and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the Project and Draft and Final EIR for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Hexcel
Redevelopment project on September 17, 2024, at which time all interested parties had the
opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Draft and Final EIRs reflect the City's independent judgment and analysis
on the potential for environmental impacts and constitute the Environmental Impact Report for the
Hexcel Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS, the Draft and Final EIRs are bounded as one document, incorporated herein
by reference, and are available for review in the City of Dublin Community Development
Department, file PLPA-2022-00038. The custodian of the documents and other materials which
constitute the record of proceedings for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project is the City of Dublin
Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA 94568; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as required by CEQA, is
contained in attached Exhibit E.
Reso. No. 105-24, Item 6.1, Adopted 09/17/2024 Page 2 of 3
Docusign Envelope ID: 2D3AB85C-5D8B-4DCD-BCO2-C91 1 D1 FBA1 AA
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 Dublin City Council certifies the following.
A. The EIR for the Hexcel Redevelopment project has been completed in compliance with
CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures.
B. The EIR for the Hexcel Redevelopment project was presented to and reviewed by the City
Council prior to taking action on the Hexcel Redevelopment project.
C. The EIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis as to the potential
environmental effects of the Hexcel Redevelopment project. The EIR provides information
to the decision -makers and the public on the environmental consequences of the Project.
D. The EIR adequately describes the Project, its significant environmental impacts, mitigation
measures and a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council certifies the EIR consisting of
the Draft EIR and the Final EIR as set forth in Exhibit A, adopts the impact and mitigation findings
set forth in Exhibit B, the findings regarding alternatives set forth in Exhibit C, the Statement of
Overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit D, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program set forth in Exhibit E, which Exhibits A, B, C, D and E are incorporated herein by
reference.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of September 2024, by the following
vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Hu, Josey, Qaadri, Thalblum and Mayor McCorriston
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
p-DocuSigned by:
14/(
Cityt1er "4°A
,-Signed by:
dll,(,ravriSfbin,
Mayor
/tV8i(,1(,UyAU4b 1...
Reso. No. 105-24, Item 6.1, Adopted 09/17/2024 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit A
DUBLIN
CALIFORNIA
Hexcel Redevelopment Project
Focused Final EIR
November 17, 2023
PROJECT APPLICATION PLPA-2022-00038
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Table of Contents I Page i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Document Organization and Framework 1
1.2 CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses 2
2 Responses to Comments 3
2.1 Comments on the Draft EIR 3
2.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 3
2.2.1 COMMENT LETTER 1 (DSRSD) 3
2.2.2 COMMENT LETTER 2 (ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY) 3
2.2.3 COMMENT LETTER 3 (CALTRANS) 5
2.2.4 COMMENT LETTER 4 (STEVE MINNIEAR) 6
2.3 Comments Received on the Draft EIR 7
3 Changes to the Draft EIR 15
4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 19
Appendices
A
B
Draft EIR
Appendices to Draft EIR
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Comment Letters Received 3
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Table 20
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Table of Contents I Page ii
Acronyms
ACDEH Alameda County Department of Environmental Health
ADA American Disabilities Act
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CHRIS California Historic Resources Information System
City City of Dublin
dBA A -weighted decibel
Draft EIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
DSRSD Dublin San Ramon Services District
EIR Environmental Impact Report
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
Final EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GPR Ground Penetrating Radar
HABS Historic American Building Survey
HAER Historic American Engineering Record
HALS Historic American Landscapes Survey
I- Interstate
in/sec inches per second
Leg equivalent sound level
Lincoln Highway later known as US Highway 50
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
mph miles per hour
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPS National Parks Service
NWIC Northwest Information Center
OPR Governor's Office of Planning and Research
PM10 particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns
PM2.5 particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
Project Hexcel Redevelopment Project
R&D research and development
ROW Right -of -Way
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TMP Transportation Management Plan
VMT vehicle miles travelled
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 1
Hexcel Redevelopment Project
Final Environmental Impact Report
1 Introduction
The Hexcel Redevelopment Project (Project) Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) was
circulated for a 45-day public review period from August 21, 2023, through October 5, 2023, as
assigned by the State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) State
Clearinghouse and consistent with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations.
Copies of the document were distributed to federal, state, regional and local agencies, as well
as organizations and individuals, for their review and comment. This Final Environmental
Impact Report (Final EIR) has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines,
and the City of Dublin (City) CEQA Guidelines and Procedures. This document represents the
independent judgment of the City of Dublin as CEQA Lead Agency. This document, together
with the Draft EIR, technical appendices, and other written documentation prepared during the
EIR process, will constitute the Final EIR. This includes any modifications to those documents
made by the City Council at the time of certification. This is in accordance with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15132 and the City's CEQA Guidelines and Procedures. The Draft EIR and appendices to
the Draft EIR are included in this Final EIR as Appendix A and Appendix B.
1.1 Document Organization and Framework
This Final EIR is organized as follows: Chapter 1 provides a brief introduction to this document.
Chapter 2 provides a list of agencies and interested persons who commented on the Draft EIR.
This chapter provides responses to substantive comments related to CEQA and the Draft EIR
that were received during the 45-day review period. To facilitate review of the responses, an
index number has been assigned to each comment letter and each individual comment within
the comment letter. This identifier is used to identify both the comment and the corresponding
response. Chapter 2 also contains copies of all public comments received on the Draft EIR.
Chapter 3 contains text changes to the Draft EIR that have been made in response to the
comments received. Chapter 4 contains a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program, a
required component of the EIR process. CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 and Public Resources
Code §21081.6 require a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program to ensure
efficacy and enforceability of any mitigation measures applied to a proposed project.
City staff has reviewed the comment letters and information generated in the course of
preparing responses and has determined that none of this material constitutes significant new
information that requires a recirculation period for further public comment under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this material indicates that the project will result in a
significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Draft EIR. Additionally,
none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a
previously identified environmental impact that would not be mitigated, or that there would be
any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation as described in Section 15088.5.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 2
1.2 CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) outlines parameters for submitting comments and reminds
persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of Draft EIRs should be, "on
the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the
environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated.
Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation
measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental
effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined
in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project
at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and geographic scope of the project.
CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and
experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments,
lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide
all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made
in the EIR."
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 3
2 Responses to Comments
2.1 Comments on the Draft EIR
This section includes a list of all written comments received on the Draft EIR and the City's
response to each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given identifying
numbers for reference purposes. Responses to comments are provided in Section 2.2, and
copies of each comment letter received are provided in Section 2.3. Changes to the text of the
Draft EIR, made in response to the comments received, are provided in Chapter 3. Table 2-1
contains the list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the Draft EIR during the
public review period:
Table 2-1: Comment Letters Received
Comment Letter No. Commenting Agency Date
1
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) 9/19/2023
2
Zone 7 Water Agency 10/4/2023
3 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 10/4/2023
4 Steve Minniear 10/26/2023
2.2 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
2.2.1 COMMENT LETTER 1 (DSRSD)
Response to Comment 1-1: Thank you for your letter. The City has reviewed your comment
regarding the requirement to contact DSRSD to coordinate the removal of any water meters on
the Project site, if needed. The Draft EIR has been revised on pages 10 and 11 to reflect this
requirement, as detailed in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR.
2.2.2 COMMENT LETTER 2 (ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY)
Response to Comment 2-1: Thank you for your comment. This comment is regarding a lost well
(3S1W02K001) and a destroyed well (3S1W02K012) on the Project site and drilling permit
requirements. The City was not previously aware of these wells on the Project site. However,
Zone 7 will be notified if these wells are found on the Project site. As discussed on pages 86 and
90 of the Initial Study, Appendix B of the Draft EIR, the Project site does not include any
groundwater wells, nor does the Project propose drilling for new wells. While no drilling or
boring for new water wells is proposed, the City acknowledges that any water well or soil
boring work will require a drilling permit from Zone 7. Revisions have been made to pages 10
and 12 of the Draft EIR to clarify this potential requirement, as detailed in Chapter 3 of this Final
EIR.
Response to Comment 2-2: This comment is related to groundwater resources. The City
acknowledges that the Project site is located within the basin area under sustainable
groundwater management by Zone 7 and that the Project is subject to all relevant sustainable
groundwater management actions set forth in the Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 4
Hydrology and water quality impacts were evaluated in the Initial Study, Appendix B of the
Draft EIR. As discussed on page 90 of the Initial Study, no water wells are being proposed and
water needs for the proposed Project would continue to be met by DSRSD, as they are now.
Additionally, page 90 states that while the proposed Project would result in a higher amount of
impervious surface at the site as compared to existing conditions, bioretention areas have been
sized accordingly and, therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial decrease in the
surface area of permeable soils that would allow rainwater to reach the aquifer. Therefore, less
than significant impacts to groundwater supplies are expected. No revisions to the Draft EIR are
required in response to this comment.
Response to Comment 2-3: This comment relates to potential hydrology and water quality
impacts of development adjacent to a creek. Hydrology and water quality impacts of the
Project, including impacts related to the proximity of the Project site to Dublin Creek, are
discussed in Section 8 of the Initial Study, Appendix B, on pages 89 through 92. The Initial Study
found that the Project would have less than significant impacts to hydrology and water quality.
During project construction, the Project would be required to comply with California State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Construction General Permit as discussed on page 89. No construction would
occur on the southern approximately 0.56 acre of the Project site (Parcel 2), which is adjacent
to Dublin Creek. During Project operation, the proposed on -site stormwater drainage system
would be sufficient to detain and treat operational stormwater runoff generated by the
proposed Project and runoff would not be discharged into Dublin Creek, as discussed on page
91.
Development is prohibited within 30 feet of the centerline of any creek or 20 feet of the top of
a bank, per Dublin Municipal Code Section 7.74.110[B], as stated on page 87. Page 91 states
that no development associated with the Project would occur within 30 feet of the centerline of
Dublin Creek or within 20 feet of the top of the creek bank. Therefore, the Project would be
consistent with Zone 7's proposed methodology and potential failure of the creek bank would
not be expected to impact infrastructure on the site. No revisions to the Initial Study are
required in response to this comment.
Response to Comment 2-4: This comment relates to assessment of impact fees for
development projects that create new impervious areas. The City acknowledges development
projects creating new impervious areas within the Livermore-Amador Valley are subject to the
assessment of the Development Impact Fee for Flood Protection and Storm Water Drainage.
Revisions have been made to the Draft EIR under Project Approvals on page 12, to identify Zone
7 as an additional agency whose approval may be required, as shown in Chapter 3 of this Final
EIR.
Response to Comment 2-5: This comment requests the use of drought -tolerant and climate
adapted landscape. As discussed on page 9 of the Draft EIR, the Project would utilize native and
drought tolerant plants, which would conserve water at the site. Therefore, the Project would
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 5
satisfy Zone 7's recommendation for water wise landscaping. No revisions to the Draft EIR are
required in response to this comment.
2.2.3 COMMENT LETTER 3 (CALTRANS)
Response to Comment 3-1: Thank you for your letter. This comment describes the
commenter's understanding of the Project and their agreement that the vehicle miles travelled
(VMT) analysis and significance determination within the Initial Study were undertaken in a
manner consistent with the OPR's Technical Advisory and the City's Traffic Impact Analysis
Guidelines, and would contribute to meeting the State's VMT reduction goals. The City thanks
the commenter for their concurrence.
Response to Comment 3-2: This comment is related to construction impacts from the Project.
The comment requests that potential impacts to the State Right -of -Way (ROW) from project -
related temporary access points should be analyzed and that mitigation measures related to
construction and noise should be identified for significant impacts. Additionally, this comment
notes that coordination with Caltrans prior to construction to develop a Transportation
Management Plan (TMP) and a transportation permit may be required.
Transportation (Section 16) and noise (Section 12) impacts are evaluated in the Initial Study,
Appendix B, of the Draft EIR. As described in the Transportation section on page 128, all
construction and staging activities would occur on the Project site with no encroachment or
alterations of public ROW, including State ROW. There is no direct access to the Project site
from nearby State ROWs of Interstates 580 and 680 (1-580 and 1-680). However, it is assumed
that access to the site would be via the 1-580 Foothill Road/San Ramon Road exit (Exit 44 A) to
connect to Dublin Boulevard to the west. I-680 also could be used to connect to the 1-580 Exit
44 A to the west. Since State highways and their interchanges are designed to accommodate
large trucks and higher traffic volumes than local roads, there would be less than significant
impacts to State ROWs from project -related construction traffic, as these highways would be
able to accommodate the slight temporary increase in construction vehicles. As discussed on
page 129, Project construction would result in up to 128 traffic trips per day to and from the
Project site from construction workers and deliveries of equipment and materials, and
approximately 51 of these trips would be from trucks during peak construction periods. These
trips would not be an incompatible use to the highways. Since the Initial Study concluded that
these impacts would be less than significant, mitigation is not required.
Impacts from construction noise and vibration were evaluated in the Noise section of the Initial
Study and were determined to be less than significant. A construction noise assessment was
conducted using construction prediction methodologies based on the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) manual. Tables 10 and 11 on pages 107 and 108 of the Initial Study show
that Project construction activities would not exceed the FTA general assessment construction
noise criteria of 90 dBA (A -weighted decibel), Leg (equivalent sound level) at the nearest noise -
sensitive receptor. Furthermore, noise from construction vehicles is expected to be less than
the construction activities analyzed in Tables 10 and 11.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 6
As discussed on page 111 of the Initial Study, vibration associated with Project construction
activities would occur most notably during major ground -disturbing activities, such as site
grading. The piece of construction equipment generating the strongest vibration would be the
dozer which, per the FTA Manual, can generate a vibration level of up to 0.089 peak particle
velocity (PPV) inches per second (in/sec) at 25 feet. State ROW was not considered to be a
sensitive receptor due to the already high levels of noise associated with vehicle traffic.
Because the Project would have a less than significant impact from noise and vibration,
mitigation is not required.
The City acknowledges that the Project may require a TMP and that any required oversized or
excessive load vehicles during construction operations would require a transportation permit
from Caltrans before construction commences. Revisions have been made to the Project
approvals list on page 12 of the Draft EIR, to acknowledge the need for such a permit, as shown
in Chapter 3 in this Final EIR.
Response to Comment 3-3: This comment is related to potential impacts to Caltrans facilities
and American Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. As discussed in Section 16 of the Initial Study, no
impact to Caltrans facilities would result from the proposed Project. No revisions to the Draft
EIR are required in response to this comment.
2.2.4 COMMENT LETTER 4 (STEVE MINNIEAR)
Response to Comment 4-1: Thank you for your letter. This comment requests that the EIR
acknowledge the potential for unmarked graves along the eastern edge of the Project site. The
Draft EIR on page 55 acknowledges that Pioneer Cemetery is adjacent to the Hexcel property,
and that historic documents suggest the cemetery could extend into the Project site. On page
62 in Section 3, Cultural Resources (Impact c), it is discussed that historic documents suggest
that the cemetery was larger than the currently marked boundary, and that there is a high
probability that portions of the cemetery extend to the west of the marked cemetery, beneath
the Hexcel parking lot. On this page, it also states that if unmarked portions of the cemetery
extend beneath the Hexcel property, the Project has the potential to disturb human remains
during earthmoving and excavation activities to implement the Project. On page 97 in Section 7,
Tribal Cultural Resources (Impact b), similar information to Section 3 is included regarding the
extent of the cemetery, as well as an acknowledgement that the cemetery possibly includes
Native American human remains. Mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR, including
archaeological and tribal monitoring, and protocols for inadvertent/unanticipated tribal cultural
resources discovery, would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
Please note that the exact location of potential unmarked gravesites was not specified in the
Draft EIR, as they could extend well beyond the eastern edge of the Project site. No revisions to
the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response to Comment 4-2: This comment requests that the EIR acknowledge that the western
portion of the property is the original Lincoln Highway route from Dublin to what is now Dublin
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 7
Canyon Road. This statement has been added to the Draft EIR on page 42 in Section 3, Cultural
Resources, as detailed in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR.
Response to Comment 4-3: This comment requests that photographs and historical material
should be given to the City of Dublin (Parks and Community Services), not the Dublin Historical
Society as stated on page 57 in Section 3, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. This statement in
the Draft EIR has been revised to identify the correct entity to receive these materials, as
detailed in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR.
Response to Comment 4-4: This comment requests that the proposed light industrial building
comply with the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan architectural guidelines. As the
commenter states, the applicant envisions wood paneling on exterior walls as an architectural
element to honor the historic character of the area. Additionally, as noted in the Draft EIR on
page 9, proposed landscaping would provide buffers between the site and adjacent properties,
and plants would be strategically placed to screen the site's aboveground utilities from public
streets. While the architectural design of the proposed building would not fully be consistent
with the architectural guidelines outlined in Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, it would
still be in conformance with the Specific Plan. This is because the Dublin Village Historic Area
Specific Plan provides discretion when implementing the guidelines as specified on page 31 in
Section 7.1 of the Specific Plan, which states the following:
During their review of proposed development projects, City Staff, the Planning
Commission, and the City Council may use discretion in applying various provisions in
the design guidelines to specific projects. It is not anticipated that each guideline will
apply equally to every project. In some cases, one or more of the guidelines may be
relaxed to facilitate compliance with a more important or appropriate guideline for that
project. When implementing the guidelines, the overall objective is to ensure that the
intent and spirit of the design guidelines are followed and that the project respects its
surroundings and honors the heritage and desired character of the area.
City Staff has determined that the proposed Project would be in conformance with the Dublin
Village Historic Area Specific Plan and will be recommending approval to the Planning
Commission and City Council. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this
comment.
2.3 Comments Received on the Draft EIR
The following pages include copies of all comments received on the Draft EIR. Comment letters
are presented in the same order as responses provided in Section 2.2 above.
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR 1 Page 8
COMMENT LETTER 1 (DSRSD)
1-1
Dublin San Ramon
Services District
Worrr, iy(i57r51'RIPr. er vend ivGre'1
September 19, 2023
Anne Hersch, Assistant Community Development Director
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
7051 Dublin aoulevartt
oubiirl,.CA 9456x•301a
phone 1915)82d•0515
fax t9251 BN-1180
www.dsrsd.com
SUBJECT: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report
Hexcel Redevelopment Project, PLPA-2022-00038
Dear Ms_ Hersch:
Thank you For providing Dublin San Ramon Services District (District) the opportunity to review and
comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project.
The section related to Demolition on page 21 and 171 of the EIR states that water meters will be
included as part of the demolition. The applicant should revise the information to state that water
meters are owned by the District and shall not be demolished_ If the water meters need to be removed,
then the applicant shall contact the District to coordinate the removal of the water meters.
Questions regarding this comment should be directed to meat (925) 875-2258 or yeet-Ddsrsd.com
Sincerely,
'Y2'b�A
Jaclyn YeeY"
Jaclyn Yee
Senior Engineer
JY/ST
cc: Irene Surma, Senior Engineer
Robert Thompson, Engineering Tech/GIS Spec I
IALNG17LP1 ICab \LEUBUNIPLRA 202 2. 130038 developm mIINOAC LIR (urnm nu IN Lefler fur Or aft EIR I Iexoel.dou
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 9
COMMENT LETTER 2 (ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY)
2-1
2-2
2-3
WATER AGENCY
Delivering Quality, Reliability and Safety
October 4, 2023
Anne Hersch
Assistant Community Development Department Director
City of Dublin Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568
Anne.Hersch@dublin.ca.gov
100 North Canyons Parkway
Livermore, CA 94551
(925) 454-5000
Re: Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report — Hexcel
Redevelopment Project
Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7, or Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District) has reviewed the referenced document in the context of Zone 7's mission
to "Deliver safe, reliable, efficient, and sustainable water and flood protection services" within
the Livermore-Amador Valley. Below are our comments for your consideration.
1. Wells - Our records indicate that there is one lost well (3S1W02K001) and one
destroyed well (3S1W02K012) in the project area (Figure 1). Exact locations of wells are
unknown. Please immediately notify Zone 7 if 3S1W02K001 is located or any other wells
exist in the project area. If located, well 3S1W02K001 must be permitted by Zone 7 for
destruction. Also, please be advised that a Zone 7 drilling permit is needed for any water
well or soil boring work that may be planned for this project. The drilling permit
application and permit fee schedule can be downloaded from our website:
https://www.zone7water.com/post/well-drilling-and-soil-boring-permits. For additional
information please email wellpermits@zone7water.com.
2. Groundwater Basin - Note that the subject property (or project) is located within the
basin area under sustainable groundwater management by Zone 7 as per the Alternative
Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin
(https: //www.zone7water.com/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/alt gw sustainability plan-4.pdf?1656015908 ) and is subject to all
relevant sustainable groundwater management actions.
3. Flood Protection / Channel ownership - EIR does not address any hydrology and
water quality impacts of development adjacent to a creek. The site is located adjacent to
Dublin Creek, which is to the south of the parcel. While Dublin Creek is not owned or
zone7water.com
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 10
2-3
continued
2-4
2-5
WATER AGENCY
Delivering Quality, Reliability and Safety
maintained by Zone 7 at that location, it's unclear whether the channel bank may be
susceptible to failure, which could potentially impact the parcel's infrastructure. In such
cases, Zone 7 typically suggests implementing projected 2.5:1 slope from the toe of the
bank to the top, to determine the top of bank, and include a minimum 20 foot setback
from that point.
4. Flood Protection / Impervious areas - Developments creating new impervious
areas within the Livermore-Amador Valley are subject to the assessment of the
Development Impact Fee for Flood Protection and Storm Water Drainage. These fees
are collected for Zone 7 by the local governing agency: 1) upon approval of final map
for public improvements creating new impervious areas; and/or 2) upon issuance of a
building or use permit required for site improvements creating new impervious areas.
Fees are dependent on whether post -project impervious area conditions are greater
than pre -project conditions.
5. Water -wise Landscaping - Zone 7 encourages the use of sustainable, climate -
appropriate, and drought -tolerant plants, trees and grasses that thrive in the Tri-Valley
area. Find more information at: httb://www.trivallevwaterwise.com,
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions on this
letter, please feel free to contact me at (925) 454-5005 or via email at erankCa zone7water.com.
Siinnce�rely, ivek
W^
Elke Rank
Water Resources Planner
cc: Ken Minn, file
Page 2
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 11
LEGEND
p Site
Lost Well
Destroyed Well
Figure 1
Referral E23-06
Groundwater Map
Prepared by Zone 7 Waler Agency
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
COMMENT LETTER 3 (CALTRANS)
CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
3-1
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR 1 Page 12
GAVIN NEWSOM. GOVERNOR
California Department of Transportation
DISTRICT 4
OFFICE OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS-10D OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
www.dot.ca.gov
October 4, 2023
SCH #: 2023050372
GTS #: 04-ALA-2023-00754
GTS ID: 29792
Co/Rt/Pm: ALA/580/R21.722
Anne Hersch, Assistant Community Development Department Director
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Dear Anne Hersch:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the
environmental review process for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project. We are
committed to ensuring that impacts to the State's multimodal transportation system
and to our natural environment are identified and mitigated to support a safe,
sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system.
The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to
ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities. The following
comments are based on our review of the August 2023 DEIR.
Project Understanding
The proposed project would construct a new 125,304-square-foot building. The existing
Hexcel research and development (R&D) building would be demolished and
replaced with the proposed building that caters to future tenants in the R&D and life
sciences field. This 8.81-acre project site is located adjacent to an elevated portion of
1-580.
Travel Demand Analysis
With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focused on maximizing efficient
development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, and
multimodal improvements. For more information on how Caltrans assesses
Transportation Impact Studies, please review Caltrans` Transportation Impact Study
Guide (link).
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment"
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 13
3.7
Anne Hersch, Assistant Community Development Department Director
October 4, 2023
Page 2
The project's Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis and significance determination are
undertaken in a manner consistent with the Office of Planning and Research's (OPR)
Technical Advisory and the City's Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. Per the IS/MND,
this project is found to have a less than significant VMT impact, therefore working
towards meeting the State's VMT reduction goals.
Construction -Related Impacts
Potential impacts to the State Right -of -Way (ROW) from project -related temporary
access points should be analyzed. Mitigation for significant impacts due to
construction and noise should be identified. Project work that requires movement of
oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways requires a transportation
permit that is issued by Ca!trans. To apply, please visit Caltrans Transportation Permits
[link). Prior to construction, coordination may be required with Caltrans to develop a
Transportation Management Plan (IMP) to reduce construction traffic impacts to the
State Transportation Network STNj.
Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet
American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion. As well, the
project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. These
access considerations support Ca!trans' equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable,
and equitable transportation network for all users.
Thank you again for including Ca!trans in the environmental review process. Should
you have any questions regarding this letter, or for future project referrals, please
contact LD?-D4':'dot.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
YUNSHEI' G LUO
Branch Chief, Local Development Review
Office of Regional and Community Planning
c: State Clearinghouse
"ProVide o sole end rclldble 11'drispotldlk7h Network Ihet serves 011 people end respects She onvIronnlerll'
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 14
COMMENT LETTER 4 (STEVE MINNIEAR)
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
Comments by Steve Minniear on Hexcel Development, Dublin Blvd., Dublin, CA
Comments related to Environmental Impact Report
The EIR should acknowledge that there is the possibility of unmarked graves along the eastern edge of
the property. According to oral history interviews, there was a brush fire in the early 1960s that burned
an unknown number of wooden crosses along the western side of the Dublin Pioneer Cemetery. (That
property is now known as the Pioneer Cemetery, Dublin Heritage Park & Museums.) There is no
information as to who might have been buried in that location or if remains were found (or removed)
during the initial 1960s era Hexcel construction.
The EIR should acknowledge that the western portion of the property is the original Lincoln Highway
route from Dublin to what is now Dublin Canyon Road. The Lincoln Highway (later known as US Highway
50) was the major east/west land route from the San Francisco Bay Area to the Central Valley and the
restof the county. This fact adds to the historic and cultural importance of the site.
Page 57 of the EIR incorrectly identifies which entity should receive photographs and historical material
developed as part of the research, planning and construction of the new buildings. Such material should
not be given to the Dublin Historical Society. Rather, it should be given to the City of Dublin (Parks &
Community Services Division) as the operator of the Dublin Heritage Park & Museums.
Comments related to Building Design and Landscape
The new construction should fully comply with the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan since it is the
governing document for the area as authorized by the City of Dublin. The existing drawings seem to
envision wood panels on exterior wal Is as the only architectural elements needed to blend the new
building into the area. The Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan lays out guidelines that indicate the
new construction should be consistent with the early 1900s design aesthetic or something consistent
with early buildings in this core historic area. While building a modern building for the uses intended for
its proposed occupants is challenging, it is not impossible. Developers on the east side of the Historic
Area were able to comply with the design criteria for residential and commercial buildings. There are
many architectural models of 1900-1940 industrial buildings that could be used as inspiration. The
Dublin Heritage Park & Museums and the Dublin Historian have period photographs of the area during
that period that could be referred to as suggestions.
Regardless of the final design of the building, the landscape plan should incorporate a visual separation,
similar to the current ivy-covered fence line on the east side of the proposed development. Such a
feature would visually separate the new construction from the Dublin Heritage Park & Museums. The
current set of trees and the ivy-covered fence do a good job of reinforcing the park -like nature of the
area.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide written comments. If you have any questions, please feel free
to contact me.
Steve Minniear
October 26, 2023
m inniear@comcast.net
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 15
3 Changes to the Draft EIR
Changes to the Draft EIR are shown on the following pages in the order that they appear in the
EIR. New text is shown in underline, and removed text is shown in strikethrough. These text
changes do not constitute substantial new information and do not result in a new significant
new impact or increase the severity of an impact already disclosed in the Draft EIR.
The following text is revised on page 9 of the Draft EIR due to minor changes in the number of
trees identified on the Project site and number of trees being proposed for removal.
Note: that the analysis within the Initial Study assumed that 85 trees would be removed, based
on the project description at the time of analysis. The proposed reduction in tree removal
described below compared to what was analyzed within the Initial Study would not alter the
analysis or conclusions of the Initial Study.
Parcel 1 of the Project site contains 89 8-7 trees, four of which are heritage trees. A total
of 65 trees are proposed for removal, including one heritage tree. All trccs within this
parcel would be removed cxccpt for two of the heritage trees; The heritage trees that
would remain include one in the northeast corner along the project frontage; one in the
southwest portion of the site; and one in the northwest portion of the site. A heritage
tree directly in the southern portion of the site would be removed. Parcel 2 of the
Project site contains 108 trees within the Dublin Creek riparian corridor. All trees in
Parcel 2 would be retained, 19 of which are heritage trees.
The following text is revised on page 10 of the Draft EIR in response to DSRSD Comment 1-2 and
Zone 7 Comment 2-1.
Utilities Systems
The Project site is currently served by existing utilities for water, sanitary sewer,
electricity, and gas. As discussed in the Initial Study in Section 18: Utilities and Service
Systems, Dublin San Ramon Services District provides water and wastewater services to
the site, and East Bay Community Energy provides electricity and gas to the site, which is
distributed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Sanitary sewer, sanitary sewer
manholes, a water meter, and electrical lines and cables would be removed and
replaced with new lines that would connect to existing offsite service lines. If any water
meters require removal, the applicant shall contact DSRSD to coordinate their removal.
Additionally, an existing electrical cabinet, storm drain pipe, electrical transformer, and
air conditioner unit are proposed for removal and would be replaced. Some of the
existing stormwater lines will be left in place but abandoned. New utility lines would be
buried below ground. No wells are known to be present on the Project site, however,
the Zone 7 Water Agency has indicated that there is one lost well (3S1W02K001) and
one destroyed well (3S1W02K012) in the Project area, but that the exact location of the
wells is unknown. If any wells are encountered during construction, they would be
destroyed in accordance with Zone 7 well destruction standards.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 16
The following text is revised on page 11 of the Draft EIR in response to DSRSD Comment 1-2.
Demolition — This stage would include the demolition of the existing facility, asphalt
pavement (140,724 square feet), concrete curbs, landscape including trees and bushes,
irrigation system, drainage system, sewer system, site lights, electrical boxes and other
electrical equipment, gas, and water meters, fence, shed and gate. All water meters
onsite are owned by DSRSD and shall not be demolished. If the water meters need to be
removed, then the applicant shall contact DSRSD to coordinate their removal.
Anticipated construction equipment to be used would include concrete saws,
excavators, loaders, tractors, backhoes, and rubber -tired dozers.
The following text is revised on page 12 of the Draft EIR in response to DSRSD Comment 1-1,
Zone 7 Comments 2-1 and 2-4, and Caltrans Comment 3-1.
1. Project Approvals
The City of Dublin is the Lead Agency for the proposed Project under CEQA. The City is
responsible for considering the Project's impacts as part of the Project approval. The
City would require the applicant to obtain the following approvals and permits: approval
of a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development
Plan; Site Development Review Permit; Heritage Tree Removal Permit; and demolition,
building, grading, and encroachment permits.
Other agencies whose approval may be required include:
• Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD); a4
• Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB);
• Caltrans;
• Zone7;and
• Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
The following text is added on page 42 just before the History of the Hexcel Property and Hexcel
Products, Inc. subsection of the Draft EIR in response to Steve Minniear Comment 4-2.
Lincoln Highway (1913 to 19/1
The Lincoln Highway (later known as US Highway 50) was the major east/west land
route from the San Francisco Bay Area to the Central Valley and the rest of the
county. The western portion of the Project site is the original Lincoln Highway route
from Dublin to what is now Dublin Canyon Road (Lincoln Highway Association 2023).
The following text is revised on page 57 of the Draft EIR in response to Steve Minniear
Comment 4-3.
Following completion of the HABS documentation, including the short form historical
report and large -format photographs, and approval by the City of Dublin, the materials
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 17
shall be placed on file with the City of Dublin Planning Division nd th„ D„blin Historical
Society at the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums (Parks and Community Services ) as
the operator of the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums.
The following text is revised on page 59 of the Draft EIR and in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) in response to consultation with the Confederated Villages of Lisjan
Nation. Also, an error related to what agency should receive archaeologist report has been
revised.
MM CUL-3: Archaeological and Tribal Monitoring
A. A qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional
Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be retained by the applicant prior to
implementing construction or soil remediation activities that involve earthmoving or soil
excavation, and the archaeologist shall be available for consultation or evaluation of any
cultural resources uncovered by such activities. Prior to the start of excavation, the
archaeologist shall produce an Archaeological Testing Plan and an Archaeological
Treatment and Monitoring Plan Treatment and Monitoring Plan, in consultation with
the City of Dublin, and through them, with any consulting Native American tribes.
i. The Archaeological Testing Plan will define the following:
• Methods and scope of archaeological testing to be done prior to the start of
construction (e.g., GPR, hand excavated test units, trenching with flat edged
bucket).
• Treatment of any discoveries during testing.
ii. The Treatment and Monitoring Plan will comply with mitigation measures 4, 5, 6, and 7,
set forth in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, Appendix B, and will specify the
following:
• Archaeological testing to be done prior to the start of construction.
• Archaeological and Tribal monitoring requirements, which will be based on the
results of archaeological testing and consultation with Native American tribes.
• Procedures and considerations for handling, documenting, analyzing, and curation
of any historic -era or pre -contact era artifacts encountered during project
activities.
• Procedures and considerations for handling, documenting, analyzing, and curation
of any human remains from the historic era. {For human remains of Native
Americans from any time period, treatment protocols would be established with
the designated MLD}.
B. If an archaeological resource or human burials are discovered during archaeological
testing, consideration will be given to options that avoid or minimize impact.
C. If an archaeological resource (or suspected resource) is discovered during monitoring of
project activities, construction or excavation activities within a 50-foot radius of the find
shall be temporarily halted or directed to other areas, pending the archaeologist's
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 18
evaluation of its significance. If the resource is significant, data collection, excavation, or
other standard archaeological or historical procedures shall be implemented to mitigate
impacts, pursuant to the Treatment and Monitoring Plan and the archaeologist's
direction. If any human remains are encountered, the archaeologist shall contact the
appropriate County Coroner immediately, and security measures shall be implemented
to ensure that burials are not vandalized until the decision of burial deposition has been
made pursuant to California law. If human remains are determined to be Native
American interments, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage
Commission pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and follow the
procedures stated herein and other applicable laws. A report by the archaeologist
evaluating the find and identifying mitigation actions taken shall be submitted to the
CPUC the City and filed with the California Historic Resources Information System
(CHRIS). Where appropriate to protect the location and sensitivity of the cultural
resources, the report may be submitted under Public Utilities Code Section 583 or other
appropriate confidentiality provisions.
New References to be added to the sources on page 89 of the Draft EIR.
Lincoln Highway Association. 2023. The Lincoln Highway in California. Available:
https://www.lincolnhighwayassoc.org/info/ca/. Accessed on November 13,
2023.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT pRniFCT
Final EIR I Page 19
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is a CEQA-required component of an
EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 and Public Resources Code §21081.6 requires a public
agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program to ensure efficacy and enforceability of
any mitigation measures applied to a proposed project. The Lead Agency must adopt an MMRP
for mitigation measures incorporated into the project or proposed as conditions of approval. As
stated in Public Resources Code §21081.6 (a)(1):
"The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the
changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in
order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting
or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project
implementation."
Table 4-1 represents the MMRP for the Project. This table lists each of the mitigation measures
proposed in the EIR, including mitigation refined or updated in the Final EIR in Chapter 3,
Changes to the Draft EIR, and specifies the timing and responsible party for each mitigation
measure.
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Table
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 20
Air Quality
Responsible for
Approval / Monitoring
roject Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
During
MM AQ-1. Implement Basic Construction Emission Control Practices.
• Responsible for
construction
The construction contractor shall comply with the following BAAQMD
approval: City of
Basic Construction Measures, as applicable, for reducing construction
Dublin
emissions of uncontrolled fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5):
■ Implementation:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,
graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times
per day.
Project applicant
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site
shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be
removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per
day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per
hour (mph).
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be
completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as
possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off
when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes
(as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title
13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear
signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access
points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned
in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 21
Timing
Responsibl
Approval / Monitorin
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure
ompletion
ate
Initials
be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in
proper condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to
contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person
shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The
BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance
with applicable regulations.
Biological Resources
During
construction
MM BIO-1: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
A. To the extent practicable, construction activities and any tree
trimming/removal shall be performed from September 16 through
February 15 to avoid the general nesting period for birds. If
construction or tree trimming/removal cannot be performed during
this period, nesting bird surveys and active nest buffers (as
necessary) shall be implemented as follows:
i. Nesting Bird Surveys: If Project -related work is scheduled during
the nesting season (typically February 15 to August 30 for small
bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for
owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a
qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for active nests of such
birds within 7 days prior to the beginning of Project construction.
Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding the work area
shall be determined by the qualified biologist, but should be at
least: i) 50 feet for passerines; ii) 300 feet for raptors. Surveys
shall be conducted at the appropriate times of day and during
appropriate nesting times, as determined by the qualified
biologist.
ii. Active Nest Buffers: If the qualified biologist documents active
nests within the survey area, an appropriate buffer between the
nest and active construction shall be established. The buffer shall
Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
■ Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified biologist
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 22
Timing
Responsibl completion
Approval / Monitorin
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure ate Initials
be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged
and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the
qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of the nest
to characterize "normal" bird behavior and establish a buffer
distance which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The
qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during
construction activities and shall increase the buffer if the birds
show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive
flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position,
and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not
possible, the qualified biologist shall have the authority to cease
all construction work in the area until the young have fledged
and the nest is no longer active. Construction shall only be
allowed to impact a migratory bird or its nest, including its
young, if a permit from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is obtained
in accordance with the MBTA and all permit conditions are
adhered to.
Prior to
construction
MM BIO-2: Roosting Bat Surveys and Avoidance
A. The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a
bat habitat assessment in all project areas that require tree removal.
The qualified biologist shall identify and document the location of
potentially suitable bat roosting habitat prior to construction
activities. If no suitable bat habitat is observed, the biologist shall
inform the Project Applicant, and no further considerations are
required. If bat roosting habitat is observed, the location of such
habitat areas shall be provided to the Project Applicant, and the
following requirements shall be implemented throughout the
construction period:
■ Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
• Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified biologist
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 23
Responsible forompletion
Approval / Monitoring /
Timing Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure Implementation Initials
i. Removal of trees that provide suitable bat roosting habitat shall
be conducted outside of the bat maternity season (April 15 to
August 31) and overwintering season (October 16 to January 15)
to the extent feasible.
ii. Presence/absence surveys shall be conducted 2 to 3 days prior to
removal of any trees in suitable bat habitat, at any time of year.
If presence/absence surveys are negative, work may proceed
with no restrictions. If presence/absence surveys detect bats
within trees planned for removal, work should proceed in
accordance with the following restrictions:
• If a maternity colony of bats is observed during maternity
season (April 15 to August 31), tree removal shall not occur
until August 31 or when maternity season has ended based on
surveys conducted by a qualified biologist.
• If bats are observed during overwintering season (October 16
to January 15), tree removal shall not occur until January 15
or until bats are no longer present based on surveys
conducted by a qualified biologist.
• If bats are present outside of maternity or overwintering
seasons, construction shall follow a two-phase tree removal
system conducted over 2 consecutive days. On the first day
(in the afternoon), limbs and branches will be removed using
chainsaws or other hand tools. Limbs with cavities, crevices,
or deep bark fissures will be avoided, and only branches or
limbs without those features will be removed. On the second
day, the entire tree shall be removed.
Cultural Resources
Prior to building
demolition
MM CUL-1: HABS Recordation
In consultation with the City of Dublin Planning Division, the Project
applicant shall document the Hexcel Corporation R&D facility prior to
■ Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 24
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition
Responsiblecompletion
Approval / Monitorin
of Approval / Miti ate Initials
demolition. Documentation shall be performed by a Secretary of
Interior -qualified professionals (in history or architectural history) and
be consistent with the standards of the National Parks Service (NPS)
Historic American Building Survey (HABS) and shall consist of the
following elements:
1. Historical Report: A qualified historian or architectural historian shall
assemble historical background information relevant to the Hexcel
Corporation R&D facility in short format Historic American Building
Survey (HABS), based on HABS guidelines for historical reports. Much
of this information may be drawn from the previous Historical
Resource Evaluation and would detail critical information such as the
property's significance, physical description, history, and a summary
of information sources.
2. Photographs: Large -format, black and white photographs of the
Hexcel Corporation R&D facility shall be taken and processed for
archival permanence in accordance with HABS, Historic American
Engineering Record (HAER), and HALS (Historic American Landscapes
Survey) Photography Guidelines in effect at the time of recording.
The standards require large -format black -and -white photography,
with the original negatives having a minimum size of 4"x5". Digital
photography, roll film, film packs, and electronic manipulation of
images are not acceptable.
The photographs shall be taken by a professional with HABS
photography experience. A minimum of 10 and a maximum of 24
photographs must be taken, detailing the site, building exteriors, and
interiors, specifically the R&D portion of the building. Photographs must
be identified and labeled using HABS/HALS standards.
Following completion of the HABS documentation, including the short
form historical report and large -format photographs, and approval by
the City of Dublin, the materials shall be placed on file with the City of
Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified historian or
architectural
historian
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 25
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure
Responsibl
Approval / Monitorin
ompletion
a e
Initials
Dublin Planning Division, and the Dublin Historical Society at the Dublin
Heritage Park and Museums.
Prior to building
demolition
MM CUL-2: Interpretive Displays
In concert with HABS documentation (MM CUL-1), the Project applicant
shall install permanent interpretive displays or signage for public
exhibition detailing the history and significance of the Hexcel
Corporation R&D facility at the Project site. The interpretive displays or
signage could be based on the photographs produced in the HABS
documentation and the historic archival research previously prepared
as part of the Project.
The interpretive displays or signage shall be prepared by an
architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the
Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, in coordination with an
exhibit designer.
Interpretive displays or signage at the Project site shall be located
outside of the new building, near the publicly accessible sidewalk
and/or inside the new building in a prominent space, such as the lobby,
where they may be viewed by employees and visitors.
• Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
• Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified historian or
architectural
historian
Prior to
construction
MM CUL-3: Archaeological and Tribal Monitoring
A. A qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the
Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology
shall be retained by the applicant prior to implementing
construction or soil remediation activities that involve
earthmoving or soil excavation, and the archaeologist shall be
available for consultation or evaluation of any cultural resources
uncovered by such activities. Prior to the start of excavation, the
archaeologist shall produce an Archaeological Testing Plan and an
Archaeological Treatment and Monitoring Plan, in consultation
with the City of Dublin, and through them, with any consulting
Native American tribes.
• Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
• Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified
archaeologist
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 26
Timing
Responsibl completion
Approval / Monitorin
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure ate Initials
i. The Archaeological Testing Plan will define the following:
• Methods and scope of archaeological testing to be done
prior to the start of construction (e.g., GPR, hand
excavated test units, trenching with flat edged bucket).
• Treatment of any discoveries during testing.
ii. The Treatment and Monitoring Plan will comply with mitigation
measures 4, 5, 6, and 7, set forth in the Dublin Village Historic
Area Specific Plan, Appendix B, and will specify the following:
• Archaeological testing to be done prior to the start of
construction.
• Archaeological and Tribal monitoring requirements, which
will be based on the results of archaeological testing and
consultation with Native American tribes.
• Procedures and considerations for handling,
documenting, analyzing, and curation of any historic -era
or pre -contact era artifacts encountered during project
activities.
• Procedures and considerations for handling,
documenting, analyzing, and curation of any human
remains from the historic era. For human remains of
Native Americans from any time period, treatment
protocols would be established with the designated MLD.
B. If an archaeological resource or human burials are discovered
during archaeological testing, consideration will be given to
options that avoid or minimize impact.
C. If an archaeological resource (or suspected resource) is
discovered during monitoring of project activities, construction or
excavation activities within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be
temporarily halted or directed to other areas, pending the
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 27
Timing
Responsibl completion
Approval / Monitorin
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure ate Initials
archaeologist's evaluation of its significance. If the resource is
significant, data collection, excavation, or other standard
archaeological or historical procedures shall be implemented to
mitigate impacts, pursuant to the Treatment and Monitoring Plan
and the archaeologist's direction. If any human remains are
encountered, the archaeologist shall contact the appropriate
County Coroner immediately, and security measures shall be
implemented to ensure that burials are not vandalized until the
decision of burial deposition has been made pursuant to
California law. If human remains are determined to be Native
American interments, the Coroner shall contact the Native
American Heritage Commission pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 5097.98 and follow the procedures stated herein
and other applicable laws. A report by the archaeologist
evaluating the find and identifying mitigation actions taken shall
be submitted to the CPUC. Where appropriate to protect the
location and sensitivity of the cultural resources, the report may
be submitted under Public Utilities Code Section 583 or other
appropriate confidentiality provisions.
Prior and during
construction
MM CUL-4: Inadvertent Discovery Protocols
A. Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall
retain a qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the
Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology to
implement archaeological awareness training for all construction
personnel involved with ground disturbing or excavation activities.
The training shall include information regarding the possibility of
encountering buried cultural resources, the appearance and types
of resources likely to be seen during construction, notification
procedures, and proper protocols to be followed should suspected
or confirmed resources be encountered by the crew. This training
■ Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
• Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified
archaeologist
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 28
Responsibl completion
Approval / Monitorin
Timing Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure ate Initials
shall be provided once to each worker involved in ground -disturbing
activities before they begin work, and shall be documented in
training records.
B. In the event that precontact or historic -age resources (or suspected
resources) are inadvertently discovered during Project
implementation, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find shall
be stopped, the City of Dublin's Project Manager shall be notified,
and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the City of Dublin
to examine the find, pursuant to Mitigation Measure 7 set out in the
Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, Appendix B. Project
personnel shall not collect or move any historic material. The
archaeologist shall evaluate the find(s) within 48 hours to determine
if it meets the definition of a historical or unique archaeological
resource and follow the procedures outlined below:
i. If the find(s) does not meet the definition of a tribal cultural
resource, a historical resource or a unique archaeological
resource, no further study or protection is necessary prior to
resuming Project implementation.
ii. If the find(s) does meet the definition of a historical resource or
unique archaeological resource, then it shall be avoided by
Project activities and preserved in place. If avoidance is not
feasible, as determined by the City of Dublin, the qualified
archaeologist shall make appropriate recommendations
regarding the treatment and disposition of such find(s), and
significant impacts to such resources shall be mitigated in
accordance with the recommendations of the archaeologist prior
to resuming construction activities within the 50-foot radius.
iii. If the find(s) does meet the definition of both a tribal cultural
resource and a historical or unique archaeological resource, then
it shall be treated in accordance with MM CUL-3.
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 29
Responsible forompletion
Approval / Monitoring / I=
Timing Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure Implementation Initials
C.
Recommendations for treatment and disposition of find(s) could
include, but are not limited to, archaeological monitoring,
collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural
materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovery shall
be submitted to NWIC.
i. In the event that archaeological resource(s) are discovered during
Project implementation, an archaeological monitor shall be
retained to monitor all ground- disturbing activities in the vicinity
(i.e., within 50 feet) of the find.
Archaeological monitors have the authority, upon the finding of a
potential resource, to request that work be slowed, diverted, or
stopped if archaeological resources are identified within the direct
impact area.
If the resource is determined by an archaeologist to be a historical
or unique archaeological resource, the archaeologist shall amend
the Treatment and Monitoring Plan, with measures to avoid or
reduce impacts to the resource. The treatment plan measures
may include, but not be limited to, avoidance and preservation in
place (the preferred method if feasible), capping, incorporation of
the site within a park or other open space, or data recovery. If the
resource is also a tribal cultural resource, then designated
representatives from the consulting tribe(s) shall make
appropriate recommendations regarding the treatment and
disposition of such find(s) in accordance with MM CUL-3 and
these recommendations shall be incorporated into the treatment
plan.
Geology and Soils
During
construction
MM GEO-1: Avoid Impacts to Unique Paleontological Resources
To minimize the potential for destruction of or damage to previously
unknown unique, scientifically important paleontological resources
■ Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 30
Responsible forompletion
Approval / Monitoring /
Timing Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure Implementation Initials
during earthmoving activities at the Project site, the Project applicant
shall do the following:
• Prior to the start of earthmoving activities, retain either a qualified
archaeologist or paleontologist to inform all construction personnel
involved with earthmoving activities regarding the possibility of
encountering fossils, the appearance and types of fossils likely to be
seen during construction, and proper notification procedures should
fossils be encountered.
• If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving
activities, the construction crew shall immediately cease work within
50 feet of the find and notify the Project applicant and the City. The
Project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate
the resource and prepare a recovery plan, based on SVP Guidelines.
The recovery plan may include, but is not limited to, a field survey,
construction monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures,
museum curation for any specimen recovered, and a report of
findings. Recommendations in the recovery plan that are determined
by the City (as the CEQA lead agency) to be necessary and feasible
shall be implemented before construction activities can resume
within 50 feet of the site where the paleontological resource or
resources were discovered.
■ Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified
archaeologist or
paleontologist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Prior to
construction
MM HAZMAT-1: Perform a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
• Prior to the start of earthmoving activities at the Project site, the
Project applicant shall retain the services of a qualified remediation
firm to perform a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). The
Phase II ESA shall be limited to only those areas where chemical use,
storage, and handling have previously occurred. Soil borings shall be
obtained as part of the Phase II ESA, along with groundwater
samples if necessary. The samples shall be submitted to a laboratory
■ Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
■ Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified
remediation firm
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 31
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure
Responsible forompletion
Approval / Monitoring /
Implementation
Initials
for environmental testing and the results shall be reported in the
Phase II ESA, copies of which shall be provided to the Alameda
County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH) and the City of
Dublin Building Department. If there are no detections of
constituents of concern, or the amounts are below regulatory agency
threshold levels, no further actions shall be required.
• If the results of laboratory analyses from the Phase II ESA
demonstrate that constituents of concern are present at levels that
exceed regulatory agency threshold levels, the Project applicant shall
consult with ACDEH (and other regulatory agencies such as the
SWRCB if necessary) regarding the necessary actions for
remediation. All necessary remedial activities shall be completed by
the Project applicant, with a certification by the lead agency with
remedial oversight (e.g., ACDEH or SWRCB) that no further action is
required, prior to the start of construction activities at the Project
site.
Prior to building
demolition
HAZMAT-2: Perform Sampling of Materials To Be Demolished.
Prior to demolition of any building in the project area, the building shall
be sampled to determine if the building contains lead paint and/or
asbestos. If either of the materials are determined to be present, they
shall be handled and disposed of as a hazardous material and in
compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
■ Responsible: City of
Dublin
■ Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified
remediation firm
Transportation and Traffic
Project design
Condition of Approval:
• Requires vegetation maintenance for sight distance to achieve a
minimum sight distance of 250 feet at each driveway access point
• Prohibits trucks from accessing the eastern driveway
■ Responsible: City of
Dublin
■ Implementation:
Project applicant
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 32
Responsibl
Approval / Monitorin
Timing Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure I
Tribal Cultural Resources
ompletion
ate Initials
Prior to and
MM TR-1: Inadvertent/Unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources
• Responsible for
during
Discovery Protocols
approval: City of
construction
The City of Dublin shall require the following steps to be taken,
including as a part of all contracts related to construction of the Project,
Dublin
• Implementation:
as applicable:
Project applicant
A. Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall
with assistance from
retain representatives from consulting tribe(s), if available, to
representatives from
implement Tribal Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training for all
construction personnel involved with ground disturbing or
excavation activities. The training shall include information
regarding the possibility of encountering buried tribal cultural
resources, the appearance and types of tribal cultural resources that
could potentially be seen during construction, notification
procedures, and proper protocols to be followed should suspected
or confirmed tribal cultural resources be encountered. This training
shall be provided once to each worker involved in ground -disturbing
activities before they begin work and shall be documented in
training records.
consulting tribe(s)
B. If tribal cultural resources or potential tribal cultural resources are
discovered during Project implementation, all activity within a 50-
foot radius of the find shall be stopped, the City of Dublin's Project
Manager shall be notified, and Tribal Representatives from the
consulting tribe(s) shall be immediately notified. The Tribal
Representative(s) shall evaluate the find(s) within 48 hours to
determine if it meets the definition of a tribal cultural resource (PRC
§21074) and follow the procedures outlined below:
i. If the find(s) does not meet the definition of a tribal cultural
resource, no further study or protection is necessary prior to
resuming Project implementation (but see MM CUL-3 and CUL-4)
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 33
Timing
Responsibl completion
Approval / Monitorin
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure ate Initials
ii.lf the find(s) does meet the definition of a tribal cultural resource,
then it shall be avoided by Project activities and preserved in
place. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed by
the City of Dublin to be necessary and feasible to preserve in
place, avoid, or minimize impacts to the tribal cultural resource.
If avoidance is not feasible, as determined by the City of Dublin,
Tribal Representatives from the consulting tribe(s) if available,
shall make recommendations regarding the culturally
appropriate treatment and disposition of such find(s) and
significant impacts to such tribal cultural resources shall be
mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of the
consulting tribe(s), if they are available, prior to resuming
construction activities within the 50-foot radius.
iii. If the find meets the definition of both a tribal cultural resource
and a historical or unique archaeological resource, then it shall
be treated in accordance with the measures described in Section
C. below and MM CUL-4.
C. Culturally appropriate treatment may include, but is not limited to,
minimal processing of materials for reburial, minimizing handling of
tribal cultural resources objects, leaving objects in place within the
landscape, or returning tribal cultural resources objects to a location
within the Project area where they would not be subject to future
disturbance. No cultural soil maybe removed from the Project site.
Permanent curation, testing, or data collection of tribal cultural
resources will not take place unless requested in writing by the
consulting tribe(s).
D. All fill soils imported and used for this Project must be clean,
engineered fill.
E. The applicant shall enter into a tribal monitoring agreement with the
consulting tribe(s) prior to the start of ground disturbing activities.
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR 1 Page 34
Responsible forompletion
Approval / Monitoring /
Timing Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure Implementation Initials
The tribal monitoring agreement shall form the terms and
compensation for the tribal monitoring with the consulting tribe(s)
and be utilized in combination with the tribal cultural resource
treatment. Tribal Monitors have the authority to identify sites or
objects of cultural significance and to request, upon the finding of a
potential tribal cultural resource, that work be slowed, diverted, or
stopped if such sites or objects are identified within the direct impact
area. Only the consulting tribe(s) can recommend culturally
appropriate treatment of such sites or objects, via their Tribal
Monitor. Work within 50 feet of the discovery location cannot
resume until all necessary investigation and evaluation of the
discovery under the requirements of the tribal monitoring
agreement have been implemented.
Energy Conservation
During
construction
See Air quality mitigation measure MM AQ-1. Implement Basic
Construction Emission Control Practices.
■ Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
• Implementation:
Project applicant
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix A Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank
11
sus
DUBLIN
CALIFORNIA
Hexcel Redevelopment Project
Focused EIR
August 21, 2023
PROJECT APPLICATION 000688
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Table of Contents 1 Page i
Table of Contents
Project Summary 1
Project Description 1
Alternatives 1
Issues of Concern 1
Environmental Review Process 3
Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and Scoping Period 4
Draft EIR and Public Review Period 5
Final EIR and Responses to Comment 5
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5
Scope of EIR 6
Topics Addressed in this EIR 6
Topics Not Addressed in Detail in this EIR Based on Preparation of the Initial Study 6
Project Description 7
Project Site and Vicinity 7
Project Objectives 7
Surrounding Land Uses 7
Project Characteristics 8
Proposed Building 8
Project Approvals 12
Environmental Analysis 13
Introduction 13
Environmental Topics 13
Impact Levels 13
Environmental Baseline 14
Source(s) 14
Section 1: Air Quality 15
Environmental Setting 15
Air Pollutants of Concern 16
Regulatory Framework 16
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 18
Source(s) 23
Section 2: Biological Resources 25
Environmental Setting 25
Regulatory Framework 26
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 28
Source(s) 35
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Table of Contents 1 Page ii
Section 3: Cultural Resources 37
Environmental Setting 37
Regulatory Framework 48
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 56
Source(s) 63
Section 4: Energy 67
Environmental Setting 67
Regulatory Framework 68
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 70
Source(s) 72
Section 5: Geology and Soils 75
Environmental Setting 76
Regulatory Framework 77
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 79
Source(s) 81
Section 6: Hazards and Hazardous Materials 83
Environmental Setting 83
Regulatory Framework 85
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 87
Source(s) 89
Section 7: Tribal Cultural Resources 91
Environmental Setting 91
Regulatory Framework 92
Context for Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 95
Project Impacts and Mitigation 97
Significance after Mitigation 99
Source(s) 100
Other CEQA Considerations 101
Cumulative Context 101
Cumulative Impact Analysis 102
Growth Context 108
Growth Inducing Analysis 109
Significant Irreversible Changes Context 109
Significant Irreversible Changes 110
Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Context 111
Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Analysis 111
Source(s) 111
Alternatives 113
Introduction 113
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Table of Contents I Page iii
Factors Considered in the Selection of Alternatives 113
Description and Analysis of Alternatives Retained 114
No Project Alternative 114
Reduced Grading Alternative 115
Alternatives Considered but Rejected 117
Partial Preservation Alternative 117
Environmentally Superior Alternative 119
Report Preparers 121
Lead Agency 121
Consultant — AECOM 121
Appendices 133
Appendices
A Initial Study
B Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments
C Historical Resources Evaluation
D CaIEEMod Output Sheets
E Final Transportation Impact Study
List of Figures
Note: All figures are included at the end of the document.
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Project Site
Figure 3. Site Plan
Figure 4. Elevations
Figure 5. Overall Floor Plan
Figure 6A. Landscape Plan
Figure 6B. Landscape Plan Detail
Figure 7. Fire Access Route
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Table of Contents I Page iv
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation 2
Table 2: Building Composition by Level 9
Table 3: Anticipated Construction Schedule 11
Table 4: Total and Average Daily Construction Emissions 21
Table 5: Annual and Average Daily Operational Emissions 22
Table 6: Special -Status Species Potential to Occur in the Project Area 30
Table 7: Construction and Operational Energy Consumption 71
Table 8: Cumulative Projects in the City of Dublin 105
Table 9: Comparison of Proposed Project and Alternatives 120
City of Dublin HEXCEL REPFVFI npMFNT PROJECT
Table of Contents i Page v
Acronyms
1,1,1-TCA 1,1,1-trichloroethane
AB Assembly Bill
ACDEH Alameda County Department of Environmental Health
ACMs asbestos -containing materials
A.D. Anno Domini
ADA American With Disabilities
Alquist-Priolo Act Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
APE Area of Potential Effects
APN Assessor Parcel Numbers
Ardent Ardent Environmental Group
B.C. before present
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
bgs below the ground surface
BL1 Green Buildings
BL2 Decarbonize Buildings
BMPs Best Management Practices
Business Plans Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
cal B.C. calibrated years before the present
Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
CaIEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CaIEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAP 2030 Climate Action Plan 2030
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Standards Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CCTS Central California Taxonomic System
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGS California Geological Survey
CHP California Highway Patrol
City City of Dublin
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base
CO carbon monoxide
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Table of Contents I Page vi
CO2 carbon dioxide
Cornerstone Cornerstone Earth Group
county County of Alameda
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CY cubic yard
DOC California Department of Conservation
DPR Department of Parks and Recreation
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
EBCE East Bay Community Energy
EDR Environmental Database Report
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
ESA Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973
EV electric vehicle
GGEs gasoline gallon equivalents of petroleum
GHG greenhouse gas
HABS Historic American Building Survey
HAER Historic American Engineering Record
HALS Historic American Landscapes Survey
Hexcel Hexcel Products, Inc.
Hi Bay laboratories were used for small-scale testing, while the building
located south of the offices/laboratories
HRI Historic Resources Inventory
I- Interstate
IPaC Information for Planning and Consulting
IS Initial Study
LED light emitting diode
light industrial zoned M-1
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MLD most likely descendant
MLT Middle -to -Late Transition
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
mph miles per hour
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NHL National Historic Landmark
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NHSTA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Table of Contents i Page vii
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPS National Parks Service
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWIC Northwest Information Center
OES Office of Emergency Services
PD Planned Development
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric Company
PM particulate matter
PM10 PM equal to or less than 10 micrometers in diameter
PM2.5 PM equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter
Porter -Cologne Act Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act
PRC Public Resources Code
proposed project The proposed actions that would involve replacing existing
building with a new building and other site improvements
R&D research and development
ROGs reactive organic gases
Royal Research Royal Research Corporation
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board
TACs toxic air contaminants
TCE trichloroethene
UBC Uniform Building Code
UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UST Underground Storage Tank
VOCs volatile organic compounds
WSA William Self Associates, Inc.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Table of Contents I Page viii
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 1
Hexcel Redevelopment Project
Environmental Impact Report
Project Summary
Project Description
Dublin Boulevard Owner, LP is proposing to construct a new 125,304 square foot building on the 8.81-
acre project site located at 11711 Dublin Boulevard in the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California.
The project site is composed of two parcels (Assessor Parcel Numbers [APN] 941-1560-009-01 [Parcel
1] and 941-1560-003-04 [Parcel 2]) with an existing 62,715 square foot building on Parcel 1. The
existing Hexcel research and development (R&D) building would be demolished and replaced with the
proposed building. The proposed building would cater to future tenants in the R&D and life sciences
field. Other site improvements would include landscaping; parking; a fire access road; circulation
improvements for truck access and loading and unloading materials; utilities; pavement and grading to
treat site drainage.
Alternatives
• No Project Alternative (existing conditions, no change)
• Alternative 1: Reduced Grading Alternative
The alternatives discussion of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared in accordance with
Section 15126(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and focuses on
alternatives that are capable of eliminating or reducing significant adverse effects associated with the
proposed project while feasibly attaining most of the basic objectives.
This EIR identifies the No Project Alternative as the "environmentally superior" alternative, because it
would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts to the Project site's historic resource, and
would also eliminate less than significant (or less than significant with mitigation) impacts on other
resource topics. While the No Project Alternative would eliminate the significant adverse effect of the
proposed Project, it would not achieve the Project objectives.
When the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, CEQA requires that an
additional alternative be identified. In this case, Alternative 1 (Reduced Grading) would be the
environmentally superior alternative, because it would accomplish most of the Project's objectives
while reducing potential impacts to buried archeological and paleontological resources as described in
the Alternatives section.
Issues of Concern
The main issue of concern regarding the proposed Project is the demolition of the site's historic
resource, which is the existing building. This issue is fully addressed in the Environmental Analysis of
this EIR. Table 1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation below summarizes potentially significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project. The table includes a list of impacts and mitigation
measures identified in this EIR. The table lists impacts and mitigation measures in two major
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR l Page 2
categories: significant impacts that would remain significant even with mitigation (significant and
unavoidable), and potentially significant impacts that could be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Mitigation measures descriptions provided in Table 1 are abbreviated; for the complete description of
these mitigation measures, please refer to their associated sections in this EIR. Refer to the Initial Study
in Appendix A for further discussion of impacts that would have no impact or be less than significant
without mitigation.
Table 1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
Impact
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
Impact AQ-1: The proposed
Project could be inconsistent with
BAAQMD's Basic Construction
Mitigation during demolition and
construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Implement Basic Construction
Emission Control Practices: The construction contractor shall
comply with the following BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures, as
applicable, for reducing construction emissions of uncontrolled fugitive
dust (PMio and PM2.5). See Section 1 for complete description.
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Impact AQ -2: The proposed
Project could result in a
cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the region is non -
attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard during construction and
operation.
See Mitigation Measure AQ-1 in Impact AQ-1 above. See Section 1 for Less Than
complete description. Significant with
Mitigation
Impact BIO-1: The proposed
Project could result in nest
destruction and failure to nesting
birds during construction activities.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures: To
the extent practicable, construction activities and any tree
trimming/removal shall be performed from September 16 through
February 15 to avoid the general nesting period for birds. If
construction or tree trimming/removal cannot be performed during this
period, nesting bird surveys and active nest buffers. If the qualified
biologist documents active nests within the survey area, an
appropriate buffer between the nest and active construction shall be
established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until
the young have fledged and are foraging independently. See Section 2
for complete description.
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Impact BIO-2: The proposed
Project could result in mortality to
bats during construction activities.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Roosting Bat Surveys and Avoidance:
The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a bat
habitat assessment in all project areas that require tree removal. The
qualified biologist shall identify and document the location of potentially
suitable bat roosting habitat prior to construction activities. If no
suitable bat habitat is observed, the biologist shall inform the Project
Applicant, and no further considerations are required. If bat roosting
habitat is observed, the location of such habitat areas shall be
provided to the Project Applicant. See Section 3 for the complete
description.
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Impact CR-1: The proposed
Project would result in the
demolition of the existing Hexcel
Corporation R&D facility, which is
a historical resource for the
purposes of CEQA.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: HABS Recordation:
The Project applicant shall document the Hexcel Corporation R&D
facility prior to demolition. See Section 3 for the complete description.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Interpretive Displays:
The Project applicant shall install permanent interpretive displays for
public exhibition detailing the history and significance of the Hexcel
Corporation R&D facility at the Project site. See Section 3 for the
complete description.
Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 3
Impact
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
Impact CR-2: The proposed
Project could cause substantial
adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resources
during excavation activities.
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Archaeological and Tribal Monitoring:
A qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant prior to
implementing construction. See Section 3 for the complete description.
Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Inadvertent Discovery Protocols: a
number of protocols would be followed in the case of the discovery of
archeological and tribal resources. See Section 3 for the complete
description.
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Impact EN-1: The proposed See Mitigation MeasureAQ-1 in ImpactAQ-1 above.
Project could consume energy in a
wasteful or inefficient way.
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Impact GEO-1: The proposed
Project could accidentally cause
damage to, or destruction of
unique paleontological resources
during earthmoving activities.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Avoid Impacts to Unique
Paleontological Resources: To minimize the potential for destruction
of or damage to previously unknown unique, scientifically important
paleontological resources during earthmoving activities at the Project
site, the Project applicant shall do the following:
Prior to the start of earthmoving activities, retain either a qualified
archaeologist or paleontologist to inform all construction personnel.
If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving
activities, the construction crew shall immediately cease work within 50
feet of the find and notify the Project applicant and the City. See
Section 5 for the complete description.
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Impact HAZMat-1: The proposed
Project could expose people to
contaminated soil or groundwater
that exceed regulatory thresholds.
Mitigation Measure HAZMAT-1. Perform a Phase II Environmental
Site Assessment: Prior to the start of earthmoving activities at the
Project site, the Project applicant shall retain the services of a qualified
remediation firm to perform a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
(ESA).
If the results of laboratory analyses from the Phase II ESA
demonstrate that constituents of concern are present at levels that
exceed regulatory agency threshold levels, the Project applicant shall
consult with ACDEH (and other regulatory agencies such as the
SWRCB if necessary) regarding the necessary actions for remediation.
See Section 6 for complete description.
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Impact TR-1: The Project could
disturb Native American human
remains during excavation
activities.
Mitigation Measure TR-1: Inadvertent/Unanticipated Tribal
Cultural Resources Discovery Protocols: a number of protocols
would be followed in the case of the discovery of tribal resources.
See Mitigation Measures CUL-3 and CUL-4 in Impact CR-2 above.
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Notes:
ACDEH = Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District, City = City of Dublin, ESA =
Environmental Site Assessment, PMio = PM equal to or less than 10 micrometers in diameter, PM25= PM equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter,
Project = The proposed actions that would involve replacing existing building with a new building and other site improvements, Project Applicant = Dublin
Boulevard Owner, LP, Project site = 11711 Dublin Boulevard in the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California, SWRCB = California State Water Resources
Control Board
Environmental Review Process
The City of Dublin (the City) is the lead agency responsible for administrating the environmental review
under CEQA. After preparing an Initial Study, the City has determined that an EIR must be prepared to
evaluate potentially significant effects that could result from implementation of the proposed Project.
A Notice of Preparation was prepared and a scoping period held from May 15, 2023 to Jun 15, 2023.
The full CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist is provided in the Initial Study (see Appendix A).
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 4
CEQA requires that, before a project with potentially significant environmental effects may be
approved, an EIR must be prepared that fully describes the environmental effects of the project,
identifies mitigation measures to lessen or eliminate adverse impacts, and examines feasible
alternatives to the project. The information contained in the EIR is to be reviewed and considered by
the lead agency prior to the ultimate decision to approve, disapprove, or modify the proposed project.
Consistent with CEQA guidelines sections 15080 through 15097, the CEQA process has multiple phases,
many of which require notification to the public and opportunity for public comments. The
environmental review process for a focused EIR includes the following steps: publication of a notice of
preparation (NOP) of an EIR and public scoping; publication of a Draft EIR for public review and
comment; preparation and publication of responses to public and agency comments on the draft EIR;
and certification of the final EIR. The EIR process provides an opportunity for the public to review and
comment on the proposed Project's potential environmental effects and to further inform the
environmental analysis. These steps are described in more detail in the following sections.
Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and Scoping Period
An initial study is an analysis conducted by a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a
significant effect on the environment and aids in determining what type of environmental document
the lead agency is required to prepare. An initial study was prepared for the proposed Project (see
Appendix A). It analyzed the environmental topics included in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist to
determine which topics would be less than significant. This EIR further evaluates environmental topics
which would have significant impacts that could be mitigated to Tess -than -significant levels and other
topics that would have significant and unavoidable impacts.
Consistent with the requirements of CEQA guidelines sections 15063 and 15082, the City has made a
good -faith effort during the preparation of the Draft EIR to contact all responsible and trustee
agencies; organizations and persons who may have an interest in the proposed Project; and all
applicable government agencies, including the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State
Clearinghouse. This outreach effort included the circulation of a NOP on May 15, 2023, which began a
30-day comment period that ended on June 15, 2023. The NOP requested that agencies and interested
parties comment on environmental issues that should be addressed in the Draft EIR. A copy of the NOP
is provided in Appendix B.
The City sent out NOP and scoping period notices as follows:
1. Sent NOP via certified mail to the County clerk and public agencies on May 15, 2023.
2. Sent email blast to contacts on the City's universal mailing list on May 15, 2023.
3. Copy of NOP and noticing posted at Dublin Library and at the City Hall
4. Publication of NOP in the East Bay Times on May 17, 2023
5. Posting the NOP and noticing to the City website at https://dublin-development.icitywork.com/
The City held a virtual public scoping meeting on May 25, 2023, at 7:00 pm, with options for joining by
phone or computer. The purpose of the scoping meeting was to inform the public about the proposed
Project, explain the environmental review process, and provide an opportunity for the public to make
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 5
comments and express concerns related to the Project's environmental issues. No one called into the
meeting and the meeting ended at 7:15 pm. Two comment letters were received during the public
scoping period: one from the Native American Heritage Commission and one from the City of
Pleasanton. Copies of these letters are contained in Appendix B.
Draft EIR and Public Review Period
This Draft EIR is available for a 45-day public review period as indicated on the Public Notice of
Availability of this document, which ends on October 5, 2023. The purpose of public review of the EIR
is to receive comments on the adequacy of the document in addressing adverse physical effects of the
Project. This Draft EIR is being circulated to relevant local, regional and/or state agencies, and to
interested organizations and individuals who may wish to review and comment on the report.
During the public review period, written comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR may be submitted
to the City of Dublin at the following address:
Gaspare Annibale, Associate Planner & Anne Hersch, Assistant Community Development Director
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Written comments may also be submitted via email to Gaspare.Annibale@dublin.ca.gov and
Anne.Hersch@dublin.ca.gov with "Hexcel Redevelopment Project Draft EIR" noted in the subject line.
Final EIR and Responses to Comment
Responses to all substantive comments received on the adequacy of the Draft EIR and submitted
within the specified review period will be prepared and included in the Responses to Comments/Final
EIR, including any revisions to the EIR required in response to the comments. If the City decides to
approve the Project, the City must first certify the Final EIR and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for mitigation measures identified in the EIR, in accordance with the requirements
of California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21001.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
At the time of Project approval, CEQA and the CEQA guidelines require agencies to adopt a mitigation
monitoring and reporting program and to make that program a condition of project approval, to
mitigate or avoid significant impacts on the environment (CEQA section 21081.6; CEQA guidelines
section 15097). Mitigation measures that have been recommended in this EIR to reduce the
environmental impacts of the proposed Project in relation to the above topics will be included in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) that the City of Dublin will prepare and adopt
(pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15097) if the City determines that the proposed Project or
one of the proposed alternatives should be approved.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 6
Scope of EIR
Topics Addressed in this EIR
Pursuant to section 15143 of the state CEQA guidelines, a lead agency may focus an EIR's discussion on
specific issue areas where significant impacts on the environment may occur: "[e]ffects dismissed in an
Initial Study as clearly insignificant and unlikely to occur need not be discussed further in the EIR unless
the Lead Agency subsequently receives information inconsistent with the finding in the Initial Study. A
copy of the Initial Study may be attached to the EIR to provide the basis for limiting the impacts
discussed." The initial study for the proposed Project is included in Appendix A of this Draft EIR.
Pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15063(c)(3), and based on its review of existing information and
the initial study completed for the proposed Project, the City determined that the proposed Project
would have significant or potentially significant impacts in the following resource areas that require
further analysis and are therefore discussed in this Draft EIR:
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Tribal Cultural Resources
Topics Not Addressed in Detail in this EIR Based on Preparation of the Initial Study
The information and analysis presented in the Initial Study provides substantial evidence for the
conclusion, for all the issues listed below (i.e., those not addressed in detail in this EIR), that: 1) CEQA
standards triggering preparation of further environmental review do not exist for those issues; and 2)
impacts under these topics would have no impact or be less than significant. Topics not addressed in
this EIR in detail are listed below by impact determination category identified in Appendix G, the
Environmental Checklist Form. These topics are, however, analyzed for full disclosure of the
environmental determination, in the Initial Study, included within Appendix A of this EIR. In addition to
the list below, impacts from the CEQA checklist that have a less than significant impact related to air
quality, biological resources, energy, geology and soils, and hazards and hazardous materials are also
included in the Initial Study.
• Aesthetics
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 7
Project Description
Project Site and Vicinity
The Project site is located at 11711 Dublin Boulevard in the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California.
See Figure 1. Project Location. The site includes two parcels totaling 8.81 acres; APN 941-1560-009-01
[Parcel 1] is the larger parcel at 8.30 acres and is located adjacent to Dublin Boulevard, and [APN] 941-
1560-003-04 [Parcel 2] is the smaller parcel at 0.51 acre and is located toward the back (south) of the
Project site adjacent to 1-580. The site slopes from a maximum elevation of approximately 395 feet
above mean sea level near the southwest corner to about 382 feet at the northern corner. Parcel 1 is
zoned M-1 (light industrial) and Planned Development (PD) (Ordinance No. 80-60) and Parcel 2 is
zoned M-1 (light industrial).
The site is also located in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan boundary. The Specific Plan
intends to protect and preserve historical resources and further enhance this area with development
that is compatible with the extant historic buildings and remnants in the area. The original historic
buildings in this area include St. Raymond's church, the Murray Schoolhouse, Pioneer Cemetery,
Green's Store, and two bungalow homes. These resources function together as the Dublin Heritage
Center, a local history museum and cultural center. The Specific Plan boundary extends from Cronin
Circle to Interstate (I-)580 and San Ramon Road to Hansen Drive, including portions west of Hansen
Drive along Dublin Boulevard. The Dublin Village Historic Area encompasses approximately 40 acres
(City of Dublin 2014).
Parcel 1 (the northern and main portion of the site) is developed with a 62,715 square foot building, at -
grade parking, underground and aboveground utilities, pavement, and ornamental landscaping. The
existing building is being used as a R&D facility. The landscape consists of grass areas and mature trees.
Parcel 2 (the southern parcel) is undeveloped and is surrounded by dense riparian vegetation including
mature trees. The Dublin Creek runs along the approximate southern boundary and is approximately
13 to 18 feet below the adjacent site elevations.
Project Objectives
The proposed Project has the following objectives:
1. To redevelop the Hexcel site with a new and upgraded facility that appeals to the life sciences
and manufacturing field.
2. To rezone Parcels 1 and 2 as a Planned Development, which provide development standards
beyond those of the M-1 zoning, and adopt a new ordinance.
Surrounding Land Uses
As shown in Figure 2. Project Site, the Project site is immediately surrounded by commercial office
uses including an R&D facility, medical and professional offices to the west, US Bank, Dublin Pioneer
Cemetery, and the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums to the east; 1-580 to the south; and Dublin
Boulevard to the north. To the north of Dublin Boulevard and to the east of the Dublin Heritage Park
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 8
and Museums and cemetery are single-family houses. Approximately a mile to the west is Dublin Hills
Regional Open Space Preserve.
Project Characteristics
The proposed Project would result in the existing 62,715 square foot industrial building being
demolished and a new 125,304 square foot building being developed on the 8.81-acre Project site. The
new building would cater to future tenants in the R&D and life sciences field. Other site improvements
would include landscaping; parking; a fire access road; circulation improvements for truck access and
loading and unloading materials; utilities; pavement and grading to treat site drainage. Figure 3. Site
Plan shows the proposed site layout. The following sections describe the proposed Project and project
components.
Proposed Building
The proposed building would cover approximately 33 percent of Parcel 1 (see Figure 3. Site Plan). The
building would be set back approximately 135 feet from Dublin Boulevard, separated by landscaped
areas, parking stalls and a fire access route for aerial apparatus access (described in succeeding
sections). As shown in Figure 4. Elevations, the building would be a single -story building with the
potential addition of a second floor mezzanine office and would have a maximum height of 40 feet.
The outside of the building would be made of concrete tilt -up panels painted in various colors including
blue, white and gray. The north side (front) of the building would have separate entrances to the lower
level of each of the four separate tenant spaces (i.e., Units A, B, C and D). Access to the upper
mezzanine office spaces would be provided from the interior of the building via stairways. The double
doors to the entrance would have aluminum framing with insulated tempered glazed windows. Units B
and C would also have doors on the front of the building that would provide access to the industrial
and warehouse spaces. Large, glazed windows with aluminum framing would be installed on both
lower and upper levels of the building to provide for maximum light filtering from the outside into the
office spaces. The west and northwest side of the building would provide for six separate points of
ingress/egress into the Unit A industrial and warehouse space, and from the inside provide access
outside to adjacent parking stalls and a large landscaped area at the west corner of the site. The east
side of the building would provide for four points of ingress/egress into Unit D and would have large
vision glass that would allow light to flow into the space from outside while keeping the inside of the
building cool and private. The south side (rear) of the building would have 4 to 5 dock doors per unit
for loading and unloading of materials from the warehouses. There would be four drive-in doors for
truck access inside the warehouse.
The interior design of the building would maximize natural light with mezzanine offices on the second
floor overlooking the ground floor. The total square footage of the first floor would be 119,304 square
feet and the second floor would be 6,000 square feet. As indicated in Table 2: Building Composition by
Level, the space would be configured for different uses related to life sciences and advanced
manufacturing. The overall building square footage could potentially be divided into four separate
units (Units A, B, C and D), each with separate entrances, for four future tenants (see Figure 5. Overall
Floor Plan). Each of the units would be between 26,000 to 34,000 square feet consisting of office,
industrial, and warehouse space.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 9
Table 2: Building Composition by Level
Level
Use Square Footage
Level 1
Office 12,000
Level 1
Light industrial 30,000
Level 1
Warehouse 77,304
Level 2
Office 6,000
Other features of the building would include an interior bike rack, interior roof drain with pipe
overflow, and an electrical room. All walking surfaces would be non -slip types. The floors would be a
flat/tilt concrete slab and interior walls would be concrete. The building would be designed in
compliance with fire codes related to fire access, internal sprinkler systems, electrical systems and fire -
retardant materials. Additionally, the building would comply with American With Disabilities (ADA)
standards related to access, ramps, breakrooms and bathrooms.
Landscape Improvements
Most of the existing landscape would be replaced, as illustrated in Figure 6A. Landscape Plan, except
within the southern portion of the site (Parcel 2) where existing vegetation within the riparian corridor
of Dublin Creek and along the 1-580 boundary would be retained. The total site landscape area would
be 99,106 square feet, which includes new and existing landscape. A variety of evergreen shrubs,
ornamental trees, grasses, and perennials would be planted around the perimeter of the site and at
parking lot areas as listed in Figure 6B: Landscape Plan Details. A total of 85 trees would be added to
the site along with other plant materials. Some of the proposed plants include sweet bay, strawberry
tree, toyon, hopbush, coffeeberry, red yucca, agave, fort night lily, ceanothus and atlas fescue. Bark
mulch would be placed in planters around shrubs.
Native and drought tolerant plants would be utilized to enhance biodiversity and conserve water. Large
ornamental trees planned for parking lot areas would provide shade and minimize radiating heat. The
landscape would be designed to provide buffers between the site and adjacent properties, and plants
would be strategically placed to screen the site's aboveground utilities from public streets. Temporary
and permanent irrigation systems would be installed to establish plants. A 3,827 square foot grass bio-
swale surrounded by trees and shrubs is proposed in the west corner of the site. Additional bio-
swales/bioretention planters are proposed in the northeast and southeast areas of the site. The total
bioretention areas would be 9,819 square feet.
Parcel 1 of the Project site contains 87 trees, four of which are heritage trees. All trees within this
parcel would be removed except for two of the heritage trees; one in the northeast corner along the
project frontage and one in the southwest portion of the site. The heritage trees that would be
removed in Parcel 1 include one in the northwest portion of the site and one near the center of the
site. Parcel 2 of the Project site contains 109 trees within the Dublin Creek riparian corridor. All trees in
Parcel 2 would be retained, 19 of which are heritage trees.
Access, Circulation and Parking
Vehicular access would be provided from two existing driveways off Dublin Boulevard, one near the
center of the site frontage and the other at the eastern boundary. These driveways would be
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 10
connected by a 30 to 40-foot-wide fire access route around the perimeter of the proposed building
(Figure 7. Fire Access Route). A total of six fire hydrants would be installed along this fire access road.
The road would be designed to accommodate emergency response vehicles (i.e., fire trucks), delivery
box trucks, and trash trucks. A 26-foot-wide fire access route along the northern side of the building
would allow for aerial apparatus access.
A total of 217 parking spaces would be provided for the Project. The parking spaces would be located
around the perimeter of the building and at the edges of the site, and would include stalls for compact
vehicles, standard vehicles, electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, and accessible parking. Compact
parking would account for 27 percent of the overall parking spaces, while EV parking would account for
45 percent of the overall parking spaces. Additionally, 12 long-term and 12 short-term bicycle stalls
would be provided onsite. Offsite loading spaces would be provided in the back (south) of the
proposed building adjacent to the dock doors and facing Highway 580. No truck parking or loading will
be facing the street.
Utilities Systems
The Project site is currently served by existing utilities for water, sanitary sewer, electricity, and gas. As
discussed in the Initial Study in Section 18: Utilities and Service Systems, Dublin San Ramon Services
District provides water and wastewater services to the site, and East Bay Community Energy provides
electricity and gas to the site, which is distributed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Sanitary sewer,
sanitary sewer manholes, a water meter, and electrical lines and cables would be removed and
replaced with new lines that would connect to existing offsite service lines. Additionally, an existing
electrical cabinet, storm drain pipe, electrical transformer, and air conditioner unit are proposed for
removal and would be replaced. Some of the existing stormwater lines will be left in place but
abandoned. New utility lines would be buried below ground.
A fire service line would connect to a public water line, which would provide water to the fire hydrants
located around the site. Irrigation lines would also connect to public water lines. Stormwater would be
treated onsite via five bioretention treatment planter areas that would be implemented in the western
corner, southeast corner and south and northeast portions of the site. The site would be graded to
have water flow into these biorientation areas. Approximately 9,819 square feet of bioretention areas
on the Project site would be used for stormwater control. The proposed Project would include catch
basins and storm drains throughout the project site. Full trash capture devices would be installed in all
storm drain catch basins.
(l+hcr Imnrri ,cmnn+c
An approximately 6-foot-high retaining wall would be installed along the southern edge of the parking
lot and bioretention area in the southwest portion of the site, and lower (approximately 1- to 2-feet-
high) retaining walls would be constructed adjacent to the bioretention areas in the southeast and
northeast portions of the site. Additional retaining walls would be constructed to create loading dock
ramps along the southern facade of the building.
A trash enclosure is proposed immediately adjacent to the backside of the building to the west. The
trash enclosure would be 10.5 feet tall and 25.75 feet wide. A metal screen would be installed on the
top of the enclosure to prevent illegal dumping. Double doors to move dumpsters in and out of the
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 11
enclosure and an accessible gate would be provided in the front of the enclosure. The enclosure would
store two 6-cubic yard (CY) dumpsters and one 2-CY bin for green waste.
A pathway would be constructed that would extend from the front of the proposed building to the side
of the building providing access to doors along the building, parking spaces and the trash enclosure. A
trash container for trash, recycle and compost would be installed near the front entrance of the
proposed building.
Construction Activities and Schedule
A detailed construction schedule has not been determined at this phase; however, all construction of
the Project is anticipated to occur over a 12-month period with some of the phases overlapping. Work
would occur during weekdays from 7 am to 4 pm. The anticipated (preliminary) construction schedule
is provided in Table 3: Anticipated Construction Schedule, which may be updated subject to market
conditions, regulatory approvals, and other factors. The number of onsite workers would vary
depending on the construction phase, but it is anticipated for a Project of this scope to range from 7 to
64 workers. Typical grading depths throughout the site would be less than 2 to 3 feet below ground
level. The maximum depth of excavation would be between 12 to 20 feet below the existing ground
level at the storm drain pump, which would be located in the southern portion of Parcel 1. In the
parking lot near the southwest corner, grading would extend to approximately 4.5 feet below ground
level.
Table 3: Anticipated Construction Schedule
Construction Phase
Schedule Duration
Demolition
Late fall 2023 to winter 2024 3 months
Site preparation/grading
Early spring 2024 1 month
Trenching and foundation
Spring 2024 1 month
Exterior building construction
Late spring 2024 to fall 2024 6 months
Interior building construction
Late fall 2024 2 months
Paving/landscape
Late fall 2024 to early winter 2 months
Construction phases would include demolition, site preparation and grading, trenching and foundation
work, exterior building construction, interior building construction, and outside paving/landscaping. A
summary of each construction phase is described below.
Demolition — This stage would include the demolition of the existing facility, asphalt pavement
(140,724 square feet), concrete curbs, landscape including trees and bushes, irrigation system,
drainage system, sewer system, site lights, electrical boxes and other electrical equipment, gas and
water meters, fence, shed and gate. Anticipated construction equipment to be used would include
concrete saws, excavators, loaders, tractors, backhoes, and rubber -tired dozers.
Site preparation/grading — After the demolition phase, the site would be cleared of all demolition
waste and earthmoving activities such as excavation, grading and leveling would take place to prepare
the site for the proposed building and other site improvements. Utility line trenching would also occur
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 12
during this stage. Anticipated construction equipment to be used would include graders, rubber -tired
dozers, tractors, loaders, and backhoes.
Trenching and foundation — This phase would consist of excavating and trenching for footings, laying
down reinforcing bars (rebar) for retaining walls, drilling piers, preparing beams for foundation, and
pouring the foundation slab. Anticipated construction equipment to be used would include tractors,
loaders, backhoes, and excavators.
Exterior building construction — This phase would include construction of framing, roof, and siding and
installation of exterior windows and doors. Anticipated construction equipment to be used would
include cranes, forklifts, generator sets, welders and tractors, loaders, backhoes and excavators.
Interior building construction — This stage would involve the interior rough out and interior finishes of
the building. Walls, flooring, stairs, ceiling, windows, doors, interior electrical and plumbing would be
developed at this phase. Anticipated construction equipment to be used would include air compressors
and aerial lift.
Paving and landscape — This stage would include laying down the pavement for the parking, driveways,
fire access road, and walkway areas. This stage also includes installation of landscaping and irrigation
around the site. Anticipated construction equipment to be used would include cement and mortar
mixers, pavers, pavement equipment, rollers, tractors, loaders, and backhoes.
Pruj ,approval
The City of Dublin is the Lead Agency for the proposed Project under CEQA. The City would be
responsible for considering the Project's impacts as part of the Project approval. The City would
require the applicant to obtain the following approvals and permits: approval of a Planned
Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; Site Development Review
Permit; Heritage Tree Removal Permit; and demolition, building, grading, and encroachment permits.
Other agencies whose approval may be required include:
• Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD); and
• Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 13
Environmental Analysis
Introduction
The Environmental Analysis chapter contains the analysis of the potential effects to environmental
topics considered under CEQA from construction and operation of the proposed Project. This chapter
describes the existing setting, relevant plans and policies that would minimize or avoid potential
adverse environmental effects, the significance criteria used to determine environmental impacts, the
approach to the analysis, and the potential impacts that could result from development of the
property. This chapter also identifies mitigation measures necessary to reduce the potential impacts of
the proposed Project.
Environmental Topics
This document is a Focused EIR in that it evaluates potential impacts on a limited number of
environmental issue areas that the lead agency determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines Section
15063(c)(3)). After preparation of the Initial Study Checklist (see Initial Study in Appendix A), the City of
Dublin determined that the EIR would focus on the potentially significant impacts of the proposed
Project including Cultural Resources and Tribal Resources and other impacts that could result in a less
than significant impact with mitigation.
Impact Levels
The EIR uses the following terms to characterize environmental impacts of the proposed Project:
• No impact indicates that the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed Project
would not have any direct or indirect effects on the physical environment. This designation means
the proposed Project would not result in a change to existing conditions. This impact level does not
need mitigation.
• A less -than -significant impact is one that would not result in a substantial or potentially substantial
adverse change in the physical environment. This designation means that the Project would result
in some degree of change to existing conditions, but that change would not be considered
"significant," as explained in the next impact designation. This impact level does not require
mitigation under CEQA.
• A significant impact is defined by California Public Resources Code Section 21068 as "a substantial,
or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." Levels of significance can vary by
project, based on the setting and the nature of the change in the existing physical condition. CEQA
Guidelines Section 15382 defines a significant effect as a "substantial, or potentially substantial,
adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including
land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic
significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on
the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in
determining whether the physical change is significant." A designation of an impact as significant
requires that feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to the proposed project must be
identified, where necessary and applicable, to eliminate or reduce the magnitude of the significant
impact.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 14
• A potentially significant impact is one that, if it were to occur, would be considered a significant
impact as described above; however, the occurrence of the impact cannot be immediately
determined with certainty. For CEQA purposes, a potentially significant impact is treated as if it
were a significant impact. Therefore, under CEQA, feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to
the proposed project must be provided, where necessary and applicable, to eliminate or reduce the
magnitude of potentially significant impacts.
• A potentially significant and unavoidable impact or significant and unavoidable impact is one that
would result in a potentially substantial or substantial adverse effect on the environment, and that
could not be reduced to a less -than -significant level even with implementation of feasible
mitigation. Under CEQA, a project with significant and unavoidable impacts could still be approved,
but the lead agency would be required to: (i) conclude in findings that there are no feasible means
of substantially lessening or avoiding the significant impact in accordance with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091(a)(3); and (ii) prepare a statement of overriding considerations, in accordance with
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, explaining why the lead agency would proceed with a
project, in spite of the potential for significant impacts.
Environmental Baseline
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a), this EIR measures the physical impacts of the proposed
project against a "baseline" of physical environmental conditions at and in the vicinity of the Project
site. The environmental "baseline" is the combined circumstances existing at the time the NOP of the
EIR was published; unless otherwise specified, this is considered the "existing" condition for this EIR.
For this Project, the baseline is May 15, 2023. The baseline also includes the policy and planning
context for the proposed Project, such as the existing design review policies and procedures that
currently govern proposed development.
Source(s)
City of Dublin Community Development Department. 2014 (updated). Dublin Village Historic Area
Specific Plan. Adopted by the Dublin City Council on August 1, 2006, Resolution No. 149-06.
Available online: https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7780/DVHASP-FULL-PDF-
10714?bidld=. Accessed April 2023.
City of Dublin
Section 1: Air Quality
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 15
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. 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?
x
x
x
x
Environmental Setting
Air quality is defined by the concentration of pollutants in relation to their impact on human
health and the environment. Concentrations of air pollutants are determined by the rate and
location of pollutant emissions released by pollution sources, and the atmosphere's ability to
transport and dilute such emissions. Natural factors that affect transport and dilution include
terrain, wind, and sunlight. Therefore, ambient air quality conditions within the local air basin
are influenced by natural factors such as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to
the amount of air pollutant emissions released by existing air pollutant sources.
The proposed Project is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is
comprised of complex terrain types, including coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and
bays, which distort normal wind flow patterns. Along the County of Alameda's (the county)
western coast, temperatures are moderated by the bay, which can act as a heat source during
cold weather or cool the air by evaporation during warm weather. It is generally sunnier farther
from the coast, although partly cloudy skies are common throughout the summer. Average
summer temperatures are mild overnight and moderate during the day. Winter temperatures
are typically cool overnight and mild during the day. Highest temperatures are more common
inland. Wind speeds vary throughout the county, with the strongest gusts along the western
coast, often aided by dominant westerly winds and a bay -breeze effect. Rainfall totals average
about 14 to 23 inches per year, with the highest totals in the northern end of the county and
atop the Oakland -Berkeley hills (BAAQMD 2021).
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 16
Air Pollutants of Concern
Individual air pollutants at certain concentrations may adversely affect human or animal health,
reduce visibility, damage property, and reduce the productivity or vigor of crops and natural
vegetation. Six air pollutants have been identified by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as being of concern
both on a nationwide and statewide level: ozone; carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen dioxide
(NO2); sulfur dioxide (SO2); lead; and particulate matter (PM), which is subdivided into two
classes based on particle size: PM equal to or less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) and
PM equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5). Because the air quality standards
for these air pollutants are regulated using human health and environmentally based criteria,
they are commonly referred to as "criteria air pollutants." Ozone is not emitted directly into the
air but is formed through a series of reactions involving reactive organic gases (ROGs) and
nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. ROG and NOx are referred to as "ozone
precursors."
Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to criteria air pollutants, EPA and CARB regulate hazardous air pollutants, also
known as toxic air contaminants (TACs). TACs collectively refer to a diverse group of air
pollutants that can cause chronic (i.e., long -duration) and acute (i.e., severe but short-term)
adverse effects on human health, including carcinogenic effects. TACs can be separated into
carcinogens and noncarcinogens based on the nature of the effects associated with exposure to
the pollutant. For regulatory purposes, carcinogens are assumed to have no safe threshold
below which health impacts would not occur. Noncarcinogens differ in that there is generally
assumed to be a safe level of exposure below which no negative health impact is believed to
occur. These levels are determined on a pollutant -by -pollutant basis.
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, people with
illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Hospitals,
schools, convalescent facilities, and residences are examples of sensitive receptors. The nearest
sensitive receptors include residences located across Dublin Boulevard, approximately 200 feet
north of the Project site, a daycare located approximately 300 feet north of the Project site, and
residences located approximately 570 feet east of the Project site.
Regulatory Framework
Federal Clean Air Act and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Pursuant to the
Clean Air Act, the EPA has established ambient air quality standards to protect public health
and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. These federal standards, known as NAAQS,
were developed for the six criteria pollutants described above. NAAQS represent safe levels of
each pollutant to avoid specific adverse effects to human health and the environment. Two
types of NAAQS have been established, primary and secondary standards. Primary standards
set limits to protect public health, especially that of sensitive populations such as asthmatics,
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 17
children, and seniors. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including
protections against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, and buildings.
The Clean Air Act was amended in 1977 to require each state to maintain a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for achieving compliance with the NAAQS. In 1990, the Clean Air Act
was amended again to strengthen regulation of both stationary and mobile emission sources.
California Clean Air Act and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). In 1988, the
state legislature adopted the California Clean Air Act, which established a statewide air
pollution control program. The California Clean Air Act requires all air districts in the state to
make progress towards meeting the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. The California Clean
Air Act establishes increasingly stringent requirements over time. CAAQS are generally more
stringent than NAAQS and incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide,
visibility -reducing particles, and vinyl chloride.
The California Clean Air Act substantially adds to the authority and responsibilities of air
districts. The California Clean Air Act designates air districts as lead air quality planning
agencies, requires air districts to prepare air quality plans, and grants air districts authority to
implement transportation control measures.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD is the agency responsible for
protecting public health and welfare through the administration of federal and state air quality
laws and policies in the SFBAAB. BAAQMD's tasks include air pollution monitoring, preparing air
quality plans, and promulgating rules and regulations. BAAQMD rules and regulations relevant
to the proposed Project include but are not limited to: Regulation 6 (Particulate Matter);
Regulation 7 (Odorous Substances); Regulation 8, Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings); Regulation 11,
Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing). Additional rules and regulations
may be applicable dependent upon the future specific tenants of the building.
BAAQMD also maintains multiple air quality monitoring stations that continually measure the
ambient concentrations of major air pollutants throughout the SFBAAB. Under the California
Clean Air Act, BAAQMD is required to develop an air quality attainment plan for nonattainment
criteria pollutants within the air district. The 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air and
Cool the Climate was adopted on April 19, 2017, and provides a regional strategy to protect
public health and protect the climate. To fulfill state ozone planning requirements, the 2017
control strategy includes all feasible measures to reduce emissions of ozone precursors and
reduce transport of ozone and its precursors to neighboring air basins. In addition, the 2017
Clean Air Plan builds upon and enhances BAAQMD's efforts to reduce emissions of fine PM and
TACs (BAAQMD 2017a).
Attainment of Federal and State Air Quality Standards
Areas are classified under the Federal Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act as attainment,
non -attainment, or maintenance (areas that were previously non -attainment but are currently
attainment) for each criteria pollutant based on whether the federal and state air quality
standards have been achieved. With respect to the NAAQS, the SFBAAB is designated as a
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 18
nonattainment area for ozone and PM2.5, and as an attainment or unclassified area for all other
pollutants. With respect to the CAAQS, the SFBAAB is designated as a nonattainment area for
ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, and as an attainment or unclassified area for all other pollutants
(BAAQMD 2017b).
City of Dublin General Plan. The City of Dublin General Plan, adopted in 1985 and amended in
2022, includes an Environmental Resources Management: Conservation Element. The following
policies related to air quality would be applicable to the proposed Project (City of Dublin 2022):
• Request that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District establish an air quality
monitoring station in Dublin.
• Require an air quality analysis for new development projects that could generate significant
air emissions on a project and cumulative level. Air quality analyses shall include specific
feasible measures to reduce anticipated air quality emissions to a less -than -significant CEQA
level.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Consistent with air quality plans (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
Air quality plans describe air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or
regional air district. The primary purpose of an air quality plan is to bring an area that does not
attain NAAQS and CAAQS into compliance with those standards pursuant to the requirements
of the Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act. The most recent air quality plan is the
BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2017a). The 2017 Clean Air Plan identifies potential
control measures and strategies, including rules and regulations that could be implemented to
reduce air pollutant emissions from industrial facilities, commercial processes, on- and off -road
motor vehicles, and other sources. BAAQMD implements these strategies through rules and
regulations, grant and incentive programs, public education and outreach, and partnerships
with other agencies and stakeholders.
A project is determined to be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan if it supports the goals of
the Clean Air Plan, includes applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan, and would not
disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD
2017a). Consistency with the Clean Air Plan also is determined through evaluation of project -
related air quality impacts and demonstration that project -related emissions would not
increase the frequency or severity of existing violations or contribute to a new violation of the
NAAQS or CAAQS. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include thresholds of significance
that are applied to evaluate regional impacts of project -specific emissions of air pollutants and
their impact on the BAAQMD's ability to reach attainment (BAAQMD 2017c). Emissions that are
above these thresholds have not been accommodated in the air quality plans and would not be
consistent with the air quality plans.
Demolition activities and construction of the proposed Project would involve the use of off -
road equipment, haul trucks, and worker commute trips that would generate short-term
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 19
criteria air pollutant emissions. Operation of the proposed Project would generate long-term
emissions associated with daily employee vehicle trips, building energy consumption,
reapplication of architectural coatings, use of consumer products, and maintenance/testing of
the fire pump. As discussed in Impact (b) below, construction -related emissions of the proposed
Project would not exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by BAAQMD. In
addition, consistent with Stationary Source Control Measures SS36 (PM from Trackout) and
SS38 (Fugitive Dust) of the 2017 Clean Air Plan, the proposed Project would implement
BAAQMD's Basic Construction Mitigation Measures as noted in Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and
be subject to BAAQMD Rules and Regulations for controlling fugitive dust emissions (Regulation
6 [Particulate Matter]), which would reduce fugitive dust emissions during demolition and
construction. Further, as discussed in Impact (b) below, the proposed Project would result in a
net reduction of emissions compared to existing conditions for NOx, PM10, and PM2.5, and ROG
emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance. The proposed Project
would also comply with Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 7.94.100 (Green Building Code), which
requires that new construction buildings are all -electric buildings. Compliance with the Green
Building Code would also be consistent with building control measures included in the 2017
Clean Air Plan, such as BL2 (Decarbonize Buildings). Furthermore, the proposed Project
electrical and plumbing fixtures would be Title 24 and California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen) compliant, which would be consistent with Building Control Measure BL1 (Green
Buildings). Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
(b) Project emissions (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of
regional pollutants is a result of past and present development within the SFBAAB, and this
regional impact is cumulative rather than being attributable to any one source. A project's
emissions may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when taken in
combination with past, present, and future development projects.
BAAQMD published the May 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which provides lead agencies
assistance in evaluating air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the SFBAAB
(BAAQMD 2017c). The guidelines provide recommended procedures for evaluating potential air
impacts during the environmental review process, consistent with CEQA requirements, and
include recommended thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background air
quality information. BAAQMD has stated that the CEQA Guidelines are for informational
purposes only and should be followed by local governments at their own discretion (BAAQMD
2017c). The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines may inform environmental review for development
projects in the Bay Area, but do not commit local governments or BAAQMD to any specific
course of regulatory action. The thresholds for criteria pollutants were developed through a
quantitative examination of the efficacy of fugitive dust mitigation measures and a quantitative
examination of statewide nonattainment emissions and are used for the analysis of project -
generated emissions.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 20
Construction emissions are short term but have the potential to result in a significant impact on
air quality. Demolition and construction activities would generate temporary emissions of
precursors to ozone (ROG and NOx), CO, PM10, and PM2.5. ROG, NOx, and CO emissions are
associated primarily with mobile equipment exhaust, including off -road construction
equipment and on -road motor vehicles. Fugitive particulate matter dust emissions are
associated primarily with site preparation and travel on unpaved roads and vary as a function of
parameters such as soil silt content, soil moisture, wind speed, acreage of disturbance area, and
miles traveled by construction vehicles.
Demolition and construction activities are anticipated to begin in late fall 2023 and last
approximately 12 months. Emissions associated with construction and operational activities
were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) version 2020.4.
CaIEEMod allows the user to enter project -specific construction and operational information,
such as types, number and horsepower of construction equipment, number and length of off -
site motor vehicle trips, project square footage, daily vehicle trips, and anticipated energy
consumption details. Demolition of the existing building is anticipated to require approximately
608 total loaded haul truck trips. Construction activities would require the use of
concrete/industrial saws, excavators, rubber -tired dozers, graders, tractors/loaders/backhoes,
cement and mortar mixers, pavers, paving equipment, rollers, air compressors, aerial lifts,
cranes, welders, and generator sets. Approximately 6,800 cubic yards of material are
anticipated to be excavated and re -used onsite. The proposed Project would also require
removal of approximately 141,000 square feet of asphalt pavement, which would be reused
onsite. Additional modeling assumptions and details are provided in Appendix D.
Operation of the proposed Project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions associated
with mobile, area, and stationary sources. Mobile sources would include vehicle activity from
employee commutes and miscellaneous truck deliveries associated with the proposed office,
light industrial, and warehousing land uses. Area source emissions were based on CaIEEMod
default data and would be associated with landscaping equipment usage, consumer product
usage (i.e., cleaning supplies, parking surface degreasers), and periodic reapplication of
architectural coatings. Stationary sources of emissions would include maintenance and testing
of the diesel -fired 175-horsepower fire pump. As described previously, the building would be
all -electric (i.e., no natural gas); therefore, there would be no onsite energy -related emissions.
Additional modeling assumptions and details are provided in Appendix D.
Table 4: Total and Average Daily Construction Emissions shows the total and average daily
emissions associated with construction of the proposed Project.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 21
Table 4: Total and Average Daily Construction Emissions
Source/Description ROG NOx PMio (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust)
Total Construction Emissions (tons)'
0.90 1.96
0.08 0.07
Average Daily Emissions (Ibs/day) 2
6.92 14.98
0.60 0.57
Threshold of Significance (lbs/day) 3 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Notes: Ibs/day = pounds per day; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PMio = particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter; PM2.s = particulate
matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter; ROG = reactive organic gases
1The construction emissions modeling assumed the proposed Project would include 227 parking spaces. Based on the latest site plan, the
proposed Project would include 217 parking spaces. As such, the emissions presented above related asphalt paving and striping activities are
conservative and actual emissions are anticipated to be slightly lower.
2Average daily emissions estimated assuming 261 construction workdays based on a 5-day construction workweek and 12 months of
construction.
BAAQMD 2017c
As shown in Table 4, construction -related emissions of ROG, NOx, PMio exhaust, and PM2.5
exhaust would not exceed the applicable thresholds of significance established by BAAQMD.
Therefore, the impacts from emission of these criteria air pollutants during construction would
be less than significant.
BAAQMD does not have quantitative mass emissions thresholds for fugitive PMio and PM2.5
dust. Instead, BAAQMD recommends that all projects, regardless of the level of average daily
emissions, implement applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs), including those listed as
Basic Construction Measures in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017c). Without
implementation of BAAQMD's Basic Construction Measures, the impact of fugitive dust
emissions during Project construction would be potentially significant.
In order to comply with the BAAQMD threshold for fugitive dust emissions, the following
mitigation measure is needed:
Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Implement Basic Construction Emission Control Practices. The
construction contractor shall comply with the following BAAQMD Basic Construction
Measures, as applicable, for reducing construction emissions of uncontrolled fugitive dust
(Mho and PM2.5):
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or
soil binders are used.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 22
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne
toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).
Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic
and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead
Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action
within 48 hours. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the proposed Project would be consistent
with BAAQMD guidance and the generation of fugitive dust emissions from Project construction
would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
As shown in Table 5: Annual and Average Daily Operational Emissions, operation of the
proposed Project would result in a net reduction in emissions of NOx, PM10, and PM2.5
compared to existing conditions, and emissions of ROG would not exceed the BAAQMD
thresholds of significance. Therefore, the impact of operational emissions would be less than
significant.
Table 5: Annual and Average Daily Operational Emissions
Source/Description
ROG NOx PMio PM2.5
Proposed Project Annual Emissions (tons/year) 1 0.68 0.26
0.54 0.15
Existing Conditions Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.61 0.47
0.65 0.18
Net Emissions (tons/year)
Threshold of Significance (tons/year) 2
0.08 (0.22)
(0.12) (0.04)
10 10 15 10
Exceeds Annual Threshold?
No No No No
Average Daily Emissions (Ibs/day)3
Threshold of Significance (Ibs/day) 2
0.60 (1.69)
(0.90) (0.27)
54 54 82 54
Exceeds Average Daily Threshold? No No No No
Notes: Ibs/day = pounds per day; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM. = particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter; PM2s = particulate
matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter; ROG = reactive organic gases; tons/year = tons per year
'The operational emissions modeling assumed the proposed Project would include 18,000 square feet of office space, 36,500 square feet of
light industrial space, and 70,804 square feet of warehousing space. Based on the latest site plan, the proposed Project would actually include
18,000 square feet of office space, 30,000 square feet of light industrial space, and 77,304 square feet of warehousing space. As light
industrial land uses generate higher daily vehicle trips than warehousing land uses, daily vehicle trips and the associated mobile source
emissions are anticipated to be lower (i.e., the emissions modeling assumed the proposed Project would generate 494 daily trips, based on
the 2022 Transportation Impact Study (W-Trans 2022); however, under the revised site plan, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate
473 daily trips). As such, the emissions presented above are conservative and actual emissions are anticipated to be lower. Implementation of
the proposed Project would result in a higher net reduction in emissions compared to existing conditions.
2 BAAQM D 2017c
'Average daily emissions estimated 260 working days per year, based on a Monday through Friday operational schedule.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 23
Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, construction and operation of
the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
(c) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations (Less Than Significant Impact)
Impact c was determined to be a less than significant impact, as the Project would not increase
air emissions from existing conditions. Therefore, the full analysis for this impact is discussed in
the Initial Study provided in Appendix A.
(d) Odors (Less Than Significant)
Impact d was determined be a less than significant impact. Since the proposed Project involves
the redevelopment of an existing industrial building with a new industrial building, the
proposed Project would not introduce a new odor -generating source. Therefore, the full
analysis for this impact is discussed in the Initial Study provided in Appendix A.
Source(s)
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017a. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare
the Air: Cool the Climate. Available online:
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 February 2023.
. 2017b. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Available online:
https://www.baagmd.gov/about-air-quality/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-
and-attainment-status. Accessed February 2023.
. 2017c. California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines. Available online:
https://www.baagmd.gov//media/files/planning-and-
research/ceqa/cega guidelines may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed February 2023.
. 2021. In Your Community: Alameda County. Available online:
https://www.baagmd.gov/about-the-air-district/in-your-community/alameda-county.
Accessed January 2021.
City of Dublin. 2022. General Plan. Available online:
https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30287/General-Plan-Update-
04192022-WEB. Accessed March 2023.
W Traffic Engineering Transportation Planning (W-Trans). 2022. Final Transportation Impact
Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project. December.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 24
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
Section 2: Biological Resources
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 25
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2. 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?
x
x
x
x
x
x
Environmental Setting
This section describes the existing biological setting within the Project site, which consists of
two adjacent parcels, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. The focus of the analysis was based on the areas
potentially directly or indirectly affected by construction of the Project, referred to herein as
the Project footprint. The Project footprint is exclusively in Parcel 1.
The City of Dublin is characterized by a diverse array of wildlife and plant species, with two
discrete habitat types —the flatter urbanized portion of the City and the surrounding oak
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 26
woodland and California annual grassland. The Project site is located within the urbanized area,
which exhibits plant and animal species typical of urbanized areas including a combination of
native and introduced trees, grasses and shrubs used for landscaping purposes.
The proposed Project footprint is completely developed with buildings, hardscape, and
landscaped areas. Vegetation within landscaped areas of the footprint is comprised of sod,
various ornamental shrubs, various ornamental tree species, as well as native trees such as
California Bay (Umbellularia californica), coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia), and California
buckeye (Aesculus californica). No natural habitats (habitats with naturally occurring
vegetation) occur within the Project footprint.
The Project site is primarily developed with buildings, hardscape, and landscaped areas
associated with the existing Hexcel buildings; however, Dublin Creek is located to the south of
the Project footprint approximately along the boundary of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. Dublin Creek
in this location contained less than 1 foot of water during AECOM's site visit on December 12,
2022. The banks of this feature are natural, but this feature runs underground for long
stretches immediately east and west of the project.
Vegetation Communities
Vegetation communities within the Project footprint are limited to landscaped areas comprised
of sod, various ornamental shrubs, various ornamental tree species, as well as a large number
of native trees such as coast live oak trees, California Bay, and California buckeye. To the south
of the Project footprint and on Parcel 2, is riparian habitat associated with Dublin Creek.
Wildlife
Wildlife in the Project site is likely to be limited to those species easily habituated to human
activity, and which typically occupy urban areas or interfaces between urban and open space
areas. Larger fauna may include raccoon (Procyon lotor) and skunk (Mephitis mephitis), while
smaller fauna would include species such as western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis),
southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), and
Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae).
A wide variety of bird species likely utilizes the riparian corridor of Dublin Creek to the south of
the Project footprint, as well as the ornamental vegetation and trees within the Project
footprint. These species include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), house finch (Haemorhous
mexicanus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), western
bluebird (Sialia mexicana), American robin (Turdus migratorius), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte
anna), among others.
Regulatory Framework
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 makes it illegal to take, possess, import, export,
transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter any migratory bird, or the
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 27
parts, nests, or eggs of such bird, except under the terms of a valid federal permit. Migratory
bird species protected by the act are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 50 CFR
Part 10.13. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has statutory authority for enforcing the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 United States Code Sections 703-712).
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 United States Code Section 1531 et seq.)
provides a regulatory program for the conservation of threatened and endangered plants and
animals and the habitats in which they are found. The USFWS and National Marine Fisheries
Service are the lead agencies responsible for implementing the ESA. The USFWS maintains a list
of endangered species that includes birds, insects, fish, reptiles, mammals, crustaceans, plants,
and trees. The USFWS and/or National Marine Fisheries Service requires authorization for any
actions that they authorize, carry out, or fund, that may jeopardize the continued existence of
any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical
habitat.
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) conserves and protects animals at risk of
extinction. Plants and animals may be designated as threatened or endangered under CESA
after a formal listing process by the California Fish and Game Commission. A CESA-listed species
may not be killed, possessed, purchased, or sold without authorization from the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
California Fish and Game Code Fully Protected Species
Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the California Fish and Game Code designate 37 species
of wildlife as Fully Protected in California. Fully Protected species may not be taken or
possessed at any time, and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take, except for the
authorized collection of these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of bird
species for the protection of livestock.
California Fish and Game Code Section 2081 Incidental Take Permits
Section 2081(b) of the California Fish and Game Code allows the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife to authorize take of CESA-listed species categorized as endangered, threatened,
candidate, or rare plant species if that take is incidental to otherwise lawful activities, and if
certain conditions are met. Section 2081(b) permits are commonly referred to as an Incidental
Take Permit.
City of Dublin Municipal Code
The City of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 5.60: "the Heritage Tree Ordinance" (Ord. 5-02 § 2
(part): Ord. 29-99 § 1 (part)), requires that a Tree Removal permit from the Director be
acquired prior to the removal of heritage trees. Heritage trees include:
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 28
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."
In addition, all applications for demolition, grading, or building permits on property containing
one or more heritage trees shall prepare a tree protection plan pursuant to Section 5.60.090.
Citv of Dublin ( rieral Plan
The City of Dublin General Plan Chapter 7 Environmental Resources Management Conservation
Element provides guidance for the protection of biological resources in Dublin and includes
objectives, goals, and policies regarding biological resources.
The following goals and policies from the City's General Plan relating to biological resources
apply to the Project:
• Guiding Policy 7.2.1A1: Protect riparian vegetation as a protective buffer for stream quality
and for its value as a habitat and aesthetic resource
• Implementing Policy 7.3.2B1: Require erosion control plans for proposed development.
Erosion control plans shall include recommendations for preventing erosion and scour of
drainageways, consistent with biological and visual values.
• Implementing Policy 7.4.1B2: Enact and enforce the Heritage Tree Ordinance
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive, or special status species (Less Than
Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Special -Status Plants
As discussed previously, the Project site is largely developed, and the entirety of the Project
footprint is either paved or landscaped. There is no potential for special -status plant species to
occur in the sod or landscaped areas present within the areas that would be disturbed during
Project construction. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on special status plant
species.
Special -Status Wildlife
A desktop analysis was conducted to identify special -status wildlife species that may be present
in the vicinity of the Project site. Google Maps, Google Earth, and photographs of the site were
used to identify potential habitats that may be impacted by the Project. In addition, the
following online resources were used to identify special -status wildlife species with the
potential to occur on or near the Project site:
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 29
• USFWS: Information for Planning and Consulting (IPaC) (USFWS 2023)
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW): California Natural Diversity Data Base
(CNDDB): The search area consisted of a 5-mile buffer on the Project site. (CDFW 2023)
As described in the Environmental Setting, natural habitats are absent from the Project
footprint. None of the special -status species identified in the desktop analysis have life history
requirements associated with buildings, hardscape, and landscape areas present in the Project
footprint. As summarized in Table 6: Special -Status Species Potential to Occur in the Prole(
Area, the Project footprint does not provide suitable habitat for any of the special -status
wildlife species identified during the records search. The riparian corridor associated with
Dublin Creek that runs immediately south of the Project footprint may provide suitable habitat
for San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat and/or pallid bat. Because the Project would not
involve direct disturbance within the riparian corridor, it would not directly destroy or alter
such habitat, and there would be no impact to special -status species with potential to occur
within the Project footprint area.
The Project footprint is located within 5 feet of the riparian corridor associated with Dublin
Creek; however, construction activities would occur on existing paved areas (parking lot), and
no construction equipment will enter Dublin Creek and associated habitat. Disturbance from
noise and vibration (see Section 12) on wildlife could result during construction activities.
However, these impacts would be minimal and only for a temporary period of time during
construction. Furthermore, construction of the Project does not have the potential to result in
introduction of non-native weeds to the riparian corridor of Dublin Creek since no construction
equipment would enter the creek.
In the event that runoff from the Project or accidental spills entered species habitat within
Dublin Creek, sedimentation or the introduction of pollutants to habitat within Dublin Creek
would constitute a potentially significant impact. As discussed further in the Initial Study in
Section 9, Hydrology (see Appendix A) the Project would avoid sedimentation or the
introduction of pollutants to habitat within Dublin Creek through the required implementation
of erosion and sediment control measures and the implementation of BMPs specified in the
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during construction, which would protect
habitat within Dublin Creek. Thus, no substantial indirect impacts to status species would occur.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR 1 Page 30
Table 6: Special -Status Species Potential to Occur in the Project Area
Scientific Name
Common Name Class Status Habitat Present
Danaus plexippus
Monarch Butterfly Invertebrate Federal Candidate None
Branchinecta Iynchi
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Invertebrate FT None
Hypomesus transpacificus
Delta Smelt
Invertebrate FT, SE None
Ambystoma californiense pop. 1 California tiger salamander - Amphibian
central California DPS
FT, ST None
Rana draytonii
California red -legged frog Amphibian FT, SSC None
Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
Reptile SSC None
Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus
Alameda whipsnake Bird FT, ST None
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird Bird ST, SSC None
Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle Bird BGEPA, FP None
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl Bird SSC None
Contopus cooperi olive -sided flycatcher Bird SSC None
Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite Bird FP None
Falco peregrinus anatum
American peregrine falcon Bird FP None
Gymnogyps californianus
California Condor Bird FE, SE, FP None
Sterna antillarum browni
California Least Tern Bird FE, SE, FP None
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle Bird BGEPA, SE, FP None
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat Mammal SSC
None in project
footprint. Possible
in riparian corridor.
Neotoma fuscipes annectens
San Francisco dusky -footed Mammal SSC
woodrat
None in project
footprint. Possible
in riparian corridor.
Taxidea taxus
American badger
Mammal SSC None
Vulpes macrotis mutica
San Joaquin kit fox
Mammal FE, ST None
Centromadia parryi ssp. Congdon's tarplant Plant 1B.1 None
congdonii
Eryngium jepsonii
Jepson's coyote -thistle Plant 16.2 None
Extriplex joaquinana
San Joaquin spearscale Plant 16.2 None
Extriplex joaquinana
San Joaquin spearscale Plant 16.2 None
Helianthella castanea Diablo helianthella Plant 16.2 None
Navarretia prostrata prostrate vernal pool Plant 16.2 None
navarretia
Status:
Federal
FE — listed as Endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act
FT— listed as Threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act
BGEPA— Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
State
SE — Listed as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act
ST— Listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act
SSC — State species of special concern
FP — Fully protected under California Fish and Game Code
California Rare Plant Rank
16.1- Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere — seriously threatened in California (more than 80 percent of occurrences threatened)
1B.2 - Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere — moderately threatened in California (20 to 80 percent of occurrences threatened)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 31
Migratory Birds
The various shrubs, ornamental trees, and native trees in the Project footprint may provide
suitable habitat for common nesting birds, such as house finch, mourning dove, common raven,
and other birds that typically occupy urban environments. The USFWS IPaC tool also lists the
following migratory bird species that could occur in the Project area: Allen's hummingbird
(Selasphorus sasin), bald eagle (Haliaeetus Ieucocephalus), Belding's savannah sparrow
(Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi), Bullock's oriole (Icterus bullockii), California gull (Larus
californicus), California thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis
trichas sinuosa), golden eagle, (Aquila chrysaetos), Lawrence's goldfinch (Carduelis Iawrencei),
Nuttall's woodpecker (picoides nuttallii), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), olive -sided
flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), tricolor blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), Western grebe
(Aechmophorus occidentatis), wrentit (Chamaea fasciata), and yellow -billed magpie (Pica
nuttalli).
As discussed in the regulatory section, these birds, their nests, and eggs are protected under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Noise and vibration from proposed construction activities
associated with the Project could disturb birds that are nesting on and near the Project site, for
both common nesting birds and American peregrine falcon. Although nesting birds in this urban
setting are typically habituated to human activity and associated noise, the increased level of
human activity at the site during construction could temporarily disturb nesting birds.
In addition, the Project would involve the removal of approximately 85 landscape trees within
the Project footprint, which could be used by birds during the nesting season. If a tree
containing an active nest were to be removed during construction, such removal would result in
nest destruction and failure. Due to this potential for loss of nests, and due to potential
disturbance of nesting birds from noise and vibration during Project construction, the impact to
nesting birds would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1, detailed below, is recommended to address this potentially
significant impact to nesting birds.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
A. To the extent practicable, construction activities and any tree trimming/removal
shall be performed from September 16 through February 15 to avoid the general
nesting period for birds. If construction or tree trimming/removal cannot be
performed during this period, nesting bird surveys and active nest buffers (as
necessary) shall be implemented as follows:
i. Nesting Bird Surveys: If Project -related work is scheduled during the nesting
season (typically February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as
passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September
15 for other raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for active nests
of such birds within 7 days prior to the beginning of Project construction.
Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding the work area shall be
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 32
determined by the qualified biologist, but should be at least: i) 50 feet for
passerines; ii) 300 feet for raptors. Surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate
times of day and during appropriate nesting times, as determined by the
qualified biologist.
ii. Active Nest Buffers: If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the
survey area, an appropriate buffer between the nest and active construction
shall be established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the
young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the
qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of the nest to characterize
"normal" bird behavior and establish a buffer distance which allows the birds to
exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds
daily during construction activities and shall increase the buffer if the birds show
signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive flights and vocalizations,
standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If
buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist shall have the
authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have fledged
and the nest is no longer active. Construction shall only be allowed to impact a
migratory bird or its nest, including its young, if a permit from U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is obtained in accordance with the MTBA and all permit
conditions are adhered to.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would protect nesting birds by ensuring that all active nests with the
potential to be impacted by tree removal, construction noise, or human presence would be
identified, appropriate avoidance buffers would be applied to active nests, and biologists would
monitor active nests and bird behavior during construction so that the effectiveness of the
buffer zone can be determined and the buffer distance can be adjusted if needed. Given the
urban setting of the Project and presence of visual barriers such as other buildings and
vegetation in the vicinity of the construction zone, the minimum search radii specified in
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (50 feet for passerines and 300 feet for raptors) are considered
appropriate to reduce potential disturbance of nesting birds to a less than significant level.
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, proposed construction and associated
activities would not disturb nesting birds or destroy their nests; therefore, potential Project
impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species would be reduced to less than
significant with mitigation.
(b) Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other natural community (Less Than
Significant Impact)
No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are located within the Project
footprint; therefore, Project construction or operation would not directly impact riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural communities and is not expected to affect Dublin Creek. The
Project would have less than significant impact on riparian habitat and sensitive natural
communities. See Initial Study for the full analysis in Appendix A.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 33
(c) Substantial adverse effect on wetlands (Less Than Significant Impact)
No wetlands or other waters of the U.S. or state are located within the Project footprint;
therefore, Project construction or operation would not directly impact wetlands and other
waters. Furthermore, no substantial indirect impacts would occur to Dublin Creek from the
Project. Therefore, the Project would have less than significant impact on wetlands and waters
of the U.S. or state. See Initial Study for the full analysis in Appendix A.
(d) Interfere or impede the movement of migratory fish or wildlife (Less Than
Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
There are no documented migratory wildlife corridors, wildlife nursery sites, or large
waterbodies or rivers in the vicinity of the Project site. The Project site is located between
commercial and residential development, and the 1-580 freeway. Resident and migratory
waterfowl are not anticipated to use the Project site because it is already developed and
contains no open waterbodies or other habitat frequented by such species. Therefore, the
project would not interfere with or impede the movement of migratory waterfowl.
As discussed previously under Impact BIO-1, above, the riparian habitat associated with Dublin
Creek could be used as habitat for migratory birds. However, Dublin Creek is a highly urbanized
creek that generally parallels I-580. The creek supports a riparian canopy of trees, but there is
no understory vegetation in the vicinity of the project. The feature runs to the west of the
project with no riparian canopy before going underground, and runs underground to the east of
the project before emerging with wide concrete banks. As such, this section of Dublin Creek is
less likely to be used as a migratory corridor for common and special -status wildlife species.
Because the project would not impact the riparian habitat, it would not directly interfere with
or impede the movement of common and special -status wildlife species. Indirect impacts to
migratory birds from construction noise is addressed under Impact 810-1, above.
The riparian corridor associated with Dublin Creek could be used as foraging habitat for
common bats. As such, trees that would be removed as part of the Project outside of riparian
areas may provide suitable day or night roosting habitat for bat species. Given the availability of
alternative natural habitat for hibernaculum in the vicinity of the Project and based on planned
tree replacement, impacts to habitat for bats are not expected to be significant. However, if
construction were to remove trees containing bats during the maternity or winter season, bat
mortality could occur, and the impact to common bat species would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2, detailed below, is recommended to address this potentially
significant impact to roosting bats.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Roosting Bat Surveys and Avoidance
A. The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a bat habitat
assessment in all project areas that require tree removal. The qualified biologist shall
identify and document the location of potentially suitable bat roosting habitat prior
to construction activities. If no suitable bat habitat is observed, the biologist shall
inform the Project Applicant, and no further considerations are required. If bat
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 34
roosting habitat is observed, the location of such habitat areas shall be provided to
the Project Applicant, and the following requirements shall be implemented
throughout the construction period:
i. Removal of trees that provide suitable bat roosting habitat shall be
conducted outside of the bat maternity season (April 15 to August 31) and
overwintering season (October 16 to January 15) to the extent feasible.
i. Presence/absence surveys shall be conducted 2 to 3 days prior to removal
of any trees in suitable bat habitat, at any time of year. If presence/
absence surveys are negative, work may proceed with no restrictions. If
presence/absence surveys detect bats within trees planned for removal,
work should proceed in accordance with the following restrictions:
• If a maternity colony of bats is observed during maternity season
(April 15 to August 31), tree removal shall not occur until August
31 or when maternity season has ended based on surveys
conducted by a qualified biologist.
• If bats are observed during overwintering season (October 16 to
January 15), tree removal shall not occur until January 15 or until
bats are no longer present based on surveys conducted by a
qualified biologist.
• If bats are present outside of maternity or overwintering seasons,
construction shall follow a two-phase tree removal system
conducted over 2 consecutive days. On the first day (in the
afternoon), limbs and branches will be removed using chainsaws
or other hand tools. Limbs with cavities, crevices, or deep bark
fissures will be avoided, and only branches or limbs without those
features will be removed. On the second day, the entire tree shall
be removed.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would ensure that construction activities do not have the potential
to result in significant impacts to roosting bats, by avoiding tree removal during times of the
year when bats are most sensitive to disruption (maternity and overwintering seasons) to the
extent feasible and by either confirming that bats are absent prior to tree removal and/or
following protocols that provide an opportunity for bats to relocate prior to tree removal. With
the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, potential Project impacts to wildlife
movement, migration, or nursery sites would be reduced to less than significant with
mitigation.
(e) Conflict with local policies or ordinance include tree preservation (Less Than Significant
Impact)
The proposed Project would adhere to the tree removal permit conditions, the Project would
not conflict with the City's tree ordinance or the Dublin General Plan, and potential impacts
would be less than significant.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 35
(f) Conflict with adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans (No
Impact)
There would be no impact since there are no Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural
Communities Conservation Plans that apply to the Project site. See Initial Study in Appendix A.
Source(s)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Service (CDFW), 2023. Rarefind 5, a program created
by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife that allows access to the California
Natural Diversity Database. Reviewed January 17, 2023.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2023. IPaC Information for Planning and
Consultation. Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed on January 17,
2023.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 36
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
Section 3: Cultural Resources
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 37
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Environmental Setting
The Project site is at 11711 Dublin Boulevard in the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California
and is approximately 8.81 acres. The project site is located south of Dublin Boulevard with the
Dublin Heritage Park and Museums and Dublin Pioneer Cemetery to the east; 1-580 to the
south; and a business park to the west.
Historic -age built environment resources on the Project site consist of the Hexcel Corporation
R&D facility, landscaping, and parking. The Contemporary/Brutalist style facility has a roughly L-
shaped plan and was largely constructed in two phases dating to 1962 and 1967, with small
additions and alterations in the mid-1980s.
Pre -contact Cultural Context
Archaeological evidence demonstrates that people have lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for
at least the past 10,000 years. The pre -contact history of the San Francisco Bay archaeological
region is most commonly understood as a series of cultural and temporal periods defined by
the Central California Taxonomic System (CCTS). The CCTS was developed by Beardsley (1948)
and Gerow (Gerow with Force 1968), based on observations in the San Francisco Bay Area, the
Sacramento Valley, and the Delta region. This system was further refined by Bennyhoff and
Hughes (1987) and Groza (2002). The CCTS includes an Early Period, Middle Period, Middle -to -
Late Transition (MLT), and a Late Period, defined by a combination of changes in climate,
artifact types, habitation patterns, and mortuary patterns. The following discussion will briefly
describe each of these cultural -temporal periods, following Milliken et al. (2007).
Early Holocene (Lower Archaic): 8000-3500 B.C.
The people of the Early Holocene were mobile foragers, with seasonal, temporary camps
located near food resources. The earliest archaeological site in the San Francisco Bay Area is CA-
CCO-696 at Los Vaqueros Reservoir in Contra Costa County, dating to 7920 calibrated years
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 38
before the present (cal B.C.) This site included millingslabs (metates) and handstones (manos),
used together to grind seeds, nuts, or other foods. Large wide -stemmed projectile points of
Napa Valley obsidian were also found at the site. This assemblage is typical of Early Holocene
sites in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Early Period (Middle Archaic): 3,500-500 B.C.
During the Early Period, new milling technology is introduced, and shell beads first made their
appearance. In addition to millingslabs and handstones, assemblages now include mortars and
pestles, suggesting greater reliance on acorns. Grooved stone net sinkers are also present,
pointing to new fishing technology. Shell beads made from abalone (Haliotis sp.) and olive
snails (Olivella sp.) were placed in burials as tokens of tribute or prestige, along with red ochre
and ceremonial and ornamental artifacts. Settlement patterns were semi -sedentary, featuring
long-term villages with organized cemeteries.
Lower Middle Period (Initial Upper Archaic): 500 B.C. - A.D. 430
During the Lower Middle Period, shell bead forms change abruptly, with new forms replacing
the old. Bone tools were common, including awls made from deer bones, which were used for
basketry. Barbless fish spears replace the net sinkers of the previous period. Mortars and
pestles are more common than millingslabs and handstones. Large shell mounds are
constructed, indicating further sedentism.
Upper Middle Period (Late Upper Archaic): A.D. 430-1050
Major change occurred in 430 A.D. Half of the known settlement sites were abandoned. The
trade in saucer shaped shell beads from southern California collapsed, but were replaced with
saddle bead forms. Hunting of sea otters intensified. More stylized forms appear, including ear
spools, obsidian show blades, and fishtail charmstones. A new population seems to have moved
into the area, with elaborate grave goods and distinct, extended, burial styles, which contrasted
with the flexed burial positions seen in earlier periods. This new pattern is called the Meganos
complex, and may be a sign of invasion or of multi -cultural communities.
Initial Late Period (Lower Emergent): A.D. 1050-1550
The Late Period was a time of increased social complexity. Status was earned, not inherited.
Status objects became more elaborate, including large mortars with shell applique and straight
sides ("flower pot" mortars) and many new forms of abalone shell ornaments. Mortuary
practices included cremation and grave goods associated with social status. The bow and arrow
was added to the hunting toolkit, and small projectile points were seen for the first time.
Settlements were permanent, year-round villages.
Terminal Late Period (Protohistoric): A.D. 1550-1776
During the Terminal Late Period, lives were already influenced by the arrival of European
explorers. Disease spread in advance of newcomers, impacting the Native populations as they
came into contact with pathogens they had never encountered before. Populations thinned,
and grave goods were less plentiful. Clam shell beads were introduced and made locally. The
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR l Page 39
forms of projectile points shifted from elaborate Stockton serrated points to simpler corner -
notched forms.
In 1776, the first California Mission in the area was established by the Spanish in San Francisco,
as well as a presidio. This was followed by the founding of Mission Santa Clara de Asis in 1777
and Mission San Jose in 1797. These marked the first European settlements in the San Francisco
Bay Area, and led to major changes in the lives of Native Californians.
Ethnographic Context
An Ethnographic Context is provided within the Tribal Cultural Resources section of this EIR.
Historic Cultural Context
European Exploration (1542-1776 A.D.)
During the period of exploration, Europeans from Spain and England visited the coastline of
California and a few inland areas, but did not visit the Amador Valley until Sergeant Pedro
Amador passed through in 1795. Amador was the first to use the word "Alameda" to describe
the area, meaning "place where cottonwoods grow". Later that same year, Hermenegildo Sal
and Father Antonio Danti began searching for locations to establish new Spanish Missions (Kyle
et al. 2002).
However, even before Europeans set foot in the Amador Valley, their presence affected the
Native people through spread of trade and disease. The first European ship to explore the coast
of California was captained by Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo in 1542. Cabrillo's party sailed as far
north as Point Reyes, but only reported encounters with the Native population in Southern
California. In 1579, the English explorer and pirate, Sir Francis Drake, anchored his ship, the
Golden Hind, north of San Francisco in a small cove now known as Drake's Bay. During their five
week stay, Drake and his crew interacted extensively with the local residents, the Coast Miwok.
Sebastian Rodriguez Cermeno led an expedition to scout the California coast for safe ports in
1594, again anchoring in Drake's Bay. Cermerio's ship was wrecked by a storm as they left, and
survivors walked south as far as San Luis Obispo before there was any account of their
interactions with the Native people. In 1602, Sebastian Vizcaino led another expedition along
the coast, searching for a good location for a port to support trade between New Spain (Mexico
plus Alta and Baja California) and the Philippines. On finding Monterey Bay, Vizcaino proclaimed
it "all that one could hope for" (Beebe and Senkewicz 2001:44-45). Nevertheless, King Felipe III
of Spain issued a royal order prohibiting further exploration of Alta California, due to the
presence of established ports in Baja California. The Spanish did not return to the Alta California
Coast for 160 years (Beebe and Sekewicz 2001, Kyle et al. 2002).
In 1770, the Spanish returned to establish a presidio (military base) and mission in Monterey,
and then began to explore in search of other potential Mission locations. Expeditions set out in
1772, led by Captain Pedro Fages, in 1774, led by Captain Fernando Rivera, in 1775, led by
Father Vincente Santa Maria, and in 1776, led by Juan Bautista de Anza and Pedro Font. While
these expeditions reached Santa Clara, San Francisco, and portions of Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties, they did not reach the Amador Valley (Beebe and Sekewicz 2001).
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 40
The Spanish Period (1776-1821 A.D.)
Seven Spanish missions were founded in Ohlone territory from 1776 to 1797, the closest being
Mission San Jose, 14 miles south of the Project and founded in 1797. The Ohlone were
recruited to the Mission through trade and offering of foods. However, once baptized, they
were not allowed to leave the Mission, and became the workforce to grow food and raise
livestock to support the new Spanish settlements. Anyone who tried to leave the mission to
return to their old way of life or even visit their villages was considered a runaway, and was
tracked down and forcibly returned to the missions. Due to harsh living conditions, devastating
disease, and reduced birth rates, the population of Native Americans living in Mission San Jose
rapidly dwindled, and the Spanish needed to range further to recruit new neophytes. According
to Mission baptismal records, the Pelnen came to Mission San Jose between 1798 and 1805 and
the Seunen, being further north, joined between 1801 and 1804 (Milliken 1995).
The Amador Valley was used as grazing land for livestock to support Mission San Jose. The
introduction of cattle, horses, and sheep, and inadvertent introduction of invasive plant seeds,
interrupted and changed the local ecosystem, depleting the resources that the Native
Americans relied upon.
The Mexican Period (1821-1848 A.D.)
In 1821, Mexico gained independence from Spain, and Alta California became a Mexican
province. By 1834, the Mexican government had begun a process of secularization of the
Missions. Jose Maria Amador, having lived in the valley that would be named for him since at
least 1830 (possibly 1826), received an official land grant from the Mexican governor of
California in 1835. This vast grant of over 4 leagues (30,500 acres), became known as Rancho
San Ramon. Amador's adobe home was constructed on the northwest side of the modern
crossroad of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road, within 0.25-miles of the Project location,
and next to a natural spring called Almilla Springs (Kyle et al. 2002, VerPlanck 2003a). Amador's
estate raised livestock, grew crops, and manufactured goods such as soap, leather goods, farm
tools, and furniture, with the help of 150 Mexican and Native American employees (Minniear
2018). It is rumored that the burial ground for his workers was in the vicinity of the Pioneer
Cemetery, although the cemetery was not officially consecrated until 1860 (VerPlanck 2003b).
California Statehood and the Development of the City of Dublin (1848 A.D. to Present)
Following the Mexican -American War (1846-1848), the Treaty of Guadalupe was signed,
transferring control of Alta California officially from Mexico to the United States. California
statehood soon followed in 1850. During the interim, gold was discovered in El Dorado County
in 1848, leading to the California Gold Rush and a great influx of settlers (Kyle et al. 2002).
Amador tried his hand at gold prospecting but was largely unsuccessful. By 1852, he began
selling off some of his property to ease some financial stress. Michael Murray and Jeremiah
Fallon were two of the first to purchase land from Amador, south of Dublin Boulevard. The
farmsteads soon grew into a settlement, and the settlement into a town, which was organized
in 1853 as Murray Township, but in the late 1850s was also referred to as Amador's or Amador
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 41
Valley. James Witt Dougherty, partnering with William Glaskins, purchased ten thousand acres
from Amador in 1862 (Minniear 2018).
In 1859, St. Raymond's Church was built in the location where it still stands on Donlan Way
between Dublin Boulevard and 1-580. During construction of the church, Tom Donlan fell to his
death. A Catholic cemetery was established immediately west of the church, and Tom was the
first to be officially buried there. However, historian Virginia Smith Bennett notes that the
cemetery location had been used for burials before Donlan's interment (Bennett 1978:2). The
land for the church and the Catholic portion of the cemetery was donated by Michael Murry
and Jeremiah Fallon. The land for the Protestant portion of the cemetery was donated by James
W. Dougherty (Kyle et al. 2002, VerPlanck 2003b, 2003c). Existing grave markers give testament
to the ongoing usage of the cemetery until present day. However, a fire in 1917 destroyed
several wooden grave markers, which were not replaced (VerPlanck 2003b). Old St. Raymond's
Church (P-01-010635) was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2006 (NPS
06000242), as eligible under Criteria A and C, with Pioneer Cemetery (P-01010637) as a
contributing element (NPS 2006). St. Raymond's Church has also been found eligible for listing
on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) under Criteria 1 and 3 (VerPlanck
2003c).
The Old Murray School (P-01-010636) was built on land owned by Dougherty in 1856, and
served all of Dublin and Pleasanton. When 1-580 was widened in 1975, the schoolhouse was
moved to its present location, just south of Old St. Raymond's Church, and east of Pioneer
Cemetery. It was restored by the Dublin Historic Preservation Association, and is now used as
the Dublin Heritage Center (VerPlanck 2003d).
In the 1860s, the portion of the town to the south of the road to Stockton (now the 1-580
corridor) was referred to as Dublin, reportedly based on a comment from James Witt
Dougherty, saying that there were so many Irishmen south of the road to Stockton, it might as
well be called Dublin (Kyle et al. 2003). By the 1870s, the name Dublin became common usage,
however the name was not used officially until a post office was established in 1963. The City of
Dublin was officially incorporated in 1982 (Minniear 2018).
John Green established a store in 1860 at the southeast corner of what is now Dublin Boulevard
and Donlan Way, within 0.25-miles of the project location; Green's Store (P-01-08150) was
remodeled in the 1930s, but was restored to its 1914 condition in 1981 and now serves as the
Tri-Valley Church of Christ (VerPlanck 2003e).
Dublin was primarily an agricultural community through the early twentieth century, with much
of the land tied up in just a few large farms. But in 1942 the community changed, as the U.S.
Government purchased over 3,000 acres of land to establish Camp Parks, Camp Shoemaker,
Shoemaker Naval Hospital, and a military prison, which later was relocated and became Santa
Rita Jail (Minniear 2018). Hundreds of thousands of service members and their families passed
through or moved into the Dublin area. Growth of Dublin took off in the 1960s, when the
houses in the San Ramon Village area of Dublin were built, and supporting commercial
development soon followed.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 42
History of the Hexcel Property and Hexcel Products, Inc.
The following historic context, specific to the Project location, was prepared as part of the
Historical Resources Evaluation technical memorandum of the Hexcel Corporation R&D facility
at 11711 Dublin Boulevard, prepared by AECOM for the City of Dublin. The historic context,
relevant figures, and full evaluation for eligibility for listing in the CRHR are in the memorandum
appended to this Focused EIR as Appendix C.
Property Development
In October 1961, Royal Research Corporation (Royal Research), a scientific research and
development enterprise, purchased 13 acres of undeveloped, agricultural -zoned land between
Dublin Boulevard and Highway 50 from William T. and Alice K. Marsh. That same month
Alameda County approved Royal Research's request to rezone the property into a special
industrial zone to build a new research and development facility. At the time, Dublin was a
small agricultural community with one school and one church, but a new 9,500-home
development called San Ramon Village was underway on the north side of town. Royal
Research surveyed the entire county to select a site to build their facility and chose this
property because of the somewhat remote location. The company was already leasing a small
office across the street at 11824 Dublin Avenue and were relying on the budding labor pool of
new San Ramon Village residents (Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. 1994 July 1: Appendix A; Oakland
Tribune 1960 September 4; Oakland Tribune 1961 October 27; Oakland Tribune 1960 August 7).
In 1962, Royal Research which manufactured enclosures for safe handling of radioactive and
hazardous materials, commissioned construction of a 25,000-square-foot research and
development facility on the subject property. The building housed offices and small laboratory
spaces with a central courtyard in the north end, and the main laboratory area in the taller
south end. Construction of the facility totaled nearly $350,000 with an additional $350,000 for
equipment and was completed by the end of the year (Stockton Daily Evening Record 1962 July
31; Daily Review 1962 August 22).
Royal Research continued to occupy the facility until 1966 when it was sold to Hexcel Products,
Inc. (Hexcel). Based in Berkeley, Hexcel was the largest developer and manufacturer of
honeycomb, a structural material used in a number of applications, primarily associated with
the aeronautics and aerospace industries. When looking to relocate from Berkeley, the
executives at Hexcel sought a site somewhere between Carquinez Strait and Palo Alto,
preferably near a college campus to draw from a technical labor pool for research and
development, with the former Royal Research facility fitting its needs. Soon after the purchase,
Hexcel announced a million -dollar, 20,000-square foot expansion of the research and
development facility with a new administrative headquarters designed by San Francisco
architecture firm Lackey, Knorr, Elliott & Associates. Hexcel closed their headquarters in
Berkeley and relocated to Dublin and moved their manufacturing plants in Berkeley and
Oakland to plants in Arizona, Texas, and Maryland (Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. 1994 July 1: Appendix
A; Oakland Tribune 1966 May 18; Oakland Tribune 1967 November 12; San Francisco Examiner
1966 May 18; Contra Costa Times 1967 February 24).
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 43
Hexcel's new headquarters addition, completed in early 1967, housed the engineering,
marketing, finance, and general administrative staff. The original 1962 section was utilized as
laboratory space for further research and development. Hexcel president William S. Powell
understood that technical employees were in great demand and wanted to entice new hires, so
the building design included full -height tinted glass windows, courtyards, enclosed breezeways,
and patios to provide outdoor views along with comfortable, carpeted workspaces, air
conditioning, and taped music piped through an internal speaker system (Contra Costa Times
1967 March 26; Contra Costa Times 1967 February 24; Oakland Tribune 1967 November 12).
The Hexcel facility remained the same until the 1980s. In 1984 construction of a two-story
hyphen connected the 1962 and 1967 buildings, resulting in a central courtyard. A small lab and
chemical storage addition was constructed at the southeast corner of the facility the following
year (Oakland Tribune 1984 May 16; Oakland Tribune 1984 July 11; Oakland Tribune 1985
November 13).
Royal Research Corporation
Royal Research Corporation, originally called Dublin Industries, was founded in Berkeley in 1959
by former Lawrence Radiation Laboratory staff (now known as the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory). The company focused on producing custom-made mechanical devices to handle
radioactive materials. General Electric served as their primary customer for handling material at
the Vallecitos Atomic Laboratory in nearby Sunol. In 1960, the company expanded into
research, hiring Dr. William W.T. Crane, who headed heavy elements processing at Lawrence
Radiation Laboratory from 1948 to 1958. Crane would later become president of the company.
Dublin Industries merged with the Pasadena -based Royal Industries in August 1960, which was
an engineering firm. After the merger, Dublin Industries was renamed Royal Research
Corporation, operating as a subsidiary to Royal Industries (Daily Review 1962 August 22; Los
Angeles Times 1957 October 11).
The first major research contract obtained by Royal Research was to develop an isotopic power
supply for the Atomic Energy Commission that resulted in the creation of thermo-electric
generators for underwater seismic stations that could last several years. Within two years,
Royal Research expanded research into vacuum devices to handle reactive materials, energy
conversion, and microwave technology; 90 percent of their contracts were with the U.S.
government (Daily Review 1962 August 22).
In June 1963, Royal Industries, Inc. sold Royal Research to General Technology Corporation
which included use of the Dublin plant (subject facility). Royal Industries, Inc. retained
ownership of the plant before selling the facility to Hexcel Products, Inc. in 1966 (Pasadena
Independent 1963 June 5; Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. 1994 July 1: Appendix A).
Hexcel Corporation
Hexcel Corporation can trace its formation to 1946 when two University of California alumni,
Roger C. Steele and Roscoe T. "Bud" Hughes decided to experiment with new construction
material technologies developed during World War II, including plastics, in Hughes' basement
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 44
at his house in Berkeley. Steele's experimentation led to the creation of structural honeycomb,
which he demonstrated at a government -sponsored plastics conference as the California
Reinforced Plastics Company. This demonstration secured a research and development contract
of his expandable honeycomb for use in military aircraft radar domes in 1948. That same year,
the company hired chemist Ken Holland to oversee resin research and development. The
company furthered their ties with the military in 1949 when they won a low -bid contract to
develop honeycomb fuel cell support panels for B-36 bombers (Pederson, ed. 1999: 193;
Oakland Tribune 1967 May 22; Hexcel.com 2023; Contra Costa Times 1967 March 26).
In 1954, the company changed its name to Hexcel Products Inc. and continued creating
honeycomb in a variety of materials including plastic, aluminum, fiberglass and paper, resulting
in the highest strength -to -weight ratio material on the market with excellent energy absorption
properties. Although the technology was initially used in aerospace, implementation of paper
materials expanded use into commercial and residential building materials for use in interior
partitions and mobile homes, and well as furniture manufacturing. By the end of the decade,
Hexcel ran its headquarters out of Berkeley in a shared warehouse building at 2332 Fourth
Street and had opened manufacturing plants in Berkeley, Oakland, and Havre de Grace in
Maryland (Contra Costa Times 1967 March 26; Pederson, ed. 1999: 193; Oakland Tribune 1959
September 17; San Francisco Examiner 1962 July 2).
In the 1960s, Hexcel had several large contracts with the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), military, and commercial aviation clients. In 1968 Hexcel acquired Coast
Manufacturing and Supply Company in Livermore and diversified the company's product range
beyond structural honeycomb to include reinforced plastics, industrial glass fabrics, structural
adhesives, industrial resin compounds, and diffusion bonded assemblies. This shift occurred as
the Federal government began to divest large-scale pursuits and the public's interest in
government programs shifted following the moon landing and withdrawal from Vietnam in
1969. Using the new materials procured from the Coast acquisition, Hexcel designed and
produced high-performance snow skis. These were the first commodity made for the direct
retail market (Times Record News 1970 April 10; Hexcel.com 2023; Pederson, ed. 1999: 193-
194).
Hexcel continued to diversify its portfolio in the 1970s with the acquisition of a graphite
weaving company and a knee, hip, and shoulder joint replacement manufacturer. By the end of
the decade only half of their sales were from honeycomb (Pederson, ed. 1999: 194).
An economic downturn and oil crisis at the end of the 1970s led to the sale of the ski and
medical products and a returned focus on aviation and aerospace. The company secured a
number of high value contracts, for example with NASA for components in the Columbia Space
Shuttle, with Boeing, their largest customer accounting for 20 percent of total sales, and with
the U. S. Air Force for its new B-2 bomber program that prompted construction of a new
160,000-square-foot manufacturing plant in Arizona. However, deregulation of the airline
industry by President Ronald Reagan cut airline profits, leading to reductions of Hexcel's Boeing
and Airbus orders (Hexcel.com 2023; Oakland Tribune 1988 June 6).
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 45
The early 1990s were tumultuous for the company starting with a Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection filing in 1993. After layoffs and plant and asset sales, the company avoided
bankruptcy. In 1996 Hexcel merged with two composites companies to improve vertical
integration; the new combined firm had a total of 4,700 employees with 19 manufacturing
plants in seven countries (Pederson, ed. 1999: 194-195).
Since the late 1990s, Hexcel continued to lead research and development in honeycomb,
carbon fiber, and resin structural materials. The company has contracts with a number of
aerospace companies including Airbus, Boeing, SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Lockheed Martin. In
May 2021, a groundbreaking ceremony was held in West Valley City, Utah for the company's
new research and technology headquarters with plans to vacate the Dublin facility in 2023
(Hexcel.com 2023).
Hexcel and NASA
In 1958, NASA utilized Hexcel honeycomb in their first spacecraft, Pioneer 1. The satellite probe
included eight square feet of fiberglass reinforced Hexcel honeycomb plastic that only weighed
15 ounces. At a press conference hosted by Hexcel president Roger C. Steele in October 1958,
he lauded the company's honeycomb "structural sandwich" construction as the "highest
strength to weight ratio of any material known to man" and could be used "to build a space
vehicle of extraordinary strength with an absolute minimum of weight" (Oakland Tribune 1958
October 23). The special fiberglass reinforced plastic honeycomb was developed for radio and
electrical transmission properties, and the structural sandwich construction created a heat
resistant barrier to protect the internal instrumentation. Although Pioneer 1 was meant to orbit
the moon, a programming error resulted in the satellite only traveling 71,300 of the 222,000
miles, but did collect data of the extent of the Earth's radiation belts (Concord Transcript 1958
December 8).
Success of the structural integrity of Pioneer 1 led to more contracts between Hexcel and NASA.
By the early 1960s, Hexcel developed cutting -edge materials for several space programs and
missions including the Mariner Program satellites (1960-1975); Project Mercury spacecraft
(1958-1961); Project Gemini spacecraft (1961-1966); and Apollo Program command and lunar
module spacecraft (1960-1972). Hexcel honeycomb protected John Glen as he became the first
American to orbit the earth in February 1962 in Friendship 7, part of the Mercury program
(Oakland Tribune 1962 September 23; Hexcel.com 2023; Contra Costa Times 1970 June 21).
Hexcel continued research and development for NASA through the 1960s and created several
types of honeycomb for NASA spacecraft. The Apollo 8 capsule held three astronauts when it
left Earth's and orbited the Moon ten times in December 1968 and contained layers of
honeycomb to create the lightweight but high -strength structural capsule shell. A cylindrical
honeycomb called "tube -core" was installed under the astronauts' seats to help absorb G-force
energy loads. A heatshield made of stainless -steel honeycomb and steel alloy sheets and an
internal reinforced plastic honeycomb ablative heat shield were placed on the inside and
outside of the capsule (Contra Costa Times 1968 December 4). This same structural and heat
protection honeycomb was used in subsequent capsules in the Apollo program, including
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 46
Apollo 9 and Apollo 11. Hexcel also developed a new honeycomb used on the Apollo 11 lunar
module landing struts and footpads for the first moon landing in July 1969. This specific
honeycomb design crushed and folded -in on itself to a absorb the impact of the landing and
prevent bouncing (Contra Costa Times 1967 March 26; Contra Costa Times 1969 March 28;
Times Record News 1970 April 10). After the moon landing, a local newspaper interviewed
proud Hexcel employees at the headquarters in Dublin. While the newspaper noted that
300,000 people from 20,000 companies were involved in some capacity with the moon landing,
Hexcel stood out because they "developed the best material NASA has found for use in
spacecraft" (Argus 1969 July 24).
Hexcel continued its NASA relationship into the 1970s and development of the Space Shuttle
program. Hexcel honeycomb was used in the nose cap, payload doors, and wings in the first
space shuttle Columbia that launched in April 1981. Columbia flew 28 missions during its 22
years in service (NASA.gov 2023; Hexcel.com 2023).
Hexcel also supplied $1 million worth of materials for the Discovery Space Shuttle launched in
August 1984. Honeycomb was used in the cargo bay doors, a new carbon composite heat shield
material that could be used on several missions before needing to be replaced and wove high -
temperature resistant ceramic fabric to line the flight crew's cabin to protect them from
extreme heat upon earth re-entry (Seguin Gazette Enterprise 1988 September 30; Hexcel.com
2023).
Lackey, Knorr & Elliott (1967 Hexcel addition)
Hexcel commissioned the large headquarters addition to the 1962 former Royal Research
facility in 1967 from architects Lackey, Knorr & Elliott, based out of San Francisco. Donald R.
Knorr and Edward P. Elliott formed their first partnership Knorr -Elliott & Associates in 1958. The
firm received awards of excellence from Architectural Record for residential designs in 1958
and 1963; a citation for the Dux Incorporated furniture company headquarters and warehouse
in South San Francisco in 1963; a merit award for a dental plaza in Stanford in 1963; and an
environmental award for the Koret of California distribution plant in South San Francisco in
1968 (PCAD 2023b; AIA 1970: 516). In 1967, the partnership included architect Lawrence
Lackey, with the 1967 Hexcel addition appearing to be the only design produced by the
collaboration (Oakland Tribune 1967 November 12). Lackey was an urban planner, architect,
and landscape architect based out of San Francisco, active between the late 1950s and 1970s.
He was best known for the Master Plan he designed for the University of Fairbanks in Alaska in
1965 (PCAD 2023a; Contra Costa Times 1967 March 26).
Man in Space National Historic Landmark Theme Study
Congress passed Public Law 96-344 in 1980 which directed the Secretary of the Interior to
produce a study that identified events and locations associated with the "Man in Space" theme
to be brought into the National Park system and ways to present these significant locations,
structures, and objects to the public. It also required evaluation of the resources identified with
the Man in Space theme for recommendation as National Historic Landmarks (NHLs). The
resulting study was first published in 1984 as "Man in Space: A National Historic Landmark
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 47
Theme Study," prepared by Dr. Harry A. Butowsky. In it, Butowsky identified 23 research and
development facilities, testing facilities and stands, astronaut training facilities, tracking
stations, mission control centers, a launch pad, and the Saturn 5 Space Vehicle that he
recommended as NHLs and prepared NRHP Nomination Forms for each resource (Butowsky
1984 May: passim). Butowsky acknowledges that undoubtedly contractor -owned facilities and
sites played significant roles in the United States' pursuit to the moon and subsequent space
programs, however this document in its first phase does not identify or provide guidance about
these properties.
The original report does however identify four significant themes for the Man in Space context
which resources would be considered historically significant. They include: 1. Technical
Foundations before 1958; 2. The Effort to Land a Man on the Moon; 3. The Exploration of the
Planets and the Solar System; and 4. The Role of Scientific and Communications Satellites.
These four subthemes provided a foundation for identification of significant properties.
However, this early report lacks the details to clearly spell out what types of properties would
or would not be significant under these subthemes for modern National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) analysis.
A second phase of the report was published later in 1984 that identified another launch pad as
well as three spacecrafts, which were not previously identified in the first report. The three
spacecrafts, Mercury Friendship 7 (1962), Gemini 4 (1964), and the Apollo 11 Command
Module (1969) were all located in the National Air and Space Museum at the Smithsonian
Institution in Washington, D.C. Butowsky declared the three spacecrafts as "nationally
significant historic objects ... it is important to recognize the national significance of the objects
having internal integrity which have contributed critically to the success of the space program
and, together, form an integral chapter in that program's history" (Butowsky 1984 August:1-2).
These spacecrafts represented a first, or breakthrough, for each program's mission. While the
first phase of the report stated that the second phase would examine the importance of
contractors, it was not included. Butowsky did not specifically call out any private company, but
he described the use of Hexcel fiberglass honeycomb in the description of the Apollo 11
Command Module. All three of these spacecrafts contain honeycomb developed by Hexcel for
NASA (Butowsky 1984 August: passim).
Based on the results of AECOM's historical resource evaluation, the Hexcel Corporation R&D
facility at 11711 Dublin Avenue (P-01-010656) is eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1
because it is significant at the national level for its association with the Man in Space historic
context under subtheme 2. The Effort to Land a Man on the Moon and retains sufficient
integrity to its period of significance (1967 and 1969). The property has been evaluated in
accordance with Section 15064.5(a)(2)-(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, using the criteria outlined in
Section 5024.1 of the California Public Resources Code and is a historical resource for the
purposes of CEQA.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 48
Regulatory Framework
Cultural resources in California are protected by a number of regulations. The following
provides a brief outline of the regulations, policies, and ordinances that are applicable to the
proposed project.
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 United States Code 470) and its
implementing regulations (36 CFR 800) establish a program for the preservation of historic
properties throughout the United States and provides a framework for identifying and treating
historical and archaeological resources under the CEQA. Section 106 of the NHPA requires that
federal projects or projects under federal jurisdiction consider the effect of an undertaking on
properties eligible for or included in the NRHP. Historic properties that are listed in or eligible
for the NRHP are considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA.
National Register of Historic Places
Historic properties are those significant cultural resources that are listed in or are eligible for
listing in the NRHP per the criteria listed below (36 CFR 60.4):
The quality of significance in American, state, and local history, architecture, archeology,
engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that
possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association
and meet one or more of the following criteria:
a. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history;
b. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
c. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, or
that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction;
d. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Ordinarily, cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historic figures; properties owned by religious
institutions or used for religious purposes; structures that have been moved from their original
locations; reconstructed historic buildings; and properties that are primarily commemorative in
nature are not considered eligible for the NRHP, unless they satisfy certain conditions. In
general, a resource must be 50 years of age to be considered for the NRHP, unless it satisfies a
standard of exceptional importance.
Listing in the NRHP does not entail specific protection of, or assistance for a property. However,
listing does guarantee the property's recognition during planning for federal or federally
assisted projects, eligibility for federal tax benefits, and qualification for federal historic
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 49
preservation assistance. Additionally, project effects on properties listed in the NRHP must be
evaluated under CEQA.
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
The "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties" (Secretary's
Standards), codified in 36 CFR 67, provide guidance for working with historic properties. The
Secretary's Standards are used by lead agencies to evaluate proposed rehabilitative work on
historic properties. The Secretary's Standards are a useful analytic tool for understanding and
describing the potential impacts of proposed changes to historic resources. Projects that
comply with the Secretary's Standards benefit from a regulatory presumption that they would
not result in a significant impact to a historic resource. Projects that do not comply with the
Secretary's Standards may or may not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historic property.
In 1992, the Secretary's Standards were revised so they could be applied to all types of historic
resources, including landscapes. They were reduced to four sets of treatments to guide work on
historic properties: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction.
Rehabilitation acknowledges the need to alter or add to a historic property to meet continuing
or changing uses while retaining the property's historic character and is most applicable to this
Project. The Rehabilitation standards are as follows:
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal
change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of
distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that
characterize a property will be avoided.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes
that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features
or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be
retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity
of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will
match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of
missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest
means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must
be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 50
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new
work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic
materials, features, size, scale, and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of
the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a
manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on
the historical resource per CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(b).
State
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires public agencies to consider the effects of their actions on "historical resources,"
"unique archeological resources," and "tribal cultural resources." Pursuant to PRC Section
21084.1, a "project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment." Section
21083.2 requires agencies to determine whether proposed projects would have effects on
unique archeological resources.
Historical Resources
"Historical resource" is a term with a defined statutory meaning (PRC § 21084.1; determining
significant impacts to historical and archeological resources is described in the CEQA Guidelines,
§ 15064.5[a] and [b]). Per the CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5(a), historical resources include
the following:
(1) A resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources
Commission, for listing in the CRHR (PRC § 5024.1).
(2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC § 5020.1(k)
or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC §
5024.1(g), will be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must
treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates
that it is not historically or culturally significant.
(3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency
determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering,
scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of
California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency's
determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 51
(4) The fact that a resource is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR,
not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Cal. Pub. Resources Code
§ 5020.1(k)), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Cal. Pub.
Resources Code § 5024.1(g)) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the
resource may be a historical resource as defined in Cal. Pub. Resources Code§§ 5020.1(j) or
5024.1.
Non -Unique Archeological Resources
Under CEQA, archeological resources are presumed non -unique unless they meet the definition
of "unique archeological resources" (Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21083.2[g]). Under CEQA, an
impact on a non -unique archeological resource is not considered a significant environmental
impact.
Unique Archeological Resources
Archeological resources can sometimes qualify as "unique archeological resources" that are not
"historical resources." (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(c)(3)). PRC, Section 21083.2(g)
defines a unique archeological resource as an artifact, object, or site about which it can be
clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a
high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that
there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; or
2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best
available example of its type; or
3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic
event or person.
If a project can be demonstrated to cause damage to a unique archeological resource, the lead
agency may require reasonable efforts to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in
place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed,
mitigation measures are required (PRC Section 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]).
California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR is a guide to cultural resources that must be considered when a government agency
undertakes a discretionary action subject to CEQA. The CRHR helps government agencies
identify, evaluate, and protect California's historical resources, and indicates which properties
are to be protected from substantial adverse change (Pub. Resources Code, Section 5024.1(a)).
The CRHR is administered through the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) which is
part of the California State Parks system. A cultural resource is evaluated under four CRHR
criteria to determine its historical significance. A resource must be significant at the local, state,
or national level in accordance with one or more of the following criteria set forth in the CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3) and Public Resources Code section 5024.1:
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR l Page 52
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
pattern of California's history and cultural heritage;
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses
high artistic values; or
4. It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the CRHR requires that sufficient time
must have passed to allow a "scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with
the resource." The CRHR also requires a resource to possess integrity, which is defined as "the
authenticity of a historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of
characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance. Integrity is evaluated
with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association.
Codes Governing Human Remains
Human remains are protected by several laws in the State of California, including Health and
Safety Codes (HRC) 7050.5, 7051, 7052, and 7055. Together these laws define criminal
consequences for disturbing, disinterring, mutilating, or removing human remains from their
place of rest or discovery.
Section 7050.5 of the Health & Safety Code requires that construction or excavation be stopped
in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the county coroner can determine whether
the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native
American, the coroner must then contact the California Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC), which has jurisdiction pursuant to Public Res. Code § 5097. The NAHC, pursuant to PRC
Section 5097.98, will immediately notify the person it believes to be most likely descendant
(MLD), of the deceased Native American person so they can inspect the burial site and make
recommendations for appropriate treatment or disposition.
Section 7051 makes it a crime, punishable by imprisonment, to remove any human remains
from the place where they have been interred or deposited without authority of law. Section
7052 protects human remains from mutilation and disinterment. Section 7055 makes it a crime
to remove interred human remains from a cemetery.
Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin General Plan, Chapter 7 Environmental Resources Management Conservation
Element, provides guidance for the protection of archaeological and historic resources in Dublin
and guiding policies related to historic and cultural resources are as follows:
Guiding Policy 7.7.1A.1: Preserve Dublin's historic structures.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 53
Seven sites in the Primary Planning Area are listed in the California Archaeological Inventory,
Northwest Information Center, at Sonoma State University including the church and school on
the grounds of the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums. As many as a dozen potentially
significant historic and prehistoric sites have been identified in the Eastern Extended Planning
Area.
Guiding Policy 7.7.1A.2: Follow State regulations as set forth in Public Resources Code Section
21083.2 regarding discovery of archaeological sites, and Historical Resources, as defined in
Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code.
Guiding Policy 7.7.1A.3: Preserve the Green Store.
The Green Store is a recognized historical resource and has been used as a church since 1989.
This use can remain as long as the landowner(s) wish to continue its operation. The Parks/
Public Recreation designation on the General Plan Land Use Map illustrates the long-term
potential for expansion of the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums to include this historic
structure and the property it is on and is not intended to affect or change the current church
use or its continued operation as a religious land use under a valid conditional use permit.
Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan
The Project site is located within the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan boundary. The
Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan (SP) was adopted in 2006 and updated in 2014.
Applicable goals and objectives of the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan related to
historic and cultural resources are as follows:
Goal 1: Preserve and protect the valuable historic resources within the Dublin Village Historic
Area.
Objective 1.1: Identify Dublin's historic resources and adopt a formal Historic Resources
Inventory.
Objective 1.2: Identify mechanisms to protect properties on the Historic Resources Inventory
from being destroyed or altered to the point of removing their historic value.
Objective 1.3: Identify incentives to encourage the preservation and enhancement of privately -
owned historic resources.
Objective 1.4: Pursue formal designation and recognition of Dublin's historic resources through
the California State Office of Historic Preservation and National Registry.
Objective 1.5: Work cooperatively with property owners to rehabilitate Alamilla Springs.
Objective 1.6: Ensure that improvements and renovations to publicly -owned historic resources
are done according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 54
Goal 2: Guide the design of future development to reinforce the unique historic qualities and
design elements that once defined Dublin Village.
Objective 2.1: Create design guidelines for residential, commercial, and mixed -use
development on private property.
Objective 2.2: Create design guidelines that provide direction for future streetscape
improvements in the public right of way.
Objective 2.3: Create guidelines that provide direction on the preferred preservation and
rehabilitation techniques for properties on the Historic Resources Inventory.
Additionally, the SP includes mitigation measures that apply to the treatment of historic
resources within the Dublin Village Historic Area, drawn from the Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared by the City in 2006 (City of Dublin 2006). The
mitigation measures for the Project will meet the requirements set forth in the SP and the
associated IS/MND (City of Dublin 2014: Appendix B; City of Dublin 2006).
SP Mitigation Measure 4: In High Archeological Probability Areas (including a 150 meter
(493 foot) corridor centered on Dublin Creek and within the general vicinity of St.
Raymond's Church, Pioneer Cemetery, and the Dublin Square Shopping Center site), the
permitting of future ground disturbance shall include provisions for further archival and
field study by an archeologist, archeological testing and, and, if necessary, archeological
monitoring during construction.
SP Mitigation Measure 5: Should preconstruction excavation or borings be conducted
outside of the High Archeological Probability Areas, but within the project area, a
qualified archeologist shall monitor the work to define the presence or absence of
buried resources in order to promote advance planning for mitigation purposes.
SP Mitigation Measure 6: If a Native American artifact or human remains are identified
during any demolition or construction in the project area, work on the project shall
cease immediately until those steps outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (e) can
be taken to the satisfaction of the Dublin Community Development Director. Project
work may be resumed in compliance with the requirements of Section 15064.5 (e).
Additionally, the County Coroner shall be contacted immediately and Section 7050.5(b)
of the California Health and Safety Code (relating to the discovery of Native American
remains) should be implemented.
SP Mitigation Measure 7: If an archeological, prehistoric, or paleontological resource is
discovered during any demolition or construction in the project area, work on the
project shall cease immediately until a resource protection plan conforming to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5 (f) is prepared by a qualified archeologist and approved by
the Dublin Community Development Director. Project work may be resumed in
compliance with such plan.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 55
Dublin Historic Resources Inventory
The Dublin Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) was created when the Dublin Village Historic Area
Specific Plan was adopted by the Dublin City Council in 2006. The HRI was established to
"recognize those few remaining resources that have a place in Dublin's history, including those
resources that might be significant to the immediate community but not significant at the state
or federal level" (City of Dublin Community Development Department 2014: 27).
The HRI consists of resources that were found eligible for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR, or
only having local significance, from the survey efforts undertaken in Dublin Historic Resources
Identification Project that was finalized in 2004 by Page & Turnbull, Inc. The HRI includes only
seven resources, three of which are near the 6600 block of Donlon Way: St. Raymond's Church,
Murray Schoolhouse, and the Pioneer Cemetery, which have been combined as the "Dublin
Heritage Center." The Pioneer Cemetery is adjacent to the Hexcel property, and historic
documents suggest it extends into the Project parcel (VerPlanck 2003b).
The Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan did not establish goals or policies for maintaining
or adding properties to the HRI. No guidelines were provided to reevaluate properties in the
Dublin Village Historic Area that were less than 50 years old at the time the survey was
conducted in 2004, nor any significance criteria or mechanisms for nominating or adding
properties to the HRI.
Previous CEQA Documents
The City of Dublin hired the archaeological firm William Self Associates, Inc. (WSA) in 2003 to
prepare an Archaeological Assessment Report of the Donlon Way Specific Plan (later renamed
the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan area). A record search at the Northwest
Information Center (NWIC), conducted by WSA, did not identify any previously recorded
archaeological sites within the Specific Plan area boundaries, but one new archaeological site
was recorded during the pedestrian survey and Archeological High Probability areas were also
identified within the Specific Plan area boundaries. The Archaeological Assessment Report
concluded that there is a moderate -to -high -probability of identifying Native American
archeological resources and a high -probability of encountering historic -period archeological
resources within the Specific Plan area boundaries.
The City of Dublin hired the architectural firm Page & Turnbull, Inc. in 2003 to prepare the
Dublin Historic Resources Identification Project that was finalized in 2004. The city contracted
with Page & Turnbull to identify and map historic resources in an approximately 38-acre area
for a future Specific Plan for the Donlon Way area (later renamed the Dublin Village Historic
Area Specific Plan) and to prepare preservation recommendations. Page & Turnbull prepared a
historic context of the Dublin Village area and recorded all of the properties in the survey area
on Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 A and B forms. The Hexcel Corporation R&D
facility on the Project site was recorded as part of this effort on December 10, 20003 (VerPlanck
2003f). At that time, the facility was not considered old enough (at least 50 years old) to be
considered a potential historical resource under CEQA. Additionally, while the historic
evaluation did contain a thorough historic context statement, it did not address the four
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 56
eligibility criteria for either the NRHP or the CRHR, but merely concluded that the property
lacked architectural or historical significance to be eligible.
The Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan was adopted by the Dublin City Council on August
1, 2006, under Resolution No. 149-06 and relied on the findings of the Archaeological
Assessment Report of the Donlon Way Specific Plan and the Dublin Historic Resources
Identification Project. The approximately 38-acre Specific Plan area included the two project
site parcels. Subsequently, three Specific Plan addendum and amendments have been prepared
for the Specific Plan. City Council determined that no new significant impacts were identified by
the addendums or amendments, and no further environmental analysis was required.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5 (Significant and Unavoidable Impact)
A historical resource evaluation was prepared for the Hexcel Corporation's 1960s-constructed
R&D facility on the Project site to assess its eligibility for listing in the CRHR as a potential
historical resource for the purposes of CEQA (see Appendix C). The facility was determined to
be eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1, because it is significant at the national level
for its associations within the Man in Space historic context published by the National Park
Service and is, therefore, considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.
The significance of an historical resource is considered to be "materially impaired" when a
project demolishes or materially alters the physical characteristics that justify the
determination of an historical resources' significance. Because the proposed Project would
result in the demolition of the existing Hexcel Corporation R&D facility, which is a historical
resource for the purposes of CEQA, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable
impact on a historical resource.
CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation must be completed even if it does not mitigate
project impacts below a level of significance. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b), states that
"In some circumstances, documentation of an historical resource, by way of historic narrative,
photographs or architectural drawings, as mitigation for the effects of demolition of the
resource will not mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the
environment would occur." Therefore, recordation of a resource prior to demolition does not
typically mitigate the physical impact on the environment caused by demolition or destruction
of an historical resource; however, it does serves a legitimate archival purpose. Therefore, the
following mitigation measures are required , even though they would not fully offset the loss of
the resource, and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: HABS Recordation
In consultation with the City of Dublin Planning Division, the Project applicant shall
document the Hexcel Corporation R&D facility prior to demolition. Documentation shall
be performed by a Secretary of Interior -qualified professionals (in history or architectural
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 57
history) and be consistent with the standards of the National Parks Service (NPS) Historic
American Building Survey (NABS) and shall consist of the following elements:
1. Historical Report: A qualified historian or architectural historian shall assemble
historical background information relevant to the Hexcel Corporation R&D facility
in short format Historic American Building Survey (HABS), based on HABS
guidelines for historical reports. Much of this information may be drawn from the
previous Historical Resource Evaluation and would detail critical information such
as the property's significance, physical description, history, and a summary of
information sources.
2. Photographs: Large format, black and white photographs of the Hexcel
Corporation R&D facility shall be taken and processed for archival permanence in
accordance with HABS, Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), and HALS
(Historic American Landscapes Survey) Photography Guidelines in effect at the
time of recording. The standards require large format black -and -white
photography, with the original negatives having a minimum size of 4"x5". Digital
photography, roll film, film packs, and electronic manipulation of images are not
acceptable.
The photographs shall be taken by a professional with HABS photography experience. A
minimum of 10 and a maximum of 24 photographs must be taken, detailing the site,
building exteriors, and interiors, specifically the R&D portion of the building.
Photographs must be identified and labeled using HABS/HALS standards.
Following completion of the HABS documentation, including the short form historical
report and large format photographs, and approval by the City of Dublin, the materials
shall be placed on file with the City of Dublin Planning Division, and the Dublin Historical
Society at the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Interpretive Displays
In concert with HABS documentation (Mitigation Measure CUL-1), the Project applicant
shall install permanent interpretive displays or signage for public exhibition detailing the
history and significance of the Hexcel Corporation R&D facility at the Project site. The
interpretive displays or signage could be based on the photographs produced in the
HABS documentation and the historic archival research previously prepared as part of
the Project.
The interpretive displays or signage shall be prepared by an architectural historian or
historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards,
in coordination with an exhibit designer.
Interpretive displays or signage at the Project site shall be located outside of the new
building, near the publicly accessible sidewalk and/or inside the new building in a
prominent space, such as the lobby, where they may be viewed by employees and
visitors.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 58
Even with implementation of the mitigation measures identified above, the Project would still
result in a significant and unavoidable impact to the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, as it would result in its demolition. Therefore,
the Project would have a Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A
discussion of alternatives that would involve the partial preservation and adaptive reuse of the
portion of the building where the NASA research took place is presented in Alternatives
Considered but Rejected section of this EIR.
(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to section 15064.5 (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated)
The proposed Project would include excavation of much of the Hexcel Corporation R&D facility
property, which is adjacent to the Dublin Village Historic Settlement. The Dublin Village Historic
Settlement is recorded as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA (P-01-002127) and
includes Old St. Raymond's Church, the Pioneer Cemetery, the Old Murray School, Green's
Store, the site of the Green Mansion and Murray Homestead, and Donlon Way. St. Raymond's
Church is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NPS 06000242), eligible under
criteria A and C, with the Pioneer Cemetery listed as a contributing element. Additionally, the
Hexcel property falls within the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, therefore the project
must abide by the mitigation measures proposed in the associated IS/MND (City of Dublin
2014; City of Dublin 2006).
Based on the existence of archeological resources within and adjacent to the Project area, there
is a high probability of encountering historic -period archeological resources during ground
disturbance at the Project site, particularly within those portions of the property closest to St.
Raymond's Church and Pioneer Cemetery, and a high probability of identifying Native American
archeological resources, particularly within a 150 meter (493 foot) corridor centered on Dublin
Creek.
Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines directs public agencies to avoid damaging effects on an
archeological resource whenever possible. For a project that could impact an archeological
resource, Section 15064.5 (Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical and Unique
Archeological resources) of the CEQA Guidelines applies and all requirements of this section
shall be met in the course of reviewing and implementing the Project. In order to mitigate any
potential impacts to resources in the Project area, further archival and field study by an
archeologist shall be undertaken prior to the construction of any development projects in the
area in accordance with the recommendations of the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan
and associated IS/MND (City of Dublin 2014; City of Dublin 2006).
In sum, there is a high potential for previously unrecorded archaeological resources associated
with the historic settlement to be within the Hexcel Property. Additionally, the Hexcel property
is adjacent to the marked boundary of the Pioneer Cemetery, a contributing element to the
NRHP listed resource, St. Raymond's Church (P-01-010635 / CA-ALA-521H / NPS 06000242).
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 59
The High Archeological Probability Areas identified for this Project, per the guidance of the
Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan and associated IS/MND, are the areas most proximate
to St. Raymond's Church and Pioneer Cemetery, and a 150 meter corridor centered on Dublin
Creek. This includes the portion of the Project site to the east of the existing Hexcel building
and much of the southern parking lot, approximately 115,763 square feet of the total project
area of 383,764 square feet (30 percent). Per the proposed design, excavation within this High
Archaeological Probability Area would exceed 1 foot below ground surface (bgs) in an area of
approximately 61,850 square feet (53 percent) of the area, with a maximum depth of
approximately 12 feet bgs.
The possibility of encountering buried archaeological resources in the Project area outside of
the High Archeological Probability Area, remains a concern as well, and per the mitigation
measures in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan and associated IS/MND, requires
mitigation to avoid adverse impact.
If previously unrecorded archaeological resources associated with historical resources are
present within the Hexcel property and/or if burials extend beyond the marked boundary of the
adjacent Pioneer Cemetery, earthmoving and excavation activities to implement the Project
could damage or destroy these buried resources, and the Project impact to archaeological
resources would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Archaeological and Tribal Monitoring
A. A qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional
Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be retained by the applicant prior to
implementing construction or soil remediation activities that involve earthmoving or
soil excavation, and the archaeologist shall be available for consultation or evaluation
of any cultural resources uncovered by such activities. Prior to the start of excavation,
the archaeologist shall produce a Treatment and Monitoring Plan, in consultation
with the City of Dublin, and through them, with any consulting Native American tribes.
The Treatment and Monitoring Plan will comply with mitigation measures 4, 5, 6, and
7, set forth in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, Appendix B, and will
specify the following:
i. Archaeological testing to be done prior to the start of construction.
ii. Archaeological and Tribal monitoring requirements, which will be based on the
results of archaeological testing and consultation with Native American tribes.
iii. Procedures and considerations for handling, documenting, analyzing, and
curation of any historic -era or pre -contact era artifacts encountered during
project activities.
iv. Procedures and considerations for handling, documenting, analyzing, and
curation of any human remains from the historic era. (For human remains of
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 60
Native Americans, treatment protocols would be established with the designated
MLD).
B. If an archaeological resource (or suspected resource) is discovered during monitoring of
project activities, construction or excavation activities within a 50-foot radius of the find
shall be temporarily halted or directed to other areas, pending the archaeologist's
evaluation of its significance. If the resource is significant, data collection, excavation, or
other standard archaeological or historical procedures shall be implemented to mitigate
impacts, pursuant to the Treatment and Monitoring Plan and the archaeologist's
direction. If any human remains are encountered, the archaeologist shall contact the
appropriate County Coroner immediately, and security measures shall be implemented
to ensure that burials are not vandalized until the decision of burial deposition has been
made pursuant to California law. If human remains are determined to be Native
American interments, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage
Commission pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and follow the
procedures stated herein and other applicable laws. A report by the archaeologist
evaluating the find and identifying mitigation actions taken shall be submitted to the
CPUC. Where appropriate to protect the location and sensitivity of the cultural
resources, the report may be submitted under Public Utilities Code Section 583 or other
appropriate confidentiality provisions.
Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Inadvertent Discovery Protocols
A. Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall retain a qualified
archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification
Standards for archaeology to implement archaeological awareness training for all
construction personnel involved with ground disturbing or excavation activities. The
training shall include information regarding the possibility of encountering buried
cultural resources, the appearance and types of resources likely to be seen during
construction, notification procedures, and proper protocols to be followed should
suspected or confirmed resources be encountered by the crew. This training shall be
provided once to each worker involved in ground -disturbing activities before they
begin work, and shall be documented in training records.
B. In the event that precontact or historic -age resources (or suspected resources) are
inadvertently discovered during Project implementation, all activity within a 50-foot
radius of the find shall be stopped, the City of Dublin's Project Manager shall be
notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the City of Dublin to
examine the find, pursuant to Mitigation Measure 7 set out in the Dublin Village
Historic Area Specific Plan, Appendix B. Project personnel shall not collect or move any
historic material. The archaeologist shall evaluate the find(s) within 48 hours to
determine if it meets the definition of a historical or unique archaeological resource
and follow the procedures outlined below:
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 61
i. If the find(s) does not meet the definition of a tribal cultural resource, a historical
resource or a unique archaeological resource, no further study or protection is
necessary prior to resuming Project implementation.
ii. If the find(s) does meet the definition of a historical resource or unique
archaeological resource, then it shall be avoided by Project activities and
preserved in place. If avoidance is not feasible, as determined by the City of
Dublin, the qualified archaeologist shall make appropriate recommendations
regarding the treatment and disposition of such find(s), and significant impacts to
such resources shall be mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of the
archaeologist prior to resuming construction activities within the 50-foot radius.
iii. If the find(s) does meet the definition of both a tribal cultural resource and a
historical or unique archaeological resource, then it shall be treated in accordance
with Mitigation Measure CUL-3.
C. Recommendations for treatment and disposition of find(s) could include, but are not
limited to, archaeological monitoring, collection, recordation, and analysis of any
significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovery shall
be submitted to NWIC.
i. In the event that archaeological resource(s) are discovered during Project
implementation, an archaeological monitor shall be retained to monitor all
ground- disturbing activities in the vicinity (i.e., within 50 feet) of the find.
Archaeological monitors have the authority, upon the finding of a potential
resource, to request that work be slowed, diverted, or stopped if archaeological
resources are identified within the direct impact area.
If the resource is determined by an archaeologist to be a historical or unique
archaeological resource, the archaeologist shall amend the Treatment and
Monitoring Plan, with measures to avoid or reduce impacts to the resource. The
treatment plan measures may include, but not be limited to, avoidance and
preservation in place (the preferred method if feasible), capping, incorporation of
the site within a park or other open space, or data recovery. If the resource is also
a tribal cultural resource, then designated representatives from the consulting
tribe(s) shall make appropriate recommendations regarding the treatment and
disposition of such find(s) in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-3 and
these recommendations shall be incorporated into the treatment plan.
The mitigation measures require training for all construction workers so that they are aware of
the potential for encountering buried resources and the procedures that need to be followed if
potential precontact or historic period archaeological resources are encountered during on -site
activities, as well as the regulations pertaining to discovery of human burials. Because the
mitigation measures require stopping work within the area of any potential find(s), and require
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 62
that a qualified archaeologist inspect the find and make recommendations for avoiding or
reducing impacts (in collaboration with tribal representatives), implementation of mitigations
CUL-3 and CUL-4, would reduce the potential impact on archeological and buried resources to
less -than -significant with mitigation.
(c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries (Less
Than Significant)
The proposed Project would include excavation of the parking lot to the south of the Hexcel
Corporation R&D facility, which is adjacent to the marked boundary of the Pioneer Cemetery.
Marked grave sites in the cemetery are within five feet of the Hexcel property fence. Historic
documents suggest that the cemetery was larger than the currently marked boundary, and was
used as an Ohlone burial site and as a burial ground for Native American and Mexican farm
workers on Jose Maria Amador's Ranchero San Ramon prior to consecration of the official
cemetery in 1860 (Bennett 1978, VerPlanck 2003b).
For these reasons, there is a high probability that portions of the cemetery extend to the west
of the marked cemetery, beneath the Hexcel parking lot. As designed, excavation depths in the
area outside the existing building footprint would range up to 10 feet below surface along the
southern boundary of the Hexcel property. If unmarked portions of the cemetery extend
beneath the Hexcel property, the Project has the potential to disturb human remains during
earthmoving and excavation activities to implement the Project. The disturbance of human
remains could be a potentially significant impact if measures are not taken to protect the
remains from damage, destruction, or discretion.
Human burials, in addition to being potential archaeological resources, have specific provisions
for treatment in Section 5097 of the California Public Resources Code. The California Health and
Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, 7052, and 7055) also has specific provisions for the
protection of human burial remains. Existing regulations address the illegality of interfering
with human burial remains, protect them from disturbance, vandalism, or destruction, and
established procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered.
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 also addresses the disposition of Native American
burials, protects such remains, and established the NAHC to resolve any related disputes.
Compliance with these regulations is mandatory for all projects; therefore, if human remains
are encountered during Project implementation, work at the project site would stop, the
Alameda County Coroner would be notified immediately, and no further disturbance would
occur until the county coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to
PRC Section 5097.98. The remains would be protected from disturbance, vandalism, or
destruction until such decision is made. If the human remains are determined to be from the
historic -era, treatment, including excavation, documentation, analysis, and curation, will follow
the archaeological Treatment and Monitoring Plan, as per CUL-3.A.iv. If the human remains are
determined to be Native American, the coroner is required to notify the NAHC, which would
determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD) within 24 hours. The MLD must complete
the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 63
and non-destructive analysis of Native American human remains and items associated with
Native American burials. Pre -activity archaeological testing is to be included as part of the
Archaeological Treatment and Monitoring Plan, per CUL-3.A.i. Archaeological testing prior to
any ground disturbing activities would reduce the potential for disturbance of human remains
during construction. However, it should be noted, archaeological testing would not eliminate
the potential or degree to impact human remains, but would give the contractor more
information on whether the resources are present and at what depths they could be
encountered. The Reduced Grading Alternative, described in the Alternatives section, would be
the most effective way to reduce the potential for adverse impacts. In addition, Mitigation
Measure CUL-4 specifically requires training for all construction workers on the required
regulations and procedures to be followed in the event that human burials are encountered.
Compliance with the mandatory regulations pertaining to human burials would reduce the
potential for destruction or desecration of human remains, if encountered during project
construction. Compliance with procedures defined in the archaeological Treatment and
Monitoring Plan and/or in negotiation with the MLD will ensure that the treatment of human
remains will be respectful, and will be mitigated to the satisfaction of consulting descendent
populations. As a result, the impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
Source(s)
AIA Historical Directory of American Architects (AIA). 1970. "Knorr, Don Robert." Available at:
https://content.aia.org/sites/default/files/2018-09/Bowker1970K.pdf. Accessed
January 2023.
Argus. 1969 July 24. "Honeybee Plays A Part In Apollo Moon Voyage." 5.
Beardsley, Richard K. 1948. Culture Sequences in Central California Archaeology. American
Antiquity 14(1):1-28.
Beebe, Rose Marie, and Robert M. Senkewicz. 2001. Lands of Promise and Despair: Chronicles
of Early California, 1535-1846. Berkeley: Heydey Books.
Bennett, Virginia Smith. 1978. Dublin Reflections and Bits of Valley History. Published by Dublin
Friends of the Library. Union City, CA: Mill Creek Press.
Bennyhoff, James A., and Richard E. Hughes. 1987. Shell Bead and Ornament Exchange
Networks Between California and the Western Great Basin. Anthropological Papers of
the American Museum of Natural History 64(2):79-175.
Butowsky, Dr. Harry A. 1984 May. Man in Space: National Historic Landmark Theme Study. n.p.
Available at:
https://historicproperties.arc.nasa.gov/downloads/man in space butowsky.pdf.
Accessed January 2023.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 64
. 1984 August. Man in Space: National Historic Landmark Theme Study, Phase 11. n.p.
Available at: http://npshistory.com/publications/nhl/theme-studies/man-in-space-
2.pdf. Accessed January 2023.
City of Dublin. 2006. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Draft Dublin
Village Historic Area Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, Draft Parks and
Recreation Master Plan 2006 Update, Dublin Historic Park Draft Mater Plan, and Dublin
Village Historic Area Rezoning. Planning Application File No. PA 02-074. On file with the
City of Dublin.
City of Dublin Community Development Department. 2014 (updated). Dublin Village Historic
Area Specific Plan. Adopted by the Dublin City Council on August 1, 2006, Resolution No.
149-06. Available online:
https://www.dubiin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7780/DVHASP-FULL-PDF-
10714?bidld=. Accessed April 2023.
. 2022 (amended). General Plan. Available online:
https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30287/General-Plan-Update-
04192022-WEB. Accessed April 2023.
Concord Transcript. 1958 December 8. "Moon Rocket Fails, But Space Science Gains." 1.
Contra Costa Times. 1967 February 24. "New Research Facility Set for SR Valley." 1-2.
. 1967 March 26. "Hexcel in Dublin — Honeycomb Goes to Work." 30.
. 1968 December 4. "Hexcel Honeycomb To Cushion Apollo 8." 4C.
. 1969 March 28. "Honeycomb Cocoon" [caption]. 8.
. 1970 June 21. "SR Valley Sets Pattern For County's New Space -Age Industry." 7.
Daily Review (Hayward, CA). 1962 August 22. "Dublin Research Firm — New Industry Plan
$350,000 Plant." 8.
Gerow, Bert A., with Roland W. Force. 1968. An Analysis of the University Village Complex with
a Reappraisal of Central California Archaeology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Groza, Randall Gannon. 2002. An AMS Chronology for Central California Olivella Shell Beads.
Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Francisco State University.
Hexcel.com. 2023. "History & Timeline." Available at: https://www.hexcel.com/About/History-
and-Timeline. Accessed January 2023.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 65
Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. 1994 July 1. Results of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the
Hexcel Research and Development Facility, 11711 Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, California,
Prepared for Hexcel Corporation.
Kyle, Douglas E., Mildred Brooke Hoover, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Grace Rensch, and William
N. Abeloe. 2002. Historic Spots in California, Fifth Edition. Stanford, California: Stanford
University Press.
Los Angeles Times. 1957 October 11. "Century Eng. Wil Change Name to Royal Industries." Part
Five, Page 9.
Minnear, Steven. 2018. Dublin California: A Brief History. Charleston, S.C.: The History Press.
NASA.gov. 2023. "NASA Orbiter Fleet." Available at:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/shuttleoperations/orbiters/columbia info.htm.
Accessed January 2023.
National Park Service (NPS). 2006. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for St.
Raymond's Church, Record Number 06000242. Available at:
https://catalog.archives.gov/search?page=1&q=%22national%20register%20of%20histo
ric%20places%22%2006000242. Accessed June 2023.
NPS. 2006. See National Park Service.
Oakland Tribune. 1958. October 23. "Berkeley Form Has Tole in First Moon Probe Vehicle." 34.
. 1959 September 17. "Notes on Bay Commerce." 62.
. 1960 August 7. "Two Eastbay Atomic Firms Merge, Plan for Expansion." 26.
. 1960 September 4. "San Ramon Village Grand Opening: Celebration Starts Today at
Model City. 2-R.
. 1961 October 27. "Supervisors OK Expansion in Dublin Area." 11-E.
. 1962 September 23. "Button Pusher: Canaveral Just Fires Cal Creations." 43.
. 1966 May 18. "$1 Million Headquarters For Hexcel in Dublin." 46.
. 1967 May 22. "News of Business, Industry." 13.
. 1967 November 12. "Courtyards and Patios Upgrade Environment." 10-CM - 11-CM.
. 1984 July 11. "Building Permits - Dublin." 62.
. 1984 May 16. "Building Permits - Dublin." 64.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 66
. 1985 November 13. "Building Permits — Dublin." 16.
. 1988 June 6. "Hexcel." B-3.
Pasadena Independent. 1963 June 5. "Royal Industries Sells Subsidiary." 19.
Pacific Coast Architecture Database (PCAD). 2023a. "Lawrence Lackey." Available at:
https://pcad.lib.washington.edu/person/3022/. Accessed January 2023.
. 2023b. "Knorr — Elliott and Associates, Architects (Partnership)." Available at:
https://pcad.lib.washington.edu/firm/1030/. Accessed January 2023.
Pederson, Jay P., Editor. 1999. International Directory of Company Histories, Volume 28. San
Francisco, CA: St. James Press.
San Francisco Examiner. 1962 July 2. "Industrial Engineer" [classified advertisement]. 36.
. 1966 June 26. "Big Koret Shipping Center." 25.
. 1966 May 18. "$1 Million Bay Unit for Hexcel." 71.
Seguin Gazette -Enterprise (Seguin, Texas). 1988 September 30. "Discovery Carries Hexcel
Products." 1-2.
Stockton Daily Evening Record. 1962 July 31. "Work Starts on Bay Area Plant." 4.
Times Record News (Wichita Falls, Texas). 1970 April 10. "Apollo 13 Flight Materials Produced In
Graham Plant." 5A.
VerPlanck, Christopher. 2003a. "Department of Parks and Recreation form: 7100 San Ramon
Road, The Springs Apartments, Alamilla Springs." P-01-010634, on file at Northwest
Information Center, Sonoma State University, Sonoma, CA.
. 2003b. "Department of Parks and Recreation form: Dublin Pioneer Cemetery." P-01-
010637, on file at Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Sonoma, CA.
. 2003c. "Department of Parks and Recreation form: Old St. Raymond's Church." P-01-
010635, on file at Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Sonoma, CA.
. 2003d "Department of Parks and Recreation form: Old Murray School." P-01-
010636, on file at Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Sonoma, CA.
. 2003e "Department of Parks and Recreation form: Green's Store." P-01-008150, on
file at Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Sonoma, CA.
. 2003f "Department of Parks and Recreation form: 11711 Dublin Boulevard." P-01-
010656, on file at Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Sonoma, CA.
City of Dublin
Section 4: Energy
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 67
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Less Than
Significant
Potentially Impact with
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
4. 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 proposed Project is located in the City of Dublin within Alameda County. Electric and
natural gas services to Alameda County are provided by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E).
In 2021, PG&E delivered approximately 78,588 gigawatt-hours of electricity within its service
area (California Energy Commission 2023a). PG&E's total natural gas throughput was
approximately 4,467 million therms in 2021 (California Energy Commission 2023b). PG&E
provides power from a variety of sources: biomass and biowaste, geothermal, small and large
hydroelectric, solar, wind, natural gas, and nuclear (PG&E 2021).
In 2018, East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) began serving Dublin residential, business, and
municipal electricity customers. To help meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions
goals set in the City of Dublin's Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond (discussed below), the
Dublin City Council voted in January 2021 to set the default electricity option for Dublin
residences to EBCE's Renewable 100 service, which began in January 2022, and is sourced from
California wind and solar facilities, including a new wind farm in Livermore. Customers can
change their EBCE service or return to PG&E service at any time. All municipal electric accounts
in Dublin have been powered by Renewable 100 since July 2019 (City of Dublin 2023).
Transportation, such as gasoline and diesel fuel consumption, is also an energy -consuming
sector, and applicable to the proposed Project (diesel and gasoline fuel consumption during
construction and operational activities). Transportation is the largest energy -consuming sector
in California, accounting for approximately 34 percent of all energy use in the state in 2020 (EIA
2022a). Historically, gasoline and diesel fuel accounted for nearly all transportation -related
energy demand; now, however, numerous transportation power options are available,
including ethanol, natural gas, electricity, and hydrogen. Nonetheless, despite advancements in
alternative fuels and clean -vehicle technologies, gasoline and diesel remain the primary fuels
used for transportation in California, with 12.7 billion gasoline gallon equivalents of petroleum
(GGEs) consumed in 2021 and 3.7 billion GGEs of diesel consumed in 2020 (DOE 2023).
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 68
Regulatory Framework
Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975
established the first fuel economy standards for on -road motor vehicles sold in the United
States. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration is responsible for establishing
standards for vehicles and revising the existing standards. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) program was created to determine vehicle manufacturers' compliance with the fuel
economy standards. The EPA administers the testing program that generates the fuel economy
data.
Energy Policy Acts of 1992 and 2005. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 was enacted to reduce
dependence on imported petroleum and improve air quality by addressing all aspects of energy
supply and demand, including alternative fuels, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. This
law requires certain federal, state, and local government and private fleets to purchase
alternate fuel vehicles. The act also defines "alternative fuels" to include fuels such as ethanol,
natural gas, propane, hydrogen, electricity, and biodiesel.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was enacted on August 8, 2005. This law set federal energy
management requirements for energy -efficient product procurement, energy savings
performance contracts, building performance standards, renewable energy requirements, and
use of alternative fuels. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also amends existing regulations,
including fuel economy testing procedures.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Signed into law in December 2007, the Energy
Independence and Security Act was enacted to increase the production of clean renewable
fuels; increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles; improve the federal
government's energy performance; and increase U.S. energy security, develop renewable fuel
production, and improve vehicle fuel economy. The Energy Independence and Security Act
included the first increase in fuel economy standards for passenger cars since 1975. The act also
included a new energy grant program for use by local governments in implementing energy -
efficiency initiatives, as well as a variety of green building incentives and programs.
Light -Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards. On May 7, 2010, the final Light -Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards and CAFE
Standards were published in the Federal Register. Phase 1 of the emissions standards required
that model year 2012-2016 vehicles meet an estimated combined average emissions level of
250 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) per mile, which is equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon, if the
automobile industry were to meet this CO2 level solely through fuel economy improvements.
On March 31, 2022, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finalized the CAFE
Standards for model years 2024-2026. The final rule establishes standards that would require
an industry -wide fleet average of approximately 49 miles per gallon for passenger cars and light
trucks in model year 2026, by increasing fuel efficiency by 8 percent annually for model years
2024 and 2025, and 10 percent annually for model year 2026.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 69
Heavy -Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards. In September 2011, in response to a Presidential
Memorandum issued in May 2010, EPA in coordination with National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHSTA) issued GHG emissions and fuel economy standards for medium and
heavy duty trucks manufactured in model years 2014-2018, known as Phase 1 GHG Rule.
In October 2016, EPA and NHTSA jointly finalized Phase 2 standards for medium- and heavy-
duty vehicles through model year 2027 that will improve fuel efficiency and cut carbon
pollution to reduce the impacts of climate change, while bolstering energy security and spurring
manufacturing innovation.
On December 20, 2022, EPA adopted a final rule, "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy -Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards," that sets stronger emissions standards to
further reduce air pollution, including pollutants that create ozone and particulate matter, from
heavy-duty vehicles and engines starting in model year 2027. The final program includes new,
more stringent emissions standards that cover a wider range of heavy-duty engine operating
conditions compared to today's standards, and it requires these more stringent emissions
standards to be met for a longer period of time of when these engines operate on the road.
This final rule is consistent with President Biden's Executive Order, "Strengthening American
Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks" and is the first step in the Clean Trucks Plan.
City of Dublin General Plan. The City of Dublin General Plan, adopted in 1985 and amended in
2022, includes an Environmental Resources Management: Energy Conservation Element. The
following implementing policies related to energy efficiency and conservation in new
development would be applicable to the proposed Project (City of Dublin 2022):
• New development proposals shall be reviewed to ensure lighting levels needed for a safe
and secure environment are provided —utilizing the most energy -efficient fixtures (in most
cases, [light emitting diode] LED lights) —while avoiding over -lighting of sites. Smart lighting
technology (e.g. sensors and/or timers) shall also be employed in interior and exterior
lighting applications where appropriate.
• New development projects shall install LED streetlights in compliance with the City's LED
light standard.
• In new commercial and residential parking lots, require the installation of conduit to serve
EV parking spaces to enable the easier installation of future charging stations.
• Encourage the installation of charging stations for commercial projects over a certain size
and any new residential project that has open parking (i.e. not individual, enclosed garages).
• Encourage buildings (and more substantially, whole neighborhoods) to be designed along
an east -west axis to maximize solar exposure. Where feasible, require new development
projects to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping and sun screens to
reduce energy use; and to use regenerative energy heating and cooling source alternatives
to fossil fuels.
• Continue to implement parking lot tree planting standards that would substantially cool
parking areas and help cool the surrounding environment. Encourage landscaping
conducive to solar panels in areas where appropriate.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 70
• Promote and encourage photovoltaic demonstration projects in association with new
development.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 2030. The City of Dublin adopted its Climate Action Plan
2030 and Beyond (CAP 2030) in September 2020, as a guiding document to identify ways in
which the community and City can reduce GHG emissions, meet Dublin's long-term climate
action goals, and promote a healthy, prosperous community. The CAP 2030 focuses on the
following strategies: 100 percent renewable and carbon -free electricity; building efficiency and
electrification; sustainable mobility and land use; materials and waste management; and
municipal leadership measures (City of Dublin 2020).
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources (Less Than
Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated)
Energy efficiency is a possible indicator of environmental impacts. The actual adverse physical
environmental effects of energy use and the efficiency of energy use are detailed throughout
this EIR and the Initial Study in Appendix A in the environmental topic -specific sections. For
example, the use of energy for transportation sources (including construction equipment and
haul trucks) leads to GHG emissions, the impacts of which are addressed in Section 3.9,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. There is no physical environmental effect associated with energy
use that is not addressed in the environmental topic -specific sections of this EIR and the Initial
Study in Appendix A.
The proposed Project activities would increase energy consumption for the duration of
construction in the form of fossil fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel). Transportation energy use
during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment (off -
road), delivery and haul trucks (on -road), and construction employee passenger vehicles (on -
road). Construction -related transportation energy use depends on the type and number of
trips, vehicle miles traveled, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Most of the
construction equipment used during demolition and construction activities would be gas- or
diesel -powered equipment. The use of fuel by on -road and off -road vehicles would be
temporary and would fluctuate according to the phase of construction. Construction fuel use
under the proposed Project would cease upon completion of construction activities.
The annual energy consumption was estimated using the CalEEMod CO2 emissions calculations
for the proposed construction activities, application of the U.S. Energy Information
Administration's CO2 emissions coefficients (EIA 2022b) to estimate fuel consumption for
construction activities, and The Climate Registry's 2022 Default Emission Factors (The Climate
Registry 2022) to estimate the energy content per fuel type. Additional modeling assumptions
and more details are provided in Section 3.4, Air Quality, and Appendix D. Construction and
operational energy consumption associated with the proposed Project is summarized in Table
7: Construction and Operational Energy Consumption.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 71
Table 7: Construction and Operational Energy Consumption
Energy Consuming Activity
Energy
Requirement
Unit
Annual Energy
Consumption
(MMBtu)
Construction Diesel Consumption (amortized)1 1,278 gal/year 176
Construction Gasoline Consumption (amortized)' 201
gal/year 25
Construction Fuel Subtotal (amortized) 202
Building Electricity Consumption 2 1,209,922 kWh/year 4,128
Building Operations Energy Subtotal 4,128
Transportation Electricity Consumption 2 32,528 kWh/year 111
Transportation Diesel Consumption 2 6,174 gal/year 852
Transportation Gasoline Consumption 2 49,324 gal/year 6,166
Transportation Subtotal 7,128
Total Project Energy Requirement 11,458
Existing Land Uses Energy Requirement 12,236
Net Project Total - - (778)
Notes: gal/year = gallons per year; kWh/year = kilowatt hours per year; MMBtu = million British thermal units
1Since construction -related energy demand would cease upon completion of construction, energy demand associated with construction of the
proposed Project was amortized over the proposed Project lifetime. The assumed amortization period is 30 years, based on the typically
assumed project lifetime based on other air districts (e.g., South Coast Air Quality Management District [2008]).
'The operational energy consumption estimates assumed the proposed Project would include 18,000 square feet of office space, 36,500 square
feet of light industrial space, and 70,804 square feet of warehousing space. Based on the latest site plan, it is anticipated the proposed Project
would include 18,000 square feet of office space, 30,000 square feet of light industrial space, and 77,304 square feet of warehousing space. As
light industrial land uses generate higher daily vehicle trips than warehousing land uses, daily vehicle trips and the associated energy
consumption due to fuel usage is anticipated to be lower (i.e., the energy estimates assumed the proposed Project would generate 494 daily
trips, based on the 2022 Transportation Impact Study (W-Trans 2022); however, the proposed Project based on the updated site plan is
anticipated to generate approximately 468 daily trips). Similarly, based on California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) default data,
building energy consumption rates for light industrial land uses are higher than building energy consumption rates for warehousing space. As
such, the energy consumption presented above is conservative since fuel consumption and electricity consumption would be lower.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would result in a higher net reduction in energy consumption compared to existing
conditions.
Based on the anticipated phasing of the construction activities, the anticipated equipment and
construction work staff, the temporary nature of construction, and the project type, the
proposed Project would not include unusual characteristics that would necessitate the use of
construction equipment that is less energy -efficient than the equipment used at comparable
construction sites.
In addition, construction contractors are required, in accordance with Mitigation Measure AQ-
1 and the CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel -Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle
Idling, to minimize the idling time of construction equipment and trucks by shutting equipment
off when it's not in use or reducing the idling time to 5 minutes. Per Mitigation Measure AQ-1,
construction contractors would also be required to maintain and properly tune all construction
equipment in accordance with the manufacturer's specification. These required practices would
limit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 72
The proposed Project would redevelop an existing industrial building consisting of research and
development land uses, with a new building approximately double the size of the existing
building, consisting of office, warehouse, and light industrial land uses. Although the proposed
Project is approximately double the size of the existing building, as shown in Table 7 the
proposed Project would result in a net reduction in energy consumption, primarily related to
improved building energy standards and eliminating natural gas infrastructure.
Therefore, energy consumption associated with construction and operation of the proposed
Project would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary with Mitigation Measure AQ-1
incorporated. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
(b) Conflict with local plan for renewable energy (No Impact)
The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct any state or local plans for renewable
energy or energy efficiency and there would be no impact. See the Initial Study in Appendix A
for the complete analysis.
Source(s)
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2023a. 2021 Electricity Consumption by Entity: Pacific Gas
& Electric Company. Available online: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx.
Accessed February 2023.
. 2023b. 2021 Gas Consumption by Entity: Pacific Gas & Electric Company. Available online:
http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx. Accessed February 2023.
City of Dublin. 2020. Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond. September. Available online:
https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/24447/Climate-Action-Plan-2030-And-
Beyond. Accessed March 2023.
. 2022. General Plan. Available online:
https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30287/General-Plan-Update-
04192022-WEB. Accessed March 2023.
. 2023. Energy. Available online: https://dublin.ca.gov/2032/Energy. Accessed March 2023.
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). 2021. Power Content Label. Available online:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/4653. Accessed February 2023.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008. Draft Guidance Document — Interim CEQA
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. Available online:
http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-
ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed February 2023.
The Climate Registry. 2022. Default Emission Factor Document. May. Available online:
https://theclimateregistry.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2022-Default-Emission-
Factors-Final.pdf. Accessed February 2023.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 73
United States Department of Energy (DOE). 2023. Alternative Fuels Data Center: California
Transportation Data for Alternative Fuels and Vehicles. Available online:
https://afdc.energy.gov/states/ca. Accessed April 2023.
United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2022a. State Profile and Energy
Estimates: California. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2.
Accessed February 2023.
. 2022b. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients. October. Available online:
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2 vol mass.php. Accessed February
2023.
W Traffic Engineering Transportation Planning (W-Trans). 2022. Final Transportation Impact
Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project. December.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 74
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
Section 5: Geology and Soils
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 75
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Less Than
Significant
Potentially Impact with
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
5. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial advers
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineate
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faul
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 lif
or property?
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR l Page 76
Environmental Setting
Seismic Hazards
The Project site is situated in a seismically active area within the Diablo Range, along the margin
of the eastern Diablo Hills and the western edge of the Livermore Valley. The fault trace of the
active Calaveras Fault is approximately 965 feet east of the Project site, and the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone associated with the Calaveras Fault is approximately 450 feet east of the
Project site (DOC 2023). The active Pleasanton Fault is approximately 2.4 miles east of the
Project site (Jennings and Bryant 2010). Other active faults in the Project region include a
portion of the Las Positas Fault (approximately 11.7 miles to the southeast), the Greenville Fault
(approximately 12.5 miles to the northeast), and the Hayward Fault Zone (approximately 7.3
miles to the southwest).
The Project site is located within an Earthquake Zone of Required Investigation for liquefaction
as delineated by the California Geological Survey (CGS) (DOC 2023).
Soils
Based on a review of Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey data, native soil
at the Project site consists of the Yolo loam (calcareous substratum, 0 to 6 percent slopes) soil
type (NRCS 2022).
A preliminary geotechnical investigation was prepared for the proposed Project, which included
four soil borings in the developed portion of the Project site north of Dublin Creek (Cornerstone
Earth Group [Cornerstone] 2022). The results of soil borings indicated that the near -surface
soils consist of undocumented artificial fill consisting of clay with variable amounts of sand and
gravel, and clayey sand with gravel, to depths ranging from 1.5 to 5 feet below the ground
surface (bgs). Below the artificial fill, clay with sand and silt was present to the maximum soil
boring depth of 40 feet bgs.
Paleontological Resources
The near -surface soils at the Project site consist of artificial fill material to depths ranging from
1.5 to 5 feet bgs (Cornerstone 2022). Native sediments at the Project site beneath the artificial
fill consist of the late Miocene to early Pliocene -age Contra Costa Group, which includes the
Orinda and Moraga Formations. The Contra Costa Group is comprised of nonmarine
sedimentary rocks including sandstone, conglomerate, shale, and minor claystone, limestone,
and tuff (Wagner et al. 1991).
A search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) database indicates
there are over 40 recorded vertebrate fossil sites from within the Contra Costa Group (UCMP
2023). Most of these sites are in Contra Costa County; however, five of the sites are within
Alameda County. The closest recorded vertebrate fossil site from within the Contra Costa Group
is Bolenas Creek, approximately 6.5 miles northwest of the Project site (UCMP 2023).
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 77
Paleontological Sensitivity Analysis
A paleontologically sensitive geologic formation is one that is rated high for potential
paleontological productivity (i.e., the recorded abundance and types of fossil specimens, and
the number of previously recorded fossil sites) and is known to have produced unique,
scientifically important fossils. Exposures of a specific geologic formation at any given Project
site are most likely to yield fossil remains representing particular species or quantities similar to
those previously recorded from that geologic formation in other locations. Therefore, the
paleontological sensitivity determination of a rock formation is based primarily on the types
and numbers of fossils that have been previously recorded from that formation.
In its standard guidelines for assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts on paleontological
resources, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP 2010) established four categories of
sensitivity for paleontological resources: high, low, no, and undetermined. Areas where fossils
have been previously found are considered to have a high sensitivity and a high potential to
produce fossils. Areas that are not sedimentary in origin and that have not been known to
produce fossils in the past typically are considered to have low sensitivity. Areas consisting of
high-grade metamorphic rocks (e.g., gneisses and schists) and plutonic igneous rocks (e.g.,
granites and diorites) are considered to have no sensitivity. Areas that have not had any
previous paleontological resource surveys or fossil finds are considered to be of undetermined
sensitivity until surveys are performed. After reconnaissance surveys, a qualified paleontologist
can determine whether the area of undetermined sensitivity should be categorized as having
high, low, or no sensitivity. In keeping with the SVP significance criteria, all vertebrate fossils are
generally categorized as being of potentially significant scientific value.
The near -surface artificial fill consists of materials that were excavated from another location,
transported to the Project site, and then graded and compacted. During the excavation and
subsequent construction process, any fossils that may have been present in the original
materials would have been destroyed. Therefore, the artificial fill is not paleontologically
sensitive.
Because of the large number of vertebrate fossils that have been recovered from the Contra
Costa Group, it is considered to be of high paleontological sensitivity.
Regulatory Framework
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act) (PRC Sections 2621-2630)
was passed in 1972 to reduce the hazard of surface faulting to structures designed for human
occupancy. The Alquist-Priolo Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones
known as Earthquake Fault Zones around the surface traces of active faults and to issue
appropriate maps. Before a project can be permitted in a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that
proposed structures would not be constructed across active faults.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 78
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (PRC Sections 2690-2699.6) addresses earthquake
hazards from non -surface fault rupture, including liquefaction and seismically induced
landslides. The act established a mapping program for areas that have the potential for
liquefaction, landslide, strong ground shaking, or other earthquake and geologic hazards. The
act also specifies that the lead agency for a project may withhold development permits until
geologic or soils investigations are conducted for specific sites and mitigation measures are
incorporated into plans to reduce hazards associated with seismicity and unstable soils.
California Building Standards Code
The California Building Standards Code (CBC) (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations)
provides minimum standards for building design in California. The CBC applies to building
design and construction in the state and is based on the federal Uniform Building Code (UBC)
used widely throughout the country (generally adopted on a state -by -state or district -by -district
basis). The CBC has been modified for California conditions with numerous more detailed or
more stringent regulations. The State earthquake protection law (California Health and Safety
Code, Section 19100 et seq.) requires that structures be designed to resist stresses produced by
lateral forces caused by earthquakes. The CBC requires that any structure designed for a project
site undergo a seismic design evaluation that assigns the structure to one of six categories, A—F;
Category F structures require the most earthquake -resistant design. The CBC philosophy
focuses on "collapse prevention," meaning that structures are to be designed to prevent
collapse during the maximum level of ground shaking that could reasonably be expected to
occur at a site. CBC Chapter 16 specifies exactly how each seismic -design category is to be
determined on a site -specific basis, based on site -specific soil characteristics and proximity to
potential seismic hazards. CBC Chapter 18 regulates the analysis of expansive soils, slope
instability, liquefaction, and surface rupture attributable to faulting or lateral spreading, along
with an evaluation of lateral pressures on basement and retaining walls, liquefaction and loss of
soil strength, and lateral movement or reduction of the foundation's soil -bearing capacity.
Dublin Municipal Code Section Chapter 7.16, Grading Regulations
The City of Dublin Grading Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 7.16) requires a geologic/soil
investigation report, preliminary grading plans, proposed provisions for storm drainage control,
and any existing or proposed flood control in the vicinity of the grading. A conceptual plan for
erosion and sediment control is also required, including both temporary facilities and long-term
site stabilization features such as planting or seeding for the area affected by the proposed
grading. Chapter 7.16 prohibits grading operations during the rainy season except upon a clear
demonstration, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, that at no stage of the work
will there be any substantial risk of increased sediment discharge from the site. Should grading
be permitted during the rainy season, the smallest practicable area of erodible land must be
exposed at any one time during grading operations and the time of exposure must be
minimized.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 79
City of Dublin General Plan
Chapter 8.0 of the City of Dublin General Plan outlines policies and programs related to seismic
safety, safety and emergency preparedness. The following policies related to geology and soils
are applicable to the proposed project:
• Guiding Policy 8.2.1.A.1. Geologic hazards shall be mitigated or development shall be
located away from geologic hazards in order to preserve life, protect property, and
reasonably limit the financial risks to the City of Dublin and other public agencies that would
result from damage to poorly located public facilities.
• Implementing Policy 8.2.1.B.1. Structural and Grading Requirements
a. All structures shall be designed to the standards delineated in the Dublin Building Code
and Dublin's Grading Ordinance. A "design earthquake" shall be established by an
engineering geologist for each structure for which ground shaking is a significant design
factor.
b. Structures intended for human occupancy shall be at least 50 feet from any active fault
trace; freestanding garages and storage structures may be as close as 25 feet. These
distances may be reduced based on adequate exploration to accurately locate the fault
trace. Generally, facilities should not be built astride potential rupture zones, although
certain low risk facilities may be considered. Critical facilities that must cross a fault,
such as oil, gas, and water lines, shall be designed to accommodate the maximum
expected offset from fault rupture. Site specific evaluations shall determine the
maximum credible offset.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Seismic hazards (No Impact to Less than Significant Impact)
The impact from seismic hazards such as seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading,
landslides and settlement would be less than significant. There would be no impact related to
surface fault rupture as the Project site is not in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. See
the Initial Study in Appendix A for the complete analysis.
(b) Erosion/topsoil loss (Less than Significant)
The Project applicant is required by law to prepare a SWPPP and implement site -specific BMPs
specifically designed to prevent erosion. Furthermore, the Project applicant is required to
implement the provisions of City Municipal Code Chapter 7.16, which require grading and
drainage plans that identify measures to reduce erosion, and which generally prohibits grading
activities during the winter rainy season. Therefore, impacts from construction -related soil
erosion would be less than significant. See the Initial Study in Appendix A for the complete
analysis.
(c-d) Soil stability (Less Than Significant Impact)
Design review performed through the City's permitting process would ensure compliance with
the requirements of the CBC and the City's building standards. Therefore, because the Project
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 80
would implement measures to comply with the CBC and the City's building standards, impacts
from construction and operation related to unstable soils and soil expansion would be less than
significant. See the Initial Study in Appendix A for the complete analysis.
(e) Soil capability to support wastewater disposal, including septic (No Impact)
The proposed Project would not require installation of a septic system or alternative
wastewater disposal system; therefore, there would be no impact from Project construction or
operation. See the Initial Study in Appendix A for the complete analysis.
(f) Unique geologic feature/paleontological resources (No Impact to Less Than Significant
With Mitigation)
Unique Geologic Feature
A unique geologic feature consists of a major natural element that stands out in the landscape,
such as a large and scenic river, gorge, waterfall, volcanic cinder cone, lava field, or glacier.
There are no unique geologic features at the Project site or within the Project viewshed. Thus,
there would be no impact to unique geologic features from Project construction or operation.
Paleontological Resources — Construction
As discussed previously, the Project site is composed of artificial fill to depths ranging from 1.5
to 5 feet, with native Contra Costa Group sediments below the fill. Most grading and
earthmoving activities at the Project site would extend to a maximum depth of 2 to 3 feet
below the ground surface, and therefore would generally be confined to the artificial fill
material, which is not paleontologically sensitive. However, in areas where the artificial fill only
extends to 1.5 feet, excavation and grading would encounter the native Contra Costa Group
materials, which are of high paleontological sensitivity. Furthermore, excavation to a maximum
depth of approximately 12 feet would occur at the proposed on -site stormwater drainage
pumps, which would also encounter the paleontologically sensitive Contra Costa Group
materials. Therefore, project -related earthmoving activities could result in accidental damage
to, or destruction of unique paleontological resources, and this impact would be potentially
significant.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Avoid Impacts to Unique Paleontological Resources.
To minimize the potential for destruction of or damage to previously unknown unique,
scientifically important paleontological resources during earthmoving activities at the
Project site, the Project applicant shall do the following:
Prior to the start of earthmoving activities, retain either a qualified archaeologist
or paleontologist to inform all construction personnel involved with earthmoving
activities regarding the possibility of encountering fossils, the appearance and
types of fossils likely to be seen during construction, and proper notification
procedures should fossils be encountered.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 81
If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the
construction crew shall immediately cease work within 50 feet of the find and
notify the Project applicant and the City. The Project applicant shall retain a
qualified paleontologist to evaluate the resource and prepare a recovery plan,
based on SVP Guidelines. The recovery plan may include, but is not limited to, a
field survey, construction monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures,
museum curation for any specimen recovered, and a report of findings.
Recommendations in the recovery plan that are determined by the City (as the
CEQA lead agency) to be necessary and feasible shall be implemented before
construction activities can resume within 50 feet of the site where the
paleontological resource or resources were discovered.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts to unique paleontological resources
because construction workers would be alerted to the possibility of encountering
paleontological resources and, in the event that resources were discovered, construction would
be halted, and fossil specimens would be recovered and recorded and would undergo
appropriate curation. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, potential
construction -related impacts to unique paleontological resources would be less than significant
with mitigation.
Paleontological Resources — Operation
Because Project operation would not involve ground -disturbing activities, there would be no
impact to unique paleontological resources.
Source(s)
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2023. DOC Maps Data Viewer —Earthquake
Zones of Required Investigation, and Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/DataViewer/. Accessed January 11, 2023.
Cornerstone Earth Group (Cornerstone). 2022. Geotechnical Investigation, Dublin Boulevard
Industrial, 11711 Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, California. Cornerstone Project No. 681-12-1.
Sunnyvale, CA.
Jennings, C.W. and W.A. Bryant. 2010. 2010 Fault Activity Map of California. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/App/index.html. Accessed January 11, 2022.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2022. Web Soil Survey. Available:
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed January 11, 2022.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and
Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology, Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 82
University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). 2023. Paleontological Collections
Database. Available: https://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/about.shtml. Accessed January 25,
2022.
Wagner, D.L., E.J. Bortugno, and R.D. McJunkin. 1991. Geologic Map of the San Francisco -San
Jose Quadrangle, California, 1:250,000. Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 5A.
California Division of Mines and Geology. Sacramento, CA.
City of Dublin
Section 6: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 83
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Less Than
Significant
Potentially Impact with
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
6. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the proj
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
1/4 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
?ct:
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
x
The Project site has been used since the 1960s as a research and development facility, which
tests epoxy resins and composites primarily for aerospace and other applications. The
laboratories were used for small-scale testing, while the building located south of the
offices/laboratories (referred to by Hexcel as the "Hi Bay") was used to test larger quantities of
carbon fiber plates. Part of the research activities include testing prefabricated prototype
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 84
carbon fiber plates. The research activities include chemical testing and reactions of the carbon
fiber plates, as well as climate or extreme condition testing of the plates including extreme
heat, cold, pressure, and electrical conditions, and stress testing. A Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) was performed by Ardent Environmental Group (Ardent) in 2022. The main
chemicals used at the site include petroleum oils and lubricants, non -chlorinated solvents,
metals (such as chromium and aluminum), and acids. According to waste records and a 1994
chemical inventory, historical chemical uses included halogenated solvents, including 1,1,1-
trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) and trichloroethene (TCE). Small containers of the different testing
chemicals were stored in approximately 10 fire cabinets in a designated Hazardous Waste and
Storage Area, while larger quantities of virgin chemicals and wastes were stored in 55-gallon
drums in the Hazardous Waste and Storage Area. The following areas of concern were noted in
the Phase I ESA (Ardent 2022).
• Area of Chemical Use, Storage, and/or Handling. Chemicals are used, stored, and/or
handled in the laboratories (existing and historical), Hi Bay area, and within the hazardous
waste and storage area of the site.
• Former 500-Gallon Waste Chromic Acid Underground Storage Tank (UST, Abandoned In -
Place in 1988). This Underground Storage Tank (UST) was located immediately east of the
Hi Bay portion of the building and was used to containerize waste acid wash reportedly
consisting of deionized water, sulfuric acid, and sodium dichromate generated from the
etching of aluminum panels. Soil and groundwater in the vicinity of this UST were
investigated in the late 1980s under the direction and oversight of the Alameda County
Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH). Laboratory results indicated no detectable
to low concentrations of hexavalent chromium, trivalent chromium, and aluminum. Based
on these results, ACDEH allowed Hexcel to abandon the UST in -place by filling the tank with
a cement slurry.
• Recently Removed 520-Gallon Waste Chromic Acid UST (2021). This UST was formerly
located immediately east of the on -site hazardous waste and storage area and accepted
waste from accidental spills from this area. Floor drains in the hazardous waste and storage
area directed any accidental spills of chemicals to the tank. The UST was removed in April
2021 under the direction and oversight of the ACDEH. Following removal, two soil samples
were collected from within the UST excavation. Laboratory results indicated no detectable
concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons, and no detectable to low concentrations
of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), namely acetone, at levels that were well below
federal and state thresholds. Based on these results, the ACDEH issued a No Further Action
letter dated July 20, 2021.
• Asbestos and Lead -Based Paint. The eastern portion of the existing building was
constructed in 1962, with subsequent additions over the years. Based on the age of the
building, Ardent (2022) concluded that asbestos -containing materials (ACMs) and lead -
based paint are likely present.
As part of the Phase I ESA, Ardent (2022) retained Environmental Database Report (EDR) to
perform a search of federal, State, and tribal hazardous materials databases, and retained
Antea Group to perform a review of identified hazardous materials sites near the Project site.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 85
The database searches included those sites that are identified as part of the Cortese List. The
Project is listed in the SWRCB's GeoTracker database as a Cleanup Program Site; however,
cleanup program sites are not considered part of the Cortese List. No hazardous materials sites
were determined to represent a hazard for the proposed Project (Ardent 2022).
Regulatory Framework
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) has the primary
responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations within California. The
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration enforces hazard communication
program regulations that contain training and information requirements, including procedures
for identifying and labeling hazardous substances, communicating hazard information related
to hazardous substances and their handling, and preparation of health and safety plans to
protect workers and employees at hazardous waste sites. Cal/OSHA regulations also include
requirements for protective clothing, training, and limits on exposure to hazardous materials.
Cal/OSHA also enforces occupational health and safety regulations specific to lead (CCR Title 8
Section 1532.1) and asbestos (CCR Title 8 Section 1529) investigation and abatement.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) implements the State's
hazardous waste management program for the California Environmental Protection Agency.
DTSC has the primary regulatory responsibility, with delegation of enforcement to local
jurisdictions that enter into agreements with DTSC, for the management of hazardous materials
(including remediation) and the generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste under
the authority of California's Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code
Section 25100, et seq.).
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is authorized by the State Water Resources Control Board to
enforce provisions of the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969. This act gives the
San Francisco Bay RWQCB authority to require groundwater investigations when the quality of
groundwater or surface waters of the state is threatened and to require remediation of the site,
if necessary.
Hazardous Waste Transportation
Statutory requirements governing hazardous waste transportation in California are contained in
the California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Articles 6.5, 6.6, and 13.
Hazardous waste transporters must have a valid registration permit issued by DTSC. In addition,
hazardous waste transporters must comply with a variety of other State and federal
regulations, including the California Vehicle Code (CCR Title 13); California State Fire Marshal
Regulations (CCR Title 19); U.S. Department of Transportation regulations (Title 49 Code of
Federal Regulations); and USEPA regulations (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations).
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 86
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, adopted December 15, 1976, regulates hazardous pollutants
from asbestos demolition, renovation, and manufacturing activities. The purpose of the rule is
to control emissions of asbestos to the atmosphere during demolition, renovation, milling and
manufacturing and establish appropriate waste disposal procedures. The rule sets out specific
procedures to be followed and methods for reducing hazards from asbestos -containing
materials during such activities.
Senate Bill 1082 — California Environmental Protection Agency's Unified Program
In 1993, Senate Bill 1082 gave the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) the
authority and responsibility to establish a unified hazardous waste and hazardous materials
management and regulatory program, commonly referred to as the Unified Program. The
Unified Program is overseen by CalEPA with support from DTSC, RWQCBs, the Office of
Emergency Services (OES), and the State Fire Marshal. The purpose of this program is to
consolidate and coordinate hazardous materials and hazardous waste programs, and to ensure
that they are consistently implemented throughout the state. The Unified Program includes:
Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Business Plans), California
Accidental Release Prevention Program, Underground Storage Tank Program, Aboveground
Petroleum Storage Act Program, Hazardous Waste Generator and Onsite Hazardous Waste
Treatment (tiered permitting) Programs, and California Uniform Fire Code Hazardous Material
Management Plans and Hazardous Material Inventory Statements.
State law requires county and local agencies to implement the Unified Program. The agency in
charge of implementing the program is called the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The
Alameda County Department of Environmental Health is the designated CUPA for the county. In
addition to the CUPA, other local agencies, such as the City of Dublin, help to implement the
Unified Program.
City of Dublin General Plan
Section 8.3.4 of the General Plan outlines policies and programs related to hazards and
hazardous materials. The following policies related to hazardous materials are applicable to the
proposed Project:
• Guiding Policy 8.3.4.1.A.1. Maintain and enhance the ability to regulate the use, transport,
and storage of hazardous materials and to quickly identify substances and take appropriate
action during emergencies.
• Guiding Policy 8.3.4.1.A.2. Minimize the risk of exposure to hazardous materials from
contaminated sites.
• Implementing Policy 8.3.4.1.B.4. Require site -specific hazardous materials studies for new
development projects where there is a potential for the presence of hazardous materials
from previous uses on the site. If hazardous materials are found, require the clean-up of
sites to acceptable regulatory standards prior to development.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 87
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Exposure to hazardous materials (Less than Significant Impact)
Since local, state and federal regulations will be complied with during project construction and
operation, these impacts will be less than significant. See the Initial Study in Appendix A for the
complete analysis.
(b) Upset/Accident (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
GeoTracker case no. T0600191495 for Hexcel Corporation was related to the former 500-gallon
waste chromic acid UST that was abandoned in place in 1988 (discussed above in the
Environmental Setting). The case was closed in 2008. Per the ACDEH, when this UST is
encountered during demolition it can be removed and disposed of as construction debris
(Ardent 2022).
With regards to the 520-gallon waste chromic acid UST that was removed in 2021, because
contaminants in soil samples in the tank vicinity were very low (well below regulatory
thresholds), the ACDEH issued a No Further Action letter. Thus, the very minor soil
contamination does not represent a human health or environmental hazard.
Ardent (2022) recommended that a subsurface investigation should be completed in the
vicinity of the on -site areas of chemical use, storage, and handling to assess whether a release
has occurred. If soil or groundwater have been previously contaminated at levels that exceed
regulatory thresholds, this would represent a significant human health and environmental
hazard because excavation work would be required during construction that could release
these hazardous materials. Furthermore, the demolition of the existing building could expose
workers and the environment to hazardous materials such as lead paint and/or asbestos.
Therefore, these construction -related impacts are considered potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure HAZMAT-1: Perform a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment.
• Prior to the start of earthmoving activities at the Project site, the Project applicant
shall retain the services of a qualified remediation firm to perform a Phase 11
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). The Phase 11 ESA shall be limited to only those
areas where chemical use, storage, and handling have previously occurred. Soil
borings shall be obtained as part of the Phase 11 ESA, along with groundwater
samples if necessary. The samples shall be submitted to a laboratory for
environmental testing and the results shall be reported in the Phase 11 ESA, copies of
which shall be provided to the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health
(ACDEH) and the City of Dublin Building Department. If there are no detections of
constituents of concern, or the amounts are below regulatory agency threshold
levels, no further actions shall be required.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 88
• If the results of laboratory analyses from the Phase 11 ESA demonstrate that
constituents of concern are present at levels that exceed regulatory agency threshold
levels, the Project applicant shall consult with ACDEH (and other regulatory agencies
such as the SWRCB if necessary) regarding the necessary actions for remediation. All
necessary remedial activities shall be completed by the Project applicant, with a
certification by the lead agency with remedial oversight (e.g., ACDEH or SWRCB) that
no further action is required, prior to the start of construction activities at the Project
site.
Mitigation Measure HAZMAT-2: Perform Sampling of Materials To Be Demolished.
Prior to demolition of any building in the project area, the building shall be sampled to
determine if the building contains lead paint and/or asbestos. If either of the materials are
determined to be present, they shall be handled and disposed of as a hazardous material and in
compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
Mitigation Measure HAZMAT-1 would reduce potential impacts from exposure to on -site
hazardous materials because soil (and groundwater, if necessary) testing would be performed,
and if contamination is found to be present, any necessary remediation would be completed
prior to the start of Project -related earthmoving activities. Mitigation Measure HAZMAT-2
would sample materials before demolition would occur, and if hazardous materials such as lead
paint and asbestos are to be found, the would be handled and disposed in compliance to
applicable regulations. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZMAT-1 and
HAZMAT-2, potential construction -related impacts from accidental exposure to hazardous
materials would be less than significant with mitigation.
Any use of hazardous materials during project operation would be required to comply with the
manufacturer's labeling instructions and (if applicable) would be required to prepare Hazardous
Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Business Plans) comply with the
requirements of Hazardous Waste Generator (tiered permitting) Programs. Therefore, upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment
during Project operation would be less than significant during project operation.
(c) Hazardous materials near schools (No Impact)
There are no K-12 schools within 0.5 mile of the Project site. Thus, Project construction and
operation would result in no impact from handling of hazardous materials near a school. See
Initial Study in Appendix A.
(d) Hazardous materials list (No Impact)
Because the Project site is not listed on the Cortese list, there would be no impact. See Initial
Study in Appendix A.
(e) Proximity to a public airport (No Impact)
The Livermore Municipal Airport is approximately 6 miles east of the Project site and outside of
the airport's Airport Influence Area (Alameda County 2012). Thus, Project construction and
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 89
operation would result in no impact from airport safety or noise hazards. See Initial Study in
Appendix A.
(f) Impair implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (No
Impact)
All construction materials would be staged on -site, and therefore no temporary lane closures
along Dublin Boulevard would be required during Project construction that could impede
emergency access or hinder emergency evacuation. For Project operation, planned emergency
access throughout the Project site would be reviewed by the City of Dublin Building
Department and the Fire Department to ensure that appropriate widths and turning radii area
are provided for emergency vehicles. Thus, Project construction and operation would result in
no impact from impairment of emergency response or evacuation plans. See Initial Study in
Appendix A.
(g) Expose people or structures to wildland fires (Less Than Significant Impact)
The proposed building would be constructed according to CBC, the California Fire Code and City
of Dublin codes, and ordinances and regulations to minimize fire hazards, including fire
prevention and suppression measures; fire hydrants and sprinkler systems; emergency access;
and other similar requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. See Initial
Study in Appendix A.
Source(s)
Alameda County. 2012. Livermore Executive Airport. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Ardent Environmental Group, Inc. 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Hexcel
Corporation Facility, 11711 Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, California. Ardent Project No.
101327001.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023. GeoTracker. Available:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed January 17, 2023.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 90
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
Section 7: Tribal Cultural Resources
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 91
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Significant Less Than
and Significant
Unavoidabl Impact with
e Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
7. 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 I 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.
x
The analysis in this section considers impacts to tribal cultural resources associated with the
implementation of the proposed Project. This section includes a brief summary of available
ethnographic background information, the results of consultation with two California Native
American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the proposed Project area,
and the Project's potential impacts on tribal cultural resources.
Environmental Setting
The Project site is located in the Amador Valley, along the north bank of Dublin Creek. The
modern address is 11711 Dublin Boulevard, located in the City of Dublin, Alameda County,
California. The property is approximately 8.81 acres. The project site is located within the
Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, with the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums and
Dublin Pioneer Cemetery to the east; 1-580 to the south; and a business park to the west.
Dublin Creek borders the north side of the property.
Ethnographic Context
The project area is within the tribal territory of the Chochenyo Ohlone (Milliken et al. 2007).
The Ohlone are a linguistically defined group, comprised of several autonomous groups that
spoke at least eight different but related languages. The territory of the Ohlone people extends
along the coast from the San Francisco Bay to the Big Sur River and 50 to 60 miles east,
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 92
including the valleys that make up the Tri-Valley area, where the City of Dublin is now located
(Levy 1978:485-486).
At the time of contact, the Ohlone were semi -sedentary hunters and gatherers. Controlled
burning was regularly conducted to modify the landscape and optimize resource production.
The Ohlone used tule balsas for watercraft, and bows and arrows, cordage, and bone and
groundstone tools to procure and process foodstuffs. They hunted terrestrial game, such as
mule deer, tule elk, and pronghorn antelope. Traps were set for smaller game, such as rabbit
and quail. Grasshoppers and other insect foods were collected during group drives. Waterfowl
were a very important part of the diet and were trapped along the tidal marshes. Freshwater
fish and marine resources, such as salmon, steelhead, school fish, shellfish, and kelp, were
harvested and traded. Plant foods were also very important, including acorns, buckeyes, nuts,
seeds, roots, tubers, berries, and fruits (Levy 1978:491-493, Lightfoot and Parrish 2009).
The Ohlone were politically organized in autonomous, extended communities of approximately
200 to 400 people, each having a designated territory. Each group typically included three to
five semi -permanent villages (Milliken et al. 2007). Kroeber referred to these groups as
"tribelets" (Kroeber 1925). At the time of contact, the Pelnen Tribe lived in the western
Livermore Valley, in the area of Pleasanton and south Dublin. The Seunen Tribe lived in north
Dublin, up to the San Ramon area (Milliken 1995). Both the Pelnen and Seunen are part of the
larger Chochenyo Ohlone linguistic group (Milliken et al. 2007).
Despite independent governance, these "triblets" were a network for trade and were often
interlinked by marriage. The role of chief could be held by a man or a woman. Duties of the
chief included providing for visitors, directing ceremonial activities, and leading fishing, hunting,
gathering, and warfare expeditions. The chief served as the leader of a council of elders, who
were advisors to the community (Levy 1978).
Ohlone villages in the Late Period included domed houses with central hearths, thatched with
tule, grass, or other vegetal material and bound with strong, flexible willow branches.
Permanent settlements were usually placed on high ground. Sweathouses were built along
streambanks, and were semi -subterranean with a thatched domed roof. Dance houses were
large, circular or oval domed structures, also with thatched walls and roof. Villages also typically
included an assembly house which was large enough to accommodate all the inhabitants of the
village (Levy 1978).
Regulatory Framework
Tribal cultural resources include sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and
objects, with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, that are also included in or
determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or
included in a local register of historical resources. (PRC 21074 (a)(1)). Tribal cultural resources
may also be resources that are determined by a lead agency such as the City of Dublin, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to the historical
register criteria. (PRC 21074 (a)(2), citing (PRC 5024.1). In those cases, the lead agency
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 93
considers the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe in making its
determination. Tribal cultural resources may contain physical cultural items or may be places or
contributing elements within a tribal cultural resources landscape, such as gathering places,
sacred sites, landscape features, culturally significant plants, or other locations that are related
to the religious and cultural practices, traditions, beliefs, lifeways, arts, crafts, or social
institutions of a living tribal community. This category of resources under CEQA recognizes that
tribes may have unique knowledge, expertise, and information about tribal cultural resources
that are important to the self-identity of tribal nations that can only be identified by the
relevant tribe, thus requiring consultation under CEQA pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52.
Historical resources, unique archaeological resources, or non -unique archaeological resources
may also be tribal cultural resources if they meet the criteria of PRC 21074.
State
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires lead agencies to consider whether
projects would impact tribal cultural resources as a separate category of environmental
analysis. Tribal cultural resources may or may not also be archaeological or historical resources.
For clarity, archaeological and historical resources are addressed in the cultural resources
chapter. In some cases, tribal cultural resources are viewsheds, cultural landscapes, plant
gathering areas, or other sacred spaces that are not readily identifiable to people outside of the
Tribe. In many cases, tribal cultural resources also include an archaeological component, such
as artifacts, features, and sites (with or without human remains). PRC section 21074 states the
following:
a) "Tribal cultural resources" are either of the following:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with
cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the
following:
(A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California
Register of Historical Resources.
(B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in
subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
(2) 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 Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section
5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource
to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope
of the landscape.
c) A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as
defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a "nonunique archaeological resource"
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 94
as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it
conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).
California Health and Safety Code
California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods,
regardless of their antiquity, and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those
remains. Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered
in any place other than a dedicated cemetery, no further disturbance or excavation of the site
or nearby area reasonably suspected to contain human remains can occur until the county
coroner has examined the remains (Section 7050.5b). PRC sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 also
outline the process to be followed in the event that human remains are discovered. If the
coroner determines or has reason to believe the remains are those of a Native American, the
coroner must contact the California NAHC within 24 hours (Section 7050.5c). The NAHC is
responsible for the notification of the MLD. With the permission of the landowner, the MLD
may inspect the site of discovery. The inspection must be completed within 48 hours of
notification of the MLD by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend means of treating or
disposition of, with appropriate dignity, the Native American human remains, and any cultural
or funerary items associated with Native American people.
Assembly Bill 52
AB 52 (effective July 1, 2015) added PRC sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3,
21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3 to CEQA, relating to consultation with California Native
American tribes, consideration of tribal cultural resources, and confidentiality. AB 52 provides
procedural and substantive requirements for lead agency consultation with California Native
American tribes and consideration of impacts on tribal cultural resources, as well as examples
of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts to tribal cultural resources. AB 52
establishes that if a project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, that project may have a significant effect on the environment. Lead
agencies must avoid damaging impacts to tribal cultural resources, when feasible, and shall
keep information submitted by tribes confidential unless the information is deemed publicly
available by the tribe.
AB 52 requires a lead agency to consult with California Native American tribes that are
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project, if the
tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency of proposed
projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation. Section 21080.3.1(d) states
that within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by
a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the
designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California
Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at
least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its
location, the lead agency's contact information, and a notification that the California Native
American tribe has 30 days to request consultation.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 95
Previous CEQA Documents
The City of Dublin hired the archaeological firm WSA in 2003 to prepare an Archaeological
Assessment Report of the Donlon Way Specific Plan (later renamed the Dublin Village Historic
Area Specific Plan area). A record search at the NWIC, conducted by WSA, did not identify any
previously recorded archaeological sites within the Specific Plan area boundaries, but one new
archaeological site was recorded during the pedestrian survey and Archeological High
Probability areas were also identified within the Specific Plan area boundaries. The
Archaeological Assessment Report concluded that there is a moderate -to -high -probability of
identifying Native American archeological resources within the Specific Plan area boundaries.
The City of Dublin hired the architectural firm Page & Turnbull, Inc. in 2003 to prepare the
Dublin Historic Resources Identification Project that was finalized in 2004. The city contracted
with Page & Turnbull to identify and map historic resources in an approximately 38-acre area
for a future Specific Plan for the Donlon Way area (later renamed the Dublin Village Historic
Area Specific Plan) and to prepare preservation recommendations. Page & Turnbull prepared a
historic context of the Dublin Village area and recorded all of the properties in the survey area
on DPR 523 A and B forms.
The Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan was adopted by the Dublin City Council on August
1, 2006 under Resolution No. 149-06 and relied on the findings of the Archaeological
Assessment Report of the Donlon Way Specific Plan and the Dublin Historic Resources
Identification Project. The approximately 38-acre Specific Plan area included the two project
site parcels. Subsequently, three Specific Plan addendum and amendments have been prepared
for the Specific Plan. City Council determined that no new significant impacts were identified by
the addendums or amendments, and no further environmental analysis was required.
Context for Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The impact analysis for tribal cultural resources for this proposed Project is based on
government -to -government consultation with the City of Dublin and the Confederated Villages
of Lisjan and lone Band of Miwok Indians tribes, both of whom had previously requested
notification about projects within the City of Dublin, pursuant to AB 52. Additionally, the results
of the records search and archaeological field survey were considered to help establish whether
tribal cultural resources may be present in the proposed Project area and if so, if they would be
impacted by Project development and implementation. The analysis is also informed by the
provisions and requirements of federal and state laws and regulations that apply to tribal
cultural resources. This section includes the thresholds of significance used in evaluating the
impacts, the methods used in conducting the analysis, and the evaluation of proposed Project
impacts. If significant impacts are identified, then appropriate mitigation measures are
provided.
Methods
A records search was conducted on December 20, 2022, at the California Historical Resources
Information System's NWIC in Rohnert Park, California to identify updates to previously
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 96
completed cultural resources reports or studies within a 0.25-mile radius of the proposed
Project site. No tribal cultural resources or pre -contact archaeological resources were identified
by the records search within the proposed Project site or within the 0.25-mile search buffer.
An archaeological survey of the proposed Project site was conducted on December 16, 2022, by
AECOM Archaeologist Karen Gardner. The survey focused on unpaved areas of proposed
disturbance, to determine if pre -European contact, surficial resources (e.g., dark midden soils,
processed shell or bone, lithics, or groundstone artifacts) were present. The backdirt of animal
burrows was also examined for cultural constituents. No pre -European contact cultural
resources were identified by the archaeological survey.
Consultation with California Native American Tribes
AB 52 provides procedural and substantive requirements for lead agency consultation with
California Native American tribes and consideration of impacts on tribal cultural resources, as
well as examples of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts to tribal cultural
resources. Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows Tribal Governments and
lead agencies 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. The intent of consultation is to provide an opportunity for
interested California Native American Tribal Governments to work together with the City of
Dublin during the proposed Project planning process to identify, avoid, protect and mitigate
impacts to tribal cultural resources.
On April 10, 2023, the City of Dublin sent inquiry letters to the following Native American Tribal
Governments, who had previously requested notification about projects in the City of Dublin,
pursuant to AB 52:
• The Confederated Villages of Lisjan
• The lone Band of Miwuk Indians
Neither tribe responded to the invitation to consultation on tribal cultural resources.
Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate a Project's impacts to tribal cultural resources under
CEQA are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, commonly known as the Initial Study
Checklist. An impact is considered significant if development under the proposed Project would
result in one or more of the following conditions:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined
in PRC § 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:
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 97
Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in PRC § 5020.1(k), or
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 PRC §
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code §
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
Project Impacts and Mitigation
(a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (No Impact)
On December 7, 2022, AECOM sent a request to the NAHC for a search of the Sacred Lands File,
asking if there was any record of traditional cultural resources within the project area. On
December 13, 2022, a response was received from the NAHC, indicating that the search had
negative results.
No listed Tribal Cultural Resources are within the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE)1,
therefore there will be no impact to listed Tribal Cultural Resources, as discussed in the Initial
Study in Appendix A.
(b) Significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1 (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated)
The proposed Project would include excavation of the parking lot to the south of the Hexcel
Corporation R&D facility, which is adjacent to the marked boundary of the Pioneer Cemetery.
Marked grave sites in the cemetery are within five feet of the Hexcel property fence. Historic
documents suggest that the cemetery was larger than the currently marked boundary
(Freudenhem 1977). Additionally, there is anecdotal evidence that the cemetery location was
first used by the Ohlone, and may also include burials of Native American and Mexican farm
laborers who worked for Jose Maria Amador, interred prior to formal consecration of the
cemetery in 1859 (VerPlanck 2003). It is likely that the cemetery extends beneath the Hexcel
parking lot, and possible that the cemetery includes Native American human remains. If so, the
impact to Tribal Cultural Resources would be potentially significant during earthmoving and
excavation activities to implement the Project.
Mitigation Measure TR-1: Inadvertent/Unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources Discovery
Protocols
The City of Dublin shall require the following steps to be taken, including as a part of all
contracts related to construction of the Project, as applicable:
1 The APE means the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause
alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 98
A. Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall retain
representatives from consulting tribe(s), if available, to implement Tribal Cultural
Resources Sensitivity Training for all construction personnel involved with ground
disturbing or excavation activities. The training shall include information regarding
the possibility of encountering buried tribal cultural resources, the appearance and
types of tribal cultural resources that could potentially be seen during construction,
notification procedures, and proper protocols to be followed should suspected or
confirmed tribal cultural resources be encountered. This training shall be provided
once to each worker involved in ground -disturbing activities before they begin work
and shall be documented in training records.
B. If tribal cultural resources or potential tribal cultural resources are discovered during
Project implementation, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be
stopped, the City of Dublin's Project Manager shall be notified, and Tribal
Representatives from the consulting tribe(s) shall be immediately notified. The Tribal
Representative(s) shall evaluate the find(s) within 48 hours to determine if it meets
the definition of a tribal cultural resource (PRC §21074) and follow the procedures
outlined below:
i. If the find(s) does not meet the definition of a tribal cultural resource, no further
study or protection is necessary prior to resuming Project implementation (but
see Mitigation Measures CUL-3 and CUL-4)
ii. If the find(s) does meet the definition of a tribal cultural resource, then it shall be
avoided by Project activities and preserved in place. The contractor shall
implement any measures deemed by the City of Dublin to be necessary and
feasible to preserve in place, avoid, or minimize impacts to the tribal cultural
resource. If avoidance is not feasible, as determined by the City of Dublin, Tribal
Representatives from the consulting tribe(s) if available, shall make
recommendations regarding the culturally appropriate treatment and disposition
of such find(s) and significant impacts to such tribal cultural resources shall be
mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of the consulting tribe(s), if
they are available, prior to resuming construction activities within the 50-foot
radius.
iii. If the find meets the definition of both a tribal cultural resource and a historical
or unique archaeological resource, then it shall be treated in accordance with
the measures described in Section C. below and Mitigation Measure CUL-4.
C. Culturally appropriate treatment may include, but is not limited to, minimal
processing of materials for reburial, minimizing handling of tribal cultural resources
objects, leaving objects in place within the landscape, or returning tribal cultural
resources objects to a location within the Project area where they would not be
subject to future disturbance. No cultural soil maybe removed from the Project site.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 99
Permanent curation, testing, or data collection of tribal cultural resources will not
take place unless requested in writing by the consulting tribe(s).
D. All fill soils imported and used for this Project must be clean, engineered fill.
E. The applicant shall enter into a tribal monitoring agreement with the consulting
tribe(s) prior to the start of ground disturbing activities. The tribal monitoring
agreement shall form the terms and compensation for the tribal monitoring with the
consulting tribe(s) and be utilized in combination with the tribal cultural resource
treatment. Tribal Monitors have the authority to identify sites or objects of cultural
significance and to request, upon the finding of a potential tribal cultural resource,
that work be slowed, diverted, or stopped if such sites or objects are identified
within the direct impact area. Only the consulting tribe(s) can recommend culturally
appropriate treatment of such sites or objects, via their Tribal Monitor. Work within
50 feet of the discovery location cannot resume until all necessary investigation and
evaluation of the discovery under the requirements of the tribal monitoring
agreement have been implemented.
Regarding human remains, as described above, the adjacent Pioneer Cemetery likely extends
beyond the currently marked property boundary into the Hexcel lot to the west. There is
anecdotal evidence that the cemetery location was first used by the Ohlone, and may also
include burials of Native American and Mexican farm laborers who worked for Jose Maria
Amador, interred prior to formal consecration of the cemetery in 1859 (VerPlanck 2003).
Therefore, human remains are likely to be encountered. Project implementation would involve
tree and vegetation removal, grading, trenching, undergrounding of utilities, and potentially
other earthmoving activities. In the event that human remains are discovered during ground -
disturbing activities, they could be inadvertently damaged. This impact would be potentially
significant.
If human remains are found during Project implementation, the State of California 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. In
the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the Alameda County Coroner must
be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be Native American, the
coroner is required to notify the NAHC, which would determine and notify a most likely
descendant (MLD) within 24 hours. The MLD must complete the inspection of the site within 48
hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and non-destructive analysis of
Native American human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
Significance after Mitigation
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure TR-1 and adherence to State regulations, any
tribal cultural resources encountered during construction would be treated in a culturally
appropriate manner in consultation with Tribal Representatives, and the impact to tribal
cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 100
In regards to human remains, compliance with California Health and Safety Code section 7050.5
and California PRC would reduce potential impacts on previously undiscovered human remains.
Implementing this mitigation measure ensures that any potential human remains encountered
during construction would be treated in an appropriate manner under CEQA and other
applicable laws and regulations. By providing consultation with the MLD, this impact would be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Source(s)
Freudenheim, Richard. 1977. National Register of Historic Places Inventory — Nomination Form,
Dublin Village Historic Settlement (CA-ALA-521H, P-01-002127). On file at the Northwest
Information Center in Rohnert Park, California.
Kroeber, A. L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
Levy, Richard. 1978. Costanoan. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, edited by
Robert F. Heizer, 485-495. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institute.
Lightfoot, Kent G., and Otis Parrish. 2009. California Indians and Their Environment: An
Introduction. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Milliken, Randall T. 1995. A Time of Little Choice: the disintegration of tribal culture in the San
Francisco Bay Area, 1769-1810. Menlo Park, CA: Malki-Ballena Press.
Milliken, Randall, Richard T. Fitzgerald, Mark G. Hylkema, Randy Groza, Tom Origer, David
Bieling, Alan Leventhal, Randy S. Wiberg, Andrew Gottsfield, Donna Gillette, Viviana
Bellifemine, Eric Strother, Robert Cartier, and David A. Fredrickson. 2007. Punctuated
Culture Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California Prehistory: Colonization,
Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, 99-124. New York:
AltaMira Press.
VerPlanck, Christopher. 2003. Pioneer Cemetery Site Record (P-01-010637). On file at the
Northwest Information Center in Rohnert Park, California.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 101
Other CEQA Considerations
Cumulative Context
Cumulative impacts do not refer to project -related impacts, but to the impacts of a proposed
project when considered with the impacts of past, present, and probable future projects
producing related impacts, as required by Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines. Other past,
present, and future projects that would contribute to environmental impacts of the proposed
project are referred to as "related projects."
As stated in CEQA Section 21083(b)(2), a project may have a significant effect on the
environment if "its effects are individually limited but cumulatively considerable." According to
the CEQA Guidelines Section 15355:
"Cumulative impacts" refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together,
are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.
a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of
separate projects.
b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment, which
results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts
can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a
period of time.
In addition, as per the CEQA Guidelines: "The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts
caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed
project's incremental effects are cumulatively considerable."
The analysis in this section includes:
• A determination of whether the long-term impacts of all related past, present, and future
plans and projects would cause a cumulatively significant impact; and
• A determination as to whether implementation of the proposed project would have a
"cumulatively considerable" contribution to any significant cumulative impact. (See CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15130[a]-[b], Section 15355[b], Section 15064[h], and Section
15065[c]).
In other words, the required analysis intends to first create a broad context through which to
assess the project's incremental contribution to anticipated cumulative impacts, viewed on a
geographic scale well beyond the proposed project itself, and then to determine whether the
project's incremental contribution to any significant cumulative impacts from all related
projects is itself significant (i.e., "cumulatively considerable" according to CEQA).
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 102
Cumulative Impact Analysis
The City's Development Project website and map provides a snapshot of projects that are at
various stages of the development process around the limits (City of Dublin 2023). All proposed,
recently constructed or foreseeable projects in the City that would contribute to cumulative
impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils
(paleontological resources), hazards and hazardous materials and tribal resources are identified
in Table 8: Cumulative Projects in the City of Dublin below. 26 cumulative projects were
identified in the City.
The Project's potential impacts, with respect to air quality, could extend beyond the Project
area to potentially combine with impacts from the other projects listed in Table 8: Cumulative
Projects in the City of Dublin. This is because air pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere
and drift to other locations, which can increase pollutant levels in those areas. Nonetheless, the
BAAQMD considered the emission levels at which a Project's individual emissions would be
cumulatively considerable in developing its CEQA significance thresholds. The BAAQMD
considers projects that result in emissions that exceed its CEQA significance thresholds to result
in individual impacts that are cumulatively considerable and significant. As discussed in the Air
Quality section of this EIR, the Project's emissions would be below the BAAQMD cumulatively
considerable thresholds. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement Basic
Construction Emission Control Practices would be implemented in compliance with the
BAAQMD threshold for fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.$) during construction. During
operation, the proposed Project would result in a net reduction of emissions compared to
existing conditions for NOx, PM10, and PM2.5, and ROG emissions would not exceed the
BAAQMD thresholds of significance. Because the emissions would be minimized during
construction with mitigation incorporated and reduced during operation, the Project would not
result in substantial cumulative impacts and the impact would be less than significant with
mitigation.
With respect to biological resources, a significant cumulative impact could occur if other
cumulative projects identified in Table 8 would affect the same biological resources as the
Project (e.g., nesting birds and roosting bats).
The cumulative projects that may result in potential impacts to nesting birds would be subject
to applicable federal, state, regional, and local regulations discussed previously in Section 2,
including the Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and, therefore, would also
be required to implement typical nesting bird avoidance measures, similar to those described
for the Project in mitigation measure BIO-1. Because these standard avoidance measures would
reduce the impacts of all cumulative projects, the overall cumulative impact to nesting birds in
the City would be less than significant.
Because common bat species are not protected by other regulations such as the Endangered
Species Act, it is possible that some cumulative projects could include removal of trees or
structures that are used as bat roosting habitat without appropriate precautions being taken to
prevent bat mortality. The overall cumulative impact could be potentially significant. However,
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 103
because the Project would include mitigation measure BIO-2 to avoid bat mortality, the
Project's contribution to the cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable
with mitigation.
The Project could contribute to cumulative impacts on cultural resources and tribal resources, if
projects listed in Table 8: Cumulative Projects in the City of Dublin also contributed to a
substantial loss of historical and tribal resources in the City. As described in Section 3, Cultural
Resources, the Project would result in the complete demolition of the existing Hexcel
Corporation R&D facility, which is a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section
15064.5. This would be a significant and unavoidable impact. However, none of the other
projects listed in Table 8: Cumulative Projects in the City of Dublin would result in the loss of a
historical resource; therefore, the overall cumulative impact to historical resources in the City
would be less than significant.
As discussed in Sections 3 and 7, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, respectively,
based on the existence of the archeological resources within and adjacent to the Project area,
there is a moderate to high probability of identifying Native American archeological resources
and a high probability of encountering historic -period archeological resources in the vicinity of
the Pioneer Cemetery and Dublin Creek. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-
3 through CUL-4, impacts to these resources would be less than significant with mitigation.
Therefore, the contribution of the Project to cumulative projects would be minimal and
cumulative impacts are expected to be less than significant related to these resources.
With respect to energy resources, the geographic context for cumulative energy impacts is
the state of California, as standards for energy efficiency are promulgated at the state level.
Past, present, and probable future projects throughout the state would result in the irreversible
use of diesel and gasoline resources during construction, as well as the incremental increase in
energy consumption from operational building energy and traffic associated with those
projects. However, the use of such resources would be subject to the same regulatory
framework relating to energy and fuel efficiency as the Project and would be anticipated to
become more energy efficient over time as regulatory requirements change and technological
advancements are made. Due to the urbanized nature of the City, future projects are expected
to result in a similar development pattern —while the overall use of electricity and natural gas
on the site and surrounding areas may increase, the energy use per square foot is expected to
decrease due to compliance with modern standards and incorporation of modern technologies
and design standards. Specifically, regarding petroleum use during construction, the Project
and other future projects would consume energy associated with the off -road equipment, truck
trips, and worker vehicle trips. However, construction of the Project and future projects would
be temporary, and compliance with increasingly stringent local and state regulations for fleet
efficiency, and construction best practices limiting vehicle idling would help reduce
construction -related fuel usage. During operation of the Project and future projects, increased
land use intensity would result in additional vehicles miles traveled in the area. However, over
the lifetime of the Project and past, present, and future projects, the fuel efficiency of vehicles
is expected to increase. Similarly, with increasingly stringent local and state regulations for
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 104
energy efficiency in buildings, such as Title 24 of the California Administrative Code and the
Appliance Efficiency Regulations, operational building energy consumption is also expected to
decrease. Therefore, the overall cumulative impact relating to energy consumption and
consistency with energy plans would be less than significant.
Impacts from the Project relating to hazardous materials could also potentially cause offsite
impacts that could potentially combine with impacts from other past, present or foreseeable
future projects. Impact could result from the release of hazardous materials into the
environment such as the soil and water during demolition and construction activities. If this
release was to cause widespread contamination to areas in addition to contamination from
cumulative projects, the Project could result in significant cumulative impacts. However, with
the implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZMAT-1: Perform a Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment, the potential for existing contamination at the site would be investigated, and if
present at levels exceeding regulatory agency thresholds, would be remediated under the
oversight of the appropriate agency. Such remediation actions, if necessary, would take into
account both on- and off -site receptors and potential for cumulative impacts with other nearby
projects or other contaminated sites. Furthermore, all cumulative projects, including
the proposed Project, are required to comply with local, state, and federal regulations for
transport, use, disposal, and accidental release of hazardous materials, which would address
impacts associated with both construction- and operation -related handling of hazardous
materials. Although compliance with applicable regulations would not completely remove the
potential for accidental releases, it would reduce the likelihood of such a spill and would
generally mean that any spill would be limited in size and/or spread. Therefore, the effect of
such incidents would not likely be additive to effects from other, similar incidents occurring
elsewhere on different project sites. Application of these regulations is mandatory; therefore,
cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials are expected to be less than significant.
With respect to paleontological resources, due to the large number of vertebrate fossils that
have been recovered from the Contra Costa Group, it is considered to be of high
paleontological sensitivity. Therefore, earthmoving activities associated with the projects
considered in this cumulative analysis could damage or destroy unique paleontological
resources that may be present in these rock formations, and potentially within other
paleontologically sensitive formations as well, if those projects do not include appropriate
paleontological resource avoidance measures. Therefore, the overall cumulative impact to
paleontological resources could be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure GEO-1: Avoid Impacts to Unique Paleontological Resources would reduce the
potential of the proposed Project to directly impact paleontological resources and, if resources
are encountered during construction, would require measures to ensure that any fossil
specimens are recovered and recorded and undergo appropriate curation. Therefore, the
Project's contribution to the overall cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively
considerable with mitigation.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 105
Table 8: Cumulative Projects in the City of Dublin
Name
Description
Location
(Distance from
Project Site)
Land Use
Status
BASIS
Independent
School
Construct facade improvements to
existing construct fagade
improvements to the existing
81,985 square foot office building
which will be converted to a school,
and construct a 9,134 square foot
gymnasium building, outdoor
recreational play field, trash
enclosure, and associated site
improvements that would serve up
to 800 middle and high school
students
7950 Dublin Blvd.
(1,660 feet)
School
Approved.
Awaiting building
permit submittal
Francis Ranch
(East Ranch)
Development of a 573-unit
residential project, 11.5 acres of
public parks, a 2.6-acre, two -acre
Semi -Public Site
4038 Croak Rd.
(5.6 miles)
Residential
Approved. The
building permit is
currently under
review. Grading
permits issued.
Downtown
Hines North
Demolition of the two existing
commercial buildings totaling
35,427 square feet and
construction of a new 34,995
square foot multi -tenant
commercial building
7200 Amador
Plaza Rd.
(3,630 feet)
Commercial
Application under
review
Dublin Fallon
580
Vesting Tentative Tract Map to
subdivide the 192-acre parcel,
Planned Development Rezone and
Development Agreement. 238 units
and up to 4,400,605 square feet of
General Commercial/Campus Office
uses.
Corner of
Croak Road and
Future Central Pkwy.
(5.5 miles)
Subdivision that
could lead to
future
residential,
commercial,
public
development
Application under
review. NOTE: No
SDR, so no timing
on construction.
Quarry Lane
School —
Performing Arts
Center
Construct a new 13,800-square foot
building comprised of a performing
arts center and other support
spaces, including a new parking lot,
immediately south of the existing
Quarry Lane School facilities
6237 Tassajara Rd.
(2 miles)
School
Application under
review
The Whitford of 152-unit senior living project
Dublin (Dublin consisting of 114 assisted living
Senior Living) units, 38 memory care units and
174 beds
5751 Arnold Rd.
(2.8 miles)
Commercial
Approved. The
sitework permit
and building
permit are
currently under
review
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 106
Name
Description
Location
(Distance from
Project Site)
Land Use
Status
Grafton Plaza
Daycare & Retail
(Tivoli Plaza)
Construct three commercial
buildings with a total of 31,860
square feet (sf), including two retail
buildings (16,038 sf and 6,055 sf)
and one daycare building (9,767 sf)
on a 3.68-acre site
Corner of Grafton St.
and Dublin Blvd.
(4 miles)
Commercial
Constructed
Ashton at
Dublin Station
Construct a 220-unit apartment
community and related amenities
which include a fitness center, pool,
roof top lounge, and 331 structured
parking spaces
DeMarcus Blvd.
(2 miles)
Residential
Constructed
Regional Street Senior affordable housing project
Senior with 113 units
Affordable
Housing
6541 Regional St.
(2,540 feet)
Residential
Approved. The
sitework permit
and building
permit are
currently under
review
H Mart
Supermarket
An expansion to an existing 27,237
square foot commercial tenant
space to construct an 8,552 square
foot addition for a food hall, 3,187
square foot outdoor seating area
with play area, fagade
modifications, new trash enclosure
and related site improvements and
repaint the existing warehouse
building
7884 Dublin Blvd.
(2,900 feet)
Commercial
Approved. The
building permit is
currently under
review.
Inspiration
Drive Assisted
Living
Construct an assisted living facility 7500 Inspiration Dr.
of 84 beds on Parcel 3 of the Valley (3,700 feet)
Christian Center property.
Commercial
Approved.
Awaiting building
permit submittal
Avalon West (St. Construction of a 499-unit
Patrick Way) residential apartment complex.
6700 Golden
Gate Dr.
(2,890 feet)
Residential
Under
construction
The Dublin
Center "The
DC" Plus SCS
Mix -use development on 54-acres Between Brannigan
of the SCS Dublin site. 650 units St. and Tassajara Rd.
and up to 265,000 sf of commercial (4 miles)
Commercial and Application under
residential review
Righetti
Property
Establish zoning regulations and
development standard for future
development of up to 96 homes,
approximately 372,350 square feet
of industrial uses and
approximately 321,125 square feet
of campus office/light industrial
Collier Canyon Rd.
(5 miles)
Planned
residential and
light industrial
development
Application under
review. NOTE: No
SDR, so no timing
on construction.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 107
Name
Description
Location
(Distance from
Project Site)
Land Use
Status
uses. The proposed project would
also subdivide the 49.6-acre site
into four parcels to accommodate
proposed residential and industrial
development.
Branaugh
Property
PD Rezone, Tentative Map and
Development Agreement for 78-97
units and approximately 527,773
square feet of industrial
development
1881 Collier
Canyon Rd.
(5 miles)
Residential and
industrial
Approved. No
SDR, so no timing
on construction.
Kaiser
Commercial —
Nissan
Construct a Nissan auto dealership
Corner of Dublin Commercial
Blvd. and Keegan St.
(4.4 miles)
Under
construction
Inspiration
Drive Memory
Care
Construct a 35,089 square 7500 Inspiration Dr. Commercial
foot memory care facility consisting (3,740 feet)
of55-beds
Approved.
Awaiting building
permit submittal
Infiniti
Dealership
Construct a 10,461 square foot
Infiniti automobile showroom and
service center
3200 Dublin Blvd. Commercial
(4.6 miles)
Under
construction
Hacienda
Crossings Drive -
Through
Restaurant
(Chick-fil-A)
Demolition of an existing building
and construction of a new 2,781-
square-foot drive -through
restaurant and related site
improvements
4814 Dublin Blvd. Commercial
(3 miles)
Application under
review
Amador Station Development of an affordable
housing project consisting of up to
300 affordable units
6501 Golden
Gate Dr.
(4,000 feet)
Residential
Approved.
Awaiting sitework
permit and
building permit
submittal
Schaefer Ranch
Unit 3
Proposal results in a total of 418
homes (a net increase of 12
homes) within the Schaefer Ranch
project
9595 Dublin Blvd. Residential
(1 mile)
Constructed
Moller Construct 370 single family
Ranch/Tassajara detached dwellings and a private
Hills clubhouse on 80 acres
6861 Tassajara Road Residential
(4.7 miles)
Constructed
Boulevard
(Dublin
Crossing)
Development of approximately
1,753 single and multi -family
residential units
Corner of Dublin Residential
Blvd. and Scarlett Dr.
(1.9 miles)
Under
construction
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 108
Name Description Location Land Use Status
(Distance from
Project Site)
McDonald's SDR Demolition of existing McDonald's 7145 Dublin Blvd. Commercial Application under
restaurant, and construction of (5,000 feet) review
anew 4,394 sf building
Dublin Transit Construct parking garage with a Campus Dr.
Center Parking capacity approximately 500 parking (2.5 miles)
Garage spaces
Parking
Under
construction
Nissan Construct a 3,574 square foot self- 3200 Dublin Blvd. Commercial Approved. The
Commercial Car service car wash (4 miles) building permit is
Wash currently under
review
Notes
DC = Dublin Center, SCS = name of developer, SDR = site development review, sf-= square feet
Growth Context
The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.2[d]) requires an examination of the direct and indirect
impacts of the proposed project, including the potential of the project to induce growth leading
to changes in land use patterns and population densities and related impacts on environmental
resources.
Direct growth -inducement would result if a project involved construction of new housing.
Indirect growth -inducement would result, for instance, if implementing a project resulted in
any of the following:
• Substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., commercial, industrial, or
governmental enterprises);
• A construction effort with substantial short-term employment opportunities that indirectly
stimulates the need for additional housing and services to support the new temporary
employment demand; or,
• Removal of an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a
constraint on a required public utility or service (e.g., construction of a major sewer line
with excess capacity through an undeveloped area) or adding development adjacent to
undeveloped land.
Growth -inducement itself is not an environmental effect, but it may foreseeably lead to
environmental effects. These environmental effects may include increased demand on other
community and public services and infrastructure, increased traffic and noise, degradation of
air or water quality, degradation or loss of plant or animal habitats, or conversion of agricultural
and open space land to urban uses.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 109
Growth Inducing Analysis
The proposed Project would not directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth in
the City of Dublin, as discussed in Section 13, Population and Housing of the Initial Study
(Appendix A). Project construction activities would generate temporary and short-term
employment, but these construction jobs are anticipated to be filled from the existing local
employment pool. The number of onsite workers would vary depending on the construction
phase, but it is anticipated for a Project of this scope to range from 7 to 64 workers over a 12-
month period. Based on the availability of nearby construction workers, Project construction
would not cause a substantial influx of construction personnel that would result in unplanned
population growth in the region.
Implementation of the Project would result in permanent employment opportunities. The
existing employees onsite each day is 150 to 200. The proposed building would cater to future
tenants in the R&D and life sciences field, and it is estimated that the proposed Project would
have 200 employees 2 onsite each day. Therefore, it is expected that similar number of
employees would be working at the Project site as compared to existing conditions.
Furthermore, the Project would not remove any barriers to population growth such as
providing housing, constructing transportation modes, increasing capacity of roadways or
developing new roadways. Thus, the Project would not result in unplanned population growth
or induce substantial growth in the City of Dublin. Therefore, there would be no impact from
the Project.
Significant Irreversible Changes Context
CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21100[B][2]) provides that an EIR shall include a detailed
statement setting forth "[i]n a separate section...[a]ny significant effects on the environment
that would be irreversible if the project is implemented." State CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.2(c) provides the following guidelines for analyzing the significant irreversible
environmental changes of a project:
Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the
project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes
removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly,
secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a
previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses.
Also irretrievable damage can result from environmental accidents associated
with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to
assure that such current consumption is justified.
2 Based on ABAG average square feet per employee rates for each "principal building activity" (ABAG 2011).
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 110
Significant Irreversible Changes
During Project implementation, the use of nonrenewable resources such as fossil fuels
in the form of electricity, gasoline and diesel fuel from construction equipment and
delivery trucks would occur. There are no unusual project characteristics that would
necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy -efficient than
at comparable construction sites in other parts of the City. Therefore, it is not expected
that construction fuel consumption associated with the proposed Project would be
more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than at other construction sites in the region.
Other nonrenewable and slowly -renewable resources consumed as a result of Project
development would include, but not necessarily be limited to, lumber and other forest
products, sand and gravel, asphalt, petrochemical construction materials, and water.
The use of these nonrenewable resources would account for only a small portion of the
region's resources and would not affect the availability of these resources for other
needs in the region.
Furthermore, the proposed Project would not result in irreversible damage from
environmental accidents, such as an accidental spill or explosion of a hazardous
material. During construction, hazardous materials such as gasoline, paint, adhesives
and other materials classified as hazardous, would be subject to federal, state, and local
health and safety requirements. Transportation of hazardous materials on area
roadways is regulated by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and use of these materials is regulated by
DTSC, as outlined in CCR Title 22. The Project applicant and its construction contractors
would be required to use, store, and transport hazardous materials in compliance with
applicable federal and State regulations during Project construction. Furthermore, as
discussed in Section 9: Hydrology and Water Quality of the Initial Study (Appendix A), a
SWPPP would be required for the Project. The SWPPP would contain Spill Response Plan
to address minor spills of hazardous materials. The nature of construction — that for a
conventional industrial/commercial building— would not involve unusual amounts or
types of hazardous materials that could result in irreversible damage from an accidental
release.
Operation of the Project may involve the transport, use, and disposal of limited
quantities of hazardous materials associated with the R&D and life sciences industry. If
any hazardous materials are stored or handled at the Project site, either as a result of
on -site businesses (similar to Hexcel) or from basic maintenance activities such as
herbicides and cleaning products, the building tenants and maintenance staff would be
required to follow manufacturer's instructions and (if applicable) would be required to
prepare Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Business Plans)
and comply with the requirements of Hazardous Waste Generator (tiered permitting)
Programs.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 111
Implementation of the Project would not provide access to a previously inaccessible area, and
the proposed infill redevelopment of an existing R&D facility would be expected to indirectly
result in a reduction in the use of nonrenewable resources compared to new greenfield
development.
The Project would result in the permanent, irreversible loss of a historical resource, due to the
demolition of the existing Hexcel facility, which would be a significant and unavoidable impact,
as discussed in Section 3. While this loss would be permanent and irreversible, implementation
of Mitigation Measure CUL-1: HABS Recordation and Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Interpretive
Displays would require the historical resource to be recorded for archival purposes and that an
interpretive display be created for public education. Whilst such mitigation cannot reverse or
mitigate the loss of the historical resource, such interpretative and archival materials would
memorialize the contribution of the Hexcel facility to the Man in Space historic context for
future generations.
Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Context
California Code of Regulations Section 15216.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR
to include a discussion of any significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided if the
project is implemented. Chapter 3 of this EIR provides a detailed analysis of all significant and
potentially significant environmental impacts related to implementing the proposed Project;
identifies feasible mitigation measures, where available, that could avoid or reduce these
significant and potentially significant impacts; and presents a determination whether these
mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to less -than -significant levels. Section 4.1
above identifies the significant cumulative impacts resulting from the combined effects of the
proposed Project and related projects. If a specific impact in either of these sections cannot be
fully reduced to a less -than -significant level, it is considered a significant and unavoidable
adverse impact.
Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Analysis
Implementing the proposed Project would result in the following significant adverse impacts:
• Impact CR-1: The proposed Project would result in a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource. As discussed in the Cultural section of this EIR, the
Project would result in the complete demolition of the existing Hexcel Corporation R&D
facility, which is a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5. The
demolition of this facility would result in a significant direct impact even with the
identified mitigation measures. Thus, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Source(s)
ABAG. 2011. ABAG Non Residential Buildings Analysis. Obtained March 8, 2023 from
NonResidentialAnalysis 120511.pdf (ca.gov).
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 112
City of Dublin. 2023. Development Projects. Obtained June 6, 2023 from
https://dublindevelopment.icitywork.com/.
City of Dublin
Alternatives
Introduction
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 113
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable
alternatives to a project, or the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most of the
basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant
effects, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider
every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather, a range of potentially feasible alternatives,
governed by the "rule of reason," must be considered. This is intended to foster informed
decision making and public participation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f]).
CEQA generally defines "feasible" to mean capable of being accomplished in a successful
manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account environmental, social,
technological, and legal factors. The following factors may also be taken into consideration
when assessing the feasibility of alternatives: site suitability, economic viability, availability of
infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional
boundaries, and the ability of a project proponent to attain site control (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6[f][1]).
CEQA also requires that a No Project Alternative be evaluated (CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6[e]). The analysis of a No Project Alternative is based on the assumption that a project
would not be approved. In addition, an environmentally superior alternative must be identified
among the alternatives considered. The environmentally superior alternative is generally
defined as the alternative that would result in the least adverse environmental impacts to a
project site and affected environment. If the No Project Alternative is found to be the
environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior
alternative among the other alternatives.
The analysis of alternatives is of benefit to decision makers, because it provides more complete
information about the potential impacts of land use decisions. Consequently, there is a better
understanding of the interrelationship among all of the environmental topics under evaluation.
Decision makers must consider approval of an alternative if it would substantially lessen or
avoid significant environmental impacts identified for a proposed project and if it is determined
to be feasible.
Factors Considered in the Selection of Alternatives
The CEQA Guidelines recommend that an EIR briefly describe the rationale for selecting the
alternatives to be discussed, identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency
but were rejected as infeasible, and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's
determination (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c)). The following factors were considered in
identifying the range of reasonable alternatives to the Project for this Focused EIR:
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 114
• The extent to which the alternative would accomplish most of the basic objectives of the
Project;
• The extent to which the alternative would avoid or lessen the identified significant and/or
unavoidable environmental effects of the Project;
• The feasibility of the alternative; and
• The extent to which an alternative contributes to a "reasonable range" of alternatives
necessary to permit a reasoned choice.
Per Section 15126.6(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of alternatives shall focus on
alternatives to a project (or its location) that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening
significant impacts of a project, even if the alternatives would impede to some degree the
attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly.
As discussed in the Initial Study (Appendix A), the proposed Project would result in significant
adverse impacts on historical resources at the Project level. Mitigation measures are identified
to reduce these Project impacts; however, none would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Consequently, the Toss of the historical resource associated with the proposed Project would be
significant and unavoidable. This alternatives analysis, therefore, focuses on Project alternatives
that could avoid or substantially lessen impacts of the proposed Project on historical resources.
The following alternatives that may avoid or substantially lessen impacts on the historical
resource were identified:
• No Project Alternative
• Reduced Grading Alternative
These alternatives are analyzed in turn below, followed by a brief discussion of those
alternatives considered but rejected from further analysis.
Description and Analysis of Alternatives Retained
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative assumes no development would occur on the Project site. The
Hexcel Corporation R&D facility would not be demolished, the site would not be redeveloped
with a new facility that appeals to the life sciences and manufacturing field, and Parcels 1 and 2
would not be rezoned.
Analysis of No Project Alternative
Compliance with Project Objectives
The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the proposed Project's objectives because it
would not redevelop the site with a new and upgraded facility that appeals to the life sciences
and manufacturing field and would not rezone Parcels 1 and 2 as a Planned Development.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 115
Analysis of Impacts
With the No Project Alternative, the Project would not occur and the existing conditions would
remain. The Hexcel Corporation R&D facility would not be demolished, therefore, there would
be no impact to the historical resource. There also would be no ground disturbance, so there
would be no potential impacts related to the discovery of previously unknown archaeological
resources or human remains and paleontological resources. Furthermore, there would be no
construction impacts associated with the Project on other resource areas evaluated in this EIR,
including air quality, biological resources, energy, and hazards and hazardous materials.
Reduced Grading Alternative
The Reduced Grading Alternative would be similar to the proposed Project as it would still
demolish the existing building and construct a new facility with other site improvements, as
described in the Project Description. Where it differs from the proposed Project, is the depth
and area of grading that would be required in the south and southeast portion of the site,
which would be substantially reduced compared to the proposed Project.
The reduced grading would be accomplished by importing soil to build up the southern
periphery of the property and by treating stormwater onsite with a valley gutter catch basin
and a Silva cell of approximately 3280 square feet rather than having to grade for stormwater
to be gravity fed into bioretention planters. The Silva cell is a modular suspended pavement
system that utilizes soil volumes to support large tree growth and provide onsite stormwater
management. The Silva cell would replace 3280 square feet of the two bioretention planters
proposed in the southeast corner of the site adjacent to the south parking areas (see Figure 6A.
Landscape Plan and Figure 66: Landscape Plan Details); thereby, providing the same treatment
area as the bioretention areas proposed in the proposed Project. Stormwater drainage would
be provided by a shallow gutter, parallel to the south edge of the new structure, and a gentle
slope along the eastern driveway of the new structure, both leading to conduits, which would
drain to the Silva cell. The conduits would be installed by mechanical trenching at a minimum
grade leading to the top of the Silva cell, which is 2 feet below ground surface. The top of the
Silva cell dirt and landscape could be placed over it or asphalt to provide more parking space.
Excavation depths for this Alternative would generally be limited to less than 1 foot below
current grade, except for the following three locations:
a) the Silva cell, which would be excavated to 7 feet below surface, with a surface area of
approximately 468 feet (specific width and length are yet to be determined);
b) two trenches to install culverts leading to the Silva cell, each approximately 2 feet wide,
a maximum of 2 feet deep, and less than 100 feet long; and
c) the southwest edge of the property, which would be excavated to a maximum of 7 feet
below current surface, which is 2.5 feet less than in the original design.
The Reduced Grading Alternative also eliminates the need for the wall, and associated footings,
along the south edge of the property.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 116
Analysis of Reduced Grading Alternative
Compliance with Project Objectives
The Reduced Grading Alternative would meet all of the proposed Project's objectives while
minimizing the area, degree, and significance of potential impact to buried archaeological
resources and possible human remains associated with the adjacent Pioneer Cemetery, in
addition to reducing potential impacts to paleontological resources and air quality, and
reducing energy consumption.
Analysis of Impacts
The Reduced Grading Alternative would still involve the demolition of the existing Hexcel
building in its entirety, and therefore, for the same reasons discussed for the proposed Project
in Section 3, would have a significant and unavoidable impact to historical resources, even
with the implementation of mitigation measures Mitigation Measure CUL-1: HABS Recordation
and Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Interpretive Displays.
The use of a Silva cell for stormwater treatment is only being considered for this Reduced
Grading Alternative, not for the proposed Project. The use of the Silva cell would dramatically
reduce the amount of grading needed for stormwater management on the site, as described in
the proceeding paragraphs. However, from an operational standpoint, the City has expressed
concerns with the use of a Silva cell for this Project. The City is aware of other projects
implementing Silva cells for stormwater treatment and those cells malfunctioning. Operational
failure of these Silva cells can result in sewage getting mixed in to the stormwater treatment
systems. Therefore, the City believes there is a risk implementing a Silva cell for stormwater
treatment for this Project.3
With respect to buried cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, this analysis is focused
on the area of the Project site with the highest sensitivity for buried historic era and pre -contact
era archaeological resources (the High Archeological Probability Area), along the eastern
property line and through the southern parking lot, an area of approximately 115,763 square
feet (approximately 53 percent of the total project area).
The maximum depth of excavation for this alternative would be approximately 7 feet below
ground surface, which is reduced from up to 10 feet below surface for the proposed Project.
Moreover, under this alternative only approximately 26,000 square feet of the High
Archeological Probability Area (approximately 23 percent) would include excavation greater
than 1 foot below the current ground surface, compared to 61,850 square feet (approximately
53 percent of the High Archaeological Probability Area) for the proposed Project. Therefore,
this alternative would reduce the risk of impacts to buried cultural resources within the High
Archeological Probability Area by more than 120 percent. While this design does not
completely eliminate the risk of impact to archaeological resources or human remains, the area
3 Information provided during a phone call with Gaspare Annibale, Associate Planner at City of Dublin, on July 24,
2023.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 117
and degree of potential impact are significantly reduced with the Reduced Grading Alternative.
Nevertheless, the Project would still have the potential to impact archaeological resources and
the potential disturb human remains, both of which could be potentially significant. All
cultural and tribal mitigation measures would still apply, but the scope of archaeological testing
and monitoring, and the potential for work stoppage due to archaeological discoveries, would
all be significantly reduced. For the same reasons discussed for the proposed Project in Sections
3 and 7, implementation of mitigation measures Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Archaeological and
Tribal Monitoring; Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Inadvertent Discovery Protocols; and Mitigation
Measure TR-1: Inadvertent/Unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources Discovery Protocols would
reduce the impact to less than significant with mitigation.
The Reduced Grading Alternative would also reduce the potential to impact paleontological
resources, as it would be reducing the depths of excavation where these resources could occur.
As discussed in the description of the Reduced Grading Alternative section above, the
Alternative would avoid excavation of more than 1 foot below current grade in most of the
locations in the south portion of the site. Since artificial fill ranges from depths of 1.5 to 5 feet,
reducing the depth of excavation to less than 1 foot would greatly reduce the risk of damage to
these resources (see Section 5). However, since there are areas where excavation would still
exceed 1 foot, this Alternative would not completely avoid potential impacts to paleontological
resources. Therefore, the impact would remain potentially significant and mitigation measure
GEO-1 would still apply. For the same reasons discussed for the proposed Project in Section 5,
implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant
with mitigation.
Furthermore, by reducing the amount of grading, there would be less total construction
equipment usage during the grading phase, which would reduce NOx, ROG, PM10 Exhaust and
PM2.5 Exhaust emissions. This Alternative would also reduce the potential for fugitive PM
compared to the proposed Project, but fugitive dust PM10 and PM2.5 is not quantified in
BAAQMD since there are no quantitative thresholds for fugitive dust. Less grading equipment
usage would also reduce energy -consumption during construction. Therefore, this Alternative
would reduce impacts to air quality and reduce energy consumption compared to the proposed
Project. Nonetheless, impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated,
as fugitive dust control measures would still be required.
Alternatives Considered but Rejected
Two potential alternatives were considered for the Project but rejected from further
consideration. They are described below.
Partial Preservation Alternative
The Partial Preservation Alternative would demolish the 1967-constructed administration area
of the Hexcel Corporation R&D facility and 1980s building additions, but would retain the
approximately 25,000-square foot, 1962-constructed research and development laboratory
building where the NASA research on the honeycomb took place. A new 114,141 square foot
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR l Page 118
building would be constructed in place of the demolished portions of the existing building and
be used by future tenants in the life sciences and manufacturing field. The 25,000 square foot
laboratory building would be adaptively reused as a commercial self -storage facility, resulting in
a mixed -used site, rather than a site used for solely life sciences and manufacturing.
With the Partial Preservation Alternative, the amount of square footage available for
manufacturing/industrial uses would be greatly reduced from the proposed Project. This is
because the City requires a certain amount of parking for different types of uses, and this
Alternative would reduce the parking area by approximately 13,830 square feet to
accommodate both the retained 25,000 square foot -lab and new 114,141 square foot -building.
Because the retained laboratory with the new building would take up more space on the site
than the Proposed project, there would be less space for the City -required parking,
necessitating a shift in the proposed balance of manufacturing uses (which require higher levels
of parking) and warehouse/distribution uses (which require less parking). Because of the
decreased size of the new building and a slight shift towards greater warehouse/distribution
uses from industrial uses, the new building would only accommodate two future tenants,
opposed to four tenants for the proposed Project.
The Partial Preservation Alternative would not meet the Project objective to redevelop the site
with a new and upgraded facility that appeals to the life sciences and manufacturing field
because it would be developed as a mixed -used site with the introduction of the commercial
self -storage facility in the retained 1962-constructed research and development laboratory
building, which would not be as appealing to future life sciences/manufacturing tenants. It is
also very important to note that this Alternative would not be economically feasible for the
Project applicant due to the reduction in the number of tenants, and the reduction in value of
commercial self -storage and warehousing floorspace compared to life sciences/manufacturing.
The applicant prepared a Pro Forma for financial feasibility of Partial Preservation Alternative
(Dublin Boulevard Owner LP, 2023) and found that this Alternative would result in a loss of
approximately $10.8 million over the life of the Project, while the total upfront costs
(capitalization) would be approximately $55.7 million, which is approximately 40 percent higher
than the proposed project. Therefore, this Alternative would result in a loss of profit to the
applicant and as a result, would be financially infeasible. Whilst economic/financial matters are
not considered to be an environmental impact under CEQA, Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA
Guidelines requires that an EIR consider "a reasonable range of potentially feasible
alternatives" to the proposed project and Section 15126.6(f)(1) of the Guidelines specifically
lists economic viability among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the
feasibility of alternatives.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that the Partial Preservation Alternative would avoid the significant
and unavoidable impact on the historical resource. Although this alternative would retain the
most important portion of the Hexcel Corporation R&D facility contributing to its eligibility as a
historical resource, and would therefore have a reduced level of impact compared to the
proposed Project, the alternative would still demolish more than half of the original structure
and would also involve substantial changes to the setting of the historical resource. It is
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 119
considered unlikely that feasible mitigation measures could be implemented to fully mitigate
the potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.
For all of these reasons, this Alternative has been rejected from further consideration within
this EIR.
Alternative Location
An alternative site location was considered and rejected because the purpose of the proposed
Project is specific to this property. The use of another site for this Project would not meet the
project's purpose and need. As described in the Project Description, the purpose and need for
this Project is to redevelop the Hexcel site with a new and upgraded facility that appeals to the
life sciences and manufacturing field and to rezone Parcels 1 and 2 of this site as a Planned
Development. Furthermore, the Project applicant already owns this site, which works for the
scale and type of project that the applicant has proposed. Development of the Project on the
proposed site will help ensure the construction of the Project is affordable and accomplished in
a timely manner. A new site option would require applicant to sell this site and then find a new
site in the City limits of a similar size designated for this type of use. Therefore, an alternative
location was rejected from further consideration in this EIR.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires that, among the alternatives, an "environmentally superior" alternative be
selected and that the reasons for such selection be disclosed. In general, the environmentally
superior alternative is the alternative that would generate the fewest or least severe adverse
impacts. Table 9: Comparison of Proposed Project and Alternatives below provides a
comparison of the Project to the alternatives with respect to the potential to avoid or
substantially reduce environmental impacts.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 120
Table 9: Comparison of Proposed Project and Alternatives
Environmental Topic
Proposed Project No Project Alternative Reduced Grading Alternative
Air Quality LTSM No Impact LTSM
Biological Resources LTSM No Impact LTSM
Historical Resources S&U No Impact S&U
Archaeological Resources LTSM No Impact LTSM-
Energy LTSM No Impact LTSM
Geology & Soils LTSM No Impact LTSM-
Hazardous Materials LTSM No Impact LTSM
Tribal Cultural Resources LTSM No Impact LTSM-
Number of topics with
increased impact
Number of topics with
decreased impact
N/A
N/A
0 0
All 4
Source: compiled by AECOM in 2023. For each alternative, the significance determination shown in the table for a particular impact is the most
severe of the construction or operational -phase impact.
Acronyms: N/A = Not Applicable; LTSM = Less than Significant with Mitigation; S&U = Significant and Unavoidable.
Bold indicates that impact is different level of significance than the Project.
- indicates that although the overall level of significance for the Alternative would be the same as the proposed Project, the duration or
intensity of the impact would be less, and/or fewer mitigation measures would be required.
The No Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative as it would avoid
any impacts related to the construction of the proposed Project, including impacts related to air
quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, energy, hazardous materials, and
paleontological resources. However, when the No Project Alternative is the environmentally
superior alternative, CEQA requires that an additional alternative be identified. In this case, the
Reduced Grading Alternative is the environmentally superior build alternative, as it would
reduce the potential to impact archeological and other buried resources such as paleontological
resources due to reduced grading depths, while still meeting all of the Project objectives. All the
other resource areas analyzed in this EIR and Initial Study in Appendix A would be the same or
similar.
Source(s)
Dublin Boulevard Owner, LP. 2023. Pro Forma for Financial Feasibility of Partial Preservation
Alternative. Provided by email from applicant on June 13, 2023.
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 121
Report Preparers
Lead Agency
Gaspare Annibale, Associate Planner
Anne Hersch, Assistant Community Development Department Director
Consultant — AECOM
Emma Rawnsley, Project Director
Stephanie Osby, Project Manager
Paola Pena, Air Quality Scientist
Peter Boice, Biologist
Deborah Jew, Word Processor
Trina Meiser, Senior Architectural Historian
Karen Gardner, Archaeologist
Wendy Copeland, Environmental Planner
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Page 122
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Figures
Figures
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
Castro Valley
Danville
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Figures
n ackhaok-Camino Tassajara
Contra Costa C o n n 1 y
San Ramon �F
Dublin G F
Project
Location
Pleasanton
- Project Location
Union City
Fremont
.Ala m e cla County
A
0-
0 5
Miles
Figure 1. Project Location
Project
Location
J -%'San los@':'
cpAu222
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
Cm*
Figure 2. Project Site
1,000
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Figures
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Figures
AECOM 3R&P4 C. 1/1z2O USER 581f,Frn4e PATH ,v,a aecomn P4PA51.A",FR,Pw -llSOAFDI S,,Ya, ,Ga,ga,ects,wP7.485 ryfluPD,He3ner,02 M4p4102Repon-404,,,,0ue s- Mu.sDerortnd
1 0
N
Feet
90
DUBUN BOULEVARD
(R/w VARIES) (A RRIJP ROPP( 9 q „' `
—f6'7- , WZ7%, ✓ / n ® � x
PROPOSE. SOLOWO
'��, /��/////%� u►@ � uuunnnmuuunuuuimnmiuunuuuu►mnuumu►--
Source AECOM,2022, Ear +Wrig,2022
Figure 3. Site Plan
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR Figures
1
Dublin Blvd. Elevation - North Elevation
...15
Northwest Elevation
1
Arthur H. Breed, Jr. Frwy Elevation - South Elevation
West Elevation
East Elevation
New Public St. Elevation - East Elevation
A
N
120
Feet
Figure 4. Elevations
Seu,ee: AECOM, 2022:Kier + Wriplt, 2022
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
A 0
N
Feet
120
Figure 5. Overall Floor Plan
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR Figures
Source: AECOM, 2022;;Ger • rgg+k 2022
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
UEL11
0 150
Feet
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR Figures
�9n..ILi LI
Dagelm:
IdlsI 117iei 111111IIIIIi1 i"i 1'i' -I I N
R.•
•
Source AECOM, 2022; I0er+6Yrlghi,2022
Figure 6A. Landscape Plan
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR I Figures
PLANT LIST
CA. NATIVE SYM. NO. BOTANICAL NAME
COMMON NAME
SIZE WATER REGIME MATURE HABIT
HYDROZONE H X W
I5 LAAERG?E SreO
Ro£MIA nmamrTE FED' CRAF£ MYRTLE XOr am L x 1
EVERGREEN SCREENING SHRUBS) u 5 GAL_ L 10 x w
o 30 Al 51"�ADTA o ;:045ERRY 5 GAL, L IN 4 5' PL.,. 5. OC
T N£TE V-1£L£5 Nm1.111F0.1A tc1a4 5 GAL L 1®' v S' PLANT Io' cc
25 �Arn4. [Iis PAY HM AIMAN' cFwlmlus 5 OAL L 5' PLO, 5' CC
GRASSES
x 0 Na
ID Et LOMANDRA L.'Lcf1LON' LRE TUFFTUFFI GAL
DROUGHT TOLERANT SHRUBS
IO .
024 04.E4 LIm904.1.15oW. FaITLE30 GIVE 5GAL.
5 GAL.
N 30 24-41< S C. MdNG 5N4 BRUNO' Cdi£3EIRR E 5 [WL.
n uESFERALOE Pe.R✓ITLDRA RED rucce 5 GAL.
14 3I 930e51AROL5 O. nST.544 ELSE' LPRIG4 ROSE554Rr 5 GAL.
C;J 06 5A11.16TE5CN 'LIMEJ0NN' DLL E MILE 56161 5GWL.
N ®eo LSUcc55.6 454 F aemm445"lows 1.5v4e Purse 5544.
N 20 GOE4O3353• FONT ROTES IA, LILAC 5 GAL.
PERENNIALS
▪ 35 T'u F..a<.uIA v_ TRICOLOR 5Oc1ETr GARPG 16AL_
▪ 12 Y£RH£NA LILACNA'D£ LA MINA' YERDPIA I GAL
N e 1a ACNILLEA Mom1f»!Nf r RTm I GAL
▪ "IPTES v- v4R1Fa44rA' FORT NAHT LILT 1 GAL
NDYe= RODt eA44e1556 54ALL 55 WALLED 514£R5 -4££5 ARE 51641411.5. 6 PAVREENT.
5%5 PLANT 2'a
5' RANT 5'K
5.04
MULCHES
BARK MULCH -ALL PLANTERS NOT DESIGNATED FOR SOD
MANIC RECYCLED CHIPPED WOOD NULCN- PLACE B" MIN PEP,
21- 3' LENGTH DECORA114E COLOR DARK BROWN OR EQUAL
NO VISIBLE CONTAMINANTS PLACE 3' MIN. DEPTH OF BARK M ALL PLANT BASINS
ALL MULCH AND coMPo9T USED IN THE GENERAL LANDSCAPE AREAS AND ANT
BID-TREAMENT AREAS SHALL MEET 5H 1353 PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS. UPDATED
LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEETS TNA1 SPECIFY MULCH ANTS COMPOST THAT MEET 951353
PROCUREMENT STANDARDS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR PERMIT REOO-TI-IENDATION WILL.
9PECIFr THE PURCHASE of MULCH AND caMPo9T BE FROM A SSIRELIER THAT
INDICATES SE 1305 COMPLIANCE FOR EACH PRODUCT.
5 N€F-oR APPROVAL P0IoL0R To OELIvERY THE
W
To THE SITE.
CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP AND MAINTAIN A COPY OF ALL RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE
PROCUREMENT OF ES 1353 COMPLIANT COMPOST AND I-TULCH. CONTRACTOR SHALL
PROVIDE TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RECORDS INDICATING THE TOTAL COMPOST
AND MULCH PRoc4RE0 oR USED, THE *IANTITr of .oMPo91- f10N9 OR 0401c YARDS)
AND MULCH (TONS, PROCURED FROM EACH FACILITY OR ENTITY, FACILITY OR VENDOR
INFORMATION (NAME OF FACILITY, ADDRESS, CONTACT INFOR-1ATION/. A GENERAL
DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE COMPOST AND/OR MULCH WAS USED, AND WHERE COMPOST AND
MULCH WAS USED, AND INVOICES DEMONSTRSTMG PRoc4REMENt
BIO-RETENTION PLANTING
Blo-RETENTION NATIVE GRASS To BE 'Hlo-FILTRATIQN Soo. AS AVAILABLE
Flsom DELTA 13LLEGRA55 co ca sous, soo 5HALL BE GRGINE IN A SPRDY SASS TOPSOIL
T 111(06ARY IRRIGATION TO BE FROYIDED FOR ESTABLISHMENT. 000 01-ALL BE LAID 1'N(N A
MINIMUM OF 10' OVERLAP BTr46EN ADJACENT ENDS AND SHALL DE LAID 0ORIZONTALFARALLEL TO ANY
5LOPE. son SHALL et LAID TIGHT To HEADER AND oR ADJACENT PAVEMENT THE MINIMUM
PIINENSION OF ANY GUT PIECE SHALL BE 14',
EX10111.a LANDSCAPE AREA TO REMAIN
THE L4INDEC4PE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD PLACE
PLANTS AROUND Aea4E SROUND UTILITIES To SCREEN
UTILITIES FROM PUBLIC STREETS AND RARKINC. AREAS
AFTER PLACEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF UTILITY.
P1-4011405 €ER PLAN SHALL 0€ UTILIZED- PL4NT51.1AY 0€
RE -SPACED IN v10IN1TY OF MIL, To 4CoO-IODATE SCR€€NI1.rw
CONTACT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IF PLANTING REQUIRES CLARIFICATIDN.
LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS:
TOTAL PARKING AREA . E1215 SF.
1'ARCIWa AREA INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING.
I. PAVEMENT INCLUDING ISLANDS, STALLS, AISLES AND ACCESS DRIVES
2. ADJACENT BUILDING FRONTAGE LANDSCAPE AREA INC. WALKS
PARKING AREA L4NDSCAFF REQUIRED . 12011 SF. (15, OF PARKIN. AREA1
PARKING AREA LANDSCAPE PROVIDED = 143S0 SF. (IT.)
NO. OF STANDARD PARKING SPACES • 211
TREES REQUIRED - 55 (1l4 SPACES)
TREES PROv1DED 55
TOTAL SITE LANDSCAPE: 99,106 SF.
LANDSCAPE BY AREA:
PARKING AREA. 14350 SF (145.1
SITE PERIMETER 1NEW1 N5390 SA. 0530
DUILDING FACADE (NOT INC IN PARKII10) 6660 SF. (1424)
BID -RETENTION: 13936 SF. (TPA
EXISTING TO REMAIN. 9.0,150 SF. (491,/
WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
AUTOMATIC CONTROLLER WI E1 DATA REPEAT CYCLING
IRRIGATION ZONES PER PLANT WATER REQUIREMENTS
RAIN SENSOR TO BE SPECIFIED
SOIL AMENDMENTS TO BE INCORPORATED
PLANTER 51114*E AREAS To 0€ Im11,..1+€10
WATER U2Ac,E To MEET STATE LATLR EFFICIENT LAIo1C45PE STANDARD
Source:AECOM, 2022; IOer + 'Wight, 2022
Figure 6B. Landscape Plan Details
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Focused EIR 1 Figures
DUBLIN
\\\ 111 IlJuntiLLIi „I„11„ 1 111
BLVD
Ir�
lourrurrnirri
c um.11.11.11.11. II 11111 I11111111t
UTE (AERIAL APPARTUS ACCESS)
a
d
FIRE. ACCESS ROUTE
0
N
Feet
180
Source: AECOM, 2022, l0er *14510i, 2022
Figure 7. Fire Access Route
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix B Appendices to Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank
Ap
Appendix A: Initial Study
Appendix B: Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments
Appendix C: Technical Memorandum — Historical Resources Evaluation Report
Appendix D: CaIEEMod Output Sheets
Appendix E: Final Transportation Impact Study
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix A: Initial Study
This page intentionally left blank
11
sus
DUBLIN
CALIFORNIA
Hexcel Redevelopment Project
Initial Study
July 26, 2023
PROJECT APPLICATION PLPA-2022-00038
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Table of Contents I Page i
Table of Contents
Background & Project Description 1
Project Title 1
Lead Agency Name and Address 1
Contact Person and Phone Number 1
Project Location 1
Project Applicant/Sponsor Name and Address 1
General Plan Designation 2
Zoning 2
Project Description 2
Proposed Project 2
Project Approvals 6
Environmental Setting 7
Project Site and Existing Facilities 7
Surrounding Land Uses 7
Environmental Checklist 8
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected by the Project 8
Determination 11
Explanation of Environmental Checklist Responses 13
Aesthetics 13
Environmental Setting 13
Regulatory Framework 16
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 19
Source(s) 24
Agricultural and Forestry Resources 25
Environmental Setting 25
Regulatory Framework 25
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 26
Source(s) 27
Air Quality 29
Environmental Setting 29
Regulatory Framework 30
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 32
Source(s) 35
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Table of Contents I Page ii
Biological Resources
Environmental Setting 37
Regulatory Framework 38
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 40
Source(s) 43
Cultural Resources 45
Environmental Setting 45
Regulatory Framework 45
Previous CEQA Documents 50
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 51
Source(s) 52
Er
Environmental Setting 53
Regulatory Framework 54
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 56
Source(s) 56
Geology and Soils 59
Environmental Setting 60
Regulatory Framework 61
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 63
Source(s) 66
Greenhouse Gas Emissions 67
Environmental Setting 67
Regulatory Framework 68
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 71
Source(s) 76
Hazards and Hazardous Materials 77
Environmental Setting 77
Regulatory Framework 79
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 81
Source(s) 83
Hydrology and Water Quality 85
Environmental Setting 85
Regulatory Framework 86
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 89
Source(s) 92
Land Use and Planning 95
Environmental Setting 95
Regulatory Framework 95
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Table of Contents I Page iii
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 97
Source(s) 98
Mineral Resources 99
Environmental Setting 99
Regulatory Framework 99
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 100
Source(s) 100
Noise 101
Environmental Setting 101
Regulatory Framework 104
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 106
Source(s) 112
Population and Housing 113
Environmental Setting 113
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 113
Source(s) 114
Public Services 117
Environmental Setting 117
Regulatory Framework 118
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 118
Source(s) 120
Recreation 121
Environmental Setting 121
Regulatory Framework 121
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 122
Source(s) 122
Transportation 123
Environmental Setting 123
Regulatory Framework 125
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 127
Source(s) 131
Tribal Cultural Resources 1 R3
Environmental Setting 133
Regulatory Framework 134
Previous CEQA Documents 135
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 136
Source(s) 137
Utilities and Service Systems 139
Environmental Setting 139
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Table of Contents I Page iv
Regulatory Framework 141
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 143
Source(s) 147
Wildfire 149
Environmental Setting 149
Regulatory Framework 150
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 152
Source(s) 154
Mandatory Findings of Significance 155
(a) Significant Impacts to Biological Resources or Important Examples of History or
Prehistory 155
(b) Cumulative Impacts 155
(c) Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings 156
Source(s) 156
List of Figures
Note: All figures are included at the end of the document.
Figure 1 Project Location
Figure 2 Project Site
Figure 3 Site Plan
Figure 4 Elevations
Figure 5 Overall Floor Plan
Figure 6A Landscape Plan
Figure 6B Landscape Plan Details
Figure 7 Fire Access Route
Figure 8 Proposed Project Area, Noise Monitoring Locations and Worst -Case
Noise -Sensitive Receptors
Figure 9 Distribution of Modeled Noise Sources Assumed for Project
Operations
Figure 10 Perspective 1
Figure 11 Perspective 2
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Table of Contents I Page v
List of Tables
Table 1: Building Composition by Level 3
Table 2: Anticipated Construction Schedule 6
Table 3: Project Consistency with Applicable CAP 2030 GHG Emissions Reduction
Measures 71
Table 4: GHG Emissions Summary 74
Table 5: Summary of Measured Sound Levels 103
Table 6: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria 104
Table 7: FTA General Assessment Noise Criteria 104
Table 8: City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (dBA, CNEL) 105
Table 9: Alameda County Exterior Noise Level Standards 106
Table 10: Proposed Project Construction Equipment Reference Sound Pressure
Levels 107
Table 11: Combined Construction Noise Levels per Construction Phase 108
Table 12: Modeled Noise Sources 108
Table 13: Predicted Proposed Facility Operational Sound Levels (dBA) 109
Table 14: Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes 110
Table 15: Predicted Existing and Future -with -Project Worst -Hour Traffic Noise
Levels 110
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Table of Contents I Page vi
Acronyms
1,1,1-TCA 1,1,1-trichloroethane
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACDEH Alameda County Department of Environmental Health
ACFCWCD Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
ACFD Alameda County Fire Department
ACMs asbestos -containing materials
ADA American With Disabilities
ADWF average dry weather flow
AFY acre-feet per year
Alameda CTC Alameda County Transportation Commission
Alquist-Priolo Act Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
APN Assessor Parcel Numbers
Ardent Ardent Environmental Group
AUF acoustical usage factor
AVI Amador Valley Industries
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan
bgs below the ground surface
BMPs Best Management Practices
Business Plans Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories
C&D construction and demolition
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Standards Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDMG California Department of Mines and Geology
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CF Carbon -Free Energy
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Table of Contents I Page vii
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CHP California Highway Patrol
City City of Dublin
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide -equivalents
Cornerstone Cornerstone Earth Group
county County of Alameda
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CWA federal Clean Water Act
CY cubic yard
dB decibels
dBA A -weighted decibel
DBH diameter breast height
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOF California Department of Finance
DSRSD Dublin San Ramon Services District
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
EBCE East Bay Community Energy
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
EBRPD East Bay Regional Park District
EDR Environmental Database Report
EE Efficiency and Electrification
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
ESA Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973
EV electric vehicle
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FTA Manual Federal Transit Administration Manual
g gravity
GGEs gasoline gallon equivalents of petroleum
GHG greenhouse gas
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Table of Contents I Page viii
gpd/ksf gallons of water per day per 1,000 square feet
GWP Global warming potential
Hi Bay laboratories were used for small-scale testing, while the building
located south of the offices/laboratories
HVAC heating, ventilation and air conditioning
Hz Hertz
Interstate
in/sec inches per second
IPaC Information for Planning and Consulting
IS Initial Study
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LED light emitting diode
Leg Equivalent Sound Level
Lmax Maximum Noise Level
LID Low Impact Development
light industrial zoned M-1
LOS level of service
LRAs local responsibility areas
mg million gallons
MGD million gallons per day
MM Materials and Waste Management
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
mph miles per hour
MRZs Mineral Resource Zones
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
N20 nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NHSTA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOA Naturally Occurring Asbestos
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
OES Office of Emergency Services
OPR Governor's Office of Planning and Research
PD Planned Development
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric Company
PM particulate matter
PM10 PM equal to or less than 10 micrometers in diameter
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Table of Contents I Page ix
PM2.5 PM equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter
Porter -Cologne Act Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
proposed project The proposed actions that would involve replacing existing
building with a new building and other site improvements
R&D research and development
R-5 single-family residence
RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model
ROGs reactive organic gases
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SIP State Implementation Plan
SM Sustainable Mobility and Land Use
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1974
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SRVRWP San Ramon Valley Water Program
ST Short-term
STAA Surface Transportation Assistance Act
SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board
TACs toxic air contaminants
TCE trichloroethene
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
UBC Uniform Building Code
UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology
UST Underground Storage Tank
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOCs volatile organic compounds
WB-62 Interstate Semi -Trailer
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 1
Hexcel Redevelopment Project
Initial Study
Background & Project Description
Project Title
Hexcel Redevelopment Project
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Contact Person and Phone Number
Gaspare Annibale
Associate Planner
Phone: 925/833-6610
Gaspare.Annibale@dublin.ca.gov
Project Location
The Project site is located at 11711 Dublin Boulevard in the City of Dublin, Alameda County,
California. The site includes two parcels totaling 8.81 acres (Assessor Parcel Numbers [APN]
941-1560-009-01 [Parcel 1] and 941-1560-003-04 [Parcel 2]). Parcel 1 is the developed portion
of the site and consists of the existing Hexcel research and development (R&D) building,
landscaping and parking. Parcel 2 is located south of the Hexcel building and consists of a
landscape area and the Dublin Creek riparian corridor. See Figure 1. Project Location.
As shown in Figure 2. Project Site, the Project site is approximately 8.81 acres located south of
Dublin Boulevard in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan with the U.S. Bank Branch and
Dublin Heritage Park and Museums and Dublin Pioneer Cemetery to the east; Interstate (I-)580
to the south; and a business park to the west. Regional access to the project site is provided by
1-580 and 1-680, with local access provided by Dublin Boulevard.
Project Applicant/Sponsor Name and Address
Dublin Boulevard Owner, LP
19700 S. Vermont Ave
Suite 101
Torrance, CA 90502
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 2
General Plan Designation
Business Park/Industrial
Zoning
M-1- Light Industrial and Planned Development (PD) (Ordinance No. 80-60)
Project Description
This Initial Study, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), describes the
proposed project and the project's potential impacts on the surrounding environment. The City
of Dublin (the City) is the Lead Agency for review of the proposed project under CEQA.
Proposed Project
The proposed Project would result in the existing 62,715 square foot industrial building being
demolished and a new 125,304 square foot building being developed on the 8.81-acre Project
site. The new building would cater to future tenants in the R&D and life sciences field. Other
site improvements would include landscaping; parking; a fire access road; circulation
improvements for truck access and loading and unloading materials; utilities; pavement and
grading to treat site drainage. Figure 3. Site Plan shows the proposed site layout. The following
sections describe the proposed Project and project components.
Proposed Building
The proposed building would cover approximately 33 percent of Parcel 1 (see Figure 3. Site
Plan). The building would be set back approximately 135 feet from Dublin Boulevard, separated
by landscaped areas, parking stalls and a fire access route for aerial apparatus access (described
in succeeding sections). As shown in Figure 4. Elevations, the building would be a single -story
building with the potential addition of a second floor mezzanine office and would have a
maximum height of 40 feet. The outside of the building would be made of concrete tilt -up
panels painted in various colors including blue, white and gray. The north side (front) of the
building would have separate entrances to the lower level of each of the four separate tenant
spaces (i.e., Units A, B, C and D). Access to the upper mezzanine office spaces would be
provided from the interior of the building via stairways. The double doors to the entrance
would have aluminum framing with insulated tempered glazed windows. Units B and C would
also have doors on the front of the building that would provide access to the industrial and
warehouse spaces. Large, glazed windows with aluminum framing would be installed on both
lower and upper levels of the building to provide for maximum light filtering from the outside
into the office spaces. The west and northwest side of the building would provide for six
separate points of ingress/egress into the Unit A industrial and warehouse space, and from the
inside provide access outside to adjacent parking stalls and a large landscaped area at the west
corner of the site. The east side of the building would provide for four points of ingress/egress
into Unit D and would have large vision glass that would allow light to flow into the space from
outside while keeping the inside of the building cool and private. The south side (rear) of the
building would have 4 to 5 dock doors per unit for loading and unloading of materials from the
warehouses. There would be four drive-in doors for truck access inside the warehouse.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 3
The interior design of the building would maximize natural light with mezzanine offices on the
second floor overlooking the ground floor. The total square footage of the first floor would be
119,304 square feet and the second floor would be 6,000 square feet. As indicated in I -able 1:
Building Composition by Lev€., the space would be configured for different uses related to life
sciences and advanced manufacturing. The overall building square footage could potentially be
divided into four separate units (Units A, B, C and D), each with separate entrances, for four
future tenants (see Figure 5. Overall Floor Plan). Each of the units would be between 26,000 to
34,000 square feet consisting of office, industrial, and warehouse space.
Table 1: Building Composition by Level
Level
Use Square Footage
Level 1
Office 12,000
Level 1
Light industrial 30,000
Level 1
Warehouse 77,304
Level 2
Office 6,000
Other features of the building would include an interior bike rack, interior roof drain with pipe
overflow, and an electrical room. All walking surfaces would be non -slip types. The floors would
be a flat/tilt concrete slab and interior walls would be concrete. The building would be designed
in compliance with fire codes related to fire access, internal sprinkler systems, electrical
systems and fire -retardant materials. Additionally, the building would comply with American
With Disabilities (ADA) standards related to access, ramps, breakrooms and bathrooms.
Landscape Improvements
Most of the existing landscape would be replaced, as illustrated in Figure 6A. Landscape Plan,
except within the southern portion of the site (Parcel 2) where existing vegetation within the
riparian corridor of Dublin Creek and along the 1-580 boundary would be retained. The total site
landscape area would be 99,106 square feet, which includes new and existing landscape. A
variety of evergreen shrubs, ornamental trees, grasses, and perennials would be planted
around the perimeter of the site and at parking lot areas as listed in Figure 6B: Landscape Plan
Details. A total of 85 trees would be added to the site along with other plant materials. Some of
the proposed plants include sweet bay, strawberry tree, toyon, hopbush, coffeeberry, red
yucca, agave, fort night lily, ceanothus and atlas fescue. Bark mulch would be placed in planters
around shrubs.
Native and drought tolerant plants would be utilized to enhance biodiversity and conserve
water. Large ornamental trees planned for parking lot areas would provide shade and minimize
radiating heat. The landscape would be designed to provide buffers between the site and
adjacent properties, and plants would be strategically placed to screen the site's aboveground
utilities from public streets. Temporary and permanent irrigation systems would be installed to
establish plants. A 3,827 square foot grass bio-swale surrounded by trees and shrubs is
proposed in the west corner of the site. Additional bio-swales/bioretention planters are
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 4
proposed in the northeast and southeast areas of the site. The total bioretention areas would
be 9,819 square feet.
Parcel 1 of the Project site contains 87 trees, four of which are heritage trees. All trees within
this parcel would be removed except for two of the heritage trees; one in the northeast corner
along the project frontage and one in the southwest portion of the site. The heritage trees that
would be removed in Parcel 1 include one in the northwest portion of the site and one near the
center of the site. Parcel 2 of the Project site contains 109 trees within the Dublin Creek riparian
corridor. All trees in Parcel 2 would be retained, 19 of which are heritage trees.
Access, Circulation and Parking
Vehicular access would be provided from two existing driveways off Dublin Boulevard, one near
the center of the site frontage and the other at the eastern boundary. These driveways would
be connected by a 30 to 40-foot-wide fire access route around the perimeter of the proposed
building (Figure 7. Fire Access Route). A total of six fire hydrants would be installed along this
fire access road. The road would be designed to accommodate emergency response vehicles
(i.e., fire trucks), delivery box trucks, and trash trucks. A 26-foot-wide fire access route along
the northern side of the building would allow for aerial apparatus access.
A total of 217 parking spaces would be provided for the Project. The parking spaces would be
located around the perimeter of the building and at the edges of the site, and would include
stalls for compact vehicles, standard vehicles, electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, and
accessible parking. Compact parking would account for 27 percent of the overall parking
spaces, while EV parking would account for 45 percent of the overall parking spaces.
Additionally, 12 long-term and 12 short-term bicycle stalls would be provided onsite. Offsite
loading spaces would be provided in the back (south) of the proposed building adjacent to the
dock doors and facing Highway 580. No truck parking or loading will be facing the street.
Utilities Systems
The Project site is currently served by existing utilities for water, sanitary sewer, electricity, and
gas. As discussed in Section 18: Utilities and Service Systems, Dublin San Ramon Services District
provides water and wastewater services to the site, and East Bay Community Energy provides
electricity and gas to the site, which is distributed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Sanitary
sewer, sanitary sewer manholes, a water meter, and electrical lines and cables would be
removed and replaced with new lines that would connect to existing offsite service lines.
Additionally, an existing electrical cabinet, storm drain pipe, electrical transformer, and air
conditioner unit are proposed for removal and would be replaced. Some of the existing
stormwater lines will be left in place but abandoned. New utility lines would be buried below
ground.
A fire service line would connect to a public water line, which would provide water to the fire
hydrants located around the site. Irrigation lines would also connect to public water lines.
Stormwater would be treated onsite via five bioretention treatment planter areas that would
be implemented in the western corner, southeast corner and south and northeast portions of
the site. The site would be graded to have water flow into these biorientation areas.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 5
Approximately 9,819 square feet of bioretention areas on the Project site would be used for
stormwater control. The proposed Project would include catch basins and storm drains
throughout the project site. Full trash capture devices would be installed in all storm drain
catch basins.
Other Improvements
An approximately 6-foot-high retaining wall would be installed along the southern edge of the
parking lot and bioretention area in the southwest portion of the site, and lower
(approximately 1- to 2-feet-high) retaining walls would be constructed adjacent to the
bioretention areas in the southeast and northeast portions of the site. Additional retaining
walls would be constructed to create loading dock ramps along the southern facade of the
building.
A trash enclosure is proposed immediately adjacent to the backside of the building to the west.
The trash enclosure would be 10.5 feet tall and 25.75 feet wide. A metal screen would be
installed on the top of the enclosure to prevent illegal dumping. Double doors to move
dumpsters in and out of the enclosure and an accessible gate would be provided in the front of
the enclosure. The enclosure would store two 6-cubic yard (CY) dumpsters and one 2-CY bin for
green waste.
A pathway would be constructed that would extend from the front of the proposed building to
the side of the building providing access to doors along the building, parking spaces and the
trash enclosure. A trash container for trash, recycle and compost would be installed near the
front entrance of the proposed building.
Construction Activities and Schedule
A detailed construction schedule has not been determined at this phase; however, all
construction of the Project is anticipated to occur over a 12-month period with some of the
phases overlapping. Work would occur during weekdays from 7 am to 4 pm. The anticipated
(preliminary) construction schedule is provided in Table 2: Anticipated Construction Schedule,
which may be updated subject to market conditions, regulatory approvals, and other factors.
The number of onsite workers would vary depending on the construction phase, but it is
anticipated for a Project of this scope to range from 7 to 64 workers. Typical grading depths
throughout the site would be less than 2 to 3 feet below ground level. The maximum depth of
excavation would be between 12 to 20 feet below the existing ground level at the storm drain
pump, which would be located in the southern portion of Parcel 1. In the parking lot near the
southwest corner, grading would extend to approximately 4.5 feet below ground level.
Construction phases would include demolition, site preparation and grading, trenching and
foundation work, exterior building construction, interior building construction, and outside
paving/landscaping. A summary of each construction phase is described below.
Demolition —This stage would include the demolition of the existing facility, asphalt pavement
(140,724 square feet), concrete curbs, landscape including trees and bushes, irrigation system,
drainage system, sewer system, site lights, electrical boxes and other electrical equipment, gas
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 6
and water meters, fence, shed and gate. Anticipated construction equipment to be used would
include concrete saws, excavators, loaders, tractors, backhoes, and rubber -tired dozers.
Site preparation/grading — After the demolition phase, the site would be cleared of all
demolition waste and earthmoving activities such as excavation, grading and leveling would
take place to prepare the site for the proposed building and other site improvements. Utility
line trenching would also occur during this stage. Anticipated construction equipment to be
used would include graders, rubber -tired dozers, tractors, loaders, and backhoes.
Trenching and foundation — This phase would consist of excavating and trenching for footings,
laying down reinforcing bars (rebar) for retaining walls, drilling piers, preparing beams for
foundation, and pouring the foundation slab. Anticipated construction equipment to be used
would include tractors, loaders, backhoes, and excavators.
Exterior building construction — This phase would include construction of framing, roof, and
siding and installation of exterior windows and doors. Anticipated construction equipment to
be used would include cranes, forklifts, generator sets, welders and tractors, loaders, backhoes
and excavators.
Interior building construction —This stage would involve the interior rough out and interior
finishes of the building. Walls, flooring, stairs, ceiling, windows, doors, interior electrical and
plumbing would be developed at this phase. Anticipated construction equipment to be used
would include air compressors and aerial lift.
Paving and landscape — This stage would include laying down the pavement for the parking,
driveways, fire access road, and walkway areas. This stage also includes installation of
landscaping and irrigation around the site. Anticipated construction equipment to be used
would include cement and mortar mixers, pavers, pavement equipment, rollers, tractors,
loaders, and backhoes.
Table 2: Anticipated Construction Schedule
Construction Phase
Schedule Duration
Demolition
Late fall 2023 to winter 2024 3 months
Site preparation/grading
Early spring 2024 1 month
Trenching and foundation
Spring 2024 1 month
Exterior building construction
Late spring 2024 to fall 2024 6 months
Interior building construction
Late fall 2024 2 months
Paving/landscape
Late fall 2024 to early winter 2 months
Project Approvals
The City of Dublin is the Lead Agency for the proposed Project under CEQA. The City would be
responsible for considering the Project's impacts as part of the Project approval. The City would
require the applicant to obtain the following approvals and permits: approval of a Planned
Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; Site Development
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 7
Review Permit; Heritage Tree Removal Permit; and demolition, building, grading, and
encroachment permits.
Other agencies whose approval may be required include:
• Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD); and
• Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
Environmental Setting
Project Site and Existing Facilities
The Project site is located at 11711 Dublin Boulevard in the City of Dublin, Alameda County,
California. The site includes two parcels totaling 8.81 acres; APN 941-1560-009-01 [Parcel 1] is
the larger parcel at 8.30 acres and is located adjacent to Dublin Boulevard, and [APN] 941-1560-
003-04 [Parcel 2] is the smaller parcel at 0.51 acre and is located toward the back (south) of the
Project site adjacent to 1-580. The site slopes from a maximum elevation of approximately 395
feet above mean sea level near the southwest corner to about 382 feet at the northern corner.
Parcel 1 is zoned M-1 (light industrial) and PD (Ordinance No. 80-60) and Parcel 2 is zoned M-1
(light industrial).
The site is also located in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan boundary. The Specific
Plan intends to protect and preserve historical resources and further enhance this area with
development that is compatible with the extant historic buildings and remnants in the area. The
original historic buildings in this area include St. Raymond's church, the Murray Schoolhouse,
Pioneer Cemetery, Green's Store, and two bungalow homes. These resources function together
as the Dublin Heritage Center, a local history museum and cultural center. The Specific Plan
boundary extends from Cronin Circle to 1-580 and San Ramon Road to Hansen Drive, including
portions west of Hansen Drive along Dublin Boulevard. The Dublin Village Historic Area
encompasses approximately 40 acres (City of Dublin 2014).
Parcel 1 (the northern and main portion of the site) is developed with a 62,715 square foot
building, at -grade parking, underground and aboveground utilities, pavement, and ornamental
landscaping. The existing building is being used as a R&D facility. The landscape consists of grass
areas and mature trees.
Parcel 2 (the southern parcel) is undeveloped and is surrounded by dense riparian vegetation
including mature trees. The Dublin Creek runs along the approximate southern boundary and is
approximately 13 to 18 feet below the adjacent site elevations.
Surrounding Land Uses
As shown in Figure 2. Project Site, the Project site is immediately surrounded by commercial
office uses including an R&D facility, medical and professional offices to the west, US Bank,
Dublin Pioneer Cemetery, and the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums to the east; 1-580 to the
south; and Dublin Boulevard to the north. To the north of Dublin Boulevard and to the east of
the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums and cemetery are single-family houses. Approximately a
mile to the west is Dublin Hills Regional Open Space Preserve.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 8
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected by the Project
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" and/or a potentially
significant impact that could be reduced to "Less than Significant with Mitigation", as indicated
by the checklist on the following pages. Impact summaries for all CEQA impacts with a less than
significant impact with mitigation and a potentially significant impact are provided in this Initial
Study and analyzed further in the Focused EIR.
Aesthetics
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
X
Air Quality
X
Biological Resources
X
Cultural Resources
X
Energy
X
Geology / Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
X
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality
Land Use / Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population / Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation / Traffic
X
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities / Service Systems
Wildfire
X
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.
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
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 9
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
significance
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
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 10
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.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 11
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.
X
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.
CITY OF DUBLIN
7/26/23
Anne Hersch,
Assistant Community Development Director Date
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 12
This page intentionally left blank
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 13
Explanation of Environmental Checklist Responses
Aesthetics
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
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 X
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
L— —
Environmental Setting
The Project site is in the southwest portion of the City of Dublin surrounded by commercial and
residential uses. The site includes two parcels totaling 8.81 acres. Parcel 1 (the northern and
main portion of the site) is the larger parcel at 8.30 acres and is developed with a 62,715-
square-foot building, at -grade parking, and underground and aboveground utilities. Photo 1
shows a view of the Project site from the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Hansen Drive.
The existing structure is one and two stories and generally white in color. The building setback
varies from approximately 75 feet to 175 feet from Dublin Boulevard.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 14
Photo 1: View of the Project site from the Intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Hansen Drive
The Contemporary/Brutalist architectural style building has a roughly L-shaped plan and was
largely constructed in two phases in 1962 and 1967, with small additions and alterations in the
mid-1980s. The original 1962 portion of the facility is on the east half, has a roughly rectangular
plan, and is constructed of tilt -up concrete panels in a north -south orientation. The north end
of the building rests on a concrete foundation and is one story tall. The exterior is clad with
scored concrete, and the flat roof parapet is lined with a louvered metal equipment screen. A
privacy screen that uses vertically oriented, narrow wood slats lines the west side of the east
half of the facility and terminates near the secondary entry, which consists of a pair of glazed,
metal double doors.
The 1967-constructed portion of the facility abuts the west side of the two-story building
hyphen. This single -story building section has a T-shaped plan and an east -west orientation. The
building is characterized by a flat roof with deep eaves and fascia that is supported by repeating
narrow, concrete pylons with wood sheathing on all sides.
A two-story building hyphen built in 1984 connects the 1962-constructed east half with the
1967-constructed west half. The hyphen has a flat roof and is clad with scored concrete. A
single -story chemical storage addition, constructed in 1985, is at the southeast corner of the
facility. The addition has a square plan, a flat roof, with scored panel lines in the concrete
exterior.
Parcel 1 of the Project site contains 87 trees, four of which are heritage trees. Landscaped areas
within Parcel 1 are comprised of sod, various ornamental shrubs, various ornamental tree
species, as well as a large number of native trees such as coast live oak trees, California Bay,
and California buckeye.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 15
Dublin Creek is located to the south of the Project footprint on Parcel 2 and runs between the
Project footprint and 1-580. Parcel 2 (the southern parcel) is undeveloped and is surrounded by
dense riparian vegetation and contains 109 trees within the Dublin Creek riparian corridor.
Dublin Creek is approximately 13 to 18 feet below the adjacent site elevations.
The Project site is immediately surrounded by commercial office uses including an R&D facility,
medical and professional offices to the west, and US Bank, Dublin Pioneer Cemetery, and the
Dublin Heritage Park and Museums to the east. To the north of Dublin Boulevard and to the
east of the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums and cemetery are single-family houses.
Approximately a mile to the west is Dublin Hills Regional Open Space Preserve. The buildings in
the Project vicinity are generally one to three stories. These buildings vary in architectural style,
height, color, and bulk. Landscaping associated with these buildings generally consists of
mature trees, shrubs, and grass that provide visual contrast in terms of form, color, mass, and
scale. Viewers of the Project site from these locations include motorists, employees and
patrons of local businesses, residents, pedestrians, and bicyclists.
Scenic Highways, Routes, and Corridors
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) manages the State's Scenic Highways
Program. According to Caltrans' California Scenic Highway Mapping System, the nearest
officially designated State scenic highway is 1-680, approximately 1 mile east of the Project site
(Caltrans 2018). 1-580, located just south of the Project site, is an eligible State scenic highway
(Caltrans 2018).
1-580, 1-680, and San Ramon Road were designated scenic routes by Alameda County in 1966.
These are the places from which people traveling through Dublin gain their impression of the
City (City of Dublin 2022). 1-580 is elevated higher than the Project site, and motorists traveling
both directions on 1-580 would have peripheral views of the vegetation on Parcel 2 and
motorists traveling westbound would have intermittent peripheral views of Parcel 1.
Regional corridors are routes of regional significance and are generally defined as routes that
connect Dublin to surrounding communities. Dublin has 12 features (including roadways, trails,
and public transportation) that are considered regional corridors. In the vicinity of the Project
site, Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road are identified by the City as a regional corridor (City
of Dublin 2022).
Scenic Vistas
Scenic vistas consist of expansive, panoramic views of important, unique, or highly valued visual
features that are seen from public viewing areas. This definition combines visual quality with
information about view exposure to describe the level of interest or concern that viewers may
have for the quality of a particular view or visual setting.
There are no designated scenic vistas in Dublin. However, 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 (City of Dublin 2022). In the
vicinity of the Project site, ridgelines and open space areas are visible from Dublin Boulevard
and 1-580.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 16
Light and Glare
The Project area is located in a highly urbanized environment and is surrounded by existing
sources of light and glare. These sources of light and glare include streetlights along Dublin
Boulevard and 1-580; exterior lighting on office and residential buildings; outdoor lighting on
surface parking lots; illuminated signage; reflective building material; and vehicular headlights.
In addition, the Project site itself is developed and includes existing sources of light and glare
from the parking lot and building facade lighting and interior illumination passing through
windows.
Glare can emanate from many different sources, some of which include direct sunlight, sunlight
reflecting from buildings, and bright outdoor or indoor lighting. Currently, the existing building
does not generate substantial glare, as most of the building is constructed of non -reflective
materials.
Regulatory Framework
City of Dublin General Plan
Per the 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. The following policies related to visual resources are applicable to the
proposed Project:
• Implementing Policy 5.7.1.A.1. Incorporate County -designated scenic routes, and the Fallon
Road extension, in the General Plan as adopted City -designated scenic routes, and work to
enhance a positive image of Dublin as seen by through travelers.
• Implementing Policy 5.7.1.B.1. Exercise design review of all projects visible from a
designated scenic route.
In addition, the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the City of Dublin General Plan
contains goals and policies that provide a framework for community development and
guidelines for new construction and improvements. The following policies are applicable to the
proposed Project:
• Policy 10.5.3.C. Incorporate visual screening techniques such as berms, dense and/or fast-
growing landscaping, and appropriately designed fencing where feasible, to ensure that
visually challenging features, such as parking lots, loading docks, storage areas, etc. are
visually attractive as seen from regional corridors.
• Policy 10.5.3.D. Provide landscaping and articulated design to soften the visual appearance
of existing and new walls and fences that are adjacent to regional corridors, wherever
feasible (reference: Streetscape Master Plan).
• Policy 10.5.3.E. Encourage attractive and high -quality landscaping along the edge of the
freeways and development surrounding on- and off -ramps to provide softer and more
attractive views both to and from the freeways. Landscaping on private property should
complement the buildings and overall site design.
• Implementation Measure 10.5.4.C. Review development through the Planned
Development Regulations and/or the Site Development Review Permit process.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 17
• Policy 10.7.3.1.A. Encourage diverse, high quality, attractive, and architecturally appealing
buildings that create distinctive visual reference points, enrich the appearance of functional
gathering spaces, and convey an excellence in architecture, workmanship, quality, and
durability in building materials.
• Policy 10.7.3.1.C. Ensure that building height, scale and design are compatible with the
character of the surrounding natural and built environment, and are varied in their massing,
scale and articulation
• Policy 10.7.3.1.E. Avoid the use of long, continuous, straight (building) walls along roadways
by designing appropriate articulation, massing, and architectural features
• Policy 10.7.3.1.K. Minimize the visual impacts of service/loading areas, storage areas, trash
enclosures, and ground mounted mechanical equipment. When feasible, these elements
should be located behind or to the sides of buildings and screened from views through a
combination of walls/ fencing, and/or landscaping.
• Policy 10.7.3.1.L. Minimize the visual impacts of roof mounted mechanical equipment.
When feasible, such elements should be consolidated and housed in architecturally
articulated enclosures.
• Policy 10.7.3.2.H. Preserve mature trees and vegetation, with special consideration given to
the protection of groups of trees and associated undergrowth and specimen trees
(reference: Heritage Tree Ordinance).
• Policy 10.7.3.4.A. Ensure that perimeter areas incorporate appropriate planting, lighting,
and signage.
• Policy 10.7.3.4.E. Design and locate outdoor lighting around buildings, in parking lots, and
along streets that minimize the effects of glare on adjacent properties, particularly in
residential areas
• Policy 10.7.3.5.A. Provide convenient but not visually dominating parking that incorporates
extensive landscaping to provide shade, promote wayfinding, visually soften views from the
street and surrounding properties, and reduce the heat island effect (generally
characterized with large expanses of paved and under -landscaped surfaces).
• Policy 10.7.3.5.B. Buffer and screen large expanses of parking areas from the street, where
practical.
City of Dublin Municipal Code
Chapter 8.28, Industrial Zoning District
Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 are zoned as Light Industrial (M1). The M-1 zoning district is intended to
provide for the continued use, expansion, and new development of light industrial use types in
proximity to major transportation corridors, and to ensure compatibility with adjacent
residential and commercial uses. A landscape buffer 10 feet wide is required to be provided
along all roadways which shall be adequately watered and maintained. Open areas used for
storage or for parking and loading of vehicles are required to be enclosed by a solid wall or
fence not less than 6 feet in height with solid entrance and exit gates.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 18
Chapter 8.32, Planned Development Zoning District
Parcel 1 is further zoned as PD under Ordinance No. 80-60. The existing PD Ordinance No. 80-60
for the Project site was approved by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on July 10, 1980.
The purpose of Chapter 8.32 is to establish a Planned Development Zoning District through
which one or more properties are planned as a unit with development standards tailored to the
site; provides maximum flexibility and diversification in the development of property; maintains
consistency with, and implement the provisions of, the Dublin General Plan and applicable
Specific Plans; protects the integrity and character of both residential and non-residential areas
of the City; encourages efficient use of land for preservation of sensitive environmental areas
such as open space areas and topographic features; encourages use of design features to
achieve development that is compatible with the area; and allows for creative and imaginative
design that will promote amenities beyond those expected in conventional developments.
Chapter 8.32 requires preparation of a Development Plan for the zoning district. The
Development Plan shall establish regulations for the use, development, improvement, and
maintenance of the property within the requested Planned Development Zoning District, and
may be adopted in stages, as follows:
• Stage 1 Development Plan. A Stage 1 Development Plan shall be adopted for the entire
Planned Development District site with the reclassification of the property to the Planned
Development Zoning District. The plan shall establish the permitted, conditionally
permitted, and accessory uses, Stage 1 site plan, site area and proposed densities,
maximum number of residential units and non-residential square footages, a phasing plan
and a Master Landscaping Plan; statements regarding consistency with General Plan and
Specific Plans, and consistency with Inclusionary Zoning regulations, an aerial photo, other
information necessary for the review of the proposed project.
• Stage 2 Development Plan. A Stage 2 Development Plan for all or a portion of the entire
Planned Development District site may be adopted with the Stage 1 Development Plan at
the time of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. A Stage 2 Development Plan shall establish
permitted, conditionally permitted, and accessory uses, Stage 2 site plan, site area and
maximum proposed densities, maximum numbers of residential units by type and non-
residential square footages for each use, development regulations, architectural standards,
preliminary landscape plan, other information necessary for the review of the proposed
project.
Chapter 8.36, Development Regulations
Chapter 8.36, Development Regulations, of the City of Dublin Municipal Code is intended to
secure the necessary provision for light, air, privacy, and safety from fire hazards, and to ensure
that development within the City of Dublin provides a high -quality living and working
environment consistent with the policies of the City General Plan. It sets forth development
regulations relating to lot area, lot square footage per residence, lot width, lot frontage, lot
depth, residential use, setbacks, distance between residences, lot coverage, lot lines, yards and
height limits.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 19
Chapter 8.72, Landscaping and Fencing Regulations
Chapter 8.72, Landscaping and Fencing Regulations, of the City of Dublin Municipal Code is
intended to enhance the aesthetic appearance of developments in all areas of the City by
providing standards relating to quality, quantity, and functional aspects of landscaping and
landscape screening; increase compatibility between residential and abutting commercial and
industrial land uses; reduce the heat and glare generated by development; and minimize visual
pollution.
Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review
Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review, of the City of Dublin Municipal Code establishes the
procedure for approving, conditionally approving, or denying Site Development Review Permits
to promote orderly, attractive, and harmonious development for new development projects
that are compatible with surrounding properties and neighborhoods. Adopted Site
Development Review Guidelines are used to guide Site Development Review Permit
applications.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Scenic vistas, views (No Impact)
A scenic vista can be impacted by development projects in two ways: (1) the project could
directly diminish the scenic quality of the vista by introducing new visual elements that are
incompatible with the balance of built and open space, that substantially alter the landform, or
that detract from the qualities that contribute to the scenic vista, or (2) the project could block
the view corridors or "vista" of the scenic resource from public vantage points. Important
factors in determining whether a proposed project would block scenic vistas include the
project's proposed height, mass, and location relative to surrounding land uses and travel
corridors, as well as to the number of viewers potentially affected and the length of exposure
(e.g., residential land uses are typically more sensitive than land uses with only short-term
occupants such as employees, students, or visitors).
There are no designated scenic vistas in Dublin. However, the City 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. In the vicinity of the Project site,
ridgelines and open space areas are visible from Dublin Boulevard and 1-580.
The proposed Project would demolish the existing 62,715 square foot building and develop a
new 125,304 square foot building. Because the topography of the Project site, 1-580 is elevated
above the Project site, and the surrounding area is generally flat, construction of the Project
would not obstruct background views of scenic resources, such as views of ridgelines and open
space.
Distant views of the Project site would be indistinguishable from the surrounding area due to
the density of urban development and flat topography along this portion of Dublin Boulevard.
Overall, the Project would be consistent in height, size, and scale with existing buildings in the
surrounding area. The new building would be taller and approximately double the size of the
existing building. The proposed building may appear bigger and taller for motorists,
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 20
pedestrians, visitors to local businesses, or individual residents on neighboring properties;
however, the increased building size and height would not substantially affect views of
ridgelines located in the open space areas from public vantage points or for a substantial
number of City residents. Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista and no impact would occur.
(b) Scenic resources (Less Than Significant Impact)
San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard are identified by the City as regional corridors. In
addition, San Ramon Road is designated a scenic route by Alameda County. San Ramon Road is
located approximately 0.3 mile east of the Project site; however, views of the Project site are
not visible from this section of the roadway due to intervening urban development.
As shown in Photo 1 above, the Project site is visible from Dublin Boulevard to motorists,
pedestrians, visitors to local businesses, or individual residents on neighboring properties. The
proposed Project would demolish the existing 62,715 square foot industrial building and
develop a new 125,304 square foot building. The building would be set back approximately 135
feet from Dublin Boulevard, separated by landscaped areas and parking stalls. Figure 10.
Perspective 1 shows an image of how the Project site would appear from Dublin Boulevard.
While the new building may appear bigger and taller for motorists, pedestrians, visitors to local
businesses, or individual residents on neighboring properties, the Project would be consistent
in height, size, and scale with existing buildings in the surrounding area. Much of the existing
landscape and trees on Parcel 1, closest to Dublin Boulevard, would be removed during project
construction. However, a total of 85 trees would be added to the site along with other plants,
such as sweet bay, strawberry tree, toyon, hopbush, coffeeberry, red yucca, agave, fort night
lily, ceanothus and atlas fescue. Over time, as landscaping and trees mature, they would soften
and obscure the visibility of the proposed building and parking lot.
The nearest officially designated State scenic highway is 1-680, approximately 1 mile east of the
Project site. However, views of the Project site are not visible from this section of the roadway
due to intervening urban development.
1-580, located approximately 65 feet to the south of the Project site, is an eligible State scenic
highway. Photos 2 and 3 illustrate existing views of the Project site from eastbound 1-580 and
westbound 1-580, respectively. As shown in Photos 2 and 3, motorists traveling both directions
1-580 would have peripheral views of Parcel 2 and motorist traveling westbound would have
intermittent peripheral views of Parcel 1. Existing vegetation on Parcel 2 within the riparian
corridor of Dublin Creek and along the 1-580 boundary would be retained. Therefore, views of
Parcel 2 from 1-580 would be the same as existing conditions.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 21
Photo 2: View of Parcel 2 by Motorists Traveling Eastbound on 1-580
Photo 3: View of the Project site by Motorists Traveling Westbound on 1-580
Views of Parcel 1 are peripheral to the viewer experience of motorists on 1-580. Motorists
experience direct views of the asphalt roadway, light rail tracks with associated chain link fence
dividing the eastbound and westbound lanes of traffic, metal guardrails, overhead lighting, and
interstate signage. Figure 11. Perspective shows a view of the Project site with the proposed
building from one vantage point of motorists traveling in the westbound direction. As shown in
the figure, the southwest corner of the proposed building would be partially visible from this
portion of the highway. However, vegetation would provide a soft screen against the building.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 22
As stated above, the Project would be consistent in height, size, and scale with the existing
buildings in the surrounding area, and as landscaping and trees mature, they would soften and
obscure the visibility of the building and parking lot. Views of the Project site from this location
would be intermittent, viewed from above, and experienced at high speeds (generally 65 miles
per hour). Therefore, the sensitivity of motorists along 1-580 to visual change is low.
Thus, the proposed Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, and this impact
would be less than significant.
(c) Substantially degrade the visual character of public views of the site or surrounding area
(No Impact)
The threshold of significance for development in urbanized areas is limited to whether the
Project would conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality.
Impacts to scenic quality within urbanized areas do not include degradation to visual character
or the quality of public views of the site and its surroundings.
The proposed Project would demolish the existing 62,715 square foot industrial building and
development of a new 125,304 square foot building. Parcel 1 has split zoning with one half of
the parcel zoned M-1 Light Industrial) and the other half zoned PD. Parcel 2 is zoned M-1 (Light
Industrial). As discussed further in the Dublin Municipal Code (DM) Section 8.28.23, the M-1
zoning district is intended to provide for the continued use, expansion, and new development
of light industrial use types. The proposed Project is a permitted use within the M-1 zoning
district, however, is not a permitted use in the PD. A Planned Development Rezone would be
required for Parcels 1 and 2, which provides development standards beyond those of the M-1
zoning, and a new ordinance would be adopted concurrently. In addition, the proposed Project
would prepare Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans simultaneously.' With approval of a
Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan (DMC
Chapter 8.32) and Site Development Review Permit (DMC 8.104), the proposed Project would
not conflict with the zoning of the Project site.
The Project would be consistent with the development standards and design criteria provided
in DMC Chapter 8.36, including standards for setbacks, lot area, lot width, lot frontage, lot
depth, lot coverage, lot lines, and height limits. The building would be set back approximately
135 feet from Dublin Boulevard and cover approximately 31 percent of the site (see Figure 3.
Site Plan). The building would be two -stories, with a maximum height of 40 feet (see Figure 4.
Elevations). In addition, the proposed Project would not exceed the Dublin Area Village Specific
Plan's development potential for the Project site (maximum of 154,202 square feet).
1 The Stage 1 Development Plan establishes the permitted, conditionally permitted and accessory uses
and discusses consistency with the General Plan. The Stage 2 Development Plan establishes
development standards/regulations, as well as architectural/landscaping standards. The Planning
Commission and the City Council would review the Development Plan, PD zoning district, and ordinance
for approval (Gaspare pers. comm., 2023).
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 23
The Project would be consistent with General Plan policies regarding landscaping and visual
screening (Policies 10.5.3.C, 10.5.3.D, 10.5.3.E, 10.7.3.2.H, 10.7.3.4.A, and 10.7.3.5.A of the
Dublin General Plan) and the City's municipal code Chapter 8.28. The total site landscape area
would be 99,106 square feet, which includes new and existing landscape. A variety of evergreen
shrubs, ornamental trees, grasses, and perennials would be planted around the perimeter of
the site and at parking lot areas (see Figure 6B. Landscape Plan Detail). A total of 85 trees would
be added to the site along with a variety of other plants. Some of the proposed plants include
sweet bay, strawberry tree, toyon, hopbush, coffeeberry, red yucca, agave, fort night lily,
ceanothus and atlas fescue. A 3,827 square foot grass bio-swale surrounded by trees and
shrubs is proposed in the west corner of the site, and additional bio-swales/bioretention
planters are proposed in the northeast and southeast areas of the site.
The Project would be consistent with General Plan policies regarding design of industrial
buildings (Policies 10.7.3.1.A, 10.7.3.1.B, and 10.7.3.1.E of the Dublin General Plan). The outside
of the building would be made of concrete tilt -up panels painted in various colors including
blue, white, and gray. An approximately 6-foot-high retaining wall would be installed along the
southern edge of the parking lot and bioretention area in the southwest portion of the site, and
lower (approximately 1- to 2-feet-high) retaining walls would be constructed adjacent to the
bioretention areas in the southeast and northeast portions of the site. Additional retaining
walls would be constructed to create loading dock ramps along the southern facade of the
building.
As discussed in more detail in Section 4, "Biological Resources," the Project's proposed tree
removal and replacement on Parcel 1 would also comply with the requirements of the City's
Heritage Tree Ordinance (DMC Chapter 5.60). Although the proposed removal of trees would
change the visual appearance of the Project site, the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance allows for
tree removal to accommodate proposed development, provided certain conditions are met.
With adherence to the tree removal permit conditions, the Project would not conflict with the
City's tree ordinance. All heritage trees in Parcel 2 would be retained.
There are no other regulations governing scenic quality that are applicable to the Project.
Because the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations
governing scenic quality, there would be no impact.
(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare (Less Than Significant)
The light and glare created by development under the Project would be consistent with the
levels of lighting and glare currently emitted by the on -site building and office buildings
surrounding the Project site and street lighting. Exterior light sources would be designed so as
not to create significant light and glare on adjacent properties through the use of concealed
sources and/or downcast light fixtures. Because the Project would not introduce new sources of
light substantially different from the existing on -site light and from surrounding uses and street
lighting, the Project would not generate a substantial new source of light that would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area.
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
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 24
intensity and direction of sunlight. The outside of the building would be made of concrete tilt -
up panels painted in various colors including blue, white and gray. Glazed, non -reflective
windows with aluminum framing would be installed on both lower and upper levels of the
building. 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.
For the reasons described above, the proposed Project would not create substantial new
sources of light and glare, and this impact would be less than significant.
Source(s)
California Department of Transportation. 2018. California State Scenic Highway Map. Available:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-
livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed March 8, 2023.
City of Dublin. City of Dublin General Plan, 2022. Amended February 15, 2022.
Gaspare, Annibale. City of Dublin. Email with Stephanie Osby regarding Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan process and approval of a Planned Development zoning district
ordinance. March 20, 2023.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 25
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model
to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in PRC Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non -forest use?
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 (NRCS 2019). The surrounding area is
characterized by commercial and residential uses. There are no forest or timberland on or near
the Project site.
Regulatory Framework
State Regulations
California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The California Department of Conservation (DOC) manages the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and
conversion of these lands over time. In each county, the land is analyzed for soil and irrigation
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 26
quality, and the highest quality land is designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance. Based on the results of these analyses, the DOC issues
maps every two years with the use of a computer mapping system, aerial imagery, public
review, and field reconnaissance.
Williamson Act
The Williamson Act, also known as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, enables local
governments and private landowners to enter into contracts that restrict specific parcels of
land to agricultural or related open space use. As a result, landowners receive reduced property
tax assessments because they are based upon farming and open space uses rather than market
value.
Local Regulations
City of Dublin General Plan
• Guiding Policy A.1. States that the City will prevent the premature urbanization of
agricultural lands.
• Implementing Policy B.1. Requires the City to make findings that the land is suitable for the
proposed use and will have adequate urban services and that conversion to an urban use
will not have significant adverse effects on adjoining lands remaining under Williamson Act
contract. Due to the location of the Project site and its proximity to existing development,
existing policies aimed at preserving agricultural uses in the City are not applicable to the
proposed Project.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (No
Impact)
As described in the Environmental Setting 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, there would be no impact.
(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a William Act contract (No Impact)
The Project site is currently zoned as M-1 (Light Industrial) and PD on the City of Dublin Zoning
Map (City of Dublin 2022). 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 agricultural zoning or
Williamson Act contracts. Therefore, there would be no impact.
(c) Conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberlands (No Impact)
The Project site is currently zoned as M-1 (Light Industrial) and PD on the City of Dublin Zoning
Map (City of Dublin 2022). The Project site is not currently used for forest or timberland
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 27
purposes, and is not zoned for forest land or timberland uses. Therefore, the proposed Project
would not conflict with existing forest or timberland zoning and there would be no impact.
(d) Result in loss of forest land or conversion to non -forest use (No Impact)
No forest land exists on the Project site or in the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed
Project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non -forest
use. Therefore, there would be no impact.
(e) Other changes that could result in conversion of farmland or forest land (No Impact)
The proposed Project would not result in other changes to the environment that could
indirectly result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural purposes or conversion of
forest land to non -forest uses. The Project site is in a highly urbanized area and the Project
would replace the existing industrial uses at the site with similar industrial uses. Therefore,
there would be no impact.
Source(s)
City of Dublin. 2022. Dublin Zoning Map as amended through June 21, 2022. Obtained January
24, 2023 from https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/31440/Zoning-Map-
June-2022.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2019. Web Soil Survey. Obtained on February 2, 2023
from https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 28
This page intentionally left blank
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
Air Quality
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 29
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
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
Air quality is defined by the concentration of pollutants in relation to their impact on human
health and the environment. Concentrations of air pollutants are determined by the rate and
location of pollutant emissions released by pollution sources, and the atmosphere's ability to
transport and dilute such emissions. Natural factors that affect transport and dilution include
terrain, wind, and sunlight. Therefore, ambient air quality conditions within the local air basin
are influenced by natural factors such as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to
the amount of air pollutant emissions released by existing air pollutant sources.
The proposed Project is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is
comprised of complex terrain types, including coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and
bays, which distort normal wind flow patterns. Along the County of Alameda's (the county)
western coast, temperatures are moderated by the bay, which can act as a heat source during
cold weather or cool the air by evaporation during warm weather. It is generally sunnier farther
from the coast, although partly cloudy skies are common throughout the summer. Average
summer temperatures are mild overnight and moderate during the day. Winter temperatures
are typically cool overnight and mild during the day. Highest temperatures are more common
inland. Wind speeds vary throughout the county, with the strongest gusts along the western
coast, often aided by dominant westerly winds and a bay -breeze effect. Rainfall totals average
about 14 to 23 inches per year, with the highest totals in the northern end of the county and
atop the Oakland -Berkeley hills (BAAQMD 2021).
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 30
Air Pollutants of Concern
Individual air pollutants at certain concentrations may adversely affect human or animal health,
reduce visibility, damage property, and reduce the productivity or vigor of crops and natural
vegetation. Six air pollutants have been identified by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as being of concern
both on a nationwide and statewide level: ozone; carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen dioxide
(NO2); sulfur dioxide (SO2); lead; and particulate matter (PM), which is subdivided into two
classes based on particle size: PM equal to or less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) and
PM equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5). Because the air quality standards
for these air pollutants are regulated using human health and environmentally based criteria,
they are commonly referred to as "criteria air pollutants." Ozone is not emitted directly into the
air but is formed through a series of reactions involving reactive organic gases (ROGs) and
nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. ROG and NOx are referred to as "ozone
precursors."
Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to criteria air pollutants, EPA and CARB regulate hazardous air pollutants, also
known as toxic air contaminants (TACs). TACs collectively refer to a diverse group of air
pollutants that can cause chronic (i.e., long -duration) and acute (i.e., severe but short-term)
adverse effects on human health, including carcinogenic effects. TACs can be separated into
carcinogens and noncarcinogens based on the nature of the effects associated with exposure to
the pollutant. For regulatory purposes, carcinogens are assumed to have no safe threshold
below which health impacts would not occur. Noncarcinogens differ in that there is generally
assumed to be a safe level of exposure below which no negative health impact is believed to
occur. These levels are determined on a pollutant -by -pollutant basis.
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, people with
illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Hospitals,
schools, convalescent facilities, and residences are examples of sensitive receptors. The nearest
sensitive receptors include residences located across Dublin Boulevard, approximately 200 feet
north of the Project site, a daycare located approximately 300 feet north of the Project site, and
residences located approximately 570 feet east of the Project site.
Regulatory Framework
Federal Clean Air Act and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Pursuant to the
Clean Air Act, the EPA has established ambient air quality standards to protect public health
and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. These federal standards, known as NAAQS,
were developed for the six criteria pollutants described above. NAAQS represent safe levels of
each pollutant to avoid specific adverse effects to human health and the environment. Two
types of NAAQS have been established, primary and secondary standards. Primary standards
set limits to protect public health, especially that of sensitive populations such as asthmatics,
children, and seniors. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including
protections against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, and buildings.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 31
The Clean Air Act was amended in 1977 to require each state to maintain a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for achieving compliance with the NAAQS. In 1990, the Clean Air Act
was amended again to strengthen regulation of both stationary and mobile emission sources.
California Clean Air Act and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). In 1988, the
state legislature adopted the California Clean Air Act, which established a statewide air
pollution control program. The California Clean Air Act requires all air districts in the state to
make progress towards meeting the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. The California Clean
Air Act establishes increasingly stringent requirements over time. CAAQS are generally more
stringent than NAAQS and incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide,
visibility -reducing particles, and vinyl chloride.
The California Clean Air Act substantially adds to the authority and responsibilities of air
districts. The California Clean Air Act designates air districts as lead air quality planning
agencies, requires air districts to prepare air quality plans, and grants air districts authority to
implement transportation control measures.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD is the agency responsible for
protecting public health and welfare through the administration of federal and state air quality
laws and policies in the SFBAAB. BAAQMD's tasks include air pollution monitoring, preparing air
quality plans, and promulgating rules and regulations. BAAQMD rules and regulations relevant
to the proposed Project include but are not limited to: Regulation 6 (Particulate Matter);
Regulation 7 (Odorous Substances); Regulation 8, Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings); Regulation 11,
Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing). Additional rules and regulations
may be applicable dependent upon the future specific tenants of the building.
BAAQMD also maintains multiple air quality monitoring stations that continually measure the
ambient concentrations of major air pollutants throughout the SFBAAB. Under the California
Clean Air Act, BAAQMD is required to develop an air quality attainment plan for nonattainment
criteria pollutants within the air district. The 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air and
Cool the Climate was adopted on April 19, 2017, and provides a regional strategy to protect
public health and protect the climate. To fulfill state ozone planning requirements, the 2017
control strategy includes all feasible measures to reduce emissions of ozone precursors and
reduce transport of ozone and its precursors to neighboring air basins. In addition, the 2017
Clean Air Plan builds upon and enhances BAAQMD's efforts to reduce emissions of fine PM and
TACs (BAAQMD 2017a).
Attainment of Federal and State Air Quality Standards
Areas are classified under the Federal Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act as attainment,
non -attainment, or maintenance (areas that were previously non -attainment but are currently
attainment) for each criteria pollutant based on whether the federal and state air quality
standards have been achieved. With respect to the NAAQS, the SFBAAB is designated as a
nonattainment area for ozone and PM2.5, and as an attainment or unclassified area for all other
pollutants. With respect to the CAAQS, the SFBAAB is designated as a nonattainment area for
ozone, PM10, and PM2.s, and as an attainment or unclassified area for all other pollutants
(BAAQMD 2017b).
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 32
City of Dublin General Plan. The City of Dublin General Plan, adopted in 1985 and amended in
2022, includes an Environmental Resources Management: Conservation Element. The following
policies related to air quality would be applicable to the proposed Project (City of Dublin 2022):
• Request that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District establish an air quality
monitoring station in Dublin.
• Require an air quality analysis for new development projects that could generate significant
air emissions on a project and cumulative level. Air quality analyses shall include specific
feasible measures to reduce anticipated air quality emissions to a less -than -significant CEQA
level.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Consistent with air quality plans (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
The Project would implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Implement Basic Construction
Emission Control Practices to comply with BAAQMD's Basic Construction Mitigation Measures
during demolition and construction. Therefore, this impact would be Tess than significant with
mitigation. This impact is further analyzed in the Focused EIR.
(b) Project emissions (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
The Project would implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Implement Basic Construction
Emission Control Practices to comply with BAAQMD's Basic Construction Mitigation Measures
during demolition and construction. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1,
construction of the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is non -attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard. During project operation, the proposed Project
would result in a net reduction of emissions compared to existing conditions for NOx, PM10, and
PM2.5, and ROG emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance. Thus, this
impact would be less than significant with mitigation. This impact is further analyzed in the
Focused EIR.
(c) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations (Less Than Significant Impact)
Criteria Air Pollutants
As previously discussed, criteria air pollutants may adversely affect human or animal health,
reduce visibility, damage property, and reduce the productivity or vigor of crops and natural
vegetation. As shown in Table 3: Project Consistency with Applicable CAP 2030 GHG Emissions
Reduction Measures, construction activities would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants
but at levels that would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance. Operation of the
proposed Project would result in a net reduction in NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions compared
to existing conditions because the proposed Project is an energy -efficient, all -electric, building
that would generate fewer daily vehicle trips, while the slight increase in ROG emissions would
not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance. The construction and operational
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 33
thresholds of significance were designed to identify those projects that would result in
significant levels of air pollution and to assist the region in attaining the applicable state and
federal ambient air quality standards, which were established using health -based criteria to
protect the public with a margin of safety from adverse health impacts due to exposure to air
pollution.
The proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 2 tons of NOx emissions and less
than 1 ton of ROG emissions during demolition and construction activities. As discussed above,
NOx and ROG are ozone precursors. Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people with
lung disease, such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease, are considered to be the
most susceptible subgroups for ozone effects. Short-term ozone exposure (lasting for a few
hours) can result in changes in breathing patterns, reductions in breathing capacity, increased
susceptibility to infections, inflammation of lung tissue, and some immunological changes.
Chronic exposure to high ozone levels can permanently damage lung tissue (BAAQMD 2017a).
Because of the reaction time and other factors involved in ozone formation, ozone is
considered a regional pollutant that is not linearly related to emissions (i.e., ozone impacts vary
depending on the location of the emissions, the location of other precursor emissions,
meteorology, and seasonal impacts). Peak ozone concentrations often occur far downwind of
the precursor emissions. Thus, ozone is considered a regional pollutant that often affects large
areas. There currently is no way to accurately quantify ozone -related health impacts from NOx
and ROG emissions from small projects. These limitations are due to photochemistry and
regional model limitations; it takes a large amount of additional precursor emissions to cause a
modeled increase in ambient ozone levels (SCAQMD 2015). However, because the BAAQMD
regional thresholds of significance for NOx and ROG were established with these factors in
mind, the considering that the proposed Project's emissions would be less than the BAAQMD
thresholds indicates that the project's NOx and ROG emissions would not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial concentrations of ozone. In addition, the proposed Project would
comply with applicable BAAQMD rules, including but not limited to Regulation 6 (Particulate
Matter), which reduces the amount of PM entrained in the ambient air. Furthermore, the
existing building would be replaced with an energy -efficient, all -electric, building that would
generate fewer daily vehicle trips; thus, operation of the proposed Project would also result in a
net reduction in regional energy and mobile source criteria air pollutant emissions. Therefore,
criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed
Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial criteria pollutant concentrations.
Toxic Air Contaminants
The health effects associated with TACs are quite diverse and generally are assessed locally,
rather than regionally. TACs can cause long-term health effects such as cancer, birth defects,
neurological damage, asthma, bronchitis or genetic damage; or short-term acute affects such as
eye watering, respiratory irritation (a cough), running nose, throat pain, and headaches. The
greatest potential TAC emissions would be related to diesel PM emissions associated with
activity by heavy-duty construction equipment. The total duration of construction activities is
anticipated to be approximately 12 months; the exposure of sensitive receptors to construction
emissions would be short term, intermittent, and temporary in nature. Health effects from
TACs are often described in terms of individual cancer risk, which is based on a 30-year lifetime
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 34
exposure to TACs (OEHHA 2015). Therefore, the total exposure period for construction
activities would be approximately 3 percent of the total exposure period used for typical health
risk calculations (i.e., 30 years). As shown in , construction related PM2.5 exhaust, a proxy
for diesel PM emissions, would be substantially below the thresholds of significance.
Construction activities would vary and span across 8.30 acres of Parcel 1. For example, although
the nearest sensitive receptors are the surrounding residences located 200 feet and 570 feet
away from the Project boundaries, as construction activity occurs across the 8.30 acres of
Parcel 1 of the Project site, construction -related emissions would occur at varying distances as
far as 1,380 feet from receptors (when construction activities are occurring at the southwestern
end of the Project site) and as close as 200 feet (when construction activities are occurring at
the northern end of the Project site). Concentrations of mobile -source diesel PM emissions are
typically reduced by approximately 60 percent at a distance of 300 feet (100 meters) (Zhu et al.
2002). Therefore, trucks and off -road equipment would not operate in the immediate vicinity of
any sensitive receptor for an extended period of time and the potential exposure to TAC
emission concentrations would be limited.
Given the construction schedule, varying topography and buffer distances to the nearest
sensitive receptors, and the highly dispersive nature of diesel PM emissions, construction of the
proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations that
could cause short- or long-term health effects. In addition, TAC emission exposure would also
be reduced with implementation of CARB regulations, such as the Airborne Toxic Control
Measure, which limits idling of diesel -fueled commercial motor vehicles. The demolition and
hazardous waste abatement activities would also comply with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2
(Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing), which would control emissions of
asbestos to the atmosphere and reduce exposure of receptors to this TAC.
As discussed previously, the proposed Project would result in fewer daily vehicle trips
compared to existing conditions; thus, TAC emissions associated with mobile source emissions
(e.g., diesel PM from diesel -fueled vehicles) would be lower than existing conditions. The
proposed Project includes a diesel -fired fire pump, which would be a source of TAC emissions.
However, the fire pump would be permitted per BAAQMD rules and regulations and would not
be operated for extended periods of time; thus, emissions would be limited to infrequent
operation and during maintenance and testing activities. Therefore, the proposed Project
would not result in an increase in TAC emissions beyond existing conditions and the proposed
Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
(d) Odors (Less Than Significant)
The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on numerous factors, including the
nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the presence of
sensitive receptors. While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they still can be very
unpleasant, leading to considerable distress and often generating citizen complaints to local
governments and regulatory agencies. Projects with the potential to frequently expose
individuals to objectionable odors are deemed to have a significant impact. Typical facilities
that generate odors include wastewater treatment facilities, sanitary landfills, composting
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 35
facilities, petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing plants, and food processing facilities
(BAAQMD 2017c).
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project could result in short-term odor
emissions from asphalt paving activities and diesel exhaust associated with construction
equipment. The proposed Project would use typical construction techniques; odors would be
typical of most construction sites and limited to duration of construction. Furthermore,
nuisance odors are regulated under the BAAQMD's Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, which
requires abatement of any nuisance generating an odor complaint. Regulation 7 places general
limitations on odorous substances, and specific emission limitations on certain odorous
compounds. Since the proposed Project involves the redevelopment of an existing industrial
building with a new industrial building, the proposed Project would not introduce a new odor -
generating source. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. This impact
would be less than significant.
Source(s)
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017a. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare
the Air: Cool the Climate. Available online:
https://www.baagmd.govNmedia/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-
plan/attachment-a -proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed February 2023.
. 2017b. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Available online:
https://www.baagmd.gov/about-air-quality/research-a nd-data/air-quality-standards-
and-attainment-status. Accessed February 2023.
. 2017c. California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines. Available online:
https://www.baagmd.gov/"/media/files/planning-and-
research/ceqa/ceqa guidelines may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed February 2023.
. 2021. In Your Community: Alameda County. Available online:
https://www.baagmd.gov/about-the-air-district/in-your-community/alameda-county.
Accessed January 2021.
City of Dublin. 2022. General Plan. Available online:
https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30287/General-Plan-Update-
04192022-WEB. Accessed March 2023.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program: Risk
Assessment Guidelines. February. Available online:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. Accessed
February 2023.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.
Brief amicus curiae of South Coast Air Quality Management District. April 6, 2015.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 36
Available online: https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/9-s219783-ac-south-coast-air-
quality-mgt-dist-041315.pdf. Accessed February 2023.
W Traffic Engineering Transportation Planning (W-Trans). 2022. Final Transportation Impact
Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project. December.
Zhu, Y., W. C. Hinds, S. Kim, and S. Shen. 2002. Study of Ultrafine Particles Near a Major Highway
with Heavy-duty Diesel Traffic. Atmospheric Environment. 36:4323-4335.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
Biological Resources
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 37
Potentially
Significant
Impact
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
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
This section describes the existing biological setting within the Project site, which consists of
two adjacent parcels, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. The focus of the analysis was based on the areas
potentially directly or indirectly affected by construction of the Project, referred to herein as
the Project footprint. The Project footprint is exclusively in Parcel 1.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 38
The City of Dublin is characterized by a diverse array of wildlife and plant species, with two
discrete habitat types —the flatter urbanized portion of the City and the surrounding oak
woodland and California annual grassland. The Project site is located within the urbanized area,
which exhibits plant and animal species typical of urbanized areas including a combination of
native and introduced trees, grasses and shrubs used for landscaping purposes.
The proposed Project footprint is completely developed with buildings, hardscape, and
landscaped areas. Vegetation within landscaped areas of the footprint is comprised of sod,
various ornamental shrubs, various ornamental tree species, as well as native trees such as
California Bay (Umbellularia californica), coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia), and California
buckeye (Aesculus californica). No natural habitats (habitats with naturally occurring
vegetation) occur within the Project footprint.
The Project site is primarily developed with buildings, hardscape, and landscaped areas
associated with the existing Hexcel buildings; however, Dublin Creek is located to the south of
the Project footprint approximately along the boundary of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. Dublin Creek
in this location contained less than 1 foot of water during AECOM's site visit on December 12,
2022. The banks of this feature are natural, but this feature runs underground for long
stretches immediately east and west of the project.
Vegetation Communities
Vegetation communities within the Project footprint are limited to landscaped areas comprised
of sod, various ornamental shrubs, various ornamental tree species, as well as a large number
of native trees such as coast live oak trees, California Bay, and California buckeye. To the south
of the Project footprint and on Parcel 2, is riparian habitat associated with Dublin Creek.
Wildlife
Wildlife in the Project site is likely to be limited to those species easily habituated to human
activity, and which typically occupy urban areas or interfaces between urban and open space
areas. Larger fauna may include raccoon (Procyon lotor) and skunk (Mephitis mephitis), while
smaller fauna would include species such as western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis),
southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), and
Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae).
A wide variety of bird species likely utilizes the riparian corridor of Dublin Creek to the south of
the Project footprint, as well as the ornamental vegetation and trees within the Project
footprint. These species include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), house finch (Haemorhous
mexicanus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), western
bluebird (Sialia mexicana), American robin (Turdus migratorius), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte
anna), among others.
Regulatory Framework
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 makes it illegal to take, possess, import, export,
transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter any migratory bird, or the
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 39
parts, nests, or eggs of such bird, except under the terms of a valid federal permit. Migratory
bird species protected by the act are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 50 CFR
Part 10.13. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has statutory authority for enforcing the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (16 United States Code Sections 703-712).
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 United States Code Section 1531 et seq.)
provides a regulatory program for the conservation of threatened and endangered plants and
animals and the habitats in which they are found. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service are the lead agencies responsible for implementing the ESA.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintains a list of endangered species that includes birds,
insects, fish, reptiles, mammals, crustaceans, plants, and trees. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service requires authorization for any actions that
they authorize, carry out, or fund, that may jeopardize the continued existence of any listed
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) conserves and protects animals at risk of
extinction. Plants and animals may be designated as threatened or endangered under CESA
after a formal listing process by the California Fish and Game Commission. A CESA-listed species
may not be killed, possessed, purchased, or sold without authorization from the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
California Fish and Game Code Fully Protected Species
Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the California Fish and Game Code designate 37 species
of wildlife as Fully Protected in California. Fully Protected species may not be taken or
possessed at any time, and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take, except for the
authorized collection of these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of bird
species for the protection of livestock.
California Fish and Game Code Section 2081 Incidental Take Permits
Section 2081(b) of the California Fish and Game Code allows the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife to authorize take of CESA-listed species categorized as endangered, threatened,
candidate, or rare plant species if that take is incidental to otherwise lawful activities, and if
certain conditions are met. Section 2081(b) permits are commonly referred to as an Incidental
Take Permit.
City of Dublin Municipal Code
The City of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 5.60: "the Heritage Tree Ordinance" (Ord. 5-02 § 2
(part): Ord. 29-99 § 1 (part)), requires that a Tree Removal permit from the Director be
acquired prior to the removal of heritage trees. Heritage trees include:
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 40
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."
In addition, all applications for demolition, grading, or building permits on property containing
one or more heritage trees shall prepare a tree protection plan pursuant to Section 5.60.090.
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin General Plan Chapter 7 Environmental Resources Management Conservation
Element provides guidance for the protection of biological resources in Dublin and includes
objectives, goals, and policies regarding biological resources.
The following goals and policies from the City's General Plan relating to biological resources
apply to the Project:
• Guiding Policy 7.2.1A1: Protect riparian vegetation as a protective buffer for stream quality
and for its value as a habitat and aesthetic resource
• Implementing Policy 7.3.261: Require erosion control plans for proposed development.
Erosion control plans shall include recommendations for preventing erosion and scour of
drainageways, consistent with biological and visual values.
• Implementing Policy 7.4.162: Enact and enforce the Heritage Tree Ordinance
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive, or special status species (Less Than
Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Noise and vibration from proposed construction activities associated with the Project could
disturb birds that are nesting on and near the Project site. In addition, the Project would involve
the removal of approximately 85 landscape trees within the Project footprint, which could be
used by birds during the nesting season. If a tree containing an active nest were to be removed
during construction, such removal would result in nest destruction and failure. Due to this
potential for loss of nests, and due to potential disturbance of nesting birds from noise and
vibration during Project construction, the impact to nesting birds would be potentially
significant. The implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nesting Bird Avoidance
Measures would bring this impact down to a less than significant impact. This impact is further
analyzed in the Focused EIR.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 41
(b) Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other natural community (Less Than
Significant Impact)
No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are located within the Project
footprint; therefore, Project construction or operation would not directly impact riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Dublin Creek is located approximately 5 feet
south of the Project footprint on Parcel 2; however, proposed construction activities and
continued operation of the site would not remove, fill, or hydrologically interrupt this feature.
Construction would occur within 5 feet of riparian trees within Dublin Creek; however,
construction activities will occur on existing paved areas (parking lot), and no construction
equipment will enter Dublin Creek and associated riparian habitat. No trees or vegetation along
Dublin Creek would be disturbed during construction. In the event that runoff from the Project
or accidental spills entered Dublin Creek, sedimentation or the introduction of pollutants to
Dublin Creek would constitute a potentially significant impact. As discussed further in Section 9,
Hydrology, the Project would avoid sedimentation or the introduction of pollutants to Dublin
Creek through the required implementation of erosion and sediment control measures and the
implementation of BMPs specified in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during
construction, which would protect water quality.
Disturbance from noise and vibration (see Section 12) on wildlife could result during
construction activities. However, these impacts would be minimal and only for a temporary
period of time during construction. Furthermore, construction of the Project does not have the
potential to result in introduction of non-native weeds to the riparian corridor of Dublin Creek.
Thus, no substantial indirect effects to the Dublin Creek Riparian corridor are expected.
Therefore, the Project would have less than significant impact on riparian habitat and sensitive
natural communities. No mitigation measures are required.
(c) Substantial adverse effect on wetlands (Less Than Significant Impact)
No wetlands or other waters of the U.S. or state are located within the Project footprint;
therefore, Project construction or operation would not directly impact wetlands and other
waters. Dublin Creek is a water of the U.S. and water of the State and is located immediately
south of the Project footprint. However, the Project footprint adjacent to Dublin Creek is
located in an existing paved parking lot. Proposed construction activities and continued
operation of the site would not removal, fill, or hydrologically interrupt this feature. No
development would occur within 5 feet of top of bank.
As discussed in Impact b above, the Project would avoid sedimentation or the introduction of
pollutants to Dublin Creek through the required implementation of erosion and sediment
control measures and the implementation of BMPs specified in the SWPPP during construction,
which would protect water quality. Construction of the Project does not have the potential to
result in introduction of non-native weeds to the riparian corridor of Dublin Creek.
Furthermore, vibration from construction would be minimal and temporary as described in
Section 12.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 42
Therefore, the Project would have less than significant impact on wetlands and waters of the
U.S. or state.
(d) Interfere or impede the movement of migratory fish or wildlife (Less Than
Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
The riparian corridor associated with Dublin Creek could be used as foraging habitat for
common bats. If construction were to remove trees containing bats during the maternity or
winter season, bat mortality could occur, and the impact to common bat species would be
potentially significant. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Roosting Bat
Surveys and Avoidance, potential Project impacts to wildlife movement, migration, or nursery
sites would be reduced to a less than significant impact. This impact is further analyzed in the
Focused EIR.
(e) Conflict with local policies or ordinance include tree preservation (Less Than Significant
Impact)
Construction of the Project would require the removal of 85 trees. Of those trees, two trees are
"Heritage Trees" as defined by the City of Dublin's municipal code and "Heritage Tree
Ordinance." These trees are located at the northwest boundary of the Project footprint and at
the center of the project footprint. The tree at the northwest boundary of the Project footprint
is a valley oak (Quercus lobata) with a diameter breast height (DBH) of 31 inches, and the tree
at the center of the Project footprint is a western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) with a DBH of
28.2 inches.
A tree removal permit would be required for the removal of these two heritage trees. The tree
removal permit application would require an arborist's report, tree preservation plan, and a
tree replacement plan. The Project applicant has conducted an arborist survey and developed
an arborist report, which will be attached to the application.
The tree protection plan will be developed to ensure that all other heritage trees on the Project
footprint are adequately protected from potential harm during construction. The tree
replacement plan will include a plan for replacement of removed Heritage Trees, including a
plan for "1 or more replacement trees be planted of a designated species, size and location,"
per the requirements of the Heritage Tree Ordinance.
The Dublin General Plan also requires that developers "protect riparian vegetation as a
protective buffer for stream quality and for its value as a habitat and aesthetic resource."The
project would avoid the riparian corridor south of the Project footprint, and there would be no
impact to riparian vegetation.
With adherence to the tree removal permit conditions, the Project would not conflict with the
City's tree ordinance or the Dublin General Plan, and potential impacts would be less than
significant.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 43
(f) Conflict with adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans (No
Impact)
The Project is not located within a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Communities
Conservation Plan Permit Area. Because there are no Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural
Communities Conservation Plans that apply to the Project site, the Project would not conflict
with any such plans. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Source(s)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Service (CDFW). 2023. Rarefind 5, a program created
by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife that allows access to the California
Natural Diversity Database. Reviewed January 17, 2023.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023. IPaC Information for Planning and
Consultation. Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed on January 17,
2023.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 44
This page intentionally left blank
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
Cultural Resources
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 45
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
I—
Environmental Setting
The Project site is located south of Dublin Boulevard with the Dublin Heritage Park and
Museums and Dublin Pioneer Cemetery to the east; Interstate (I-)580 to the south; and a
business park to the west.
Historic -age built environment resources on the Project site consist of the Hexcel Corporation
research and development (R&D) facility, landscaping, and parking. The Contemporary/Brutalist
style facility has a roughly L-shaped plan and was largely constructed in two phases dating to
1962 and 1967, with small additions and alterations in the mid-1980s.
A full archaeological and historical context for the project site is provided in the Focused EIR.
Regulatory Framework
Cultural resources in California are protected by a number of regulations. The following
provides a brief outline of the regulations, policies, and ordinances that are applicable to the
proposed project.
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 United States Code 470) and its
implementing regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800) establish a program for
the preservation of historic properties throughout the United States and provides a framework
for identifying and treating historical and archaeological resources under the CEQA. Section 106
of the NHPA requires that federal projects or projects under federal jurisdiction consider the
effect of an undertaking on properties eligible for or included in the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP). Historic properties that are listed in or eligible for the NRHP are
considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 46
National Register of Historic Places
Historic properties are those significant cultural resources that are listed in or are eligible for
listing in the NRHP per the criteria listed below (36 CFR 60.4):
The quality of significance in American, state, and local history, architecture, archeology,
engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that
possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association
and meet one or more of the following criteria:
a. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of our history;
b. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
c. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction;
d. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Ordinarily, cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historic figures; properties owned by religious
institutions or used for religious purposes; structures that have been moved from their original
locations; reconstructed historic buildings; and properties that are primarily commemorative in
nature are not considered eligible for the NRHP, unless they satisfy certain conditions. In
general, a resource must be 50 years of age to be considered for the NRHP, unless it satisfies a
standard of exceptional importance.
Listing in the NRHP does not entail specific protection of, or assistance for a property. However,
listing does guarantee the property's recognition during planning for federal or federally
assisted projects, eligibility for federal tax benefits, and qualification for federal historic
preservation assistance. Additionally, project effects on properties listed in the NRHP must be
evaluated under CEQA.
State
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires public agencies to consider the effects of their actions on "historical resources,"
"unique archeological resources," and "tribal cultural resources." Pursuant to PRC Section
21084.1, a "project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment." Section
21083.2 requires agencies to determine whether proposed projects would have effects on
unique archeological resources.
Historical Resources
"Historical resource" is a term with a defined statutory meaning (PRC § 21084.1; determining
significant impacts to historical and archeological resources is described in the CEQA Guidelines,
§ 15064.5[a] and [b]). Per the CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5(a), historical resources include
the following:
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 47
(1)
A resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources
Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (PRC §
5024.1).
(2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC § 5020.1(k)
or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC §
5024.1(g), will be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must
treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates
that it is not historically or culturally significant.
Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency
determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering,
scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of
California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency's
determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
(4) The fact that a resource is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR,
not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Cal. Pub. Resources Code
§ 5020.1(k)), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Cal. Pub.
Resources Code § 5024.1(g)) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the
resource may be a historical resource as defined in Cal. Pub. Resources Code§§ 5020.1(j) or
5024.1.
(3)
Non -Unique Archeological Resources
Under CEQA, archeological resources are presumed non -unique unless they meet the definition
of "unique archeological resources" (Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21083.2[g]). Under CEQA, an
impact on a non -unique archeological resource is not considered a significant environmental
impact.
Unique Archeological Resources
Archeological resources can sometimes qualify as "unique archeological resources" that are not
"historical resources." (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(c)(3)). PRC, Section 21083.2(g)
defines a unique archeological resource as an artifact, object, or site about which it can be
clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a
high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that
there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; or
2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available
example of its type; or
3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event
or person.
If a project can be demonstrated to cause damage to a unique archeological resource, the lead
agency may require reasonable efforts to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in
place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed,
mitigation measures are required (PRC Section 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]).
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 48
California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR is a guide to cultural resources that must be considered when a government agency
undertakes a discretionary action subject to CEQA. The CRHR helps government agencies
identify, evaluate, and protect California's historical resources, and indicates which properties
are to be protected from substantial adverse change (Pub. Resources Code, Section 5024.1(a)).
The CRHR is administered through the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) which is
part of the California State Parks system. A cultural resource is evaluated under four CRHR
criteria to determine its historical significance. A resource must be significant at the local, state,
or national level in accordance with one or more of the following criteria set forth in the CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3) and Public Resources Code section 5024.1:
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of
California's history and cultural heritage;
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high
artistic values; or
4. It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the CRHR requires that sufficient time
must have passed to allow a "scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with
the resource." The CRHR also requires a resource to possess integrity, which is defined as "the
authenticity of a historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of
characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance. Integrity is evaluated
with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association.
Codes Governing Human Remains
Section 7050.5 of the Health & Safety Code requires that construction or excavation be stopped
in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the county coroner can determine whether
the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native
American, the coroner must then contact the California Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC), which has jurisdiction pursuant to Public Res. Code § 5097. The NAHC, pursuant to PRC
Section 5097.98, will immediately notify the person it believes to be most likely descendant
(MLD), from the deceased Native American person so they can inspect the burial site and make
recommendations for appropriate treatment or disposition.
Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin General Plan, Chapter 7 Environmental Resources Management Conservation
Element, provides guidance for the protection of archaeological and historic resources in Dublin
and guiding policies related to historic and cultural resources are as follows:
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 49
Guiding Policy 7.7.1A.1: Preserve Dublin's historic structures.
Seven sites in the Primary Planning Area are listed in the California Archaeological Inventory,
Northwest Information Center, at Sonoma State University including the church and school
on the grounds of the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums. As many as a dozen potentially
significant historic and prehistoric sites have been identified in the Eastern Extended
Planning Area.
Guiding Policy 7.7.1A.2: Follow State regulations as set forth in Public Resources Code
Section 21083.2 regarding discovery of archaeological sites, and Historical Resources, as
defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code.
Guiding Policy 7.7.1A.3: Preserve the Green Store.
The Green Store is a recognized historical resource and has been used as a church since
1989. This use can remain as long as the landowner(s) wish to continue its operation. The
Parks/ Public Recreation designation on the General Plan Land Use Map illustrates the long-
term potential for expansion of the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums to include this
historic structure and the property it is on and is not intended to affect or change the current
church use or its continued operation as a religious land use under a valid conditional use
permit.
Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan
The Project site is located within the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan boundary. The
Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan was adopted in 2006 and updated in 2014. Applicable
goals and objectives of the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan related to historic and
cultural resources are as follows:
Goal 1: Preserve and protect the valuable historic resources within the Dublin Village Historic
Area.
Objective 1.1: Identify Dublin's historic resources and adopt a formal Historic Resources
Inventory.
Objective 1.2: Identify mechanisms to protect properties on the Historic Resources
Inventory from being destroyed or altered to the point of removing their historic value.
Objective 1.3: Identify incentives to encourage the preservation and enhancement of
privately -owned historic resources.
Objective 1.4: Pursue formal designation and recognition of Dublin's historic resources
through the California State Office of Historic Preservation and National Registry.
Objective 1.5: Work cooperatively with property owners to rehabilitate Alamilla Springs.
Objective 1.6: Ensure that improvements and renovations to publicly owned historic
resources are done according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 50
Goal 2: Guide the design of future development to reinforce the unique historic qualities and
design elements that once defined Dublin Village.
Objective 2.1: Create design guidelines for residential, commercial, and mixed -use
development on private property.
Objective 2.2: Create design guidelines that provide direction for future streetscape
improvements in the public right of way.
Objective 2.3: Create guidelines that provide direction on the preferred preservation
and rehabilitation techniques for properties on the Historic Resources Inventory.
Dublin Historic Resources Inventory
The Dublin Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) was created when the Dublin Village Historic Area
Specific Plan was adopted by the Dublin City Council in 2006. The HRI was established to
"recognize those few remaining resources that have a place in Dublin's history, including those
resources that might be significant to the immediate community but not significant at the state
or federal level" (City of Dublin Community Development Department 2014: 27).
The HRI consists of resources that were found eligible for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR, or
only having local significance, from the survey efforts undertaken in Dublin Historic Resources
Identification Project that was finalized in 2004 by Page & Turnbull, Inc. The HRI includes only
seven resources, three of which are near the 6600 block of Donlon Way: St. Raymond's Church,
Murray Schoolhouse, and the Pioneer Cemetery, which have been combined as the "Dublin
Heritage Center." The Pioneer Cemetery is adjacent to the Hexcel property, and historic
documents suggest it extends into the Project parcel (VerPlanck 2003).
The Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan did not establish goals or policies for maintaining
or adding properties to the HRI. No guidelines were provided to reevaluate properties in the
Dublin Village Historic Area that were less than 50 years old at the time the survey was
conducted in 2004, nor any significance criteria or mechanisms for nominating or adding
properties to the HRI.
Previous CEQA Documents
The City of Dublin hired the archaeological firm William Self Associates, Inc. (WSA) in 2003 to
prepare an Archaeological Assessment Report of the Donlon Way Specific Plan (later renamed
the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan area). A record search at the Northwest
Information Center (NWIC), conducted by WSA, did not identify any previously recorded
archaeological sites within the Specific Plan area boundaries, but one new archaeological site
was recorded during the pedestrian survey and Archeological High Probability areas were also
identified within the Specific Plan area boundaries. The Archaeological Assessment Report
concluded that there is a moderate -to -high -probability of identifying Native American
archeological resources and a high -probability of encountering historic -period archeological
resources within the Specific Plan area boundaries.
The City of Dublin hired the architectural firm Page & Turnbull, Inc. in 2003 to prepare the
Dublin Historic Resources Identification Project that was finalized in 2004. The city contracted
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 51
with Page & Turnbull to identify and map historic resources in an approximately 38-acrea area
for a future Specific Plan for the Donlon Way area (later renamed the Dublin Village Historic
Area Specific Plan) and to prepare preservation recommendations. Page & Turnbull prepared a
historic context of the Dublin Village area and recorded all of the properties in the survey area
on Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 A and B forms. The Hexcel Corporation R&D
facility on the Project site was recorded as part of this effort on December 10, 2023. At that
time, the facility was not considered old enough (at least 50 years old) to be considered a
potential historical resource under CEQA. Additionally, while the historic evaluation recorded
on the Department of DPR 523 series forms did contain a thorough historic context statement,
it did not address the four eligibility criteria for either the NRHP or the CRHR, but merely
concluded that the property lacked architectural or historical significance to be eligible.
The Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan was adopted by the Dublin City Council on August
1, 2006, under Resolution No. 149-06 and relied on the findings of the Archaeological
Assessment Report of the Donlon Way Specific Plan and the Dublin Historic Resources
Identification Project. The approximately 38-acre Specific Plan area included the two project
site parcels. Subsequently, three Specific Plan addendum and amendments have been prepared
for the Specific Plan. City Council determined that no new significant impacts were identified by
the addendums or amendments, and no further environmental analysis was required.
As part of this Initial Study, AECOM prepared a historical resource evaluation of the Hexcel
Corporation's 1960s-constructed R&D facility on the Project site for eligibility for listing in the
CRHR as a potential historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. AECOM found the facility
eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1, because it is significant at the national level for
its associations within the Man in Space historic context published by the National Park Service
and is, therefore, considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5? (Potentially Significant Impact)
The proposed Project would result in the demolition of the existing Hexcel Corporation R&D
facility, which is a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. As proposed, the Project impact
to this historical resource would be potentially significant. This potentially significant impact is
further analyzed in the Focused EIR.
(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to section 15064.5? (Potentially Significant Impact)
The proposed Project would include excavation of much of the Hexcel Corporation R&D facility
property, which is adjacent to the Dublin Village Historic Settlement, recorded as a historical
resource for the purposes of CEQA. As such, there is potential for previously unrecorded
archaeological resources associated with the historic settlement to be within the Hexcel
Property. Additionally, the Hexcel property is adjacent to the marked boundary of the Pioneer
Cemetery. Marked grave sites in the cemetery are within five feet of the Hexcel property fence.
Historic documents suggest that the cemetery was larger than the currently marked boundary
(VerPlanck 2003). For these reasons, it is likely that the cemetery extends beneath the Hexcel
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 52
parking lot. If previously unrecorded archaeological resources associated with the historic
district are present within the Hexcel property and/or if burials extend beyond the marked
boundary of the adjacent Pioneer Cemetery, the Project impact to archaeological resources
would be potentially significant. This potentially significant impact is further analyzed in the
Focused EIR.
(c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
(Potentially Significant Impact)
The proposed Project would include excavation of the parking lot to the south of the Hexcel
Corporation R&D facility, which is adjacent to the marked boundary of the Pioneer Cemetery.
There is a high probability that the cemetery boundary exceeds the currently marked property
line and extends beneath the Hexcel parking lot (VerPlanck 2003). If so, the Project has the
potential to disturb human remains. The Project impact could be potentially significant. This
potentially significant impact is further analyzed in the Focused EIR.
Source(s)
City of Dublin Community Development Department. 2014 (updated). Dublin Village Historic
Area Specific Plan. Adopted by the Dublin City Council on August 1, 2006, Resolution No.
149-06. Available online:
https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7780/DVHASP-FULL-PDF-
10714?bidld=. Accessed April 2023.
. 2022 (amended). General Plan. Available online:
https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30287/General-Plan-Update-
04192022-WEB. Accessed April 2023.
Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2004. Dublin Historic Resources Identification Project (Final). Prepared for
the City of Dublin. On file at the Northwest Information Center in Rohnert Park,
California.
VerPlanck, Christopher. 2003. Pioneer Cemetery Site Record (P-01-010637). On file at the
Northwest Information Center in Rohnert Park, California.
William Self Associates, Inc. 2003. Archaeological Assessment Report, Donlon Way Area Specific
Plan, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. Prepared for the City of Dublin. On file
at the Northwest Information Center in Rohnert Park, California.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
Energy
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 53
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
13. ENERGY. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
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 proposed Project is located in the City of Dublin within Alameda County. Electric and
natural gas services to Alameda County are provided by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E).
In 2021, PG&E delivered approximately 78,588 gigawatt-hours of electricity within its service
area (California Energy Commission 2023a). PG&E's total natural gas throughput was
approximately 4,467 million therms in 2021 (California Energy Commission 2023b). PG&E
provides power from a variety of sources: biomass and biowaste, geothermal, small and large
hydroelectric, solar, wind, natural gas, and nuclear (PG&E 2021).
In 2018, East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) began serving Dublin residential, business, and
municipal electricity customers. To help meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions
goals set in the City of Dublin's Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond (discussed below), the
Dublin City Council voted in January 2021 to set the default electricity option for Dublin
residences to EBCE's Renewable 100 service, which began in January 2022, and is sourced from
California wind and solar facilities, including a new wind farm in Livermore. Customers can
change their EBCE service or return to PG&E service at any time. All municipal electric accounts
in Dublin have been powered by Renewable 100 since July 2019 (City of Dublin 2023).
Transportation, such as gasoline and diesel fuel consumption, is also an energy -consuming
sector, and applicable to the proposed Project (diesel and gasoline fuel consumption during
construction and operational activities). Transportation is the largest energy -consuming sector
in California, accounting for approximately 34 percent of all energy use in the state in 2020 (EIA
2022a). Historically, gasoline and diesel fuel accounted for nearly all transportation -related
energy demand; now, however, numerous transportation power options are available,
including ethanol, natural gas, electricity, and hydrogen. Nonetheless, despite advancements in
alternative fuels and clean -vehicle technologies, gasoline and diesel remain the primary fuels
used for transportation in California, with 12.7 billion gasoline gallon equivalents of petroleum
(GGEs) consumed in 2021 and 3.7 billion GGEs of diesel consumed in 2020 (DOE 2023).
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 54
Regulatory Framework
Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975
established the first fuel economy standards for on -road motor vehicles sold in the United
States. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration is responsible for establishing
standards for vehicles and revising the existing standards. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) program was created to determine vehicle manufacturers' compliance with the fuel
economy standards. The EPA administers the testing program that generates the fuel economy
data.
Energy Policy Acts of 1992 and 2005. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 was enacted to reduce
dependence on imported petroleum and improve air quality by addressing all aspects of energy
supply and demand, including alternative fuels, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. This
law requires certain federal, state, and local government and private fleets to purchase
alternate fuel vehicles. The act also defines "alternative fuels" to include fuels such as ethanol,
natural gas, propane, hydrogen, electricity, and biodiesel.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was enacted on August 8, 2005. This law set federal energy
management requirements for energy -efficient product procurement, energy savings
performance contracts, building performance standards, renewable energy requirements, and
use of alternative fuels. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also amends existing regulations,
including fuel economy testing procedures.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Signed into law in December 2007, the Energy
Independence and Security Act was enacted to increase the production of clean renewable
fuels; increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles; improve the federal
government's energy performance; and increase U.S. energy security, develop renewable fuel
production, and improve vehicle fuel economy. The Energy Independence and Security Act
included the first increase in fuel economy standards for passenger cars since 1975. The act also
included a new energy grant program for use by local governments in implementing energy -
efficiency initiatives, as well as a variety of green building incentives and programs.
Light -Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards. On May 7, 2010, the final Light -Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards and CAFE
Standards were published in the Federal Register. Phase 1 of the emissions standards required
that model year 2012-2016 vehicles meet an estimated combined average emissions level of
250 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) per mile, which is equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon, if the
automobile industry were to meet this CO2 level solely through fuel economy improvements.
On March 31, 2022, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finalized the CAFE
Standards for model years 2024-2026. The final rule establishes standards that would require
an industry -wide fleet average of approximately 49 miles per gallon for passenger cars and light
trucks in model year 2026, by increasing fuel efficiency by 8 percent annually for model years
2024 and 2025, and 10 percent annually for model year 2026.
Heavy -Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards. In September 2011, in response to a Presidential
Memorandum issued in May 2010, EPA in coordination with National Highway Traffic Safety
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 55
Administration (NHSTA) issued GHG emissions and fuel economy standards for medium and
heavy duty trucks manufactured in model years 2014-2018, known as Phase 1 GHG Rule.
In October 2016, EPA and NHTSA jointly finalized Phase 2 standards for medium- and heavy-
duty vehicles through model year 2027 that will improve fuel efficiency and cut carbon
pollution to reduce the impacts of climate change, while bolstering energy security and spurring
manufacturing innovation.
On December 20, 2022, EPA adopted a final rule, "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy -Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards," that sets stronger emissions standards to
further reduce air pollution, including pollutants that create ozone and particulate matter, from
heavy-duty vehicles and engines starting in model year 2027. The final program includes new,
more stringent emissions standards that cover a wider range of heavy-duty engine operating
conditions compared to today's standards, and it requires these more stringent emissions
standards to be met for a longer period of time of when these engines operate on the road.
This final rule is consistent with President Biden's Executive Order, "Strengthening American
Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks" and is the first step in the Clean Trucks Plan.
City of Dublin General Plan. The City of Dublin General Plan, adopted in 1985 and amended in
2022, includes an Environmental Resources Management: Energy Conservation Element. The
following implementing policies related to energy efficiency and conservation in new
development would be applicable to the proposed Project (City of Dublin 2022):
• New development proposals shall be reviewed to ensure lighting levels needed for a safe
and secure environment are provided —utilizing the most energy -efficient fixtures (in most
cases, [light emitting diode] LED lights) —while avoiding over -lighting of sites. Smart lighting
technology (e.g. sensors and/or timers) shall also be employed in interior and exterior
lighting applications where appropriate.
• New development projects shall install LED streetlights in compliance with the City's LED
light standard.
• In new commercial and residential parking lots, require the installation of conduit to serve
EV parking spaces to enable the easier installation of future charging stations.
• Encourage the installation of charging stations for commercial projects over a certain size
and any new residential project that has open parking (i.e. not individual, enclosed garages).
• Encourage buildings (and more substantially, whole neighborhoods) to be designed along
an east -west axis to maximize solar exposure. Where feasible, require new development
projects to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping and sun screens to
reduce energy use; and to use regenerative energy heating and cooling source alternatives
to fossil fuels.
• Continue to implement parking lot tree planting standards that would substantially cool
parking areas and help cool the surrounding environment. Encourage landscaping
conducive to solar panels in areas where appropriate.
• Promote and encourage photovoltaic demonstration projects in association with new
development.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 56
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 2030. The City of Dublin adopted its Climate Action Plan
2030 and Beyond (CAP 2030) in September 2020, as a guiding document to identify ways in
which the community and City can reduce GHG emissions, meet Dublin's long-term climate
action goals, and promote a healthy, prosperous community. The CAP 2030 focuses on the
following strategies: 100 percent renewable and carbon -free electricity; building efficiency and
electrification; sustainable mobility and land use; materials and waste management; and
municipal leadership measures (City of Dublin 2020).
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources (Less Than
Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated)
The proposed Project activities would increase energy consumption for the duration of
construction in the form of fossil fuels. However, energy consumption associated with
construction of the proposed Project would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary with
Mitigation Measure AQ-1 incorporated. During project operation, the proposed Project would
result in a net reduction in energy consumption, primarily related to improved building energy
standards and eliminating natural gas infrastructure. This impact would be less than significant
with mitigation. This impact is further analyzed in the Focused EIR.
(b) Conflict with local plan for renewable energy (No Impact)
The proposed Project would not use land that was otherwise slated for renewable energy
production and does not otherwise conflict with any state or local renewable energy plans. In
addition, fuel use would be consistent with current construction and manufacturing practices
and energy standards that promote strategic planning that reduces consumption of fossil fuels
and enhances energy efficiency. Further, the proposed Project electrical and plumbing fixtures
would be Title 24 and CALGreen compliant and the proposed Project would also install EV
charging stations in compliance with CALGreen Tier 2, which would also be consistent with City
of Dublin General Plan Energy Conservation Element strategies. Lastly, the proposed Project
would be all -electric (i.e., no natural gas infrastructure), which would be consistent with the
City's CAP 2030 strategy Building Efficiency and Electrification (Measure EE-1: Achieve All -
Electric New Building Construction). Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or
obstruct any state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency and there would be
no impact.
Sou rce(s)
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2023a. 2021 Electricity Consumption by Entity: Pacific Gas
& Electric Company. Available online: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx.
Accessed February 2023.
. 2023b. 2021 Gas Consumption by Entity: Pacific Gas & Electric Company. Available online:
http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx. Accessed February 2023.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 57
City of Dublin. 2020. Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond. September. Available online:
https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/24447/Climate-Action-Plan-2030-And-
Beyond. Accessed March 2023.
. 2022. General Plan. Available online:
https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30287/General-Plan-Update-
04192022-WEB. Accessed March 2023.
. 2023. Energy. Available online: https://dublin.ca.gov/2032/Energy. Accessed March 2023.
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). 2021. Power Content Label. Available online:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/4653. Accessed February 2023.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008. Draft Guidance Document — Interim CEQA
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. Available online:
http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-
ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed February 2023.
The Climate Registry. 2022. Default Emission Factor Document. May. Available online:
https://theclimateregistry.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2022-Default-Emission-
Factors-Final.pdf. Accessed February 2023.
United States Department of Energy (DOE). 2023. Alternative Fuels Data Center: California
Transportation Data for Alternative Fuels and Vehicles. Available online:
https://afdc.energy.gov/states/ca. Accessed April 2023.
United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2022a. State Profile and Energy
Estimates: California. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2.
Accessed February 2023.
. 2022b. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients. October. Available online:
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2 vol mass.php. Accessed February
2023.
W Traffic Engineering Transportation Planning (W-Trans). 2022. Final Transportation Impact
Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project. December.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 58
This page intentionally left blank
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
Geology and Soils
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 59
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
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 waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 60
Environmental Setting
Seismic Hazards
The Project site is situated in a seismically active area within the Diablo Range, along the margin
of the eastern Diablo Hills and the western edge of the Livermore Valley. The fault trace of the
active Calaveras Fault is approximately 965 feet east of the Project site, and the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone associated with the Calaveras Fault is approximately 450 feet east of the
Project site (DOC 2023). The active Pleasanton Fault is approximately 2.4 miles east of the
Project site (Jennings and Bryant 2010). Other active faults in the Project region include a
portion of the Las Positas Fault (approximately 11.7 miles to the southeast), the Greenville Fault
(approximately 12.5 miles to the northeast), and the Hayward Fault Zone (approximately 7.3
miles to the southwest).
The Project site is located within an Earthquake Zone of Required Investigation for liquefaction
as delineated by the California Geological Survey (CGS) (DOC 2023).
Soils
Based on a review of Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey data, native soil
at the Project site consists of the Yolo loam (calcareous substratum, 0 to 6 percent slopes) soil
type (NRCS 2022).
A preliminary geotechnical investigation was prepared for the proposed Project, which included
four soil borings in the developed portion of the Project site north of Dublin Creek (Cornerstone
Earth Group [Cornerstone] 2022). The results of soil borings indicated that the near -surface
soils consist of undocumented artificial fill consisting of clay with variable amounts of sand and
gravel, and clayey sand with gravel, to depths ranging from 1.5 to 5 feet below the ground
surface (bgs). Below the artificial fill, clay with sand and silt was present to the maximum soil
boring depth of 40 feet bgs.
Paleontological Resources
The near -surface soils at the Project site consist of artificial fill material to depths ranging from
1.5 to 5 feet bgs (Cornerstone 2022). Native sediments at the Project site beneath the artificial
fill consist of the late Miocene to early Pliocene -age Contra Costa Group, which includes the
Orinda and Moraga Formations. The Contra Costa Group is comprised of nonmarine
sedimentary rocks including sandstone, conglomerate, shale, and minor claystone, limestone,
and tuff (Wagner et al. 1991).
A search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) database indicates
there are over 40 recorded vertebrate fossil sites from within the Contra Costa Group (UCMP
2023). Most of these sites are in Contra Costa County; however, five of the sites are within
Alameda County. The closest recorded vertebrate fossil site from within the Contra Costa Group
is Bolenas Creek, approximately 6.5 miles northwest of the Project site (UCMP 2023).
Paleontological Sensitivity Analysis
A paleontologically sensitive geologic formation is one that is rated high for potential
paleontological productivity (i.e., the recorded abundance and types of fossil specimens, and
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 61
the number of previously recorded fossil sites) and is known to have produced unique,
scientifically important fossils. Exposures of a specific geologic formation at any given Project
site are most likely to yield fossil remains representing particular species or quantities similar to
those previously recorded from that geologic formation in other locations. Therefore, the
paleontological sensitivity determination of a rock formation is based primarily on the types
and numbers of fossils that have been previously recorded from that formation.
In its standard guidelines for assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts on paleontological
resources, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP 2010) established four categories of
sensitivity for paleontological resources: high, low, no, and undetermined. Areas where fossils
have been previously found are considered to have a high sensitivity and a high potential to
produce fossils. Areas that are not sedimentary in origin and that have not been known to
produce fossils in the past typically are considered to have low sensitivity. Areas consisting of
high-grade metamorphic rocks (e.g., gneisses and schists) and plutonic igneous rocks (e.g.,
granites and diorites) are considered to have no sensitivity. Areas that have not had any
previous paleontological resource surveys or fossil finds are considered to be of undetermined
sensitivity until surveys are performed. After reconnaissance surveys, a qualified paleontologist
can determine whether the area of undetermined sensitivity should be categorized as having
high, low, or no sensitivity. In keeping with the SVP significance criteria, all vertebrate fossils are
generally categorized as being of potentially significant scientific value.
The near -surface artificial fill consists of materials that were excavated from another location,
transported to the Project site, and then graded and compacted. During the excavation and
subsequent construction process, any fossils that may have been present in the original
materials would have been destroyed. Therefore, the artificial fill is not paleontologically
sensitive.
Because of the large number of vertebrate fossils that have been recovered from the Contra
Costa Group, it is considered to be of high paleontological sensitivity.
Regulatory Framework
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act) (California Public Resources
Code [PRC] Sections 2621-2630) was passed in 1972 to reduce the hazard of surface faulting to
structures designed for human occupancy. The Alquist-Priolo Act requires the State Geologist to
establish regulatory zones known as Earthquake Fault Zones around the surface traces of active
faults and to issue appropriate maps. Before a project can be permitted in a designated Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to
demonstrate that proposed structures would not be constructed across active faults.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (PRC Sections 2690-2699.6) addresses earthquake
hazards from non -surface fault rupture, including liquefaction and seismically induced
landslides. The act established a mapping program for areas that have the potential for
liquefaction, landslide, strong ground shaking, or other earthquake and geologic hazards. The
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 62
act also specifies that the lead agency for a project may withhold development permits until
geologic or soils investigations are conducted for specific sites and mitigation measures are
incorporated into plans to reduce hazards associated with seismicity and unstable soils.
California Building Standards Code
The California Building Standards Code (CBC) (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations)
provides minimum standards for building design in California. The CBC applies to building
design and construction in the state and is based on the federal Uniform Building Code (UBC)
used widely throughout the country (generally adopted on a state -by -state or district -by -district
basis). The CBC has been modified for California conditions with numerous more detailed or
more stringent regulations. The State earthquake protection law (California Health and Safety
Code, Section 19100 et seq.) requires that structures be designed to resist stresses produced by
lateral forces caused by earthquakes. The CBC requires that any structure designed for a project
site undergo a seismic design evaluation that assigns the structure to one of six categories, A—F;
Category F structures require the most earthquake -resistant design. The CBC philosophy
focuses on "collapse prevention," meaning that structures are to be designed to prevent
collapse during the maximum level of ground shaking that could reasonably be expected to
occur at a site. CBC Chapter 16 specifies exactly how each seismic -design category is to be
determined on a site -specific basis, based on site -specific soil characteristics and proximity to
potential seismic hazards. CBC Chapter 18 regulates the analysis of expansive soils, slope
instability, liquefaction, and surface rupture attributable to faulting or lateral spreading, along
with an evaluation of lateral pressures on basement and retaining walls, liquefaction and loss of
soil strength, and lateral movement or reduction of the foundation's soil -bearing capacity.
Dublin Municipal Code Section Chapter 7.16, Grading Regulations
The City of Dublin Grading Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 7.16) requires a geologic/soil
investigation report, preliminary grading plans, proposed provisions for storm drainage control,
and any existing or proposed flood control in the vicinity of the grading. A conceptual plan for
erosion and sediment control is also required, including both temporary facilities and long-term
site stabilization features such as planting or seeding for the area affected by the proposed
grading. Chapter 7.16 prohibits grading operations during the rainy season except upon a clear
demonstration, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, that at no stage of the work
will there be any substantial risk of increased sediment discharge from the site. Should grading
be permitted during the rainy season, the smallest practicable area of erodible land must be
exposed at any one time during grading operations and the time of exposure must be
minimized.
City of Dublin General Plan
Chapter 8.0 of the City of Dublin General Plan outlines policies and programs related to seismic
safety, safety and emergency preparedness. The following policies related to geology and soils
are applicable to the proposed project:
• Guiding Policy 8.2.1.A.1. Geologic hazards shall be mitigated or development shall be
located away from geologic hazards in order to preserve life, protect property, and
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 63
reasonably limit the financial risks to the City of Dublin and other public agencies that would
result from damage to poorly located public facilities.
• Implementing Policy 8.2.1.B.1. Structural and Grading Requirements
a. All structures shall be designed to the standards delineated in the Dublin Building Code and
Dublin's Grading Ordinance. A "design earthquake" shall be established by an engineering
geologist for each structure for which ground shaking is a significant design factor.
b. Structures intended for human occupancy shall be at least 50 feet from any active fault
trace; freestanding garages and storage structures may be as close as 25 feet. These
distances may be reduced based on adequate exploration to accurately locate the fault
trace. Generally, facilities should not be built astride potential rupture zones, although
certain low risk facilities may be considered. Critical facilities that must cross a fault, such as
oil, gas, and water lines, shall be designed to accommodate the maximum expected offset
from fault rupture. Site specific evaluations shall determine the maximum credible offset.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Seismic hazards
i) Surface Fault Rupture
The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zone or the fault trace
of any other known fault (DOC 2023, Jennings and Bryant 2010). Thus, there would be no
impact from surface fault rupture during construction or operation.
ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
As described above in the Environmental Setting, the Project site is located in a seismically
active area. Seismic design calculations performed by Cornerstone (2022) estimated a peak
ground acceleration of 0.73 gravity (g) for the Project site, which indicates that strong seismic
ground shaking would be anticipated at some point during the next 50 years. The proposed
Project would not exacerbate the potential for seismic shaking, as the intensity of the
earthquake ground motion at the site would depend on the characteristics of the generating
fault, distance to the earthquake epicenter, magnitude, and duration of the earthquake, and
specific site geologic conditions. While complete avoidance of any damage may not be feasible,
the Project would be designed to withstand seismic shaking. The CBC includes provisions to
reduce impacts caused by major structural failures or loss of life resulting from earthquakes or
other geologic hazards, and the preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared by Cornerstone
includes measures to reduce the hazards from strong seismic ground shaking. Design review
performed through the City's permitting process would ensure compliance with the
requirements of the CBC and the City's building standards. Therefore, the impact from strong
seismic ground shaking during construction and operation would be less than significant.
iii) Liquefaction, Lateral Spreading, and Settlement
Based on the results of soil borings, the close proximity to the active Calaveras Fault, and the
fact that groundwater was encountered at the Project site at depths ranging from 18 to 20 feet
bgs, Cornerstone (2022) indicated there is potential for liquefaction in localized sand layers
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 64
underneath the proposed building, which could induce settlement of 0.25 inch or less.
Cornerstone (2022) also indicated that approximately 1.25 inches of settlement could occur
from liquefaction -induced settlement in the area proposed for parking and landscaping south of
the building. Liquefaction and settlement associated with the proposed building would be
addressed through required compliance with the CBC, and the preliminary geotechnical
investigation prepared by Cornerstone includes measures to reduce the hazards from
liquefaction. Design review performed through the City's permitting process would ensure
compliance with the requirements of the CBC and the City's building standards. Therefore,
impacts related to liquefaction and associated settlement would be less than significant.
The preliminary geotechnical investigation (Cornerstone 2022) indicated that there is a
moderate potential for lateral spreading associated with the area proposed for parking and
landscaping between the building and Dublin Creek to the south, where horizontal
displacement could range from several inches to a few feet. However, the potential for lateral
spreading further from the creek (including within the proposed building footprint) is low;
therefore, the risk of injury, loss, or death from lateral spreading in areas adjacent to the creek
during a seismic event would be minimal. Therefore, the impact from hazards related to lateral
spreading during construction and operation would be less than significant.
iv) Landslides
The Project site north of Dublin Creek has been previously graded to accommodate the existing
building and parking lots and is nearly flat. The elevation slopes gently from approximately 388
feet in the west to 384 feet in the southeast and 380 feet in the northeast. The Project site itself
is not located in an Earthquake Zone of Required Investigation for landslides (DOC 2023). A
small landslide hazard area has been mapped by CGS approximately 350 feet northwest of the
Project site, on the north side of Dublin Boulevard (DOC 2023). However, this area has since
been graded and developed as a housing development, and the area indicated as a landslide
hazard zone is now flat and is approximately 25 feet below the elevation of Dublin Boulevard.
Therefore, this area would not represent a hazard for the project site.
Another small landslide hazard zone has been identified by CGS along a ridge approximately
800 feet south of the Project site, south of Dublin Canyon Road (DOC 2023). This area is
approximately 125 feet higher than the Project site; however, given the intervening distance
and small mass of this ridgeline, if a landslide were to occur it would be unlikely to affect the
Project site. Therefore, the impact from landslide hazards during construction and operation
would be less than significant.
(b) Erosion/topsoil loss (Less than Significant)
Based on a review of NRCS (2022) soil survey data, the Yolo loam soil in the southern portion of
the Project site adjacent to Dublin Creek has a moderate water infiltration rate, is well drained,
and has a moderate water erosion and runoff hazard (NRCS 2022). Surficial soils in the
remainder of the Project site consist of artificial fill (Cornerstone 2022). No Project -related
earthmoving activities would occur on Parcel 2, which is south of the existing parking lot,
adjacent to Dublin Creek. However, if not properly controlled, construction -related stormwater
runoff could drain south into Dublin Creek resulting in erosion. However, because the proposed
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 65
Project would disturb more than 1 acre of land, the Project applicant is required by law to
prepare a SWPPP and implement site -specific BMPs specifically designed to prevent erosion
and downstream sedimentation, and to protect water quality, in compliance with the statewide
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (Order
WQ 2022-0057-DWQ). Furthermore, the Project applicant is required to implement the
provisions of City Municipal Code Chapter 7.16, which require grading and drainage plans that
identify measures to reduce erosion, and which generally prohibits grading activities during the
winter rainy season. Therefore, impacts from construction -related soil erosion would be less
than significant. The potential for operational activities to result in soil erosion is evaluated in
Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality.
(c-d) Soil stability (Less Than Significant Impact)
The potential for unstable soils associated with seismic activity is evaluated in criteria (a),
above. No development is proposed in the native soils adjacent to Dublin Creek. Laboratory test
results indicated that soils underneath the developed portion of the Project site are moderately
expansive (Cornerstone 2022). Soil expansion associated with the proposed building would be
addressed through compliance with the CBC, which is mandatory for all projects. The
preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared by Cornerstone includes recommended
measures to reduce the hazards from soil expansion consistent with the CBC. These measures
include adding sufficient reinforcement of slab -on -grade supported on a layer of non -expansive
soil; extending footings below the zone of seasonal moisture fluctuation; limiting moisture
changes in the surficial soils by using positive drainage away from building as well as limiting
landscape watering; implementing a plug of low -permeability clay soil, sand -cement slurry, or
lean concrete within trenches just outside where trenches pass into building and pavement
areas; and following detailed grading and foundation recommendations specified in the
Geotechnical Report (Cornerstone 2022). Design review performed through the City's
permitting process would ensure compliance with the requirements of the CBC and the City's
building standards. Therefore, because the Project would be required to implement measures
to comply with the CBC, the City's building standards, hazards from soil expansion would be
reduced, and impacts from construction and operation related to unstable soils and soil
expansion would be less than significant.
(e) Soil capability to support wastewater disposal, including septic (No Impact)
The Project site is located within the area served by a municipal wastewater system.
Wastewater treatment would continue to be provided at the regional treatment plant (see
Section 18: Utilities and Service Systems for additional details). Because the proposed Project
would not require installation of a septic system or alternative wastewater disposal system,
there would be no impact from Project construction or operation.
(f) Unique geologic feature/paleontological resources (Less Than Significant with Mitigation)
A unique geologic feature consists of a major natural element that stands out in the landscape,
such as a large and scenic river, gorge, waterfall, volcanic cinder cone, lava field, or glacier.
There are no unique geologic features at the Project site or within the Project viewshed. Thus,
there would be no impact to unique geologic features from Project construction or operation.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 66
Paleontological Resources — Construction
In areas where the artificial fill only extends to 1.5 feet, excavation and grading during project
construction would encounter the native Contra Costa Group materials, which are of high
paleontological sensitivity. Furthermore, excavation to a maximum depth of approximately 12
feet would occur at the proposed on -site stormwater drainage pumps, which would also
encounter the paleontologically sensitive Contra Costa Group. Therefore, project -related
earthmoving activities could result in accidental damage to, or destruction of unique
paleontological resources, and this impact would be potentially significant. With
implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Avoid Impacts to Unique Paleontological
Resources, potential construction -related impacts to unique paleontological resources would
be less than significant with mitigation. This impact is further analyzed in the Focused EIR.
Paleontological Resources — Operation
Because Project operation would not involve ground -disturbing activities, there would be no
impact to unique paleontological resources.
Source(s)
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2023. DOC Maps Data Viewer —Earthquake
Zones of Required Investigation, and Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/DataViewer/. Accessed January 11, 2023.
Cornerstone Earth Group. 2022. Geotechnical Investigation, Dublin Boulevard Industrial, 11711
Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, California. Cornerstone Project No. 681-12-1. Sunnyvale, CA.
Jennings, C.W. and W.A. Bryant. 2010. 2010 Fault Activity Map of California. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/App/index.html. Accessed January 11, 2022.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2022. Web Soil Survey. Available:
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed January 11, 2022.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and
Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology, Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee.
University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). 2023. Paleontological Collections
Database. Available: https://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/about.shtml. Accessed January 25,
2022.
UpCodes. 2016. California 18 Soils and Foundations. California Building Code 2016. Available:
https://up.codes/viewer/california/ca-building-code-2016/chapter/18/soils-and-
foundations#18. Accessed May 4, 2023.
Wagner, D.L., E.J. Bortugno, and R.D. McJunkin. 1991. Geologic Map of the San Francisco -San
Jose Quadrangle, California, 1:250,000. Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 5A.
California Division of Mines and Geology. Sacramento, CA.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 67
Potentially
Significant
Impact
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
Less Than
Significant
Impact with Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Environmental Setting
Certain gases in the Earth's atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining
the Earth's surface temperature. A portion of the solar radiation that enters the Earth's
atmosphere is absorbed by the Earth's surface, and a smaller portion of this radiation is
reflected back toward space. Infrared radiation is absorbed by GHGs; therefore, infrared
radiation released from Earth that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead
"trapped," resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the
"greenhouse effect," is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on Earth.
GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources and
anthropogenic sources, and are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the
atmosphere. The following GHGs are widely accepted as the principal contributors to human -
induced global climate change that would be relevant to the proposed Project: CO2; methane
(CH4); and nitrous oxide (N20). Emissions of CO2 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. CH4 is
the main component of natural gas and is associated with agricultural practices and landfills.
N20 is a colorless GHG that results from industrial processes, vehicle emissions, and agricultural
practices.
Global warming potential (GWP) is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to
trap heat in the atmosphere relative to CO2. The GWP of a GHG is based on several factors,
including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and length of time that
the gas remains in the atmosphere (atmospheric lifetime). The reference gas for GWP is CO2;
therefore, CO2 has a GWP of 1. The other main GHGs that have been attributed to human
activity include CH4, which has a GWP of 28, and N20, which has a GWP of 265 (IPCC 2013). For
example, 1 ton of CH4 has the same contribution to the greenhouse effect as approximately 28
tons of CO2. GHGs with lower emissions rates than CO2 still may contribute to climate change
because they are more effective at absorbing outgoing infrared radiation than CO2 (i.e., high
GWP). The concept of CO2-equivalents (CO2e) is used to account for the different GWP
potentials of GHG to absorb infrared radiation.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 68
Regulatory Framework
Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, signed in June 2005, proclaimed that
California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. EO S-3-05 declared that increased
temperatures could reduce the Sierra Nevada's snowpack, further exacerbate California's air
quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To combat those concerns, the EO
established total GHG emissions targets. Specifically, emissions are to be reduced to the 2000
level by 2010, the 1990 level by 2020, and to 80 percent below the 1990 level by 2050.
Assembly Bill 32. In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et
seq.). AB 32 further details and puts into law the mid-term GHG reduction target established in
EO S-3-05, which is to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050. AB 32 also identifies CARB as the state agency responsible for the
design and implementation of emissions limits, regulations, and other measures to meet the
target.
Executive Order B-30-15. Issued in April 2015, EO B-30-15 establishes a statewide GHG
reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The emission reduction target acts as
an interim goal between the AB 32 goal (i.e., achieve 1990 emission levels by 2020) and EO S-
03-05 goal of reducing statewide emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In addition,
the EO aligns California's 2030 GHG reduction goal with the European Union's reduction target
(i.e., 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030) that was adopted in October 2014.
Executive Order B-55-18. Issued in September 2018, EO B-55-18 establishes a new statewide
goal of achieving and maintaining carbon neutrality as soon as possible and no later than 2045.
Senate Bill (SB) 32. SB 32, signed on September 8, 2016, requires California to reduce GHG
emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. That 2030 target represents reductions
needed to ensure California can achieve its longer -term 2050 target of a reduction of GHG
emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels per EO B-30-15.
Assembly Bill 1279. AB 1279, signed on September 16, 2022, declares the policy of the state
both to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045,
and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045,
statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced to at least 85 percent below the 1990
levels. The bill requires CARB to work with relevant state agencies to ensure that updates to the
scoping plan identify and recommend measures to achieve these policy goals and to identify
and implement a variety of policies and strategies that enable carbon dioxide removal solutions
and carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies in California, as specified.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). In April 2022, BAAQMD adopted new
CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and
Plans (BAAQMD 2022). The BAAQMD analyzed what will be required of new land use
development projects to achieve California's long-term climate goal of carbon neutrality by
2045 as articulated in Executive Order B-55-18 (and subsequently codified in AB 1279). The
BAAQMD found that a new land use development project being built today needs to either
incorporate design elements (listed below) to do its "fair share" of implementing the goal of
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 69
carbon neutrality by 2045 or be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the
criteria under the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).
Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:
1. Buildings
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas
plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section
21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
2. Transportation
a. Achieve a reduction in project -generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
below the regional average consistent with the current version of the
California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a
locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the
recommendations provided in the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in
CEQA:
i. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita
ii. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee
iii. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT
b. Achieve compliance with off-street EV requirements in the most recently
adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.
As described in more detail below, the City of Dublin has prepared a Climate Action Plan, which
serves as the City of Dublin's qualified GHG Reduction Plan and programmatic tiering document
that meets the criteria under the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). Therefore, the
proposed Project's impacts related to GHG emissions are analyzed using the City of Dublin's
Climate Action Plan 2030.
City of Dublin General Plan. The City of Dublin General Plan, adopted in 1985 and amended in
2022, includes an Environmental Resources Management: Community Design & Sustainability
Element. In addition to the policies listed in Section 3.7, Energy, from the Energy Conservation
Element, the following policies and measures related to GHG emissions and sustainability
would be applicable to the proposed Project:
• Encourage alternative modes of transportation by providing priority parking for carpool
and alternative energy vehicles, bicycle racks/lockers, showers for employees, and easy
access to adjacent regional trails and transit stops.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 70
• Encourage development features that minimize the use of non-renewable energy
consumption (i.e. material reuse, natural lighting and ventilation, etc.).
• Facilitate environmental and energy -efficient design guidelines that promote good
design for new construction.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 2030. The City of Dublin adopted its Climate Action Plan
2030 and Beyond (CAP 2030) in September 2020, as a guiding document to identify ways in
which the community and City can reduce GHG emissions, meet Dublin's long-term climate
action goals, and promote a healthy, prosperous community. The purpose of the CAP 2030 is to
meet California's 2030 GHG emissions reductions target of at least 40 percent below 1990
levels by 2030 and set the City on the path to achieve the goal envisioned by EO B-55-18 of
carbon neutrality by 2045. The CAP 2030 focuses on the following strategies: 100 percent
renewable and carbon -free electricity; building efficiency and electrification; sustainable
mobility and land use; materials and waste management; and municipal leadership measures
(City of Dublin 2020).
The City's CAP 2030 also allows for CEQA streamlining pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15183.5(b). In order to reach the City of Dublin's GHG emissions reduction goal (65,090 MT of
CO2e by 2030) the City has identified four strategies and seven core measures which are
expected to reduce communitywide emissions by an estimated 73,452 MT of CO2e in 2030. The
City has determined that implementing the measures in the CAP 2030 should reduce the
impacts from activities under jurisdictional control or significant influence of the City of Dublin
to collectively achieve the specified emissions levels in the CAP. These strategies include:
• Strategy 1: Renewable and Carbon -Free Energy (CF)
o CF-1: Opt -Up to 100% Renewable and Carbon -Free Electricity
o CF-2: Develop a Renewable Resource Buildout Plan
• Strategy 2: Building Efficiency and Electrification (EE)
o EE-1: Achieve All -Electric New Building Construction
o EE-2: Implement the State Building Energy Disclosure Program
o EE-3: Streamline Battery Storage Permit Requirements
o EE-4: Develop an Existing Building Electrification Plan
• Strategy 3: Sustainable Mobility and Land Use (SM)
o SM-1: Adopt an Electric Vehicle Charging Station Ordinance
o SM-2: Develop an EV Infrastructure Plan
o SM-3: Develop a Transportation Demand Management Plan
o SM-4: Develop a Citywide Parking Management Plan
o SM-5: Update the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
o SM-6: Continue to Prioritize Transit -Oriented Development
o SM-7: Develop a Built Environment That Prioritizes Active Mobility
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 71
• Strategy 4: Materials and Waste Management (MM)
o MM-1: Achieve the Organic Waste Diversion Requirements of SB 1383
o MM-2: Reduce Embodied Emissions Associated with Building Materials
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Generate GHG emissions (Less than Significant/Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Heavy-duty off -road equipment, materials transport, and worker commutes during
construction of the proposed Project would result in GHG emissions from vehicle exhaust. After
construction, day-to-day activities associated with operation of the proposed Project would
generate emissions from sources such as area, mobile, electricity, solid waste, water and
wastewater sources.
As discussed previously, the City's CAP 2030 constitutes a plan for the reduction of GHG
emissions in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15183(b), a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative GHG emissions effect
may be determined not to be cumulatively considerable if it complies with the requirements of
the CAP 2030. Accordingly, the analysis of the proposed Project's cumulative contribution to
climate change and GHG emissions is demonstrated by the analysis of the project's consistency
with the applicable CAP 2030 measures, as shown in Table 3: Project Consistency with
Applicable CAP 2030 GHG Emissions Reduction Measures below.
Table 3: Project Consistency with Applicable CAP 2030 GHG Emissions Reduction Measures
GHG Emission
Reduction Measure Description Project Consistency
Strategy 1:
Renewable and
Carbon -Free Energy
(CF)
CF-1: Opt -Up to 100% The City of Dublin will set 100% renewable
Renewable and and carbon -free electricity as the default
Carbon -Free electricity for all Dublin customers served by
Electricity East Bay Community Energy to unlock health
and GHG emissions reduction benefits
associated with carbon -free electricity.
Consistent. The City is the responsible party
for this measure; however, the project would
be automatically enrolled in East Bay
Community Energy's Renewable 100
electricity service.
CF-2. Develop a
Renewable Resource
Buildout Plan
The City will leverage State and local funding
and partnerships to develop local community
solar projects in Dublin and investigate
development of micro -grids to improve the
resilience of the local electricity infrastructure.
Not applicable. The City is the responsible
party for this measure and the Renewable
Resource Buildout Plan has not been
developed at the time of this analysis;
however, the Project would not conflict with
development of renewable resources and the
Project would be required to comply with any
associated standards or requirements.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 72
GHG Emission
Reduction Measure Description
Project Consistency
Strategy 2: Building -
Efficiency and
Electrification (EE)
EE-1: Achieve All -
Electric New Building
Construction
Adopt an all -electric building reach code for
new construction to reduce natural gas use
and limit the development of new gas
infrastructure in the City of Dublin.
Consistent. Consistent with Dublin Municipal
Code (DMC) Chapter 7.94.100 (Green
Building Code, All electric buildings), the
proposed Project would be all -electric and
would not have natural gas infrastructure.
EE-2: Implement the
State Building Energy
Disclosure Program
The City of Dublin will require all commercial
and multifamily buildings covered by AB 802
to report energy use through the Energy Star
Portfolio Manager tool.
Consistent. The proposed Project would be
covered by AB 802 and would be required to
report energy use through the Energy Star
Portfolio Manager tool.
EE-3: Streamline
Battery Storage
Permit Requirements
The City will ensure that permitting for the
installation of new battery storage in
residential and commercial buildings is
streamlined and clear in order to promote the
installation of additional energy storage
capacity in Dublin.
Consistent. The City is the responsible party
for this measure. The Project would not
conflict with implementation and would
comply with the battery storage requirements
in the latest building code.
EE-4: Develop an
Existing Building
Electrification Plan
Develop a plan to promote the retrofit of 22%
existing buildings in Dublin to all electric by
2030 and consider development of existing
building electrification ordinances in the
future.
Not applicable. This measure establishes
countywide building retrofit measures for
existing buildings. As the Project does not
include existing structures, and would instead
demolish an existing building, this measure
does not apply.
Strategy 3:
Sustainable Mobility
and Land Use (SM)
SM-1: Adopt an
Electric Vehicle
Charging Station
Ordinance
The City of Dublin will adopt an electric
vehicle (EV) charging station ordinance for
multifamily and commercial buildings to
increase access to charging stations and
promote the use of EVs.
Consistent. Consistent with DMC Chapter
7.94.090 (Green Building Code, EV
charging), the proposed Project would install
EV charging at the Tier 2 level (EV-capable
and EV Charging Station Equipment).
SM-2: Develop an EV
Infrastructure Plan
Develop an electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure
plan to ensure that the City is optimally siting
EV chargers and using the most beneficial
program for publicly accessible EV chargers.
Consistent. The City is responsible for this
measure; however, the proposed Project
would implement the required number of EV
chargers per DMC Chapter 7.94.090.
SM-3: Develop a
Transportation
Demand Management
Plan
Develop a comprehensive Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Plan for the
City of Dublin. The TDM Plan will identify
strategies to help facilitate the move from
single -occupancy vehicles to less carbon
intensive transportation modes.
Consistent. The City is responsible for this
measure; however, as described in more
detail in Section 16, Transportation, the
proposed Project would be located in an area
with a projected vehicle miles travelled (VMT)
per employee lower than 12.9 miles (which is
15 percent lower than the existing countywide
15.2 VMT per employee for the East Planning
Area). In addition, the existing pedestrian,
bicycle, and transit facilities serving the
Project site are adequate (W-Trans 2022).
The proposed Project would also provide
bicycle storage spaces that exceed the City's
bicycle parking requirements.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 73
GHG Emission
Reduction Measure Description
Project Consistency
SM-4: Develop a
Citywide Parking
Management Plan
Develop a comprehensive Parking
Management Plan that will specify parking
requirements and costing that supports multi -
modal transportation and a reduction in
vehicle miles travelled.
Consistent. The City is responsible for this
measure; however, as described in more
detail in Section 16, Transportation, the
proposed Project would be located in an area
with a projected VMT per employee lower
than 12.9 miles. In addition, the proposed
parking supply meets City requirements and
estimated parking demand (W-Trans 2022).
SM-5: Update the
Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master
Plan
Update the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan to contribute to the overall VMT
reduction required to meet the City's climate
goals. The plan will maximize the
convenience and safety of active
transportation within the City of Dublin.
Consistent. The City is responsible for this
measure; however, as described in more
detail in Section 16, Transportation, the
proposed Project would be located in an area
with a projected VMT per employee lower
than 12.9 miles. In addition, the existing
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities
serving the Project site are adequate (W-
Trans 2022). Further, the proposed Project
would provide bicycle storage spaces that
exceed the City's bicycle parking
requirements.
SM-6: Continue to
Prioritize Transit -
Oriented
Development
Dublin has access to two BART stations and
several LAVTA bus lines. Focusing higher
density development and amenities around
these transit stops can decrease VMT and
GHG emissions generated within Dublin.
Consistent. The City is responsible for this
measure; however, as described in more
detail in Section 16, Transportation, the
proposed Project is adequately served by
transit since existing transit stops are less
than one-half mile away from the Project site
(W-Trans 2022).
SM-7: Develop a Built
Environment That
Prioritizes Active
Mobility
The City of Dublin will implement building
standards that improve the pedestrian
experience and create a built environment
that prioritizes active mobility.
Consistent. The City is responsible for this
measure; however, pedestrian and bicycle
facilities serving the Project site are adequate
since existing pedestrian and bicycle access
provide connectivity between the Project site
and surrounding multi -modal transportation
infrastructure and facilities. In addition, the
proposed Project includes long-term and
short-term bicycle stalls as well as an interior
bike rack.
Strategy 4: Materials -
and Waste
Management (MM)
MM-1: Achieve the
Organic Waste
Diversion
Requirements of SB
1383
The City of Dublin will coordinate with
community stakeholders to achieve the goal
of organics comprising less than 9.35% of
Dublin waste by 2025. Additionally, at least
20% of currently disposed edible food will be
recovered for human consumption by 2025.
Consistent. The City is responsible for this
measure; however, the proposed Project
would comply with the Organics Reduction
and Recycling Ordinance (City of Dublin
2023).
MM-2: Reduce
Embodied Emissions
Associated with
Building Materials
The City of Dublin will require the use of low
carbon concrete in new construction projects
to reduce lifecycle GHG emissions and the
embodied carbon associated with
construction projects.
Note: Municipal GHG emissions reduction measures (Strategy 5: Municipal Leadership Measures) are not included here as they would not be
applicable to the proposed Project.
CF = Renewable and Carbon -Free Energy; EE = Building Efficiency and Electrification; SM = Sustainable Mobility and Land Use; MM = Materials
and Waste Management; AB = Assembly Bill; SB = Senate Bill; DMC = Dublin Municipal Code
Not applicable. The City has not adopted an
ordinance mandating low carbon concrete for
all new development projects at the time of
this analysis.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 74
As summarized in above, the proposed Project would be consistent with all applicable
GHG emission reduction measures included in CAP 2030.
For disclosure purposes, construction and operational GHG emissions of the proposed Project
were also estimated using the same methodology discussed earlier under Section 3.2, Air
Quality. These emissions are shown in Table 4: GHG Emissions Summar below. As shown in
Table 4, the proposed Project would result in a net reduction in GHG emissions, primarily due
to the reduction in daily vehicle trips and more energy -efficient, all -electric building, compared
to existing conditions.
Therefore, because the proposed Project would not conflict with the CAP 2030 measures and
implementation of the proposed Project would result in a net reduction in GHG emissions
compared to existing conditions, this impact would be less than significant impact and less
than cumulatively considerable based on consistency with CAP approach.
Table 4: GHG Emissions Summary
Source/Description GHG Emissions
Construction
Total Construction Emissions (MT CO2e) 439
Amortized Construction Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 1 15
Operation
Area (MT CO2e/year) <0.1
Energy (MT CO2e/year) 2 113
Mobile (MT CO2e/year) 454
Stationary (MT CO2e/year) 3
Waste (MT CO2e/year) 65
Water (MT CO2e/year) 53
Total Annual Emissions, including amortized construction (MT CO2e/year) 3 703
Existing Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 790
Net Emissions (MT CO2e/year) (87)
Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; MT CO2e/year = metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent per year
Additional modeling assumptions and details are provided in Appendix D.
'Since construction related GHG emissions would cease upon completion of construction, GHG emissions associated with construction of the
proposed Project were amortized over the proposed Project lifetime. The assumed amortization period is 30 years, based on the typically
assumed project lifetime based on other air districts (e.g., South Coast Air Quality Management District [2008]).
2 Energy -related emissions associated with the proposed Project conservatively assume PG&E is the service provider. However, as of January
2022, the default electricity option is East Bay Community Energy's (EBCE's) Renewable 100 service, which is sourced from California wind and
solar facilities, which would further reduce indirect GHG emissions as a result of energy consumption.
3 The operational GHG emission estimates assumed the proposed Project would include 18,000 square feet of office space, 36,500 square feet
of light industrial space, and 70,804 square feet of warehousing space. Based on the latest site plan, it is anticipated the proposed Project
would include 18,000 square feet of office space, 30,000 square feet of light industrial space, and 77,304 square feet of warehousing space.
Since light industrial land uses generate higher daily vehicle trips than warehousing land uses, daily vehicle trips and the associated GHG
emissions are anticipated to be lower (i.e., the GHG emission estimates assumed the proposed Project would generate 494 daily trips, based
on the 2022 Transportation Impact Study (W-Trans 2022); however, based on the updated site plan the proposed Project is anticipated to
generate approximately 468 daily trips). Similarly, based on California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) default data, building energy
consumption rates for light industrial land uses are higher than building energy consumption rates for warehousing space. As such, the GHG
emissions presented above are conservative since fuel consumption and electricity consumption would be lower. Therefore, implementation
of the proposed Project would result in a higher net reduction in GHG emissions compared to existing conditions.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 75
(b) Conflict with GHG plans or regulations (Less Than Significant Impact)
As discussed previously, the City of Dublin adopted CAP 2030, which establishes a pathway for
the City to achieve emissions reductions in alignment with the 2030 GHG reduction goals
established by SB 32 and help prepare the City of Dublin to implement further programs and
policies to meet carbon neutrality by 2045. As summarized in Impact (a) above, the proposed
Project would be consistent with the applicable measures of CAP 2030.
In accordance with State law, CARB developed the State's Climate Change Scoping Plan (2008)
and Scoping Plan updates (2014, 2017, and 2022) to outline the State's strategy to reduce
California's GHG emissions per AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279. In addition, as required by Dublin
Municipal Green Building Code, the proposed Project would also comply with the most current
Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen mandatory measures. The Building
Standards and CALGreen requirements include mandatory measures for all new building
construction, which would result in energy conservation and contribute to meeting the State's
goals established by AB 32 and SB 32 for reduction in GHG emissions. Furthermore, the
proposed Project would be all -electric (no natural gas infrastructure), consistent with the CARB
2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) goals of building
decarbonization and ending fossil fuel infrastructure expansion for newly constructed buildings.
Additionally, as described in Impact (a) above, implementation of the proposed Project would
result in a net reduction in GHG emissions compared to existing conditions, and as a result,
would not conflict with the goals and strategies included in local and statewide plans, policies,
or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Furthermore, the proposed Project would also be consistent with the BAAQMD recommended
building project design features of not including natural gas infrastructure or resulting in any
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage (as discussed in Section 3.7, Energy), as well
as the transportation project design features of achieving a reduction in project -generated VMT
below the regional average (as discussed in Section 16, Transportation), and compliance with
off-street EV requirement per CALGreen Tier 2 (pursuant to DMC Chapter 7.94.090). The
BAAQMD project design features were developed based on an analysis of what would be
required of land use development projects to achieve California's long-term climate goal of
carbon neutrality by 2045 as articulated in Executive Order B-55-18. Although these project
design features are not being used to evaluate the proposed Project's climate impact under
CEQA because the City has developed a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria
under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b), these design features can be used as
indicators of the proposed Project's consistency with California's long-term climate goal of
carbon neutrality by 2045 (as codified in AB 1279) and CARB's 2022 Scoping Plan. Therefore,
the proposed Project would not conflict with the applicable plans, policies and regulations
adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and this impact would be less than
significant.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 76
Source(s)
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022. CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the
Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans. April. Available
online: https://www.baagmd.gov/h'/media/files/planning-and-research/cega/ceqa-
thresholds-2022/justification-report-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed February 2023.
City of Dublin. 2020. Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond. September. Available online:
https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/24447/Climate-Action-Plan-2030-And-
Beyond. Accessed March 2023.
. 2023. Compost, Recycling, Landfill. Available online:
https://dublin.ca.gov/2042/Recycling-Programs#new. Accessed March 2023
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M.
Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535
pp. Available online:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5 all final.pdf. Accessed
February 2023.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008. Draft Guidance Document — Interim CEQA
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. Available online:
http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-
ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed February 2023.
W Traffic Engineering Transportation Planning (W-Trans). 2022. Final Transportation Impact
Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project. December.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 77
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
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 has been used since the 1960s as a research and development facility, which
tests epoxy resins and composites primarily for aerospace and other applications. The
laboratories were used for small-scale testing, while the building located south of the
offices/laboratories (referred to by Hexcel as the "Hi Bay") was used to test larger quantities of
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 78
carbon fiber plates. Part of the research activities include testing prefabricated prototype
carbon fiber plates. The research activities include chemical testing and reactions of the carbon
fiber plates, as well as climate or extreme condition testing of the plates including extreme
heat, cold, pressure, and electrical conditions, and stress testing. A Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) was performed by Ardent Environmental Group (Ardent) in 2022. The main
chemicals used at the site include petroleum oils and lubricants, non -chlorinated solvents,
metals (such as chromium and aluminum), and acids. According to waste records and a 1994
chemical inventory, historical chemical uses included halogenated solvents, including 1,1,1-
trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) and trichloroethene (TCE). Small containers of the different testing
chemicals were stored in approximately 10 fire cabinets in a designated Hazardous Waste and
Storage Area, while larger quantities of virgin chemicals and wastes were stored in 55-gallon
drums in the Hazardous Waste and Storage Area. The following areas of concern were noted in
the Phase I ESA (Ardent 2022).
• Area of Chemical Use, Storage, and/or Handling. Chemicals are used, stored, and/or
handled in the laboratories (existing and historical), Hi Bay area, and within the hazardous
waste and storage area of the site.
• Former 500-Gallon Waste Chromic Acid Underground Storage Tank (UST, Abandoned In -
Place in 1988). This Underground Storage Tank (UST) was located immediately east of the
Hi Bay portion of the building and was used to containerize waste acid wash reportedly
consisting of deionized water, sulfuric acid, and sodium dichromate generated from the
etching of aluminum panels. Soil and groundwater in the vicinity of this UST were
investigated in the late 1980s under the direction and oversight of the Alameda County
Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH). Laboratory results indicated no detectable
to low concentrations of hexavalent chromium, trivalent chromium, and aluminum. Based
on these results, ACDEH allowed Hexcel to abandon the UST in -place by filling the tank with
a cement slurry.
• Recently Removed 520-Gallon Waste Chromic Acid UST (2021). This UST was formerly
located immediately east of the on -site hazardous waste and storage area and accepted
waste from accidental spills from this area. Floor drains in the hazardous waste and storage
area directed any accidental spills of chemicals to the tank. The UST was removed in April
2021 under the direction and oversight of the ACDEH. Following removal, two soil samples
were collected from within the UST excavation. Laboratory results indicated no detectable
concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons, and no detectable to low concentrations
of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), namely acetone, at levels that were well below
federal and state thresholds. Based on these results, the ACDEH issued a No Further Action
letter dated July 20, 2021.
• The eastern portion of the existing building was constructed in 1962, with subsequent
additions over the years. Based on the age of the building, Ardent (2022) concluded that
asbestos -containing materials (ACMs) and lead -based paint are likely present.
As part of the Phase I ESA, Ardent (2022) retained Environmental Database Report (EDR) to
perform a search of federal, State, and tribal hazardous materials databases, and retained
Antea Group to perform a review of identified hazardous materials sites near the Project site.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 79
The database searches included those sites that are identified as part of the Cortese List. The
Project is listed in the SWRCB's GeoTracker database as a Cleanup Program Site; however,
cleanup program sites are not considered part of the Cortese List. No hazardous materials sites
were determined to represent a hazard for the proposed Project (Ardent 2022).
Regulatory Framework
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) has the primary
responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations within California. The
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration enforces hazard communication
program regulations that contain training and information requirements, including procedures
for identifying and labeling hazardous substances, communicating hazard information related
to hazardous substances and their handling, and preparation of health and safety plans to
protect workers and employees at hazardous waste sites. Cal/OSHA regulations also include
requirements for protective clothing, training, and limits on exposure to hazardous materials.
Cal/OSHA also enforces occupational health and safety regulations specific to lead (CCR Title 8
Section 1532.1) and asbestos (CCR Title 8 Section 1529) investigation and abatement.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) implements the State's
hazardous waste management program for the California Environmental Protection Agency.
DTSC has the primary regulatory responsibility, with delegation of enforcement to local
jurisdictions that enter into agreements with DTSC, for the management of hazardous materials
(including remediation) and the generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste under
the authority of California's Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code
Section 25100, et seq.).
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is authorized by the State Water Resources Control Board to
enforce provisions of the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969. This act gives the
San Francisco Bay RWQCB authority to require groundwater investigations when the quality of
groundwater or surface waters of the state is threatened and to require remediation of the site,
if necessary.
Hazardous Waste Transportation
Statutory requirements governing hazardous waste transportation in California are contained in
the California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Articles 6.5, 6.6, and 13.
Hazardous waste transporters must have a valid registration permit issued by DTSC. In addition,
hazardous waste transporters must comply with a variety of other State and federal
regulations, including the California Vehicle Code (CCR Title 13); California State Fire Marshal
Regulations (CCR Title 19); U.S. Department of Transportation regulations (Title 49 Code of
Federal Regulations); and USEPA regulations (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations).
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 80
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, adopted December 15, 1976, regulates hazardous pollutants
from asbestos demolition, renovation, and manufacturing activities. The purpose of the rule is
to control emissions of asbestos to the atmosphere during demolition, renovation, milling and
manufacturing and establish appropriate waste disposal procedures. The rule sets out specific
procedures to be followed and methods for reducing hazards from asbestos -containing
materials during such activities.
Senate Bill 1082 — California Environmental Protection Agency's Unified Program
In 1993, Senate Bill 1082 gave the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) the
authority and responsibility to establish a unified hazardous waste and hazardous materials
management and regulatory program, commonly referred to as the Unified Program. The
Unified Program is overseen by CalEPA with support from DTSC, RWQCBs, the Office of
Emergency Services (OES), and the State Fire Marshal. The purpose of this program is to
consolidate and coordinate hazardous materials and hazardous waste programs, and to ensure
that they are consistently implemented throughout the state. The Unified Program includes:
Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Business Plans), California
Accidental Release Prevention Program, Underground Storage Tank Program, Aboveground
Petroleum Storage Act Program, Hazardous Waste Generator and Onsite Hazardous Waste
Treatment (tiered permitting) Programs, and California Uniform Fire Code Hazardous Material
Management Plans and Hazardous Material Inventory Statements.
State law requires county and local agencies to implement the Unified Program. The agency in
charge of implementing the program is called the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The
Alameda County Department of Environmental Health is the designated CUPA for the county. In
addition to the CUPA, other local agencies, such as the City of Dublin, help to implement the
Unified Program.
City of Dublin General Plan
Section 8.3.4 of the General Plan outlines policies and programs related to hazards and
hazardous materials. The following policies related to hazardous materials are applicable to the
proposed Project:
• Guiding Policy 8.3.4.1.A.1. Maintain and enhance the ability to regulate the use, transport,
and storage of hazardous materials and to quickly identify substances and take appropriate
action during emergencies.
• Guiding Policy 8.3.4.1.A.2. Minimize the risk of exposure to hazardous materials from
contaminated sites.
• Implementing Policy 8.3.4.1.B.4. Require site -specific hazardous materials studies for new
development projects where there is a potential for the presence of hazardous materials
from previous uses on the site. If hazardous materials are found, require the clean-up of
sites to acceptable regulatory standards prior to development.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 81
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Exposure to hazardous materials (Less than Significant Impact)
Exposure from use or spill of chemicals and other hazardous materials during construction and
operation:
Construction of the project would involve the transport, use, and disposal of limited quantities
of hazardous materials typically used in construction including fuels, paints, solvents, adhesives,
asphalt and lubricants that could pose a threat to human health or the environment if not
properly managed. The use of these hazardous chemicals and substances would be subject to
federal, state, and local health and safety requirements. Transportation of hazardous materials
on area roadways is regulated by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the Caltrans, and use
of these materials is regulated by DTSC, as outlined in CCR Title 22. The Project applicant and its
construction contractors would be required to use, store, and transport hazardous materials in
compliance with applicable federal and State regulations during Project construction.
Furthermore, as discussed in Section 9: Hydrology and Water Quality, a SWPPP would be
required for the project. The SWPPP would contain Spill Response Plan to address minor spills
of hazardous materials. With adherence to these regulations, impacts would be less than
significant during construction.
Operation of the protect may involve the transport, use, and disposal of limited quantities of
hazardous materials associated with the R&D and life sciences industry. If any hazardous
materials are stored or handled at the Project site, either as a result of on -site businesses
(similar to Hexcel) or from basic maintenance activities such as herbicides and cleaning
products, the building tenants and maintenance staff would be required to follow
manufacturer's instructions and (if applicable) would be required to prepare Hazardous
Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Business Plans) and comply with the
requirements of Hazardous Waste Generator (tiered permitting) Programs. Therefore, impacts
from exposure to hazardous materials during Project operation would be less than significant
during Project operation.
Exposure from disturbance of hazardous building materials at the site during construction:
Due to the age of the on -site structures at the Project site, abatement of hazardous materials
including ACMs and lead -based paint may be necessary as part of the demolition activities.
Construction worker health and safety regulations and hazardous materials removal and
disposal protocols would be implemented in accordance with applicable federal and state
standards, including the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health and the BAAQMD
Regulation 11 Rule 2: Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing. The Naturally
Occurring Asbestos (NOA) program requires "best available" dust mitigation measures to be
followed during earth -moving activities to reduce exposure to airborne asbestos. An Asbestos
Dust Mitigation Plan must be submitted to BAAQMD for review and approval prior to the start
of earth -moving activities in areas where NOA may be encountered. The abatement contractor
would be appropriately licensed and certified, and is required by law to comply with all local,
state, and federal requirements regarding hazardous materials. Hazardous materials would be
disposed of in an approved, off -site Class I or Class II landfill.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 82
A permitted liquid nitrogen above ground storage tank is present in the southern portion of the
site and immediately outside the existing building. However, there are no known issues with
the tank and Ardent (2022) determined that the liquid nitrogen tank does not represent an
environmental hazard. During demolition, the tank would be removed and disposed of in
accordance with applicable federal, state, and local ACDEH standards. Since local, state and
federal regulations will be complied with during the disturbance of hazardous building
materials, these impacts will be less than significant.
(b) Upset/Accident (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
If soil or groundwater have previously been contaminated at levels that exceed regulatory
thresholds, this would represent a significant human health and environmental hazard since
excavation work would be required during construction that could release these hazardous
materials. Furthermore, during demolition of the existing building, there could be exposure to
lead paint and/or asbestos. Therefore, these construction -related impacts are considered
potentially significant. With Mitigation Measure HAZMAT-1: Perform a Phase II
Environmental Site Assessment and HAZMAT-2: Perform Sampling of Materials To Be
Demolished, potential construction -related impacts from accidental exposure to hazardous
materials would be less than significant with mitigation. Operation of the Project would be
similar to existing conditions and is not expected to result in an upset or accident release of
hazardous materials, as labeling instructions of chemicals would be followed. This impact is
further analyzed in the Focused EIR.
(c) Hazardous materials near schools (No Impact)
There are no K-12 schools within 0.5 mile of the Project site. The nearest school, Valley
Christian Elementary, is approximately 0.68 mile to the northwest. Thus, Project construction
and operation would result in no impact from handling of hazardous materials near a school.
(d) Hazardous materials list (No Impact)
The nearest open, active Cortese Listed site is approximately 3 miles northeast of the Project
site. The Project site is included in the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB 2023)
GeoTracker database as a closed Clean -Up Program Site, which is not part of the Cortese List.
Because the Project site is not listed on the Cortese list, there would be no impact.
(e) Proximity to a public airport (No Impact)
The Livermore Municipal Airport is approximately 6 miles east of the Project site and outside of
the airport's Airport Influence Area (Alameda County 2012). Therefore, the proposed Project
would not result in an airport safety or airport noise impact. Thus, Project construction and
operation would result in no impact from airport safety or noise hazards.
(f) Impair implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (No
Impact)
The existing ingress and egress from Dublin Boulevard to the Project site would be maintained.
All construction materials would be staged on -site, and therefore no temporary lane closures
along Dublin Boulevard would be required during Project construction that could impede
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 83
emergency access or hinder emergency evacuation. For Project operation, planned emergency
access throughout the Project site would be reviewed by the City of Dublin Building
Department and the Fire Department to ensure that appropriate widths and turning radii area
provided for emergency vehicles. Furthermore, it is expected that a similar number of
employees would be working at the Project site as compared to existing conditions, and
therefore Project operation would not place substantial numbers of additional vehicles on area
roadways that could impede emergency access or hinder emergency evacuation. Thus, Project
construction and operation would result in no impact from impairment of emergency response
or evacuation plans.
(g) Expose people or structures to wildland fires (Less Than Significant Impact)
As discussed in Section 18, Wildfire, the Project would not substantially alter site slopes or
vegetation or introduce new land uses that would exacerbate potential wildfire risks at the site.
Strict adherence to applicable California Public Resources Code requirements would ensure
that wildfire risks are minimized during construction. The proposed building would be
constructed according to CBC, the California Fire Code and City of Dublin codes, and ordinances
and regulations to minimize fire hazards, including fire prevention and suppression measures;
fire hydrants and sprinkler systems; emergency access; and other similar requirements.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Source(s)
Alameda County. 2012. Livermore Executive Airport. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Ardent Environmental Group, Inc. 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Hexcel
Corporation Facility, 11711 Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, California. Ardent Project No.
101327001.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023. GeoTracker. Available:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed January 17, 2023.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 84
This page intentionally left blank
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
Hydrology and Water Quality
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 85
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
ess an
Significant
Impact with Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
e
e
X
X
X
X
r
X
X
X
if
X
X
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the projec
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surfa
or groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfe
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 stormwate
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
(iv). Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release
pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Environmental Setting
Dublin Creek traverses the southern portion of the project site, south of the existing building
and the southernmost parking area. Dublin Creek flows eastward from the foothills of the
Diablo Range. It is a tributary to Alamo Creek (now known as the Alamo Canal), which flows
southward along 1-680. The Alamo Canal discharges at its southern end into Arroyo de la
Laguna Creek, which flows southward and discharges into Alameda Creek in the Sunol Valley.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 86
As required by the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB has
designated beneficial uses for water body segments in its jurisdiction (including Dublin Creek,
Alamo Canal, Arroyo de la Laguna Creek, and Alameda Creek) along with water quality criteria
necessary to protect these uses, as contained in the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for
the San Francisco Bay Basin (San Francisco Bay RWQCB 2019).
Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to identify waters where
the permit standards, any other enforceable limits, or adopted water quality standards are still
unattained. NPDES permits for water discharges must take into account the pollutants for
which a water body is listed as impaired. Even if a stream is not included in the SWRCB's 303(d)
list, any upstream tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream, including Dublin Creek and Alamo Canal,
could contribute pollutants to the listed segment. Arroyo del la Laguna Creek and Alameda
Creek are both listed as impaired due to the presence of diazinon (SWRCB 2021).
The Project site includes an existing underground stormwater drainage system. Stormwater is
discharged into Dublin Creek through two existing on -site drainage outfalls (via 10-inch and 12-
inch pipelines, respectively), and via discharge into a 24-inch pipeline that also carries upstream
stormwater from other off -site properties to the west and discharges into Dublin Creek in the
southern portion of the Project site. These are private drainages that were maintained by the
property owner. Furthermore, stormwater from the southern part of the project site drains
directly into Dublin Creek via overland flow. However, because the project site was developed
with the existing building and parking areas in 1962, it does not include any stormwater quality
pre-treatment prior to discharge.
The Project site does not include any groundwater wells, and the proposed project does not
include drilling of any new wells. Therefore, groundwater resources are not addressed further
in this IS.
The channel of Dublin Creek, which flows through the southern portion of the Project site, is a
100-year floodplain as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA
2009). In addition, the southeastern portion of the Project site between the existing building
and Dublin Creek is within a FEMA-designated 500-year floodplain (FEMA 2009).
Regulatory Framework
Federal Clean Water Act
Water Quality Criteria and Standards, Section 303
Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all surface waters
of the United States. As defined by the CWA, water quality standards consist of two elements:
(1) designated beneficial uses of the water body in question, and (2) criteria that protect the
designated uses. Section 303(d) requires states to develop lists of the water bodies and
associated pollutants that exceed water quality criteria.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program, Section 402
The NPDES permit program was established as part of the CWA to regulate municipal and
industrial discharges to surface waters of the U.S. NPDES permits generally identify limits on the
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 87
concentrations and/or mass emissions of pollutants in effluent discharged into receiving
waters; prohibitions on discharges not specifically allowed under the permit; and provisions
that describe required actions by the discharger, including industrial pretreatment, pollution
prevention, self -monitoring, and other activities. NPDES permits are required for both
construction and operational stormwater discharges. California's RWQCBs are responsible for
implementing the NPDES permit system.
Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter -Cologne Act) of 1969 is California's
statutory authority for the protection of water quality. Under the Act, the State must adopt
water quality policies, plans, and objectives that protect the State's waters for the use and
enjoyment of the people. Regional authority for planning, permitting, and enforcement is
delegated to the nine RWQCBs.
Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan)
The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay Basin (San Francisco Bay
RWQCB 2019) identifies the beneficial uses of water bodies and provides water quality
objectives and standards for waters of the San Francisco Bay hydrologic regions.
California National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit System
Waste Discharge Requirements for Construction
The California State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) statewide stormwater general
permit for construction activity (Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ) is applicable to all construction
activities that would disturb 1 acre of land or more. Construction activities subject to the
general construction activity permit include clearing, grading, stockpiling, and excavation.
Dischargers are required to eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer
systems and other waters through preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of BMPs along
with inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements to prevent soil erosion and discharge
of other construction -related pollutants that could contaminate nearby water resources.
Municipal Regional Stormwater Discharge (MS4) Permit
The City of Dublin, along with 75 other municipalities and agencies, is a co-permittee under the
Municipal Regional Stormwater Discharge (MS4) Permit administered by the San Francisco Bay
RWQCB (Order No. R2-2022-0018, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, issued May 11, 2022). The
City is also a participant in the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, which was created
to implement the requirements of the MS4 Permit. New and redevelopment projects are
required to use the C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance (Alameda Clean Water Program 2021)
when designing stormwater drainage systems.
Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.74, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control
The City of Dublin's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Municipal
Code Chapter 7.74) was enacted to protect water quality by requiring projects to eliminate non-
stormwater discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer; control the discharge to
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 88
municipal separate storm sewers from spills, dumping or disposal of materials other than
stormwater; and reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent
practicable. Owners of properties that include a watercourse must maintain structures so as
not to become a hazard to the use, function or physical integrity of the watercourse; shall not
remove healthy bank vegetation beyond that actually necessary for said maintenance; and shall
not remove said vegetation in such a manner as to increase the vulnerability of the watercourse
to erosion (Section 7.74.110[A]). Development is prohibited within 30 feet of the centerline of
any creek or 20 feet of the top of a bank (Section 7.74.110[B]).
Dublin Municipal Code Section Chapter 7.16, Grading Regulations
The City of Dublin's Grading Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 7.16) requires a geologic/soil
investigation report, preliminary grading plans, proposed provisions for storm drainage control
and any existing or proposed flood control in the vicinity of the grading. A conceptual plan for
erosion and sediment control is also required, including both temporary facilities and long-term
site stabilization features such as planting or seeding for the area affected by the proposed
grading. Chapter 7.16 prohibits grading operations during the rainy season except upon a clear
demonstration, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, that at no stage of the work
will there be any substantial risk of increased sediment discharge from the site. Should grading
be permitted during the rainy season, the smallest practicable area of erodible land shall be
exposed at any one time during grading operations and the time of exposure shall be
minimized.
City of Dublin General Plan
Sections 7.2, 7.3 and 12.3 of the General Plan outlines policies and programs related to stream
corridors and riparian areas and erosion and siltation control. The following policies related to
hydrology and water quality are applicable to the proposed Project:
• Guiding Policy 7.2.1.A.1. Protect riparian vegetation as a protective buffer for stream
quality and for its value as a habitat and aesthetic resource.
• Guiding Policy 7.2.1.A.2. Promote access to stream corridors for passive recreational use
and to allow stream maintenance and improvements as necessary, while respecting the
privacy of owners of property abutting stream corridors.
• Implementing Policy 7.2.1.B.1. Enforce Watercourse Ordinance 52-87 for developed areas
of the city.
• Implementing Policy 7.2.1.6.2. Require open stream corridors of adequate width to protect
all riparian vegetation, improve access, and prevent flooding caused by blockage of streams.
• Implementing Policy 7.2.1.6.3. Require revegetation of creek banks with species
characteristic of local riparian vegetation, where construction requires creekbank alteration.
• Guiding Policy 7.3.1.A.1. Maintain natural hydrologic systems.
• Guiding Policy 7.3.1.A.2. Regulate grading and development on steep slopes.
• Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.1. Enforce the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit
for stormwater issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board or
any subsequent permit as well as Chapter 7 (Public Works) and Chapter 9 (Subdivisions) of
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 89
the Dublin Municipal Code for maintenance of water quality and protection of stream
courses.
• Implementing Policy 7.3.1.6.2. Review development proposals to insure site design that
minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff.
• Implementing Policy 7.3.1.6.3. Restrict development on slopes over 30 percent.
• Implementing Policy 7.3.2.63. Development projects shall comply with the requirements of
the Municipal Regional Permit for stormwater issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board or any subsequent permit as well as Dublin Municipal Code
Chapter 7 (Public Works) and Chapter 9 (Subdivisions).
• Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A1. Protect the quality and quantity of surface water and
groundwater resources that serve the community.
• Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A2. Protect water quality by minimizing stormwater runoff and
providing adequate stormwater facilities.
• Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A3. To minimize flooding in existing and future development, design
stormwater facilities to handle design -year flows based on buildout of the General Plan.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Violate water quality or waste discharge requirements or degrade surface or groundwater
quality (Less than Significant Impact)
The proposed Project would require construction on approximately 7.3 acres of the 8.81-acre
Project site, which would be entirely on Parcel 1. No construction would occur on the southern
approximately 0.56 acre of the Project site (Parcel 2), which is adjacent to Dublin Creek. Parcel
1, between the existing parking lot and Dublin Creek, and Parcel 2 would not include any
project -related staging, construction, or earthmoving activities. Because groundwater is 18-20
feet bgs (Cornerstone Earth Group 2022), the need for construction dewatering is unlikely.
Project construction would require demolition of existing buildings and pavement, excavation,
grading, material stockpiling, and staging at the Project site, which would temporarily disturb
surface soils. These activities would expose soil to the erosive forces of wind and water. During
winter rain events, the soil could be transported via overland flow to Dublin Creek and other
downstream waterbodies, thereby increasing turbidity and degrading water quality.
The Project is required by law to comply with the provisions of the SWRCB's statewide NPDES
Construction General Permit (Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ). The Construction General Permit
regulates stormwater discharges for construction activities under the federal Clean Water Act
and applies to all land -disturbing construction activities that would disturb 1 acre or more. The
Project applicant must submit a notice of intent to discharge to the San Francisco Bay RWQCB,
and must prepare and implement a SWPPP that includes BMPs to minimize those discharges.
All NPDES permits also have inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements. The San
Francisco Bay RWQCB requires dischargers to implement construction and operational design
features and BMPs that are specifically intended to reduce the potential for downstream
hydromodification, and to control erosion and reduce downstream sediment transport, in order
to protect water quality and in -stream beneficial uses as designed under the Basin Plan.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 90
Under the NPDES MS4 Phase II General Permit for operational stormwater discharge, project
applicants must comply with the Alameda Clean Water Program to protect the water quality of
existing waterbodies and improve operational stormwater quality discharges. The Alameda
Clean Water Program requires that measures for long-term BMPs that protect water quality
and control runoff flow be incorporated into new development and substantial redevelopment
projects. The proposed Project is required to design and implement operational water quality
and runoff controls per the Alameda Clean Water Program's C.3 Stormwater Technical
Guidance (Alameda Clean Water Program 2021).
The project applicant is required by law to comply with the NPDES construction and operational
permit programs. In addition, the project applicant must comply with the provisions of Dublin
Municipal Code Chapter 7.74, "Stormwater Management and Discharge Control," and Chapter
7.16, "Grading Regulations." Municipal Code Chapter 7.16 requires project applicants to submit
a preliminary grading plan showing proposed stormwater drainage features along with features
designed to control operation -related erosion and protect water quality. Final grading and
drainage plans must be prepared by the project applicant and submitted to the City Building
Department for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits or approval of
improvement plans. Furthermore, grading during the winter rainy season is not allowed unless
a waiver is obtained from the building department. Therefore, Project -related construction and
operational impacts from violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
or other substantial degradation of surface or groundwater quality would be less than
significant.
(b) Substantially decrease or interfere with groundwater supplies (Less Than Significant
Impact)
There are no groundwater wells at the Project site, and none are proposed as part of the
Project. Water needs for the proposed Project would continue to be met by the Dublin San
Ramon Services District (DSRSD), as they are now. As discussed in Section 18, Utilities and
Services Systems, the Project is estimated to necessitate double the amount of water currently
being used at the Project site. However, this increased water demand from the Project would
make up less than 0.0002 percent of the estimated projected supply of DSRSD. Thus, this
increase would be nominal. The proposed new building and parking would result in a higher
amount of impervious surfaces at the Project site as compared to existing conditions, but
bioretention areas have been sized accordingly, and therefore would not result in a substantial
decrease in the surface area of permeable soils that would allow rainwater to reach the aquifer.
Therefore, Project construction and operation would not substantially decrease or interfere
with groundwater supplies, and there would be less than significant impact.
(c) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns re: erosion/siltation, re: flooding, or degrade
water quality (Less Than Significant Impact)
(i). The Project is required by law to comply with the provisions of the SWRCB's statewide
NPDES Construction General Permit (Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ). The Construction General
Permit regulates stormwater discharges for construction activities under the federal CWA and
applies to all land -disturbing construction activities that would disturb 1 acre or more. The
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 91
project applicant must submit a notice of intent to discharge to the San Francisco Bay RWQCB,
and must prepare and implement a SWPPP that includes BMPs to minimize those discharges.
All NPDES permits also have inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements. The San
Francisco Bay RWQCB requires dischargers to implement construction and operational design
features and BMPs that are specifically intended to reduce the potential for downstream
hydromodification, and to control erosion and reduce downstream sediment transport, in order
to protect water quality and in -stream beneficial uses as designed under the Basin Plan.
Furthermore, per the City of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.16, grading during the winter
rainy season is not allowed unless a waiver is obtained from the building department.
Therefore, impacts from construction -related alteration of drainages resulting in increased
erosion, degradation of water quality, or downstream flooding would be less than significant.
(ii) and (iii). As noted above, the Project site includes an existing stormwater drainage system
that discharges to Dublin Creek through three outfalls (10-, 12-, and 24-inch, respectively) along
with overland flow. The existing 10-inch outfall would no longer be used, but the existing 12-
inch outfall, and the existing 12-inch conveyance line to the 24-inch outfall, would continue to
be used for discharge of stormwater as part of the proposed Project. A Preliminary Drainage
Plan (Kier+Wright 2022) for the proposed Project has been prepared. To comply with regional
and local operational stormwater permitting requirements, the Project applicant would install a
new drainage system that includes bioretention planters to provide stormwater pre-treatment
prior to discharge (Kier+Wright 2022). Two pumps, with a maximum depth of excavation of
between 12 to 20 feet below existing ground level, would be installed to raise stormwater to an
appropriate elevation for discharge conveyance. The Preliminary Drainage Plan for the
proposed Project (Kier+Wright 2022) shows the locations and components of the proposed new
stormwater drainage system including the bioretention/filtration planters, which would be
installed within each of five subsheds at the Project site and would generally range in size from
approximately 1 to 2.7 acres. The Preliminary Drainage Plan meets the requirements of Dublin
Municipal Code Section 7.16, and incorporates the design and engineering requirements of the
Alameda Clean Water Program's C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance (Alameda Clean Water
Program 2021). In addition to water quality pre-treatment features, the Preliminary Drainage
Plan incorporates the necessary storm drainage detention to attenuate excessive flow rates and
volumes based on recurring storm intervals per the C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance and City
requirements. Therefore, the proposed on -site stormwater drainage system would be sufficient
to detain and treat operational stormwater runoff generated by the proposed Project, and
would not result in upstream or downstream flooding. Furthermore, the proposed Project
would also meet the requirements of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.74 related to
stormwater management and discharge because vegetation along Dublin Creek would not be
disturbed, and no development would occur within 30 feet of the centerline of Dublin Creek or
within 20 feet of the top of the creek bank. Final grading and drainage plans must be prepared
by the Project applicant and submitted to the City Building Department for review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits or approval of improvement plans. Therefore, operational
impacts from substantial alteration of drainages resulting in operational erosion and
degradation of water quality, or exceedance of drainage systems and associated downstream
flooding would be less than significant.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 92
(iv). The channel of Dublin Creek, which flows through the southern portion of the Project site,
is a FEMA 100-year floodplain. However, Project -related construction would not be performed
in, and no new development would be located in, the 100-year floodplain. Project -related
development in the 500-year floodplain (which consists primarily of parking, drive isles, and
landscaping) does not require permitting from the City's Floodplain Administrator and does not
require flood insurance, because of the very low likelihood that flooding would occur or that it
would result in damage. Therefore, Project construction and operation would result in a less
than significant impact from impedance of flood flows.
(d) Flood hazard, seiche, or tsunami (No Impact)
There are no large waterbodies in the Project vicinity that would represent a seiche hazard for
the Project site. Furthermore, given the distance of the Project site from the Pacific Ocean
(approximately 13 miles) and the presence of the intervening mountains of the Diablo Range,
tsunamis would not represent a hazard for the proposed Project. Project -related construction
materials would be stored in upland areas of the Project site, not within the bed or bank of the
Dublin Creek channel (100-year flood zone). Therefore, the proposed Project would result in no
impact from inundation of construction materials in a flood hazard, seiche, or tsunami zone.
(e) Water Quality (Less Than Significant Impact)
For the same reasons described in criteria (a) and (c) above, construction and operation of the
proposed Project would have a less than significant impact related to potential conflicts with or
obstruction of the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay Basin (San
Francisco Bay RWQCB 2019).
For the same reasons described in criterion (b) above, construction and operation of the
proposed Project would have a less than significant impact from a substantial decrease or
interference with groundwater supplies.
Source(s)
Alameda Clean Water Program. 2021. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance. Version 7.1.
http://cleanwaterprogram.org/. Accessed January 26, 2023.
Cornerstone Earth Group. 2022. Geotechnical Investigation. Location 11711 Dublin Boulevard,
Dublin, California.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2009. FEMA Flood Map Service Center, Flood
Insurance Rate Maps. Available: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Accessed January
26, 2023.
Kier+Wright. 2022. Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan, Preliminary Utility Plan. Kier+Wright
Job No. A22024. Livermore, CA.
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2019. Water Quality Control Plan
(Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay Basin. Available:
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 93
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basinplanning.html. Accessed
January 24, 2023.
State Water Resources Control Board. 2021. 2018 California Integrated Report. Available online:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/water quality assessment/2
018 integrated report.html. Accessed January 24, 2023.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 94
This page intentionally left blank
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
Land Use and Planning
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 95
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
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?
1
Environmental Setting
The Project site is located at 11711 Dublin Boulevard in the City of Dublin, Alameda County,
California. The site includes two parcels totaling 8.81 acres; APN 941-1560-009-01 [Parcel 1] is
the larger parcel at 8.30 acres and is located adjacent to Dublin Boulevard, and [APN] 941-1560-
003-04 [Parcel 2] is the smaller parcel at 0.51 acre and is located toward the back (south) of the
Project site adjacent to 1-580 (Figure 1. Project Location).
Parcel 1 (the northern and main portion of the site) is developed with a 62,715 square foot
building, at -grade parking, underground and aboveground utilities, pavement, and ornamental
landscaping. The existing building is being used as a R&D facility. The landscape consists of grass
areas and mature trees. Parcel 2 (the southern parcel) is undeveloped and is surrounded by
dense riparian vegetation including mature trees. The Dublin Creek runs along the approximate
southern boundary.
The Project site is immediately surrounded by commercial office uses including a R&D facility,
medical and professional offices to the west, US Bank, Dublin Pioneer Cemetery, and the Dublin
Heritage Park and Museums to the east; I-580 to the south; and Dublin Boulevard to the north
(see Figure 2. Project Site). To the north of Dublin Boulevard and to the east of the Dublin
Heritage Park and Museums and cemetery are single-family houses. Approximately a mile to
the west is Dublin Hills Regional Open Space Preserve.
Regulatory Framework
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin General Plan was adopted by the City Council on February 11, 1985, and
amended February 15, 2022. The City of Dublin General Plan is a policy document guiding
future development within the City and is a comprehensive plan intended to guide growth and
development. In accordance with Government Code Section 65300, the General Plan includes
policies for the entire Planning Area, including the City limits proper, and those areas outside
the City limits that bear relation to Dublin's planning. The General Plan contains 12 elements
that address many aspects of the community including: land use, housing, parks and open
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 96
space, community design, infrastructure, safety, sustainability, and conservation of resources.
The Land Use Element is considered the framework for the General Plan because it establishes
development and land use patterns that enhance the City's character.
All relevant General Plan policies are described in each technical section of this Initial Study, as
appropriate. There are no additional General Plan policies applicable to land use and planning
that are not already addressed in the other resource sections of this Initial Study.
General Plan Land Use Designation
The Project site is designated as Business Park/Industrial in the City's General Plan. This
designation allows non -retail businesses, such as research, limited manufacturing and
distribution activities, and administrative offices, that do not involve heavy trucking or generate
nuisances due to emissions, noise, or open uses (City of Dublin 2022).
Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan
The site is also located in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan boundaries. The purpose
of the Specific Plan area is to protect and preserve historical resources, and further enhance the
area with development that is compatible with the historic buildings and remnants of the area.
The District's boundary extends from Cronin Circle to 1-580 and San Ramon Road to Hansen
Drive, including portions west of Hansen Drive along Dublin Boulevard. The District
encompasses approximately 40 acres (City of Dublin 2014).
Consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan, the Project site is designated as Business
Park/Industrial in the Dublin Area Village Specific Plan (City of Dublin 2014). The Specific Plan
indicates that the Project site could accommodate up to 154,202 square feet of development
with a floor -area ratio of 0.30 to 0.40. There are no Specific Plan land use and planning policies
applicable to the proposed Project.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
Title 8 of the City's Municipal Code establishes the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, which sets
cohesive zoning rules for the City and designates land use types. Ch. 8.12 establishes zoning
districts, adopts an official Zoning Map, shows equivalent zoning districts between the new
Zoning Ordinance and the former Zoning Ordinance, determines permitted land uses and
conditionally permitted land uses, and establishes decision maker authority for such
conditionally permitted land uses. The City's Zoning Ordinance is the primary implementation
tool for the goals and policies contained in the Land Use Element. For this reason, the Zoning
Map must be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map.
Parcels 1 and 2 are zoned by the City as Light Industrial (M1) (referenced in Section 8.28 of the
Dublin Municipal Code). The M-1 zoning district is intended to provide for the continued use,
expansion, and new development of light industrial use types in proximity to major
transportation corridors, and to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential and commercial
uses. Permitted uses in the M-1 zoning district include ambulance service; laboratory; office;
commercial; industrial, such as printing and publishing or research and development
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 97
laboratory; storage of petroleum products for on -site use; trucking terminal; and warehousing
and distribution.
Parcel 1 is further zoned as PD under Ordinance No. 80-60. The existing PD Ordinance No. 80-60
for the Project site was approved by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on July 10, 1980.
The ordinance states conditional uses consist of pharmacies, research and development
laboratories, light manufacturing, and banks.
The intent of the PD designation 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 Zoning District is
established by the adoption of an Ordinance reclassifying the property to such district and
adopting a Development Plan, which establishes regulations for the use, development,
improvement, and maintenance of the property within the PD district (Section 8.32 of the
Dublin Municipal Code).
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Physically divide an established community (No Impact)
Access to residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Project site would be maintained
during construction. There would be no closure of any publicly accessible roadway that
provides connectivity between the existing neighborhoods north of Dublin Boulevard in the
vicinity of the Project site. All construction activities, including staging areas, would be on the
Project site. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would not introduce a physical
feature that would create a barrier, divide, or separate adjacent uses during construction.
Therefore, physical division of an established community would not occur due to construction
of the proposed Project. There would be no impact.
There are no residential land uses within the Project site. The nearest established community is
located north of Dublin Boulevard, north of the Project site. The proposed Project would
demolish the existing 62,715 square foot industrial building and development of a new 125,304
square foot building. Site improvements would include landscaping; parking; a fire access road;
circulation improvements for truck access and loading and unloading materials; utilities;
pavement and grading to treat site drainage. Overall, the Project would not result in any
permanent road closures or introduce any physical feature that would create a barrier, divide,
or separate adjacent uses. Therefore, physical division of an established community would not
occur due to operation of the proposed Project. There would be no impact.
(b) Conflict with land use plan, policy, or regulation (No Impact)
According to CEQA, policy conflicts do not, in and of themselves, constitute a significant
environmental impact. Policy conflicts are considered to be environmental impacts only when
they would result in direct physical impacts or where those conflicts relate to avoiding or
mitigating environmental impacts. For an impact to be considered significant under this
threshold, any inconsistency would also need to result in a significant adverse change in the
environment not already addressed in the other resource sections of this Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). These technical sections provide a detailed analysis of other relevant physical
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 98
environmental effects that could result from implementation of the proposed Project and
identify mitigation measures, as necessary, to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
The proposed Project would demolish the existing 62,715 square foot industrial building and
develop a new 125,304 square foot building. The new building would cater to future tenants in
the R&D and life sciences field (see Figure 3. Site Plan). The proposed Project is consistent with
the City General Plan and Dublin Area Village Specific Plan land use designation for the site and
no General Plan amendments are required. In addition, the proposed Project would not exceed
the Specific Plan's development potential for the Project site (154,202 square feet). The
proposed Project is a permitted use within the M-1 zoning district. A Planned Development
Rezone would be required for Parcel 1, which provides development standards beyond those of
the M-1 zoning, and a new ordinance would be adopted concurrently. With approval of a
Planned Development Rezone and adoption of a new PD ordinance, the proposed Project
would not conflict with the zoning of the Project site.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with adopted City General Plan
policies or other land use plan, policy, or regulation that would generate any adverse physical
impacts beyond those addressed in detail in the environmental sections of this Initial Study (air
quality, biological resources, cultural resources, etc.). Therefore, there would be no impact.
Source(s)
City of Dublin. 2014. Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan.
City of Dublin. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan. Available:
https://www.dublin.ca.gov/171/General-Plan#Chapter%207. Accessed March 6, 2023.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
Mineral Resources
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 99
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
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 (California Department of
Conservation, 2022).
Regulatory Framework
State Regulations
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1974
The CGS and the California State Mining and Geology Board are required by the Surface Mining
and Reclamation Act of 1974 (SMARA) to categorize lands into four Aggregate and Mineral
Resource Zones (MRZs), described below. These MRZs classify lands that contain significant
regional or Statewide mineral deposits. Lead Agencies are mandated by the State to
incorporate MRZs into their General Plans. MRZs are classified on the basis of geologic factors
without regard to existing land use and land ownership.
The four MRZs are categorized as follows:
• MRZ-1: An area where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits
are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.
• MRZ-2: An area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are
present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 100
• MRZ-3: An area containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated.
• MRZ-4: An area where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ
zone.
Of the four categories, lands classified as MRZ-2 are of the greatest importance because such
areas are underlain by demonstrated mineral resources or are located where geologic data
indicate that significant measured or indicated resources are present. MRZ-2 areas are
designated by the State Mining and Geology Board as being "regionally significant." Such
designations require that a Lead Agency make land use decisions involving designated areas in
accordance with its mineral resource management policies and that it consider the importance
of the mineral resource to the region or the State as a whole, not just to the Lead Agency's
jurisdiction.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-b) Loss of known or identified mineral resource (No Impact)
The Project site is not located in a designated mineral resource area (California Department of
Conservation 2022). Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of available 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 locally known important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore,
there would be no impact regarding mineral resources.
Source(s)
California Department of Conservation. 2022. Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA)
Mineral Lands Classification Portal. Accessed:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
Noise
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 101
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
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?
Environmental Setting
Noise Background
Sound is a physical phenomenon generated by vibrations that result in waves that travel
through a medium, such as air, and result in auditory perception by the human brain. Noise is
usually defined as unwanted or disruptive sound. Whether something is perceived as a noise
event is influenced by the type of sound, the decibel level of the sound, the perceived
importance of the sound, its appropriateness in the setting, the time of day, the type of activity
during which the noise occurs, and the sensitivity of the listener. Local jurisdictions may have
legal definitions of what constitutes "noise" and such environmental parameters to consider.
The amplitude of noise is measured in decibels (dB) using a logarithmic scale. A sound level of 0
dB is approximately the threshold of human hearing and is barely audible under extremely
quiet listening conditions. Normal speech has a sound level of approximately 60 dB. Sound
levels above approximately 110 dB begin to be felt inside the human ear as discomfort and
eventually as pain at 120 dB and higher levels.
The minimum change in the sound level in an outdoor noise environment that an average
human ear can perceive is about 3 dB. A change of 5 dB or greater is readily perceived, and a
change in sound level of 10 dB usually is perceived as a doubling of the sound's loudness2.
2 Caltrans. 2003. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 102
Most sounds perceived by the human ear in the environment do not consist of a single
frequency but instead are composed of a broad band of frequencies differing in sound level.
The method commonly used to quantify environmental sounds consists of evaluating all
frequencies of a sound according to a weighting system that reflects the typical frequency -
dependent sensitivity of average healthy human hearing. This is called "A -weighting," and the
decibel level measured is referred to as dBA.
Environmental noise levels vary continuously and may include a mixture of noise from near and
distant sources generated by combinations of events of short -period (e.g., vehicle pass -by) and
long -period (e.g., power plant) duration. A single descriptor, equivalent sound level (Leq), may
be used to describe such sound that is changing in level from one moment to another. Leq is the
energy -average sound level during a measured time interval. It is the "equivalent" constant
sound level that would have to be produced by a single, steady source to equal the acoustic
energy contained in the fluctuating sound level measured.
Sound pressure from a stationary source (i.e., a point source, such as a heating, ventilation and
air conditioning [HVAC] unit) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound
pressure level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from a
point source. Highways, trains, and power lines consist of several localized noise sources on a
defined path, and therefore can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of
several point sources. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern,
often referred to as cylindrical spreading. In general, sound pressure levels from a line source
attenuate at a rate of 3 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source.
Vibration Background
Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion's amplitude can
be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Groundborne vibration
propagates from the source through the ground to adjacent buildings by surface waves, having
a frequency measured in cycles per second (Hertz [Hz]). Most environmental vibrations consist
of a composite of many frequencies and generally are classified as broadband or random
vibrations. The normal frequency range of most groundborne vibration that can be perceived
generally ranges between 1 and 200 Hz.
Vibration energy dissipates geometrically as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration
amplitude to decrease with distance away from the source. Soil properties also affect the
propagation of vibration, with stiffer soils, clays, and rock strata enabling more efficient
transmission of vibrational energy. On interaction with a building foundation, usually a ground -
to -foundation coupling loss occurs; however, the transmitted vibration also can be amplified by
structural conditions of the walls and floors, allowing resonance. Vibration in buildings typically
is perceived as the rattling of windows or items on shelves, or the motion of building surfaces.
At sufficiently high levels and depending on the loudness of the background airborne noise
level, the vibration of interior building surfaces can be heard as a low -frequency rumbling
sound, also known as groundborne noise.
The peak particle velocity (PPV) and RMS velocity normally are described in inches per second
(in/sec). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 103
signal. PPV is the metric often used to describe vibration events that may result in structural
stress on affected structures.
Existing Land Uses
Land uses surrounding the Project site include light industrial to the west, retail commercial,
and the Dublin Heritage Park & Museums to the east, single and multi -family residential to the
north, and commercial directly northeast. The noise -sensitive receptor most vulnerable to both
on -site construction and operational noise is a single-family residence (R-5) approximately 165
feet north of the northern Project property line. This property is considered most exposed to
Project noise and vibration due to its proximity to project construction work areas, site
driveways, and proposed stationary noise sources.
Baseline Noise Measurements
A baseline noise measurement survey was conducted by AECOM for a 24-hour period on
January 11, 2023. The baseline measurements were performed with two (2) Larson Davis
Model 820 and one (1) Larson Davis Model 831 sound level meters. The two (2) long-term
measurements were conducted near residential receptor locations and the three (3) short-term
measurements were conducted at various points along the Project property line. The primary
observed noise sources at all the measurement locations were traffic along Highway 1-580,
Dublin Blvd, and Hansen Dr, and bird calls. Table 5: Summary of Measured Sound Levels
summarizes the results of the baseline noise survey. Figure 8. Proposed Project Area, Noise
Monitoring Locations and Worst -Case Noise -Sensitive Receptors provides the proposed Project
layout superimposed on aerial imagery of the study area, baseline measurement locations, and
nearest residential receptors (worst -case noise -sensitive land uses used for impact assessment).
Table 5: Summary of Measured Sound Levels
Daytime' Evening2 Nighttime3
Noise Levels Noise Levels Noise Levels
Measurement ID (dBA Leq) (dBA Leq) (dBA Leq)
Average Daily Noise
Levels
(dBA CNEL)
LT-1
64 62 62 69
LT-2
65 63 60 68
ST-1
68 N/A4 N/A4 N/A4
ST-2
68 N/A4 N/A4 N/A4
ST-3 65 N/A4 N/A4 N/A4
Notes: CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; dBA = A weighted decibel; ID = identification; Leq = Equivalent Sound Level; LT = long term;
N/A = not applicable; ST = short term.
Daytime: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
2 Evening: 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
3 Nighttime: 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
4 Short-term (ST) Measurements were only conducted during daytime periods because the represented land uses are only occupied during
daytime hours. ST measurements were conducted for 30 minutes.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 104
Regulatory Framework
Federal Regulations
Federal Transit Administration
Vibration
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Manual (FTA Manual) provides guidance for the
analysis of vibratory impacts generated by transportation and construction projects by
providing thresholds for structural damage and human perception/annoyance. Table 6:
Construction Vibration Damage Criteria below shows a curated list of damage thresholds from
the FTA Manual, as applicable to various receptors and vibratory source types.
Table 6: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Peak Particle Velocity
Building Category (inches/second)
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.
The FTA Manual guidelines show that a PPV vibration level of up to 0.2 in/sec 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 Project site.
Noise
The criteria for environmental impacts resulting from construction noise are based on the FTA
"general assessment" guidelines for assessing construction noise effects which are based on the
maximum sound levels generated from the two noisiest prices of equipment for each phase of
construction.
Table 7 summarizes the FTA general assessment construction noise criteria for each land use.
Table 7: FTA General Assessment Noise Criteria
Land Use
Leq.equip (1 hr), dBA
Day Night
Residential
90 80
Commercial
100 100
Industrial 100 100
Notes: dBA = A -weighted decibel; FTA = Federal Transit Administration; Leq = Equivalent Sound Level
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018), Table 7-2.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 105
The FTA Manual guidelines show that the applicable construction noise criterion for residential
land uses is 90 dBA (1-hour Leq) during the daytime (7 a.m. to 4 p.m.). The proposed
construction activities for the Project will be limited to daytime therefore, the 90 dBA
construction noise criterion will be applied for noise -sensitive residential properties around the
Project site.
Local Regulations
City of Dublin General Plan
The Noise Element of the City of Dublin General Plan establishes residential, commercial, and
industrial land use compatibility standards for noise exposure assessed at the property line of
the receiving land use (City of Dublin 2016). The land use compatibility noise criteria as shown
in Table 8: City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (dBA, CNEL), provide the
bases for decisions on the siting or proposed land uses in relation to existing or planned noise
sources and for determining noise mitigation requirements.
Table 8: City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (dBA, CNEL)
Land Use Category
Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly
Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
Residential
60 or less 61-70
71-75 Over 75
Motels, hotels
60 or less 61-70
71-80 Over 80
Schools, churches, nursing homes 60 or less 61-70
71-80 Over 80
Neighborhood parks
60 or less 61-65
66-70 Over 70
Offices: retail commercial
70 or less 71-75 76-80 Over 80
Industrial 70 or less 71-75 Over 75
Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1, 2012
Notes: CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; dBA = A -weighted decibel
Normally Acceptable: Specific land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional
construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction
requirements is made and needed noise insulation features, included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and
fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed,
a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
City of Dublin Municipal Code
The Dublin Municipal Code includes standards pertaining to noise control within the City.
Municipal Code Section 5.28.020 prohibits any person within the City to make any loud,
disturbing, unnecessary, unusual, habitual noise; or any noise which annoys, disturbs, injures,
or endangers the health, repose, peace, or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity
present in the area.
Since the City of Dublin Municipal code does not provide explicit limits that would be applicable
for the assessment of noise impacts generated by operation of the Project, the Alameda County
Code of Ordinances, Title 6 — Health and Safety, Chapter 6.60 — Noise, 6.60.040 — Exterior noise
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 106
level standards were determined to be the best -available alternative regional threshold and are
provided in Table 9: Alameda County Exterior Noise Level Standard below.
Table 9: Alameda County Exterior Noise Level Standards
Land Use Category
Cumulative Number of Daytime Nighttime
Minutes in Any (7:00 a.m. (10:00 p.m.
One (1) Hour Time Period to 10:00 p.m.) to 7:00 a.m.)
Single/Multiple Family Residential 30
50 45
Schools 15 55 50
Hospitals 5 60 55
Churches 1 65 60
Public Libraries 0 70 65
Source: Alameda County 2022
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Generate noise exceeding standards (Less Than Significant Impact)
The short-term construction and long-term noise impacts associated with the proposed Project
are described below.
Construction Noise Prediction and Results
Construction would occur Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. for approximately 12
months. General construction efforts would occur, on average, approximately 430 feet from
the geometric center of the overall construction work area to the nearest residential structure
at R-5.
The construction noise assessment was conducted using construction prediction methodologies
based on the FTA manual. Utilization factors for construction equipment (or the percentage of
time in a given hour that a piece of equipment is operating at maximum power) as
recommended for FTA detailed assessments, were also included in the calculations to help
accurately predict construction noise levels during the various construction phases. The
compliance assessment for this analysis focused on predicted 1-hour Leg levels. Project
construction noise was estimated for construction phases by considering the quantities of
contributing sound sources and calculating their aggregate sound propagation to the studied
nearest receptor location (R5).
The key assumptions for this analysis included in this method are as follows:
• Free -field conditions and no attenuation factors
• For a given construction phase, the two loudest pieces of construction equipment are
assumed to operate —on average —from the same source point location at the general
geographic centroid of the Project site or stationed range.
• Each piece of equipment or vehicle is assigned a reference maximum noise level (Lmax) value
at a reference distance (e.g., 50 feet), and an "acoustical usage factor" (AUF) that the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) User's
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 107
Guide (FHWA 2006) describes as an estimated portion of a construction operation time
period when the Lmax value can be expected.
Table 10: Proposed Project Construction Equipment Reference Sound Pressure Levels provides
a list of equipment types anticipated to operate during the various project construction phases
along with their reference maximum sound level, usage factor, and calculated 1-hour Leq at 50
feet. Since reference sound levels for the listed construction equipment are presented as
maximum sound levels (i.e., the maximum sound level the equipment would produce at any
moment in time, or Lmax), the usage factor is applied to account for the fact that equipment is
not continuously operated in a full -throttle condition throughout its use. Thus, typical usage
factors for each type of construction equipment were applied to reference maximum sound
levels to arrive at average hourly sound levels. Lmax values and usage factors provided herein
are generally based on a combination of the RCNM User's Guide and the FTA Manual.
Table 10: Proposed Project Construction Equipment Reference Sound Pressure Levels
Anticipated Project Lmax,
Construction Equipment dBA at 50 Feet'
Resulting 1-Hour Leq,
Usage Factor dBA at 50 Feet2
Aerial Lift 75 0.2 68
Air Compressors 78 0.4 74
Concrete/Industrial Saws 90 0.2 83
Cranes 81 0.2 73
Excavators 81 0.4 77
Forklifts 75 0.4 71
Generator Sets 81 0.5 78
Graders 85 0.4 81
Pavers 77 0.5 74
Rollers 80 0.2 73
Rubber -Tired Dozers 82 0.4 78
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 84 0.4 80
Welders 74 0.4 70
Source: FHWA RCNM 2006, FTA 2018
Notes: dBA = A -weighted decibel; Leq = Equivalent Sound Level; L„ ax= maximum noise level
1. L.., values are based on representative equipment in RCNM ("Actual Measured" levels) and the FTA Manual.
2. 1-Hour Leq values are calculated by applying the usage factor (reductive adjustment) to the momentary Lmax reference noise level.
Individual hourly noise levels generated by proposed Project construction equipment would
range from 74 to 90 dBA, Leq at 50 feet from the equipment. Following a combination of
procedures suggested in the FTA Manual for the general and detailed assessment of
construction noise, Table 11: Combined Construction Noise Levels per Construction Phase
calculates the combined construction noise level generated by the two loudest pieces of
equipment operating during each construction phase and the resulting 1-hour sound level Leq
(dBA) at the nearest receptor.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 108
Table 11: Combined Construction Noise Levels per Construction Phase
Construction
Phase/Activity
Two Loudest
Pieces of
Equipment in Combined 1-hour
Phase Leq, dBA at 50'
Concrete Saw
Demolition
Combined 1-hour
Leq, dBA at Nearest
Receptor R5 (430')
Applicable Daytime FTA
General Assessment
Threshold
Leq.equip (1hr), (dBA)
Tractor
85
661
90
Site Preparation
Grader
Grader
84
651
90
Grading/Excavation
Grader
Tractor
84
651
90
Trenching/Foundation
Excavator
Tractor
82
631
90
Building - Exterior
Tractor
Generator
82
631 90
Building -Interior/ Air Compressor
Architectural Coating Aerial Lift
75 561 90
Paving Tractor
Paver
Notes: dBA = A -weighted decibel; FTA = Federal Transit Administration; Leq = Equivalent Sound Level
1 Calculated using distance measured from the geometric center of the overall Project area to receptor (approximately 430') and an acoustical
attenuation rate of 6 decibels per doubling of distance from the source.
81
621 90
Table 11 shows that project construction activities will not exceed the FTA general assessment
construction noise criteria of 90 dBA, Leq at the nearest noise -sensitive receptor. Since
construction activities are not expected during nighttime hours, construction activities are not
predicted to generate adverse effects at any adjacent noise -sensitive properties. Therefore,
there would be a less than significant impact related to noise during construction.
Operational Noise Prediction
Table 12: Modeled Noise Sources provides the noise sources included in the acoustic model,
corresponding quantity, and reference A -weighted sound power levels.
Table 12: Modeled Noise Sources
Equipment Name
Reference A -Weighted
Quantity Modelled Sound Power Level (dBA)
Rooftop HVAC 9
792
Truck Activities 1 104
Notes: dBA = A -weighted decibel; HVAC = heating, ventilation and air conditioning
1 "Truck Activities" represent one (1) truck that is assumed to operate continuously during facility operating hours. The reference sound power
level represents an assortment of truck movements, loading activities, engine idling, and truck trailer coupling noise based on sound pressure
level measurements conducted by AECOM in November 2022.
'Sound power levels provided by Carrier for the 50FCQM07 unit. Modeled as a point source at an elevation of 4.5 feet above the project roof
height.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 109
Operational Noise Modeling Results
The CadnaA° Noise Prediction Model (Version 2022) was used to estimate the propagation of
sound from project operations from stationary (Rooftop HVACs), and non -stationary (Truck
Activities) sources, and thereby to predict SPL at various distances from the Project area,
including representative noise -sensitive receptors selected for the ambient sound survey.
CadnaA is a Windows -based software program that predicts and assesses sound levels near
industrial sound sources and is based on International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
9613-2 algorithms for the calculation of sound propagation (ISO 1996). The calculations account
for classical sound wave divergence plus attenuation factors resulting from air absorption, basic
ground effects, and barrier/shielding.
Additional CadnaA model configuration settings and operations noise analysis assumptions
were as follows: 10 degrees Celsius outdoor temperature, 70 percent relative humidity, calm
wind conditions (less than 0.5 meters per second), one order of acoustic reflections, and a
ground absorption co -efficient of 0.5 representing a conservative mixture of hard and soft
ground surfaces. These assumptions were selected as they represent conservative
meteorological conditions for sound propagation that are expected to occur at the Project site.
These are the only predicted noise sources associated with project operation.
Figure 9. Distribution of Modeled Noise Sources Assumed for Project Operations shows the
primary facility noise sources included in the acoustic model.
Table 13: Predicted Proposed Facility Operational Sound Levels (dBA) shows predicted project
operational sound levels for both daytime facility operations at all studied receptors.
Table 13: Predicted Proposed Facility Operational Sound Levels (dBA)
Predicted Daytime
Noise -Sensitive (7:00 AM — 7:00 PM)
Receptor ID Sound Level Applicable Limit' Exceeds Limit?
R-1 39 50 No
R-2 42 50 No
R-3 40 50 No
R-4 39 50 No
R-5 47 50 No
Notes: dBA = A -weighted decibel; ID = identification
1 Alameda County Noise ordinance — Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10 p.m.) noise level standards for single or multi -family residential land uses.
As shown in , the predicted daytime operational noise levels are below the applicable
noise limits. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact regarding noise from
stationary sources.
Traffic Noise Prediction
Daily traffic volumes from existing facility operations amount to approximately 695 trips per
day traveling on Dublin Boulevard, primarily occurring during typical daytime business hours
(e.g., 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.). Operation of the proposed Project is expected to result in a net
reduction of 201 trips per day, for a total of 494 project trips per day upon completion.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 110
The closest noise -sensitive receptor (R5) to the Project site is a single-family residential building
on the north side of Dublin Boulevard. The existing and future with -project worst -hour (i.e.,
peak traffic volume) sound level (Leq) was calculated at five receptors in the Project area using
the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5. Data used in these
calculations included existing (2022) daily peak -hour traffic volumes and truck mixes and
future -year (2040) daily peak -hour traffic volumes and truck mixes' to account for any growth
in non -project -related traffic volumes. These traffic volumes are included in Table 14: Peak -
Hour Traffic Volumes below, and the results of these calculations are shown in Table 15:
Predicted Existing and Future -with -Project Worst -Hour Traffic Noise Level' below.
Table 14: Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes
Roadway
Future With Project Peak -Hour
Existing Peak -Hour Volumes Volumes
Car Truck Car Truck
Hansen Dr I North of Dublin Blvd 219 2 270 2
Dublin Blvd I East of Hansen Dr 1375 8 1671 23
Dublin Blvd I West of Hansen Dr 1111 6 1366 6
Hansen Dr I South of Dublin Blvd 69 0 71 15
Table 15: Predicted Existing and Future -with -Project Worst -Hour Traffic Noise Levels
Future With -Project
Existing Traffic Noise Traffic Noise Level
Receiver ID Level (dBA, Leq) (dBA, Leq)
Change in Traffic Noise
Exposure (dBA, Leq)
R-1 47 48 + 1
R-2 56 57 + 1
R-3 60 61 + 1
R-4 58 59 + 1
R-5 61 62 + 1
Notes: dBA -=A-weighted decibels; ID = identification
The operational noise modeling assumed the proposed Project would include 18,000 square feet of office space,
36,500 square feet of light industrial space, and 70,804 square feet of warehousing space. Based on the latest site
plan, the proposed Project would actually include 18,000 square feet of office space, 30,000 square feet of light
industrial space, and 77,304 square feet of warehousing space. As light industrial land uses generate higher daily
vehicle trips than warehousing land uses, daily vehicle trips and the associated mobile source emissions are
anticipated to be lower (i.e., the noise modeling assumed the proposed Project would generate 494 daily trips,
based on the 2022 Transportation Impact Study [W-Trans 2022]); however, under the revised site plan, the
proposed Project is anticipated to generate approximately 473 daily trips. As such, the emissions presented above
are conservative and actual traffic noise is anticipated to be lower. Implementation of the proposed Project would
result in a higher net reduction in traffic noise compared to existing conditions.
3 W-Trans, 2022, Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 111
As shown in , predicted traffic noise levels are expected to increase at all modeled
receivers by a maximum of 1 dBA, Leg. These increases are likely due to increases in non -
project -related traffic, due to the expected net decrease in project trips. This maximum
increase is below the perceptible threshold. However, since project would generate noise due
to traffic, the impact would be less than significant.
(b) Generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise (Less Than Significant
Impact)
Construction activities can generate ground -borne noise and vibration of varying degrees based
on the construction activity and equipment, soil conditions, and distance to vibration -sensitive
structures or land uses. Vibration associated with project construction activities would occur
most notably during major ground -disturbing activities, such as site grading. The piece of
construction equipment generating the strongest vibration would be the dozer which, per the
FTA Manual, can generate a vibration level of up to 0.089 PPV in/sec at 25 feet. With the closest
residential structure as close as 430 feet from the potential operation of dozers used during
grading, vibration was assessed at this distance using Equation 7-2 from the FTA Manual. At
approximately 430 feet, a dozer will result in a vibration level of 0.001 PPV in/sec at the closest
residential unit which is well below the 0.01 PPV in/sec vibration perception threshold and
below the construction vibration damage criteria of 0.2 PPV.
There are historical gravestones east of the proposed facility, about 100 ft from the nearest
construction zones. Vibration levels due to construction may reach up to 0.011 PPV at the
gravestones which are well below the construction vibration damage criteria of 0.2 PPV.
Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact related to vibration during project
construction.
Vibration generated on -site during project operation would be negligible and thus, dismissed
from this study due to the relative distances to vibration -sensitive receptors. Vibration
associated with facility operations would occur most notably during the use of trucks around
the facility. A loaded truck can generate a vibration level of up to 0.076 PPV in/sec. With the
closest residential structure as close as 135 feet from the potential operation of trucks, this will
result in a vibration level of 0.0006 PPV in/sec at the closest residential unit, which is well below
the vibration perception threshold of 0.01 PPV in/sec. Therefore, there would be no impact
related to vibration during project operation.
(c) Excessive noise level near a private airport (No Impact)
The Project site is not located within two miles of any public or private airport and the closest
airport is approximately 6 miles away. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the
exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Thus, there
would be no impact.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 112
Source(s)
Alameda County. 2022. Code of Ordinances, Title 6 — Health and Safety,
Chapter 6.60 — Noise.
Caltrans. 2003. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. CT-HWANP-
RT-13-069.25.2
City of Dublin. 2016. General Plan. Chapter 9, Environmental Resources Management: Noise
Element.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model
User's Guide. FHWA-HEP-05-054.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
Manual. FTA Report No. 0123.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 1996. Acoustics — Attenuation of Sound
During Propagation Outdoors — Part 2: General Method of Calculation.
W Traffic Engineering Transportation Planning (W-Trans). 2022. Final Transportation Impact
Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project. December.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
Population and Housing
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 113
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
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?
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 (City of
Dublin 2022). Between 2010 and 2020, the population increased to 65,161 residents
representing an increase of 42 percent (California Department of Finance 2021). The number of
housing units increased from 15,782 units to 23,567 units, or an increase of 49 percent, over
the 10-year period (California Department of Finance 2021). U.S. Census Bureau 2021 American
Community Survey indicates 10,837 residents in the City of Dublin were employed in the
professional, scientific, and management industries in 2020 (U.S. Census Bureau 2021).
As of January 1, 2022, the California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates the City's total
population was 72,932 persons and 24,977 housing units (DOF 2022). The Project site consists
of an existing 62,715-square-foot industrial building. No residential units currently exist at the
Project site.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Population growth (No Impact)
A project's impacts caused by inducing substantial unplanned population growth are analyzed
based on the following three inquiries: (1) does the project induce unplanned population
growth (direct or indirect), (2) is that growth substantial, and (3) does this substantial
unplanned growth result in significant adverse environmental impacts. As discussed below, the
proposed Project would not involve construction of new homes, generate substantial new
employment opportunities, or extend roadways or other infrastructure that would directly or
indirectly induce unplanned population growth.
The proposed Project would demolish the existing 62,715-square-foot industrial building and
develop a new 125,304-square-foot building. The number of onsite construction workers would
vary depending on the construction phase, but it is anticipated for a project of this scope to
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 114
range from 7 to 64 workers over a 12-month period. The source of the construction labor force
is unknown at this time, but workers would be expected to come from the local labor pool and
not relocate to the City from other areas for the relatively short construction period. According
to the most current labor data available from the U.S. Census Bureau 2021 American
Community Survey, 798 residents in the City of Dublin and 43,577 residents in Alameda County
as a whole were employed in the construction industry in 2020 (U.S. Census Bureau 2021).
Based on the availability of nearby construction workers, Project construction would not cause
a substantial influx of construction personnel that would result in unplanned population growth
or a substantial increase in housing demand in the region.
The existing employees onsite each day is 150 to 200. The proposed building would cater to
future tenants in the R&D and life sciences field, and it is estimated that the proposed Project
would have 200 employees 4 onsite each day. Therefore, it is expected that similar number of
employees would be working at the Project site as compared to existing conditions. Thus, the
Project would not result in unplanned population growth. Furthermore, the Historic Area
Specific Plan identified the Project site for a similar amount of R&D and industrial floor space.
The proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth indirectly (through the
extension of roads or other infrastructure into undeveloped areas). The proposed Project would
be an infill project with the new building and infrastructure improvements occurring within the
Project site. Any new utility infrastructure required to serve the proposed Project would be
sized to accommodate Project -related demands and would not be intended to serve any
development on lands other than the Project site.
For the reasons described above, the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly induce
substantial unplanned population growth, and no impact would occur.
(b) Housing and resident displacement (No Impact)
The Project site does not contain residences. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no
impact related to the displacement of substantial numbers of people or existing housing that
would necessitate construction of or replacement housing elsewhere.
Sou rce(s)
ABAG. 2011. ABAG Non Residential Buildings Analysis. Obtained March 8, 2023 from
NonResidentialAnalysis 120511.pdf (ca.gov).
California Department of Finance. 2021. E-5: Population and Housing for Cities, Counties, and
the State, January 2011-2020, with 2010 Benchmark. Obtained March 8 from
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2020/.
California Department of Finance. 2022. E-5: Population and Housing for Cities, Counties, and
the State, January 2021-2022, with 2020 Benchmark. Obtained March 8, 2023 from
4 Based on ABAG average square feet per employee rates for each "principal building activity" (ABAG 2011).
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 115
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-
esti mates -for -cities -counties -a nd-the-state-2020-2022/.
City of Dublin. 2022 (February). City of Dublin General Plan. Available:
https://www.dublin.ca.gov/171/General-Plan#Chapter%207. Accessed March 6, 2023.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. DP03: Selected
Economic Characteristics. Accessed March 6, 2023 from
https://data.census.gov/table?q=DP03:+SELECTED+ECONOMIC+CHARACTERISTICS&g=0
500000US06001 1600000US0620018&tid=ACSDP1Y2021.DP03.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 116
This page intentionally left blank
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
Public Services
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 117
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
Environmental Setting
The proposed Project is located within the City of Dublin and is served by the following existing
public services (City of Dublin 2022).
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.
16 at 7494 Donohue Drive, approximately 0.7 miles northeast.
Police Protection
Dublin Police Services, which is contracted with the Alameda County Sherriff's Office, provides
contracted police protection to the Project area and Project site. Dublin Police Services has 62
sworn personal along with four County civilian personnel who provide public safety to the City
as well as four professional staff members and a three -member Behavioral Health Unit. The
Dublin Police Services headquarters are located at 6361 Clark Avenue, approximately 1 mile
northeast of the Project site.
Schools
The Project site is served by the Dublin Unified School District, which operates seven
elementary schools, two middle schools, one kindergarten through 8, a comprehensive high
school, and a continuation high school within the City of Dublin.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 118
Parks
The City's Public Works Department oversees the maintenance of parks and recreational
facilities throughout the City. See Section 15, Recreation for more details.
Other Public Services
The Dublin Library is operated by Alameda County Library, with additional funding from the City
of Dublin. The Dublin Public Library is located at 200 Civic Plaza, approximately 1.5 miles east of
the Project site. The nearest United States Postal Service to the Project site is 1 mile to the east.
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State Regulations
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code exists within Part 9 of the CBC and includes measures for emergency
planning preparation and safety. Examples of fire safety requirements include: installation of
sprinklers in all high-rise buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors,
building materials, and particular types of construction; and the clearance of debris and
vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildlife hazard areas.
Local Regulations
City of Dublin General Plan
Chapter 3 of the Land Use Element outlines policies and programs to provide open space both
within and apart from development projects, which relate to the provision of park facilities in
the City. Those policies are listed in Section 15, Recreation.
Section 8.3.2 of the City of Dublin outlines the following policies and programs related to fire
hazards and fire protection (City of Dublin 2022):
• Implementing Policy 8.3.2.1.B.1. Continue to enforce the City's wild land urban interface
regulations.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, b) Fire and Police Services (No Impact)
The construction of the proposed Project could result in a small, temporary increase in the
demand for fire suppression, emergency medical services and sheriff services, due the
temporary presence of construction personnel in the area. The number of construction
personnel would vary with each construction phase, but it is anticipated for a project of this
scope to range from 7 to 64 workers. Local, state and federal worker safety regulations would
be adhered to, in order to minimize the likelihood of workplace injuries and accidents requiring
emergency medical attention, including the California Division of Occupational Safety and
Health. Typical fire and safety precautions would be taken, such as prohibiting onsite fires;
keeping fire extinguishers onsite during construction activities; discarding smoking materials in
approved containers and maintaining access to fire hydrants and emergency vehicle access.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 119
Construction activities would not necessitate new or physically altered fire and police facilities
or need for new or physical altered these facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact during
construction.
During project operation, the use of the Project site would be of a similar nature to the existing
use and the number of future employees would be similar to existing numbers. Therefore, an
increase in demand for fire protection and police services is not anticipated. ACFD and Dublin
Police would continue to provide services to the Project site and would not require additional
firefighters or police officers to serve the proposed Project. The Project would be required to
comply with the CBC, the California Fire Code and City of Dublin codes, and ordinances and
regulations to minimize fire hazards, including fire prevention and suppression measures; fire
hydrants and sprinkler systems; emergency access; and other similar requirements. The Project
would also implement and maintain a fire access road and six fire hydrants onsite. Therefore,
the Project would not require the construction of new or alteration of existing fire protection or
police facilities to maintain an adequate level of fire protection and police services. Thus, the
proposed Project would not result in new or physically altered fire and police facilities or need
for new or physical altered these facilities, which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives for any of these public services. Therefore, there would be no impact.
(c) Schools (No Impact)
The proposed Project would not generate additional students in the Dublin Unified School
District as no new residential uses are proposed and there would not be any substantial
increase in demand for worker housing in the area as number of new of employees is estimated
to be similar to the existing number of employees. Nonetheless, appropriate developer impact
fees, as required by State law, would be assessed and paid by the Project applicant to offset any
potential impact to school facilities. The proposed Project would not require need for new or
physical altered school facilities, which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios and performance objectives. Therefore, there would be
no impact.
(d) Parks (No Impact)
The proposed Project would not contribute to a substantial increase in the 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, the proposed project would not result in the need for new or altered
parks, which could cause significant environmental impacts. Thus, there would be no impact.
(e) Other public facilities (No Impact)
Future employees working at the proposed Project site may patronize public facilities such as
post offices and local library branches operated by the Alameda County Library. However, as
described above, employees are likely to come from within the City and surrounding
communities and the numbers of future employees would be similar to that of existing
conditions; therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to increase the number of library
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 120
patrons or patrons utilizing other public facilities. Therefore, the proposed Project would not
result in a need for new or physically -altered public facilities, which could cause significant
environmental impacts. Thus, there would be no impact.
Source(s)
City of Dublin. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan. February 11. (Amended February 15, 2022).
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
Recreation
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 121
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
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 owns and maintains 24 parks, including 18 neighborhood parks, five community parks,
and one nature park totaling a combined 237.04 acres. In addition, the City maintains over
26.26 miles of greenways and trails (City of Dublin 2022). The nearest recreational areas to the
Project site include: Maple Park, approximately 0.4 miles to the north; Martin Canyon Creek
Trailhead, approximately 0.45 miles to the northwest; Dolan Park, approximately 1 mile to the
northwest; and Shannon park, approximately 1 mile to the north. The City has over 59 acres of
undeveloped parkland that has either been offered for dedication by landowners or acquired
by the City (City of Dublin 2022). In addition, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD)
operates the Dublin Hills Regional Park, a large open space park with regional trail connections.
This regional park is approximately 2 miles to the west of the Project site. The Iron Horse Trail,
approximately 2 miles northeast of the Project site, runs along the Union Pacific/Southern
Pacific Railroad right-of-way, connecting Dublin, the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, and the
City of Pleasanton.
Regulatory Framework
Local Regulations
City of Dublin General Plan
Chapter 3 of the Land Use Element outlines policies and programs to provide open space both
within and apart from development projects. The following goals and policies related to parks
and recreation that are applicable to the proposed Project:
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 122
• Guiding Policy 3.4.1.A.1. Expand park area throughout the Primary and Extended Planning
Areas to serve new development.
• Implementing Policy 3.4.1.B.1. Acquire and improve parklands in conformance with the
standards and policies in the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
• Implementing Policy 3.4.1B.2. Continue to maintain and periodically update the Citywide
Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The Master Plan shall provide specific standards for
acquiring parkland to support growth planned in the Land Use Element.
• Implementing Policy 3.4.1.B.3. The policies set forth below, as implemented through the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan and development approvals, constitute the action
program for preserving and providing open space for outdoor recreation.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Increase the use of existing recreation facilities causing deterioration (No Impact)
During construction of the proposed Project, there would be temporary increase in the number
of construction personnel in the area; however, demand for recreational facilities is not
expected to substantially increase as a result, as it is expected that these workers would come
from the existing pool of workers in the Bay Area and that no relocation of additional workers
to the area would be needed. Therefore, there would be no increased demand for recreational
resources during project construction. Similarly, the operation of the 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, as the Project
would not be inducing growth in the project area and the number of future employees is
estimated to be similar to existing numbers. Therefore, there would be no impact.
(b) Propose, require new facilities that cause physical effect (No Impact)
As discussed in Impact a above, increased demand of recreational resources is not expected as
a result of construction or operation of the proposed Project. The Project would not include
construction of recreational facilities nor is it required to construct or expand recreational
facilities. However, the proposed Project would include private green spaces within the project
site, such as landscaping and a plaza at the main building entrance, and outdoor areas for use
by employees during breaks. The environmental impacts of constructing these features are
analyzed as part of the project, within the various sections of this initial study, and are not
considered to be public recreational facilities Therefore, there would be no impact.
Source(s)
City of Dublin. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan. Amended February 15, 2022.
City of Dublin. 2022. Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Obtained February 11, 2023 from
https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5063/Park-and-Recreation-Master-Plan---
2022-Update?bidld=.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
Transportation
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 123
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
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)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The information provided in this Transportation section is summarized from the Final
Transportation Impact Study for the Project prepared by W-Trans on December 2022 and an
addendum that was made to the traffic study on April 6, 2023 to account for a change in the
previous project description, which reduced the size of the light industrial space and increased
the warehouse space, thereby reducing traffic generation of the Project and the amount of
required parking stalls. The traffic study and addendum are provided in Appendix E of this Initial
Study/EI R.
Environmental Setting
Regional access to the Project site is provided by 1-580 and 1-680. Dublin Boulevard provides
local access to the Project site. Local roadways, and pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the
Project site are described below.
Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard is a 7.5-mile-long, two-lane divided, east -west roadway with two 10-foot-wide
lanes in each direction that provides local access within the City to both commercial and
residential areas. It is located adjacent to the Project site to the north. Dublin Boulevard would
provide access to the Project site. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Continuous sidewalks are
provided on the northern and southern sides of the roadway east of Hansen Drive. However, to
the west, sidewalks are not provided on the south side of the road. There is a network of curb
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 124
ramps, crosswalks with pedestrian phasing at signalized intersections, as well as overhead
lighting. In addition, Class IS bike lanes exist on the road for 0.3 mile between Inspiration Drive
and Silvergate Drive; Class II 6 on -street bike lanes exist on the road for about 0.6 mile between
Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road; and Class III' bike route exists on the road for 0.9 mile
between San Ramon Road and Clark Avenue. On -street parking is prohibited.
San Ramon Road
San Ramon Road is a two-lane divided, north -south roadway that provides local access within
the City to both commercial and residential areas. It is located approximately 1,200 feet from
the Project site to the east. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Sidewalks are provided on the
eastern and western sides of the roadway east of Hansen Drive. However, sidewalks are not
provided on the south side of Dublin Boulevard. Also, on -street bicycle lanes are provided on
either side of the street. A Class II bike lane is present for 1.5 miles between Alcosta Boulevard
and Dublin Boulevard. On -street parking is prohibited.
Silvergate Drive
Silvergate Drive is a two-lane divided, north -south roadway that connects Dublin Boulevard to
the south to San Ramon Road to the north. It is located approximately 900 feet from the Project
site to the northwest. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Sidewalks are provided on the eastern
and western sides of the roadway. A Class II bike lane is present for 1.1 miles between Dublin
Boulevard and San Ramon Road. On -street parking is allowed.
Hansen Drive
Hansen Drive is a local street serving single-family residential homes, which is located to
approximately 150 feet from the Project site to the north. Sidewalks are provided on the
eastern and western sides of the roadway. Crosswalks are provided at Silvergate Drive, Amarillo
Road, and Dublin Boulevard. Overhead streetlights are also provided. A Class III bike lane exists
on each side of the street for 0.4 mile between Silvergate Drive and Dublin Boulevard.
On -street parking is allowed.
Dublin Boulevard and Hansen Drive Intersection
This is a four-way signalized intersection with protected left -turns on both the eastbound and
westbound approaches along Dublin Boulevard. The intersection also contains marked
crosswalks along the north and east legs of the intersection. The southern leg is a driveway for
the Project site.
5 Class I is a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross flows of
motorized traffic minimized.
6 Class II is a striped and signed lane for one-way bike travel on the street.
Class III is a lane signing only for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on the street.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 125
Regulatory Framework
State Regulations
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743)
With the passage of SB 743 (September 27, 2013) and the subsequent adoption of the revised
CEQA Guidelines (December 28, 2018), level of service (LOS) can no longer be used as a
criterion for identifying significant transportation impacts for most projects under CEQA
effective July 1, 2020. LOS measures the average amount of delay experienced by vehicle
drivers at an intersection during the most congested time of day, while the new metric VMT
measures the total number of daily miles traveled by vehicles on the roadway network and
thereby the impacts on the environment from those miles traveled.
In other words, SB 743 changes the focus of transportation impact analysis in CEQA from
measuring impacts on drivers to measuring the impact of driving.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) conducts transportation planning,
financing, and coordination for the San Francisco Bay Area, including Alameda County. MTC
periodically updates the Regional Transportation Plan, which plans for the development of
mass transit, highway, airport, seaport, railroad, bike, and pedestrian facilities. The most
current Regional Transportation Plan, Transportation 2035, budgets funding for
transportation -related projects. In addition, MTC and ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area 2040 in
2017, which is a State -mandated transportation and land use plan. The Sustainable
Communities Strategy outlines a sustainable communities strategy for the region, which aims to
integrate transportation, land use, and housing to meet GHG reduction targets established by
the California Air Resources Board.
The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) is an independent special
district that aims to provide sustainable, accessible, and community -focused transportation
opportunities. The Alameda CTC is the county's congestion management agency, providing
countywide transportation planning, design and construction of specific highway, pedestrian,
and bicycle improvement projects, as well as the promotion of transit -oriented development. In
accordance with California Government Code 65088, the Alameda CTC prepares the Alameda
County Congestion Management Program (CMP), which measures the performance of the
county's multi -modal transportation system, addresses roadway congestion, and connects
transportation and land use. Alameda CTC also maintains a countywide travel model in
compliance with Plan Bay Area 2040 and CMP legislation.
The Alameda County CMP contains the following five mandatory elements: (1) level of service
monitoring; (2) performance; (3) travel demand management; (4) land use analysis program;
and (5) capital improvements. The Alameda CTC has also developed information related to
Senate Bill 743 and tools for measuring and reducing vehicle miles travelled (Alameda CTC
2014).
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 126
Local Regulations
City of Dublin General Plan
Chapter 5.0, Land Use and Circulation: Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, identifies the
City's transportation and roadway policies (City of Dublin 2022). As described in the City of
Dublin General Plan, the City aims to provide a comprehensive circulation network that
supports multiple modes of transportation including private vehicles, transit, cycling, and
walking. The following policies from the City of Dublin General Plan relate to the proposed
Project:
• Implementing Policy 5.2.2.B.2. Design and construct all roads in the City's circulation
network as defined in Figure 5-1 as well as bicycle and pedestrian networks as defined in
the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
• Guiding Policy 5.2.3.A.1. Provide an integrated multi -modal circulation system that
provides efficient vehicular circulation while providing a design that allows safe and
convenient travel along and across streets for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists,
persons with disabilities, seniors, children, youth, and families; and encourages pedestrian,
bicycle, transit, and other non -automobile transportation alternatives.
• Guiding Policy 5.4.3.A.1. Plan for all users by creating and maintaining Complete Streets
that provide safe, comfortable, and convenient travel along and across streets (including
streets, roads, highways, bridges, and other portions of the transportation system) through
a comprehensive, integrated transportation network that meets the requirements of
currently adopted transportation plans and serves all categories of users.
• Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.1. Provide safe, continuous, comfortable and convenient bikeways
throughout the City.
• Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.2. Improve and maintain bikeways and pedestrian facilities and
support facilities in conformance with the recommendations in the Dublin Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan.
• Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.4. Provide comfortable, safe, and convenient walking routes
throughout the City and, in particular, to key destinations such as Downtown Dublin, the
BART Stations, schools, parks, and commercial centers.
• Implementing Policy 5.5.1.B.1. Complete the bikeways systems illustrated on Figures 5-3a
and 5-3b (in the General Plan).
• Implementing Policy 5.5.1.B.2. Improve bikeways, bicycle support facilities, and pedestrian
facilities in accordance with the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan in conjunction
with development proposals.
• Implementing Policy 5.5.1.B.3. Ensure on -going maintenance of bikeways, bicycle support
facilities and pedestrian facilities that are intended for public use and located on private
property in conjunction with development proposals.
City of Dublin Municipal Codes
Municipal Code 8.76.070. Part of the City's Development Standards, which states that bicycle
parking requirements shall conform to the California Building Standards Code. The California
Building Standards Code states that the number of short-term and long-term bicycle parking
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 127
stalls provided must be equal to or greater than five percent of the number of motorized
vehicle parking spaces provided.
Municipal Code 8.76.080. Sets the requirement for the amount of on -site parking stalls, which
is based on use types and square footage of those use types (Code Publishing 2022).
City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
The City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan provides policies, network plans,
prioritized project lists, support programs, and best practice design guidelines for bicycling and
walking in Dublin. The Plan indicates that Class II bicycle Lanes are proposed along Dublin
Boulevard adjacent to the Project site (City of Dublin 2023).
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Conflict with applicable transportation plans standards, including bicycle and pedestrian
facilities (Less Than Significant Impact)
Applicant transportation plans and policies are described above in the Regulatory Setting
subsection. In accordance with SB 743, policies relating to level of service are no longer to be
considered as part of the CEQA analysis for transportation impacts, even though such policies
are still contained in applicable plans and used by agencies outside of CEQA. This discussion
therefore focuses on compliance with applicable policies relating to transit, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities. The traffic impact analysis prepared for this Project (in Appendix E)
includes an analysis of LOS impacts for the City's use outside of CEQA; however, that LOS
analysis is not used within this CEQA document to determine the level of significance of
environmental impacts from the Project.
Significant impacts to transit services would occur if the Project would create demand for public
transit service that exceeds the provided or planned capacity, disrupts existing transit services
or facilities, conflicts with a planned transit facility, or conflicts with policies adopted by the
City.
Project construction and operation would not substantially increase demand for transit
services. During project construction, construction workers are not expected to use public
transit systems such as buses, bike facilities and pedestrian facilities, as this is not typical for
construction workers. During the project operation, the Project would have a similar amount of
employees compared to existing conditions, as described in Section 13, Population and
Housing. The Project would not result in the need for new transit facilities nor would it conflict
with existing or planned transit facilities.
Furthermore, according to the Transportation Impact Study, the operation of the Project is
expected to result in an average net reduction of 222 trips per day, and 3 fewer morning peak
hour trips and 1 fewer afternoon peak hour trips compared to existing conditions. Therefore,
the Project would result in a reduction of traffic on the roadway network in the Project vicinity
compared to existing conditions.
Significant impacts to bicycle and pedestrian facilities would occur if the Project would generate
demand for pedestrian or bicycle facilities that exceeds the provided or planned capacity,
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 128
disrupts existing bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or conflicts with a planned bicycle or pedestrian
facility.
Pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the study area are adequate and would be improved upon
completion of facilities identified in the City's draft Bike and Pedestrian Plan. The Project would
not result in any changes within the Dublin Boulevard right-of-way that would conflict with existing
bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or prevent the proposed future installation of Class II bike lanes.
Furthermore, the Project would provide 24 bicycle parking stalls on -site, with 12 short short-term
and 12 long-term stalls as required by the City's Municipal Code 8.76.070 as described in the
Regulatory Framework section. The Project proposes 217 motorized parking spaces; thus, a
minimum of 11 short-term and 11 long-term parking stalls for bikes are required.
The Project would also provide adequate parking stalls on -site and would not impact street
parking along public roadways. Parking requirements are based on the City's Municipal Code
8.76.080, which require a certain amount of on -site parking stalls based on use types and square
footage of those use types. Based on the Project's use types, 217 would be consistent with this
municipal code.
Therefore, for all of the reasons described above, the Project would not conflict with applicable
transportation plans standards, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities impacts on pedestrian,
bicycle, and transit facilities within the study area and impacts would be less than significant.
(b) Conflict with CEQA Section 15064.3 (b) (Less Than Significant Impact)
Based on CalEEMod standard construction assumptions for a project of this size and nature (as
detailed in Appendix D) project construction activities may generate between 5 and 128 trips
per day, with a total construction period of approximately 12 months. Construction trips would
cease once construction of the project is complete. Since project construction would be for a
short-term and temporary period of time, no long term VMT impacts would occur. Thus, there
would be less than a significant impact during project construction.
The proposed Project is not anticipated to increase the travel demand to and from the Project
site from existing conditions. According to the Alameda County Travel Model, the existing
countywide VMT per employee for the East Planning Area is 15.2 miles. Based on Governor's
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Guidance and the City's Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
Guidelines, a project generating a VMT that is 15 percent or more below this value, or 12.9
miles per employee, would have a less -than -significant VMT impact. The City of Dublin
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines publishes a screening map which shows that this
Project located inside an area with a projected VMT per employee lower than 12.9 miles. A
copy of the screening map showing VMT estimates in Dublin is provided in Appendix E.
Therefore, the proposed Project would be expected to have a less than significant impact
related to VMT.
(c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use (Less Than
Significant)
During project construction, all construction and staging activities would occur on the Project
site with no encroachment or alterations of public right-of-way, including pedestrian and
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 129
bicycle facilities. As discussed above, Project construction would result in up to 128 traffic trips
per day to and from the Project site from construction workers and deliveries of equipment and
materials. During peak construction periods, approximately 51 of these trips would be from
trucks. These deliveries would be temporary and short-term and are not expected to result in
hazards on public roadways. These trips would not be an incompatible use. Therefore, there
would be no impact.
During project operation, the Project driveways and fire access road would be designed
according to the City's and local fire department's specifications, including specifications for
sight distance and turn radii for heavy vehicles, discussed further below. The Project does not
include any changes to the geometric design of the public roadway (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). The Project would
introduce similar amounts of heavy truck trips to and from the Project site compared to existing
conditions. Truck trips are not considered an incompatible use for Dublin Boulevard.
At driveways, a substantially clear line of sight should be maintained between the driver of a
vehicle waiting to enter the street and the driver of an approaching vehicle. The sight distances
along Dublin Boulevard at the Project driveways were evaluated based on sight distance criteria
contained in the Highway Design Manual published by California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans 2020). The recommended sight distances for driveway approaches are based on
stopping sight distance and use the approach travel speed as the basis for determining the
recommended sight distance. Based on the posted speed limit of 35 mph, the minimum
stopping sight distance required is 250 feet; a review in the field shows that sight distances at
the proposed project driveways on Dublin Boulevard each exceed 250 feet to the west and so
are adequate. To maintain this sight distance, it is noted that any vegetation near the project's
driveways should be trimmed to an appropriate height of less than three feet and trees
trimmed so that nothing hangs below a height of seven feet from the surface of the roadway.
For a motorist traveling westbound on Dublin Boulevard intending to turn left into either
project driveway, the stopping sight distance looking west along Dublin Boulevard is also
greater than 250 feet, providing adequate visibility to allow a following driver to observe and
react to a vehicle that may slow before moving into the left -turn pocket before entering the
driveway.
Therefore, adequate sight distance is available at the proposed project driveway locations to
accommodate all turns entering and exiting the Project site.
Large wheelbase vehicles would be able to access the Project site via the western driveway as
illustrated in the vehicle turning template analysis provided in Appendix E. The design vehicle
used for the turn analysis is based on the Review of Truck Characteristics as Factors in Roadway
Design, Transportation Research Board, 2004, with the Surface Transportation Assistance Act
(STAA) Interstate Semi -Trailer (WB-62) vehicle. The WB-62 vehicle has a minimum turning
radius of 45 feet, a centerline turning radius of 41 feet, and a minimum inside radius of 7.9 feet.
It is noted that the evaluation was limited to only movements between the Project site and the
east of the site since this represents the most likely direction of travel based on the City of
Dublin Truck Route Map (January 2014). As demonstrated by the analysis, the western
driveway can accommodate the WB-62 truck for all movements to and from the east. However,
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 130
the analysis also shows that the WB-62 vehicle is unable to access the eastern driveway without
striking fixed objects (such as utility poles and a fire hydrant) adjacent to the driveway.
Therefore, trucks can feasibly access the site via the western driveway. The eastern driveway is
not suitable for access by trucks.
There is a potential for sight distance to be blocked by vegetation. Furthermore, the eastern
driveway cannot accommodate large vehicles. Thus, the City will require a condition of approval
that would require vegetation maintenance for sight distance to achieve a minimum sight
distance of 250 feet at each driveway access point; and a condition of approval that prohibits
trucks from accessing the eastern driveway. Therefore, these impacts would be less than
significant.
(d) Result in inadequate emergency access (No Impact)
Law enforcement, fire, and/or emergency services would be maintained during project
construction and operation. All construction and staging activities would occur on the Project
site, and construction activities would not fundamentally alter emergency access to the Project
site or other properties in the vicinity. Construction for the Project would not require the
closure of local roads. If needed, a traffic control plan could be implemented, which would
include notification of emergency services. However, due to the small scope of the Project and
the fact that no public roads are being affected, a traffic control plan would most likely not be
needed. Therefore, project construction would not impede access for emergency vehicles and
there would be no impact.
During Project operation, the site would be accessible via two driveways along Dublin
Boulevard. The western driveway is also the southern leg of the Dublin Boulevard and Hansen
Drive intersection. The eastern driveway is located approximately 180 feet east of the Dublin
Boulevard and Hansen Drive intersection. The raised median along Dublin Boulevard prohibits
left -turn egress from this driveway, though there is a left -turn pocket that accommodates left
turns into the site. The primary driveway across from Hansen Drive also provides access to the
adjacent land use to the west. Additionally, these driveways would be connected by a 30 to 40-
foot-wide fire access route around the perimeter of the proposed building. A 26-foot-wide fire
access route along the northern side of the building would allow for aerial apparatus access.
The Project's driveways and internal roadway network would be designed to meet current City
standards and so can be expected to accommodate the access requirements for both
emergency and passenger vehicles. Therefore, there would be no impact on emergency access.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 131
Source(s)
Alameda County Transportation Commission, 2014. Alameda Countywide Travel Demand
Model.
Caltrans. 2020. Highway Design Manual. Seventh Edition. Available online at
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/hdm-complete-
12312020a11y.pdf.
City of Dublin. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan. Amended February 15, 2022.
City of Dublin, 2023. Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Obtained February 14, 2023
from https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/32269/24392-Dublin-ATP-
Draft-v73-1302023?bidld=.
. 2023. Energy. Available online: https://dublin.ca.gov/2032/Energy. Accessed March 2023.
Code Publishing, 2022. The Dublin Municipal Code. Obtained February 14 from
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Dublin/html/Dublin08/Dublin0876.html.
W-Trans. 2022. Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project.
Prepared for the City of Dublin on December 12, 2022.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 132
This page intentionally left blank
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
Tribal Cultural Resources
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 133
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public 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 I of
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivisil(c) of Public Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
Environmental Setting
The Project site is located in the Amador Valley, along the north bank of Dublin Creek. The
modern address is 11711 Dublin Boulevard, located in the City of Dublin, Alameda County,
California. The property is approximately 8.81 acres. The project site is located within the
Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, with the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums and
Dublin Pioneer Cemetery to the east; Interstate (I-)580 to the south; and a business park to the
west.
The Amador Valley is the homeland of the Chochenyo Ohlone (Levy 1978). No known previously
recorded tribal cultural resources are within the project APE.
A full tribal cultural context for the project site is provided in the Focused EIR.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 134
Regulatory Framework
State
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
CEQA requires lead agencies to consider whether projects will impact tribal cultural resources
as a separate category of environmental analysis. Tribal cultural resources may or may not also
be archeological or historic resources. For clarity, archeological and historic resources are
addressed in the cultural resources chapter. In some cases, tribal cultural resources are
viewsheds, cultural landscapes, plant gathering areas, or other sacred spaces that are not
readily identifiable to people outside of the Tribe. In many cases, tribal cultural resources also
include an archaeological component, such as artifacts, features, and sites (with or without
human remains). PRC Section 21074 states the following:
(a) "Tribal cultural resources" are either of the following:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to
a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of
Historical Resources.
(B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of
Section 5020.1.
(2) 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 Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this
paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
(b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to
the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape.
(c) A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as
defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a "nonunique archaeological resource" as
defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms
with the criteria of subdivision (a).
California Health and Safety Code
California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods,
regardless of their antiquity, and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those
remains. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered
in any place other than a dedicated cemetery, no further disturbance or excavation of the site
or nearby area reasonably suspected to contain human remains can occur until the county
coroner has examined the remains (Section 7050.5b). PRC Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 also
outline the process to be followed in the event that human remains are discovered. If the
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 135
coroner determines or has reason to believe the remains are those of a Native American, the
coroner must contact the California NAHC within 24 hours (Section 7050.5c). The NAHC will
notify the Most Likely Descendant ("MLD"). With the permission of the landowner, the MLD
may inspect the site of discovery. The inspection must be completed within 48 hours of
notification of the MLD by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend means of treating or
disposition of, with appropriate dignity, the Native American human remains, and any cultural
or funerary items associated with Native American people.
Assembly Bill (AB) 52
AB 52 (effective July 1, 2015) added PRC Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3,
21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3 to CEQA, relating to consultation with California Native
American tribes, consideration of tribal cultural resources, and confidentiality. AB 52 provides
procedural and substantive requirements for lead agency consultation with California Native
American tribes and consideration of impacts on tribal cultural resources, as well as examples
of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts to tribal cultural resources. AB 52
establishes that if a project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, that project may have a significant effect on the environment. Lead
agencies must avoid damaging impacts to tribal cultural resources, when feasible, and shall
keep information submitted by tribes confidential unless the information is deemed publicly
available by the tribe.
AB 52 requires a lead agency to consult with California Native American tribes that are
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project, if the
tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency of proposed
projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation. Section 21080.3.1(d) states
that within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by
a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the
designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California
Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at
least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its
location, the lead agency's contact information, and a notification that the California Native
American tribe has 30 days to request consultation.
Previous CEQA Documents
The City of Dublin hired the archaeological firm William Self Associates, Inc. (WSA) in 2003 to
prepare an Archaeological Assessment Report of the Donlon Way Specific Plan (later renamed
the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan area). A record search at the Northwest
Information Center (NWIC), conducted by WSA, did not identify any previously recorded
archaeological sites within the Specific Plan area boundaries, but one new archaeological site
was recorded during the pedestrian survey and Archeological High Probability areas were also
identified within the Specific Plan area boundaries. The Archaeological Assessment Report
concluded that there is a moderate -to -high -probability of identifying Native American
archeological resources within the Specific Plan area boundaries.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 136
The City of Dublin hired the architectural firm Page & Turnbull, Inc. in 2003 to prepare the
Dublin Historic Resources Identification Project that was finalized in 2004. The city contracted
with Page & Turnbull to identify and map historic resources in an approximately 38-acrea area
for a future Specific Plan for the Donlon Way area (later renamed the Dublin Village Historic
Area Specific Plan) and to prepare preservation recommendations. Page & Turnbull prepared a
historic context of the Dublin Village area and recorded all of the properties in the survey area
on Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 A and B forms.
The Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan was adopted by the Dublin City Council on August
1, 2006 under Resolution No. 149-06 and relied on the findings of the Archaeological
Assessment Report of the Donlon Way Specific Plan and the Dublin Historic Resources
Identification Project. The approximately 38-acre Specific Plan area included the two project
site parcels. Subsequently, three Specific Plan addendum and amendments have been prepared
for the Specific Plan. City Council determined that no new significant impacts were identified by
the addendums or amendments, and no further environmental analysis was required.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (No Impact)
No listed Tribal Cultural Resources are within the Project APE, therefore there will be no impact
to listed Tribal Cultural Resources.
(b) Significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1(Potentially Significant Impact)
The proposed Project would include excavation of the parking lot to the south of the Hexcel
Corporation R&D facility, which is adjacent to the marked boundary of the Pioneer Cemetery.
Marked grave sites in the cemetery are within five feet of the Hexcel property fence. Historic
documents suggest that the cemetery was larger than the currently marked boundary
(Freudenhem 1977). Additionally, there is anecdotal evidence that the cemetery location was
first used by the Ohlone, and may also include burials of Native American and Mexican farm
laborers who worked for Jose Maria Amador, interred prior to formal consecration of the
cemetery in 1859 (VerPlanck 2003). It is likely that the cemetery extends beneath the Hexcel
parking lot, and possible that the cemetery includes Native American human remains. If so, the
Project impact to Tribal Cultural Resources would be potentially significant. This potentially
significant impact is further analyzed in the Focused EIR.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 137
Source(s)
City of Dublin Community Development Department. 2014 (updated). Dublin Village Historic
Area Specific Plan. Adopted by the Dublin City Council on August 1, 2006, Resolution No.
149-06. Available online:
https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7780/DVHASP-FULL-PDF-
10714?bidld=. Accessed April 2023.
. 2022 (amended). General Plan. Available online:
https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30287/General-Plan-Update-
04192022-WEB. Accessed April 2023.
Freudenheim, Richard. 1977. National Register of Historic Places Inventory — Nomination Form,
Dublin Village Historic Settlement (CA-ALA-521H, P-01-002127). On file at the Northwest
Information Center in Rohnert Park, California.
Levy, Richard. 1978. Costanoan. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, edited by
Robert F. Heizer, 485-495. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institute.
VerPlanck, Christopher. 2003. Pioneer Cemetery Site Record (P-01-010637). On file at the
Northwest Information Center in Rohnert Park, California.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 138
This page intentionally left blank
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
Utilities and Service Systems
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 139
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
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 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 X
regulations related to solid waste?
Environmental Setting
The Project site is within an urban area that is currently served by water storage, treatment,
and distribution facilities, wastewater and stormwater collection, and solid waste collection and
disposal service systems. These services are described below.
Water
The DSRSD provides potable and recycled water services to the City of Dublin, including the
Project site. DSRSD serves approximately 100,400 people and 26,237 potable water accounts to
residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional customers. DSRSD manages 3,610 potable
water hydrants, 24 recycled water hydrants, 17 potable pump stations, 5 recycled water pump
stations, 339 miles of potable water pipes, 72 miles of recycled water pipes, and 223 miles of
sewer pipes. DSRSD also manages 14 reservoirs storing 24.98 million gallons (mg) of potable
water and 4 reservoirs that store 10.95 mg of recycled water. DSRSD's primary water supply
source is purchased potable water from Zone 7, augmented by recycled water produced at
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 140
DSRSD's Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. Zone 7 is a State Water Project contractor
that wholesales treated water to four retail water agencies, including DSRSD, Livermore,
Pleasanton, and Cal Water Livermore District (West Yost 2021). About 60 percent of the water
comes from the State Water Project via the South Bay Aqueduct; 5 percent from local
groundwater; 11 percent from local runoff impounded at Lake Del; and about 24 percent from
recycled water recovered from wastewater (DSRSD 2023a). Treated potable water enters
DSRSD's distribution system from five metered turnouts from the Zone 7 transmission system
(West Yost 2021).
To improve the reliability of the Tri-Valley's water supply, particularly in dry years, DSRSD and
East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) created the San Ramon Valley Water Program
(SRVRWP) in 1995. The partnership built a water recycling plant adjacent to the DSRSD
wastewater treatment facility and a backbone transmission system that connects to DSRSD and
EBMUD recycled pipelines to reduce the demand for potable water (City of Dublin 2022).
Wastewater
Wastewater collection and treatment services are also provided by DSRSD for the City of
Dublin, including the Project site. DSRSD owns and operates a Regional Wastewater Treatment
Facility in Pleasanton that has a capacity of 17 million gallons per day (MGD) average dry
weather flow (ADWF). 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 (West Yost 2019). DSRSD's provides secondary treatment by
activated sludge process (DSRD 2023a).
Stormwater
The Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCWCD) provides flood
protection to the project area via planning, designing, constructing, and maintaining flood
control projects, including natural creeks, channels, levees, pump stations, dams, and
reservoirs. The City of Dublin manages and maintains the municipal stormwater system
including storm drainpipes and inlets that are on public streets. The City has jurisdiction and
maintenance responsibility for local storm drains that discharge to the Zone 7 flood control
system. Drainage facilities on private property are maintained by private property owners.
Runoff from the Project area drains to underground pipes and open culverts to Dublin Creek,
south of the Project site. Dublin Creek ultimately discharges into Las Positas Creek and flows
south to San Francisco Bay (Zone 7 2022).
Electricity
The EBCE is a Community Choice Aggregator that procures electricity for residential, business,
and municipal accounts to most of Alameda County, including the City of Dublin, utilizing
PG&E's distribution system. PG&E handles billing, power outages and maintenance of
powerlines and other PG&E infrastructure (EBCE 2023).
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 141
Solid Waste
The City of Dublin has a service agreement with Amador Valley Industries (AVI), which provides
weekly collection service for compost, recycling, and landfill. Solid waste generated within the
City is deposited at the Altamont Landfill which has a total estimated permitted capacity of
124,400,000 cubic yards. The Altamont Landfill has a remaining capacity of 65,400,000, which is
approximately 50 percent full and is estimated to reach capacity on December 1, 2070. The
landfill is a Class II (designated waste), III (nonhazardous solid waste) with permitted waste
types including tires, mixed municipal, industrial, green materials, contaminated soil, ash, and
construction/demolition waste (CalRecycle 2019).
The Alameda County Waste Management Authority, now known as Stopwaste.org, is
responsible for developing and implementing a Countywide Integrated Waste Management
Plan. It manages a long-range program for development of solid waste facilities and offers
many programs in the areas of source reduction and recycling, market development, technical
assistance, and public education. Funding is provided by per -ton disposal and waste import
mitigation fees (Stopwaste 2023).
Regulatory Framework
State Regulations
California Urban Water Management Planning Act
Under the California Water Code and Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983, all
California urban water suppliers are required to prepare and adopt an Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) every five years, which promotes water conservation and efficiency
measures. Urban water suppliers that serve more than 3,000 customers or are supplying more
than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually are subject to this Act. This Act requires that the total
project water use be compared to water supply sources over the next 20 years in five-year
increments. Planning must occur for all drought years and must include a water recycling
analysis that incorporates a description of the wastewater collection and treatment system,
outlining existing and potential recycled water uses. In September 2014, the Act was amended
by SB 1420, which now requires urban water suppliers to provide descriptions of their water
demand management measures and similar information.
Water Conservation Act of 2009
The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7) requires all water suppliers to increase water use
efficiency by reducing per capita urban water use by 20 percent by December 31, 2020. This bill
also set a goal for the state of reducing per capita water use by at least 10 percent by December
31, 2015.
California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939)
AB 939 established the California Integrated Waste Management Board under CalRecycle,
which required all counties within California to prepare integrated waste management plans.
Additionally, it changed the focus of solid waste management from landfill to diversion
strategies (e.g., source reduction, recycling, and composting), and required all municipalities to
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 142
divert 25 percent of their solid waste from landfill disposal by January 1, 1995, and 5 percent by
the year 2000.
California Mandatory Commercial Recycling Law (AB 341)
AB 341 was enacted to help meet California's recycling goal of 75 percent by the year 2020. AB
341 requires all commercial businesses and public entities that generate four cubic yards or
more of waste per week to have a recycling program in place. In addition, multi -family
apartments with five or more units are also required to form a recycling program. In addition,
each local government jurisdiction will implement a commercial solid waste recycling program
that consists of education, outreach and monitoring of businesses, designed to divert
commercial solid waste from businesses. Each jurisdiction will report the progress achieved in
implementing its commercial recycling program, including education, outreach and monitoring,
and if applicable, enforcement efforts and exemptions, by providing updates in its electronic
annual report. CalRecycle will review each jurisdiction's commercial recycling program that
consists of education, outreach and monitoring.
Mandatory Organics Recycling AB 1826
In October 2014, Governor Brown signed AB 1826, requiring businesses to recycle their organic
waste on and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week.
This law also requires that on and after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions across the state
implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by
businesses, including multifamily residential dwellings that consist of five or more units. Organic
waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood
waste, and food -soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste. This law phases in the
mandatory recycling of commercial organics over time, while also offering an exemption
process for rural counties. In particular, the minimum threshold of organic waste generation by
businesses decreases over time, which means an increasingly greater proportion of the
commercial sector will be required to comply.
CALGreen Building Code
CALGreen requires mandatory green standards that all buildings in California must abide by,
including: reducing indoor water use, reducing wastewater, recycling and/or salvaging
nonhazardous construction and demolition debris, and providing readily accessible areas for
recycling by the occupant. The code includes different categories such as energy, water,
material, and resource efficiency. These standards include a mandatory set of minimum
guidelines, as well as more stringent voluntary measures for new construction projects that
local communities can opt into.
Local Regulations
2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)
The DSRSD adopted a UWMP in 2016 as per SB X7-7 and the Urban Water Management
Planning Act (Section 10610 of Division 6 of the California Water Code). These plans are
prepared every five years and must address the reliability of water sources within the following
20 years as well as other demand management measures and water shortage contingency
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 143
plans. Additionally, the UWMP identifies strategies to meet requirements under SB X7-7 by
reporting on progress towards meeting a 20 percent reduction for per -capita urban water use
by the year 2020. The UWMP also plans for emergencies and times of water shortage. DSRSD is
currently in the process of updating the UWMP.
Dublin Municipal Code 7.30.060:
The City of Dublin requires all construction and demolition (C&D) projects recycle at least 65
percent of the waste for remodels or tenant improvements, and 75 percent of the waste for
new construction generated on a job site, excluding asphalt and concrete debris, of which 100
percent must be recycled.
City of Dublin General Plan
Chapter 4.0, Land Use and Circulation: Schools, Public Lands, and Utilities Element, identifies
the City's policies related to the provision of public services and utilities in the City. The
following policies from the City of Dublin General Plan relate to the proposed project:
• Guiding Policy 4.4.1.A.1. Ensure that adequate solid waste disposal capacity is available, to
avoid constraining development, consistent with the Dublin General Plan.
• Implementing Policy 4.4.1.6.3. Prior to project approval, the applicant shall demonstrate
that capacity will exist in solid waste disposal facilities for their project prior to the issuance
of building permits.
• Guiding Policy 4.5.1.A.1. Expand sewage treatment and disposal capacity to avoid
constraining development consistent with the Dublin General Plan.
• Implementing Policy 4.5.1.B.1. Prior to project approval, developers shall demonstrate that
adequate capacity will exist in sewage treatment and disposal facilities for their projects
prior to the issuance of building permits.
• Guiding Policy 4.6.1.A.1. Base General Plan proposals on the assumption that water
supplies will be sufficient and that local wells could be used to supplement imported water
if necessary.
• Implementing Policy 4.6.1.6.1. Consider obtaining water service from the East Bay
Municipal Utility District and other sources.
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 (Less Than
Significant Impact)
During project construction, potable and non -potable water, energy and possibly stormwater
drains would be needed for a short-term and temporary period of time. This use would be
minimal and would not require the relocation of existing, construction of new, or expansion of
utility facilities. DSRSD prohibits the use of potable water for dust -control and construction
grading and requires that recycled water be used (DSRSD 2023b). Therefore, project
construction would only utilize a small amount of potable water for drinking, onsite sanitary
needs and cement mixing.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 144
Construction of the Project would not generate wastewater that requires treatment, and
therefore would not result in wastewater discharges. Gas, diesel, and battery powered
equipment and vehicles would be utilized during construction. The use of these energy sources
would be minimal as discussed in Section 13, Energy. Electrical power would not be required. As
discussed in Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality, a SWPPP and BMPs shall be implemented
in order to eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems per SWRCB
statewide stormwater general permit for construction activity. Therefore, there would not be a
substantial impact to stormwater drainages necessitating the construction of new or expanded
stormwater facilities. For these reasons, there would be a less than significant impact during
construction activities.
The Project site is served by existing utilities infrastructure. The Project would either utilize
existing utility infrastructure or make upgrades to infrastructure, as specified in the proceeding
paragraphs in this section. Operation of the proposed Project would require water, wastewater
treatment, drainage facilities, electricity, and telecommunication. The site is zoned as M-1—
(Light Industrial) and Planned Development (PD) by the City and the site would continue to be
used for R&D and industrial purposes.
Existing sanitary sewer lines would be removed and new sanitary sewer lines from the
proposed building would be implemented, which would connect to an existing sanitary sewer
manhole in the northeast portion of the site near Dublin Boulevard. The new sanitary sewer
lines installed within the Project site would be constructed in conformance with City and DSRSD
standards, and their construction would not cause significant environmental effects. Existing
water lines would be removed and replaced with new water lines, including irrigation lines, that
would connect to existing and proposed water meters in the north portion of the site and
existing public water main at the northeast portion of the site near Dublin Boulevard. Fire
service lines connecting the fire hydrants to water would be implemented around the proposed
building and connect to a water main at the northwest portion of the site near Dublin
Boulevard. The proposed fire hydrants onsite would tie into these water lines. The proposed
Project would not require the construction of new water treatment facilities, or the expansion
of existing facilities, other than those already planned as part of the UWMP.
The proposed storm water drainage system on the Project site would be composed of catch
basins and storm drains throughout the Project site, which would connect and convey storm
water to proposed bioretention areas on the Project site and existing and proposed stormwater
pipelines. New storm drains line would connect to a new storm drain manhole at the northeast
corner of the Project site. Stormwater would be treated onsite via five bioretention treatment
planter areas that would be implemented in the western corner, southeast corner and south
and northeast portion of the site.
The site would be graded to have water flow into these biorientation basins. Approximately
9,819 square feet of bioretention areas on the Project site would be used for stormwater
control. The bioretention areas would provide appropriate vegetation and water quality
treatment to prevent discharge of untreated storm water from the Project site. In addition,
on -site drainage systems would be designed to be consistent with the Alameda County NPDES
C.3 requirements for Low Impact Development (LID).
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 145
The proposed Project would include connections to the existing electricity and
telecommunication lines. These connections would be conducted in accordance with each
PG&E specifications, telecommunication companies and accordance with City guidelines. No
natural gas lines would be provided or used at the Project site.
While the square footage of uses at the site would increase from approximately 62,715 square
feet under existing conditions to 125,304 square feet, the proposed Project would result in a
net reduction in energy consumption, primarily related to improved building energy standards
and eliminating natural gas infrastructure as described in the Focused EIR Energy impact a.
Similarly, demand for other utilities such as water are expected to decrease from existing
conditions due to increased efficiencies of the building and other site improvements.
Therefore, the Project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities that could cause an environmental effect. Thus, there would be a
less than significant impact.
(b) Sufficient water supply (Less Than Significant Impact)
As discussed in Impact a above, the Project would utilize recycled water for construction
activities and a minimal amount of potable water for drinking, onsite sanitary needs, and
cement mixing. Water use during construction would be temporary and for a short-term period
of time and would be hauled to the site. Therefore, there would be no impact on water supply
during project construction.
The Project would connect to existing water mains that are serviced by the DSRSD. There are
existing water uses at the site. While the proposed building would be doubling in size from the
existing building, it is expected that water use would decrease from existing use because of
increased water -efficiencies at the site. Some efficiencies include low flow toilets and faucets
and water -efficient irrigation systems with rain sensors. Additionally, since the proposed
building would be brand new, there are expected to be little to no leaks. The Project would also
utilize drought tolerant plants that have low water requirements once established. Therefore,
water use at the site is expected to decrease from exiting levels.
The 2020 UWMP predicts total water demand of 11,993 acre-feet per year (AFY) for Zone 7
water and 3,044 AFY for recycled water in 2025, and 13,820 AFY for Zone 7 Water and 3,044
AFY for recycled water in 2040. DSRSD projected supply is 15,037 AFY in the year 2025 (West
Yost 2021). Since the water demand from the proposed Project is expected to decrease from
existing levels, DSRSD would have enough water supply to serve the Project site. 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 the DSRSD can
adequately serve the proposed project. With the projects and programs implemented by DSRSD
and Zone 7, water supplies are projected to meet demands.
Furthermore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the type and intensity of
development assumed for the Project site in in the City's Dublin Village Historic Area Specific
Plan and accounted for in the UWMP. As stated in the UWMP, DSRSD can meet its water
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 146
demand under multiple dry years with diversified supply and conservation measures (West Yost
2021). In addition, sustained water use efficiency following 2012-2016 drought and subsequent
legislation related to water conservation have lowered water supply demand (Brown and
Caldwell 2021). Therefore, for all of the reasons described above, the proposed Project would
have less than significant impact.
(c) Sufficient wastewater capacity (Less Than Significant Impact)
Wastewater generated by the Project would be treated at DSRSD's Regional Wastewater
Treatment Facility. As discussed in the Environmental Setting section, the wastewater
treatment facility has a capacity of approximately 17.0 MGD. During project construction, there
would be no wastewater generated that would require treatment at wastewater treatment
facility. During project operation, similar to water use estimated in Impact (b), it is assumed
that the Project would generate less waste water than existing conditions with the upgraded
and improved utilities utilized in the facility. Furthermore, the Project would generate a
nominal amount of wastewater compared to the capacity at the wastewater treatment facility.
The Project, in combination with other development projects in the City, would not contribute
to cumulatively considerable impact since it would not increase the amount of existing
wastewater that is being generated. Furthermore, the Project would be consistent with the
type and intensity of development assumed for the Project site in the Dublin Village Historic
Area Specific Plan and accounted for in DSRSD's Wastewater Collection System Master Plan.
Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact.
(d-e) Adequate landfill and compliance (Less Than Significant Impact)
The Altamont Landfill would serve the Project site. During project construction, the Project
would generate solid waste from demolition of the existing building, pavement, and concrete.
The Project applicant and its contractor(s) would comply with the City's Municipal Code
7.30.060, which requires that at least 75 percent of all C&D waste for new construction
generated on a job site and 100 percent of asphalt and concrete debris to be recycled. Since the
majority of waste would be recycled, project construction would result in a less than significant
impact related to landfill capacity.
Operation of the proposed Project is not anticipated to generate a significant amount of 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. The Project would be
consistent with the type and intensity of development assumed for the Project site. The
number of future employees that would produce solid waste would be similar to existing
conditions as discussed in Section 13, Population and Housing. However, the waste generated
may be slightly more than existing waste production associated based on the increased size of
the proposed building. Nonetheless, as part of the approval process and issuance of building
permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that capacity will exist in solid waste disposal facilities
for their Project prior to the issuance of building permits per City's General Plan Policy
4.4.1.6.3. Furthermore, the Project would be consistent with the type and intensity of
development assumed for the Project site in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan and
accounted for regarding waste generation to the landfill. Thus, it is expected that the Project
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 147
would be accommodated by the Altamont Landfill, which is expected to have adequate capacity
to accommodate.
The Project would not conflict or interfere with the City's ability to implement its adopted solid
waste management programs and policies, such as those defined in the General Plan and City's
Municipal Code 7.30.060. The Project would not conflict with any of the State regulations
regarding solid waste such as AB 1826, AB 341, and AB 939. Waste collection services for the
proposed Project would be provided weekly by AVI. The Project would be subject to existing
requirements regarding recycling and waste disposal. Since waste disposal in the City complies
with State requirements, the proposed Project would not violate any State regulations relate to
solid waste. Thus, the Project's impacts would be less than significant.
Source(s)
Brown and Caldwell. 2021. 2021 Alternative Water Supply Study: A Framework for a Resilient
and Sustainable Water Future. Obtained February 2, 2023 from
https://www.dsrsd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/7747/637602093234970000.
CalRecycle. 2019. Facility/Site Summary Details: Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery
(01AA-0009). Obtained on March 10, 2023 from
www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/7?sitel D=7.
City of Dublin. 2006. Initial Study/EIR for Draft Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendment, Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2006 Update, Dublin
Historic Park Draft Master Plan and Dublin Village Historic Area Rezoning.
City of Dublin. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan. Water Resources Element.
DSRSD. 2023a. District At A Glance. Obtained February 2, 2023 from
https://www.dsrsd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/811/638109442954430000.DS
RSD 2, 2023. Drought Water Use Rules. Obtained February 11, 2023 from
https://www.dsrsd.com/your-account/water-conservation/water-use-rules.
DSRSD. 2023b. Drought Water Use Rules. Obtained February 2, 2023 from
https://www.dsrsd.com/your-account/water-conservation/water-use-rules.
EBCE. 2023. Frequently Asked Questions webpage. Obtained February 2, 2023 from
https://ebce.org/faq/.
Stopwaste. 2023. About the Alameda County Waste Management Authority. Obtained on
February 11, 2023 from https://www.stopwaste.org/about-stopwaste/boards/acwma-
board.
Ventura Water. 2022 Comprehensive Water Resources Report. Final Report. Obtained on
March 17, 2023 from
https://www.cityofventura.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/31810/2022-Comprehensive-
Water-Resources-Report.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study 1 Page 148
West Yost. 2019. 2017 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Obtained on February 11,
2023 from
https://www.dsrsd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/7233/637620238955100000.
West Yost. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Obtained on March 10, 2023 from
https://www.dsrsd.com/home/showpu bl isheddocument/7749/637607511715070000.
Zone 7. 2022. Annual Report 2022. Obtained on February 11, 2023 from
https://zone7water. report/.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
Wildfire
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study l Page 149
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
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 X
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Environmental Setting
Fire hazard severity zones are measured qualitatively, based on vegetation, topography,
weather, crown fire potential (a fire's tendency to burn upward into trees and tall brush), and
ember production and movement within the area in question. The most significant weather
factor in Alameda County, including the Project site, is wind. Wind patterns are predominately
west to east during fire season due to the cooler marine air flowing from the San Francisco Bay
into the Livermore and San Joaquin valleys (CAL FIRE 2022a). Steep, inaccessible slopes and
brush create a high fire hazard in the western hills of the City (City of Dublin 2022). Additionally,
areas within the Extended Planning Areas that are adjacent to open space are susceptible to
fire hazards (City of Dublin 2022).
Fire prevention areas considered to be under state jurisdiction are referred to as "state
responsibility areas" or SRAs, and CAL FIRE is responsible for vegetation fires within SRA lands.$
In general, SRA lands contain trees producing, or capable of producing, forest products; timber,
8 California Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 4125-4127 define a State Responsibility Area as lands in which the financial
responsibility for preventing and suppressing wildland fire resides with the State of California.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 150
brush, undergrowth, and grass, whether of commercial value or not, that provide watershed
protection for irrigation or for domestic or industrial use; or lands in areas that are principally
used, or are useful for, range or forage purposes.
PRC Sections 4201-4204 and Government Code Sections 51175-51189 require identification of
fire hazard severity zones within the State of California. In SRAs, CAL FIRE is required to
delineate three wildfire hazard ranges: moderate, high, and very high.' The Project site is not
within a SRA. The nearest SRA extends north and south of Interstate 580 approximately 0.7 mile
west of the Project site. This portion of the SRA is identified as a moderate fire hazard severity
zone (CAL FIRE 2022b, 2023a). This SRA is served by Battalion 4 of CAL FIRE's Santa Clara Unit
(CAL FIRE 2022a).
CAL FIRE identifies only very high fire hazard severity zones in "local responsibility areas,"
(LRAs) which are areas under the jurisdiction of local entities (e.g., cities and counties). The
Project site is within a LRA, and the Alameda County Fire Department provides fire protection
services to the Project site. There are no very high fire hazard severity zones within or in the
vicinity of the Project site (CAL FIRE 2008, 2023b). The nearest very high fire hazard severity
zone is located east of the City of Pleasanton, east of Interstate 680, approximately 3.5 miles
south of the Project site.
Regulatory Framework
Federal Regulation
National Fire Protection Association Codes, Standards, Practices, and Guides
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) codes, standards, recommended practices, and
guides ("National Fire Protection Association Documents") are developed through a consensus
standards development process approved by the American National Standards Institute. This
process brings together professionals representing varied viewpoints and interests to achieve
consensus on fire and other safety issues. National Fire Protection Association standards are
recommended guidelines and nationally accepted good practices in fire protection but are not
law or "codes" unless adopted as such or referenced as such by the CFC or a local fire agency.
State Regulations
California Fire Code
The CFC is Chapter 9 of Title 24 of the CCR. It was created by the California Building Standards
Commission and is based on the International Fire Code created by the International Code
Council. It is the primary means for authorizing and enforcing procedures and mechanisms to
ensure the safe handling and storage of any substance that may pose a threat to public health
9 CAL FIRE has developed a Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) that uses a series of computer models to assess fire
hazard. FRAP's data collection and models provide detailed analysis and mapping of fuels, fire weather, historical fire
occurrences, and ignition location and frequency, all of which they have analyzed and modeled to develop fire hazard severity
rankings for lands throughout California.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 151
and safety. The CFC regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements for hazardous
materials at fixed facilities. The CFC and the California Building Code use a hazards classification
system to determine what protective measures are required to protect fire and life safety.
These measures may include construction standards, separations from property lines, and
specialized equipment. To ensure that these safety measures are met, the CFC employs a
permit system based on hazard classification. The CFC is updated every 3 years.
California Public Resources Code
Section 4427
PRC Section 4427 limits the use of any motor, engine, boiler, stationary equipment, welding
equipment, cutting torches, tarpots, or grinding devices from which a spark, fire, or flame may
originate, when the equipment is located on or near land covered by forest, brush, or grass.
Before such equipment may be used, all flammable material, including snags, must be cleared
away from the area around such operation for a distance of 10 feet. A serviceable round point
shovel with an overall length of not less than 46 inches and a backpack pump water -type fire
extinguisher, fully equipped and ready for use, must be maintained in the immediate area
during the operation.
Section 4431
PRC Section 4431 requires users of gasoline -fueled internal combustion —powered equipment
operating within 25 feet of flammable material on or near land covered by forest, brush, or
grass to have a tool for firefighting purposes at the immediate location of use. This requirement
is limited to periods when burn permits are necessary. Under Section 4431, the Director of
Forestry and Fire Protection specifies the type and size of fire extinguisher necessary to provide
at least a minimum assurance of controlling fire caused by use of portable power tools during
various climatic and fuel conditions.
Section 4442
PRC Section 4442 prohibits the use of internal combustion engines running on hydrocarbon
fuels on any land covered by forest, brush, or grass unless the engine is equipped with a spark
arrestor and is constructed, equipped, and maintained in good working order when traveling on
any such land.'
Zo A spark arrester is a device constructed of nonflammable materials specifically for the purpose of removing and
retaining carbon and other flammable particles larger than 0.0232 inch from the exhaust flow of an internal
combustion engine that uses hydrocarbon fuels or which is qualified and rated by the U.S. Forest Service.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 152
Local Regulations
City of Dublin General Plan
Section 8.3.2 of the General Plan outlines policies and programs related to wildfire (City of
Dublin 2022). The following policies related to hazardous materials are applicable to the
proposed Project:
• Guiding Policy 8.3.2.1.A.1. Require special precautions against fire as a condition of
development approval in the western hills and elsewhere in the Extended planning Areas
where proposed development would interface with open space.
City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan
The City of Dublin has adopted a Wildfire Management Plan to reduce the risk of open land
wildfire to the lowest practical level consistent with reasonable protection of wildlife habitat
and other open space values. The Wildfire Management Plan is implemented in conjunction
with Chapter 7.32 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, "Materials and Construction Methods
for Exterior Wildfire Exposure," which provides for acceptable methods of compliance
inspection and documentation for vegetation management. The Wildfire Management Plan
requires compliance with State defensible space guidelines and brush control in designated
wildland-urban interface fire areas.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
As stated above, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines determines wildfire impacts based on
whether a proposed project would occur within or near a SRA or on lands classified as very high
fire hazard severity zones. The Project site is not within a SRA or very high fire hazard severity
zone. However, the area approximately 0.7 mile to the west is within a SRA and designated by
CAL FIRE as a moderate fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE 2008, 2022b, 2023a, 3b).
(a) Impair an emergency response plan (No Impact)
As discussed in Section 8, "Hazards and Hazardous Materials" (Impact f), the existing ingress
and egress from Dublin Boulevard to the Project site would be maintained. All construction
materials would be staged on -site, and therefore no temporary lane closures along Dublin
Boulevard would be required during Project construction that could impede emergency access
or hinder emergency evacuation. For Project operation, planned emergency access throughout
the Project site would be reviewed by the City of Dublin Building Department and the Fire
Department to ensure that appropriate widths and turning radii area provided for emergency
vehicles. Thus, Project construction and operation would result in no impact from impairment
of emergency response or evacuation plans.
(b) Exposure to wildfire (Less Than Significant Impact)
The Project would not substantially alter site slopes or vegetation or introduce new land uses
that would exacerbate potential wildfire risks at the site. The Project would involve demolishing
the existing industrial facility and constructing a new building in its place. The Project contractor
would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the California Fire Code and
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 153
regulations related to fire safety and wildfire suppression identified above in the Regulatory
Framework section, including the following requirements from the California PRC:
• PRC Section 4428, which identifies additional firefighting equipment requirements during
the period of highest fire danger (April 1—December 1);
• PRC Section 4431, which prohibits the use of portable tools powered by gasoline -fueled
internal combustion engines within 25 feet of flammable materials when burning permits
are required; and
• PRC Section 4442, which requires engines be equipped with a spark arrestor.
Strict adherence to applicable PRCs requirements would ensure that wildfire risks are
minimized during construction.
The proposed building would comply with state and local regulations related to fire safety such
as the CFC and the City building code requirements. Internal sprinkler systems, fire access man
doors, fire hose, and fire resistant materials will be implemented. No highly flammable and
combustible material shall be used or stored in the building. Driveways on the Project site
would be connected by a 30 to 35-foot-wide fire access route around the perimeter of the
proposed building. A total of six fire hydrants would be installed along this fire access road. The
road would be designed to accommodate emergency response vehicles (i.e., fire trucks). A 26-
foot-wide fire access route along the northern side of the building would allow for aerial
apparatus access. A fire service line would connect to a public water line, which would provide
water to the fire hydrants located around the site. These site improvements would reduce the
risk of fire spreading offsite. Therefore, the Project would not exacerbate potential wildfire risks
at the Project site, and this impact would be less than significant.
(c) Require installation or maintenance of infrastructure (No Impact)
The Project does not include infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risks, as all proposed
utility connections would be developed within previously developed areas of the site away from
large areas of vegetation. No new public roadways are proposed and the existing ingress and
egress from Dublin Boulevard to the Project site would be maintained. While electric
equipment would be removed and replaced with new equipment, it would be done so
according to PG&E specifications adhere to local and State regulations, which would be
reviewed by the City. Adherence to regulations would minimize any increase fire risks. For
these reasons, the installation or maintenance of infrastructure associated with the Project
would not exacerbate fire risk, and no impact would occur.
(d) Exposure to flooding or landslides (No Impact)
As discussed previously, the Project site is not within a State Responsibility Area or Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ); however, the area approximately 0.7 mile to the west is
within a SRA and designated by CAL FIRE as a moderate fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE
2023a, 2023b). There are no areas on or nearby the Project site that have recently had fires
that would result in post -fire slope instability.
As discussed in Section 8, "Hydrology and Water Quality," the proposed on -site stormwater
drainage system would be sufficient to detain and treat operational stormwater runoff
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 154
generated by the proposed Project, and would not result in upstream or downstream flooding
(see Question c for further discussion of drainage impacts). Project -related construction would
not be performed in, and no new development would be located in, the 100-year floodplain. In
addition, the Project site north of Dublin Creek has been previously graded to accommodate
the existing building and parking lots and is nearly flat. The elevation slopes gently from
approximately 388 feet in the west to 384 feet in the southeast and 380 feet in the northeast.
The Project site itself is not located in an Earthquake Zone of Required Investigation for
landslides (see Question a(iv), in Section 6, "Geology and Soils," for further discussion of
landslide potential). Therefore, the Project would not result in significant risks related to
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability,
or drainage changes, and no impact would occur.
Source(s)
CAL FIRE. See California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
City of Dublin. 2022 (February). City of Dublin General Plan. Safety Element Available:
https://www.dublin.ca.gov/171/General-Plan#Chapter%207. Accessed March 6, 2023.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2008 (June). Alameda County —Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Update. Available:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-prepa redness-and-
mitigation/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/. Accessed
March 6, 2023.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2022a. Strategic Fire Plan Santa Clara
Unit. Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/wmnnzObo/2022-fresno-kings-unit-fire-
plan.pdf. Accessed March 6, 2023.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2022b (November). Alameda County —
Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. Available:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-prepa redness-and-
mitigation/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/. Accessed
March 6, 2023.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2023a. Online Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Viewer. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. Available: http://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
Accessed February 28, 2023.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2023b. Online Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Viewer. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Available:
http://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed February 28, 2023.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
Mandatory Findings of Significance
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 155
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project:
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
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) Significant Impacts to Biological Resources or Important Examples of History or Prehistory
The Project could result in potentially significant impacts to biological, geology and soils
(paleontological), cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources.
Biological resources and paleontological resources would result in a less than significant impact
with mitigation and are further described in the Focused EIR.
Related to California history or prehistory and cultural resources, this Initial Study has identified
that the proposed project would have potentially significant impacts to cultural and tribal
cultural resources, as discussed above in Sections 5 and 18 respectively, due to the proposed
demolition of a potentially historic resource (the existing Hexcel building) and due to the high
potential for archaeological resources and possibly human burials to underlie the Project site.
Therefore, impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources are analyzed in a Focused EIR.
(b) Cumulative Impacts
Consideration of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the Project area and
vicinity indicate that, with the exception of cultural and tribal cultural resources (which are
analyzed in an EIR), impacts from implementation of the Project would not combine with
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Page 156
impacts from other projects to cause a significant cumulative impact and would not make a
considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
The Project would not have impacts to agriculture or forestry resources, land use and planning,
mineral resources, population and housing, public services, or recreational resources that
would combine with other projects. Cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetics, biological
resources, energy, geology, hazardous and hazardous materials, noise, hydrology and water
quality, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire would be less than significant.
However, such impacts would be limited to the Project area and, where necessary, mitigated
such that they would not substantially combine with other off -site impacts. Transportation, air
quality and GHG emissions could extend beyond the Project area to potentially combine with
impacts from other projects. However, the Project would decrease traffic from existing levels.
Cumulative impacts of the Project with other reasonably foreseeable projects and development
in relation to transportation have been taken into consideration in Section 16, Transportation
(see also Appendix E). For GHG emissions, the BAAQMD considered the emission levels at which
a project's individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable in developing its CEQA
significance thresholds. The BAAQMD considers projects that result in emissions that exceed its
CEQA significance thresholds to result in individual impacts that are cumulatively considerable
and significant. As discussed in Sections 3 and 7, the Project's emissions would be below the
BAAQMD cumulatively considerable thresholds.
Cumulative impacts of the Project for air quality, biological resources, cultural resources,
energy, hazardous materials, geology and soils (paleontological resources) and tribal resources
are further discussed in the Focused EIR.
(c) Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings
As described within this Initial Study, environmental impacts (including those that may have a
direct or indirect adverse effect on humans [i.e., air quality, noise, hazardous materials]) that
are associated with the proposed project would be either less than significant or could be
reduced to less than significant through implementation of project -specific mitigation measures
recommended in this document. Hazardous and hazardous materials and air quality emissions
could have an impact on human beings and are described in more detail in the Focused EIR. No
other adverse effects on human beings from the Project are anticipated.
Source(s)
None.
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Figures
Figures
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Figures
This page intentionally left blank
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Figures
BI ackhawk-Camino Tassajara
° Contra Costa County
Danville
s.
1T�` it
U7e eke_
aqe San Ramon
�� v
Castro Valley
Project
Location
Fairview Alameda County
0
• x
- Project Location
Union City
Dy
Pesch
4 ti Fremont
■ o
N Milrc
Figure 1. Project Location
z
5
ovC"pr.as pos;tas
� o
Pleasanton
Project
Location
CPAD2022
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
Cm*
Figure 2. Project Site
1,000
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Figures
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Figures
4Econn oafrfand c41/1./2G23 USER salf.Parfard ..iH•jnaaecomnetcol*fsl4MER1...aMusnaiso1\paSOcm1eca\calavo,leaa}wcsza55[.`rycfnud,Hetv1\02 n4apol02 kamxMaps Via µgrim a05-:a ulusaamxrcixe
A U
N
Feet
DUBLIN BOULEVARD
(R/w uRIES) (A PIIBIJC ROA➢) / '44/4 ' 'fici
■
Inc
LI�I LIILI�L1 I II II II II II I III u_
LI I 1 11IIh
Source: AECOM, 2022, Ear *Might, 2022
Figure 3. Site Plan
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Figures
Dublin Blvd. Elevation - North Elevation
Northwest Elevation
West Elevation
1
I
1
East Elevation New Public St. Elevation - East Elevation I
0 120
Feet
Source: AECOM, 2022:10er *Wriest, 2022
Figure 4. Elevations
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
N
12L�
Feet
Figure 5. Overall Floor Plan
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Figures
Source: AECOM, 2022; Igor 2022
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
jEl I ONO
Figure 6A. Landscape Plan
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Figures
Source: AECOM, 2022; Ear +Wrig+k 2022
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Figures
PLANT LIST
40,. NATIVE SYM NO, BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WATER REGIME MATURE HABIT
HMDRP4GNE H X W
1,05.15 N'SAaA7c., BemaT eAT 24. Box. e® L 35 x 20
r1SiAC la e.xEUHD4YET" cH14Eee PBT4241E J4'mXsre� sA'K4O'
L.YERSTROk IA 004144PE PEO' CRAPE M45145 x 1 .L x 15'
una naw'JA BI 414511 a2Y 4040 as x 5 L as x3o
MAT.. 45ETCGLI4 LpmcN TL4Na TREE 24 mk CR e� ry 10' k 5.
TGTAL I4 W1Eele 0 *19W 110ee rlmramev r 55
EVERGREEN SCREENING SHRUBS
O000MAYIsr�4 'T"4H
W BTRALLe£aRr
;Ili
O 4151£1kok5L£5 4Tm41.LIA 1Di0N
Nk 25 [E4(012045 15AY441,I1-1G4' ci 15140
GRASSES
N. 6 12 1A114.14.5 51A 5031IB
m 5T =IANO. L'LONLai'
5 Gal, L • :e m
5041L L 1r x B'PLAI1101cc
s GAL L G x a'' PLPNT S' GC
GAL
AIL. kk.5o15 I .w, L
L1E TIFF 1 GAL L
DROUGHT TOLERANT SHRUBS
0 le AC4GIAR DESERT OAFPET' - TPPTE ACACIA 5 GAL
024 N.64 'Li1L4CLL19• 011.14 6s501-IV6 5 GAL.
5 a4LW4 40)14e
H 4 20 MONO SPN SRSNO' =R£MER.' S 5 GAL
n 14E5EEa4L0E Palekl4L034 r1Eo n0CA B GAL.
1±4 51 aoen o. mac.. aLUE L OIOMr 5 mL
0 54 c4LI5T5M N LITi19 JOWJ' OUL e0T1L£ 6R464 S GAL
• NSA,. YAIa5GATA• d6AVF s G4L
N ® 0 Nocco ,fLLLR1 P noo8T4R cuYTm' 1344a PALrs6 6 GAL
N 4D 20 c5214.1N5•WINT 22e155. CA, LILAC 504L
VAT PLAN31CG
5'2,e' PLANTS'L
u 5'
5' 0.ANT5'De
4' k 4' PR4111. 4' Da
g 4' RANI 9' ca
PERENNIALS
.6 55 T UI.... A v. •nelr0Lae• 5oe1ETT S4RLIG 1 541_ L I' k 15•
Ih 1525551A LILPCNA 'O£ LUMINA' Yel®EIA IGAL L
n1 4 .2 .E.411.1.£A MomIrk.. r L
® RIPTEs v_ 'Y4RITT•4T4' TORT NG47 LILT I GAL L 3' k 3'
O 22 3,1NIA R LTLCp 4P1A TR4ILI1.GNNJIA 1 5, L T'N 5'
NOR£= 1m0T e4Rel£1ffi &TALL eE NSTALL2 WN£ E 11B55 ARE W1THM Itl' cP0ANMFNT.
MULCHES
BARK MI2.14-ALL PLANTERS NOT DESIGNATED FOR 50D
ORANIC RECYCLED CHIPPED WD00 MULCH- PLACE 9" NON DEPTH
112'- 3' LENGTH DECOP-ATIN0 COLOR DARK DROWN OR E0U4L
NO V19IELE CONTAMINANTS PLACE 3' MN. DEPTH OF HARK IN ALL PLANT DAMNS
ALL 11-114L0H AND coMP05T USED 11.0HE c 104414L LANDSCAPE AREAS AND ,ANT
010-TREAHENT AREAS SHALL MEET Se 1952 PROCUREMENT REOWREMENTS. UPDATED
LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEETS THAT SPECIFY MULCH AND C011PO911HAT MEET 651353
� RIFT THE FURCSE STANDARDS WILL ISE P1,21 0 AND co1Ppo9TR PERMIT E FRcht �4 9U�L�0 THAN WILL
INDICATES SD 1365 COMPLIANCE FOR EACH PRODUCT.
6MFLEE WLER FOR APPAL FRIOR1SHALL DE o E10L1410T TED To THE
TO THE SITE
CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP AND MAINTAIN A COPT OF Al RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE
PROCUREMENT OF 55 1359 COMPLIANT COMPOST AND MULCH. CONTRACTOR SHALL
FRONIDE TO THE FURLIG GORK6 4EP4R0MENT REAORpe, INDIGA-15C THE TOTAL GOMp06T
AND MULCH Pp GURE0 vle USED, THE DUANTITT OF .o1-1P09T (T0J9 aR 0µ010 TARD8)
AND MULCH fTONEJ PROCURED FROM EACH PACILITT OR ENTITY, FACILITY OR VENDOR
INFORMATION MAME OF FACILITY, ADDRESS, CONTACT INFORMATION), A GENERAL
DESGRI4TION GE HOW THE l42-Il05T 44D/012MULCH 2115.6116E2, 41,10 WHERE A01-pOST AND
MULO4111AS USED, AND INvolcLt OE1-loNsTR4TING FR0c1100MENr
BIO-RETENTION PLANTING
DID -RETENTION NATIVE GRASS TO 5E 'S122-FILT0ATIOW Sao" AS AYAILASLE
f M DELTA 131_UE612v GO_-oR PEAL, 400 sNALL ae 51,20vy{ IN p SpNvf W.55 TOPSOIL.
TEMPORARY IRRIGATION TO BE PROY1004 FOR 0STABLISHMLTIT. 500 SHALL EC LAID MITH A
MINIMUM QF IS. OVERLAP 5115440 N ADJACENT ENDS AND SHALL BE LAID 50RZONTA4PARALLEL TO ANY
SLOPE SOD SHALL BE LAID TIGHT TO HEADER AND OR AvaRoENT PAXENENT, THE MINIMUM
DIMFNSION OF ANY COT PIECE SHALL SF 101
E4IST154 LANDSCAPE AREA TO REMAIN
THE LANDSCAPE coRTR4CTOR SHALL FIELD PLACE
PLANTS AROUND AI3ovE cmoUND UTILITIES TO Scr4EN
UTILITIES FROM PUBLIC STREETS AND PARKING AREAS
PLANTIILDF,PLACEMENT FLAN) AND CONSTRUCTION 0RUIC 1111Ol IXNF pi_ANTl0Y0-0A4PE-s45
00111ACTFLANDSCAPILIIOr E ARCHITECT IF PL 022L11RE® CLARIFICATION.
LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS;
TOTAL P4RKING AREA • 54,515 SE
PARKIN= AREA NUJ -VLSI -IL FOLLOWIFk.
LPAVEME•IT INCLUp2IG ISLANDS, STALLS, AISLES AND ACCESS 1712VE6
2. ADJACENT BUILDING FRONTAGE LANDSCAPE AREA INC. WALKS
PARKING AREA L.511115C4FE REOWRED • I244TT 4F- r15% OF PARKING AREA/
PARCINka AF'•EA LANDSCAPE PROVIDED = 145PD Sl=. (IT =)
NO. OF STANDARD PARKING SPACES • 211
TREES REDWRED = 55 (I/4 SPACES)
TREES FRONDED • 55
TOTAL SPE LANDSCAPE: 99,106 SF.
LANDSCAPE BY AREA
PARKING. AREA. 14550 BE 11401
511E PERIMETER 1NEW),1s306 9F. (13A)
DOI LDN1 FACADE NOT ING IN PARKING) Sys SF. f149,
HMO -RETENTION, 13996 5F. (101
EXISTING TO REMAIN. 45150 SF_(490)
WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
AUTOMATIC CONTROLLER W/ ET DATA REPEAT CYCLING
IRRIGATILTN ZONES PER PLANT WATER REQUIREMENTS
RAIN SENSOR TO DE SPECIFIED
SOIL AMENDMENTS TO 00 NicCR.OR4TED
FL4NT€R s1RF4c1 4046 To IDE rh11,4+EP
WATER USA0E. TO NEST STATE WATER EFF1c10.11 L4ND9cAPE STANDARD
Source: AECOM, 2D22, Ear a IWigJ94 2022
Figure 6B. Landscape Plan Details
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Figures
A 0
N
Feet
180
IRE ACCESS ROUTE
Source: AECOM, 2022, !Ger t Wrig 12022
Figure 7. Fire Access Route
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Figures
Worst -Case Noise Sensitive
Receiver
Long-term Noise Monitoring
Location
Short-term Noise Monitoring
Location
Project Boundary
Proposed Faclity Building 77
N
Figure 8. Proposed Project Area, Noise Monitoring Locations and Worst -Case Noise -Sensitive Receptors
Source Gaggle 2023
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Figures
Figure 9. Distribution of Modeled Noise Sources Assumed for Project Operations
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
Figure 10. Perspective 1
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Figures
Source AECOM, 2022,, Kler+Wrlgm, 2022
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
This page intentionally left blank
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Initial Study I Figures
Source: AECOO; 2022; tier * Wright, 2022
Figure 11. Perspective 2
Hexcel - Initial Study_7_26_23_Clean_Final.docx (7/26/23)
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix B: Notice of Preparation and
Scoping Comments
This page intentionally left blank
DUBLIN
CALIFORNIA
Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
Date
To
Project Title
Project Application
Number
Project Location
Project Applicant
Contact — For
questions or
submitting
comments.
May 15, 2023
Responsible and Trustee Agencies (see Distribution List, attached)
Office of Planning and Research
Hexcel Redevelopment Project
PLPA-2022-00038
The project site is located at 11711 Dublin Boulevard (APN# 941-
1560-009-01 and 941-1560-003-04) in the City of Dublin, CA.
Dublin Boulevard Owner, LP
Gaspare Annibale
Associate Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Phone: 925/833-6610
Gaspare.Annibale@dublin.ca.gov
The City of Dublin will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a focused environmental impact
report (EIR) for the project identified above. We are requesting the views of your agency as to
the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's
statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use
the EIR when considering your permit or other approval for the project.
The purpose of an EIR is to inform decision -makers and the general public of the environmental
effects of a proposed project that an agency may implement or approve. The EIR process is
intended to provide information sufficient to evaluate a project and its potential for significant
impacts on the environment, to examine methods of reducing adverse impacts, and to consider
alternatives to the project.
According to State law, the deadline for your response to this Notice of Preparation is 30 days
after receipt of this notice, on or before June 15; however, we would appreciate an earlier
response, if possible. Please identify a contact person, and send your response to the contact
name above.
NOP for Hexcel EIR_Final_5_8_2023.docx (5/15/2023)
City of Dublin Project Summary and Probably Environmental Effects
Hexcel Redevelopment Project 1 Page 2
Project Description
Dublin Boulevard Owner, LP is proposing to construct a new 125,304 square foot building on
the 8.81-acre project site located at 11711 Dublin Boulevard in the City of Dublin, Alameda
County, California. The project site is composed of two parcels (Assessor Parcel Numbers [APN]
941-1560-009-01 [Parcel 1] and 941-1560-003-04 [Parcel 2]) with an existing 62,715 square foot
building on Parcel 1. The existing Hexcel research and development (R&D) building would be
demolished and replaced with the proposed building. The proposed building would cater to
future tenants in the R&D and life sciences field. Other site improvements would include
landscaping; parking; a fire access road; circulation improvements for truck access and loading
and unloading materials; utilities; pavement and grading to treat site drainage.
The City would require the applicant to obtain the following approvals and permits: approval of
a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; Site
Development Review Permit; Heritage Tree Removal Permit; and demolition, building, grading,
and encroachment permits.
CEQA Procedural Matters
1. A copy of the Initial Study is ❑ is not 0 attached.
2. The proposed project is ❑ is not Z considered a project of statewide, regional, or area
wide significance.
3. The proposed project will ❑ will not 0 affect highways or other facilities under the
jurisdiction of the State Department of Transportation.
4. A scoping meeting will 0 will not ❑ be held. The scoping meeting will be held on May 25,
2023 at 7:00 PM via Zoom:
https://dublinca.zoom.us/j/82819595305?pwd=en Bvczd4WDE4cFhCQ2hvQndSMWZ3QT0
9.
Probable Environmental Effects
The Draft EIR for the proposed project will be prepared and processed in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended. In accordance with the
requirements of CEQA, the EIR will include the following:
■ A summary of the project;
■ A project description;
■ A description of the existing environmental setting, potential environmental impacts, and
mitigation measures;
■ Alternatives to the project as proposed; and
■ Environmental consequences, including (a) any significant environmental effects which
cannot be avoided if the project is implemented; (b) any significant irreversible and
irretrievable commitments of resources; (c) the growth inducing impacts of the proposed
project; (d) effects found not to be significant; and (e) cumulative impacts.
NOP for Hexcel EIR_Final_5_8_2023.docx (5/15/2023)
City of Dublin Project Summary and Probably Environmental Effects
Hexcel Redevelopment Project 1 Page 3
The City has prepared a draft Initial Study, and City staff have determined that the project may
have potentially significant effects on the environment in several resource areas. Impacts
related to the following resource topics were found to be potentially significant but could be
reduced to Less than Significant with Mitigation: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Energy,
Geology and Soils, and Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Due to the age and history of the
building to be demolished, and the proximity of the adjacent cemetery, initial research
indicates that impacts relating to Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources could be
potentially significant and further analysis is required to determine if these impacts could be
mitigated to a less than significant level or if they would be significant and unavoidable. In
accordance with Section 15063(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City intends to focus the EIR
on Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, and those resource topics that can be reduced
to Less than Significant with Mitigation only and rely on the analysis within the Initial Study for
all other environmental topics.
CITY OF DUBLIN
Gaspare Annibale
Associate Planner
NOP for Hexcel EIR_Final_5_8_2023.docx (5/15/2023)
THE CITY OF
pLEASANTON.
June 12, 2023
Gaspare Annibale
Associate Planner
City of Dublin Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Via Email:
Gaspare.Annibale@dublin.ca.gov
RE: Hexcel Redevelopment Project/PLPA-2022-00038
Dear Mr. Annibale:
Thank you for the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Case No.
PLPA-2022-00038 dated "Received May 24, 2023" by the City of Pleasanton Planning Division
(Pleasanton). The project would demolish an existing 62,715 square -foot building and construct
a new 125,304 square -foot building with 217 parking stalls and related site improvements on the
8.81-acre site located at 11711 Dublin Boulevard.
Pleasanton staff reviewed the notice and information included in the notice as well as those
posted on Dublin's website. The notice stated a draft Initial Study (IS) was prepared and
identified a number of items that could have potential significant impacts. However, the IS was
not made available for public review. And additionally, transportation was not among the listed
items that could have potentially significant impacts.
Pleasanton staff would like to review the prepared IS for this project. Additionally, staff requests
the review of the draft EIR when it is available. Thank you for the referral and we look forward to
working with Dublin in identifying transportation impacts and mitigations. If you have any
questions, I can be reached at: jsoo@cityofpleasantonca.gov
Sincerely,
Jenny Soo
Associate Planner
Electronic cc:
Mike Tassano, Traffic Engineer
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
P. O. BOX 520 • 200 Old Bernal Avenue
www.cityofpleasantonca.gov Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802
Planning Building & Safety Code Enforcement Permit Center Traffic Engineering
(925) 931-5600 (925) 931-5300 (925) 931-5620 (925) 931-5630 (925) 931-5677
Fax: 931-5483 Fax: 931-5478 Fax: 931-5478 Fax: 931-5478 Fax: 931-5487
CHAIRPERSON
Lqura Miranda
Luise,lo
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Chlone-Cosfonoan
COMMISSIONER
Bully McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki.
Nomtaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseno
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodrlguex
Kurneypgy
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C,
Hitchcock
M iwok, Nisenan
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
Colifornia 95691
{916) 373-3710
nDhc' nahc.cc .aalr
NAHC.ca.gov
SYATE OF CALIFORNIA
_GILVICLIIPW;Orrk nnYP/lief
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
May 18.2023
Gaspare Annibale
City of Dublin Community Development ❑epartment
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: 2023050372, Hexcel Redevelopment Project, Alameda County
Dear Mr. Annibale:
ECEINE
MAY 2 2 2023
CiTY OF DUBLIN
BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has received the Notice of Preparation
(NOP), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or Early Consultation for the project
referenced above. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub, Resources Code
§21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code §21084.1, states that a project that may
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, is a project that
may hove a significant effect on the environment_ (Pub, Resources Code § 21084.1; Cal. Code
Begs., tit. I4, § 15064.5 (b) (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5 (b)). If there is substantial evidence, in
light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect an
the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be prepared. (Pub. Resources
Code § 21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 5064 subd. (a) (1) (CEQA Guidelines § 15064 (o) ( I )).
In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are
historical resources within the area of potential effect (APE).
CEQA was amended significantly in 2014. Assembly Bill 52 (Gallo. Chapter 532, Statutes of
2014) (AB 52) amended CEQA to create a separate category of cultural resources, "tribal
cultural resources" (Pub. Resources Code §21074) and provides that a project with an effect
that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is
a project that may have a significant effect an the environment. (Pub. Resources Code
§21084.2). Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural
resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)). AB 52 applies to any protect for which a notice
of preparation, a notice of negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration Is filed on
or after July 1, 2015. If your project involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or
a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space, on or after March 1,
2005, It may also be subject to Senate Bill i8 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) (SB 18).
Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements. If your project is also subject to the
federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal
consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (154
U.S.C. 300101, 36 C.F.R. §800 et seq.) may also apply.
The NAHC recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early
as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and
best protect tribal cultural resources. Below is a brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as
well as the NAHC's recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments.
Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and 58 18 as well as compliance with
any other applicable laws.
AB 52
Page 1 of 5
AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements:
1. Fourteen Day Period to Provide Notice of Completion of an Application/Decision to Undertake a Project:
Within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public
agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or
tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have
requested notice, to be accomplished by at least one written notice that includes:
a. A brief description of the project.
b. The lead agency contact information.
c. Notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation. (Pub.
Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d)).
d. A "California Native American tribe" is defined as a Native American tribe located in California that is
on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of Statutes of 2004 (SB 18).
(Pub. Resources Code §21073).
2. Begin Consultation Within 30 Days of Receiving a Tribe's Request for Consultation and Before Releasing a
Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report: A lead agency shall
begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native
American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.
(Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1, subds. (d) and (e)) and prior to the release of a negative declaration,
mitigated negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1(b)).
a. For purposes of AB 52, "consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code §65352.4
(SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1 (b)).
3. Mandatory Topics of Consultation If Requested by a Tribe: The following topics of consultation, if a tribe
requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation:
a. Alternatives to the project.
b. Recommended mitigation measures.
c. Significant effects. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).
4. Discretionary Topics of Consultation: The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation:
a. Type of environmental review necessary.
b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources.
c. Significance of the project's impacts on tribal cultural resources.
d. If necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe
may recommend to the lead agency. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).
5. Confidentiality of Information Submitted by a Tribe During the Environmental Review Process: With some
exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural
resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be
included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency
to the public, consistent with Government Code §6254 (r) and §6254.10. Any information submitted by a
California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a
confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in
writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (c)(1)).
6. Discussion of Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources in the Environmental Document: If a project may have a
significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency's environmental document shall discuss both of
the following:
a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource.
b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed
to pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on
the identified tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (b)).
Page 2 of 5
7. Conclusion of Consultation: Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the
following occurs:
a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on
a tribal cultural resource; or
b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot
be reached. (Pub, Resources Code §21080.3.2 (b)).
B. Recommendina Mitiaation Measures Aareed Upon in Consultation in the Environmental Doctor n1 Any
mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080,3.2
shall be recommended for Inclusion In the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring
and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3,
subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (a}}.
9. Required Consideration of Feasible Mitigclfiort: If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the Ieoid
agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document ar if there are no
agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if
substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the
lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant is Public Resources Code §21084.3 (b), (Pub, Resources
Code §21082.3 (e)),
10. Exorreel s of Mitigation Measures That, If Feasible, Mav Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse
Imttcts to Tribal Cultural Resources:
a. Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to:
i. Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural
context.
ii. Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally
appropriate protection and management criteria.
b. Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values
and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
i. Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource.
11. Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
ifi. Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
c. Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate
management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places.
d. Protecting the resource. (Pub. Resource Code §21084.3 (b)),
e. Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non -federally
recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect
a California prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place moy acquire and hold
conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed. (Clv. Code §815.3 (c)).
f. Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grove
artifacts shall be repatriated. (Pub. Resources Code §5097,991).
11. Prerequisites for Certifying an Environmental Impact Report or Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration or
Negative Declaration with o Significant Impact on an Identified Tribal Cultural Resource: An Environmental
Impact Report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be
adopted unless one of the following occurs:
a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public
Resources Code §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code
§ 21080.3.2.
b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise
failed to engage in the consultation process.
c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources
Code §21080,3.1 (el} and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days, (Pub. Resources Code
§21082.3 (d)),
The NAHC's PowerPoint presentation tilled, "Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices" may
be found online at: hl1://nohc.ca.govjwp=conteoJu lads/20I5/101AB52fribalConsultation CaIEPAPDF,pdf
Page 3 of 5
S8 18
SB 18 applies to local governments and requires local governments to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and
consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of
open space. (Gov. Code § 65352,3), Local governments should consult the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research's "Tribal Consultation Guidelines," which can be found online at:
i'itDj.(1www,00r_ca_gov/dccs/09 14 95 Uodated Guidelines 922,0df.
Some of SB 18's provisions include:
1. Tribal Consultation; If a local government considers a proposal to adopt ar amend a general plan or a
specific plan, ar to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC
by requesting a "Tribal Consultation List," If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government
must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to
request consultation unless a shorter timetrcme has been agreed to by the tribe. (Gov. Code §65352.3
(a){2)).
2. No Staf tory Time Limit on B 18 Tribal Conss.rltation. There Is no statutory tirne limit on SB 18 tribal consultation.
3. Ccnficlentictlity: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and
Research pursuant to Gay. Code §65040.2, the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information
concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public
Resources Code §5097.9 and §5097.993 that are within the city's or county's jurisdiction. (Gov. Code §65352.3
(b) )
4. Conclusion at SB 18 Tribal Consultation: Consultation Should be concluded at the point in which:
a, The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures
for preservation or mitigation; or
b, Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes
that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or
mitigation. (Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor's Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18).
Agencies should be aware that neither A B 52 nor SB 18 precludes agencies from initiating tribal consultation with
tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52 and
SB 18. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Contact Lists and "Sacred Lands
File" searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: htto://nahc.ca.govlresourceslforrnsl.
NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments
To adequately assess the existence and significance of tribal cultural resources and plan for avoidance, preservation
in place, or barring both, mitigation of project -related impacts to tribal cultural resources, the NAHC recommends
the following actions:
1. Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRiS) Center
(https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30331) for an archaeological records search. The records search will
determine:
a. If part or all of the APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources.
b. If any known cultural resources have already been recorded on ar adjacent to the APE.
e. If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE,
d. If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.
2, If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report
detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey_
a. The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted
immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American
human remains, and associated funerary objects should be In a separate confidential addendum and
not be made available for public disclosure.
b. The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the
appropriate regional CHRIS center.
Pogo 4 of 5
3. Contact the NAHC for:
a. A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the
Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for
consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the
project's APE.
b. A Native American Tribal Consultation List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the
project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation
measures.
4. Remember that the lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources)
does not preclude their subsurface existence.
a. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plan provisions for
the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources per Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 14, § 15064.5(f) (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(f)). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a
certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources
should monitor all ground -disturbing activities.
b. Lead agencies should Include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions
for the disposition of recovered cultural items that pre not burial associated in consultation with culturally
affiliated Native Americans.
c. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions
for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health
and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064.5,
subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5, subds. (d) and (e)) address the processes to be
followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and
associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address:
Codv.Campaane@nahc.ca.aov
Sincerely,
CeLmearz
Cody Campagne
Cultural Resources Analyst
cc: State Clearinghouse
Page 5 of 5
WATER AGENCY
Delivering Quality, Reliability and Safety
June 15, 2023
Gaspare Annibale, Associate Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Sent by email: Gaspare.Annibale@dublin.ca.gov
100 North Canyons Parkway
Livermore, CA 94551
(925) 454-5000
Re: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report — Hexcel
Redevelopment Project
Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7, or Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District) has reviewed the referenced document in the context of Zone 7's mission
to "Deliver safe, reliable, efficient, and sustainable water and flood protection services" within
the Livermore-Amador Valley. Below are our comments for your consideration.
1. Water Supply — The EIR should clearly describe the source of potable water supply
and evaluate the planned water use in the context of existing planning documents.
2. Wells - Our records indicate that there is one lost well (3S1W02K001) and one
destroyed well (3S1W02K012) in the project area. Exact locations of wells are unknown.
Please immediately notify Zone 7 if 3S1W02K001 is located or any other wells exist in
the project area. If located, well 3S1W02K001 must be permitted by Zone 7 for
destruction. Also, please be advised that a Zone 7 drilling permit is needed for any water
well or soil boring work that may be planned for this project. The drilling permit
application and permit fee schedule can be downloaded from our website:
https://www.zone7water.com/post/well-drilling-and-soil-boring-permits. For additional
information please email wellpermits@zone7water.com.
3. Groundwater Basin - Note that the subject property (or project) is located within the
basin area under sustainable groundwater management by Zone 7 as per the Alternative
Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin
(https: //www. zone7water. co m/sites/main/files/fi le-
zone7water.com
WATER AGENCY
Delivering Quality, Reliability and Safety
attachments/alt gw sustainability plan-4.pdf?1656015908 ) and is subject to all
relevant sustainable groundwater management actions.
4. Flood Protection / Channel ownership - The proposed project is adjacent to Dublin
Creek (Line T), which is not owned or maintained by Zone 7. Zone 7 owns and
maintains the section of Line T, east of San Ramon Road, which is downstream of the
project. Based on real property information, the parcel owner is responsible for the
reach of Dublin Creek.
5. Flood Protection / Impervious areas - Developments creating new impervious
areas within the Livermore-Amador Valley are subject to the assessment of the
Development Impact Fee for Flood Protection and Storm Water Drainage. These fees
are collected for Zone 7 by the local governing agency: 1) upon approval of final map
for public improvements creating new impervious areas; and/or 2) upon issuance of a
building or use permit required for site improvements creating new impervious areas.
Fees are dependent on whether post -project impervious area conditions are greater
than pre -project conditions.
6. Water -wise Landscaping - Zone 7 encourages the use of sustainable, climate -
appropriate, and drought -tolerant plants, trees and grasses that thrive in the Tri-Valley
area. Find more information at: http://www.trivalleywaterwise.com.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions on this
letter, please feel free to contact me at (925) 454-5005 or via email at erank@zone7water.com.
Sincerely,
5-liaa gA/K)/Z
Elke Rank
cc: Ken Minn, file
Page 2
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix C: Historical Resources
Evaluation
This page intentionally left blank
AECOM
To:
Gaspare Annibale, Associate Planner, City of Dublin
From:
Heather Miller, MA, Architectural Historian, AECOM
Trina Meiser, MA, Historic Preservation Planner, AECOM
Stephanie Osby, Environmental Planner/Project Manager, AECOM
Project Name:
11711 Dublin Boulevard Historical Resouce Evaluation
Date:
May 12, 2023
150 California Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94111
aecom.com
FINAL Technical Memorandum -11711 Dublin Boulevard Historical
Resource Evaluation
Introduction
AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) holds an on -call master services agreement with the City of
Dublin (City) for environmental analysis services, dated July 1, 2021. The City requested AECOM to
prepare a historical resource evaluation of the Hexcel Corporation's 1960s-constructed research and
development facility at 11711 Dublin Boulevard. The facility was previously recorded on Department of
Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and evaluated for eligibility for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) in 2003, but at that
time the property was less than 50 years old and not considered a potential historical resource under
CEQA. Additionally, the 2003 historic evaluation (VerPlanck 2003) did not address the four eligibility
criteria for either the NRHP or the CRHR, but merely concluded that the property lacked architectural or
historical significance to be eligible.
This technical memo describes the current condition of the facility with recent photographs, provides a
historical context of the use of the facility and physical development of the facility over time, and
evaluates the facility for eligibility for listing in the CRHR as a potential historical resource for the
purposes of CEQA.
Facility Description
The Hexcel Corporation's R&D facility at 11711 Dublin Boulevard is sited at the south side of the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Hansen Drive in Dublin. The 62,715-square foot facility is on an
8.81-acre, triangular -shaped parcel, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 941-1560-009-01 (see
Attachment - Location Map). The Contemporary/Brutalist style facility has a roughly L-shaped plan and
was largely constructed in two phases dating to 1962 and 1967, with small additions and alterations in
the mid-1980s.
The original 1962 portion of the facility is on the east half, has a roughly rectangular plan, and is
constructed of tilt -up concrete panels in a north -south orientation (Photograph 1). The north end of the
building rests on a concrete foundation and is one story tall. The exterior is clad with scored concrete,
and the flat roof parapet is lined with a louvered metal equipment screen. Primary entry into this section
is through a single, aluminum -framed glass door with a fixed transom above and full -height fixed
windows. The door is accessed by a low concrete ramp and is protected by a wood -frame, flat roof porch
shelter enclosed with vertically oriented, narrow wood slats. A privacy screen using the same vertically
1
oriented, narrow wood slats lines the west side of the east half of the facility and terminates near the
secondary entry, which consists of a pair of glazed, metal double doors (Photograph 1 and Photograph
2). The privacy screen obscures two pairs of glass double doors and a pair of flush metal double doors.
Photograph 1: Northeast corner of building complex showing the 1962-constructed portion, facing
southwest, December 16, 2022. Note this is the original 1962-constructed section of the complex.
Photograph 2: West side of original 1962-construction section of the complex and primary entry on far
right, facing southeast, December 16, 2022.
2
A two-story building hyphen built in 1984 connects the 1962-constructed east half with the 1967-
constructed west half (Photograph 2 and Photograph 3). The hyphen has a flat roof and is clad with
scored concrete (Photograph 4). Entry is gained through a pair of glazed metal doors with a transom
above. A similar entry onto a second -story balcony is located directly above. Fenestration in the building
hyphen consists of full -height, fixed windows with black anodized frames.
The 1967-constructed portion of the facility abuts the west side of the two-story building hyphen. This
single -story building section has a T-shaped plan and an east -west orientation (Photograph 3). The
building is characterized by a flat roof with deep eaves and fascia that is supported by repeating narrow,
concrete pylons with wood sheathing on all sides (Photograph 3 and Photograph 5). It includes full -
height, tinted fixed windows with black anodized frames. Primary entry into this section and the main
entrance to the entire facility is through a pair of glass double doors with black anodized frames on the
east end of the north -facing facade (Photograph 4).
Photograph 3: North side of building complex, with two-story building hyphen on left, facing southeast,
December 16, 2022.
Photograph 4: Detail of north side of the building complex with two-story hyphen on left. Note the recessed
window near the center of the frame faces an interior courtyard (see Photographs 15 and 16), facing south,
December 16, 2022.
3
A secondary entry is through a pair of glass double doors with black anodized frames on the east end of
the south side (Photograph 6).
Photograph 5: Overview of west and south sides of building complex, facing northeast, December 16, 2022.
Photograph 6: Detail of entry on south side, facing north, December 16, 2022.
Like the north side of the facility, a two-story building hyphen built in 1984 connects the 1982constructed east half of the building and the 1967-constructed west half of the building. It also features
-
4
similar entry configurations on the first- and second stories (Photograph 7). East of the building hyphen
is the south end of the 1962 portion of the facility that is accessed by a roll up door (Photograph 8).
Photograph 7: Detail of entrances in two-story building hyphen on south side, facing north. Note the
window at the center of the frame faces an interior courtyard (see Photograph 16).
Photograph 8: Two-story office section (on left) and overhead entry door into laboratory section (on right)
on south side, facing north, December 16, 2022.
A single -story chemical storage addition, constructed in 1985, is at the southeast corner of the facility.
The addition has a square plan, a flat roof, with scored panel lines in the concrete exterior (Error!
Reference source not found.). Primary entry is gained through a pair of flush metal double doors on the
5
west side. A small, corrugated metal shed roof addition that was constructed between 1993 and 2002 is
on the west side. Projecting boxed eaves are on the south and east sides above chain -link wall sections
with integrated entry doors (Photograph 10). A single metal entry door is on the north end of the east
side of the addition and protected by a cantilevered metal awning that is affixed to the addition and the
1962 portion of the facility (Photograph 11).
Photograph 9: Southeast corner of building complex, facing northeast, December 16, 2022. Note this
section was added in 1985.
Photograph 10: Overview of south and east sides of building complex, facing northwest, December 16,
2022.
6
An overhead roll -up door is centrally located on the east side of the facility, and two glass double doors
are in the north end of the south side, all located in the 1962 portion of the facility (Photograph 11 and
Photograph 12).
Photograph 11: South end of the east side of building complex, facing northwest, December 16, 2022. Note
most of this side consists of the original 1962-constructed section.
Photograph 12: North end of the east side of building complex, facing south December 16, 2022. Note most
of this side consists of the original 1962-constructed section.
The facility contains three open-air courtyards. The east courtyard is in the 1962 portion of the facility. It
is accessed from inside the building on the north and south ends through aluminum -frame glass double
doors set into fixed window surrounds (Photograph 13 and Photograph 14). Ribbon windows line the
entire length of the west side of the courtyard and three-quarters of the length of the east side. Two
wood benches are sited on the north end of the courtyard. A variety of mature trees and shrubs are
planted in the ground, including Bird of Paradise, Pygmy Palm, Foxtail Fern, Olive, Ivy, Japanese Aralia,
and Oleander. Most of the courtyard is paved with concrete.
Photograph 13: Southern entry into the east courtyard, facing north, December 16, 2022.
Photograph 14: Northern entry into the east courtyard, facing northeast, December 16, 2022.
8
The central courtyard lines the west side of the two-story building hyphen. It was originally larger, but
was encroached upon with the two-story building hyphen addition. This courtyard is visible from inside
the building along two hallways that connect the 1967 building section to the 1984 building hyphen.
Access into the central courtyard is on the south end through an anodized metal -frame glass door set
into fixed window surrounds (Photograph 15). Full -height fixed windows line the north side of the central
courtyard (Photograph 16). Plantings consist of several varieties of ferns of shrubs. A concrete walkway
and repeating narrow, concrete pylons with wood sheathing line the west side of the courtyard.
Photograph 15: Southern entry into central courtyard, facing north, December 16, 2022.
9
Photograph 16: Northern end of central courtyard, facing south, December 16, 2022.
The west courtyard is in the 1967 portion of the facility. It is accessed from inside the building on the
north end through flush double doors set into fixed window surrounds (Photograph 17). Offices with full -
height, tinted fixed windows with black anodized frames and repeating narrow, concrete pylons with
wood sheathing line the west and east sides of the courtyard (Photograph 18). A small water feature is
sited near the center of the courtyard with a concrete pagoda. Plantings consist of several matures trees,
a few shrubs, and two potted trees. Several rocks of various sizes have been placed adjacent to and
north of the water feature. Dry -laid brick largely covers the courtyard floor with concrete around the
perimeter.
10
Photograph 17: Northern entry into west courtyard, facing south, December 16, 2022.
Photograph 18: Overview of west courtyard, facing southwest, December 16, 2022.
Property Development
In October 1961, Royal Research Corporation (Royal Research), a scientific research and development
enterprise, purchased 13 acres of undeveloped, agricultural -zoned land between Dublin Boulevard and
Highway 50 from William T. and Alice K. Marsh. That same month Alameda County approved Royal
Research's request to rezone the property into a special industrial zone to build a new research and
development facility. At the time, Dublin was a small agricultural community with one school and one
church, but a new 9,500-home development called San Ramon Village was underway on the north side
of town. Royal Research surveyed the entire county to select a site to build their facility and chose this
property because of the somewhat remote location. The company was already leasing a small office
across the street at 11824 Dublin Avenue and were relying on the budding labor pool of new San Ramon
Village residents (Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. 1994 July 1: Appendix A; Oakland Tribune 1960 September 4;
Oakland Tribune 1961 October 27; Oakland Tribune 1960 August 7).
In 1962, Royal Research which manufactured enclosures for safe handling of radioactive and hazardous
materials, commissioned construction of a 25,000-square-foot research and development facility on the
subject property (Plate 1 and Plate 2). The building housed offices and small laboratory spaces with a
central courtyard in the north end, and the main laboratory area in the taller south end. Construction of
the facility totaled nearly $350,000 with an additional $350,000 for equipment and was completed by the
end of the year (Stockton Daily Evening Record 1962 July 31; Daily Review 1962 August 22).
Plate 1: 1962 architectural rendering of the Royal Research Corporation building, which is the east half of
the extant facility. Note the east courtyard is in the building section in the foreground (Source: Daily Review
1962 August 22).
Royal Research continued to occupy the facility until 1966 when it was sold to Hexcel Products, Inc.
(Hexcel). Based in Berkeley, Hexcel was the largest developer and manufacturer of honeycomb, a
structural material used in a number of applications, primarily associated with the aeronautics and
aerospace industries. When looking to relocate from Berkeley, the executives at Hexcel sought a site
somewhere between Carquinez Strait and Palo Alto, preferably near a college campus to draw from a
technical labor pool for research and development, with the former Royal Research facility fitting its
needs. Soon after the purchase, Hexcel announced a million -dollar, 20,000-square foot expansion of the
research and development facility with a new administrative headquarters designed by San Francisco
architecture firm Lackey, Knorr, Elliott & Associates. Hexcel closed their headquarters in Berkeley and
relocated to Dublin and moved their manufacturing plants in Berkeley and Oakland to plants in Arizona,
12
Texas, and Maryland (Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. 1994 July 1: Appendix A; Oakland Tribune 1966 May 18;
Oakland Tribune 1967 November 12; San Francisco Examiner 1966 May 18; Contra Costa Times 1967
February 24).
Plate 2: 1965 photograph showing the original 1962-constructed building with the visible courtyard (now
the east courtyard) (Source: UCSB 1965).
Hexcel's new headquarters addition, completed in early 1967, housed the engineering, marketing,
finance and general administrative staff. The original 1962 section was utilized as laboratory space for
further research and development (Plate 3). Hexcel president William S. Powell understood that technical
employees were in great demand and wanted to entice new hires, so the building design included full -
height tinted glass windows, courtyards, enclosed breezeways, and patios to provide outdoor views
along with comfortable, carpeted workspaces, air conditioning, and taped music piped through an
internal speaker system (Plate 4 and Plate 5) (Contra Costa Times 1967 March 26; Contra Costa Times
1967 February 24; Oakland Tribune 1967 November 12).
The Hexcel facility remained the same until the 1980s. In 1984 construction of a two-story hyphen
connected the 1962 and 1967 buildings, resulting in a central courtyard. A small lab and chemical
storage addition was constructed at the southeast corner of the facility the following year (Oakland
Tribune 1984 May 16; Oakland Tribune 1984 July 11; Oakland Tribune 1985 November 13).
13
Plate 3: 1967 architectural rendering of the Hexcel addition with the 1962 building section on the far left.
The arrow on the left indicates the location of the central courtyard prior to enclosure and the arrow on the
right indicates the location of the west courtyard (Source: Contra Costa Times 1967 March 26).
Plate 4: 1967 photograph with view of west courtyard from office along the east side. Note the border of the
courtyard water feature on the far right and original Irish moss planted as ground cover (Source: Oakland
Tribune 1967 November 12).
14
Plate 5: 1967 photograph of a patio area with privacy screens added at northwest corner of the 1962
building section during the 1967 facility expansion. Note the privacy screens and signage are no longer
extant (Source: Oakland Tribune 1967 November 12).
Royal Research Corporation
Royal Research Corporation, originally called Dublin Industries, was founded in Berkeley in 1959 by
former Lawrence Radiation Laboratory staff (now known as the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory).
The company focused on producing custom-made mechanical devices to handle radioactive materials.
General Electric served as their primary customer for handling material at the Vallecitos Atomic
Laboratory in nearby Sunol. In 1960, the company expanded into research, hiring Dr. William W.T. Crane,
who headed heavy elements processing at Lawrence Radiation Laboratory from 1948 to 1958. Crane
would later become president of the company. Dublin Industries merged with the Pasadena -based Royal
Industries in August 1960, which was an engineering firm. After the merger, Dublin Industries was
renamed Royal Research Corporation, operating as a subsidiary to Royal Industries (Daily Review 1962
August 22; Los Angeles Times 1957 October 11).
The first major research contract obtained by Royal Research was to develop an isotopic power supply
for the Atomic Energy Commission that resulted in the creation of thermo-electric generators for
underwater seismic stations that could last several years. Within two years, Royal Research expanded
research into vacuum devices to handle reactive materials, energy conversion, and microwave
technology; 90 percent of their contracts were with the U.S. government (Daily Review 1962 August 22).
In June 1963, Royal Industries, Inc. sold Royal Research to General Technology Corporation which
included use of the Dublin plant (subject facility). Royal Industries, Inc. retained ownership of the plant
before selling the facility to Hexcel Products, Inc. in 1966 (Pasadena Independent 1963 June 5; Hydro
Geo Chem, Inc. 1994 July 1: Appendix A).
15
Hexcel Corporation
Hexcel Corporation can trace its formation to 1946 when two University of California alumni, Roger C.
Steele and Roscoe T. "Bud" Hughes decided to experiment with new construction material technologies
developed during World War II, including plastics, in Hughes' basement at his house in Berkeley. Steele's
experimentation led to the creation of structural honeycomb, which he demonstrated at a government -
sponsored plastics conference as the California Reinforced Plastics Company (Plate 6). This
demonstration secured a research and development contract of his expandable honeycomb for use in
military aircraft radar domes in 1948. That same year, the company hired chemist Ken Holland to oversee
resin research and development. The company furthered their ties with the military in 1949 when they
won a low -bid contract to develop honeycomb fuel cell support panels for B-36 bombers (Pederson, ed.
1999: 193; Oakland Tribune 1967 May 22; Hexcel.com 2023; Contra Costa Times 1967 March 26).
i5 proud to be a new corporate citizen of the Son Ramon Valley.
111010* t 1111? 4 '1.4(4t Stib
1 �' 4/ 14
itVIIP114 " SP
t" f? ft/#*4,0
of ; *•*
tts---
40j *It
-00
pimp,
kt.
40#• ► a 40444 it
Plate 6: Photograph of Hexcel's structural honeycomb material
(Source: Contra Costa Times 1967 March 26).
16
In 1954, the company changed its name to Hexcel Products Inc. and continued creating honeycomb in a
variety of materials including plastic, aluminum, fiberglass and paper, resulting in the highest strength -
to -weight ratio material on the market with excellent energy absorption properties. Although the
technology was initially used in aerospace, implementation of paper materials expanded use into
commercial and residential building materials for use in interior partitions and mobile homes, and well as
furniture manufacturing. By the end of the decade, Hexcel ran its headquarters out of Berkeley in a
shared warehouse building at 2332 Fourth Street and had opened manufacturing plants in Berkeley,
Oakland, and Havre de Grace in Maryland (Contra Costa Times 1967 March 26; Pederson, ed. 1999: 193;
Oakland Tribune 1959 September 17; San Francisco Examiner 1962 July 2).
In the 1960s, Hexcel had several large contracts with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), military, and commercial aviation clients. In 1968 Hexcel acquired Coast Manufacturing and
Supply Company in Livermore and diversified the company's product range beyond structural
honeycomb to include reinforced plastics, industrial glass fabrics, structural adhesives, industrial resin
compounds, and diffusion bonded assemblies. This shift occurred as the Federal government began to
divest large-scale pursuits and the public's interest in government programs shifted following the moon
landing and withdrawal from Vietnam in 1969. Using the new materials procured from the Coast
acquisition, Hexcel designed and produced high-performance snow skis. These were the first
commodity made for the direct retail market (Times Record News 1970 April 10; Hexcel.com 2023;
Pederson, ed. 1999: 193-194).
Hexcel continued to diversify its portfolio in the 1970s with the acquisition of a graphite weaving
company and a knee, hip, and shoulder joint replacement manufacturer. By the end of the decade only
half of their sales were from honeycomb (Pederson, ed. 1999: 194).
An economic downturn and oil crisis at the end of the 1970s led to the sale of the ski and medical
products and a returned focus on aviation and aerospace. The company secured a number of high value
contracts, for example with NASA for components in the Columbia Space Shuttle, with Boeing, their
largest customer accounting for 20 percent of total sales, and with the U. S. Air Force for its new B-2
bomber program that prompted construction of a new 160,000-square-foot manufacturing plant in
Arizona. However, deregulation of the airline industry by President Ronald Reagan cut airline profits,
leading to reductions of Hexcel's Boeing and Airbus orders (Hexcel.com 2023; Oakland Tribune 1988
June 6).
The early 1990s were tumultuous for the company starting with a Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection filing
in 1993. After layoffs and plant and asset sales, the company avoided bankruptcy. In 1996 Hexcel
merged with two composites companies to improve vertical integration; the new combined firm had a
total of 4,700 employees with 19 manufacturing plants in seven countries (Pederson, ed. 1999: 194-195).
Since the late 1990s, Hexcel continued to lead research and development in honeycomb, carbon fiber,
and resin structural materials. The company has contracts with a number of aerospace companies
including Airbus, Boeing, SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Lockheed Martin. In May 2021, a groundbreaking
ceremony was held in West Valley City, Utah for the company's new research and technology
headquarters with plans to vacate the Dublin facility in 2023 (Hexcel.com 2023).
Hexcel and NASA
In 1958, NASA utilized Hexcel honeycomb in their first spacecraft, Pioneer 1. The satellite probe included
eight square feet of fiberglass reinforced Hexcel honeycomb plastic that only weighed 15 ounces. At a
press conference hosted by Hexcel president Roger C. Steele in October 1958, he lauded the company's
honeycomb "structural sandwich" construction as the "highest strength to weight ratio of any material
known to man" and could be used "to build a space vehicle of extraordinary strength with an absolute
minimum of weight" (Oakland Tribune 1958 October 23). The special fiberglass reinforced plastic
honeycomb was developed for radio and electrical transmission properties, and the structural sandwich
construction created a heat resistant barrier to protect the internal instrumentation. Although Pioneer 1
17
was meant to orbit the moon, a programming error resulted in the satellite only traveling 71,300 of the
222,000 miles, but did collect data of the extent of the Earth's radiation belts (Concord Transcript 1958
December 8).
Success of the structural integrity of Pioneer 1 led to more contracts between Hexcel and NASA. By the
early 1960s, Hexcel developed cutting -edge materials for several space programs and missions
including the Mariner Program satellites (1960-1975); Project Mercury spacecraft (1958-1961); Project
Gemini spacecraft (1961-1966); and Apollo Program command and lunar module spacecraft (1960-
1972). Hexcel honeycomb protected John Glen as he became the first American to orbit the earth in
February 1962 in Friendship 7, part of the Mercury program (Oakland Tribune 1962 September 23;
Hexcel.com 2023; Contra Costa Times 1970 June 21).
Hexcel continued research and development for NASA through the 1960s and created several types of
honeycomb for NASA spacecraft. The Apollo 8 capsule held three astronauts when it left Earth's and
orbited the Moon ten times in December 1968 and contained layers of honeycomb to create the
ightweight but high -strength structural capsule shell. A cylindrical honeycomb called "tube -core" was
installed under the
astronauts' seats to help
absorb G-force energy
loads. A heatshield made of
stainless -steel honeycomb
and steel alloy sheets and an
internal reinforced plastic
honeycomb ablative heat
shield were placed on the
inside and outside of the
capsule (Contra Costa
Times 1968 December 4).
This same structural and
heat protection honeycomb
was used in subsequent
capsules in the Apollo
program, including Apollo 9
(Plate 7) and Apollo 11.
Hexcel also developed a
new honeycomb used on the
Apollo 11 lunar module
landing struts and footpads
for the first moon landing in
July 1969. This specific
honeycomb design crushed
and folded -in on itself to a
absorb the impact of the
landing and prevent
bouncing (Plate 8) (Contra
Costa Times 1967 March 26;
Contra Costa Times 1969
March 28; Times Record
HONEYCOMB COCOON
in their ten-day lunar rest flight, the Apollo 9 oslronauts were protected against
Severe "G" forces and heat during blast-off and reentry by a virtual cocoon of Hex-
cel aluminum honeycomb. Aluminum honeycomb farms the core of many sections of
the Apollo spacecraft's inner structural shell, providing the greatest strength and
rigidify at the lowest possible weight. Special cylindrical honeycomb devices from
Haxcel installed under ilia crew's seats pralec+od ihern from excessive "G" loadings —
pressures many times normal grcvily. And a hoot shield made of stainless sleet
honeycomb core faced wiih steel alloy sheets helped protect the spacecraft and -crew
from vaporijing in the heal of re-entry. Hexcel, which produces honeycomb for indus-
trial cis well os aerospace applications, is heedquariered in Dublin, California.
Plate 7: Drawing and description of Hexcel honeycomb for Apollo 9
(Source: Contra Costa Times 1969 March 28).
18
Dublin -On The -Moon
Apc`.'.o astronauts were protected during missions la-
the moon and back honeycomb material made by
Hekcel in Dublin. The command module, at top, con.
Pained 1 — o launch heat shielt 2 — a re-entry Inept
shield; 3 — a 3trwcrurnl "sandwich", 4 — an inner shield
encl.ElrLg the pressurlted cabin; and 5 — "ribs" fo ab•
sorb impact_ The lunar module, below. contained hon-
eycomb material in its landing 4t1uta and footpads fo
absorb the shack of the landing and prevent rebound..
Hexcel, headquorizred in Dw4IIn, mpnufa1iiires honey.
comb materials and a wide range of engir*eer.d roa•
terials in plants tkro ghDvt the UriirerJ Stales and
Eurr.p ..
Plate 8: Diagrams showing where Hexcel honeycomb
was utilized on the Apollo 11 lunar landing module
(Source: Contra Costa Times 1967 March 26).
News 1970 April 10). After the moon landing, a
local newspaper interviewed proud Hexcel
employees at the headquarters in Dublin. While
the newspaper noted that 300,000 people from
20,000 companies were involved in some
capacity with the moon landing, Hexcel stood
out because they "developed the best material
NASA has found for use in spacecraft" (Argus
1969 July 24).
Hexcel continued its NASA relationship into the
1970s and development of the Space Shuttle
program. Hexcel honeycomb was used in the
nose cap, payload doors, and wings in the first
space shuttle Columbia that launched in April
1981. Columbia flew 28 missions during its 22
years in service (NASA.gov 2023; Hexcel.com
2023).
Hexcel also supplied $1 million worth of
materials for the Discovery Space Shuttle
launched in August 1984. Honeycomb was
used in the cargo bay doors, a new carbon
composite heat shield material that could be
used on several missions before needing to be
replaced and wove high -temperature resistant
ceramic fabric to line the flight crew's cabin to
protect them from extreme heat upon earth re-
entry (Seguin Gazette Enterprise 1988
September 30; Hexcel.com 2023).
Lackey, Knorr & Elliott (1967 Hexcel
addition)
Hexcel commissioned the large headquarters
addition to the 1962 former Royal Research
facility in 1967 from architects Lackey, Knorr &
Elliott, based out of San Francisco. Donald R.
Knorr and Edward P. Elliott formed their first
partnership Knorr -Elliott & Associates in 1958.
The firm received awards of excellence from
Architectural Record for residential designs in
1958 and 1963; a citation for the Dux
Incorporated furniture company headquarters
and warehouse in South San Francisco in 1963;
a merit award for a dental plaza in Stanford in
1963; and an environmental award for the Koret
of California distribution plant in South San
Francisco in 1968 (Plate 9) (PCAD 2023b; AIA
1970: 516). In 1967, the partnership included
architect Lawrence Lackey, with the 1967
Hexcel addition appearing to be the only design
produced by the collaboration (Oakland Tribune
1967 November 12). Lackey was an urban
planner, architect, and landscape architect
19
based out of San Francisco, active between the late 1950s and 1970s. He was best known for the Master
Plan he designed for the University of Fairbanks in Alaska in 1965 (PCAD 2023a; Contra Costa Times
1967 March 26).
Plate 9: Architectural rendering of the Knorr -Elliott & Associates design for Koret of California distribution
center (Source: San Francisco Examiner 1966 June 26).
Contemporary and Brutalist Architecture
The original architect of the 1962-constructed portion of the facility was not discovered in the historic
record. This portion of the building was constructed with tilt -up concrete panels, which was a
construction technique developed in the 1920s. Its methods were subsequently refined, and by 1962,
when this building was constructed, tilt -up construction was common (Collins 1951 October: 1335-135;
Jansen 1952 September: 243-245).
The 1967-constructed portion of the facility was designed with a blend of Contemporary and Brutalist
styles. The Contemporary style, popular between about 1940 and 1980, is characterized by strong roof
forms including flat, gabled, shed, or butterfly roofs, typically with deep overhangs; large windows, often
aluminum -framed; non-traditional exterior finishes including vertical wood siding, concrete block,
stucco, flagstone, and mullion -free glass; angular massing; sun shades, screens, or shadow block
accents; horizontally oriented commercial buildings; distinctive triangular, parabolic, or arched forms;
"eyebrow" overhangs on commercial buildings, and integrated, stylized signage on commercial buildings
(McAlester 2013: 628-632). The building also has elements of Brutalism, which was popular from the late
1950s to mid-1970s and commonly used for educational and civic buildings. Brutalism is characterized
by unadorned rough concrete, heavy block shapes, large massing, flat roofs, and window voids in the
larger concrete massing. This aesthetic emerged in post-war Europe and was derived from the French
phrase "beton brut," which means raw or rough concrete. However, the 1967-constructed portion of the
facility does not have the rough concrete finish seen in most Brutalist buildings and instead employs a
stucco finish concrete throughout the exterior (PAST Consultants, LLC. 2009 June: 85-86).
Historic Significance Criteria and Evaluation
Man in Space National Historic Landmark Theme Study
Congress passed Public Law 96-344 in 1980 which directed the Secretary of the Interior to produce a
study that identified events and locations associated with the "Man in Space" theme to be brought into
the National Park system and ways to present these significant locations, structures, and objects to the
public. It also required evaluation of the resources identified with the Man in Space theme for
recommendation as National Historic Landmarks (NHLs). The resulting study was first published in 1984
as "Man in Space: A National Historic Landmark Theme Study," prepared by Dr. Harry A. Butowsky. In it,
Butowsky identified 23 research and development facilities, testing facilities and stands, astronaut
training facilities, tracking stations, mission control centers, a launch pad, and the Saturn 5 Space Vehicle
20
that he recommended as NHLs and prepared NRHP Nomination Forms for each resource (Butowsky
1984 May: passim). Butowsky acknowledges that undoubtedly contractor -owned facilities and sites
played significant roles in the United States's pursuit to the moon and subsequent space programs,
however this document in its first phase does not identify or provide guidance about these properties.
The original report does however identify four significant themes for the Man in Space context which
resources would be considered historically significant. They include: 1. Technical Foundations before
1958; 2. The Effort to Land a Man on the Moon; 3. The Exploration of the Planets and the Solar System;
and 4. The Role of Scientific and Communications Satellites. These four subthemes provided a
foundation for identification of significant properties. However, this early report lacks the details to
clearly spell out what types of properties would or would not be significant under these subthemes for
modern NRHP analysis.
A second phase of the report was published later in 1984 that identified another launch pad as well as
three spacecrafts, which were not previously identified in the first report. The three spacecrafts, Mercury
Friendship 7 (1962), Gemini 4 (1964), and the Apollo 11 Command Module (1969) were all located in the
National Air and Space Museum at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. Butowsky declared
the three spacecrafts as "nationally significant historic objects ... it is important to recognize the national
significance of the objects having internal integrity which have contributed critically to the success of
the space program and, together, form an integral chapter in that program's history" (Butowsky 1984
August:1-2). These spacecrafts represented a first, or breakthrough, for each program's mission. While
the first phase of the report stated that the second phase would examine the importance of contractors,
it was not included. Butowsky did not specifically call out any private company, but he described the use
of Hexcel fiberglass honeycomb in the description of the Apollo 11 Command Module. All three of these
spacecrafts contain honeycomb developed by Hexcel for NASA (Butowsky 1984 August: passim).
California Register of Historical Resources Significance
The criteria for listing historical resources in the CRHR are consistent with those developed for listing in
the NRHP but have been modified for state use in order to include a range of historical resources which
better reflect the history of California. An historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or
national level under one or more of the following four criteria:
1. is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local
or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
2. is 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 may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history of the local
area, California or the nation.
CRHR 1
Under CRHR Criterion 1, the Hexcel facility at 11711 Dublin Boulevard is significant at the national level
for its association with the Man in Space historic context under subtheme 2. The Effort to Land a Man on
the Moon. Specifically, the research and development of materials by Hexcel were integral to the
success of NASA's Pioneer 1, Project Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. The honeycomb technology and
materials developed by Hexcel allowed NASA to build strong, heat -resistant, yet lightweight spacecrafts
that could withstand the stressors of space and protect its human occupants. Use of Hexcel honeycomb
in the three NHL significant objects, Mercury Friendship 7Spacecraft (1962), Gemini 4 Spacecraft (1964),
and the Apollo 11 Command Module (1969) are of fundamental importance to the United States and its
success in the Space Race to the moon. Furthermore, Hexcel's crushable honeycomb used on the
landing struts and footpads of the Apollo 11 lunar module were the first objects to touch the moon in
July 1969 and were pivotal to the success of the moon landing.
21
While the Hexcel honeycomb utilized in Friendship 7 and the Gemini 4 spacecrafts was developed at
Hexcel's first research and development lab in Berkeley, the Apollo 11 mission took place two years after
Hexcel expanded the facility in Dublin into its research and development and administrative
headquarters. This clear association with subtheme 2 demonstrates how Hexcel's Dublin facility played
a significant role at the national level for the successful moon landing in 1969.
Additional significance evaluation of Hexcel's Dublin facility is required, because it is not the only
example of Hexcel's importance in The Effort to Land a Man on the Moon. Hexcel's first research and
development facility was located in a shared warehouse at 2332 Fourth Street in Berkeley that they
occupied between 1957 and 1967 (Oakland Tribune 1957 June 23; Contra Costa Times 1967 March 26).
While this building is where Hexcel employees developed the first honeycomb used for NASA, the
purpose-built research and development and administration headquarters built in Dublin is a better
representation of the company's significance as a leader in structural honeycomb technology.
Moreover, the building at 2332 Fourth Street in Berkeley appears to have undergone extensive
remodeling new windows, doors, and scored concrete finish. As such, the building has lost integrity of
design, materials, workmanship, and feeling of the timeframe that Hexcel occupied the building. As
discussed below, Hexcel's Dublin facility retains sufficient integrity to the established period of
significance and is therefore, a better representation of Hexcel's significance under this criterion.
CRHR 2
Under CRHR Criterion 2, this facility is not associated with a significant individual. The facility has been
utilized by countless research and development staff, and research did not reveal any individuals who
made demonstrably important contributions to history at the local, state, or national level. While Roger
C. Steele is credited with creating Hexcel's first structural honeycomb, he developed it in the mid- to late
1940s in Roscoe Hughes' basement in Berkeley, and the honeycomb used on Friendship 7 and the
Gemini 4 were developed at the company's facility in Berkeley. The house and the Berkeley laboratory
have stronger associations with Steele's technological successes rather than the Hexcel facility in
Dublin, therefore, this facility is not eligible under this criterion.
CRHR 3
Under CRHR Criterion 3, this facility is not significant because it is not an important example of a type,
period, or method of construction. The building is a combination of Contemporary and Brutalist styles.
The Contemporary style proliferated for commercial and residential buildings in the post -World War II
era throughout the Bay Area, California, and the nation. The overall facility is a typical example of this
style and is unremarkable. It also lacks the high artistic value or distinctive design or engineering that
would merit listing in the CRHR.
Additionally, this facility does not represent the work of a master. There is no indication that the 1962-
constructed portion of the facility is the work of a maser architect or would be considered a good
example of a master architect's portfolio if further research determined that it was designed by a master
architect. The 1967-constructed portion of the facility was a singular design through a collaboration of
Lawrence Lackey and Knorr -Elliott & Associates. There is no indication that Lawrence Lackey would be
considered a master. Likewise, while the Knorr -Elliott & Associates partnership received awards, there
is no indication that either Knorr or Elliott rise to the level of a master architect. Therefore, the facility is
not eligible under this criterion.
CRHR 4
Criterion 4 is typically used to evaluate archaeological sites for their potential to yield data important to
understanding the prehistory of the area or region. For built environment resources, under CRHR
Criterion 4, this facility does not appear to have any likelihood of yielding important information about
historic construction materials or technologies, and therefore, does not appear to be eligible under this
criterion.
22
Integrity Analysis
Historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet one or more of the criteria of significance and
retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to
convey the reasons for their significance. The resource must retain integrity to its period of significance to
be considered eligible for listing. The period of significance of the Hexcel facility under subtheme 2: The
Effort to Land a Man on the Moon is 1967 when the company expanded and relocated to the Dublin
facility and 1969 when Apollo 11 landed on the moon.
Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of
characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance. A resource that has lost its historic
character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR if it maintains the potential to yield
significant scientific or historical information or specific data. Historic integrity is made up of seven aspects:
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
The character -defining features of the Hexcel facility are: the interspatial connection between the 1962-
constructed research and development laboratory building section on the east half and the 1967-
constructed administration area on the west half; the repeating narrow, concrete pylons with wood
sheathing and full -height, tinted fixed windows with black anodized frames on the administration building
section; the lack of windows in the laboratory building section; and the east courtyard and west
courtyards.
Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event
took place. The location of this facility has remained the same; therefore, the integrity of location remains
intact.
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, and style of property. The facility
was altered from the original 1967 Hexcel design with the two-story building hyphen added in 1984 and
the small chemical storage addition at the rear of the facility in 1985. These changes only slightly
modified the form and plan of the original 1967-constructed facility.
Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. The immediate setting of the property
continues to be a mixture of post-war residential and commercial construction.
Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time
and in a particular pattern of configuration to form a historic property. None of the changes made to the
facility changed the materials used in the 1962 or 1967 building sections. The materials used in the 1984
and 1985 additions were sympathetic in both material, texture, and color to the extant building sections.
Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given
period in history or prehistory. The additions made in 1984 and 1985 are complementary to the Hexcel
design and do not diminish the integrity of workmanship of the 1962- or 1967-constructed portions of
the facility.
Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. While
the two-story building hyphen added in 1984 and the small chemical storage addition at the rear of the
facility in 1985 have lightly affected integrity of design, the facility still conveys the feeling as a 1960s-
constructed research and development facility.
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A
property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact
to convey that relationship to an observer. The facility is where research and development occurred to
put a man on the moon between 1967 and 1969, and at the time of recordation, was still occupied by
Hexcel. The facility retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling as a
23
1960s-constructed research and development facility, and therefore, retains a direct association with
the Man in Space historic context under subtheme 2. The Effort to Land a Man on the Moon.
Historical Significance Conclusion
Based on the results of this historical resource evaluation, the Hexcel facility at 11711 Dublin Avenue is
eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterions 1 because it is significant at the national level for its
association with the Man in Space historic context under subtheme 2. The Effort to Land a Man on the
Moon and retains sufficient integrity to its period of significance (1967 and 1969). The property has been
evaluated in accordance with Section 15064.5(a)(2)-(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, using the criteria outlined
in Section 5024.1 of the California Public Resources Code and is a historical resource for the purposes
of CEQA.
References
AIA Historical Directory of American Architects (AIA). 1970. "Knorr, Don Robert." Available:
https://content.aia.org/sites/default/files/2018-09/Bowker_1970_K.pdf. Accessed January
2023.
Argus. 1969 July 24. "Honeybee Plays A Part In Apollo Moon Voyage." 5.
Butowsky, Dr. Harry A. 1984 May. Man in Space: National Historic Landmark Theme Study. n.p. Available
at: https://historicproperties.arc.nasa.gov/downloads/man_in_space_butowsky.pdf. Accessed
January 2023.
. 1984 August. Man in Space: National Historic Landmark Theme Study, Phase 11. n.p. Available
at: http://npshistory.com/publications/nhl/theme-studies/man-in-space-2.pdf. Accessed
January 2023.
Collins, F. Thomas. 1951 October. "Tilt -up Construction in the Western United States," Journal of the
American Concrete Institute.
Concord Transcript. 1958 December 8. "Moon Rocket Fails, But Space Science Gains." 1.
Contra Costa Times. 1967 February 24. "New Research Facility Set for SR Valley." 1-2.
. 1967 March 26. "Hexcel in Dublin - Honeycomb Goes to Work." 30.
. 1968 December 4. "Hexcel Honeycomb To Cushion Apollo 8." 4C.
. 1969 March 28. "Honeycomb Cocoon" [caption]. 8.
. 1970 June 21. "SR Valley Sets Pattern For County's New Space -Age Industry." 7.
Daily Review (Hayward, CA). 1962 August 22. "Dublin Research Firm - New Industry Plan $350,000 Plant."
8.
Hexcel.com. 2023. "History & Timeline." Available at: https://www.hexcel.com/About/History-and-
Timeline. Accessed January 2023.
Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. 1994 July 1. Results of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Hexcel
Research and Development Facility, 11711 Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, California, Prepared for
Hexcel Corporation.
Jansen, Franklin G. 1952 September. "Tilt -Up Construction," CEC Bulletin, 6:9.
Los Angeles Times .1957 October 11. "Century Eng. Wil Change Name to Royal Industries." Part Five,
Page 9.
McAlester, Virginia Savage. 2013. A Field Guide To American Houses. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
24
NASA.gov. 2023. "NASA Orbiter Fleet." Available
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/shuttleoperations/orbiters/columbia_info.html .
Accessed January 2023.
at:
Oakland Tribune. 1957 June 23. "Secretary" [classified advertisement]. 34.
. 1958. October 23. "Berkeley Form Has Tole in First Moon Probe Vehicle." 34.
. 1959 September 17. "Notes on Bay Commerce." 62.
. 1960 August 7. "Two Eastbay Atomic Firms Merge, Plan for Expansion." 26.
. 1960 September 4. "San Ramon Village Grand Opening: Celebration Starts Today at Model
City. 2-R.
. 1961 October 27. "Supervisors OK Expansion in Dublin Area." 11-E.
. 1962 September 23. "Button Pusher: Canaveral Just Fires Cal Creations." 43.
. 1966 May 18. "$1 Million Headquarters For Hexcel in Dublin." 46.
. 1967 May 22. "News of Business, Industry." 13.
. 1967 November 12. "Courtyards and Patios Upgrade Environment." 10-CM- 11-CM.
. 1984 July 11. "Building Permits - Dublin." 62.
. 1984 May 16. "Building Permits - Dublin." 64.
. 1985 November 13. "Building Permits - Dublin." 16.
. 1988 June 6. "Hexcel." B-3.
Pacific Coast Architecture Database (PCAD). 2023a. "Lawrence Lackey." Available at:
https://pcad.lib.washington.edu/person/3022/. Accessed January 2023.
. 2023b. "Knorr - Elliott and Associates, Architects (Partnership)." Available at:
https://pcad.lib.washington.edu/firm/1030/. Accessed January 2023.
Pasadena Independent. 1963 June 5. "Royal Industries Sells Subsidiary." 19.
PAST Consultants, LLC. 2009 June. San Jose Modernism: Historic Context Statement, prepared for
Preservation Action Council of San Jose.
Pederson, Jay P., Editor. 1999. International Directory of Company Histories, Volume 28. San Francisco,
CA: St. James Press.
San Francisco Examiner. 1962 July 2. "Industrial Engineer" [classified advertisement]. 36.
. 1966 June 26. "Big Koret Shipping Center." 25.
. 1966 May 18. "$1 Million Bay Unit for Hexcel." 71.
Seguin Gazette -Enterprise (Seguin, Texas). 1988 September 30. "Discovery Carries Hexcel Products." 1-
2.
Stockton Daily Evening Record. 1962 July 31. "Work Starts on Bay Area Plant." 4.
Times Record News (Wichita Falls, Texas). 1970 April 10. "Apollo 13 Flight Materials Produced In Graham
Plant." 5A.
University of Santa Barbara Library (UCSB). 1965 May 15. Flight ID CAS-65-130, Frame 9-190 [aerial
photograph].
VerPlanck, Christopher. "Department of Parks and Recreation form: 11711 Dublin Boulevard." P-01-
010656, on file at Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Sonoma, CA.
25
Attachment - Location Map
Legend
0 Parcels
County of Alameda
Parcel Map
752.2
0
376.08
752.2 Feet
WGS_1984_Web_Mercator Auxiiiary_Sphere
County of Alameda 0 2015
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and
is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be
accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION
26
Appendix D: CaIEEMod Output Sheets
This page intentionally left blank
Repel Redevelopment
Construction Emissions By Pham nd Source
Phase
Year
Category
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive PM10
Exhaust PMSO
PMSO Total
Fugitive PM2.5
Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
011
N20
CO2e
Demolition
2023
Off -Road
O067
O6338
05317
1.06E-03
0
O0296
O0296
0
0.0278
0.0278
0
92.8197
92.8197
O0216
0
93.3606
Demolition
2023
Fug Dust
0
0
0
0
0.0309
0
0.0309
1.67E-03
0
1.67E-03
0
0
0
0
0
0
Demolition
2023
Hauling
1.26E-03
0.08
0.0181
3.60E-04
0.0103
6.80E-04
0.011
2.80E-03
6.50E-04
3.09E-03
0
35.457
35.457
7.50E-04
5.60E-03
37.1452
Demolition
2023
Vendor
7.00E-05
2.80E-03
8.60E-04
1.00E-05
1.30E-04
2.00E-05
1A0E-04
1.20E-04
2.00E-05
1.00E-04
0
13574
1.2574
2.00E-05
1.90E-04
1.3139
Demolition
2023
Worker
137E-03
8.70E-04
0.0108
3.00E-05
3.85E-03
2.00E-05
3.87E-03
1.03E-03
2.00E-05
1.00E-03
0
3.0013
3.0013
9.00E-05
8.00E-05
3.0287
Site Prep -Grading
2023
OH -Road
0.017
0.1973
0.1097
3.20E-04
0
6.83E-03
6.83E-03
0
6.29E-03
6.29E-03
0
27.6882
27.6882
8.95E-03
0
27.9121
Site Prep -Grading
2023
Fug Dust
0
0
0
0
0.01.
0
0.0114
1.26E-03
0
1.26E-03
0
0
0
0
0
0
Site Prep -Grading
2023
Hauling
3.00E-05
1.61E-03
3.70E-04
1.00E-05
2.10E-04
1.00E-05
2.30E-04
6.00E-05
1.00E-05
7.00E-05
0
0.7284
0.7284
2.00E-05
1.20E-04
0.7631
Site Prep -Grading
2023
Vendor
2.00E-05
9.20E-04
2.80E-04
0
1A0E-04
1.00E-05
1A0E-04
0.00E-05
1.00E-05
5.00E-05
0
0.1062
0.1062
1.00E-05
6.00E-05
04245
Site Prep -Gentling
2023
Worker
0.10E-04
2.80E-04
3.50E-03
1.00E-05
1.25E-03
1.00E-05
1.25E-03
3.30E-04
1.00E-05
3A0E-04
0
0.9696
0.9696
3.00E-05
3.00E-05
0.9785
Trenching
2024
OH -Road
3A0E-03
0.0299
0.0578
9.00E-05
0
1.02E-03
1.02E-03
0
1.31E-03
1.31E-03
0
7.6397
7.6397
2.17E-03
0
7.7015
Trenching
2031
Hauling
a
a
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
Trenching
2024
Vendor
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Trenching
2024
Worker
1.50E-04
1.00E-04
1.21E-03
0
1.70E-04
0
1.80E-04
1.30E-04
0
1.30E-04
0
0.3574
0.3574
1.00E-05
1.00E-05
O3606
Bultling Cons009on-E4erior
2024
Off -Road
00822
0.7366
0.8868
1.60E-03
0
0.0325
0.0325
0
0.0313
0.0313
0
137.3069
137.3069
0.02
0
137.8069
Bultling Construction -Exterior
3031
Hauling
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bultling Construction -Exterior
2024
Vendor
2.69E-03
0.1198
0.0354
5.10E-01
0.0179
7.30E-04
0.0187
5.19E-03
7.00E-04
5.88E-03
0
51.9666
51.9666
7.20E-04
7.79E-03
54.3048
Bultling Construction -Exterior
2024
Worker
0.0167
0.011
0.142
LAOE-04
0.0542
2.70E-04
0.0511
0.0144
2.50E-04
0.0147
0
40.7957
40.7957
1.11E-03
1.10E-03
41.1533
Paving
2024
Off -Road
0.0104
0.0979
0.1466
2.30E-04
0
1.69E-03
1.69E-03
0
1.33E-03
1.33E-03
0
19.6486
19.6486
6.21E-03
0
19.8037
Paving
2024
Paving
2.51E-03
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
a
0
Paving
3031
Hauling
a
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
Paving
3021
Vendor
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
Paving
2024
Worker
SAOE-04
3.50E-04
1.58E-03
1.00E-05
1.75E-03
1.00E-05
1.76E-03
1.60E-04
1.00E-05
1.70E-04
0
1.3166
1.3166
1.00E-05
1.00E-05
1.3281
Building Interior- Arch Coating
2024
Off -Road
5.31E-03
0.0411
0.0675
1.10E-04
0
1.71E-03
1.71E-03
0
1.73E-03
1.73E-03
0
9.3932
9.3932
1.29E-03
0
9.4254
Building ln[edw-Pxh Coating
2020
Arch Coating
O.6917
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Building ln[edw-Pxh Coating
2021
Hauling
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Building ln[edw-Pxh Coating
2021
Vendor
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Building Interior- Arch Coating
2024
Worker
7.00E-04
1.60E-04
5.93E-03
2.00E-05
2.26E-03
1.00E-05
2.27E-03
6.00E-04
1.00E-05
6.10E-04
0
1.7038
1.7038
5.00E-05
5.00E-05
1.7187
Annual Emissions Summary
ROG
2023
0.09
NOa
0.92
CO
0.67531
302
00018
Fugitive PM10
0.05848
Exhaust PM10
0.01
PM10 Total
O09555
Fugitive PM2.5
0.01035
Exhaust PM2.5
0.03
PM2.S Total
004515
Rio- CO2
NBio-CO2
162.3278
Total CO2
162.3278
OIO
0.03147
N20
O00508
CO2e
164.9266
2024
Total
0.82
0.90
1.04
1.96
1.34785
2.02316
0.00304
0.00080
0.07658
0.13506
0.04
0.08
O11796
0.21362
0.02078
0.03113
0.04
0.07
0.10561
270.1285
032.0563
270.1285
032.0563
0.03193
0.0630
0.00899
0.01507
273.603
038.5296
Average Daily Emissions (I bs
Construction Start Date 9/1/2023
Constructor End Date 8/30/2024
Constructor Work Days 261
ROG
NOx
Exhaust PM10
Exhaust PM2.S
6.92
14.98
060
0.57
Hemel Redevelopment
Operational Emissions Summary
Proposed Project Emissions
Existing Emissions
ROG
NOx
CO
502
Fugitive PM10
ExhaustPM10
PM30 Total Fugitive PM2.5
ExhaustPM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
Mr/yr
Area
0.5707
3.00E-05
2.83E-03
0
0
1.00E-05
1.00E-05
0
1.00E-05
1.00E-05
0
5.52E-03
5.52E-03
1.00E-05
0
5.88E-03
Energy
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
111.9466
111.9466
0.0181
2.20E-03
113.0535
Mobile
0.1066
0.2351
1.3549
4.85E-03
0.5324
3.46E-03
0.5358
0.1422
3.23E-03
0.1455
0
448.1329
448.1329
0.0126
0.0199
454.3616
Stationary
7.18E-03
0.0201
0.0183
3.00E-05
0
1.06E-03
1.06E-03
0
1.06E-03
1.06E-03
0
3.332
3.332
4.70E-04
0
3.3437
Waste
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26.0945
0
26.0945
1.5421
0
64.648
Water
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.887
14.6592
23.5463
0.9152
0.0218
52.9335
Total
0.68448
0.25523
1.37603
0.00488
0.5324
0.00453
0.53687
0.1422
0.0043
0.14657
34.9815
578.07622
613.05782
2.48848
0.0439
688.34618
ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive PM10 ExhaustPM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 ExhaustPM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Bio-0O2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Category
tons/yr
Mr/yr
Area
0.2898
2.00E-05
1.87E-03
0
0
1.00E-05
1.00E-05
0
1.00E-05
1.00E-05
0
3.64E-03
3.64E-03
1.00E-05
0
3.87E-03
Energy
9.12E-03
0.0829
0.0696
5.00E-04
0
6.30E-03
6.30E-03
0
6.30E-03
6.30E-03
0
140.4201
140.4201
9.85E-03
2.64E-03
141.4526
Mobile
0.3079
0.3914
2.9138
6.27E-03
0.6425
4.70E-03
0.6472
0.1716
4.38E-03
0.176
0
579.0834
579.0834
0.0368
0.0299
588.9222
Waste
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.9683
0
0.9683
0.0572
0
2.3988
Water
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.7838
15.4395
25.2233
1.0074
0.024
57.569
Total
0.60682
0.47432
2.98527
0.00677
0.6425
0.01101
0.65351
0.1716
0.01069
0.18231
10.7521
734.94664
745.69874
1.11126
0.05654
790.34647
ROG
NOx
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total
Proposed Project Annual Emissions (tons)
0.68
0.26
0.54
0.15
Existing Emissions (tons)
0.61
0.47
0.65
0.18
Net Emissions (tons)
0.08
-0.22
-0.12
-0.04
Average Daily Emissions (lbs)
0.60
-1.69
-0.90
-0.27
Working Days per Year
260
GHG Emissions Summary
MT CO2e
Total Construction
439
Amortized Construction
15
Area
0
Energy
113
Mobile
454
Stationary
3
Waste
65
Water
53
Total Annual Emissions
703
Existing Emission
790
Net Emissions
-87
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
Hexcel Redevelopment Project
Alameda County, Annual
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
I Size I
Metric I Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
General Office Building • 12.00 + 1000sgft ; 0.28 12,000.00 1 0
a — — i t
General Office Building • 6.00 + 1000sgft ; 0.14 6,000.00 i 0
T ' --- 1
General Light Industry • 36.50 + 1000sgft 0.84 36,500.00 + 0
+ — — t
Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No Rail • 70.80 + 1000sgft 3.33 70,804.00 i 0
I ---i
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces • 99.11 + 1000sgft ; 2.28 99,106.00 + 0
1- F I
Parking Lot • 84.52 1000sgft 1.94 84,515.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban
Climate Zone 5
Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
CO2 Intensity
(Ib/MWhr)
203.98
CH4 Intensity
(Ib/MWhr)
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data
0.033
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Project specific land uses, square footages on 8.81-acre site.
Construction Phase - Project specific construction schedule
Off -road Equipment - Project specific construction equipment.
Off -road Equipment - Project specific construction equipment.
Off -road Equipment - Project specific equipment
Off -road Equipment - Project specific construction equipment.
Precipitation Freq (Days) 63
Operational Year 2025
N20 Intensity
(Ib/MWhr)
0.004
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0
Page 2 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
Off -road Equipment - Project specific construction equipment.
Off -road Equipment - Project specific construction equipment.
Trips and VMT - Vendor trips during demolition and grading to account for water truck trips. Demolition -related haul truck trips based on 20CY-trucks and 12,170
CY of demo debris. Grading haul trucks based on 200 CY material import, if needed.
Demolition - Square footage of existing building
Grading - Material cut/fill anticipated to balance.
Vehicle Trips - Trip rate based on Final TIS for the project (W-Trans 2022).
Construction Off -road Equipment Mitigation - Implementation of BAAQMD BMPs.
Fleet Mix - LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MCY, HHD, LHD1, and LHD2 left as default fleet percentages; added OBUS, UBUS, SBUS, MCY, and MH to MDV category to
account for 20% max trucks.
Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps -
Energy Use - Project would comply with City of Dublin Code: DMC Chapter 7.94.100 for commercial buildings - no natural gas infrastructure.
Table Name
tblConstructionPhase
tblConstructionPhase
tblConstructionPhase
tblConstructionPhase
tblConstructionPhase
tblEnergyUse
tblEnergyUse
tblEnergyUse
tblEnergyUse
tblEnergyUse
tblEnergyUse
tblEnergyUse
tblEnergyUse
tblEnergyUse
tblEnergyUse
I Column Name I
NumDays
NumDays
NumDays
NumDays
NumDays
NT24E
NT24E
NT24E
NT24NG
NT24NG
NT24NG
T24E
T24E
T24E
T24NG
Default Value
New Value
20.00
230.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
3.36
4.80
1.38
6.90
1.01
0.21
1.08
3.66
0.21
17.67
22.00
107.00
65.00
21.00
34.00
5.56
5.12
1.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.70
9.43
0.58
0.00
tblEnergyUse
T24NG
18.14 0.00
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 35
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
tblEnergyUse
tblFleetMix
tblFleetMix
tblFleetMix
tblFleetMix
tblFleetMix
tblFleetMix
tblGrading
tblGrading
tblGrading
tblLandUse
tblLandUse
tblLandUse
tblLandUse
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
• T24NG • 1.17 0.00
• MCY 0.02 0.00
i
r 4
• MDV 0.11 0.14
i
r 4
• MH 2.4230e-003 0.00
i
r 4
• OBUS 7.9000e-004 0.00
i
r 4
• SBUS 3.4300e-004 0.00
i
r 4
• UBUS 5.6000e-004 0.00
i
r 4
• AcresOfGrading 36.75 20.00
r 4
• MaterialExported 0.00 7,000.00
r 4
• MaterialEmported 0.00 6,800.00
r 4
• LandUseSquareFeet 70,800.00 70,804.00
r 4
• LandUseSquareFeet 99,110.00 99,106.00
r 4
• LandUseSquareFeet 84,520.00 84,515.00
r 4
• LotAcreage 1.63 3.33
r 4
• • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00
r 4
• • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00
r 4
• • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00
r 4
• • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 2.00
r 4
• • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 3.00
r 4
• • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00
r 4
• • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00
r 4
• • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00
r 4
• • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00
r 4
• • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
r 4
• • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00
r 4
• • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00
r 4
• UsageHours 6.00 7.00
r 4
• UsageHours 8.00 7.00
• UsageHours •8.00 7.00
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 35
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblTripsAndVMT
tblTripsAndVMT
tblTripsAndVMT
tblTripsAndVMT
tblVehicleTrips
tblVehicleTrips
tblVehicleTrips
tblVehicleTrips
tblVehicleTrips
tblVehicleTrips
tblVehicleTrips
tblVehicleTrips
tblVehicleTrips
• UsageHours • 8.00 7.00
• UsageHours 8.00•
7.00
• r 4
• UsageHours 8.00 7.00
r 4
• UsageHours 8.00 7.00
r 4
• UsageHours 8.00 7.00
r 4
• UsageHours 8.00 7.00
r 4
• UsageHours i 8.00 7.00
r 4
• UsageHours 8.00 7.00
r 4
• UsageHours i 8.00 0.00
r 4
• UsageHours 8.00 6.00
r 4
• UsageHours 8.00 7.00
• r 4
• HaulingTripNumber 285.00 1,217.00
r 4
• HaulingTripNumber 1,725.00 25.00
r 4
• VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00
r 4
• VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00
r 4
• ST_TR 1.99 13.53
• i
r 4
ST_TR• 2.21 0.00
i
r 4
• ST_TR 1.74 0.00
• i
r 4
SU_TR• 5.00 13.53
i
r 4
SU_TR• 0.70 0.00
i
r 4
SU_TR• 1.74 0.00
i
r 4
WD_TR• 4.96 13.53
i
r 4
• WD_TR 9.74 0.00
i
• WD TR • 1.74 0.00
2.0 Emissions Summary
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG
NO1
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2023 •i 0.0871 0.9176 : 0.6754 1.8100e- 0.0584 0.0371 0.0956 0.0104 0.0348 0.0451 • 0.0000 i 162.3278 : 162.3278 0.0315 6.0800e- 164.9265
003 ' 003 i
r J J J J J J J J 1r J J J T
2024 • 0.8163 1.0374 1.3478 3.0400e- 0.0766 0.0414 0.1179 0.0208 0.0396 0.0604 • 0.0000 i 270.1284 270.1284 0.0319 8.9800e- 273.6029
003 :
•
003 i
Maximum
0.8163
1.0374
1.3478
3.0400e-
0.0766
0.0414
0.1179
0.0208
0.0396
0.0604
0.0000
270.1284
270.1284
0.0319
8.9800e-
273.6029
11
003
003
Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2023 -i 0.0871 0.9176 0.6754 1.8100e- 0.0352 0.0371 0.0723 , 7.0900e- 0.0348 0.0419 • 0.0000 i 162.3277 162.3277 0.0315 6.0800e- 164.9263
003 003 ; 003 i
J J J J J J J J w J J J T
2024 • 0.8163 1.0374 1.3478 3.0400e- 0.0766 0.0414 0.1179 0.0208 0.0396 0.0604 • 0.0000 i 270.1282 270.1282 0.0319 8.9800e- 273.6027
003
•
003
i
Maximum
0.8163
1.0374
1.3478
3.0400e-
0.0766
0.0414
0.1179
0.0208
0.0396
0.0604
0.0000
270.1282
270.1282
0.0319
8.9800e-
273.6027
11
003
003
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 35
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-0O2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.22
0.00
10.89
10.47
0.00
3.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Quarter
Start Date
End Date
Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1
9-1-2023
11-30-2023
0.7872
0.7872
2
12-1-2023
2-29-2024
0.4353
0.4353
3
3-1-2024
5-31-2024
0.5942
0.5942
4
6-1-2024
8-31-2024
1.0085
1.0085
Highest
1.0085
1.0085
2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area 4 0.5707 3.0000e- : 2.8300e- 0.0000 : 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • 0.0000
5.5200e- 5.5200e- 1.0000e- 1 0.0000 5.8800e-
�i 005 003 1 005 005 005 005 :
003 003 005 I i 003
;I
Energy •i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000
111.9466 111.9466 0.0181 1 2.2000e- 113.0535
•I 1
.�
1 003 i
;I1 i
Mobile •i 0.1066 0.2351 1 1.3549 4.8500e- 0.5324 1 3.4600e- 0.5358 0.1422 3.2300e- 0.1455 • 0.0000
448.1329 448.1329 0.0126 1 0.0199 454.3616
•I 1 003 003 003 •I
.1 1 i
Stationary •i 7.1800e- 0.0201 I 0.0183 3.0000e- : 1.0600e- 1.0600e- 1.0600e- 1.0600e- • 0.0000
3.3320 3.3320 4.7000e- 1 0.0000 3.3437
:: 003 005 : 003 003 003 003
004
;I
Waste •I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 26.0945
0.0000 26.0945 1.5421 0.0000 64.6480
Water •
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 8.8870
•
14.6592 23.5463 0.9152 0.0218 52.9335
Total
0.6845
0.2552
1.3760
4.8800e-
0.5324
4.5300e-
0.5369
0.1422
4.3000e-
0.1465
34.9815
578.0762
613.0577
2.4884
0.0439
688.3461
003
003
003
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
2.2 Overall Operational
Mitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
1
Area •i 0.5707 3.0000e- 2.8300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • 0.0000 ' 5.5200e- 5.5200e- 1.0000e- : 0.0000 5.8800e-
•I 005 003 005 005 I 005 005 : 003 003 005 I i 003
.1
Energy .1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 111.9466 111.9466 0.0181 : 2.2000e- 113.0535
9i : i 003 i
,I 1.J
Mobile •1 0.1066 0.2351 1.3549 4.8500e- 0.5324 3.4600e- 0.5358 1 0.1422 3.2300e- 0.1455 • 0.0000 i 448.1329 448.1329 0.0126 : 0.0199 454.3616
9003 003 003 : .1 i
Stationary .1 7.1800e- 0.0201 0.0183 3 0000e- 1.0600e- 1.0600e- ' 1.0600e- 1.0600e- • 0.0000 i 3.3320 3.3320 4.7000e- 1 0.0000 3.3437
:: 003 005 003 003 003 003 : 004
Waste .1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 26.0945 i 0.0000 26.0945 1.5421 0.0000 64.6480
•
•
Water •I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 8.8870 i 14.6592 23.5463 0.9152 0.0218 52.9335
•
•
Total
0.6845
0.2552
1.3760
4.8800e-
0.5324
4.5300e-
0.5369
0.1422
4.3000e-
0.1465
34.9815
578.0762
613.0577
2.4884
0.0439
688.3461
003
003
003
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-0O2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
Num Days
Phase Description
1 :Demolition :Demolition 19/1/2023 :11/30/2023 5: 65:
4 i
2 :Site Prep - Grading
:Grading
:12/1/2023 :12/29/2023 5. 21 :
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 35
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
3 •Trenching - Foundation
4 :Building Construction Exterior
5 :Paving
6 :Building Interior - Architectural
•Coating
•Trenching
!Building Construction
Paving
:Architectural Coating
• 1 /1 /2024 •2/1 /2024 5' 24
I2/1/2024 :6/28/2024 i 5: 107:
4
17/1 /2024 :8/15/2024 i 5: 34
•
r 4� '--- --- —I---- —
•8/1/2024 :8/30/2024 5' 22'
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 20
Acres of Paving: 4.22
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 187,956; Non -Residential Outdoor: 62,652; Striped Parking Area: 11,017
(Architectural Coating — sqft)
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type 1 Amount
Demolition
Demolition
Demolition
Demolition
Site Prep - Grading
Site Prep - Grading
Site Prep - Grading
Site Prep - Grading
Building Construction Exterior
Building Construction Exterior
Building Construction Exterior
Building Construction Exterior
Building Construction Exterior
Paving
Paving
Paving
Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor
:Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 21 7.00! 81: 0.73
a ;
:Excavators ; 1+ 7.00! 158 0.38
:Rubber Tired Dozers ; 2+ 7.00! 247 0.40
+Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1+ 6.00! 97 0.37
a ;
:Excavators ; 1+ 7.00! 158 0.38
a ;
:Graders ; 4+ 7.00! 187 0.41
:Rubber Tired Dozers ; 0+ 0.00! 247 0.40
+Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1+ 6.00! 97 0.37
a ;
:Cranes ; 1+ 7.00! 231: 0.29
a ;
:Forklifts ; 2+ 7.00! 89 0.20
a ;
:Generator Sets ; 3+ 7.00! 84 0.74
+Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1+ 7.00! 97 0.37
-+ t
:Welders ; 1 7.00! 467 0.45
:Cement and Mortar Mixers ; 1+ 7.00! 9 0.56
a ;
:Pavers ; 1+ 7.00! 130 0.42
1 * i• i
'Paving Equipment 1 • 7.00: 132: 0.36
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 35
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Paving • Rollers
Paving +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Building Interior - Architectural Coating :Aerial Lifts
Building Interior - Architectural Coating +Air Compressors
Trenching - Foundation :Excavators
Trenching - Foundation :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1•
1
2
2
1
1•
7.00
7.00 i
7.00 i
7.00 i
7.00 i
7.00:
80•
97:
63•
78•
158•
97•
0.38
0.37
0.31
0.48
0.38
0.37
Trips and VMT
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6: 15.00• 2.00: 1,217.00: 10.80:
Site Prep - Grading 6; 15.00' 2.00 i 25.00 i 10.80
1
Building Construction 8: 128.00 51.00 i 0.00: 10.80
Paving 5; 13.00 0.00i 0.00: 10.80:
• -i 1 '
Building Interior 4; 26.00• 0.001 0.00: 10.801
F i- t
Trenching - • 2: 5.00: 0.00: 0.00' 10.80:
•
7.30; 20.00: LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
7.30: 20.00: LD_Mix
7.30: 20.00: LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HDT_Mix
7.30: 20.00: LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
7.30: 20.00: LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
HHDT
HHDT
HHDT
HHDT
7.30• 20.00•LD_Mix :HDT_Mix •HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.2 Demolition - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust •i i 0.0309 0.0000 0.0309 4.6700e- 0.0000 4.6700e- ■ 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
003 003
Off -Road • 0.0670 0.6338 0.5317 1.0600e- 0.0296 0.0296 0.0278 0.0278 • 0.0000 i 92.8197 92.8197 0.0216 0.0000 93.3606
003
•
Total
0.0670
0.6338
0.5317
1.0600e-
0.0309
0.0296
0.0604
4.6700e-
0.0278
0.0324
0.0000
92.8197
92.8197
0.0216
0.0000
93.3606
il
003
003
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling •i 1.2600e- ' 0.0800 1 0.0181 3.6000e- 0.0103 6.8000e- ' 0.0110 2.8400e- 6.5000e- 3.4900e- • 0.0000
35.4570 1 35.4570 7.5000e- 5.6000e- 37.1452
003 i 004 004 003 004 003
004 003 i
Vendor • 7.0000e- 2.8400e- 8.6000e- 1.0000e- 4.3000e- 2.0000e- 4.4000e- 1.2000e- 2.0000e- 1.4000e- • 0.0000
1.2574 1.2574 2.0000e- 1.9000e- 1.3139
005 003 004 005 004 005 004 004 005 004
005 004 i
Worker • 1.2700e- 8.7000e- 0.0108 3.0000e- 3.8500e- 2.0000e- 3.8700e- 1.0300e- 2.0000e- 1.0400e- • 0.0000
3.0013 3.0013 9.0000e- 8.0000e- 3.0287
•
003 004 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 :
•
005 005 i
Total
2.6000e-
0.0837
0.0298
4.0000e-
0.0146
7.2000e-
0.0153
3.9900e-
6.9000e-
4.6700e-
0.0000
39.7156
39.7156
8.6000e-
5.8700e-
41.4877
003
004
004
003
004
003
004
003
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.2 Demolition - 2023
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust •i i 0.0139 0.0000 0.0139 2.1000e- 0.0000 2.1000e- ■ 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
003 003
Off -Road • 0.0670 0.6338 0.5317 1.0600e- 0.0296 0.0296 0.0278 0.0278 • 0.0000 i 92.8196 92.8196 0.0216 0.0000 93.3605
003
•
Total
0.0670
0.6338
0.5317
1.0600e-
0.0139
0.0296
0.0434
2.1000e-
0.0278
0.0299
0.0000
92.8196
92.8196
0.0216
0.0000
93.3605
il
003
003
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling 4 1.2600e- ' 0.0800 1 0.0181 3.6000e- 0.0103 6.8000e- ' 0.0110 2.8400e- 6.5000e- 3.4900e- • 0.0000
35.4570 1 35.4570 7.5000e- 5.6000e- 37.1452
003 i 004 004 003 004 003
004 003 i
Vendor • 7.0000e- 2.8400e- 8.6000e- 1.0000e- 4.3000e- 2.0000e- 4.4000e- 1.2000e- 2.0000e- 1.4000e- • 0.0000
1.2574 1.2574 2.0000e- 1.9000e- 1.3139
005 003 004 005 004 005 004 004 005 004
005 004 i
Worker • 1.2700e- 8.7000e- 0.0108 3.0000e- 3.8500e- 2.0000e- 3.8700e- 1.0300e- 2.0000e- 1.0400e- • 0.0000
3.0013 3.0013 9.0000e- 8.0000e- 3.0287
•
003 004 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 :
•
005 005 i
Total
2.6000e-
0.0837
0.0298
4.0000e-
0.0146
7.2000e-
0.0153
3.9900e-
6.9000e-
4.6700e-
0.0000
39.7156
39.7156
8.6000e-
5.8700e-
41.4877
003
004
004
003
004
003
004
003
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.3 Site Prep - Grading - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust •i I 0.0114 0.0000 0.0114 1.2600e- 0.0000 1.2600e- ■ 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
003 003
0ff-Road • 0.0170 0.1973 0.1097 3.2000e- 6.8300e- 6.8300e- 6.2900e- 6.2900e- • 0.0000 i 27.6882 27.6882 8.9500e- 0.0000 27.9121
004 003 003 003 003 :
•
003
Total
0.0170
0.1973
0.1097
3.2000e-
0.0114
6.8300e-
0.0182
1.2600e-
6.2900e-
7.5500e-
0.0000
27.6882
27.6882
8.9500e-
0.0000
27.9121
004
003
003
003
003
003
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling 4 3.0000e- 1 1.6400e- : 3.7000e- 1.0000e- 2.1000e- 1.0000e- 1 2.3000e- 6.0000e- 1.0000e- 7.0000e- • 0.0000
0.7284 : 0.7284 2.0000e- 1.2000e- 0.7631
005 003 1 004 005 004 005 004 005 005 005
005 004 i
Vendor • 2.0000e- 9.2000e- 2.8000e- 0.0000 1.4000e- 1.0000e- 1.4000e- 4.0000e- 1.0000e- 5.0000e- • 0.0000
0.4062 0.4062 1.0000e- 6.0000e- 0.4245
005 004 004 004 005 004 005 005 005
005 005 i
Worker • 4.1000e- 2.8000e- 3.5000e- 1.0000e- 1.2500e- 1.0000e- 1.2500e- 3.3000e- 1.0000e- 3.4000e- • 0.0000
0.9696 0.9696 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.9785
•
004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 :
•
005 005 i
Total
4.6000e-
2.8400e-
4.1500e-
2.0000e-
1.6000e-
3.0000e-
1.6200e-
4.3000e-
3.0000e-
4.6000e-
0.0000
2.1042
2.1042
6.0000e-
2.1000e-
2.1660
004
003
003
005
003
005
003
004
005
004
005
004
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.3 Site Prep - Grading - 2023
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
I CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust •i I 5.1200e- 0.0000 5.1200e- 5.7000e- 0.0000 5.7000e- ■ 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
003 003 004 004
0ff-Road • 0.0170 0.1973 0.1097 3.2000e- 6.8300e- 6.8300e- 6.2900e- 6.2900e- • 0.0000 i 27.6882 27.6882 8.9500e- 0.0000 27.9121
004 003 003 003 003 :
•
003
Total
0.0170
0.1973
0.1097
3.2000e-
5.1200e-
6.8300e-
0.0120
5.7000e-
6.2900e-
6.8600e-
0.0000
27.6882
27.6882
8.9500e-
0.0000
27.9121
004
003
003
004
003
003
003
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling •i 3.0000e- 1 1.6400e- : 3.7000e- 1.0000e- 2.1000e- 1.0000e- 1 2.3000e- 6.0000e- 1.0000e- 7.0000e- • 0.0000
0.7284 : 0.7284 2.0000e- 1.2000e- 0.7631
005 003 1 004 005 004 005 004 005 005 005
005 004 i
Vendor • 2.0000e- 9.2000e- 2.8000e- 0.0000 1.4000e- 1.0000e- 1.4000e- 4.0000e- 1.0000e- 5.0000e- • 0.0000
0.4062 0.4062 1.0000e- 6.0000e- 0.4245
005 004 004 004 005 004 005 005 005
005 005 i
Worker • 4.1000e- 2.8000e- 3.5000e- 1.0000e- 1.2500e- 1.0000e- 1.2500e- 3.3000e- 1.0000e- 3.4000e- • 0.0000
0.9696 0.9696 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.9785
•
004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 :
•
005 005 i
Total
4.6000e-
2.8400e-
4.1500e-
2.0000e-
1.6000e-
3.0000e-
1.6200e-
4.3000e-
3.0000e-
4.6000e-
0.0000
2.1042
2.1042
6.0000e-
2.1000e-
2.1660
004
003
003
005
003
005
003
004
005
004
005
004
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Trenching - Foundation - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road
•i 3.4000e- 0.0299 0.0578 9.0000e- 1.4200e- 1.4200e- 1.3100e- 1.3100e- ■ 0.0000 i 7.6397 7.6397 2.4700e- 0.0000 7.7015
003 005 003 003 003 003
•
003
Total
3.4000e-
0.0299
0.0578
9.0000e-
1.4200e-
1.4200e-
1.3100e-
1.3100e-
0.0000
7.6397
7.6397
2.4700e-
0.0000
7.7015
il
003
005
003
003
003
003
003
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling • 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1 1 •
1
i i
i
Vendor •• 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker • 1.5000e- 1.0000e- 1.2400e- 0.0000 4.7000e- 0.0000 4.8000e- 1.3000e- 0.0000 1.3000e- • 0.0000
0.3574 0.3574 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.3606
004 004 003 004 004 004 004
005 005 i
Total
1.5000e-
1.0000e-
1.2400e-
0.0000
4.7000e-
0.0000
4.8000e-
1.3000e-
0.0000
1.3000e-
0.0000
0.3574
0.3574
1.0000e-
1.0000e-
0.3606
004
004
003
004
004
004
004
005
005
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Trenching - Foundation - 2024
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road
•i 3.4000e- 0.0299 0.0578 9.0000e- 1.4200e- 1.4200e- 1.3100e- 1.3100e- ■ 0.0000 i 7.6397 7.6397 2.4700e- 0.0000 7.7015
003 005 003 003 003 003
•
003
Total
3.4000e-
0.0299
0.0578
9.0000e-
1.4200e-
1.4200e-
1.3100e-
1.3100e-
0.0000
7.6397
7.6397
2.4700e-
0.0000
7.7015
il
003
005
003
003
003
003
003
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling • 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1 1 •
1
i i
i
Vendor •• 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
.
Worker • 1.5000e- 1.0000e- 1.2400e- 0.0000 4.7000e- 0.0000 4.8000e- 1.3000e- 0.0000 1.3000e- • 0.0000
0.3574 0.3574 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.3606
004 004 003 004 004 004 004
005 005 i
Total
1.5000e-
1.0000e-
1.2400e-
0.0000
4.7000e-
0.0000
4.8000e-
1.3000e-
0.0000
1.3000e-
0.0000
0.3574
0.3574
1.0000e-
1.0000e-
0.3606
004
004
003
004
004
004
004
005
005
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Building Construction Exterior - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
0ff-Road •i 0.0822 0.7366 0.8868 1.6000e- 0.0325 0.0325 0.0313 0.0313 ■ 0.0000 i 137.3069 137.3069 0.0200 0.0000 137.8069
003
■
Total
0.0822
0.7366
0.8868
1.6000e-
0.0325
0.0325
0.0313
0.0313
0.0000
137.3069
137.3069
0.0200
0.0000
137.8069
il
003
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling • 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1 •
1
i 1
i
Vendor • 2.6900e- 0.1198 0.0354 5.4000e- 0.0179 7.3000e- 0.0187 5.1900e- 7.0000e- 5.8800e- • 0.0000
51.9666 51.9666 7.2000e- 7.7900e- 54.3048
003 004 004 003 004 003
004 003 i
Worker •• 0.0167 0.0110 0.1420 4.4000e- 0.0542 2.7000e- 0.0544 0.0144 2.5000e- 0.0147 • 0.0000
40.7957 40.7957 1.1400e- 1.1000e- 41.1533
004 004 004
003 003 i
Total
0.0194
0.1307
0.1774
9.8000e-
0.0721
1.0000e-
0.0731
0.0196
9.5000e-
0.0205
0.0000
92.7622
92.7622
1.8600e-
8.8900e-
95.4581
004
003
004
003
003
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Building Construction Exterior - 2024
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
0ff-Road •i 0.0822 0.7366 0.8868 1.6000e- 0.0325 0.0325 0.0313 0.0313 ■ 0.0000 i 137.3068 137.3068 0.0200 0.0000 137.8067
003
■
Total
0.0822
0.7366
0.8868
1.6000e-
0.0325
0.0325
0.0313
0.0313
0.0000
137.3068
137.3068
0.0200
0.0000
137.8067
il
003
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling • 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1 •
1
i 1
i
Vendor • 2.6900e- 0.1198 0.0354 5.4000e- 0.0179 7.3000e- 0.0187 5.1900e- 7.0000e- 5.8800e- • 0.0000
51.9666 51.9666 7.2000e- 7.7900e- 54.3048
003 004 004 003 004 003
004 003 i
Worker •• 0.0167 0.0110 0.1420 4.4000e- 0.0542 2.7000e- 0.0544 0.0144 2.5000e- 0.0147 • 0.0000
40.7957 40.7957 1.1400e- 1.1000e- 41.1533
004 004 004
003 003 i
Total
0.0194
0.1307
0.1774
9.8000e-
0.0721
1.0000e-
0.0731
0.0196
9.5000e-
0.0205
0.0000
92.7622
92.7622
1.8600e-
8.8900e-
95.4581
004
003
004
003
003
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Paving - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road 4 0.0104 0.0979 : 0.1466 2.3000e- 4.6900e- 4.6900e- 4.3300e- 4.3300e- ■ 0.0000 i 19.6486 : 19.6486 6.2100e- 0.0000 19.8037
004 003 003 003 003 1 003
Paving • 2.5400e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
003
•
Total
0.0129
0.0979
0.1466
2.3000e-
4.6900e-
4.6900e-
4.3300e-
4.3300e-
0.0000
19.6486
19.6486
6.2100e-
0.0000
19.8037
il
004
003
003
003
003
003
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling 4 0.0000 ' 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000
0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor •• 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker • 5.4000e- 3.5000e- 4.5800e- 1.0000e- 1.7500e- 1.0000e- 1.7600e- 4.6000e- 1.0000e- 4.7000e- • 0.0000
1.3166 1.3166 4.0000e- 4.0000e- 1.3281
•
004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 :
•
005 005 i
Total
5.4000e-
3.5000e-
4.5800e-
1.0000e-
1.7500e-
1.0000e-
1.7600e-
4.6000e-
1.0000e-
4.7000e-
0.0000
1.3166
1.3166
4.0000e-
4.0000e-
1.3281
004
004
003
005
003
005
003
004
005
004
005
005
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Paving - 2024
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road 4 0.0104 0.0979 : 0.1466 2.3000e- 4.6900e- 4.6900e- 4.3300e- 4.3300e- ■ 0.0000 i 19.6486 : 19.6486 6.2100e- 0.0000 19.8037
004 003 003 003 003 1 003
Paving • 2.5400e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
003
•
Total
0.0129
0.0979
0.1466
2.3000e-
4.6900e-
4.6900e-
4.3300e-
4.3300e-
0.0000
19.6486
19.6486
6.2100e-
0.0000
19.8037
il
004
003
003
003
003
003
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling 4 0.0000 ' 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000
0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor •• 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker • 5.4000e- 3.5000e- 4.5800e- 1.0000e- 1.7500e- 1.0000e- 1.7600e- 4.6000e- 1.0000e- 4.7000e- • 0.0000
1.3166 1.3166 4.0000e- 4.0000e- 1.3281
•
004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 :
•
005 005 i
Total
5.4000e-
3.5000e-
4.5800e-
1.0000e-
1.7500e-
1.0000e-
1.7600e-
4.6000e-
1.0000e-
4.7000e-
0.0000
1.3166
1.3166
4.0000e-
4.0000e-
1.3281
004
004
003
005
003
005
003
004
005
004
005
005
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.7 Building Interior - Architectural Coating - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating •i 0.6917 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off -Road • 5.3100e- 0.0414 0.0675 1.1000e- 1.7400e- 1.7400e- 1.7300e- 1.7300e- • 0.0000 i 9.3932 9.3932 1.2900e- 0.0000 9.4254
003 004 003 003 003 003 :
•
003
Total
0.6970
0.0414
0.0675
1.1000e-
1.7400e-
1.7400e-
1.7300e-
1.7300e-
0.0000
9.3932
9.3932
1.2900e-
0.0000
9.4254
il
004
003
003
003
003
003
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 ' 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000
0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor •• 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker • 7.0000e- 4.6000e- 5.9300e- 2.0000e- 2.2600e- 1.0000e- 2.2700e- 6.0000e- 1.0000e- 6.1000e- • 0.0000
1.7038 1.7038 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 1.7187
•
004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 :
•
005 005 i
Total
7.0000e-
4.6000e-
5.9300e-
2.0000e-
2.2600e-
1.0000e-
2.2700e-
6.0000e-
1.0000e-
6.1000e-
0.0000
1.7038
1.7038
5.0000e-
5.0000e-
1.7187
004
004
003
005
003
005
003
004
005
004
005
005
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.7 Building Interior - Architectural Coating - 2024
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating •i 0.6917 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off -Road • 5.3100e- 0.0414 0.0675 1.1000e- 1.7400e- 1.7400e- 1.7300e- 1.7300e- • 0.0000 i 9.3932 9.3932 1.2900e- 0.0000 9.4254
003 004 003 003 003 003 :
•
003
Total
0.6970
0.0414
0.0675
1.1000e-
1.7400e-
1.7400e-
1.7300e-
1.7300e-
0.0000
9.3932
9.3932
1.2900e-
0.0000
9.4254
il
004
003
003
003
003
003
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 ' 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000
0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor •• 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker • 7.0000e- 4.6000e- 5.9300e- 2.0000e- 2.2600e- 1.0000e- 2.2700e- 6.0000e- 1.0000e- 6.1000e- • 0.0000
1.7038 1.7038 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 1.7187
•
004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 :
•
005 005 i
Total
7.0000e-
4.6000e-
5.9300e-
2.0000e-
2.2600e-
1.0000e-
2.2700e-
6.0000e-
1.0000e-
6.1000e-
0.0000
1.7038
1.7038
5.0000e-
5.0000e-
1.7187
004
004
003
005
003
005
003
004
005
004
005
005
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated •i 0.1066 1 0.2351 : 1.3549 i 4.8500e- : 0.5324 i 3.4600e- i 0.5358 : 0.1422 i 3.2300e- 0.1455 . 0.0000 i 448.1329 : 448.1329 i 0.0126 : 0.0199 i 454.3616
•1 I I 1 003 I 1 003 1 1 1 003 1 1 1
q 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
• :l• + F + F F + F + r •J. F F F
Unmitigated • 0.1066 • 0.2351 • 1.3549 4.8500e- • 0.5324 3.4600e- 0.5358 • 0.1422 3.2300e- • 0.1455 • 0.0000 • 448.1329 • 448.1329 0.0126 • 0.0199 454.3616
003 003 003
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
General Light Industry
General Office Building
General Office Building
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces
Parking Lot
Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No Rail
; 494.00
; 0.00
; 0.00
; 0.00
-
; 0.00
+ 0.00
494.00 494.00
T
0.00 0.00
t
0.00 0.00
t
0.00 0.00
-r -.•
0.00 0.00
t
0.00 0.00•
• 1,442,239
•
•
•
•
1,442,239
r
Total
I 494.00
494.00
494.00
I 1,442,239
I 1,442,239
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass -by
General Light Industry 9.50 7.30 7.30 • 59.00 28.00 13.00 92 5 3
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 35
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass -by
General Office Building
General Office Building
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces
Parking Lot
Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No
•
9.50
9.50
9.50
9.50
9.50
7.30 7.30
7.30
-r
7.30 T 7.30 1 0.00 1 0.00
-r
7.30 7.30 0.00 1 0.00
7.30 T 7.30 ▪ 59.00 : 0.00
7.30 - 33.00 48.00
33.00 48.00
19.00
19.00
•
•
•
•
77 19 4
77 19 4
0.00 • 0 0
0.00 • 0 0
•
41.00
•
•
92
• 5
•
0
0
3
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use I LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV I LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD I HHD I OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH
General Light Industry
General Office Building
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces
Parking Lot
Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No
Rail
0.570753:
a
0.5707531
a
0.5707531
a
0.5707531
0.056481;
0.056481:
0.056481:
0.056481:
0.179220: 0.140534: 0.020784: 0.005211 ; 0.013984: 0.013033: 0.000000: 0.000000 ; 0.000000: 0.000000
0.179220: 0.111941: 0.020784: 0.005211: 0.013984: 0.013033: 0.000790: 0.000560: 0.024477: 0.000343
0.179220: 0.111941: 0.020784: 0.005211: 0.013984: 0.013033: 0.000790: 0.000560: 0.024477: 0.000343
0.179220: 0.111941: 0.020784: 0.005211: 0.013984: 0.013033: 0.000790: 0.000560: 0.024477: 0.000343
0.000000
0.002423
0.002423
0.002423
0.570753: 0.056481 : 0.179220 : 0.111941 : 0.020784 : 0.005211 : 0.013984 : 0.013033 : 0.000790 : 0.000560 : 0.024477 : 0.000343 : 0.002423
5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Electricity •i 1
1 1 i 1 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 . 0.0000
Mitigated 9 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1
91 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 J 1 J J J J J 7
Electricity •▪ i 1 1 1 1 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • ▪ 0.0000
Unmitigated 9 I 1 I I 1I 1 1 1
1 9 J J J J J J J J •
NaturalGas 9▪ 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 0.0000 • ▪ 0.0000
Mitigated 9 I 1 I I I 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1
•
NaturalGas • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • ▪ 0.0000
Unmitigated
111.9466 1 111.9466 i 0.0181 i 2.2000e- i 113.0535
003 i
J J 1 1.
111.9466 : 111.9466 1 0.0181 i 2.2000e- : 113.0535
003 i
J J J 1.
0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000
I I I I
I 1 i
} } 4
0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • • 0.0000
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
tons/yr
MT/yr
t
General Light I 0 ■1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 : 0.0000
Industry i : i
1- -r J J J J J J J J
General Office i 0 •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 : 0.0000
Building : i•
I- - J J J J J J J J
Other Non- i 0 •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 : 0.0000
Asphalt Surfaces 1 :
1- 4 J J J J J J J J
Parking Lot I 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
I :
I- •
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Unrefrigerated i 0 }i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000
Warehouse -No i T
Rail I ,
0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1. J J J
0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
•
•• J J J
0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
•• J J J
0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
•
* T i i i
0.0000 r 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000
rr
r
Total
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Mitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
tons/yr
MT/yr
t
General Light I 0 ■1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 : 0.0000
Industry i : i
1- -r J J J J J J J J
General Office i 0 •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 : 0.0000
Building : i•
I- - J J J J J J J J
Other Non- i 0 •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 : 0.0000
Asphalt Surfaces 1 :
1- 4 J J J J J J J J
Parking Lot I 0 ■1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
I :
I- •
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Unrefrigerated i 0 }i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000
Warehouse -No i T
Rail I ,
0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1. J J J
0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
•
•• J J J
0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
•• J J J
0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
•
* T i i i
0.0000 r 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000
rr
r
Total
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
General Light
Industry
General Office
Building
General Office
Building
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
Parking Lot
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse -No
Rail
I 556625 • 51.5010 8.3300e- 1.0100e- 52.0103
i • 003 003 i
i
Total
111.9466
0.0181
2.1900e-
003
113.0535
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Mitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
General Light
Industry
General Office
Building
General Office
Building
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
Parking Lot
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse -No
Rail
I 556625 •
i •
i
51.5010 8.3300e- 1.0100e- 52.0103
003 003 i
J J r
10.0647 1.6300e- 2.0000e- 10.1643
003 004 i
J J r
20.1295 3.2600e- 3.9000e- 20.3285
003 004 i
J J r
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
J J r
2.7369 4.4000e- 5.0000e- 2.7639
004 005 i
27.5144 i 4.4500e- 1 5.4000e- r 27.7865
003 004 ,
Total
111.9466
0.0181
2.1900e-
003
113.0535
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated •i 0.5707 i 3.0000e- : 2.8300e- : 0.0000 : : 1.0000e- : 1.0000e- : : 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • 0.0000 i 5.5200e- i 5.5200e- i 1.0000e- : 0.0000 i 5.8800e-
9 1 005 1 003 1 I I 005 I 005 I I 005 1 005 : ' 003 1 003 1 005 i 003
91 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1
,1 4 I. } 4 } } I. } T • i• } 4 1
Unmitigated • 0.5707 • 3.0000e- • 2.8300e- • 0.0000 . • 1.0000e- • 1.0000e- • . 1.0000e- • 1.0000e- • 0.0000 • 5.5200e- • 5.5200e- • 1.0000e- • 0.0000 • 5.8800e-
005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
SubCategory
tons/yr
MT/yr
Architectural 9i 0.0692 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
:
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000
Coating ::
9 J J J J J J J J ••
J J J
Consumer •i 0.5012 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Products
Landscaping • 2.6000e- 3.0000e- 2.8300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • 0.0000
5.5200e- 5.5200e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 5.8800e-
004 005 003 005 005 005 005 :
003 003 005
I 003
Total
0.5707
3.0000e-
2.8300e-
0.0000
1.0000e-
1.0000e-
1.0000e-
1.0000e-
0.0000
5.5200e-
5.5200e-
1.0000e-
0.0000
5.8800e-
005
003
005
005
005
005
003
003
005
003
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Mitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
SubCategory
tons/yr
MT/yr
Architectural •i 0.0692 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000
Coating ::
Consumer .1 0.5012 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Products
Landscaping • 2.6000e- 3.0000e- 2.8300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • 0.0000 i 5.5200e- 5.5200e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 5.8800e-
004 005 003 005 005 005 005
•
003 003 005 i 003
Total
0.5707
3.0000e-
2.8300e-
0.0000
1.0000e-
1.0000e-
1.0000e-
1.0000e-
0.0000
5.5200e-
5.5200e-
1.0000e-
0.0000
5.8800e-
005
003
005
005
005
005
003
003
005
003
7.0 Water Detail
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
MT/yr
•
Mitigated •i
•
Unmitigated ••
23.5463 : 0.9152 :
9 1 I
q 1 1
2• I- I.
23.5463 : 0.9152 •
0.0218 i 52.9335
1
1
r
0.0218 : 52.9335
7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
1 MT/yr
General Light 18.44063 / •
6.9036 1 0.2757 6.5800e- 15.7566
Industry 1 0 : 003 i
i
* General Office 13.19921 / • 3.2516 i 0.1046 2.5100e- 6.6134
Building i 1.9608 ; 003 i
I
J
r Other Non- I 0 / 0 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Asphalt Surfaces i
I
Parking Lot I 0 / 0 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1
1
Unrefrigerated 116.3725 / }i 13.3911 i 0.5348 1 0.0128
Warehouse -No 1 0
Rail
Total
23.5463
0.9152
0.0219
52.9335
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
7.2 Water by Land Use
Mitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
1 MT/yr
General Light
Industry
.-Ir
General Office
Building
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
Parking Lot
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse -No
Rail
i 8.44063 / •
i 0
6.9036 1 0.2757 6.5800e- 15.7566
003 i
J *
3.2516 1 0.1046 2.5100e- 6.6134
003 i
J *
0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
J J
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
i I
13.3911 i 0.5348 1 0.0128 * 30.5635
Total
23.5463
0.9152
0.0219
52.9335
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
Category/Year
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
MT/yr
Mitigated -I
-I
-I
• iI-
Unmitigated -
26.0945 : 1.5421 i 0.0000 i 64.6480
I I
1 I I
} F r
26.0945 : 1.5421 : 0.0000 : 64.6480
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
General Light
I 45.26
99.1874 1 0.5430
0.0000 22.7613
Industry
I .1
•
Office
I' nil .1 .
I 16.74 1 3.3981 1 0.2008 I
I'General
0.0000 8.4186
Building
j •I
•
Non-
I' nil .1 .
I 0 1 0.0000 1 0.0000
I'Other
0.0000 0.0000
Asphalt Surfaces
1 I
Parking Lot
1 0 •.I 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
I
1
1- ii
*
Unrefrigerated
I 66.55 'I 13.5091 1 0.7984
0.0000 33.4681
Warehouse -No
I
Rail
I
Total
26.0945
1.5421
0.0000
64.6480
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 35 Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Mitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
General Light
Industry
General Office
Building
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
Parking Lot
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse -No
Rail
f 45.26 •i
j •I
9.1874 : 0.5430 0.0000 22.7613
J J t
3.3981 : 0.2008 0.0000 8.4186
0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
J J t
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1
13.5091 1 0.7984 i 0.0000 * 33.4681
Total
26.0945
1.5421
0.0000
64.6480
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Days/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Hours/Year
Fire Pump
Horse Power I Load Factor
Fuel Type
• 1 • 1: 50: 175: 0.73 Diesel
Boilers
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 35
Hexcel Redevelopment Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
Date: 3/17/2023 10:58 AM
Equipment Type
Number I Heat Input/Day I Heat Input/Year I Boiler Rating I Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type
Number
10.1 Stationary Sources
Unmitigated/Mitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Equipment Type
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fire Pump - •i 7.1800e- i 0.0201 i 0.0183 i 3.0000e- i i 1.0600e- ' 1.0600e- . ' 1.0600e- 1.0600e-
r 0.0000 i 3.3320 i 3.3320 ' 4.7000e- i 0.0000 3.3437
Diesel (175 - 300 ; 003 005 003 003 003 1 003 } 004
HP)
}
Total
7.1800e-
0.0201
0.0183
3.0000e-
1.0600e-
1.0600e-
1.0600e-
1.0600e-
0.0000
3.3320
3.3320
4.7000e-
0.0000
3.3437
003
005
003
003
003
003
004
11.0 Vegetation
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 20 Date: 2/3/2023 3:13 PM
Hexcel Redevelopment - Existing Operations - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
Hexcel Redevelopment - Existing Operations
Alameda County, Annual
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
I Size I
Metric I Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
Research & Development • 62.72 + 1000sgft ; 5.58
r 1-
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces • 140.72 1000sgft 3.23
4.
62,715.00
140,724.00
0
0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban
Climate Zone 5
Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
CO2 Intensity
(Ib/MWhr)
203.98
CH4 Intensity
(Ib/MWhr)
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data
0.033
Precipitation Freq (Days) 63
Operational Year 2023
N20 Intensity
(Ib/MWhr)
Project Characteristics - Existing operations run only (2023).
Land Use - Based on existing land uses and 8.81-acre site.
Construction Phase - Operations only run - construction phases as placeholders.
Off -road Equipment - Operations only run.
Off -road Equipment - Operations only run.
Trips and VMT - Operations only run.
Architectural Coating - Operations only run.
Vehicle Trips - Trip rate based on Final TIS for project (W-Trans 2022).
Energy Use - The building was built in two phases dating 1962 and 1967 - use of historical data.
0.004
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 20 Date: 2/3/2023 3:13 PM
Hexcel Redevelopment - Existing Operations - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
Table Name
tblArchitecturalCoating
tblArchitecturalCoating
tblArchitecturalCoating
tblConstructionPhase
tblConstructionPhase
tblConstructionPhase
tblConstructionPhase
tblLandUse
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblOffRoadEquipment
tblTripsAndVMT
tblVehicleTrips
tblVehicleTrips
tblVehicleTrips
I
ConstArea_Nonresidential_Exterior r
ConstArea Nonresidential Interior r
r
• ConstArea_Parking r
• NumDays r
• NumDays r
• PhaseEndDate r
r
• PhaseEndDate r
r
• LotAcreage r
• • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount r
• • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount r
• • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount r
• • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount r
• UsageHours r
• UsageHours r
• UsageHours r
• UsageHours r
• WorkerTripNumber r
ST_TR r
r
SUTR r
r
1
Column Name
• WD_TR
Default Value
31, 358.00
94, 073.00
8,443.00
20.00
20.00
4/25/2024
3/28/2024
1.44
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
6.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
16.00
1.90
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
New Value
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
3/29/2024
3/1/2024
5.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.08
11.08
11.26 11.08
2.0 Emissions Summary
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 20 Date: 2/3/2023 3:13 PM
Hexcel Redevelopment - Existing Operations - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2024 •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
•
i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Maximum 11
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2024 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 0.0000
: 0.0000
•
i 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000
Maximum 11
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
ROG
NOx
CO
502
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-0O2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Quarter I Start Date I End Date I Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) I Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 20 Date: 2/3/2023 3:13 PM
Hexcel Redevelopment - Existing Operations - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
IHighest I
2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area •i 0.2898 2.0000e- i 1.8700e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- i 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • 0.0000 i 3.6400e- 3.6400e- 1.0000e- 1 0.0000 3.8700e-
;� 005 I 003 005 005 I 005 005 • i 003 003 005 I i 003
•I J J J J J J J J • J J J •
Energy 9i 9.1200e- 0.0829 i 0.0696 5.0000e- 6.3000e- 6.3000e- i 6.3000e- 6.3000e- • 0.0000
140.4201 140.4201 9.8500e- 1 2.6400e- 141.4526
•� 003 11 004 003 003 1 003 003 •
.�
003 1 003 1
•l J J J J J J J J -
J J J •
Mobile •i 0.3079 0.3914 I 2.9138 6.2700e- 0.6425 4.7000e- 0.6472 I 0.1716 4.3800e- 0.1760 • 0.0000 i 579.0834 579.0834 0.0368 I 0.0299 588.9222
.1 003 003 003 .
J J J J J J J J •1 J J J •
Waste • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.9683
0.0000 0.9683 0.0572 0.0000 2.3988
.
J J J J J J J J ••
J J J •
Water
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
• 9.7838
i 15.4395 25.2233 1.0074 0.0240 57.5690
Total
0.6068
0.4743
2.9853
6.7700e-
0.6425
0.0110
0.6535
0.1716
0.0107
0.1823
10.7521
734.9466
745.6987
1.1113
0.0566
790.3465
003
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 20 Date: 2/3/2023 3:13 PM
Hexcel Redevelopment - Existing Operations - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
2.2 Overall Operational
Mitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area •i
•1
,l
Energy .1
•�
':
el
Mobile .i
el
Waste •1
Ir
Water •I
0.2898 2.0000e- 1 1.8700e- 0.0000 : 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • 0.0000
i 005 005
9i 005 003 I 005
i 005 1
J J J J J J J J I.
9.1200e- 0.0829 1 0.0696 5.0000e- 1 6.3000e- 6.3000e- 1 6.3000e- 6.3000e- • 0.0000
003 i 1 004 1 003 003 i : 003 003 :
•
J J J J J J J J I.
0.3079 0.3914 ' 2.9138 6.2700e- 0.6425 1 4.7000e- 0.6472 ' 0.1716 4.3800e- 0.1760 • 0.0000
9 003 : 003 003
J J J J J J J J I.
1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.9683
1 •
•
J J J J J J J J I.
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 9.7838
.
•
•
' 3.6400e- 3.6400e- 1.0000e- : 0.0000 3.8700e-
003 003 005 I
i i 003
J J J
i 140.4201 140.4201 9.8500e- : 2.6400e- 141.4526
003 i 1 003 i
J J J
i 579.0834 579.0834 0.0368 1 0.0299 588.9222
J J J
i 0.0000 0.9683 0.0572 0.0000 2.3988
J J J
i 15.4395 25.2233 1.0074 0.0240 57.5690
Total
0.6068
0.4743
2.9853
6.7700e-
003
0.6425
0.0110
0.6535
0.1716
0.0107
0.1823
10.7521
734.9466
745.6987
1.1113
0.0566
790.3465
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-0O2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
Num Days
Phase Description
1 :Paving :Paving i 3/1/2024 : 3/1 /2024 . 5 : 1:
2 :Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating :3/29/2024 :3/29/2024 r 5. 1:
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 20 Date: 2/3/2023 3:13 PM
Hexcel Redevelopment - Existing Operations - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 3.23
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural
Coating — sqft)
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type Amount
Architectural Coating
Paving
Paving
Paving
Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor
:Air Compressors ; 0l 0.00!
1 1 - - - -
i 0 0.00!
i
:Paying Equipment ; 0+ 0.00!
+ 1-
-Rollers 0: 0.00:
:Payers
78:
130
132
80:
0.48
0.42
0.36
0.38
Trips and VMT
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Paving + 0; 0.00:.O.00
Architectural Coating 0 0.00 0.00
•
0.00: 10.80: 7.30; 20.00;LD_Mix HDT_Mix
0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 : LD_Mix :HDT_Mix
HHDT
.HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 20 Date: 2/3/2023 3:13 PM
Hexcel Redevelopment - Existing Operations - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.2 Paving - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road ■i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000
Paving • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000
■
i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
ilTotal
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling ■i 0.0000 ' 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor •■ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker
9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
■
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 20 Date: 2/3/2023 3:13 PM
Hexcel Redevelopment - Existing Operations - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.2 Paving - 2024
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road ■i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000
Paving • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000
■
i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
ilTotal
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling ■i 0.0000 ' 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor •■ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker -1
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
•
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 20 Date: 2/3/2023 3:13 PM
Hexcel Redevelopment - Existing Operations - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.3 Architectural Coating - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
0ff-Road • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
•
i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
ilTotal
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling -i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor •r 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker -1
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
•
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 20 Date: 2/3/2023 3:13 PM
Hexcel Redevelopment - Existing Operations - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.3 Architectural Coating - 2024
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
0ff-Road • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
•
i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
ilTotal
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling -i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor •r 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker -1
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000
•
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 20 Date: 2/3/2023 3:13 PM
Hexcel Redevelopment - Existing Operations - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated •i 0.3079 0.3914 2.9138 i 6.2700e- 0.6425 i 4.7000e- i 0.6472 0.1716 i 4.3800e- 0.1760 � 0.0000 i 579.0834 579.0834 i 0.0368 0.0299 i 588.9222
•1 1 1 1 003 1 1 003 1 1 1 003 1 1 1 i
• :l• + F + F F + F F r •
Unmitigated • 0.3079 • 0.3914 • 2.9138 6.2700e- • 0.6425 4.7000e- 0.6472 • 0.1716 4.3800e- • 0.1760 • 0.0000 • 579.0834 • 579.0834 0.0368 • 0.0299 588.9222
003 003 003
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces ; 0.00 0.00
Research & Development ; 695.00 695.00 T
0.00
695.00
•
• 1,741,842
1,741,842
Total I 695.00
695.00
695.00
I 1,741,842
I 1,741,842
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass -by
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces ; 9.50
r rt
Research & Development 9.50
7.30 7.30 i 0.00 I
t r
7.30 7.30 • 33.00
0.00 0.00 • 0
t
48.00 19.00 82
0 0
15 3
4.4 Fleet Mix
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 20 Date: 2/3/2023 3:13 PM
Hexcel Redevelopment - Existing Operations - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
Land Use
LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV I LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD I HHD I OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 0.569121: 0.056513: 0.180870: 0.112593: 0.021111: 0.005121: 0.013190: 0.012692: 0.000800: 0.000580: 0.024593: 0.0003311 0.002484
a i
T
Research & Development • 0.569121• 0.056513• 0.180870• 0.112593• 0.021111• 0.005121• 0.013190• 0.012692• 0.000800• 0.000580• 0.024593• 0.000331• 0.002484
5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: Y
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Electricity •i 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i , 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 50.1927 1 50.1927 : 8.1200e- i 9.8000e- I 50.6891
Mitigated •1 I I I I i I 1 I . i I 003 : 004 1
,I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1
J J J J J J J
Electricity •1 i 1 i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i : 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 50.1927 : 50.1927 : 8.1200e- i 9.8000e- i 50.6891
Unmitigated •1 1
003 004 i
J J J J J J J J 7 J J t
NaturalGas •i 9.1200e- i 0.0829 i 0.0696 : 5.0000e- i : 6.3000e- : 6.3000e- i 1 6.3000e- 6.3000e- • 0.0000 90.2273 : 90.2273 : 1.7300e- i 1.6500e- i 90.7635
Mitigated :� 003 I I : 004 : I 003 li 003 : I 003 003 I I 003 : 003 i
I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1
NaturalGas •• 9.1200e- • 0.0829 • 0.0696 • 5.0000e- • • 6.3000e- • 6.3000e- • • 6.3000e- 6.3000e- • 0.0000 90.2273 • 90.2273 • 1.7300e- • 1.6500e- • 90.7635
Unmitigated 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 20 Date: 2/3/2023 3:13 PM
Hexcel Redevelopment - Existing Operations - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
tons/yr
MT/yr
Other Non- 1 0 ■1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Asphalt Surfaces 1
1-4 J J J J J J J J ; J J J
Research & 1 1.6908e • 9.1200e- 0.0829 0.0696 5.0000e- 6.3000e- 6.3000e- 6.3000e- 6.3000e- • 0.0000 i 90.2273 90.2273 1.7300e- 1.6500e- 90.7635
Development 1 +006
003 004 003 003 003 003 :
003 003 i
Total
9.1200e-
0.0829
0.0696
5.0000e-
6.3000e-
6.3000e-
6.3000e-
6.3000e-
0.0000
90.2273
90.2273
1.7300e-
1.6500e-
90.7635
003
004
003
003
003
003
003
003
Mitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
tons/yr
MT/yr
Other Non- 1 0 .i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 , 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000
0.0000 , 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000
Asphalt Surfaces i . .
r 4 J J J J J J J J ••
J J J 4.
Research & 1 1.6908e • 9.1200e- 0.0829 0.0696 5.0000e- 6.3000e- 6.3000e- 6.3000e- 6.3000e- • 0.0000
90.2273 90.2273 1.7300e- 1.6500e- 90.7635
Development j +006 :
003 004 003 003 003 003
;
003 003 1
Total
9.1200e-
0.0829
0.0696
5.0000e-
6.3000e-
6.3000e-
6.3000e-
6.3000e-
0.0000
90.2273
90.2273
1.7300e-
1.6500e-
90.7635
003
004
003
003
003
003
003
003
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 20 Date: 2/3/2023 3:13 PM
Hexcel Redevelopment - Existing Operations - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
Other Non- i 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Asphalt Surfaces 1
1-4 J J r
Research & 1 542485 • 50.1927 8.1200e- 9.8000e- 50.6891
Development i 003 004 i
i
Total
50.1927
8.1200e-
9.8000e-
50.6891
003
004
Mitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
Other Non- 0 •i
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Asphalt Surfaces i .
J J r
Research & 542485 • 50.1927 8.1200e- 9.8000e- 50.6891
Development i ; 003 004 i
i
Total
50.1927
8.1200e-
9.8000e-
50.6891
003
004
6.0 Area Detail
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 20 Date: 2/3/2023 3:13 PM
Hexcel Redevelopment - Existing Operations - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated •i 0.2898 i 2.0000e- 1.8700e- i 0.0000 i 1.0000e- i 1.0000e- i 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • 0.0000 i 3.6400e- 3.6400e- i 1.0000e- 1 0.0000 i 3.8700e-
•I I 005 I 003 005 0051 005 005 003 003 005 i 003
1 1 1.
• :I• 1- F F 1- F F F F r I• F F + r
Unmitigated . 0.2898 . 2.0000e- • 1.8700e- . 0.0000 . • 1.0000e- . 1.0000e- • . 1.0000e- . 1.0000e- • 0.0000 . 3.6400e- • 3.6400e- . 1.0000e- • 0.0000 • 3.8700e-
005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
SubCategory
tons/yr
MT/yr
Architectural 4 0.0356 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000
Coating ::
Consumer .1 0.2540 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Products
Landscaping • 1.7000e- 2.0000e- 1.8700e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • 0.0000
3.6400e- 3.6400e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 3.8700e-
004 005 003 005 005 005 005 :
•
003 003 005 i 003
Total
0.2898
2.0000e-
1.8700e-
0.0000
1.0000e-
1.0000e-
1.0000e-
1.0000e-
0.0000
3.6400e-
3.6400e-
1.0000e-
0.0000
3.8700e-
005
003
005
005
005
005
003
003
005
003
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 20 Date: 2/3/2023 3:13 PM
Hexcel Redevelopment - Existing Operations - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Mitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
SubCategory
tons/yr
MT/yr
Architectural •i 0.0356 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000
Coating ::
Consumer .1 0.2540 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Products
Landscaping • 1.7000e- 2.0000e- 1.8700e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • 0.0000 i 3.6400e- 3.6400e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 3.8700e-
004 005 003 005 005 005 005
•
003 003 005 i 003
Total
0.2898
2.0000e-
1.8700e-
0.0000
1.0000e-
1.0000e-
1.0000e-
1.0000e-
0.0000
3.6400e-
3.6400e-
1.0000e-
0.0000
3.8700e-
005
003
005
005
005
005
003
003
005
003
7.0 Water Detail
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 20 Date: 2/3/2023 3:13 PM
Hexcel Redevelopment - Existing Operations - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
MT/yr
•
Mitigated •i
• ei•
Unmitigated ••
25.2233 i 1.0074 : 0.0240 i 57.5690
9 1 1 1
q 1 1 1
I- F r
25.2233 : 1.0074 • 0.0240 : 57.5690
7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
1 MT/yr
Other Non- I 0 / 0 •
Asphalt Surfaces 1
• r 4
Research & 130.839 / 0 •
Development i
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
J J T
25.2233 1.0074 1 0.0240 57.5690
Total
11
25.2233
1.0074
0.0240
57.5690
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 20 Date: 2/3/2023 3:13 PM
Hexcel Redevelopment - Existing Operations - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
7.2 Water by Land Use
Mitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
Research &
Development
i 0 / 0 •i
i
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
J J
925.2233 1.0074 0.0240 57.5690
ilTotal
25.2233
1.0074
0.0240
57.5690
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Category/Year
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated :1
0.9683 i 0.0572 i 0.0000 i 2.3988
• iI- I. F r
Unmitigated :: 0.9683 : 0.0572 : 0.0000 : 2.3988
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 20 Date: 2/3/2023 3:13 PM
Hexcel Redevelopment - Existing Operations - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
Other Non- I 0 •i
Asphalt Surfaces i
1-4
Research & I 4.77 •
Development t
i
0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1
J J -I-
0.9683 0.0572 0.0000 2.3988
Total
0.9683
0.0572
0.0000
2.3988
Mitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
Other Non- I 0 •i
Asphalt Surfaces 1 .
i
r 'I
Research & I 4.77 •
Development 1 .
i
0.0000 1 0.0000 i
J J
0.9683 0.0572
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
r
2.3988
Total
0.9683
0.0572
0.0000
2.3988
9.0 Operational Offroad
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 20 Date: 2/3/2023 3:13 PM
Hexcel Redevelopment - Existing Operations - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Days/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type
Boilers
Number
Hours/Day
Hours/Year
JHorse Power
Load Factor
Equipment Type
Number I Heat Input/Day
Heat Input/Year
Boiler Rating I Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type
11.0 Vegetation
Number
Fuel Type
Energy Consumption Summary
Proposed Project Energy Consumption Summary
Source
Construction' (amortized over project lifetime)
Diesel
Gasoline
Energy Requirement
1,278
201
Gallons/yr
Gallons/yr
Unit
Annual Energy
Consumption (MMBtu)
176
25
Subtotal
202
Building Operations'
Electrical
Natural Gas
1,209,922
-
KWh/yr
kBTU/yr
4,128
-
Subtotal
4,128
Operational Transportation'
Electricity
Diesel
Gasoline
32,528
6,174
49,324
KWh/yr
Gallons/yr
Gallons/yr
111
852
6,166
Subtotal
7,128
Total
11,458
Notes:
Totals may not add due to rounding.
Source: Modeled byAECOM in 2023
1. Construction estimates are based on conversion for CO2 emissions estimates from CaIEEMod to fuel consumption for diesel and gasoline -powered
vehicles using U.S. Energy Information Administration 2022 factors.
2. Building operation energy consumption is based on estimated electricity demand from CaIEEMod. No natural gas infrastructure in compliance with
City code.
3. Operational transportation fuel consumption reflects CaIEEMod VMT estimate, which incorporates trip generation data provided by TIA for the
Project.
Existing Energy Consumption Summary
Building Operations'
Electrical
Natural Gas
Source
Energy Requirement
542,485 KWh/yr
1,690,800 kBTU/yr
Unit
Annual Energy
Consumption (MMBtu)
1,851
1,691
Subtotal
3,542
Operational Transportation2
Electricity
Diesel
Gasoline
35,002 KWh/yr
7,876 Gallons/yr
60,858 Gallons/yr
-
1,087
7,607
Subtotal
8,694
Total
12,236
Notes:
Totals may not add due to rounding.
Source: Modeled byAECOM in 2023
1. Building operation energy consumption is based on estimated electricity and natural gas demand from CaIEEMod.
2. Operational transportation fuel consumption reflects CaIEEMod VMT estimate, which incorporates trip generation data provided by TIA for existing
conditions.
Net Energy Consumption Summary
Annual Energy
Consumption
(MMBtu)
Proposed Project - Existing Conditions
(778)
Conversion Factors
Category
IN.
Amount
Units
Diesel (heat content)
0.138
MMBtu/gallon
Motor Gasoline
0.125
MMBtu/gallon
Natural Gas
0.1
MMBtu/therm
Btu per kWh
3,412
Btu/kWh
Gallons per Barrel
42
gallons/barrel
https://thecl i materegistrv.org/wp-content/u ploads/2022/11/2022-Defa u It-E m ission-Factors-Fi n a I. pdf
Construction Energy Summary
Emission Factor
Source MT CO2 a Fuel Type b Gallons
(lb CO2/gallon)
Off -Road
294.50
Diesel
22.45
29,384
Hauling
36.19
Diesel
22.45
3,610
Vendor
53.63
Diesel
22.45
5,351
Worker
48.14
Gas
17.86
6,038
Total Demand
Diesel
38,346
Gasoline
6,038
Sources:
e Modeled by AECOM in 2023.
U.S. Energy Information Administration released October 5, 2022 (https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php)
Project Operational Transportation Energy Consumption
Source: EMFAC2021 Iv1.0.. Emissions Inventory
Region Type: County
Region: Alameda
Calendar Year: 2025
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: FMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips,kWh/day for Energy Consumption,tons/tlay for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption
Region
Alameda
Alametla
Alameda
Alametla
Calendar year
2025
2025
2025
2025
Vehicle category
LOA
ILA
LOA
LOA
Model Year
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
aggregate
Speed
Aggregate
aggregate
Aggregate
aggregate
Fuel
Gasoline
Diesel
Electricity
Plug-in Hybrid
Population
546668.9721
2039.963989
47802.8263
16264.37604
Total VAR
19830452.29
55387.872.
723669.533
%VMT
11%
0.2496
9.48%
3.1]%
EMIT
2163781.86
372.9.3749
Fuel Consumption
.7.7239298
1.2860..7
11.58789112
Fuel Consumption/Mile
0.033
0.023
0.000
0.016
Energy Consumption
835398.3806
112487.7917
Energy Consumption / Mile
0.386
0.302
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
2025
2025
2025
2025
LOT1
LOT1
Aggregate
aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
aggregate
Aggregate
aggregate
Gasoline
Diesel
Electricity
Plug-in Hybrid
.229.43705
26.2407.92
160.9168358
82.97866268
1681495.67
304.9619282
6350.144103
4267.620687
0.0296
0.2596
6850.144103
2415.775875
65.43336139
0.0126.83
0.061175156
0.039
0.041
0.000
0.014
0
]19.6363158
0.386
0.302
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
2025
2025
2025
2025
LG.
LG.
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
aggregate
Aggregate
aggregate
Gasoline
Diesel
Electricity
Plug-in Hybrid
253399.3877
.1.8112024
1799.655866
21..722049
9825879.725
35889.68271
63781.98114
1.553.5289
0.3696
1.0596
63781.98114
57.3.55065
392.0663593
1.080479483
1.597242423
0.0.
0.000
0.015
0.386
0.302
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
2025
2025
2025
LHDTI
MDT]
LHDTI
Aggregate
aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
aggregate
Aggregate
Gasoline
Diesel
Electricity
18847.97703
9347.769632
166.1321894
718081.1534
375050.1539
11462.56249
33.95%
11.2.56249
73.03897794
23.3))28263
0.102
0.062
0.000
7.1609178
0.655
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
2025
2025
2025
IHDR
IHDR
aggregate
Aggregate
aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
aggregate
Gasoline
ezel
Electricity
2.2.532308
...470296
42.68505741
.603.42272
165207.4735
2798.596435
36.5196
1.0696
2798.596435
22924))
0.115
0.074
1806...6
0.645
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
2025
2025
2025
2025
MDV
MDV
MDV
MDV
Aggregate
aggregate
Aggregate
aggregate
Aggregate
aggregate
Aggregate
aggregate
Gasoline
Diesel
Electricity
Plug-in Hybrid
136231.70.
1904.613628
19.807931
1284.474.
5084190.809
72630.04717
.041.68751
61042.80887
1.3]%
1.1596
.041.68751
32932.52287
245.2316451
2.880070264
0.943867907
0.048
0.040
0.0610
0.015
26269.70716
9..603454
0.386
0.302
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
2025
2025
2025
2025
MHOT
MHOT
MHOT
MHOT
Aggregate
aggregate
Aggregate
aggregate
Aggregate
aggregate
Aggregate
aggregate
Gasoline
Diesel
Electricity
Natural Gas
1612.599975
1434).8096]
114.3.33.
158.2385165
84199.09574
6011739321
5978.325429
7563.711613
86.0296
1.0896
5978.325429
17.67434141
70.85659815
1.05897.84
0.210
0.118
0.000
0.140
6.7.593438
1.094
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
2025
2025
2025
2025
HHDT
HHDT
HHDT
HHDT
Aggregate
aggregate
Aggregate
aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
aggregate
Gasoline
Diesel
Electricity
Natural Gas
6.5870361.
1.86.56788
91178791991
1088.373943
866.544.39
1818729..
102.56318
75208.5745
95.4)%
0.54%
3.9596
Proposed Project Fleet M.
General Light Industry
Total Annual Vn.
LOA
0.570753
LOU
LHOI
VMT by Fleet Category
LDp
Total
823162.24
Diesel
1997.66125
Gasoline
Plug In Hybrid
26100.41718
Eiettrkity
780..60646
Natural Gas
81059.10
16.67.236
205.3.6905
329.6122136
LDR
258478.07
924.79 36
89.9011
2719.867.8
1.3.51223
AADV
202.3.62
2784.938356
1..9.0403
2340.635404
26.9.001546
111101
29975.50
10177.78069
19...3))
311.0609232
7515.51
6692.265500
2703.755060
79.686.169
MHD
20168.27
17307.80335
2429.691055
172.513537
218.2622306
HHD
18796.70
17905.09770
35500.520
100.9327167
762.0703786
Percent Fuel Type by Fleet Category
LDA
Mosel
Gasoline
Plug In Hybrid
Electricity
LDT1
0.02%
99.33%
0.25%
0A0%
MOM
11101
1.3]%
96.1896
1.1596
1.2996
11102
IYIHD
62.4396
36.5196
0.00%
1.0696
HHO
95.4)%
0.0596
0.0096
05496
Natural Gas
T3.9596Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
ConsumptionFuel (gallons for diesel/Gas; kWM1 for
6lectiry)
Diesel
Gasoline
Pugl
Elettd Ity
Nat ural Gas
LOA
46.38404394
23361.30515
417.93))17
30130.11513
0
.1
27.84142501
10102.63157
4115719533
634.5313672
0
36.19182A)0
102
LH01
634.3921025
1982..7442
03.68061
0
MHD
2044.673298
510.03.294
0
188..2.33
30.55830107
HO
'(Note that natural gas consumption is negligible an not amounted
for summary tab. Plug, Hybrid is summed
mmed wall
o
in Summary Tab.
185.5661152
14o.e1]38]e
Total Annual VMT Is based on CaIEEMad VMT estimate.
Grey highlighted columns indicated calculations using EMFAC data, not data o taut from EMFAC.
MHO
0.013984
HHD
0.013033
10230.56318
0.22.00961
300.0761.5
14.27179323
0.165
0.000
0.190
18807.06117
1.838
Exlsltiig Operational Transportation Energy Consumption
0g11v1.0.31 Omisionslnventory
Ion Type: County
Region: Alameda
CalendarYear: 2024
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classiflatln:FMT0ldEVEMT,
0nits: miles/dm. C.T and T, trips/day for Trips, kWti/clay for Energy Cense..
s/clay far Emissions,1000 gallons/clay for Fuel Consumption
Region
calendar year
Vehlele category
Model veer
Fuel
Population
P.al VMr
l motion
e
Fuelwumptlan/Mlle
m
FVMr
Energy Consumption
cnm rgyumption/Mile
Alameda
Aggregate
Aggregate
aggregate
Aggregate
Diesel
1.43347
Aggregate
aggregate
PleMIcity
Alameda
mM
mA
Aggregate
Aggregme
ring -in Hyena
14910g6076
670426.3099
2.95%
10.98632777
0.016
337167a52
101834a1o3
0.300
Alameda
Alameda
2024
2024
1671
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggreg
Aggregate
Gasoline
Diesel
51.7..173
28.935.781
1731568.48
3..10163
68.55514321
0.014338951
0.040
6041
Alameda
Alameda
2024
2024
1671
Aggregate
Aggregate
aggregam
Aggregate
Fleettlaty
Plumin Hybrid
139.313723
57.17489905
5582.724601
2971.762703
0.3296
0.043846781
0.000
0.015
5582.724901
2155.392579
496.3712644III
0.386
0.302
Alameda
2024
Aggregate
Aggregate
Gasoline
250140.8178
9685168.656
396.0221228
0.041
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
2024
2024
2024
11372
11372
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Diesel
kMIciry
Plug -In Hyena
877.4.3623
1325.769916
1787.793858
35171.51513
47543.5.3
88602.88431
1.081413418
1.37.64862
0.031
0.000
0.016
475..56893
47120.1193
1.1.gmw3,
0.386
0.302
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
2024
2024
2024
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregare
Aggregate
Aggregere
Gasoline
Diesel
Fleettlaty
18902.95342
91.,826182
59.85101767
716627.0752
3.460278
65..91
74.1.7641
22.91149684
0.103
0.063
0.000
4446.6.098
2910.818763■
0.655
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
2024
2024
2024
Aggregate
ARM..
Aggregate
Aggregate
aggregate
aggregate
Gasoline
Diesel
Fleettlaty
2669.253287
3917.3.251
15..131497
97703.8855
159736..1
1090..7211
37.7996
0.4296
11.40931526
11..367227
0.117
0.075
0.000
1090.487211
703..151457
0.645
'Alameda
202411.7
'Aggregate
lAggregeta
1Gesoone
03.41
01
oL
Alameda
Alameda
2024
2024
IADV
MIN
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Gasoline
Diesel
134110.7385
1883.691486
4980333957
72884.43028
96..96
1.4196
246.5360188
2.108.3
0.050
0.040
Alameda
Alameda
2024
2024
IADV
MIN
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregere
Aggregate
Fleettlaty
Plumin Hybrid
1410.450867
1037.24.5
50813.79984
49646.00518
0.9976
0.9696
0.7932.32
0.000
0.016
50813.79984
25999.83624
19618.32063
or
0.386
0.302
Alameda
2024
MHDT
Aggregate
Aggregate
Gasoline
1646.77726
85631.5095
18.18377.6
0.212
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
2024
2024
2024
MHDT
MHDT
MHDT
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Diesel
kMIciry
Natural Gas
14077.45.
38.51310217
598407.5165
1999.7.399
7246.41.92
86.3196
1.0596
70.87.0725
1.01.01303
0.118
0.000
1999.764399
2206.758e03111
1.104
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
2024
2024
2024
2024
HHDT
HHOT
HHDT
HHOT
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Diesel
Fleettlaty
Natural Gas
65.104597
14019.976
1044.383087
898.91.328
180.1.053
4380.548876
7.96.19506
0.0596
0.2396
3.9696
0.238807262
301.5126077
.1638.32
0.266
0.167
0.000
0.190
.80548876
8047.3921.
1.837
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
2024
2024
2024
2024
OMB
OMB
OMB
OMB
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregau
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Gasoline
Diesel
kMIciry
Natural Gas
610.2133302
362.9257155
0.91893.5
2.06334.52
30..73345
2687632823
84.1685424
133.4816208
6.34490564
3.791.5691
0.017.6965
0.208
0.141
0.000
0.133
80.1685424
93.2 saeAxs.
1.108
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
2024
2024
2024
2024
LIBUS
LIBUS
Aggregau
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Diesel
Fleettlaty
Natural Gas
255.0030274
670.8467919
14.13091.3
109.7868.6
20852.16865
12..382.9
10..91285
19.5996
69.16
1.1796
2.387867428
9.2486.839
1..13.811
0.115
0.125
0.000
0.144
1244.382099
2169..2
1.743
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
Alameda
2024
2024
2024
2024
SOUS
SOUS
SOUS
SOUS
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Gasoline
Diesel
kMIciry
Natural Gas
1.243873534
25.33404192
4472.146206
9573.3609.
..54353936
637.2541.
0.440740767
1.180633639
0.11582887
0.123
0.000
0.182
n.97e09R1A.
1.053
'AL'meda
Aggregate
AMregate
Aggregate 1Gesoline
Aggregate'Diesel
Grey 01g0lg0red columns Indkated calculations using FMFAC data, not dab output from FMFAC.
3nve
'General tight indict,
0.5707531
0.056481
Total Annual VMF:
2M7A3Plee1Category
LOP
Total
1,741,802
994161.55
Diesel
2678.820465
moraine
87.62659
Plug-in Hybrid
2937647796
86085.98272
98380.98
19.5369..
97877.89373
167.9805779
3..566702
312172.92
1113.94.6
306746.9705
2806.2.38
1505.791613
MIN
194983.54
2757.499812
188425.2526
1878.300337
1922.482524
36202.44
12180.8177
23873.46058
148.1358451
9076.74
5608.171304
3430.281489
2.57.92
21024.48076
3008.581901
70359826.
254.5960436
HHOT
22701..
21738.63822
10.848795.
52.86753099
899.0722425
OBUS
1376.06
642.7552772
728.0947353
2.012915393
3.19.52135
UBUS
680.2901492
191.1.3761
11.40498575
92.62..24
141
0635.07
42635.0.63
SOUS
388.3421132
181.41.66
1.847.7611
25.85012857
020.48
1234..3518
2985.634.8
Percent Fuel Type by Plael Carte..
Diesel
Gasoline
Nykkl
Natural Gas
0.3696
98.2696
MIN
1.4196
96.6496
0.9696
33.6596
65..96
0.4196
0.0096
0.4296
86.3196
12.3596
0.2996
HHOT
95.7696
0.0596
0.0096
0.2396
OBUS
46.7196
52.9196
0.1596
UBUS
69.7496
0.0096
1.1796
141
SOUS
65.0096
0.0096
0.3196
29.2696
70.7496
kWh Mr Electricity)
Dleml
Gasoline
Plugen HYRGe
Pie...
Natural Gas I
"Note that natural eas consumption is neell
ible an not accounted
for in summary tab. Plaerin Hybrid is
ummed with Gasoline in .mmary
Tab.
s based on Cal
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix E: Final Transportation Impact
Study
This page intentionally left blank
�W-Trans
Final Transportation Impact Study for the
Hexcel Redevelopment Project
Prepared for the City of Dublin
Submitted by
W-Trans
December 12, 2022
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
1 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
Balancing Functionality and Livability since 1995
w-trans.com
i-Tran5
This page intentionally left blank
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 2
Transportation Setting 4
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 8
Capacity Analysis 9
Alternative Modes Analysis 14
Access and Circulation 20
Parking 22
Conclusions and Recommendations 23
Study Participants and References 24
Figures
1. Site Plan 3
2. Study Area and Existing Lane Configurations 5
3. Existing, Existing plus Project, Future, and Future plus Project Traffic Volumes 10
Tables
1. Bicycle Facility Summary 6
2. Transit Routes 7
3. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria 9
4. Existing and Existing with 8-Phase Operation Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service 11
5. Future and Future with 8-Phase Operation Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service 11
6. Trip Generation Summary 12
7. Trip Distribution Assumptions 12
8. Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service 13
9. Future and Future plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service 13
10. Parking Analysis Summary 22
Plates
1. Existing Cross -Section of Dublin Boulevard between Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive 15
2. Option A - Widen Dublin Boulevard to the South 15
3. Option B - Narrow the Median 16
4. Option C - Westbound Only Class I Multi -Use Path 16
5. Option D - Westbound and Eastbound Class I Multi -Use Paths with Widened Eastbound Side 17
6. Option E - Westbound and Eastbound Class I Multi -Use Path with Narrowed Median 17
7. Option F - Class IV Separated Bikeway Option 17
8. Existing Cross -Section of Dublin Boulevard between Donlon Way and Hansen Drive 18
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
9. Option G - Westbound Only Class I Multi -Use Path 18
10. Option H - Class I Multi -Use Path 19
11. Option I - Class IV 19
Appendices
A. Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Map
B. Dublin Boulevard/Hansen Drive Peak Hour Volumes
C. Intersection Level of Service Calculations
D. Truck Turning Templates
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
Executive Summary
The Hexcel Redevelopment Project is located at 11711 Dublin Boulevard in the City of Dublin. This project involves
replacing the existing 62,715 square -foot research and development building with a new building that will consist
of 18,000 square feet of office space, 36,500 square feet of light industrial space, and 70,804 square feet of
warehousing space. The project is expected to generate an average net reduction of 201 trips per day and will
generate an average increase of 1 a.m. and 2 p.m. peak hour trips. Because the project would effectively result in
no change in trips on the network, it would result in no change to traffic operation.
This project is presumed to have a less -than -significant transportation impact on vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
since the estimated VMT per employee is below the significance threshold of 12.9 miles per employee.
The Dublin Boulevard/Hansen Drive intersection was evaluated to determine if acceptable operation would also
be expected upon converting the Hansen Drive and driveway approaches to protected left -turn phasing. It was
determined that the intersection would function acceptably under all volume scenarios evaluated.
Vehicles would access the project site via existing driveways on Dublin Boulevard. Sight distances at each
driveway for both entering and exiting drivers is adequate, though landscaping should be kept trimmed to
maintain adequate sight lines. Signage should be placed at the easterly driveway warning drivers of trucks not to
use that driveway.
Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities within the study area are adequate and would be improved upon
completion of facilities identified in the City's draft Bike and Pedestrian Plan. Various alternatives were developed
to accommodate a Class I bike path, Class IV separated bike trail and/or sidewalk on both sides of Dublin
Boulevard.
The proposed on -site circulation and access design are expected to comply with City design standards.
The proposed parking supply of 227 spaces meets the City's parking requirement of 227 spaces and the proposed
parking space sizes meet the City's parking size requirements.
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the potential traffic impacts that would be associated with development of a
mixed -use office, light industrial, and warehouse building which would replace an existing research and
development building located at 11711 Dublin Boulevard in the City of Dublin. The traffic study was completed in
accordance with the criteria established by the City of Dublin and is consistent with standard traffic engineering
techniques.
Prelude
The purpose of a traffic impact study is to provide City of Dublin staff and policy makers with data that they can
use to make an informed decision regarding the potential transportation impacts of a proposed project, and any
associated improvements that would be required in order to mitigate these impacts to an acceptable level under
CEQA, the City's General Plan, or other policies. Impacts relative to access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and to transit
are addressed in the context of the CEQA criteria. Consistent with SB 743, the project's transportation impacts
were analyzed using VMT. While no longer a part of the CEQA review process, vehicular traffic service levels at key
intersections were evaluated for consistency with General Plan policies by determining the number of new trips
that the proposed use would be expected to generate, distributing these trips to the surrounding street system
based on anticipated travel patterns specific to the proposed project, then analyzing the effect the new traffic
would be expected to have on the study intersections.
Project Profile
The proposed project would replace an existing research and development building with a new building
consisting of office, light industrial, and warehouse uses. The proposed project site plan is shown in Figure 1.
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
TABULATION
1_
Source: HPA Architecture 9/7
��esssssseedIlr .......
rrrr
1
yy BUILDINGARE11
26,304 S. f .
II 1
to:
OYEEALLSITE PLAN O
CODE ANALYSIS
ACNAL n..or au MG:
.11GII PEE
SITE PLAN KEYNOTES
8 MOW WOW
EIRE R.
or
SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES
Clrt`IC.odm,
C. grg=iio
Frio'
,
r
�,xawm wA
11.—AGGESSEILE PAIN
SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES
•
NB STE Putt WED ON THE SOILS KPORT vPREPARED a
GEOT.INICAL ENGINEER PATE. PROdEer
Of ve.
oat vann.
ei.R
TING PO. OF FENG•14 4.0. BE WPM
amc"".,,n wn,...W.
IYA
M1pa, Inc
BBB gend ere, NSW 302
94610
I'91•1„ B
small
'. ApapportM.mm
Devioper
DUBLIN
BOULEVARD
OWNER,
LP
19. amm TGA9p802
•
Project:
11711
DUBLIN BLVD.
DUuurv, cA
Consulta▪ nts:
Green Daaip;
•
Title. OVEIULLSITE PUN
Pruett Number 2.
Drown ey:
Date: 10.0.022
'DAB-A1.1
dub900-2.ai 9/22
Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
Figure 1 - Site Plan
r \
W-Trans
Transportation Setting
Study Area and Periods
The study area of this project varies by topic. For pedestrian trips, it consists of all streets and pedestrian travel
routes within a half -mile of the project site. For bicycle trips, it consists of all streets and bicycle travel routes within
one mile of the project site. For the traffic operational analysis, it consists of the Dublin Boulevard/Hansen Drive
intersection. The driveway connections were evaluated for operational issues such as adequacy of sight distance
and need for a left -turn lane. Additionally, the segments of Dublin Boulevard between Silvergate Drive and Donlon
Way and between Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive were assessed to determine the feasibility of installing Class
I or IV bike lanes and a sidewalk on the south side of the street.
Operating conditions during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods were evaluated to capture the highest potential
impacts for the proposed project as well as the highest volumes on the local transportation network. The morning
peak hour occurs between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and reflects conditions during the home to work or school commute,
while the p.m. peak hour occurs between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. and typically reflects the highest level of congestion
during the homeward bound commute.
Study Roadways and Intersection
Dublin Boulevard is a 7.5-mile-long east -west road with two 10-foot-wide lanes in each direction. The posted
speed limit is 35 mph.
Dublin Boulevard/Hansen Drive is a four-way signalized intersection with protected left -turn phasing on both
the eastbound and westbound approaches along Dublin Boulevard and split phased operation along the Hansen
Drive. Marked crosswalks with pedestrian phasing exist along the north and east legs of the intersection. The
southern leg is a driveway for the proposed project site. Existing lane configurations and controls of this
intersection are shown in Figure 2.
Alternative Modes
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signal phases, curb ramps, curb extensions, and
various streetscape amenities such as lighting, benches, etc. In the vicinity of the project site, sidewalks,
crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and curb ramps provide connected access for pedestrians with the exception of a
gap in the sidewalk network to the west of the project site.
• Dublin Boulevard - Continuous sidewalks are provided on both sides of Dublin Boulevard east of Hansen
Drive. To the west, however, sidewalks are not provided on the south side of Dublin Boulevard. There is a
network of curb ramps, crosswalks with pedestrian phasing at signalized intersections, as well as overhead
lighting. Dublin Boulevard provides access to both commercial and residential areas.
Hansen Drive - Hansen Drive is classified as a local street and it serves a residential neighborhood consisting
primarily of single-family homes. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of Hansen Drive. Crosswalks are
provided at Silvergate Drive, Amarillo Road, and Dublin Boulevard. Lighting is provided by overhead
streetlights.
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
LEGEND
Study Intersection
A
North
A
Not to Scale
dub900-2.ai 9/22
Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
Figure 2 - Study Area and Existing Lane Configurations
TW-Trans
Bicycle Facilities
The Highway Design Manual, Caltrans, 2017, classifies bikeways into four categories:
• Class I Multi -Use Path - a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians
with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized.
Class II Bike Lane - a striped and signed lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.
Class III Bike Route - signing only for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a street
or highway.
Class IV Bikeway - also known as a separated bikeway, a Class IV Bikeway is for the exclusive use of bicycles
and includes a separation between the bikeway and the motor vehicle traffic lane. The separation may
include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on -street parking.
In the project area, Class II bike lanes exist on Dublin Boulevard for about 0.55 miles west of San Ramon Road, as
well as along the entirety of Silvergate Drive. Class III bike routes exist on Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon
Road and Clark Avenue. Bicyclists ride in the roadway and/or on sidewalks along all other streets within the project
study area.
Table 1 summarizes the existing and planned bicycle facilities in the project vicinity, as contained in the draft
Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. This plan has recently been presented to the Dublin City Council but has not yet
been approved.
Table 1 - Bicycle Facility
Summary
Status
Facility
Class
Length
(miles)
Begin Point
End Point
Existing
Dublin Blvd
Dublin Blvd
Silvergate Dr
San Ramon Rd
Dublin Blvd
I
II
II
II
III
0.3
0.6
1.1
1.5
0.9
Inspiration Dr (1000' east)
Silvergate Dr (750' west)
Dublin Blvd
Alcosta Blvd
San Ramon Rd
Silvergate Dr (750' west)
San Ramon Rd
San Ramon Rd
Dublin Blvd
Clark Ave
Planned
Dublin Blvd
Hansen Dr
I/IV
III
4.4
0.4
Kelly Canyon Dr
Silvergate Dr
Scarlett Dr
Dublin Blvd
Notes: * All or portions of these bikeways are located within the project site
Source: Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (draft), 2022
Transit Facilities
The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) Tri-Valley Wheels Bus provides fixed route bus service in
Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore. The closest stop is located approximately 0.3 miles from the project site at the
Silvergate Drive/Betlen Drive intersection. This stop serves Wheels Bus Local Route 503 which primarily serves
students at Dublin High School and Wells Middle School with seven stops in West Dublin.
The Wheels Bus Route 30R stop is located approximately 0.7 miles east of the project site and provides daily service
to destinations between West Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Livermore.
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station is located approximately one mile from the project site. The station is
along the "blue line" that operates direct train service between the Daly City and Dublin/Pleasanton stations.
Connecting service to other BART lines is available via a transfer at the Bay Fair or other stations. Existing transit
routes and their operation schedules are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 - Transit Routes
Transit Agency
Route
Distance to
Stop (mi)1
Days of Operation
Service
Time
Frequency
Connection
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority Tri-Valley Wheels
Route #30R
0.7
Mon - Fri
Sat
Sun
5:52 a.m. - 9:52 p.m.
6:27 a.m. - 9:58 p.m.
6:19 a.m. - 9:50 p.m.
30 minutes
1 hour
1 hour
West Dublin BART
to Livermore
Route #503 EB
0.3
Mon, Tues, Thurs, Fri
Wed
7:54 a.m.
7:45 a.m. - 8:29 a.m.
44 minutes
Dublin &
Brigadoon to Wells
Middle School
Route #503 WB
0.3
Mon, Tues, Thurs
Wed
Fri
3:35 p.m. - 4:21 p.m.
2:32 p.m. - 3:22 p.m.
2:46 p.m. - 3:46 p.m.
46 minutes
50 minutes
1 hour
Wells Middle
School/Dublin
High School to
Dublin & Marshall
Canyon
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
West Dublin/
Mon - Fri
5:09 a.m. - 1:32 a.m.
15 minutes
Daly City to
Pleasanton
1.0
Sat
Sun
5:47 a.m. - 1:32 a.m.
7:12 a.m. - 1:32 a.m.
30 minutes
30 minutes
Dublin/Pleasanton
Note: 1 Defined as the shortest walking distance between the project site and the nearest bus stop
Source: wheelsbus.com; bart.gov
Two bicycles can be carried on all LAVTA Tri-Valley Wheels fixed -route buses. Bike rack space is on a first come,
first served basis. On BART trains, bicycles are allowed except in the first car or any crowded car. During commute
hours, bikes are not allowed in the first three cars of any train. Cyclists must yield to other passengers and yield
priority seating to seniors and people with disabilities.
Paratransit Services
Wheels Dial -A -Ride provides paratransit services to eligible people with disabilities who live in Livermore,
Pleasanton, or Dublin. Additionally, BART provides paratransit services through lift vans to people with disabilities
who cannot ride BART trains. Paratransit services are provided by both through reservations only.
On -Demand Transportation Services
On -demand private vehicle services, such as Uber and Lyft, are available in the project area 24 hours a day. These
private vehicle services can be used for trips both within the local area and to further destinations, including transit
stops/stations and local airports.
For a limited amount of time, Tri-Valley Wheels is paying half of Uber and Lyft fares (up to $5) for rideshare trips
that either start or end in Dublin, Pleasanton, or Livermore.
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Guidance provided by both the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in the publication
Transportation Impacts (SB 743) CEQA Guidelines Update and Technical Advisory, 2018, and the City of Dublin's
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (Dated July 15, 2021), was used to evaluate the proposed project's
potential vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Guidance provided in these documents recommends the use of screening
thresholds to quickly identify when a project would be expected to result in a less -than -significant impact without
conducting a detailed study. (See CEQA Guidelines, 150361(3)(C), 15128, and Appendix G.) The criteria used by the
City of Dublin states that projects located in areas where the baseline VMT for employees is 15 or more percent
below the existing regional average per employee could be considered to be in a low-VMT area and therefore
presumed to have a less -than -significant VMT impact.
According to the Alameda County Travel Demand Model, the existing countywide VMT per employee for the East
Planning Area is 15.2 miles. Based on OPR guidance and the City's TIA Guidelines, a project generating a VMT that
is 15 percent or more below this value, or 12.9 miles per employee, would have a less -than -significant VMT impact.
The City of Dublin Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines publishes a screening map which shows that this
project is located inside an area with a projected VMT per employee lower than 12.9 miles. Because this per
employee VMT rate is below the significance threshold of 12.9 miles, the project would be considered to have a
less -than -significant VMT impact. A copy of the screening map showing VMT estimates in Dublin is provided in
Appendix A.
Finding — The proposed project would be expected to have a less -than -significant VMT transportation impact.
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
Capacity Analysis
Intersection Level of Service Methodologies
Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on traffic volumes and
roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, Level of Service A represents
free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow or breakdown conditions. A unit of measure that
indicates a level of delay generally accompanies the LOS designation.
The study intersection was analyzed using methodologies published in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM),
Transportation Research Board, 6th edition. This source contains methodologies for various types of intersection
control, all of which are related to a measurement of delay in average number of seconds per vehicle.
The study intersection is currently controlled by a traffic signal and was evaluated using the signalized
methodology from the HCM. This methodology is based on factors including traffic volumes, green time for each
movement, phasing, whether the signals are coordinated or not, truck traffic, and pedestrian activity. Average
stopped delay per vehicle in seconds is used as the basis for evaluation in this LOS methodology. For the purposes
of this study, delays were calculated using signal timing obtained from the City of Dublin.
The ranges of delay associated with the various levels of service are indicated in Table 3.
Table 3 — Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria
LOS A
LOS B
LOS C
LOS D
LOS E
LOS F
Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase, so do not stop at all.
Delay of 10 to 20 seconds. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, but many drivers still do not have to stop.
Delay of 20 to 35 seconds. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many still pass
through without stopping.
Delay of 35 to 55 seconds. The influence of congestion is noticeable, and most vehicles have to stop.
Delay of 55 to 80 seconds. Most, if not all, vehicles must stop and drivers consider the delay excessive.
Delay of more than 80 seconds. Vehicles may wait through more than one cycle to clear the intersection.
Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2018
Existing Conditions
The Existing Conditions scenario provides an evaluation of current operation of the study intersection based on
existing traffic volumes during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. This condition does not include project -generated
traffic volumes. Existing traffic volume data was collected on August 25, 2022, when local schools were in session.
Copies of the traffic count data sheets are provided in Appendix B. The study area and the existing lane
configurations are shown in Figure 2. The existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3.
Upon request from City Staff, the Dublin Boulevard/Hansen Drive intersection was assessed using existing signal
phasing as well as an eight -phase operation with protected left turns on all four approaches to provide a
comparison of the potential phasing schemes. Copies of the Level of Service calculations are provided in Appendix
C.
Under existing conditions, the Dublin Boulevard/Hansen Drive intersection is operating acceptably during both
peaks. Using eight -phase signal operation, delay would increase during both peak hours though remain
acceptable at LOS B. Under existing volumes there would be nominal changes to the Level of Service and delay
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
L71 (153)
4-517(321)
60 (36)
(6) 5 _4‘'
(448)583->
(1) 2*
L87 (194)
<-630(407)
74 (46)
(8) 7_'
(568)710->
(2) 3.
LEGEND
Study Intersection
xx AM Peak Hour Volume
(xx) PM Peak Hour Volume
4 71 (153)
<-517(321)
61 (36)
F+P
N o L87 (194)
<-630(407)
L 75 (46)
(8) 7_+
(568)710->
(2) 4.
Nolrth
Not to Scale:.
dub900-2.ai 9/22
Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
Figure 3 - Existing, Existing plus Project, Future, and Future plus Project Traffic Volumes
Ty -Trans
due to changing from the existing operation to an eight -phase scheme with protected left turns on Hansen Drive
and the project driveway. These results are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4 - Existing and Existing with 8-Phase Operation Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Existing (Current Phasing)
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Dublin Blvd/Hansen Dr
12.2 B 12.9 B
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service
Future Conditions
Existing (8-Phase Operation)
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
13.1 B 13.6 B
Roadway segment volumes for the horizon year of 2040 were obtained from the Alameda County Transportation
Commission's travel demand model. The average annual growth rates for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours were
obtained by comparing the projected 2020 volumes to the projected 2040 volumes along Dublin Boulevard
between Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road. The a.m. peak hour volumes are projected to grow by
approximately 1.21 percent per year while the p.m. peak hour volumes are projected to grow by approximately
1.48 percent per year. Future traffic counts were obtained by multiplying the existing traffic counts by the annual
growth rate for 18 years until 2040.
Under the anticipated Future volumes, the Dublin Boulevard/Hansen Drive intersection is expected to operate
acceptably at LOS B during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under current signal phasing and with eight phases.
These results are summarized in Table 5. The future traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3.
Table 5 - Future and Future with 8-Phase Operation Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Current Phasing
AM Peak
Delay LOS
PM Peak
Delay LOS
8-Phase Operation
AM Peak
Delay
1. Dublin Blvd/Hansen Dr
12.5 B 13.7 B
LOS
13.3 B
PM Peak
Delay
LOS
14.6 B
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service
Project Description
The proposed project consists of 18,000 square feet of office space, 36,500 square feet of light industrial space,
and 70,804 square feet of warehousing space, along with 227 vehicle parking spaces and 12 long-term and short-
term bicycle parking spaces.
Trip Generation
The anticipated trip generation for the proposed project was estimated using standard rates published by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation Manual,11 th Edition, 2021 for "General Office Building"
(ITE LU 710), "General Light Industrial" (ITE LU 110), and "Warehousing" (ITE LU 150). Because the site is currently
occupied, "Research and Development Center" rates (ITE LU 760) were applied to estimate trips associated with
the existing use.
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
The expected trip generation potential for the proposed project is indicated in Table 6, with deductions taken for
trips made to and from the existing research and development building which will cease with the construction of
the project. The proposed project is expected to generate an average of 494 trips per day, including 66 trips during
the a.m. peak hour and 63 during the p.m. peak hour. After deductions for the existing land use are taken into
account, the proposed project would result in a net reduction of 201 trips on a daily basis, with an increase of 1
net new trip during the morning peak hour and 2 net new trips during the evening peak hour; the net trips
represent the increase or decrease in traffic associated with the project compared to existing volumes.
Table 6 - Trip Generation Summary
Land Use
Units
Daily
AM Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
(ksf)
Rate
Trips
Rate Trips
In
Out
Rate
Trips
In
Out
Existing
Research & Dev
-62.715
11.08
-695
1.03 -65
-53
-12 0.98
-61
-10
-51
Proposed
Offices
18.000
10.84
195
1.52 27
24
3
1.44
26
4
22
Light Industrial
36.500
4.87
178
0.74 27
24
3
0.65
24
3
21
Warehousing
70.804
1.71
121
0.17 12
9
3
0.18
13
4
9
Proposed Subtotal
494
66
57
9
63
11
52
Total (Proposed less Existing)
-201
1
4
-3
2
1
1
Note: ksf = 1,000 square feet
Trip Distribution
The pattern used to allocate new project trips to the street network was based on 2020 projection data for inbound
and outbound trips from Dublin Boulevard. This data was obtained from the Alameda County Countywide Travel
Demand Model for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The applied distribution assumptions and resulting trips are
shown in Table 7.
Table 7 - Trip Distribution Assumptions
Route
Percent
Daily AM Peak
PM Peak
Dublin Boulevard (West)
Dublin Boulevard (East)
48%
52%
-96 0
-105 1
1
1
TOTAL
100%
-201 1
2
Intersection Operation
Existing plus Project Conditions
Upon the addition of project -related traffic to the existing volumes, the study intersections would continue to
operate acceptably using either the existing or eight -phase configuration. These results are summarized in Table
8. The Existing plus Project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3.
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
Table 8 - Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Phasing
Existing Conditions
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
Existing plus Project
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Dublin Blvd/Hansen Dr
Existing Signal Phasing
Eight -Phase Operation
12.2 B 12.9 B
13.1 B 13.6 B
12.1 B 13.0 B
13.0 B 13.7 B
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service
It is noted that with the addition of project -related traffic volumes, average delay at the intersection of Dublin
Boulevard/Hansen Drive slightly decreases during the a.m. peak hour. While this is counter -intuitive, this condition
occurs when a project adds trips to movements that are currently underutilized or have delays that are below the
intersection average, resulting in a better balance between approaches and lower overall average delay. The
conclusion could incorrectly be drawn that the project improves operation based on this data alone; however, it
is more appropriate to conclude that the project trips are expected to make use of excess capacity, so drivers will
experience little, if any, change in conditions as a result of the project.
Finding - Under both the existing phasing and with eight phase operation, the study intersection is expected to
continue operating acceptably at the same Levels of Service upon the addition of project -generated traffic as
without it.
Future plus Project Conditions
The study intersection is expected to operate acceptably at LOS B using existing phasing and eight -phase
operation with or without the addition of project -generated traffic to the anticipated Future volumes. The Future
plus Project operating conditions are summarized in Table 9 and the volumes are shown in Figure 3.
Table 9 - Future and Future plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Phasing
Future Conditions
AM Peak
Delay LOS
PM Peak
Delay LOS
Future plus Project
AM Peak
Delay LOS
PM Peak
Delay LOS
1. Dublin Blvd/Hansen Dr
Existing Signal Phasing
Eight -Phase Operation
12.5 B 13.7 B
13.3 B 14.6 B
12.4 B 13.8 B
13.3 B 14.7 B
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service
It should be noted that with the addition of project -related traffic volumes, average delay at the intersection of
Dublin Boulevard/Hansen Drive would decrease during the a.m. peak hour. As noted previously, this condition
reflects use of excess capacity and should not be interpreted as meaning that the project improves operation.
Finding - The study intersection would continue operating acceptably and at the same acceptable Levels of
Service with the addition of project -generated traffic to future conditions under both existing phasing and eight -
phase operation.
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
Alternative Modes Analysis
Pedestrian Facilities
Given the proximity of nearby shopping centers, schools, residential and other commercial areas to the site, it is
reasonable to assume that some project patrons and employees would want to walk, bicycle, and/or use transit
to reach the project site. Sidewalks exist along the project frontage, and on both sides of Dublin Boulevard east of
the project site. Although sidewalks do not exist on the south side of Dublin Boulevard west of the project site
between Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive, the site is accessible via the sidewalks to the north side of Dublin
Boulevard and via the crosswalks at Hansen Drive/Dublin Boulevard.
Finding - Pedestrian facilities serving the project site are adequate since a network of facilities is present nearby
and the project site is accessible using existing facilities.
Bicycle Facilities
Existing bicycle facilities, including Class II bike lanes and Class III bike routes on Dublin Boulevard together with
shared use of minor streets, provide adequate access for bicyclists. The planned Class III route along Hansen Drive
and Class I Multi -Use Path or Class IV Separated Bikeway along Dublin Boulevard would further improve bicycle
facilities in the area.
Finding - Bicycle access to the site is adequate since the area is served by a network of bicycle facilities.
Bicycle Storage
The proposed project would provide 24 bicycle parking stalls on -site, with 12 short-term and 12 long-term stalls.
The required number of parking stalls is based on the City of Dublin Municipal Code 8.76.070; Development
Standards, which states that bicycle parking requirements shall conform to the California Building Standards Code.
The California Green Building Standards Code states that the number of short-term and long-term bicycle parking
stalls provided must be equal to or greater than five percent of the number of motorized vehicle parking spaces
provided. The site plan shows that 227 motorized parking spaces would be provided. Therefore, a minimum of 11
short-term and long-term parking stalls are required.
Finding - The 24 bicycle storage spaces that would be provided are adequate and exceed the City's bicycle
parking requirements.
Transit Facilities
Development sites which are located within one-half mile (2,640 feet) of a transit stop are generally considered to
be adequately served by transit. Existing transit routes were reviewed and determined to be adequate to
accommodate project -generated transit trips. Existing stops are within an acceptable walking distance of the site
and would be accessible via the existing sidewalk network in the study area.
If 20 percent of peak hour trips were made by transit, there would be 13 and 12 additional transit riders during the
a.m. and p.m. peak hours respectively, spread out over multiple buses and times. As such, the volume of transit
riders expected to be generated by the project is not anticipated to exceed the carrying capacity of the existing
transit services near the project site.
Finding - The project site is adequately served by transit since existing transit stops are less than one-half mile
away.
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
Dublin Boulevard Alternative Mode Analysis
Sidewalks and Class I or IV bicycle facilities are proposed along Dublin Boulevard in the vicinity of the project site
in the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (Draft 2022). To further support the development of these
proposed improvements, a feasibility study exploring options to expand the existing sidewalk network and
construct a Class I multi -use path or Class IV separated bikeway along the section of Dublin Boulevard between
Silvergate Drive and Donlon Way was initiated.
Sidewalk Feasibility Between Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive
The feasibility of adding a sidewalk along the south side of Dublin Boulevard between Hansen Drive and Silvergate
Drive was assessed. Through the evaluation two options were identified which would provide a sidewalk within
this area. Each option as well as the existing condition are described in detail below.
The public right of way along this segment of Dublin Boulevard is approximately 120 feet wide with varying curb -
to -curb width throughout the block. Class II bike lanes currently exist on both sides of the street and are separated
from automobile travel lanes by 3-foot-wide buffers. A sidewalk also exists along the north side, adjacent to the
westbound travel lanes on Dublin Boulevard. The median varies between four feet and 25 feet wide. The existing
cross-section of Dublin Boulevard between Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive is shown in Plate 1.
IIIIEASTBOUND
h
-RIME
WESTBOUND
_ . . — .
. . . .
•
5' 3• Ti• 25- 11' 1V 3' 5' 7
Bike lane Buffer Drive lane Median Drive lane Drive lane Buffer Bike lane Sidewalk
Plate 1 Existing Cross -Section of Dublin Boulevard between Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive
As illustrated in Option A, shown in Plate 2, Dublin Boulevard could be widened along the eastbound side by
approximately seven feet to make way for a new sidewalk. This would, however, require the removal (and
reconstruction) of the existing guard rail as well as the construction of a retaining wall within the undeveloped
sloped area just south of Dublin Boulevard.
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
G • ._. ._.
ORME
•
•
7' S' 3• 11' 25" f 1" 11' a' 5' 7'
Sidewalk Bike lane Buffer Drive lane Median Drive lane Drive lane Buffer Bike lane Sidewalk
Plate 2 Option A - Widen Dublin Boulevard to the South
The existing median along Dublin Boulevard could be narrowed by approximately seven feet as shown as Option
B in Plate 3. The travel lane and bike lane on the south side could be shifted laterally to the north which would
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
•oil
-
provide space for a new sidewalk along the southern edge of the roadway. The two westbound travel lanes
approaching Silvergate Drive would also need to be merged into a single lane to accommodate the new sidewalk.
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
. . .
7' 5' 3' 11' 18' 11- 11- 3' 5' 7'
Sidewalk Bike lane Buffer Drive lane Median Drive lane Drive lane
Buffer Bike lane Sidewalk
Plate 3 Option B - Narrow the Median
Class I or Class IV Installation Feasibility
The section of Dublin Boulevard between Silvergate Drive and Donlon Way was assessed to explore whether
installing a Class I multi -use path or Class IV separated bikeway is feasible. The segments between Donlon Way
and Hansen Drive and between Hansen Drive and Silvergate Way were examined separately since the curb -to -
curb width and configurations vary between the two segments.
Between Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive
The existing sidewalk on the north side of Dublin Boulevard could be reconstructed to merge the existing Class II
bike lane and sidewalk to form a 12-foot-wide Class I multi -use path. The center median would be narrowed by
two feet and the westbound travel lanes would be shifted to the south by two feet. The eastbound Class II bike
lane would be maintained. This option, which is preferred by City Staff, is titled as Option C and is illustrated in
Plate 4.
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
#OREM'
-
i t
5' 3' 11 ' 23' 11' 11' S' 12'
Bike lane Buffer Drive lane Median Drive lane Drive lane Planting Multi -use Path
strip
Plate 4 Option C - Westbound Only Class I Multi -Use Path
As was suggested for Option C above, the sidewalk along the north side of Dublin Boulevard could be merged
with the Class II bike lane to create a 12-foot-wide Class I multi -use path. The eastbound side could be widened by
five feet into the undeveloped sloped area to create space for a 12-foot-wide multi -use path. This option requires
the construction of retaining walls to support the widening of Dublin Boulevard. The center median would be
narrowed by four feet to allow for 12-foot-wide multi -use paths and five -foot -wide landscaped areas serving as
buffer space between the pathway and vehicle traveled way. The westbound travel lanes would be shifted
southward by two feet and the eastbound travel lane would be shifted northward by four feet. This option is titled
Option D and is illustrated in Plate 5.
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
5'
Planting
Ship
11'
Drive lane
19'
Median
* 1 ■ f
li 1
Dove lane ❑rive lane
5'
Planting
slritl
12'
Multi -use Path
Plate 5 Option D - Westbound and Eastbound Class I Multi -Use Paths with Widened Eastbound Side
As illustrated in Plate 6, Option E includes narrowing of the existing median along Dublin Boulevard by eleven feet
and shifting the travel lane on the eastbound side north toward the center of the roadway. Combined with the
removal of the Class II bike lake, this would provide room for a 12-foot-wide Class I multi -use path and a five -foot -
wide buffer/landscaped area. On the westbound side, the bike lane and sidewalk would be reconstructed and
combined to create a 12-foot-wide Class I multi -use path and a five -foot -wide buffer/landscaped area. To the east
of the intersection with Silvergate Drive, the existing four -foot -wide median and left -turn lane would be realigned
to the north and one of the westbound travel lanes eliminated. To the west of the intersection with Hansen Drive,
the second eastbound travel lane would also be eliminated.
•
12'
Maki -use Patrl
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
5'
Planting
Strip
11'
Drive lane
R •
—•
R R iw
14' 11' 11
Median Drive lane Drive lane
5'
Planting
Strip
12'
Multiuse Path
Plate 6 Option E - Westbound and Eastbound Class I Multi -Use Path with Narrowed Median
As shown in Option F, the existing cross-section between Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive would remain without
reconstruction of its existing lanes. However, a raised element (such as bollards) would be added within the
existing buffer spaces between the bike lanes and travel lanes on both directions. This option is illustrated in Plate
7.
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
• e
5' 3• 11' 25' 11' 11' 3' S' 7'
Bike lane Bollard Drive lane Median Drive lane Drive lane Bollard Bike lane Sidewalk
Plate 7 Option F - Class IV Separated Bikeway Option
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
(17
Between Donlon Way and Hansen Drive
The public right of way on Dublin Boulevard between Donlon Way and Hansen Drive is approximately 97 feet wide
with a curb -to -curb width of around 78 feet. Class II bike lanes exist on both sides of the road with on -street parking
permitted along the westbound side only and not allowed near Hansen Drive where a right turn lane is provided
instead of parking. Along the eastbound side of the road is the Dublin Heritage Park, which includes a 5-foot-wide
landscaped section which serves as a buffer between the curb and the sidewalk. The existing cross-section of
Dublin Boulevard is shown in Plate 8.
EASTBOUND
▪ •
WESTBOUND
—. .-.•.-. li4
■ .
8' Planting 6 11' 11' 15' 11" 11' 5' 8' 6'
Sidewalk s1r1p Bike lane Drive lane Drive lane Median Drive lane Drive lane Bike lane Parking lane Sidewalk
Ji
Plate 8 Existing Cross -Section of Dublin Boulevard between Donlon Way and Hansen Drive
As shown in Option G, the existing sidewalk along the north side could be reconstructed and merged with the
bike lane to create a 12-foot-wide Class I multi -use path, though this would require eliminating the Class II bike
lane. The five-foot planting strip on the south side would be removed and relocated to the north side and the
sidewalk on the south side would be shortened by one foot. The center median and all lanes would be shifted six
feet to the south. The potential layout for Dublin Boulevard under this option is shown in Plate 9.
1
EASTBOUND
1�r
7 6' 11'
Sidewalk Bike lane Drive lane
AIM
▪ •
11'
Drive lane
WESTBOUND
- _
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
15' 11' 11' 8' 5 12'
Median Drive lane Drive lane Parking lane Planting Multi -use path
strip
AIM
Plate 9 Option G - Westbound Only Class I Multi -Use Path
Option H includes the reconstruction of the existing sidewalks on both sides of Dublin Boulevard to create a 12-
foot-wide Class I multi -use path in each direction in addition to five -foot -wide buffer/landscaped area on both
sides as shown in Plate 10. Under this option, the existing Class II bike lanes would be eliminated in both directions
and the center median would be narrowed by four feet. The westbound parking lane and travel lanes would be
shifted to the south by two feet while the eastbound travel lanes would be shifted north by two feet.
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
EASTBOUND
12' S' 11'
M ulli-use Path Planting Drive lane
strip
11'
Drive lane
11
Median
WESTBOUND
•
� *
11' 11' 5' S 12'
Drive lane Drive lane Parking lane PI and ing Mvlti•use Path
strip
Plate 10 Option H - Class I Multi -Use Path
Option I would be comprised of removing the on -street parking along the westbound side of Dublin Boulevard,
as well as the right -turn lane at the intersection with Hansen Drive to make way for 3.5-foot-wide buffers with a
raised element between the existing bike lanes and drive lanes on both sides. The travel lanes and median would
also be shifted to the north by 3.5 feet, while the westbound bike lane would be shifted to the north by 7 feet. The
potential layout for Dublin Boulevard under this option is shown in Plate 11.
EASTBOUND
8' 5'
Sidewalk planting Bike lane Ballard
stop
3 3q
11'
WESTBOUNO
•6
III
i in f i
15' 11'
Rim
3 h' 6' 6'
Drive lane Drive lane Median Drive lane Drive lane Bollard Bike lane Sidewalk
Plate 11 Option I - Class IV
Finding - Several options for the reconstruction of Dublin Boulevard have been identified which would provide
either new Class I multi -use pathways or Class IV separated bikeways in the vicinity of the project site.
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
Access and Circulation
Site Access
The site is currently accessible via two driveways along Dublin Boulevard. The western driveway is also the
southern leg of the Dublin Boulevard/Hansen Drive intersection. The eastern driveway is located approximately
180 feet east of the Dublin Boulevard/Hansen Drive intersection. The raised median along Dublin Boulevard
prohibits left -turn egress from this driveway, though there is a left -turn pocket that accommodates left turns into
the site. The primary driveway across from Hansen Drive also provides access to the adjacent land use to the west.
The project's driveways and internal roadway network would be designed to meet current City standards and so
can be expected to accommodate the access requirements for both emergency and passenger vehicles.
Sight Distance
At driveways, a substantially clear line of sight should be maintained between the driver of a vehicle waiting to
enter the street and the driver of an approaching vehicle. The sight distances along Dublin Boulevard at the project
driveways were evaluated based on sight distance criteria contained in the Highway Design Manual published by
Caltrans. The recommended sight distances for driveway approaches are based on stopping sight distance and
use the approach travel speed as the basis for determining the recommended sight distance. Based on the posted
speed limit of 35 mph, the minimum stopping sight distance required is 250 feet; a review in the field shows that
sight distances at the proposed project driveways on Dublin Boulevard each exceed 250 feet to the west and so
are adequate. To maintain this sight distance, it is noted that any vegetation near the project's driveways should
be trimmed to an appropriate height of less than three feet and trees trimmed so that nothing hangs below a
height of seven feet from the surface of the roadway.
For a motorist traveling westbound on Dublin Boulevard intending to turn left into either project driveway, the
stopping sight distance looking west along Dublin Boulevard is also greater than 250 feet, providing adequate
visibility to allow a following driver to observe and react to a vehicle that may slow before moving into the left -
turn pocket before entering the driveway.
Finding - Adequate sight distance is available at the proposed project driveway locations to accommodate all
turns entering and exiting the site.
Recommendations - To achieve a minimum sight distance of 250 feet at each driveway access point, it is
recommended that vegetation along the project frontage be trimmed and maintained.
Oversized Vehicle Circulation
Large wheelbase vehicles would be able to access the site via the western driveway as illustrated in the vehicle
turning template analysis provided in Appendix D. The design vehicle used for the turn analysis is based on the
Review of Truck Characteristics as Factors in Roadway Design, Transportation Research Board, 2004, with the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) Interstate Semi -Trailer (WB-62) vehicle. The WB-62 vehicle has a minimum
turning radius of 45 feet, a centerline turning radius of 41 feet, and a minimum inside radius of 7.9 feet. It is noted
that the evaluation was limited to only movements between the project site and the east of the site since this
represents the most likely direction of travel based on the City of Dublin Truck Route Map (January 2014). As
demonstrated by the analysis, the western driveway can accommodate the WB-62 truck for all movements to and
from the east. However, the analysis also shows that the WB-62 vehicle is unable to access the eastern driveway
without striking fixed objects (such as utility poles and a fire hydrant) adjacent to the driveway.
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
Finding - Trucks can feasibly access the site via the western driveway. The eastern driveway is not suitable for
access by trucks.
Recommendation - Signage should be installed instructing drivers that trucks and other large vehicles are
prohibited from accessing the eastern driveway.
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
Parking
The project was analyzed to determine whether the proposed parking supply would be sufficient to
accommodate the anticipated parking demand. The project site as proposed would provide a total of 227
standard parking spaces, shared by various proposed land uses.
The parking supply requirements are based on the City of Dublin Municipal Code, Section 8.76.080; Parking
Requirements by Use Type. According to Section 8.76.040 G, if a project contains more than one use type, "the
amount of parking to be provided shall be the total of that required by Section 8.76.080." Based on application of
the parking requirements for the various uses, the project would be required to provide 227 parking spaces.
Parking demand was estimated using standard rates published by ITE in Parking Generation, 5`h Edition, 2019. The
parking demand for the proposed project was estimated using the published standard rates for "General Office
Building" (ITE LU 710), "General Light Industrial" (ITE LU 110), and "Warehousing" (ITE LU 150). According to the
ITE estimates 95 parking spaces would be required to accommodate the expected peak demand.
The proposed parking supply of 227 spaces is anticipated to adequately accommodate the estimated peak
parking demand of 95 spaces and meets the City Code requirement of 227 spaces. The expected demand and City
code requirements are summarized in Table 10.
Table 10 - Parking Analysis Summary
Land Use
Units
(ksf)
Supply
(spaces)
Rate
City Requirements
Spaces
Required
ITE Parking Generation
Rate Est. Parking
(Per ksf') Demand
Offices 12.000
6.000
Light Industrial 36.500
Warehousing 70.804
227
1 per 0.25 ksf 30
1 per 0.3 ksf 35
1 per 0.4 ksf 91
1 per 1 ksf 71
2.39 43
0.65
0.39
Total
227
227
24
28
95
' ksf = 1,000 square feet
City parking space sizes are based on the Dublin Municipal Code, Section 8.76.080; Development Standards. The
City requires that full-size spaces must be at least 9 feet by 20 feet and compact spaces must be 8 feet by 17 feet.
The length may be reduced by 2 feet if the vehicles parked in them will overhang landscaping or a sidewalk. A
review of the site plan confirms that each of the off-street parking spaces on site would be compliant with these
requirements.
The Uniform Building Code and the Federal Accessibility Guidelines requires that enough parking spaces for the
disabled be provided. The site plan shows that out of 227 spaces available at the proposed project, there are nine
stalls designated for disabled persons' use. Based on requirements stipulated by the Federal Accessibility
Guidelines, seven accessible stalls are required. Thus, the project complies with the Federal Accessibility
Guidelines.
Finding - The proposed parking supply would satisfy the City of Dublin's parking requirements and
accommodate the anticipated parking demand. The nine accessible stalls proposed for the project is greater than
the seven stalls required.
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
• The proposed project would be expected to generate 201 fewer trips per day, with one additional trip during
the a.m. peak hour and two additional trips in p.m. peak hour.
The existing pedestrian facilities serving the project site are adequate but would be improved upon
installation of a sidewalk along the south side of Dublin Boulevard per the City's Bike and Pedestrian Plan.
• Existing bicycle facilities near the project site are adequate but would be improved upon completion of
planned facilities.
• Transit facilities serving the project site are adequate.
• The proposed project would be expected to have a less -than -significant impact on VMT.
• The study intersection at Dublin Boulevard/Hansen Drive currently operates acceptably and is expected to
continue doing so under Future volumes and upon the addition of project -generated traffic. Further,
acceptable operation is projected for all volume scenarios with the addition of protected left turns on the
northbound and southbound approaches.
• Adequate sight distance is available at each of the project driveways.
• Large trucks (WB-62) can access the project site at the western driveway but not at the eastern driveway.
• Constructing a sidewalk along the south side of Dublin Boulevard between Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive
is feasible by either widening Dublin Boulevard to the south or by narrowing the existing median.
• Installing a Class I Multi -Use path or Class IV Separated Bikeway along Dublin Boulevard between Donlon Way
and Silvergate Drive is feasible. The option preferred by City staff would provide a Class I Multi -Use path on
the north side of Dublin Boulevard.
• The proposed parking supply meets City requirements and the estimated parking demand.
• The nine accessible stalls provided by the project would be more than the required minimum of seven stalls.
Recommendations
• Signage stating that trucks are prohibited from accessing the eastern driveway should be installed.
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
T(23
Study Participants and References
Study Participants
Principal in Charge
Senior Traffic Engineer
Assistant Engineer
Graphics
Editing/Formatting
Quality Control
References
Mark E. Spencer, PE
Kenny Jeong, PE
Valerie Haines, EIT
Cameron Wong
Hannah Yung-Boxdell
Dalene J. Whitlock, PE, PTOE
Alameda Countywide Travel Demand Model, Alameda County Transportation Commission, 2014,
https://www.alamedactc.org/planning/congestion-management/countywide-travel-demand-model/
Bay Area Rapid Transit, https://www.bart.gov/schedules
California Green Building Standards Code, California Building Standards Commission, 2010
Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Draft), City of Dublin, 2022
Dublin Municipal Code, Code Publishing Company, 2022,
City of Dublin Truck Route Map, City of Dublin, 2014
Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2018
Highway Design Manual, 6th Edition, California Department of Transportation, 2017
Intersection Channelization Design Guide, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report No.
279, Transportation Research Board, 1985
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, http://www.lavta.org/
Parking Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2019
Review of Truck Characteristics as Factors in Roadway Design, Transportation Research Board, 2004
Streetmix, https://streetmix.net
Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, Governor's Office of Planning and Research,
2018
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, City of Dublin, 2021
Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2021
Wheels Bus, https://wheelsbus.com/routes-and-schedules/
DUB900-2
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 12, 2022
Appendix A
Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Map
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 2022
A
i-Tran5
This page intentionally left blank
Legend
+111
\\
No VMT Generated
<12.9 - Below Target VMT (Planning Area 4 Average - 15%)
12.9 - 15.2 - Target VMT (Planning Area 4 - 15% to Planning Area 4 Average)
> 15.2 - Above Planning Area 4 Average
Priority Development Area (PDA)
Dublin City Limits
Alameda
County
DUBLIN 'f KITTELSON
CALIFORNIA &ASSOCIATES
c/10P Dougherty Hills
�� Open Space
2 c
/- .. BRIGHTONQh,
`g
YORKOP
DUBLIN BL
CLicPara CnR�rno��
Contra
Costa
County
QPJSNpES DR
f �yi •
0
RQNGe
Ro
111H ST
0THST aTNST
SCI
RW
Pleasanton
BRODER BL
NOJeUN %
S
OILIER CANYON HD
Livermore
1 Mile 0
Employment VMT (VMT per Employee)
Dublin, California
i-Tran5
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix B
Dublin Boulevard/Hansen Drive Peak Hour Volumes
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 2022
B
i-Tran5
This page intentionally left blank
www.idaxdata.com
01
N
Hansen Dr
Dublin Blvd
Peak Hour
i&'
ac
= 0.c M
JIUU
0 =
521
590
583
Dublin B
5 r TEV: 1,387
PHF: 0.75
?d,n,1r`
0 0 0
Two -Hour Count Summaries
Dublin Blvd
71
517
50
10
Date: 08/25/2022
Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM
Peak Hour: 7:45 AM to 8:45 AM
648
737
EB 0.5% 0.67
WB 0.6% 0.83
NB 0.0% 0.50
SB 0.7% 0.83
TOTAL 0.6% 0.75
/1n
o?o�
Interval
Start
Dublin Blvd
Dublin Blvd
Driveway
Hansen Dr
Eastbound
UT LT TH RT
Westbound
UT LT TH RT
Northbound
UT LT TH RT
Southbound
UT LT TH RT
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
7:00 AM
7:15 AM
7:30 AM
0 0 39 0
0 1 47 0
0 0 75 0
O 7 20 6
2 9 31 5
O 11 76 11
0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1
0 25 1 0
0 27 0 0
0 38 0 0
100
122
212
0
0
0
7:45 AM
8:00 AM
8:15 AM
8:30 AM
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
164
220
113
86
1
0
1
0
1
5
0
4
30
11
5
4
116
163
140
98
5
16
22
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
37
39
35
27
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
358
461
318
250
792
1,153
1,349
1,387
8:45 AM
0 4 82 0
1 3 64 27
0 0 0 1
0 23 0 0
205
1,234
Count Total
0 10 826 2
13 80 708 120
0 0 0 10
0 251 2 4
2,026
0
Peak
Hour
All
HV
HV%
O 5 583 2
O 0 3 0
0% 1% 0%
10 50 517 71
O 0 3 1
0% 0% 1% 1%
0 0 0 6
0 0 0 0
0%
0 138 1 4
0 1 0 0
1% 0% 0%
1,387
8
1%
0
0
0
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals
Bicycles
Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)
EB WB NB SB Total
EB WB NB SB Total
East West North South Total
7:00 AM
7:15 AM
7:30 AM
7:45 AM
8:00 AM
8:15 AM
8:30 AM
8:45 AM
1 0 0 0 1
1 1 0 1 3
0 3 0 0 3
0
2
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
5 0
2 0
1 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0
1 0 4 0 5
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
3
1 0 3 0 4
Count Total
Peak Hour
5 9 0 2 16 0 0 0 1 1 5 0 13 0 18
3 4 0 1 8 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 5 0 8
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
www.idaxdata.com
Two -Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Interval
Start
Dublin Blvd
Dublin Blvd
Driveway
Hansen Dr
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
UT
Eastbound
LT TH RT
UT
Westbound
LT TH
RT
UT
Northbound
LT TH
RT
UT
Southbound
LT TH
RT
7:00 AM
7:15AM
7:30 AM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 - I. 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 - N 0 N 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O ,-0 0 a-0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1
3
3
0
0
0
7:45 AM
0
0 0
0
0
7
11
10
8
8:00 AM
0
0 0
0
5
8:15AM
8:30 AM
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
2
1
8:45 AM
0
0 0
0
1
9
Count Total
0
0 5 0
0
1 5
3
0
0 0
0
0
2 0
0
16
0
Peak Hour
0
0 3 0
0
0 3
1
0
0 0
0
0
1 0
0
8
0
Two -Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Interval
Start
Dublin Blvd
Dublin Blvd
Driveway
Hansen Dr
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
LT
Eastbound
TH RT
LT
Westbound
TH
RT
LT
Northbound
TH
RT
LT
Southbound
TH
RT
7:00 AM
7:15AM
7:30 AM
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
0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 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
7:45 AM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
8:00 AM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8:15AM
8:30 AM
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
8:45 AM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Count Total
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
Peak Hour
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left -Turn, if any.
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
www.idaxdata.com
01
N
Hansen Dr
Dublin Blvd
Peak Hour
o0
q
l1Ya)
_�_
ca
c M
1 L A t Dublin Blvd
2 ` 153
324 321
4 r TEV: 1,160
45� 448 PHF: 0.92 5
1 a 31
Dublin Blvd n i t r
0 0 — 0
0
Two -Hour Count Summaries
510
672
Date: 08/25/2022
Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Peak Hour: 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM
f
Ofo
HV %: PHF
EB 0.4% 0.96
WB 0.2% 0.91
NB 0.0% 0.38
SB 1.5% 0.84
TOTAL 0.4% 0.92
f
ofo
• L.
fl0000C._>
3
0J • L1
1 ~ 0 0 ~ 1 �f
�
01 v V i0
<. Ell
� tr
0 0 0
o�o
Interval
Start
Dublin Blvd
Dublin Blvd
Driveway
Hansen Dr
Eastbound
UT LT TH RT
Westbound
UT LT TH RT
Northbound
UT LT TH RT
Southbound
UT LT TH RT
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
4:00 PM
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
1 2 125 0
O 4 115 1
O 2 112 0
0 1 118 0
5 1 80 31
3 2 70 34
1 2 86 42
6 0 67 42
0 0 0 6
0 0 0 6
0 0 0 13
0 1 0 13
0 14 0 2
0 32 0 2
0 22 0 1
0 34 0 1
267
269
281
283
0
0
0
1,100
5:00 PM
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
0
0
2
0
2
1
0
1
116
112
113
107
0
1
0
0
8
7
10
6
2
1
1
1
76
66
80
99
40
40
39
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
9
5
5
0
0
0
0
31
32
40
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
315
271
290
284
1,148
1,150
1,159
1,160
Count Total
3 13 918 2
46 10 624 302
0 1 1 97
0 236 0 7
2,260
0
Peak
Hour
All
HV
HV%
2 4 448 1
O 0 2 0
0% 0% 0% 0%
31 5 321 153
0 0 0 1
0% 0% 0% 1%
0 0 1 59
0 0 0 0
0% 0%
0 134 0 1
0 2 0 0
1% 0%
1,160
5
0%
0
0
0
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals
Bicycles
Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)
EB WB NB SB Total
EB WB NB SB Total
East West North South Total
4:00 PM
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
O 0 0 0 0
3 0 1 0 4
O 1 0 0 1
O 0 0 0 0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 1 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0
2 0
1 0
2 0
0 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 1
0 0 1 0 1
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
1
ICount Total 5 2 1 2 10 2 3 0 0 5
Peak Hour 2 1 0 2 5 1 2 0 0 3
5 0 5 0 10 I
5 0 3 0 8
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
www.idaxdata.com
Two -Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Interval
Start
Dublin Blvd
Dublin Blvd
Driveway
Hansen Dr
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
Eastbound
UT LT TH RT
UT
Westbound
LT TH
RT
UT
Northbound
LT TH
RT
UT
Southbound
LT TH
RT
4:00 PM
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 0 > > 0 0 N 0
O O 0 0 0 0 -, 0
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cr 0 Cr 0 0 -, 0 0
Cr -. Cr 0 0 0 0 0
Cr 0 Cr 0 0 0 0 0
Cr 0 Cr 0 0 0 0 0
Cr 0 Cr 0 0 0 0 0
Cr Cr Cr 0 0 0 -, 0
Cr Cr Cr 0 0 0 0 0
Cr -. Cr - 0 0 0 0
Cr Cr Cr 0 0 0 0 0
Cr Cr Cr 0 0 0 0 0
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
5
5:00 PM
2
7
4
5
5
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
1
2
0
Count Total
0 0 4 1
0
0 1
1
0
0 0
1
0
2 0
0
10
0
Peak Hour
0 0 2 0
0
0 0
1
0
0 0
0
0
2 0
0
5
0
Two -Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Interval
Start
Dublin Blvd
Dublin Blvd
Driveway
Hansen Dr
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
Eastbound
LT TH RT
LT
Westbound
TH
RT
LT
Northbound
TH
RT
LT
Southbound
TH
RT
4:00 PM
4:15PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 Cr r Cr 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 O 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cr 0 Cr 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
2
3
0 0
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
1
1
1
Count Total
0 2 0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
Peak Hour
0 1 0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left -Turn, if any.
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 project.manager.ca@idaxdata.com
Appendix C
Intersection Level of Service Calculations
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 2022
i-Tran5
This page intentionally left blank
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Phasing
1: Dublin Boulevard & Hansen Drive 12/12/2022
r k- 4\ t,*
Movement
Lane Configurations 'j t1+ t4 r 4+ 4+
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 583 2 60 517 71 0 0 6 138 1 4
Future Volume (veh/h) 5 583 2 60 517 71 0 0 6 138 1 4
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1900 1885 1900 1900 1885 1885 1976 1976 1976 1885 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 6 686 2 71 608 84 0 0 7 162 1 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Cap,veh/h 12 1275 4 97 1416 628 0 0 35 226 1 7
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.35 0.35 0.05 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.13 0.13 0.13
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3663 11 1810 3582 1588 0 0 1659 1738 11 54
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 6 335 353 71 608 84 0 0 7 168 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1791 1883 1810 1791 1588 0 0 1659 1802 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 6.3 6.3 1.6 5.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.7 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 6.3 6.3 1.6 5.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.7 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.96 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 12 623 656 97 1416 628 0 0 35 234 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.54 0.54 0.73 0.43 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.72 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 671 1500 1577 671 2999 1329 0 0 1270 1095 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.7 10.9 10.9 19.5 9.2 8.1 0.0 0.0 20.1 17.4 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.4 1.0 1.0 3.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.5 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile Back0fQ(50 % ),vehM 0.1 2.0 2.1 0.7 1.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.1 12.0 11.9 23.4 9.5 8.2 0.0 0.0 21.2 19.0 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS CBBC A A A A C B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 694 763 7 168
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.1 10.6 21.2 19.0
Approach LOS B B C B
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Dublin Boulevard & Hansen Drive
Existing Phasing
12/12/2022
,c k 4\ t,* '- 1 1
-ice,..
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 7
Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0
Cap, veh/h 14
Arrive On Green 0.01
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 7
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1
Prop In Lane 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 14
V/C Ratio(X) 0.52
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 950
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile Back0fQ(50 % ),vehlln 0.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assi.ned Phs 1 Timer - Assi.ned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.8 21.5 10.0 6.7 19.6 5.5 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 4.6 4.5 5.0 4.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.5 35.0 25.4 15.5 35.0 32.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 2.1 7.2 5.7 3.6 8.3 2.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.6 0.6 0.0 6.3 0.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.2 1
HCM 6th LOS B
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Existing AM
W-Trans
Intersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
HCM 6th LOS
6
6
0
1.00
1.00
T1• 'j f4 F 44 4.
448 1 36 321 153 0 1 59 134 0 1
448 1 36 321 153 0 1 59 134 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
No No No No
1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1976 1976 1976 1885 1900 1900
487 1 39 349 166 0 1 64 146 0 1
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
1026 2 64 1103 486 0 2 117 223 0 2
0.28 0.28 0.04 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.00 0.12
3696 8 1810 3610 1590 0 25 1629 1795 0 12
238 250 39 349 166 0 0 65 147 0 0
1805 1898 1810 1805 1590 0 0 1655 1808 0 0
4.2 4.2 0.8 2.8 3.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 3.0 0.0 0.0
4.2 4.2 0.8 2.8 3.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 3.0 0.0 0.0
0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.98 0.99 0.01
501 527 64 1103 486 0 0 119 225 0 0
0.47 0.47 0.61 0.32 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.65 0.00 0.00
1895 1993 950 3790 1669 0 0 1303 949 0 0
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
11.4 11.5 18.1 10.2 10.3 0.0 0.0 17.1 15.9 0.0 0.0
1.0 0.9 3.4 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.2 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
1.4 1.4 0.3 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.1 0.0 0.0
29.7 12.4 12.4 21.5 10.4 10.8 0.0 0.0 18.5 17.1 0.0 0.0
CBBC BB A A B B A A
495 554 65 147
12.7 11.3 18.5 17.1
B B B B
4.8
4.5
20.0
2.1
0.0
16.6
5.0
40.0
5.1
4.4
9.3
4.6
20.0
5.0
0.4
5.9
4.5
20.0
2.8
0.0
15.6
5.0
40.0
6.2
4.4
7.3
4.6
30.0
3.4
0.2
12.9
B
1
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Synchro 11 Report Existing PM
Page 1 W-Trans
Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Phasing
1: Dublin Boulevard & Hansen Drive 12/12/2022
4 4\ t,* '- 1 1
Movement
Lane Configurations 'j t4 r 4+ 4+
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 583 3 61 517 71 0 0 3 138 1
Future Volume (veh/h) 5 583 3 61 517 71 0 0 3 138 1
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1900 1885 1900 1900 1885 1885 1976 1976 1976 1885 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 6 686 4 72 608 84 0 0 4 162 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
Cap,veh/h 12 1276 7 98 1423 631 0 0 29 226 1
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.35 0.35 0.05 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.13 0.13
SatFlow,veh/h 1810 3651 21 1810 3582 1588 0 0 1659 1738 11
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 6 336 354 72 608 84 0 0 4 168 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1791 1881 1810 1791 1588 0 0 1659 1802 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 6.3 6.3 1.6 5.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 6.3 6.3 1.6 5.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.7 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.96
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 12 626 658 98 1423 631 0 0 29 234 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.54 0.54 0.73 0.43 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.72 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 673 1503 1579 673 3007 1333 0 0 1273 1098 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.6 10.9 10.9 19.4 9.1 8.0 0.0 0.0 20.2 17.4 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.4 1.0 1.0 3.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.5 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile Back0fQ(50 % ),vehM 0.1 2.0 2.1 0.7 1.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.1 11.9 11.8 23.3 9.4 8.1 0.0 0.0 20.9 18.9 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS CBBC A A A A C B A A
4
4
0
0.98
1.00
1900
5
0.85
0
7
0.13
54
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.03
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assi.ned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.5
696
12.0
B
764
10.6
B
21.6
5.0
35.0
10.0 6.8
4.6 4.5
25.4 15.5
19.6
5.0
35.0
4
20.9
C
8
5.3
4.6
32.0
168
18.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 7.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0
6.6
5.7 3.6 8.3
0.6 0.0 6.3
2.1
0.0
Intersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
12.1
1
HCM 6th LOS
B
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Existing + Project AM
W-Trans
Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Dublin Boulevard & Hansen Drive
Existing Phasing
12/12/2022
t 4\ t,* v 1 1
-ice,
ziaz-
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh,
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile Back0fQ(50 % ),vehM
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
6
6
0
1.00
1.00
1900
7
0.92
0
14
0.01
1810
7
1810
0.1
0.1
1.00
14
0.52
735
1.00
1.00
18.9
10.8
0.0
0.1
T1•
448
448
0
1.00
No
1885
487
0.92
1
1008
0.28
3658
238
1791
4.2
4.2
493
0.48
1642
1.00
1.00
11.6
1.0
0.0
1.4
2
2
0
0.98
1.00
1900
2
0.92
0
4
0.28
15
251
1882
4.2
4.2
0.01
518
0.48
1726
1.00
1.00
11.6
1.0
0.0
1.5
37
37
0
1.00
1.00
1900
40
0.92
0
66
0.04
1810
40
1810
0.8
0.8
1.00
66
0.61
735
1.00
1.00
18.1
3.4
0.0
0.4
321
321
0
1.00
No
1885
349
0.92
1
1090
0.30
3582
349
1791
2.9
2.9
1090
0.32
3285
1.00
1.00
10.2
0.2
0.0
0.9
153
153
0
0.97
1.00
1885
166
0.92
1
473
0.30
1554
166
1554
3.2
3.2
1.00
473
0.35
1425
1.00
1.00
10.3
0.6
0.0
0.9
1.00
1.00
1976
1
0.92
0
2
0.07
25
67
1658
1.5
1.5
0.01
123
0.54
1390
1.00
1.00
17.0
1.4
0.0
0.5
4+
0
1.00
No
1976
1
0.92
0
2
0.07
25
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
60
60
0
0.99
1.00
1976
65
0.92
0
119
0.07
1608
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.97
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
134
134
0
1.00
1.00
1885
146
0.92
1
223
0.12
1796
147
1808
3.0
3.0
0.99
224
0.66
1203
1.00
1.00
15.9
1.2
0.0
1.1
4+
0
0
0
1.00
No
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
1
0
0.99
1.00
1900
1
0.92
0
2
0.12
12
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.01
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
29.7 12.6 12.6 21.5 10.5 11.0 18.4 0.0 0.0 17.1 0.0 0.0
CBBCBBB A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assi.ned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.5
496
12.8
B
16.6
5.0
35.0
555
11.4
B
9.3 5.9
4.6 4.5
25.4 15.5
15.5
5.0
35.0
67
18.4
B
7.4
4.6
32.0
147
17.1
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 5.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0
4.3
5.0 2.8 6.2
0.5 0.0 4.3
3.5
0.2
Intersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
13.0
1
HCM 6th LOS
B
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Existing + Project PM
W-Trans
Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Phasing
1: Dublin Boulevard & Hansen Drive
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Phasing
12/12/2022 1: Dublin Boulevard & Hansen Drive
12/12/2022
,c k 4\ t,* '- 1 1 J_ ,c ~ k 4\ t,* '- 1 1
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 7 710 3 74 630 87 0 0 ▪ • 8 169 2 ▪ • 5
Future Volume (veh/h) 7 710 3 74 630 87 0 0 8 169 2 5
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1900 1885 1900 1900 1885 1885 1976 1976 1976 1885 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 7 710 3 74 630 87 0 0 8 169 2 5
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Cap,veh/h 14 1293 5 99 1435 636 0 0 36 235 3 7
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.35 0.35 0.05 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.14 0.14
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3658 15 1810 3582 1588 0 0 1658 1731 20 51
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 7 348 365 74 630 87 0 0 8 176 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1791 1882 1810 1791 1588 0 0 1658 1803 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 6.7 6.7 1.7 5.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 6.7 6.7 1.7 5.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.0 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.96 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 14 633 666 99 1435 636 0 0 36 245 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.55 0.55 0.75 0.44 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.72 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 652 1456 1531 652 2912 1291 0 0 1233 1064 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.3 11.2 11.2 20.1 9.4 8.2 0.0 0.0 20.7 17.8 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.0 1.1 1.0 4.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.5 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile Back0fQ(50 % ),vehM 0.1 2.2 2.3 0.7 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.2 12.2 12.2 24.3 9.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 21.8 19.3 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS CBBC A A A A C B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 720 791 8 176
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.4 10.9 21.8 19.3
Approach LOS B B C B
Lane Configurations 'j +14. ' t4 r 44 4+
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 568 2 46 407 194 0 2 75 170 0 2
Future Volume (veh/h) 8 568 2 46 407 194 0 2 75 170 0 2
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1976 1976 1976 1885 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 568 2 46 407 194 0 2 75 170 0 2
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Cap,veh/h 15 1098 4 72 1187 511 0 3 128 237 0 3
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.30 0.30 0.04 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.00 0.13
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3689 13 1810 3610 1555 0 43 1613 1786 0 21
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 8 278 292 46 407 194 0 0 77 172 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1805 1897 1810 1805 1555 0 0 1656 1807 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 5.3 5.3 1.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 3.8 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 5.3 5.3 1.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 3.8 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.97 0.99 0.01
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 15 537 565 72 1187 511 0 0 132 240 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.64 0.34 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.72 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 675 1521 1599 675 3043 1311 0 0 1276 1105 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.5 12.1 12.1 19.6 10.5 10.7 0.0 0.0 18.5 17.3 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.8 1.1 1.0 3.5 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 10.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile Back0fQ(50 % ),vehM 0.1 1.8 1.9 0.4 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.5 0.0 - 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
30.3 13.2 13.2 23.2 10.8 11.3 0.0 0.0 20.0 18.8 0.0 0.0
CBBCBB A A B B A A
578 647 77 172
13.4 11.8 20.0 18.8
B B B B
Timer - Assi.ned Phs 1 2 4 Timer - Assi.ned Phs 4 5
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.8 22.2 10.4 6.8 20.2 5.5 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.9 18.7 10.1 6.1 17.4 7.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 4.6 4.5 5.0 4.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 4.6 4.5 5.0 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.5 35.0 25.4 15.5 35.0 32.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.5 35.0 25.4 15.5 35.0 32.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 7.5 6.0 3.7 8.7 2.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 6.0 5.8 3.0 7.3 3.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.8 0.6 0.1 6.5 0.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.1 0.6 0.0 5.1 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.5
HCM 6th LOS B
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Future AM
W-Trans
Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Intersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
HCM 6th LOS
13.7
B
i
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Future PM
W-Trans
Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Phasing
1: Dublin Boulevard & Hansen Drive
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
12/12/2022 1: Dublin Boulevard & Hansen Drive
t 4\ t P V 1 1
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 7 710 4 75 630 87 0 0 ▪ • 5 169 2 ▪ • 5
Future Volume (veh/h) 7 710 4 75 630 87 0 0 5 169 2 5
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1900 1885 1900 1900 1885 1885 1976 1976 1976 1885 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 7 710 4 75 630 87 0 0 5 169 2 5
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Cap,veh/h 14 1295 7 100 1441 639 0 0 31 235 3 7
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.35 0.35 0.06 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.14 0.14
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3652 21 1810 3582 1588 0 0 1658 1731 20 51
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 7 348 366 75 630 87 0 0 5 176 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1791 1881 1810 1791 1588 0 0 1658 1803 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 6.7 6.7 1.8 5.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 6.7 6.7 1.8 5.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.0 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.96 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 14 635 667 100 1441 639 0 0 31 245 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.55 0.55 0.75 0.44 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.72 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 654 1461 1535 654 2922 1295 0 0 1237 1067 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.2 11.1 11.1 20.0 9.3 8.1 0.0 0.0 20.7 17.8 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.0 1.1 1.0 4.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.5 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile Back0fQ(50 % ),vehM 0.1 2.2 2.3 0.8 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.2 12.1 12.1 24.2 9.6 8.2 0.0 0.0 21.6 19.3 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS CB BC A A A A C B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 721 792 5 176
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.3 10.8 21.6 19.3
Approach LOS B B C B
Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.8 22.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.5 35.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 7.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
HCM 6th LOS
12.4
B
10.4
4.6
25.4
6.0
0.6
Existing Phasing
12/12/2022
,c k 4\ t,* '- 1 1
Lane Configurations 'j t1+ ' t4 r 4+ 4
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 568 3 47 407 194 1 2 76 170 0 • 2
Future Volume (veh/h) 8 568 3 47 407 194 1 2 76 170 0 2
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1976 1976 1976 1885 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 568 3 47 407 194 1 2 76 170 0 2
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Cap,veh/h 15 1095 6 73 1189 512 2 3 129 237 0 3
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.30 0.30 0.04 0.33 0.33 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.00 0.13
SatFlow,veh/h 1810 3682 19 1810 3610 1555 21 42 1595 1786 0 21
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 8 278 293 47 407 194 79 0 0 172 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1805 1896 1810 1805 1555 1658 0 0 1807 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 5.3 5.3 1.1 3.6 4.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 5.3 5.3 1.1 3.6 4.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.96 0.99 0.01
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 15 537 564 73 1189 512 135 0 0 240 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.65 0.34 0.38 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 672 1514 1591 672 3029 1305 1272 0 0 1100 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.6 12.2 12.2 19.7 10.6 10.7 18.5 0.0 0.0 17.3 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.8 1.1 1.1 3.5 0.2 0.7 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 10.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile Back0fQ(50 % ),vehM 0.1 1.8 1.9 0.5 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 - 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.4 13.3 13.2 23.2 10.8 11.4 20.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS CBBC BBC A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 579 648 79 172
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.5 11.9 20.0 18.8
Approach LOS B B C B
8 Timer -Assigned Phs 4 5 8
6.9 20.2 5.4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.9 18.7 10.1 6.2 17.4 8.0
4.5 5.0 4.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 4.6 4.5 5.0 4.6
15.5 35.0 32.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.5 35.0 25.4 15.5 35.0 32.0
3.8 8.7 2.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 2.2 6.0 5.8 3.1 7.3 3.9
0.1 6.5 0.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.1 0.6 0.0 5.1 0.3
Intersection Summary
1 HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.8
HCM 6th LOS B
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Future + Project AM
W-Trans
Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Future + Project PM
W-Trans
Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 8-Phase Operation
1: Dublin Boulevard & Hansen Drive
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
12/02/2022 1: Dublin Boulevard & Hansen Drive
Movement EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 'j t1+ ' t4 jr ii 1. 'j T4 Lane Configurations 'j t1. ' t4 j' ii 1. 'j T4
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 583 2 60 517 71 0 0 6 138 1 4 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 448 1 36 321 153 0 1 59 134 0 1
Future Volume (veh/h) 5 583 2 60 517 71 0 0 6 138 1 4 Future Volume (veh/h) 6 448 1 36 321 153 0 1 59 134 0 1
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1900 1885 1900 1900 1885 1885 1976 1976 1976 1885 1900 1900 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1976 1976 1976 1885 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 6 686 2 71 608 84 0 0 7 162 1 5 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 7 487 1 39 349 166 0 1 64 146 0 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Cap,veh/h 12 1120 3 100 1270 562 5 0 66 212 74 372 Cap,veh/h 14 987 2 64 1066 459 5 2 154 190 0 514
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.06 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.27 0.27 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.27 0.27 0.04 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.00 0.32
SatFlow,veh/h 1810 3663 11 1810 3582 1586 1882 0 1660 1795 272 1358 SatFlow,veh/h 1810 3696 8 1810 3610 1554 1882 25 1630 1795 0 1603
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 6 335 353 71 608 84 0 0 7 162 0 6 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 7 238 250 39 349 166 0 0 65 146 0 1
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1791 1883 1810 1791 1586 1882 0 1660 1795 0 1629 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1805 1898 1810 1805 1554 1882 0 1655 1795 0 1603
Cr Serve(g_s), s 0.1 6.2 6.2 1.5 5.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.4 0.0 0.1 Cr Serve(g_s), s 0.1 4.2 4.2 0.8 2.8 3.2 0.0 0.0 1.4 3.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 6.2 6.2 1.5 5.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.4 0.0 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 4.2 4.2 0.8 2.8 3.2 0.0 0.0 1.4 3.0 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 12 548 576 100 1270 562 5 0 66 212 0 447 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 14 482 507 64 1066 459 5 0 156 190 0 514
V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.61 0.61 0.71 0.48 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.76 0.00 0.01 V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.49 0.49 0.61 0.33 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.77 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 187 806 848 258 2688 1190 243 0 1374 441 0 447 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 193 675 710 218 2797 1204 251 0 1415 408 0 514
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 11.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.1 11.5 11.5 18.0 9.7 8.5 0.0 0.0 17.9 16.5 0.0 _ 10.2 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.5 11.6 11.6 17.8 10.3 10.4 0.0 0.0 16.0 16.3 0.0 8.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.4 1.6 1.5 3.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 5.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.8 1.1 1.1 3.4 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 6.4 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ile Back0fQ(50 % ),vehM 0.1 2.0 2.1 0.6 1.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 % ile Back0fQ(50 % ),vehM 0.1 1.4 1.4 0.3 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.4 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.5 13.0 13.0 21.4 10.1 8.7 0.0 0.0 18.2 22.2 0.0 10.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.3 12.7 12.6 21.2 10.5 11.1 0.0 0.0 16.6 22.7 0.0 8.6
LnGrp LOS CBBCB A A A BC A B LnGrp LOS CBBC BB A A BC A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 694 763 7 168 Approach Vol, veh/h 495 554 65 147
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.2 11.0 18.2 21.8 Approach Delay, s/veh 12.9 11.5 16.6 22.6
Approach LOS B B B C Approach LOS B B B C
Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 -r- 8 Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 -15/m- 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.7 18.7 0.0 15.2 6.6 16.8 9.1 6.1 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.8 16.1 0.0 16.6 5.8 15.0 8.5 8.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.6 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.6 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 29.0 5.0 8.5 5.5 17.4 9.5 32.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 29.0 5.0 7.9 4.5 14.0 8.5 32.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 7.1 0.0 2.1 3.5 8.2 5.4 2.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 5.2 0.0 2.0 2.8 6.2 5.0 3.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.2 0.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.1 0.2
8-Phase Operation
12/02/2022
k- 4\ t
WBR NBL
NBT
NBR SBL SBT
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.1
Intersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
13.6
HCM 6th LOS B HCM 6th LOS B
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Existing AM Synchro 11 Report Existing PM Synchro 11 Report
W-Trans Page 1 W-Trans Page 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 8-Phase Operation
1: Dublin Boulevard & Hansen Drive
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
12/02/2022 1: Dublin Boulevard & Hansen Drive
Nt r~ k 4\ t,*
Movement EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 'j t1+ t+ i 'i 1+ T4
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 583 3 61 517 71 0 0 3 138 1 4
Future Volume (veh/h) 5 583 3 61 517 71 0 0 3 138 1 4
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1900 1885 1900 1900 1885 1885 1976 1976 1976 1885 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 6 686 4 72 608 84 0 0 4 162 1 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Cap,veh/h 12 1120 7 101 1276 565 5 0 61 212 74 369
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.27 0.27
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3651 21 1810 3582 1586 1882 0 1660 1795 272 1358
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 6 336 354 72 608 84 0 0 4 162 0 6
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1791 1881 1810 1791 1586 1882 0 1660 1795 0 1629
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 6.2 6.2 1.5 5.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.4 0.0 0.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 6.2 6.2 1.5 5.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.4 0.0 0.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 12 549 577 101 1276 565 5 0 61 212 0 443
V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.61 0.61 0.71 0.48 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.76 0.00 0.01
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 188 808 849 258 2694 1193 244 0 1378 442 0 443
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 11.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.1 11.4 11.4 17.9 9.6 8.4 0.0 0.0 17.9 16.5 0.0 _ 10.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.4 1.6 1.5 3.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.7 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile Back0fQ(50 % ),vehM 0.1 2.0 2.1 0.6 1.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.4 13.0 12.9 21.4 10.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 18.1 22.1 0.0 10.3
LnGrp LOS CBBCB A A A BC A B
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer -Assigned Phs 1
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0
696
13.1
B
2
18.7
5.0
29.0
3
0.0
4.5
5.0
4
15.1
4.6
8.5
764
10.9
B
5
6.6
4.5
5.5
16.8 9.1
5.0 4.5
17.4 9.5
4
18.1
B
8
6.0
4.6
32.0
168
21.7
C
•
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 2.1 7.1 0.0 2.1 3.5 8.2 5.4 2.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.2 0.0
Intersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
13.0
HCM 6th LOS
B
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Existing + Project AM
W-Trans
Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
8-Phase Operation
12/02/2022
4 4\
WBR NBL
NBT
NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations 'j t1+ t+ i 'i 1+
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 448 2 37 321 153 1 1 60
Future Volume (veh/h) 6 448 2 37 321 153 1 1 60
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1976 1976 1976 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 7 487 2 40 349 166 1 1 65 146
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Cap,veh/h 14 983 4 66 1066 459 5 2 156 190
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.27 0.27 0.04 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.11
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3687 15 1810 3610 1554 1882 25 1630 1795
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 7 238 251 40 349 166 1 0 66 146
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1805 1897 1810 1805 1554 1882 0 1655 1795
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 4.2 4.2 0.8 2.8 3.2 0.0 0.0 1.4 3.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 4.2 4.2 0.8 2.8 3.2 0.0 0.0 1.4 3.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 14 481 506 66 1066 459 5 0 158 190 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.50 0.50 0.61 0.33 0.36 0.20 0.00 0.42 0.77 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 193 674 708 217 2790 1201 251 0 1412 407 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.6 11.6 11.6 17.8 10.3 10.4 18.7 0.0 16.0 16.3 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.8 1.1 1.1 3.3 0.3 0.7 18.4 0.0 0.7 6.4 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile Back0fQ(50 % ),vehM 0.1 1.4 1.5 0.3 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.4 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.3 12.8 12.7 21.2 10.6 11.1 37.1 0.0 16.6 22.7 0.0 12.0
LnGrp LOS CBBCB BD A BC A B
134
134
1.00
1.00
0
0
1.00
No
1900
0
0.92
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
1
1
0
0.99
1.00
1900
1
0.92
0
320
0.20
1598
1
1598
0.0
0.0
1.00
320
0.00
336
1.00
1.00
12.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer -Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
1
4.8
4.5
4.0
496
13.0
B
2
16.1
5.0
29.0
3
4.6
4.5
5.0
4
12.1
4.6
7.9
555
11.5
B
6M 6
5.9 15.0
4.5 5.0
4.5 14.0
7
8.5
4.5
8.5
67
16.9
B
8
8.2
4.6
32.0
147
22.6
C
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 2.1 5.2 2.0 2.0 2.8 6.2 5.0 3.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.1 0.2
Intersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
13.7
HCM 6th LOS B
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Existing + Project PM
W-Trans
Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Dublin Boulevard & Hansen Drive
8-Phase Operation
12/02/2022
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 8-Phase Operation
1: Dublin Boulevard & Hansen Drive
12/02/2022
k 4\ t,* J_Nt1~ k 4\ t,*
Movement T WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 'j t14. ' t4 jr ii 1. 'j T4 Lane Configurations 'j t1. ' t4 j' ii 1. 'j T4
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 7 710 3 74 630 87 0 0 8 169 2 5 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 568 2 46 407 194 0 2 75 170 0 2
Future Volume (veh/h) 7 710 3 74 630 87 0 0 8 169 2 5 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 568 2 46 407 194 0 2 75 170 0 2
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1900 1885 1900 1900 1885 1885 1976 1976 1976 1885 1900 1900 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1976 1976 1976 1885 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 7 710 3 74 630 87 0 0 8 169 2 5 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 568 2 46 407 194 0 2 75 170 0 2
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Cap,veh/h 14 1131 5 102 1282 568 5 0 69 221 132 331 Cap,veh/h 15 950 3 73 1045 450 5 4 161 221 0 543
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.28 0.28 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.26 0.26 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.00 0.34
SatFlow,veh/h 1810 3658 15 1810 3582 1586 1882 0 1660 1795 475 1188 SatFlow,veh/h 1810 3689 13 1810 3610 1553 1882 43 1614 1795 0 1603
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 7 348 365 74 630 87 0 0 8 169 0 7 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 8 278 292 46 407 194 0 0 77 170 0 2
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1791 1882 1810 1791 1586 1882 0 1660 1795 0 1663 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1805 1897 1810 1805 1553 1882 0 1657 1795 0 1603
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 6.6 6.6 1.6 5.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.6 0.0 0.1 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 5.2 5.2 1.0 3.5 3.9 0.0 0.0 1.7 3.6 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 6.6 6.6 1.6 5.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.6 0.0 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 5.2 5.2 1.0 3.5 3.9 0.0 0.0 1.7 3.6 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 14 554 582 102 1282 568 5 0 69 221 0 463 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 15 465 489 73 1045 450 5 0 166 221 0 543
V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.63 0.63 0.73 0.49 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.77 0.00 0.02 V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.60 0.60 0.63 0.39 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.77 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 183 787 828 251 2625 1163 238 0 1342 431 0 463 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 186 651 684 210 2697 1160 242 0 1366 393 0 543
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 11.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.6 11.7 11.7 18.4 9.9 8.6 0.0 0.0 18.3 16.8 0.0 _ 10.4 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.2 12.6 12.6 18.3 11.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 16.5 16.5 0.0 8.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.9 1.7 1.6 3.7 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 5.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.7 1.8 1.7 3.3 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.8 5.6 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile Back0fQ(50 % ),veh/In 0.1 2.2 2.3 0.7 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 %ile Back0fQ(50 % ),vehlln 0.1 1.8 1.9 0.4 1.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.6 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.4 13.4 13.3 22.0 10.3 8.8 0.0 0.0 18.5 22.3 0.0 10.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.9 14.4 14.3 21.7 11.4 12.1 0.0 0.0 17.2 22.1 0.0 8.5
LnGrp LOS CBBCB A A A BC A B LnGrp LOS CB BC BB A A BC A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 720 791 8 176 Approach Vol, veh/h 578 647 77 172
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.5 11.2 18.5 21.8 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.6 12.3 17.2 21.9
Approach LOS B B B C Approach LOS B B B C
Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 -B- 8 Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 I
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.8 19.2 0.0 15.6 6.7 17.2 9.4 6.2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.8 16.2 0.0 17.8 6.1 15.0 9.3 8.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.6 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.6 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 29.0 5.0 8.5 5.5 17.4 9.5 32.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 29.0 5.0 7.9 4.5 14.0 8.5 32.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 7.4 0.0 2.1 3.6 8.6 5.6 2.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 5.9 0.0 2.0 3.0 7.2 5.6 3.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.2 0.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.1 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.6
HCM 6th LOS B HCM 6th LOS B
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Future AM
W-Trans
Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Future PM
W-Trans
Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 8-Phase Operation
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 8-Phase Operation
1: Dublin Boulevard & Hansen Drive 12/02/2022 1: Dublin Boulevard & Hansen Drive 12/02/2022
l Ni,I~ t 4\ t P V 1 1 l l I - t 4\ t P V 1 1
M Mille r'NEW WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 'j 1+ ' t4 jr ii 1+ ''j j+ Lane Configurations 'j t1+ ' t4 j' ii 1+ ''j j+
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 7 710 4 75 630 87 0 0 5 169 2 5 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 568 3 47 407 194 1 2 76 170 0 2
Future Volume (veh/h) 7 710 4 75 630 87 0 0 5 169 2 5 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 568 3 47 407 194 1 2 76 170 0 2
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1900 1885 1900 1900 1885 1885 1976 1976 1976 1885 1900 1900 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1976 1976 1976 1885 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 7 710 4 75 630 87 0 0 5 169 2 5 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 568 3 47 407 194 1 2 76 170 0 2
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Cap,veh/h 14 1132 6 103 1287 570 5 0 64 221 131 328 Cap,veh/h 15 946 5 74 1045 450 5 4 163 221 0 356
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.28 0.28 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.26 0.26 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.00 0.22
SatFlow,veh/h 1810 3652 21 1810 3582 1586 1882 0 1660 1795 475 1188 SatFlow,veh/h 1810 3682 19 1810 3610 1553 1882 42 1615 1795 0 1599
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 7 348 366 75 630 87 0 0 5 169 0 7 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 8 278 293 47 407 194 1 0 78 170 0 2
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1791 1881 1810 1791 1586 1882 0 1660 1795 0 1663 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1805 1896 1810 1805 1553 1882 0 1657 1795 0 1599
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 6.6 6.6 1.6 5.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.6 0.0 0.1 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 5.3 5.3 1.0 3.5 3.9 0.0 0.0 1.7 3.6 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 6.6 6.6 1.6 5.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.6 0.0 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 5.3 5.3 1.0 3.5 3.9 0.0 0.0 1.7 3.6 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 14 555 583 103 1287 570 5 0 64 221 0 459 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 15 464 487 74 1045 450 5 0 168 221 0 356
V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.63 0.63 0.73 0.49 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.77 0.00 0.02 V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.60 0.60 0.63 0.39 0.43 0.21 0.00 0.47 0.77 0.00 0.01
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 183 790 830 252 2633 1166 238 0 1346 432 0 459 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 186 649 682 209 2690 1158 242 0 1363 392 0 356
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 11.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.5 11.7 11.7 18.3 9.8 8.6 0.0 0.0 18.3 16.8 0.0 _ 10.4 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.2 12.7 12.7 18.4 11.1 11.2 19.4 0.0 16.5 16.5 0.0 11.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.9 1.7 1.6 3.7 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.7 1.8 1.7 3.3 0.3 0.9 19.9 0.0 0.7 5.6 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile Back0fQ(50 % ),veh/In 0.1 2.2 2.3 0.7 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 %ile Back0fQ(50 % ),vehM 0.1 1.9 1.9 0.4 1.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.6 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.4 13.3 13.2 22.0 10.2 8.7 0.0 0.0 18.5 22.2 0.0 10.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.9 14.5 14.4 21.7 11.4 12.2 39.3 0.0 17.2 22.1 0.0 11.8
LnGrp LOS CBBCB A A A BC A B LnGrp LOS CB BC B BD A BC A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 721 792 5 176 Approach Vol, veh/h 579 648 79 172
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.4 11.2 18.5 21.8 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.6 12.4 17.5 22.0
Approach LOS B B B C Approach LOS B B B C
Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 -15/m- 8 Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.8 19.2 0.0 15.5 6.7 17.2 9.3 6.1 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.8 16.3 4.6 13.3 6.1 15.0 9.3 8.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.6 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.6 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 29.0 5.0 8.5 5.5 17.4 9.5 32.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 29.0 5.0 7.9 4.5 14.0 8.5 32.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 7.4 0.0 2.1 3.6 8.6 5.6 2.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 5.9 2.0 2.0 3.0 7.3 5.6 3.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.2 0.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.1 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.3
Intersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
14.7
HCM 6th LOS B HCM 6th LOS B
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Future + Project AM
W-Trans
Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Future + Project PM
W-Trans
Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Appendix D
Truck Turning Templates
Final Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project
December 2022
D
i-Tran5
This page intentionally left blank
WESTERN DRIVEWAY
15.00 48.00
I1��
2.50
41.00
' - 0.00
4.00 19.50
WB-62
Tractor Width
Trailer Width
Tractor Track
Trailer Track
feet
: 8.00
: 8.50
: 8.00
: 8.50
Lock to Lock Time
Steering Angle
Articulating Angle
U U
: 6.0
: 28.4
: 70.0
1 OF 2
AutoTURN — ENTERING SITE DRIVEWAYS
DUB900-2 — HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
October 2022
DUBLN BL VD
EASTERN DRIVEWAY
15.00 48.00
2.50 41.00
0.00
4.00 19.50
WB-62
Tractor Width
Trailer Width
Tractor Track
Trailer Track
feet
: 8.00
: 8.50
: 8.00
: 8.50
Lock to Lock Time
Steering Angle
Articulating Angle
((oll l ((0)
: 6.0
: 28.4
: 70.0
2 OF 2
AutoTURN — EXITING SITE DRIVEWAYS
DUB900-2 — HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
October 2022
/-Trans
Memorandum
Date: April 6, 2023 Project: DUB900-2
To: Mr. Oliver Castillo, EIT
Assistant Civil Engineer
City of Dublin
From:
Kenny Jeong, PE
kjeong@w-trans.com
Subject: Hexcel Redevelopment Project Transportation Impact Study Addendum
As requested, W-Trans has prepared a revised trip generation and parking analysis relative to the proposed
redevelopment of the Hexcel facility located at 11711 Dublin Boulevard in the City of Dublin.
Revised Project Description
The project site plan has recently been updated and now consists of 18,000 square feet of office space, 30,000
square feet of light industrial space and 77,304 square feet of warehouse use with 217 parking spaces. This
represents a change from the previous project description as depicted in the Transportation Impact Study for the
Hexcel Redevelopment Project, December 12, 2022, W-Trans (TIS), which provided an analysis of a project comprised
of 18,000 square feet of office use, 36,500 square feet of light industrial space and 70,804 square feet of warehouse
uses with 227 parking spaces. It is noted that the overall size of the proposed project has remained constant at
125,304 square feet in both the project as evaluated in 2022 and the current proposal. A copy of the revised site
plan is enclosed.
Revised Trip Generation
According to the trip generation estimates documented in the TIS, the proposed project would result in a net
reduction of 201 trips on a daily basis from the prior Research and Development uses, with an increase of 1 net
new trip during the morning peak hour and 2 net new trips during the evening peak hour. The project as currently
proposed would be comprised of slightly different square footage estimates of internal uses which would result in a net
decrease of 21 daily trips, including 4 fewer a.m. peak hour trips and 3 fewer p.m. peak hour trips compared to the
project as evaluated in the 2022 TIS. A summary of these changes is shown in Table 1.
414 13th Street, 5th Floor Oakland, CA 94621 510.444.2600 w-trans.com
SANTA ROSA • OAKLAND
Mr. Oliver Castillo
Page 2
April 6, 2023
Table 1 -Trip Generation Summary (December 2022)
Land Use
Units
(ksf)
Existing
Research & Dev
-62.715
Daily
Rate Trips
11.08 -695
AM Peak Hour
Rate Trips In Out
PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips In Out
1.03 -65 -53 -12
0.98 -61 -10 -51
Proposed (December 2022)
Offices 18.000
Light Industrial 36.500
Warehousing 70.804
10.84 195 1.52 27 24 3
4.87 178 0.74 27 24 3
1.71 121 0.17 12 9 3
1.44 26 4 22
0.65 24 3 21
0.18 13 4 9
Proposed 2022 Subtotal 125.304
494
66 57 9
63 11 52
Total (Proposed 2022 less Existing)
-201
1 4 -3
2 1 1
Proposed (April 2023)
Offices 18.000
10.84 195
1.52 27 24
1.44 26 4 22
Light Industrial 30.000
4.87 146
0.74 22 19 3
0.65 20 3 17
Warehousing 77.304
1.71 132
0.17 13 10 3
0.18 14 4 10
Proposed 2023 Subtotal 125.304
473
62 53 9
60 11 49
Total (Proposed 2023 less Existing)
-222
Note: ksf = 1,000 square feet
-3 0 -3
-1 1 -2
Finding - Since the currently proposed project is expected to generate slightly fewer vehicle trips than were used
in the analysis presented in the Transportation Impact Study for the Hexcel Redevelopment Project (2022), the
project's effect on intersection Level of Service (LOS) and queuing would be similar to the results presented for
the prior analysis. The results as presented in the prior Transportation Impact Study would therefore continue to
adequately represent the project as currently proposed, and as no changes to the findings would be expected, a
comprehensive update of the prior traffic analysis is unnecessary.
Revised Parking Analysis
An update to the expected demand and City code requirements using the current (2023) proposed land uses is
summarized in Table 2. According to these estimates, the revised proposed parking supply of 217 spaces is
anticipated to adequately accommodate the estimated peak parking demand of 93 spaces and would satisfy the
City Code requirement of 217 spaces. For informational purposes, a copy of the previous summary is also provided
in Table 2.
Offices
Mr. Oliver Castillo
Page 3
April 6, 2023
Table 2 - Revised Parking Analysis Summary
Land Use
Units
(ksf)
Proposed (December 2022)
12.000
6.000
Light Industrial 36.500
Warehousing 70.804
Supply
(spaces)
227
Total (2022) 125.304
227
Rate
City Requirements
Spaces
Required
ITE Parking Generation
Rate Est. Parking
(per ksf) Demand
1 per 0.25 ksf 30
1 per 0.3 ksf 35
1 per 0.4 ksf 91
1 per ksf 71
227
2.39 43
0.65 24
0.39 28
95
Proposed (April 2023)
Offices 12.000
6.000
Light Industrial 30.000
Warehousing 77.304
217
1 per 0.25 ksf 30
1 per 0.3 ksf 35
1 per 0.4 ksf 75
1 per 1 ksf 77
Total (2023) 125.304
217
Note: ksf =1,000 square feet
2.39 43
0.65
0.39
20
30
217
93
The Uniform Building Code and the Federal Accessibility Guidelines include minimum requirements disabled
parking. The site plan shows that out of 217 spaces available at the proposed project, there are eight stalls
designated for disabled persons' use (including two spaces with the added designation for electric vehicles only).
Based on requirements stipulated by the Federal Accessibility Guidelines, seven accessible stalls are required.
Thus, the proposed project would comply with the Federal Accessibility Guidelines.
Finding - The proposed parking supply would satisfy the City of Dublin's parking requirements and
accommodate the anticipated parking demand. The supply of eight accessible stalls proposed for the project is
greater than the seven stalls required.
Thank you for giving W-Trans the opportunity to provide these services. Please call if you have any questions.
M ES/kbj/D UB900-2.M 1
Enclosures: Revised Site Plan
LILL
I.ay,n
MOM 1.1
L▪ a ▪ LI
a.
mar
1I
in
�_ _�fl
:area.:..,.-..,
W• O.
wf„a.s.n
M.ban..
Y.M.
ar
INIrot
:IeIel:Ielal:C'Ielelaela
BLVD
�I;;Iaelal.l.CI,I.I,I I I "I"I"I" r "I''.
IrIIl„rm ®rime
7 xr
7 UNIT A
33,528 S.F.
A A A
TOTAL • UIL I ING4RE
125 3d4 IS.F.
IIUNIT
29,,899 S.F. 29,906IS.F.
I°I°III °III I°III °III °I
UNIT D
25,9 1 S.F.
IIIIIII�
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Hexcel Redevelopment Project
Findings Concerning Significant Impacts and Mitigation
Measures
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15163(e),
the City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the potential for significant
environmental impacts from the Hexcel Redevelopment project (Project) and means for mitigating
those impacts. Many of the impacts and mitigation measures in the following findings are summarized
rather than set forth in full. The text of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should
be consulted for a complete description of the impacts and mitigations. Findings pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081(c) relating to Project Alternatives are made in Exhibit C.
These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in
the EIR. Instead, the findings provide a summary description of each impact, describe the applicable
mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by the City, and state the findings on the
significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of
these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the EIR, and these findings hereby
incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in those documents supporting the EIR's
determinations regarding mitigation measures and the Project's impacts and mitigation measures
designed to address those impacts. The facts supporting these findings are found in the record as a
whole for the Project.
In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analysis and
explanation in the EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and
conclusions of the EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent
any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings.
SECTION 1: AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-1: Conflict with air quality plans Impact; andAQ-2: Result in cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant
Mitigation Measure:
Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Implement Basic Construction Emission Control Practices
The construction contractor shall comply with the following Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) Basic Construction Measures, as applicable, for reducing construction emissions of
uncontrolled fugitive dust (PM1) and PM2.$):
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered.
1
Exhibit B
• All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing
the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be
provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead
Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within
48 hours. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact with mitigation
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects during demolition and construction
activities identified in the EIR. With implementation of mitigation, the Project's cumulative impact
would not exceed the air quality thresholds established by BAAQMD for fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.$)
emissions. Additionally, the Project would not conflict with the attainment of the applicable air quality
plan.
Rationale for Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the impact would be less
than significant. This is because the implementation of mitigation would make the Project consistent
with BAAQMD Rules and Regulations for controlling fugitive dust emissions and would reduce fugitive
dust emissions during demolition and construction.
SECTION 2: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-1: Have substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive, or special status species
Mitigation Measure:
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
A. To the extent practicable, construction activities and any tree trimming/removal shall be
performed from September 16 through February 15 to avoid the general nesting period for
birds. If construction or tree trimming/removal cannot be performed during this period,
nesting bird surveys and active nest buffers (as necessary) shall be implemented as follows:
i. Nesting Bird Surveys: If Project -related work is scheduled during the nesting season
(typically February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15
2
Exhibit B
to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a
qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for active nests of such birds within 7 days
prior to the beginning of Project construction. Appropriate minimum survey radii
surrounding the work area shall be determined by the qualified biologist, but should be
at least: i) 50 feet for passerines; ii) 300 feet for raptors. Surveys shall be conducted at
the appropriate times of day and during appropriate nesting times, as determined by
the qualified biologist.
ii. Active Nest Buffers: If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the survey
area, an appropriate buffer between the nest and active construction shall be
established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have
fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist
shall conduct baseline monitoring of the nest to characterize "normal" bird behavior
and establish a buffer distance which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The
qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities
and shall increase the buffer if the birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior
(e.g., defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or
flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified
biologist shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the
young have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Construction shall only be allowed
to impact a migratory bird or its nest, including its young, if a permit from U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is obtained in accordance with the MTBA and all permit conditions are
adhered to.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact with mitigation
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With
implementation of mitigation, the Project would reduce impacts to nesting birds to a less than
significant level by avoiding impacts to active nests.
Rationale for Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the impact would be less
than significant. This is because the mitigation would protect nesting birds by first requiring that
construction activities during the nesting season be avoided. If construction cannot be avoided,
preconstruction surveys would be required to identify all active nests with the potential to be impacted
by tree removal, construction noise, or human presence, define appropriate avoidance buffers, and
require qualified biologists to monitor active nests and bird behavior during construction. The buffer
distance would be adjusted as needed.
Impact BIO-2: Interfere or impede the movement of migratory fish or wildlife
Mitigation Measure:
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Roosting Bat Surveys and Avoidance
A. The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a bat habitat assessment in
all project areas that require tree removal. The qualified biologist shall identify and
document the location of potentially suitable bat roosting habitat prior to construction
activities. If no suitable bat habitat is observed, the biologist shall inform the Project
3
Exhibit B
Applicant, and no further considerations are required. If bat roosting habitat is observed,
the location of such habitat areas shall be provided to the Project Applicant, and the
following requirements shall be implemented throughout the construction period:
i. Removal of trees that provide suitable bat roosting habitat shall be conducted outside
of the bat maternity season (April 15 to August 31) and overwintering season (October
16 to January 15) to the extent feasible.
ii. Presence/absence surveys shall be conducted 2 to 3 days prior to removal of any trees
in suitable bat habitat, at any time of year. If presence/absence surveys are negative,
work may proceed with no restrictions. If presence/absence surveys detect bats within
trees planned for removal, work should proceed in accordance with the following
restrictions:
• If a maternity colony of bats is observed during maternity season (April 15 to
August 31), tree removal shall not occur until August 31 or when maternity season
has ended based on surveys conducted by a qualified biologist.
• If bats are observed during overwintering season (October 16 to January 15), tree
removal shall not occur until January 15 or until bats are no longer present based
on surveys conducted by a qualified biologist.
• If bats are present outside of maternity or overwintering seasons, construction
shall follow a two-phase tree removal system conducted over 2 consecutive days.
On the first day (in the afternoon), limbs and branches will be removed using
chainsaws or other hand tools. Limbs with cavities, crevices, or deep bark fissures
will be avoided, and only branches or limbs without those features will be
removed. On the second day, the entire tree shall be removed.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact with mitigation
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With
implementation of mitigation, impacts to roosting bats would be reduced to a less than significant level
by avoiding impacts to trees that provide suitable bat roosting habitat during bat maternity season and
overwintering season.
Rationale for Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, the impact would be less
than significant. This is because the mitigation would require a qualified biologist to identify and
document the location of potentially suitable bat roosting habitat prior to construction activities. Tree
removal during times of the year when bats are most sensitive to disruption (maternity and
overwintering seasons) would be avoided to the extent feasible by either confirming that bats are
absent prior to tree removal and/or following protocols that provide an opportunity for bats to
relocate prior to tree removal.
SECTION 3: CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CR-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
Mitigation Measures:
4
Exhibit B
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: HABS Recordation
In consultation with the City of Dublin Planning Division, the Project applicant shall document
the Hexcel Corporation R&D facility prior to demolition. Documentation shall be performed by
a Secretary of Interior -qualified professional (in history or architectural history) and be
consistent with the standards of the National Parks Service (NPS) Historic American Building
Survey (HABS) and shall consist of the following elements:
1. Historical Report: A qualified historian or architectural historian shall assemble historical
background information relevant to the Hexcel Corporation R&D facility in short format
Historic American Building Survey (HABS), based on HABS guidelines for historical
reports. Much of this information may be drawn from the previous Historical Resource
Evaluation and would detail critical information such as the property's significance,
physical description, history, and a summary of information sources.
2. Photographs: Large -format, black and white photographs of the Hexcel Corporation
R&D facility shall be taken and processed for archival permanence in accordance with
HABS, Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), and HALS (Historic American
Landscapes Survey) Photography Guidelines in effect at the time of recording. The
standards require large -format black -and -white photography, with the original
negatives having a minimum size of 4"x5". Digital photography, roll film, film packs, and
electronic manipulation of images are not acceptable.
The photographs shall be taken by a professional with HABS photography experience. A
minimum of 10 and a maximum of 24 photographs must be taken, detailing the site, building
exteriors, and interiors, specifically the R&D portion of the building. Photographs must be
identified and labeled using HABS/HALS standards.
Following completion of the HABS documentation, including the short form historical report
and large -format photographs, and approval by the City of Dublin, the materials shall be placed
on file with the City of Dublin Planning Division, and the Dublin Historical Society at the Dublin
Heritage Park and Museums.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Interpretive Displays
In concert with HABS documentation (Mitigation Measure CUL-1), the Project applicant shall
install permanent interpretive displays or signage for public exhibition detailing the history and
significance of the Hexcel Corporation R&D facility at the Project site. The interpretive displays
or signage could be based on the photographs produced in the HABS documentation and the
historic archival research previously prepared as part of the Project.
The interpretive displays or signage shall be prepared by an architectural historian or historian
who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, in coordination
with an exhibit designer.
Interpretive displays or signage at the Project site shall be located outside of the new building,
near the publicly accessible sidewalk and/or inside the new building in a prominent space, such
as the lobby, where they may be viewed by employees and visitors.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
5
Exhibit B
Finding: Even with implementation of mitigation measures, the Project would still result in a significant
and unavoidable impact to the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5, as it would result in its demolition. Therefore, the Project would have a Significant
and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. For the impact determined to be significant and
unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further reduce the impact. Therefore, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding: Despite implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, the Project
would result in a Significant and Unavoidable Impact. This is because the Project would still result in
the complete demolition of the existing building, which is a historical resource.
Impact CR-2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Archaeological and Tribal Monitoring
A. A qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional
Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be retained by the applicant prior to
implementing construction or soil remediation activities that involve earthmoving or soil
excavation, and the archaeologist shall be available for consultation or evaluation of any
cultural resources uncovered by such activities. Prior to the start of excavation, the
archaeologist shall produce an Archaeological Testing Plan and an Archaeological Treatment
and Monitoring Plan, in consultation with the City of Dublin, and through them, with any
consulting Native American tribes.
i. The Archaeological Testing Plan will define the following:
• Methods and scope of archaeological testing to be done prior to the start of
construction (e.g., GPR, hand excavated test units, trenching with flat edged
bucket).
• Treatment of any discoveries during testing.
ii. The Treatment and Monitoring Plan will comply with mitigation measures 4, 5, 6, and
7, set forth in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, Appendix B, and will specify
the following:
• Archaeological testing to be done prior to the start of construction.
• Archaeological and Tribal monitoring requirements, which will be based on the
results of archaeological testing and consultation with Native American tribes.
• Procedures and considerations for handling, documenting, analyzing, and curation of
any historic -era or pre -contact era artifacts encountered during project activities.
• Procedures and considerations for handling, documenting, analyzing, and curation of
any human remains from the historic era. For human remains of Native Americans
from any time period, treatment protocols would be established with the designated
MLD.
B. If an archaeological resource or human burials are discovered during archaeological testing,
consideration will be given to options that avoid or minimize impact.
C. If an archaeological resource (or suspected resource) is discovered during monitoring of
project activities, construction or excavation activities within a 50-foot radius of the find
shall be temporarily halted or directed to other areas, pending the archaeologist's
evaluation of its significance. If the resource is significant, data collection, excavation, or
other standard archaeological or historical procedures shall be implemented to mitigate
6
Exhibit B
impacts, pursuant to the Treatment and Monitoring Plan and the archaeologist's direction.
If any human remains are encountered, the archaeologist shall contact the appropriate
County Coroner immediately, and security measures shall be implemented to ensure that
burials are not vandalized until the decision of burial deposition has been made pursuant to
California law. If human remains are determined to be Native American interments, the
Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98 and follow the procedures stated herein and other
applicable laws. A report by the archaeologist evaluating the find and identifying mitigation
actions taken shall be submitted to the City and filed with the California Historic Resources
Information System (CHRIS). Where appropriate to protect the location and sensitivity of
the cultural resources, the report may be submitted under Public Utilities Code Section 583
or other appropriate confidentiality provisions.
Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Inadvertent Discovery Protocols
A. Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall retain a qualified
archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards
for archaeology to implement archaeological awareness training for all construction
personnel involved with ground disturbing or excavation activities. The training shall include
information regarding the possibility of encountering buried cultural resources, the
appearance and types of resources likely to be seen during construction, notification
procedures, and proper protocols to be followed should suspected or confirmed resources
be encountered by the crew. This training shall be provided once to each worker involved in
ground -disturbing activities before they begin work, and shall be documented in training
records.
B. In the event that precontact or historic -age resources (or suspected resources) are
inadvertently discovered during Project implementation, all activity within a 50-foot radius
of the find shall be stopped, the City of Dublin's Project Manager shall be notified, and a
qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the City of Dublin to examine the find, pursuant
to Mitigation Measure 7 set out in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, Appendix B.
Project personnel shall not collect or move any historic material. The archaeologist shall
evaluate the find(s) within 48 hours to determine if it meets the definition of a historical or
unique archaeological resource and follow the procedures outlined below:
i. If the find(s) does not meet the definition of a tribal cultural resource, a historical
resource or a unique archaeological resource, no further study or protection is
necessary prior to resuming Project implementation.
ii. If the find(s) does meet the definition of a historical resource or unique archaeological
resource, then it shall be avoided by Project activities and preserved in place. If
avoidance is not feasible, as determined by the City of Dublin, the qualified
archaeologist shall make appropriate recommendations regarding the treatment and
disposition of such find(s), and significant impacts to such resources shall be mitigated
7
Exhibit B
in accordance with the recommendations of the archaeologist prior to resuming
construction activities within the 50-foot radius.
iii. If the find(s) does meet the definition of both a tribal cultural resource and a historical
or unique archaeological resource, then it shall be treated in accordance with MM
CUL-3.
C. Recommendations for treatment and disposition of find(s) could include, but are not limited
to, archaeological monitoring, collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural
materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovery shall be submitted to NWIC.
i. In the event that archaeological resource(s) are discovered during Project
implementation, an archaeological monitor shall be retained to monitor all ground
disturbing activities in the vicinity (i.e., within 50 feet) of the find.
Archaeological monitors have the authority, upon the finding of a potential resource,
to request that work be slowed, diverted, or stopped if archaeological resources are
identified within the direct impact area.
If the resource is determined by an archaeologist to be a historical or unique
archaeological resource, the archaeologist shall amend the Treatment and Monitoring
Plan, with measures to avoid or reduce impacts to the resource. The treatment plan
measures may include, but not be limited to, avoidance and preservation in place (the
preferred method if feasible), capping, incorporation of the site within a park or other
open space, or data recovery. If the resource is also a tribal cultural resource, then
designated representatives from the consulting tribe(s) shall make appropriate
recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of such find(s) in
accordance with MM CUL-3 and these recommendations shall be incorporated into
the treatment plan.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact with mitigation
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. With implementation of
mitigation, the potential impact on archaeological and buried resources would be reduced to a less
than significant level since protocols and procedures would be followed during construction activities.
Rationale for Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-3 and CUL-4, potentially
significant impacts on archeological and buried resources would be reduced to a less than significant
impact. This is because these mitigations would require training for all construction workers so that
they are aware of the potential for encountering buried resources and the procedures that need to be
followed if potential precontact or historic period archaeological resources are encountered during on -
site activities, as well as the regulations pertaining to discovery of human burials.
SECTION 4: ENERGY
Impact EN-1: Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources
Mitigation Measure:
8
Exhibit B
Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Implement Basic Construction Emission Control Practices
The construction contractor shall comply with the following BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures, as
applicable, for reducing construction emissions of uncontrolled fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5):
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing
the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be
provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead
Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within
48 hours. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact with mitigation
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With
implementation of mitigation, the Project's impact would not consume energy in a wasteful or
inefficient way. Thus, the impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
Rationale for Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the impact of wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption would be less than significant. This is because this
mitigation measure would minimize the idling time of construction equipment and trucks by shutting
equipment off when it is not in use or reducing the idling time to 5 minutes. Additionally, construction
contractors would be required to maintain and properly tune all construction equipment in accordance
with the manufacturer's specification. These required practices would limit wasteful and unnecessary
energy consumption.
SECTION 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact GEO-1: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature
Mitigation Measure:
9
Exhibit B
Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Avoid Impacts to Unique Paleontological Resources
To minimize the potential for destruction of or damage to previously unknown unique, scientifically
important paleontological resources during earthmoving activities at the Project site, the Project
applicant shall do the following:
• Prior to the start of earthmoving activities, retain either a qualified archaeologist or
paleontologist to inform all construction personnel involved with earthmoving activities
regarding the possibility of encountering fossils, the appearance and types of fossils likely to be
seen during construction, and proper notification procedures should fossils be encountered.
• If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the construction crew
shall immediately cease work within 50 feet of the find and notify the Project applicant and the
City. The Project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the resource and
prepare a recovery plan, based on SVP Guidelines. The recovery plan may include, but is not
limited to, a field survey, construction monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures,
museum curation for any specimen recovered, and a report of findings. Recommendations in
the recovery plan that are determined by the City (as the CEQA lead agency) to be necessary
and feasible shall be implemented before construction activities can resume within 50 feet of
the site where the paleontological resource or resources were discovered.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact with mitigation
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With
implementation of mitigation, the Project's impact would minimize impacts to paleontological
resources.
Rationale for Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the impact would be less
than significant. This is because construction workers would be alerted to the possibility of
encountering paleontological resources and, in the event that resources were discovered, construction
would be halted, and fossil specimens would be recovered and recorded and would undergo
appropriate curation.
SECTION 6: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact HAZMAT-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure HAZMAT-1: Perform a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
• Prior to the start of earthmoving activities at the Project site, the Project applicant shall retain
the services of a qualified remediation firm to perform a Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA). The Phase II ESA shall be limited to only those areas where chemical use,
storage, and handling have previously occurred. Soil borings shall be obtained as part of the
10
Exhibit B
Phase II ESA, along with groundwater samples if necessary. The samples shall be submitted to a
laboratory for environmental testing and the results shall be reported in the Phase II ESA,
copies of which shall be provided to the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health
(ACDEH) and the City of Dublin Building Department. If there are no detections of constituents
of concern, or the amounts are below regulatory agency threshold levels, no further actions
shall be required.
• If the results of laboratory analyses from the Phase II ESA demonstrate that constituents of
concern are present at levels that exceed regulatory agency threshold levels, the Project
applicant shall consult with ACDEH (and other regulatory agencies such as the SWRCB if
necessary) regarding the necessary actions for remediation. All necessary remedial activities
shall be completed by the Project applicant, with a certification by the lead agency with
remedial oversight (e.g., ACDEH or SWRCB) that no further action is required, prior to the start
of construction activities at the Project site.
Mitigation Measure HAZMAT-2: Perform Sampling of Materials To Be Demolished.
Prior to demolition of any building in the project area, the building shall be sampled to determine if the
building contains lead paint and/or asbestos. If either of the materials are determined to be present,
they shall be handled and disposed of as a hazardous material and in compliance with all applicable
local, state, and federal regulations.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact with mitigation
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With
implementation of mitigation, potential construction -related impacts from accidental exposure to
hazardous materials would be less than significant.
Rationale for Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZMAT-1 and HAZMAT-2, the
impact would be less than significant. This is because Mitigation Measure HAZMAT-1 would reduce
potential impacts from exposure to on -site hazardous materials because soil (and groundwater, if
necessary) testing would be performed, and if contamination is found to be present, necessary
remediation would be completed prior to the start of Project -related earthmoving activities. Mitigation
Measure HAZMAT-2 would sample materials before demolition would occur, and if hazardous
materials such as lead paint and asbestos are found, they would be handled and disposed in
compliance to applicable regulations.
SECTION 7: TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact TR-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource
Mitigation Measure:
Mitigation Measure TR-1: Inadvertent/Unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources Discovery Protocols
11
Exhibit B
The City of Dublin shall require the following steps to be taken, including as a part of all
contracts related to construction of the Project, as applicable:
A. Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall retain representatives
from consulting tribe(s), if available, to implement Tribal Cultural Resources Sensitivity
Training for all construction personnel involved with ground disturbing or excavation
activities. The training shall include information regarding the possibility of encountering
buried tribal cultural resources, the appearance and types of tribal cultural resources that
could potentially be seen during construction, notification procedures, and proper protocols
to be followed should suspected or confirmed tribal cultural resources be encountered. This
training shall be provided once to each worker involved in ground disturbing activities
before they begin work and shall be documented in training records.
B. If tribal cultural resources or potential tribal cultural resources are discovered during Project
implementation, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be stopped, the City of
Dublin's Project Manager shall be notified, and Tribal Representatives from the consulting
tribe(s) shall be immediately notified. The Tribal Representative(s) shall evaluate the find(s)
within 48 hours to determine if it meets the definition of a tribal cultural resource (PRC
§21074) and follow the procedures outlined below:
i. If the find(s) does not meet the definition of a tribal cultural resource, no further study
or protection is necessary prior to resuming Project implementation (but see Mitigation
Measures CUL-3 and CUL-4)
ii. If the find(s) does meet the definition of a tribal cultural resource, then it shall be
avoided by Project activities and preserved in place. The contractor shall implement any
measures deemed by the City of Dublin to be necessary and feasible to preserve in
place, avoid, or minimize impacts to the tribal cultural resource. If avoidance is not
feasible, as determined by the City of Dublin, Tribal Representatives from the consulting
tribe(s) if available, shall make recommendations regarding the culturally appropriate
treatment and disposition of such find(s) and significant impacts to such tribal cultural
resources shall be mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of the consulting
tribe(s), if they are available, prior to resuming construction activities within the 50-foot
radius.
iii. If the find meets the definition of both a tribal cultural resource and a historical or
unique archaeological resource, then it shall be treated in accordance with the
measures described in Section C. below and Mitigation Measure CUL-4.
C. Culturally appropriate treatment may include, but is not limited to, minimal processing of
materials for reburial, minimizing handling of tribal cultural resources objects, leaving
objects in place within the landscape, or returning tribal cultural resources objects to a
location within the Project area where they would not be subject to future disturbance. No
cultural soil may be removed from the Project site. Permanent curation, testing, or data
collection of tribal cultural resources will not take place unless requested in writing by the
consulting tribe(s).
D. All fill soils imported and used for this Project must be clean, engineered fill.
12
Exhibit B
E. The applicant shall enter into a tribal monitoring agreement with the consulting tribe(s)
prior to the start of ground disturbing activities. The tribal monitoring agreement shall form
the terms and compensation for the tribal monitoring with the consulting tribe(s) and be
utilized in combination with the tribal cultural resource treatment. Tribal Monitors have the
authority to identify sites or objects of cultural significance and to request, upon the finding
of a potential tribal cultural resource, that work be slowed, diverted, or stopped if such sites
or objects are identified within the direct impact area. Only the consulting tribe(s) can
recommend culturally appropriate treatment of such sites or objects, via their Tribal
Monitor. Work within 50 feet of the discovery location cannot resume until all necessary
investigation and evaluation of the discovery under the requirements of the tribal
monitoring agreement have been implemented.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact with mitigation
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With
implementation of mitigation, tribal cultural resources encountered during construction would be
treated in a culturally appropriate manner in consultation with Tribal Representatives and protocols to
protect these resources under the mitigation measure would be required.
Rationale for Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measures TR-1, the impact would be less
than significant. This is because with incorporation of Mitigation Measure TR-1, potential impacts to
tribal cultural resources would be less than significant since protocols would be required during
construction activities, including retaining a qualified archaeologist during ground disturbing activities;
implementing archaeological awareness training for all construction personnel involved with ground
disturbing or excavation activities; stopping activity within a 50-foot radius of the precontact or
historic -age resources find(s) to have it evaluated by an a qualified archaeologist; and avoiding or
mitigating impacts to the find(s).
13
Exhibit C
Exhibit C
Hexcel Redevelopment Project
Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and
Potential Additional Mitigation Measures
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides that decision makers should not approve a
project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures that would
substantially lessen the significant impacts of the project (CEQA Section 21002). The Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Hexcel Redevelopment project (Project) identified
feasible mitigation measures that would reduce most of the potentially significant impacts to less than
significant, as set forth in Exhibit B (Findings Concerning Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures).
However, the following impacts in the EIR either remained significant after mitigation or no feasible
mitigation was identified:
• Cultural Resources. The Project is proposing to completely demolish the existing Hexcel
Corporation Research & Development facility (R&D), which is a historical resource as defined in
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The demolition of this facility would result in a significant
direct impact even with the implementation of the Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2. Thus,
the Project would have a Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. For
the impact determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible mitigation
measures are available to further reduce the impact.
As required by CEQA, the following findings address whether there are any feasible alternatives or any
additional feasible mitigation measures available that would reduce any of these impacts to less than
significant.
FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that an EIR "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location
of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project..." (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). If a project alternative will substantially lessen the significant
environmental effects of a proposed project, the decision maker should not approve the proposed
project unless it determines that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations... make the project alternative infeasible" (CEQA Sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3), and
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)).
The alternatives that were identified and analyzed to lessen significant impacts to historical resources
are discussed in the Alternatives Chapter of the Draft EIR and include the No Project Alternative,
Reduced Grading Alternative, Partial Preservation Alternative, and Alternative Location. As further set
forth below, the City Council considered the alternatives identified and analyzed in the Draft EIR and
finds them to be infeasible for specific economic, social, or other considerations pursuant to CEQA
Sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3). For CEQA purposes,
"feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of
1
Exhibit C
time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal factors. (CEQA
Section 21061.1, CEQA Guidelines Section 15364.)
No Project Alternative — Draft EIR Section Description and Analysis of Alternatives Retained
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3) requires that a No -Project Alternative be evaluated as part of
an EIR, proceeding under one of two scenarios: 1) when the project is a revision to an existing land use
or regulatory plan, the "no project" alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan into the
future; or 2) if the project is other than a land use or regulatory plan, the "no project" alternative is the
circumstances under which the project does not proceed. The No Project Alternative assumes no
demolition or development would occur on the Project site. The Hexcel Corporation R&D facility would
not be demolished, the site would not be redeveloped with a new facility that appeals to the life
sciences and manufacturing field, and Parcels 1 and 2 would not be rezoned. Accordingly, this
alternative would avoid all of the Project's significant impacts (including significant and unavoidable
impacts to a historical resource), as well as the need to implement mitigation measures for Air Quality;
Biological Resources; Cultural Resources (Historical and Archeological Resources); Energy; Geology and
Soils (Paleontological Resources); Hazards and Hazardous Materials; and Tribal Cultural Resources.
Finding:
The City finds this alternative infeasible because it would not be consistent with any of the Project's
objectives. The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the following Project objectives, as
described in the Project Description of the Draft EIR:
• To redevelop the Hexcel site with a new and upgraded facility that appeals to the life sciences
and manufacturing field.
• To rezone Parcels 1 and 2 as a Planned Development, which provide development standards
beyond those of the M-1 zoning, and adopt a new ordinance. The property would be rezoned
under a new PD Zone with a new ordinance number associated with it.
Therefore, the City Council considered the No Project Alternative and declines to adopt it because it
would not achieve any of the Project's objectives, as supported by the administrative record for the
Project.
Reduced Grading Alternative - Draft EIR Section Description and Analysis of Alternatives Retained
Under the Reduced Grading Alternative, soil would be imported to build up the southern periphery of
the property and treat stormwater onsite with a valley gutter catch basin and a Silva cell rather than
grading to enable stormwater to be gravity fed into bioretention planters. The Silva cell is a modular
suspended pavement system that uses soil volumes to support large tree growth and provide onsite
stormwater management. The Silva cell would replace 3,280 square feet of the two bioretention
planters proposed in the southeast corner of the site adjacent to the south parking areas.
This alternative would reduce the amount of grading in the High Archaeological Probability Area by
approximately 23 percent, compared to the proposed Project at approximately 53 percent, thereby
reducing the risk of impacts to buried cultural resources. Excavation depths for the Reduced Grading
Alternative would generally be limited to less than one foot below current grade, except for three
2
Exhibit C
locations where depths would range from two feet deep to seven feet deep. While this design does not
completely eliminate the risk of impact to archaeological resources or human remains, the area and
degree of potential impact are substantially reduced with the Reduced Grading Alternative.
Nevertheless, the Project would still have the potential to impact archaeological resources and disturb
human remains, both of which could be potentially significant.
The Reduced Grading Alternative would also reduce the potential to impact paleontological resources,
because it would reduce the depths of excavation where these resources could occur. Furthermore, by
reducing the amount of grading, there would be less total construction equipment use during the
grading phase, which would reduce NOx, ROG, PM10 exhaust and PM2.s exhaust emissions.
The Reduced Grading Alternative would still involve demolition of the existing Hexcel building in its
entirety and, therefore, would have a significant and unavoidable impact to historical resources.
Finding:
The City finds that although the Reduced Grading Alternative would meet the proposed Project's
objectives, it would not avoid significant and unavoidable impacts related to historical resources and,
from an operational standpoint, the City has concerns with the use of a Silva cell for this Project. The
City is aware of other projects implementing Silva cells for stormwater treatment that have
malfunctioned. Operational failure of these Silva cells can result in sewage getting mixed with
stormwater.
Therefore, the City Council considered the Reduced Grading Alternative and declines to adopt it
because there is a risk implementing a Silva cell for stormwater treatment for this Project.
Partial Preservation Alternative — Draft EIR Section Alternatives Considered but Rejected
Under the Partial Preservation Alternative, the 25,000-square-foot laboratory building, the portion of
the existing Hexcel Corporation R&D facility that qualifies the building as a historical resource, would
be adaptively reused as a commercial self -storage facility. The rest of the existing building would be
demolished and a new 114,141-square-foot building would be constructed in its place. The new
building would be used by future tenants in the life sciences and manufacturing field. This would result
in a mixed -used site, rather than a site used for solely life sciences and manufacturing.
This alternative would reduce impacts to a historical resource as that portion of the building would be
retained and would somewhat meet the Project's objectives. However, it is unlikely that the Partial
Preservation Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact on the historical resource.
Although this alternative would retain the most important portion of the Hexcel Corporation R&D
facility contributing to its eligibility as a historical resource and would, therefore, have a reduced level
of impact compared to the proposed Project, the alternative would still demolish more than half of the
original structure and would also involve substantial changes to the setting of the historical resource.
Therefore, the structure would not continue to retain its integrity to convey the historical significance.
It is considered unlikely that feasible mitigation measures could be implemented to fully mitigate the
potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Furthermore, the applicant prepared a
Pro Forma for financial feasibility of Partial Preservation Alternative and found that this alternative
would result in a loss of approximately $10.8 million over the life of the Project, while the total upfront
costs (capitalization) would be approximately $55.7 million, which is approximately 40 percent higher
3
Exhibit C
than the proposed Project. Therefore, the Partial Preservation Alternative would be financially
infeasible.
Other significant impacts related to Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources (Historical and
Archeological Resources); Energy; Geology and Soils (Paleontological Resources); Hazards and
Hazardous Materials; and Tribal Cultural Resources would still remain under this alternative and
mitigation would be required.
Finding:
The City finds that the Partial Preservation Alternative would not meet the Project objective to
redevelop the site with a new and upgraded facility that appeals to the life sciences and manufacturing
field because it would be developed as a mixed -used site with the introduction of the commercial self -
storage facility, which would not be as appealing to future life sciences/manufacturing tenants. It also
would not be economically feasible for the Project applicant due to the reduction in the number of
tenants, and the reduction in value of a commercial self -storage and warehousing floorspace
compared to life sciences/manufacturing. Also, as noted in the section above, it is unlikely that the
Partial Preservation Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact on the historical
resource.
Therefore, the City Council considered the Partial Preservation Alternative and declines to adopt it
because it would not achieve the Project's objectives and is infeasible for the specific economic, social,
or other considerations described above, as supported by the administrative record for the Project.
Alternative Location - Draft EIR Section Alternatives Considered but Rejected
The use of another site for this Project would not meet the project's objectives to redevelop the Hexcel
site with a new and upgraded facility that appeals to the life sciences and manufacturing field and to
rezone Parcels 1 and 2 of this site as a Planned Development. Furthermore, the Project applicant
already owns this site, which is suitable for the scale and type of project that the applicant has
proposed. Development of the Project on the proposed site would help ensure the construction of the
Project is affordable and accomplished in a timely manner. A new site option would require the
applicant to sell this site and find a new site within the City limits of a similar size, designated for this
type of use, and proximate to regional freeway access. There are limited sites in the City designated for
industrial uses of similar size and proximity to a freeway interchange to implement the proposed
Project. Therefore, an alternative location was rejected from further consideration.
Finding:
The City Council considered an alternative location and declines to adopt it because it would not
achieve any of the Project's objectives and is infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other
considerations described above, as supported by the administrative record for the Project.
FINDINGS REGARDING INFEASIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES
4
Exhibit C
Not Applicable: The EIR did not identify any additional mitigation measures and/or modifications to
the measures beyond those identified in the EIR as set forth in Exhibit A.
5
Exhibit D
Exhibit D
Hexcel Redevelopment Project
Statement of Overriding Considerations
General.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the
City Council of the City of Dublin makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The City Council has balanced the benefits of the Hexcel Redevelopment project (Project) to the City of
Dublin against the significant adverse impacts identified in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) that cannot be reduced to less than significant through feasible mitigations or alternatives
and would remain significant and unavoidable. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City
Council hereby determines that the benefits of the Project outweigh the adverse impacts and the
Project should be approved.
The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve the Project.
Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that implementation of the Project carries with it
unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts as identified in the EIR. The City Council
specifically finds that to the extent the identified significant adverse impacts for the Project have not
been reduced to acceptable levels through feasible mitigation or alternatives, there are specific
economic, social, land use and other benefits that support approval of the Project.
Significant and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.
The following significant and unavoidable environmental impact is associated with the Project as
identified in the EIR:
• Historical Resources. Since the proposed Project would result in the demolition of the existing
Hexcel Corporation R&D facility, which is a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA, the
Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on a historical resource. Even with
implementation of the mitigation measures, the Project would still result in a significant and
unavoidable impact to a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, as
the Project would result in the demolition of the historical resource.
Overriding Considerations.
The City Council has carefully considered the significant and unavoidable impact in reaching its decision
to approve the Project. In reaching its decision, the City Council has balanced the significant and
unavoidable impact against the Project's benefits, and hereby determines that the significant and
unavoidable impact is outweighed by the benefits of the Project as further set forth below. Any one of
these benefits is sufficient to justify approval of the Project. The substantial evidence supporting the
various benefits can be found in the record as a whole.
1
Exhibit D
• The redevelopment of the Project site creates an opportunity to bring economic and job -rich
uses to the City related to advanced manufacturing and life sciences. Presently, the site is
occupied by the Hexcel research and development facility, which is an outdated and smaller
facility that does not offer the most recent amenities and other design features that would
appeal to future tenants in this field. Due to the smaller size of the existing facility, it limits the
ability to offer tenant space that is flexible for various business needs. The redevelopment of
the Project site with a new and updated light industrial building will attract advanced
manufacturing and life science uses contributing to approximately 200 net new jobs onsite and
other employment opportunities in the City that would function around the operations at the
site. Additionally, the Project will be an incubator for innovation and business attraction within
the City.
• Since the Project would be attracting new jobs to the City, it would also support local retail and
restaurants, as it is expected that future employees would be patrons to these surrounding
businesses.
• The General Plan provides a long-range vision for economic growth and development of the
City. The Project will further the General Plan objective of providing a broad range of non -retail
businesses and high -growth employment opportunities in research, limited manufacturing and
distribution activities, and administrative offices. The Project supports the following General
Plan Policies and Goals:
o Policy 11.5.3-A. Retaining high -growth companies is a priority for the City of Dublin.
Targeting high -growth companies, the City should maintain a Business Visitation
Program that seeks to identify and solve local economic development constraints; and
o Goal III. Development of Strategic Employment Supporting Sites seeks to maximize the
potential for development of workplace uses in the City of Dublin.
• The Project site is approximately 0.25-mile from the Interstate 580 (I-580)/San Ramon Road
interchange. The proximity of the Project site to the I-580/San Ramon Road interchange is
consistent with General Plan goals and policies and facilitates efficient transportation. The
benefit of the Project site being close to a major highway is that delivery vehicles and trucks
coming to and from the site would be able to take shorter routes on the City's roadways and,
therefore, impacts related to noise and transportation and circulation would be minimized. This
would be consistent with General Plan Policy 5.6.1-A.1. Designate and accommodate truck
routes to minimize noise nuisance on residential arterial streets.
• The Project would result in a net reduction in energy consumption, primarily related to
improved building energy standards and eliminating natural gas infrastructure. Therefore, the
Project would support the following City's General Plan's Energy Conservation Element Policies:
o Policy 13.3.2-A:
■ Encourage the installation of alternative energy technology in new residential
and commercial development.
■ Encourage designing for solar access.
2
Exhibit D
■ Encourage energy efficient improvements be made on residential and
commercial properties.
o Policy 13.3.2-B:
■ New development proposals shall be reviewed to ensure lighting levels needed
for a safe and secure environment are provided —utilizing the most energy -
efficient fixtures.
■ In new commercial and residential parking lots, require the installation of
conduit to serve electric vehicle parking spaces to enable the easier installation
of future charging stations.
■ Encourage the installation of charging stations for commercial projects over a
certain size and any new residential project that has open parking.
■ Encourage buildings (and more substantially, whole neighborhoods) to be
designed along an east -west axis to maximize solar exposure. Where feasible,
require new development projects to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds,
landscaping and sun screens to reduce energy use; and to use regenerative
energy heating and cooling source alternatives to fossil fuels.
■ Continue to implement parking lot tree planting standards that would
substantially cool parking areas and help cool the surrounding environment.
For all of the above reasons, the benefits of the Hexcel Redevelopment Project outweigh its significant
and unavoidable environmental impact.
3
Exhibit E
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT pRniFrT
Final EIR I Page 19
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is a CEQA-required component of an
EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 and Public Resources Code §21081.6 requires a public
agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program to ensure efficacy and enforceability of
any mitigation measures applied to a proposed project. The Lead Agency must adopt an MMRP
for mitigation measures incorporated into the project or proposed as conditions of approval. As
stated in Public Resources Code §21081.6 (a)(1):
"The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the
changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in
order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting
or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project
implementation."
Table 4-1 represents the MMRP for the Project. This table lists each of the mitigation measures
proposed in the EIR, including mitigation refined or updated in the Final EIR in Chapter 3,
Changes to the Draft EIR, and specifies the timing and responsible party for each mitigation
measure.
City of Dublin
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Table
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 20
Air Quality
Responsible for
Approval / Monitoring
roject Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
During
MM AQ-1. Implement Basic Construction Emission Control Practices.
• Responsible for
construction
The construction contractor shall comply with the following BAAQMD
approval: City of
Basic Construction Measures, as applicable, for reducing construction
Dublin
emissions of uncontrolled fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5):
■ Implementation:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,
graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times
per day.
Project applicant
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site
shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be
removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per
day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per
hour (mph).
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be
completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as
possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off
when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes
(as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title
13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear
signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access
points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned
in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 21
Timing
Responsibl
Approval / Monitorin
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure
ompletion
ate
Initials
be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in
proper condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to
contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person
shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The
BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance
with applicable regulations.
Biological Resources
During
construction
MM BIO-1: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
A. To the extent practicable, construction activities and any tree
trimming/removal shall be performed from September 16 through
February 15 to avoid the general nesting period for birds. If
construction or tree trimming/removal cannot be performed during
this period, nesting bird surveys and active nest buffers (as
necessary) shall be implemented as follows:
i. Nesting Bird Surveys: If Project -related work is scheduled during
the nesting season (typically February 15 to August 30 for small
bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for
owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a
qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for active nests of such
birds within 7 days prior to the beginning of Project construction.
Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding the work area
shall be determined by the qualified biologist, but should be at
least: i) 50 feet for passerines; ii) 300 feet for raptors. Surveys
shall be conducted at the appropriate times of day and during
appropriate nesting times, as determined by the qualified
biologist.
ii. Active Nest Buffers: If the qualified biologist documents active
nests within the survey area, an appropriate buffer between the
nest and active construction shall be established. The buffer shall
Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
■ Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified biologist
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 22
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure
Responsible forompletion
Approval / Monitoring /
Implementation
Initials
be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged
and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the
qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of the nest
to characterize "normal" bird behavior and establish a buffer
distance which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The
qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during
construction activities and shall increase the buffer if the birds
show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive
flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position,
and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not
possible, the qualified biologist shall have the authority to cease
all construction work in the area until the young have fledged
and the nest is no longer active. Construction shall only be
allowed to impact a migratory bird or its nest, including its
young, if a permit from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is obtained
in accordance with the MBTA and all permit conditions are
adhered to.
Prior to
construction
MM BIO-2: Roosting Bat Surveys and Avoidance
A. The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a
bat habitat assessment in all project areas that require tree removal.
The qualified biologist shall identify and document the location of
potentially suitable bat roosting habitat prior to construction
activities. If no suitable bat habitat is observed, the biologist shall
inform the Project Applicant, and no further considerations are
required. If bat roosting habitat is observed, the location of such
habitat areas shall be provided to the Project Applicant, and the
following requirements shall be implemented throughout the
construction period:
■ Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
• Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified biologist
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 23
Responsibl completion
Approval / Monitorin
Timing Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure ate Initials
i. Removal of trees that provide suitable bat roosting habitat shall
be conducted outside of the bat maternity season (April 15 to
August 31) and overwintering season (October 16 to January 15)
to the extent feasible.
ii. Presence/absence surveys shall be conducted 2 to 3 days prior to
removal of any trees in suitable bat habitat, at any time of year.
If presence/absence surveys are negative, work may proceed
with no restrictions. If presence/absence surveys detect bats
within trees planned for removal, work should proceed in
accordance with the following restrictions:
• If a maternity colony of bats is observed during maternity
season (April 15 to August 31), tree removal shall not occur
until August 31 or when maternity season has ended based on
surveys conducted by a qualified biologist.
• If bats are observed during overwintering season (October 16
to January 15), tree removal shall not occur until January 15
or until bats are no longer present based on surveys
conducted by a qualified biologist.
• If bats are present outside of maternity or overwintering
seasons, construction shall follow a two-phase tree removal
system conducted over 2 consecutive days. On the first day
(in the afternoon), limbs and branches will be removed using
chainsaws or other hand tools. Limbs with cavities, crevices,
or deep bark fissures will be avoided, and only branches or
limbs without those features will be removed. On the second
day, the entire tree shall be removed.
Cultural Resources
Prior to building
demolition
MM CUL-1: HABS Recordation
In consultation with the City of Dublin Planning Division, the Project
applicant shall document the Hexcel Corporation R&D facility prior to
■ Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 24
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition
Responsibl completion
Approval / Monitorin
of Approval / Miti ate Initials
demolition. Documentation shall be performed by a Secretary of
Interior -qualified professionals (in history or architectural history) and
be consistent with the standards of the National Parks Service (NPS)
Historic American Building Survey (HABS) and shall consist of the
following elements:
1. Historical Report: A qualified historian or architectural historian shall
assemble historical background information relevant to the Hexcel
Corporation R&D facility in short format Historic American Building
Survey (HABS), based on HABS guidelines for historical reports. Much
of this information may be drawn from the previous Historical
Resource Evaluation and would detail critical information such as the
property's significance, physical description, history, and a summary
of information sources.
2. Photographs: Large -format, black and white photographs of the
Hexcel Corporation R&D facility shall be taken and processed for
archival permanence in accordance with HABS, Historic American
Engineering Record (HAER), and HALS (Historic American Landscapes
Survey) Photography Guidelines in effect at the time of recording.
The standards require large -format black -and -white photography,
with the original negatives having a minimum size of 4"x5". Digital
photography, roll film, film packs, and electronic manipulation of
images are not acceptable.
The photographs shall be taken by a professional with HABS
photography experience. A minimum of 10 and a maximum of 24
photographs must be taken, detailing the site, building exteriors, and
interiors, specifically the R&D portion of the building. Photographs must
be identified and labeled using HABS/HALS standards.
Following completion of the HABS documentation, including the short
form historical report and large -format photographs, and approval by
the City of Dublin, the materials shall be placed on file with the City of
Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified historian or
architectural
historian
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 25
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure
Responsibl
Approval / Monitorin
ompletion
a e
Initials
Dublin Planning Division, and the Dublin Historical Society at the Dublin
Heritage Park and Museums.
Prior to building
demolition
MM CUL-2: Interpretive Displays
In concert with HABS documentation (MM CUL-1), the Project applicant
shall install permanent interpretive displays or signage for public
exhibition detailing the history and significance of the Hexcel
Corporation R&D facility at the Project site. The interpretive displays or
signage could be based on the photographs produced in the HABS
documentation and the historic archival research previously prepared
as part of the Project.
The interpretive displays or signage shall be prepared by an
architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the
Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, in coordination with an
exhibit designer.
Interpretive displays or signage at the Project site shall be located
outside of the new building, near the publicly accessible sidewalk
and/or inside the new building in a prominent space, such as the lobby,
where they may be viewed by employees and visitors.
• Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
• Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified historian or
architectural
historian
Prior to
construction
MM CUL-3: Archaeological and Tribal Monitoring
A. A qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the
Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology
shall be retained by the applicant prior to implementing
construction or soil remediation activities that involve
earthmoving or soil excavation, and the archaeologist shall be
available for consultation or evaluation of any cultural resources
uncovered by such activities. Prior to the start of excavation, the
archaeologist shall produce an Archaeological Testing Plan and an
Archaeological Treatment and Monitoring Plan, in consultation
with the City of Dublin, and through them, with any consulting
Native American tribes.
• Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
• Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified
archaeologist
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 26
Responsibl completion
Approval / Monitorin
Timing Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure ate Initials
i. The Archaeological Testing Plan will define the following:
• Methods and scope of archaeological testing to be done
prior to the start of construction (e.g., GPR, hand
excavated test units, trenching with flat edged bucket).
• Treatment of any discoveries during testing.
ii. The Treatment and Monitoring Plan will comply with mitigation
measures 4, 5, 6, and 7, set forth in the Dublin Village Historic
Area Specific Plan, Appendix B, and will specify the following:
• Archaeological testing to be done prior to the start of
construction.
• Archaeological and Tribal monitoring requirements, which
will be based on the results of archaeological testing and
consultation with Native American tribes.
• Procedures and considerations for handling,
documenting, analyzing, and curation of any historic -era
or pre -contact era artifacts encountered during project
activities.
• Procedures and considerations for handling,
documenting, analyzing, and curation of any human
remains from the historic era. For human remains of
Native Americans from any time period, treatment
protocols would be established with the designated MLD.
B. If an archaeological resource or human burials are discovered
during archaeological testing, consideration will be given to
options that avoid or minimize impact.
C. If an archaeological resource (or suspected resource) is
discovered during monitoring of project activities, construction or
excavation activities within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be
temporarily halted or directed to other areas, pending the
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 27
Timing
Responsibl completion
Approval / Monitorin
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure ate Initials
archaeologist's evaluation of its significance. If the resource is
significant, data collection, excavation, or other standard
archaeological or historical procedures shall be implemented to
mitigate impacts, pursuant to the Treatment and Monitoring Plan
and the archaeologist's direction. If any human remains are
encountered, the archaeologist shall contact the appropriate
County Coroner immediately, and security measures shall be
implemented to ensure that burials are not vandalized until the
decision of burial deposition has been made pursuant to
California law. If human remains are determined to be Native
American interments, the Coroner shall contact the Native
American Heritage Commission pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 5097.98 and follow the procedures stated herein
and other applicable laws. A report by the archaeologist
evaluating the find and identifying mitigation actions taken shall
be submitted to the CPUC. Where appropriate to protect the
location and sensitivity of the cultural resources, the report may
be submitted under Public Utilities Code Section 583 or other
appropriate confidentiality provisions.
Prior and during
construction
MM CUL-4: Inadvertent Discovery Protocols
A. Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall
retain a qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the
Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology to
implement archaeological awareness training for all construction
personnel involved with ground disturbing or excavation activities.
The training shall include information regarding the possibility of
encountering buried cultural resources, the appearance and types
of resources likely to be seen during construction, notification
procedures, and proper protocols to be followed should suspected
or confirmed resources be encountered by the crew. This training
■ Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
• Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified
archaeologist
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 28
Responsibl completion
Approval / Monitorin
Timing Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure ate Initials
shall be provided once to each worker involved in ground -disturbing
activities before they begin work, and shall be documented in
training records.
B. In the event that precontact or historic -age resources (or suspected
resources) are inadvertently discovered during Project
implementation, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find shall
be stopped, the City of Dublin's Project Manager shall be notified,
and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the City of Dublin
to examine the find, pursuant to Mitigation Measure 7 set out in the
Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, Appendix B. Project
personnel shall not collect or move any historic material. The
archaeologist shall evaluate the find(s) within 48 hours to determine
if it meets the definition of a historical or unique archaeological
resource and follow the procedures outlined below:
i. If the find(s) does not meet the definition of a tribal cultural
resource, a historical resource or a unique archaeological
resource, no further study or protection is necessary prior to
resuming Project implementation.
ii. If the find(s) does meet the definition of a historical resource or
unique archaeological resource, then it shall be avoided by
Project activities and preserved in place. If avoidance is not
feasible, as determined by the City of Dublin, the qualified
archaeologist shall make appropriate recommendations
regarding the treatment and disposition of such find(s), and
significant impacts to such resources shall be mitigated in
accordance with the recommendations of the archaeologist prior
to resuming construction activities within the 50-foot radius.
iii. If the find(s) does meet the definition of both a tribal cultural
resource and a historical or unique archaeological resource, then
it shall be treated in accordance with MM CUL-3.
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 29
Responsible forompletion
Approval / Monitoring / I=
Timing Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure Implementation Initials
C.
Recommendations for treatment and disposition of find(s) could
include, but are not limited to, archaeological monitoring,
collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural
materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovery shall
be submitted to NWIC.
i. In the event that archaeological resource(s) are discovered during
Project implementation, an archaeological monitor shall be
retained to monitor all ground- disturbing activities in the vicinity
(i.e., within 50 feet) of the find.
Archaeological monitors have the authority, upon the finding of a
potential resource, to request that work be slowed, diverted, or
stopped if archaeological resources are identified within the direct
impact area.
If the resource is determined by an archaeologist to be a historical
or unique archaeological resource, the archaeologist shall amend
the Treatment and Monitoring Plan, with measures to avoid or
reduce impacts to the resource. The treatment plan measures
may include, but not be limited to, avoidance and preservation in
place (the preferred method if feasible), capping, incorporation of
the site within a park or other open space, or data recovery. If the
resource is also a tribal cultural resource, then designated
representatives from the consulting tribe(s) shall make
appropriate recommendations regarding the treatment and
disposition of such find(s) in accordance with MM CUL-3 and
these recommendations shall be incorporated into the treatment
plan.
Geology and Soils
During
construction
MM GEO-1: Avoid Impacts to Unique Paleontological Resources
To minimize the potential for destruction of or damage to previously
unknown unique, scientifically important paleontological resources
■ Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 30
Responsible forompletion
Approval / Monitoring /
Timing Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure Implementation Initials
during earthmoving activities at the Project site, the Project applicant
shall do the following:
• Prior to the start of earthmoving activities, retain either a qualified
archaeologist or paleontologist to inform all construction personnel
involved with earthmoving activities regarding the possibility of
encountering fossils, the appearance and types of fossils likely to be
seen during construction, and proper notification procedures should
fossils be encountered.
• If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving
activities, the construction crew shall immediately cease work within
50 feet of the find and notify the Project applicant and the City. The
Project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate
the resource and prepare a recovery plan, based on SVP Guidelines.
The recovery plan may include, but is not limited to, a field survey,
construction monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures,
museum curation for any specimen recovered, and a report of
findings. Recommendations in the recovery plan that are determined
by the City (as the CEQA lead agency) to be necessary and feasible
shall be implemented before construction activities can resume
within 50 feet of the site where the paleontological resource or
resources were discovered.
■ Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified
archaeologist or
paleontologist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Prior to
construction
MM HAZMAT-1: Perform a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
• Prior to the start of earthmoving activities at the Project site, the
Project applicant shall retain the services of a qualified remediation
firm to perform a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). The
Phase II ESA shall be limited to only those areas where chemical use,
storage, and handling have previously occurred. Soil borings shall be
obtained as part of the Phase II ESA, along with groundwater
samples if necessary. The samples shall be submitted to a laboratory
■ Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
■ Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified
remediation firm
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 31
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure
Responsible forompletion
Approval / Monitoring /
Implementation
Initials
for environmental testing and the results shall be reported in the
Phase II ESA, copies of which shall be provided to the Alameda
County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH) and the City of
Dublin Building Department. If there are no detections of
constituents of concern, or the amounts are below regulatory agency
threshold levels, no further actions shall be required.
• If the results of laboratory analyses from the Phase II ESA
demonstrate that constituents of concern are present at levels that
exceed regulatory agency threshold levels, the Project applicant shall
consult with ACDEH (and other regulatory agencies such as the
SWRCB if necessary) regarding the necessary actions for
remediation. All necessary remedial activities shall be completed by
the Project applicant, with a certification by the lead agency with
remedial oversight (e.g., ACDEH or SWRCB) that no further action is
required, prior to the start of construction activities at the Project
site.
Prior to building
demolition
HAZMAT-2: Perform Sampling of Materials To Be Demolished.
Prior to demolition of any building in the project area, the building shall
be sampled to determine if the building contains lead paint and/or
asbestos. If either of the materials are determined to be present, they
shall be handled and disposed of as a hazardous material and in
compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
■ Responsible: City of
Dublin
■ Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified
remediation firm
Transportation and Traffic
Project design
Condition of Approval:
• Requires vegetation maintenance for sight distance to achieve a
minimum sight distance of 250 feet at each driveway access point
• Prohibits trucks from accessing the eastern driveway
■ Responsible: City of
Dublin
■ Implementation:
Project applicant
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 32
Responsibl
Approval / Monitorin
Timing Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure I
Tribal Cultural Resources
ompletion
ate Initials
Prior to and
MM TR-1: Inadvertent/Unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources
• Responsible for
during
Discovery Protocols
approval: City of
construction
The City of Dublin shall require the following steps to be taken,
including as a part of all contracts related to construction of the Project,
Dublin
• Implementation:
as applicable:
Project applicant
A. Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall
with assistance from
retain representatives from consulting tribe(s), if available, to
representatives from
implement Tribal Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training for all
construction personnel involved with ground disturbing or
excavation activities. The training shall include information
regarding the possibility of encountering buried tribal cultural
resources, the appearance and types of tribal cultural resources that
could potentially be seen during construction, notification
procedures, and proper protocols to be followed should suspected
or confirmed tribal cultural resources be encountered. This training
shall be provided once to each worker involved in ground -disturbing
activities before they begin work and shall be documented in
training records.
consulting tribe(s)
B. If tribal cultural resources or potential tribal cultural resources are
discovered during Project implementation, all activity within a 50-
foot radius of the find shall be stopped, the City of Dublin's Project
Manager shall be notified, and Tribal Representatives from the
consulting tribe(s) shall be immediately notified. The Tribal
Representative(s) shall evaluate the find(s) within 48 hours to
determine if it meets the definition of a tribal cultural resource (PRC
§21074) and follow the procedures outlined below:
i. If the find(s) does not meet the definition of a tribal cultural
resource, no further study or protection is necessary prior to
resuming Project implementation (but see MM CUL-3 and CUL-4)
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 33
Timing
Responsibl completion
Approval / Monitorin
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure ate Initials
ii.lf the find(s) does meet the definition of a tribal cultural resource,
then it shall be avoided by Project activities and preserved in
place. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed by
the City of Dublin to be necessary and feasible to preserve in
place, avoid, or minimize impacts to the tribal cultural resource.
If avoidance is not feasible, as determined by the City of Dublin,
Tribal Representatives from the consulting tribe(s) if available,
shall make recommendations regarding the culturally
appropriate treatment and disposition of such find(s) and
significant impacts to such tribal cultural resources shall be
mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of the
consulting tribe(s), if they are available, prior to resuming
construction activities within the 50-foot radius.
iii. If the find meets the definition of both a tribal cultural resource
and a historical or unique archaeological resource, then it shall
be treated in accordance with the measures described in Section
C. below and MM CUL-4.
C. Culturally appropriate treatment may include, but is not limited to,
minimal processing of materials for reburial, minimizing handling of
tribal cultural resources objects, leaving objects in place within the
landscape, or returning tribal cultural resources objects to a location
within the Project area where they would not be subject to future
disturbance. No cultural soil maybe removed from the Project site.
Permanent curation, testing, or data collection of tribal cultural
resources will not take place unless requested in writing by the
consulting tribe(s).
D. All fill soils imported and used for this Project must be clean,
engineered fill.
E. The applicant shall enter into a tribal monitoring agreement with the
consulting tribe(s) prior to the start of ground disturbing activities.
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 34
Responsible forompletion
Approval / Monitoring /
Timing Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure Implementation Initials
The tribal monitoring agreement shall form the terms and
compensation for the tribal monitoring with the consulting tribe(s)
and be utilized in combination with the tribal cultural resource
treatment. Tribal Monitors have the authority to identify sites or
objects of cultural significance and to request, upon the finding of a
potential tribal cultural resource, that work be slowed, diverted, or
stopped if such sites or objects are identified within the direct impact
area. Only the consulting tribe(s) can recommend culturally
appropriate treatment of such sites or objects, via their Tribal
Monitor. Work within 50 feet of the discovery location cannot
resume until all necessary investigation and evaluation of the
discovery under the requirements of the tribal monitoring
agreement have been implemented.
Energy Conservation
During
construction
See Air quality mitigation measure MM AQ-1. Implement Basic
Construction Emission Control Practices.
■ Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
• Implementation:
Project applicant
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Hexcel Redevelopment Project
Findings Concerning Significant Impacts and Mitigation
Measures
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15163(e),
the City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the potential for significant
environmental impacts from the Hexcel Redevelopment project (Project) and means for mitigating
those impacts. Many of the impacts and mitigation measures in the following findings are summarized
rather than set forth in full. The text of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should
be consulted for a complete description of the impacts and mitigations. Findings pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081(c) relating to Project Alternatives are made in Exhibit C.
These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in
the EIR. Instead, the findings provide a summary description of each impact, describe the applicable
mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by the City, and state the findings on the
significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of
these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the EIR, and these findings hereby
incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in those documents supporting the EIR's
determinations regarding mitigation measures and the Project's impacts and mitigation measures
designed to address those impacts. The facts supporting these findings are found in the record as a
whole for the Project.
In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analysis and
explanation in the EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and
conclusions of the EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent
any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings.
SECTION 1: AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-1: Conflict with air quality plans Impact; andAQ-2: Result in cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant
Mitigation Measure:
Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Implement Basic Construction Emission Control Practices
The construction contractor shall comply with the following Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) Basic Construction Measures, as applicable, for reducing construction emissions of
uncontrolled fugitive dust (PM1) and PM2.$):
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered.
1
Exhibit B
• All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing
the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be
provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead
Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within
48 hours. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact with mitigation
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects during demolition and construction
activities identified in the EIR. With implementation of mitigation, the Project's cumulative impact
would not exceed the air quality thresholds established by BAAQMD for fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.$)
emissions. Additionally, the Project would not conflict with the attainment of the applicable air quality
plan.
Rationale for Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the impact would be less
than significant. This is because the implementation of mitigation would make the Project consistent
with BAAQMD Rules and Regulations for controlling fugitive dust emissions and would reduce fugitive
dust emissions during demolition and construction.
SECTION 2: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-1: Have substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive, or special status species
Mitigation Measure:
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
A. To the extent practicable, construction activities and any tree trimming/removal shall be
performed from September 16 through February 15 to avoid the general nesting period for
birds. If construction or tree trimming/removal cannot be performed during this period,
nesting bird surveys and active nest buffers (as necessary) shall be implemented as follows:
i. Nesting Bird Surveys: If Project -related work is scheduled during the nesting season
(typically February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15
2
Exhibit B
to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a
qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for active nests of such birds within 7 days
prior to the beginning of Project construction. Appropriate minimum survey radii
surrounding the work area shall be determined by the qualified biologist, but should be
at least: i) 50 feet for passerines; ii) 300 feet for raptors. Surveys shall be conducted at
the appropriate times of day and during appropriate nesting times, as determined by
the qualified biologist.
ii. Active Nest Buffers: If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the survey
area, an appropriate buffer between the nest and active construction shall be
established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have
fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist
shall conduct baseline monitoring of the nest to characterize "normal" bird behavior
and establish a buffer distance which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The
qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities
and shall increase the buffer if the birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior
(e.g., defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or
flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified
biologist shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the
young have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Construction shall only be allowed
to impact a migratory bird or its nest, including its young, if a permit from U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is obtained in accordance with the MTBA and all permit conditions are
adhered to.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact with mitigation
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With
implementation of mitigation, the Project would reduce impacts to nesting birds to a less than
significant level by avoiding impacts to active nests.
Rationale for Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the impact would be less
than significant. This is because the mitigation would protect nesting birds by first requiring that
construction activities during the nesting season be avoided. If construction cannot be avoided,
preconstruction surveys would be required to identify all active nests with the potential to be impacted
by tree removal, construction noise, or human presence, define appropriate avoidance buffers, and
require qualified biologists to monitor active nests and bird behavior during construction. The buffer
distance would be adjusted as needed.
Impact BIO-2: Interfere or impede the movement of migratory fish or wildlife
Mitigation Measure:
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Roosting Bat Surveys and Avoidance
A. The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a bat habitat assessment in
all project areas that require tree removal. The qualified biologist shall identify and
document the location of potentially suitable bat roosting habitat prior to construction
activities. If no suitable bat habitat is observed, the biologist shall inform the Project
3
Exhibit B
Applicant, and no further considerations are required. If bat roosting habitat is observed,
the location of such habitat areas shall be provided to the Project Applicant, and the
following requirements shall be implemented throughout the construction period:
i. Removal of trees that provide suitable bat roosting habitat shall be conducted outside
of the bat maternity season (April 15 to August 31) and overwintering season (October
16 to January 15) to the extent feasible.
ii. Presence/absence surveys shall be conducted 2 to 3 days prior to removal of any trees
in suitable bat habitat, at any time of year. If presence/absence surveys are negative,
work may proceed with no restrictions. If presence/absence surveys detect bats within
trees planned for removal, work should proceed in accordance with the following
restrictions:
• If a maternity colony of bats is observed during maternity season (April 15 to
August 31), tree removal shall not occur until August 31 or when maternity season
has ended based on surveys conducted by a qualified biologist.
• If bats are observed during overwintering season (October 16 to January 15), tree
removal shall not occur until January 15 or until bats are no longer present based
on surveys conducted by a qualified biologist.
• If bats are present outside of maternity or overwintering seasons, construction
shall follow a two-phase tree removal system conducted over 2 consecutive days.
On the first day (in the afternoon), limbs and branches will be removed using
chainsaws or other hand tools. Limbs with cavities, crevices, or deep bark fissures
will be avoided, and only branches or limbs without those features will be
removed. On the second day, the entire tree shall be removed.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact with mitigation
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With
implementation of mitigation, impacts to roosting bats would be reduced to a less than significant level
by avoiding impacts to trees that provide suitable bat roosting habitat during bat maternity season and
overwintering season.
Rationale for Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, the impact would be less
than significant. This is because the mitigation would require a qualified biologist to identify and
document the location of potentially suitable bat roosting habitat prior to construction activities. Tree
removal during times of the year when bats are most sensitive to disruption (maternity and
overwintering seasons) would be avoided to the extent feasible by either confirming that bats are
absent prior to tree removal and/or following protocols that provide an opportunity for bats to
relocate prior to tree removal.
SECTION 3: CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CR-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
Mitigation Measures:
4
Exhibit B
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: HABS Recordation
In consultation with the City of Dublin Planning Division, the Project applicant shall document
the Hexcel Corporation R&D facility prior to demolition. Documentation shall be performed by
a Secretary of Interior -qualified professional (in history or architectural history) and be
consistent with the standards of the National Parks Service (NPS) Historic American Building
Survey (HABS) and shall consist of the following elements:
1. Historical Report: A qualified historian or architectural historian shall assemble historical
background information relevant to the Hexcel Corporation R&D facility in short format
Historic American Building Survey (HABS), based on HABS guidelines for historical
reports. Much of this information may be drawn from the previous Historical Resource
Evaluation and would detail critical information such as the property's significance,
physical description, history, and a summary of information sources.
2. Photographs: Large -format, black and white photographs of the Hexcel Corporation
R&D facility shall be taken and processed for archival permanence in accordance with
HABS, Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), and HALS (Historic American
Landscapes Survey) Photography Guidelines in effect at the time of recording. The
standards require large -format black -and -white photography, with the original
negatives having a minimum size of 4"x5". Digital photography, roll film, film packs, and
electronic manipulation of images are not acceptable.
The photographs shall be taken by a professional with HABS photography experience. A
minimum of 10 and a maximum of 24 photographs must be taken, detailing the site, building
exteriors, and interiors, specifically the R&D portion of the building. Photographs must be
identified and labeled using HABS/HALS standards.
Following completion of the HABS documentation, including the short form historical report
and large -format photographs, and approval by the City of Dublin, the materials shall be placed
on file with the City of Dublin Planning Division, and the Dublin Historical Society at the Dublin
Heritage Park and Museums.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Interpretive Displays
In concert with HABS documentation (Mitigation Measure CUL-1), the Project applicant shall
install permanent interpretive displays or signage for public exhibition detailing the history and
significance of the Hexcel Corporation R&D facility at the Project site. The interpretive displays
or signage could be based on the photographs produced in the HABS documentation and the
historic archival research previously prepared as part of the Project.
The interpretive displays or signage shall be prepared by an architectural historian or historian
who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, in coordination
with an exhibit designer.
Interpretive displays or signage at the Project site shall be located outside of the new building,
near the publicly accessible sidewalk and/or inside the new building in a prominent space, such
as the lobby, where they may be viewed by employees and visitors.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
5
Exhibit B
Finding: Even with implementation of mitigation measures, the Project would still result in a significant
and unavoidable impact to the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5, as it would result in its demolition. Therefore, the Project would have a Significant
and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. For the impact determined to be significant and
unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further reduce the impact. Therefore, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding: Despite implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, the Project
would result in a Significant and Unavoidable Impact. This is because the Project would still result in
the complete demolition of the existing building, which is a historical resource.
Impact CR-2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Archaeological and Tribal Monitoring
A. A qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional
Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be retained by the applicant prior to
implementing construction or soil remediation activities that involve earthmoving or soil
excavation, and the archaeologist shall be available for consultation or evaluation of any
cultural resources uncovered by such activities. Prior to the start of excavation, the
archaeologist shall produce an Archaeological Testing Plan and an Archaeological Treatment
and Monitoring Plan, in consultation with the City of Dublin, and through them, with any
consulting Native American tribes.
i. The Archaeological Testing Plan will define the following:
• Methods and scope of archaeological testing to be done prior to the start of
construction (e.g., GPR, hand excavated test units, trenching with flat edged
bucket).
• Treatment of any discoveries during testing.
ii. The Treatment and Monitoring Plan will comply with mitigation measures 4, 5, 6, and
7, set forth in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, Appendix B, and will specify
the following:
• Archaeological testing to be done prior to the start of construction.
• Archaeological and Tribal monitoring requirements, which will be based on the
results of archaeological testing and consultation with Native American tribes.
• Procedures and considerations for handling, documenting, analyzing, and curation of
any historic -era or pre -contact era artifacts encountered during project activities.
• Procedures and considerations for handling, documenting, analyzing, and curation of
any human remains from the historic era. For human remains of Native Americans
from any time period, treatment protocols would be established with the designated
MLD.
B. If an archaeological resource or human burials are discovered during archaeological testing,
consideration will be given to options that avoid or minimize impact.
C. If an archaeological resource (or suspected resource) is discovered during monitoring of
project activities, construction or excavation activities within a 50-foot radius of the find
shall be temporarily halted or directed to other areas, pending the archaeologist's
evaluation of its significance. If the resource is significant, data collection, excavation, or
other standard archaeological or historical procedures shall be implemented to mitigate
6
Exhibit B
impacts, pursuant to the Treatment and Monitoring Plan and the archaeologist's direction.
If any human remains are encountered, the archaeologist shall contact the appropriate
County Coroner immediately, and security measures shall be implemented to ensure that
burials are not vandalized until the decision of burial deposition has been made pursuant to
California law. If human remains are determined to be Native American interments, the
Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98 and follow the procedures stated herein and other
applicable laws. A report by the archaeologist evaluating the find and identifying mitigation
actions taken shall be submitted to the City and filed with the California Historic Resources
Information System (CHRIS). Where appropriate to protect the location and sensitivity of
the cultural resources, the report may be submitted under Public Utilities Code Section 583
or other appropriate confidentiality provisions.
Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Inadvertent Discovery Protocols
A. Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall retain a qualified
archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards
for archaeology to implement archaeological awareness training for all construction
personnel involved with ground disturbing or excavation activities. The training shall include
information regarding the possibility of encountering buried cultural resources, the
appearance and types of resources likely to be seen during construction, notification
procedures, and proper protocols to be followed should suspected or confirmed resources
be encountered by the crew. This training shall be provided once to each worker involved in
ground -disturbing activities before they begin work, and shall be documented in training
records.
B. In the event that precontact or historic -age resources (or suspected resources) are
inadvertently discovered during Project implementation, all activity within a 50-foot radius
of the find shall be stopped, the City of Dublin's Project Manager shall be notified, and a
qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the City of Dublin to examine the find, pursuant
to Mitigation Measure 7 set out in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, Appendix B.
Project personnel shall not collect or move any historic material. The archaeologist shall
evaluate the find(s) within 48 hours to determine if it meets the definition of a historical or
unique archaeological resource and follow the procedures outlined below:
i. If the find(s) does not meet the definition of a tribal cultural resource, a historical
resource or a unique archaeological resource, no further study or protection is
necessary prior to resuming Project implementation.
ii. If the find(s) does meet the definition of a historical resource or unique archaeological
resource, then it shall be avoided by Project activities and preserved in place. If
avoidance is not feasible, as determined by the City of Dublin, the qualified
archaeologist shall make appropriate recommendations regarding the treatment and
disposition of such find(s), and significant impacts to such resources shall be mitigated
7
Exhibit B
in accordance with the recommendations of the archaeologist prior to resuming
construction activities within the 50-foot radius.
iii. If the find(s) does meet the definition of both a tribal cultural resource and a historical
or unique archaeological resource, then it shall be treated in accordance with MM
CUL-3.
C. Recommendations for treatment and disposition of find(s) could include, but are not limited
to, archaeological monitoring, collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural
materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovery shall be submitted to NWIC.
i. In the event that archaeological resource(s) are discovered during Project
implementation, an archaeological monitor shall be retained to monitor all ground
disturbing activities in the vicinity (i.e., within 50 feet) of the find.
Archaeological monitors have the authority, upon the finding of a potential resource,
to request that work be slowed, diverted, or stopped if archaeological resources are
identified within the direct impact area.
If the resource is determined by an archaeologist to be a historical or unique
archaeological resource, the archaeologist shall amend the Treatment and Monitoring
Plan, with measures to avoid or reduce impacts to the resource. The treatment plan
measures may include, but not be limited to, avoidance and preservation in place (the
preferred method if feasible), capping, incorporation of the site within a park or other
open space, or data recovery. If the resource is also a tribal cultural resource, then
designated representatives from the consulting tribe(s) shall make appropriate
recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of such find(s) in
accordance with MM CUL-3 and these recommendations shall be incorporated into
the treatment plan.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact with mitigation
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. With implementation of
mitigation, the potential impact on archaeological and buried resources would be reduced to a less
than significant level since protocols and procedures would be followed during construction activities.
Rationale for Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-3 and CUL-4, potentially
significant impacts on archeological and buried resources would be reduced to a less than significant
impact. This is because these mitigations would require training for all construction workers so that
they are aware of the potential for encountering buried resources and the procedures that need to be
followed if potential precontact or historic period archaeological resources are encountered during on -
site activities, as well as the regulations pertaining to discovery of human burials.
SECTION 4: ENERGY
Impact EN-1: Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources
Mitigation Measure:
8
Exhibit B
Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Implement Basic Construction Emission Control Practices
The construction contractor shall comply with the following BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures, as
applicable, for reducing construction emissions of uncontrolled fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5):
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing
the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be
provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead
Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within
48 hours. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact with mitigation
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With
implementation of mitigation, the Project's impact would not consume energy in a wasteful or
inefficient way. Thus, the impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
Rationale for Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the impact of wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption would be less than significant. This is because this
mitigation measure would minimize the idling time of construction equipment and trucks by shutting
equipment off when it is not in use or reducing the idling time to 5 minutes. Additionally, construction
contractors would be required to maintain and properly tune all construction equipment in accordance
with the manufacturer's specification. These required practices would limit wasteful and unnecessary
energy consumption.
SECTION 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact GEO-1: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature
Mitigation Measure:
9
Exhibit B
Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Avoid Impacts to Unique Paleontological Resources
To minimize the potential for destruction of or damage to previously unknown unique, scientifically
important paleontological resources during earthmoving activities at the Project site, the Project
applicant shall do the following:
• Prior to the start of earthmoving activities, retain either a qualified archaeologist or
paleontologist to inform all construction personnel involved with earthmoving activities
regarding the possibility of encountering fossils, the appearance and types of fossils likely to be
seen during construction, and proper notification procedures should fossils be encountered.
• If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the construction crew
shall immediately cease work within 50 feet of the find and notify the Project applicant and the
City. The Project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the resource and
prepare a recovery plan, based on SVP Guidelines. The recovery plan may include, but is not
limited to, a field survey, construction monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures,
museum curation for any specimen recovered, and a report of findings. Recommendations in
the recovery plan that are determined by the City (as the CEQA lead agency) to be necessary
and feasible shall be implemented before construction activities can resume within 50 feet of
the site where the paleontological resource or resources were discovered.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact with mitigation
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With
implementation of mitigation, the Project's impact would minimize impacts to paleontological
resources.
Rationale for Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the impact would be less
than significant. This is because construction workers would be alerted to the possibility of
encountering paleontological resources and, in the event that resources were discovered, construction
would be halted, and fossil specimens would be recovered and recorded and would undergo
appropriate curation.
SECTION 6: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact HAZMAT-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure HAZMAT-1: Perform a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
• Prior to the start of earthmoving activities at the Project site, the Project applicant shall retain
the services of a qualified remediation firm to perform a Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA). The Phase II ESA shall be limited to only those areas where chemical use,
storage, and handling have previously occurred. Soil borings shall be obtained as part of the
10
Exhibit B
Phase II ESA, along with groundwater samples if necessary. The samples shall be submitted to a
laboratory for environmental testing and the results shall be reported in the Phase II ESA,
copies of which shall be provided to the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health
(ACDEH) and the City of Dublin Building Department. If there are no detections of constituents
of concern, or the amounts are below regulatory agency threshold levels, no further actions
shall be required.
• If the results of laboratory analyses from the Phase II ESA demonstrate that constituents of
concern are present at levels that exceed regulatory agency threshold levels, the Project
applicant shall consult with ACDEH (and other regulatory agencies such as the SWRCB if
necessary) regarding the necessary actions for remediation. All necessary remedial activities
shall be completed by the Project applicant, with a certification by the lead agency with
remedial oversight (e.g., ACDEH or SWRCB) that no further action is required, prior to the start
of construction activities at the Project site.
Mitigation Measure HAZMAT-2: Perform Sampling of Materials To Be Demolished.
Prior to demolition of any building in the project area, the building shall be sampled to determine if the
building contains lead paint and/or asbestos. If either of the materials are determined to be present,
they shall be handled and disposed of as a hazardous material and in compliance with all applicable
local, state, and federal regulations.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact with mitigation
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With
implementation of mitigation, potential construction -related impacts from accidental exposure to
hazardous materials would be less than significant.
Rationale for Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZMAT-1 and HAZMAT-2, the
impact would be less than significant. This is because Mitigation Measure HAZMAT-1 would reduce
potential impacts from exposure to on -site hazardous materials because soil (and groundwater, if
necessary) testing would be performed, and if contamination is found to be present, necessary
remediation would be completed prior to the start of Project -related earthmoving activities. Mitigation
Measure HAZMAT-2 would sample materials before demolition would occur, and if hazardous
materials such as lead paint and asbestos are found, they would be handled and disposed in
compliance to applicable regulations.
SECTION 7: TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact TR-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource
Mitigation Measure:
Mitigation Measure TR-1: Inadvertent/Unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources Discovery Protocols
11
Exhibit B
The City of Dublin shall require the following steps to be taken, including as a part of all
contracts related to construction of the Project, as applicable:
A. Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall retain representatives
from consulting tribe(s), if available, to implement Tribal Cultural Resources Sensitivity
Training for all construction personnel involved with ground disturbing or excavation
activities. The training shall include information regarding the possibility of encountering
buried tribal cultural resources, the appearance and types of tribal cultural resources that
could potentially be seen during construction, notification procedures, and proper protocols
to be followed should suspected or confirmed tribal cultural resources be encountered. This
training shall be provided once to each worker involved in ground disturbing activities
before they begin work and shall be documented in training records.
B. If tribal cultural resources or potential tribal cultural resources are discovered during Project
implementation, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be stopped, the City of
Dublin's Project Manager shall be notified, and Tribal Representatives from the consulting
tribe(s) shall be immediately notified. The Tribal Representative(s) shall evaluate the find(s)
within 48 hours to determine if it meets the definition of a tribal cultural resource (PRC
§21074) and follow the procedures outlined below:
i. If the find(s) does not meet the definition of a tribal cultural resource, no further study
or protection is necessary prior to resuming Project implementation (but see Mitigation
Measures CUL-3 and CUL-4)
ii. If the find(s) does meet the definition of a tribal cultural resource, then it shall be
avoided by Project activities and preserved in place. The contractor shall implement any
measures deemed by the City of Dublin to be necessary and feasible to preserve in
place, avoid, or minimize impacts to the tribal cultural resource. If avoidance is not
feasible, as determined by the City of Dublin, Tribal Representatives from the consulting
tribe(s) if available, shall make recommendations regarding the culturally appropriate
treatment and disposition of such find(s) and significant impacts to such tribal cultural
resources shall be mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of the consulting
tribe(s), if they are available, prior to resuming construction activities within the 50-foot
radius.
iii. If the find meets the definition of both a tribal cultural resource and a historical or
unique archaeological resource, then it shall be treated in accordance with the
measures described in Section C. below and Mitigation Measure CUL-4.
C. Culturally appropriate treatment may include, but is not limited to, minimal processing of
materials for reburial, minimizing handling of tribal cultural resources objects, leaving
objects in place within the landscape, or returning tribal cultural resources objects to a
location within the Project area where they would not be subject to future disturbance. No
cultural soil may be removed from the Project site. Permanent curation, testing, or data
collection of tribal cultural resources will not take place unless requested in writing by the
consulting tribe(s).
D. All fill soils imported and used for this Project must be clean, engineered fill.
12
Exhibit B
E. The applicant shall enter into a tribal monitoring agreement with the consulting tribe(s)
prior to the start of ground disturbing activities. The tribal monitoring agreement shall form
the terms and compensation for the tribal monitoring with the consulting tribe(s) and be
utilized in combination with the tribal cultural resource treatment. Tribal Monitors have the
authority to identify sites or objects of cultural significance and to request, upon the finding
of a potential tribal cultural resource, that work be slowed, diverted, or stopped if such sites
or objects are identified within the direct impact area. Only the consulting tribe(s) can
recommend culturally appropriate treatment of such sites or objects, via their Tribal
Monitor. Work within 50 feet of the discovery location cannot resume until all necessary
investigation and evaluation of the discovery under the requirements of the tribal
monitoring agreement have been implemented.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact with mitigation
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With
implementation of mitigation, tribal cultural resources encountered during construction would be
treated in a culturally appropriate manner in consultation with Tribal Representatives and protocols to
protect these resources under the mitigation measure would be required.
Rationale for Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measures TR-1, the impact would be less
than significant. This is because with incorporation of Mitigation Measure TR-1, potential impacts to
tribal cultural resources would be less than significant since protocols would be required during
construction activities, including retaining a qualified archaeologist during ground disturbing activities;
implementing archaeological awareness training for all construction personnel involved with ground
disturbing or excavation activities; stopping activity within a 50-foot radius of the precontact or
historic -age resources find(s) to have it evaluated by an a qualified archaeologist; and avoiding or
mitigating impacts to the find(s).
13
Exhibit C
Exhibit C
Hexcel Redevelopment Project
Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and
Potential Additional Mitigation Measures
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides that decision makers should not approve a
project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures that would
substantially lessen the significant impacts of the project (CEQA Section 21002). The Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Hexcel Redevelopment project (Project) identified
feasible mitigation measures that would reduce most of the potentially significant impacts to less than
significant, as set forth in Exhibit B (Findings Concerning Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures).
However, the following impacts in the EIR either remained significant after mitigation or no feasible
mitigation was identified:
• Cultural Resources. The Project is proposing to completely demolish the existing Hexcel
Corporation Research & Development facility (R&D), which is a historical resource as defined in
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The demolition of this facility would result in a significant
direct impact even with the implementation of the Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2. Thus,
the Project would have a Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. For
the impact determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible mitigation
measures are available to further reduce the impact.
As required by CEQA, the following findings address whether there are any feasible alternatives or any
additional feasible mitigation measures available that would reduce any of these impacts to less than
significant.
FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that an EIR "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location
of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project..." (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). If a project alternative will substantially lessen the significant
environmental effects of a proposed project, the decision maker should not approve the proposed
project unless it determines that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations... make the project alternative infeasible" (CEQA Sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3), and
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)).
The alternatives that were identified and analyzed to lessen significant impacts to historical resources
are discussed in the Alternatives Chapter of the Draft EIR and include the No Project Alternative,
Reduced Grading Alternative, Partial Preservation Alternative, and Alternative Location. As further set
forth below, the City Council considered the alternatives identified and analyzed in the Draft EIR and
finds them to be infeasible for specific economic, social, or other considerations pursuant to CEQA
Sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3). For CEQA purposes,
"feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of
1
Exhibit C
time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal factors. (CEQA
Section 21061.1, CEQA Guidelines Section 15364.)
No Project Alternative — Draft EIR Section Description and Analysis of Alternatives Retained
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3) requires that a No -Project Alternative be evaluated as part of
an EIR, proceeding under one of two scenarios: 1) when the project is a revision to an existing land use
or regulatory plan, the "no project" alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan into the
future; or 2) if the project is other than a land use or regulatory plan, the "no project" alternative is the
circumstances under which the project does not proceed. The No Project Alternative assumes no
demolition or development would occur on the Project site. The Hexcel Corporation R&D facility would
not be demolished, the site would not be redeveloped with a new facility that appeals to the life
sciences and manufacturing field, and Parcels 1 and 2 would not be rezoned. Accordingly, this
alternative would avoid all of the Project's significant impacts (including significant and unavoidable
impacts to a historical resource), as well as the need to implement mitigation measures for Air Quality;
Biological Resources; Cultural Resources (Historical and Archeological Resources); Energy; Geology and
Soils (Paleontological Resources); Hazards and Hazardous Materials; and Tribal Cultural Resources.
Finding:
The City finds this alternative infeasible because it would not be consistent with any of the Project's
objectives. The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the following Project objectives, as
described in the Project Description of the Draft EIR:
• To redevelop the Hexcel site with a new and upgraded facility that appeals to the life sciences
and manufacturing field.
• To rezone Parcels 1 and 2 as a Planned Development, which provide development standards
beyond those of the M-1 zoning, and adopt a new ordinance. The property would be rezoned
under a new PD Zone with a new ordinance number associated with it.
Therefore, the City Council considered the No Project Alternative and declines to adopt it because it
would not achieve any of the Project's objectives, as supported by the administrative record for the
Project.
Reduced Grading Alternative - Draft EIR Section Description and Analysis of Alternatives Retained
Under the Reduced Grading Alternative, soil would be imported to build up the southern periphery of
the property and treat stormwater onsite with a valley gutter catch basin and a Silva cell rather than
grading to enable stormwater to be gravity fed into bioretention planters. The Silva cell is a modular
suspended pavement system that uses soil volumes to support large tree growth and provide onsite
stormwater management. The Silva cell would replace 3,280 square feet of the two bioretention
planters proposed in the southeast corner of the site adjacent to the south parking areas.
This alternative would reduce the amount of grading in the High Archaeological Probability Area by
approximately 23 percent, compared to the proposed Project at approximately 53 percent, thereby
reducing the risk of impacts to buried cultural resources. Excavation depths for the Reduced Grading
Alternative would generally be limited to less than one foot below current grade, except for three
2
Exhibit C
locations where depths would range from two feet deep to seven feet deep. While this design does not
completely eliminate the risk of impact to archaeological resources or human remains, the area and
degree of potential impact are substantially reduced with the Reduced Grading Alternative.
Nevertheless, the Project would still have the potential to impact archaeological resources and disturb
human remains, both of which could be potentially significant.
The Reduced Grading Alternative would also reduce the potential to impact paleontological resources,
because it would reduce the depths of excavation where these resources could occur. Furthermore, by
reducing the amount of grading, there would be less total construction equipment use during the
grading phase, which would reduce NOx, ROG, PM10 exhaust and PM2.s exhaust emissions.
The Reduced Grading Alternative would still involve demolition of the existing Hexcel building in its
entirety and, therefore, would have a significant and unavoidable impact to historical resources.
Finding:
The City finds that although the Reduced Grading Alternative would meet the proposed Project's
objectives, it would not avoid significant and unavoidable impacts related to historical resources and,
from an operational standpoint, the City has concerns with the use of a Silva cell for this Project. The
City is aware of other projects implementing Silva cells for stormwater treatment that have
malfunctioned. Operational failure of these Silva cells can result in sewage getting mixed with
stormwater.
Therefore, the City Council considered the Reduced Grading Alternative and declines to adopt it
because there is a risk implementing a Silva cell for stormwater treatment for this Project.
Partial Preservation Alternative — Draft EIR Section Alternatives Considered but Rejected
Under the Partial Preservation Alternative, the 25,000-square-foot laboratory building, the portion of
the existing Hexcel Corporation R&D facility that qualifies the building as a historical resource, would
be adaptively reused as a commercial self -storage facility. The rest of the existing building would be
demolished and a new 114,141-square-foot building would be constructed in its place. The new
building would be used by future tenants in the life sciences and manufacturing field. This would result
in a mixed -used site, rather than a site used for solely life sciences and manufacturing.
This alternative would reduce impacts to a historical resource as that portion of the building would be
retained and would somewhat meet the Project's objectives. However, it is unlikely that the Partial
Preservation Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact on the historical resource.
Although this alternative would retain the most important portion of the Hexcel Corporation R&D
facility contributing to its eligibility as a historical resource and would, therefore, have a reduced level
of impact compared to the proposed Project, the alternative would still demolish more than half of the
original structure and would also involve substantial changes to the setting of the historical resource.
Therefore, the structure would not continue to retain its integrity to convey the historical significance.
It is considered unlikely that feasible mitigation measures could be implemented to fully mitigate the
potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Furthermore, the applicant prepared a
Pro Forma for financial feasibility of Partial Preservation Alternative and found that this alternative
would result in a loss of approximately $10.8 million over the life of the Project, while the total upfront
costs (capitalization) would be approximately $55.7 million, which is approximately 40 percent higher
3
Exhibit C
than the proposed Project. Therefore, the Partial Preservation Alternative would be financially
infeasible.
Other significant impacts related to Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources (Historical and
Archeological Resources); Energy; Geology and Soils (Paleontological Resources); Hazards and
Hazardous Materials; and Tribal Cultural Resources would still remain under this alternative and
mitigation would be required.
Finding:
The City finds that the Partial Preservation Alternative would not meet the Project objective to
redevelop the site with a new and upgraded facility that appeals to the life sciences and manufacturing
field because it would be developed as a mixed -used site with the introduction of the commercial self -
storage facility, which would not be as appealing to future life sciences/manufacturing tenants. It also
would not be economically feasible for the Project applicant due to the reduction in the number of
tenants, and the reduction in value of a commercial self -storage and warehousing floorspace
compared to life sciences/manufacturing. Also, as noted in the section above, it is unlikely that the
Partial Preservation Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact on the historical
resource.
Therefore, the City Council considered the Partial Preservation Alternative and declines to adopt it
because it would not achieve the Project's objectives and is infeasible for the specific economic, social,
or other considerations described above, as supported by the administrative record for the Project.
Alternative Location - Draft EIR Section Alternatives Considered but Rejected
The use of another site for this Project would not meet the project's objectives to redevelop the Hexcel
site with a new and upgraded facility that appeals to the life sciences and manufacturing field and to
rezone Parcels 1 and 2 of this site as a Planned Development. Furthermore, the Project applicant
already owns this site, which is suitable for the scale and type of project that the applicant has
proposed. Development of the Project on the proposed site would help ensure the construction of the
Project is affordable and accomplished in a timely manner. A new site option would require the
applicant to sell this site and find a new site within the City limits of a similar size, designated for this
type of use, and proximate to regional freeway access. There are limited sites in the City designated for
industrial uses of similar size and proximity to a freeway interchange to implement the proposed
Project. Therefore, an alternative location was rejected from further consideration.
Finding:
The City Council considered an alternative location and declines to adopt it because it would not
achieve any of the Project's objectives and is infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other
considerations described above, as supported by the administrative record for the Project.
FINDINGS REGARDING INFEASIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES
4
Exhibit C
Not Applicable: The EIR did not identify any additional mitigation measures and/or modifications to
the measures beyond those identified in the EIR as set forth in Exhibit A.
5
Exhibit D
Exhibit D
Hexcel Redevelopment Project
Statement of Overriding Considerations
General.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the
City Council of the City of Dublin makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The City Council has balanced the benefits of the Hexcel Redevelopment project (Project) to the City of
Dublin against the significant adverse impacts identified in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) that cannot be reduced to less than significant through feasible mitigations or alternatives
and would remain significant and unavoidable. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City
Council hereby determines that the benefits of the Project outweigh the adverse impacts and the
Project should be approved.
The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve the Project.
Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that implementation of the Project carries with it
unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts as identified in the EIR. The City Council
specifically finds that to the extent the identified significant adverse impacts for the Project have not
been reduced to acceptable levels through feasible mitigation or alternatives, there are specific
economic, social, land use and other benefits that support approval of the Project.
Significant and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.
The following significant and unavoidable environmental impact is associated with the Project as
identified in the EIR:
• Historical Resources. Since the proposed Project would result in the demolition of the existing
Hexcel Corporation R&D facility, which is a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA, the
Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on a historical resource. Even with
implementation of the mitigation measures, the Project would still result in a significant and
unavoidable impact to a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, as
the Project would result in the demolition of the historical resource.
Overriding Considerations.
The City Council has carefully considered the significant and unavoidable impact in reaching its decision
to approve the Project. In reaching its decision, the City Council has balanced the significant and
unavoidable impact against the Project's benefits, and hereby determines that the significant and
unavoidable impact is outweighed by the benefits of the Project as further set forth below. Any one of
these benefits is sufficient to justify approval of the Project. The substantial evidence supporting the
various benefits can be found in the record as a whole.
1
Exhibit D
• The redevelopment of the Project site creates an opportunity to bring economic and job -rich
uses to the City related to advanced manufacturing and life sciences. Presently, the site is
occupied by the Hexcel research and development facility, which is an outdated and smaller
facility that does not offer the most recent amenities and other design features that would
appeal to future tenants in this field. Due to the smaller size of the existing facility, it limits the
ability to offer tenant space that is flexible for various business needs. The redevelopment of
the Project site with a new and updated light industrial building will attract advanced
manufacturing and life science uses contributing to approximately 200 net new jobs onsite and
other employment opportunities in the City that would function around the operations at the
site. Additionally, the Project will be an incubator for innovation and business attraction within
the City.
• Since the Project would be attracting new jobs to the City, it would also support local retail and
restaurants, as it is expected that future employees would be patrons to these surrounding
businesses.
• The General Plan provides a long-range vision for economic growth and development of the
City. The Project will further the General Plan objective of providing a broad range of non -retail
businesses and high -growth employment opportunities in research, limited manufacturing and
distribution activities, and administrative offices. The Project supports the following General
Plan Policies and Goals:
o Policy 11.5.3-A. Retaining high -growth companies is a priority for the City of Dublin.
Targeting high -growth companies, the City should maintain a Business Visitation
Program that seeks to identify and solve local economic development constraints; and
o Goal III. Development of Strategic Employment Supporting Sites seeks to maximize the
potential for development of workplace uses in the City of Dublin.
• The Project site is approximately 0.25-mile from the Interstate 580 (I-580)/San Ramon Road
interchange. The proximity of the Project site to the I-580/San Ramon Road interchange is
consistent with General Plan goals and policies and facilitates efficient transportation. The
benefit of the Project site being close to a major highway is that delivery vehicles and trucks
coming to and from the site would be able to take shorter routes on the City's roadways and,
therefore, impacts related to noise and transportation and circulation would be minimized. This
would be consistent with General Plan Policy 5.6.1-A.1. Designate and accommodate truck
routes to minimize noise nuisance on residential arterial streets.
• The Project would result in a net reduction in energy consumption, primarily related to
improved building energy standards and eliminating natural gas infrastructure. Therefore, the
Project would support the following City's General Plan's Energy Conservation Element Policies:
o Policy 13.3.2-A:
■ Encourage the installation of alternative energy technology in new residential
and commercial development.
■ Encourage designing for solar access.
2
Exhibit D
■ Encourage energy efficient improvements be made on residential and
commercial properties.
o Policy 13.3.2-B:
■ New development proposals shall be reviewed to ensure lighting levels needed
for a safe and secure environment are provided —utilizing the most energy -
efficient fixtures.
■ In new commercial and residential parking lots, require the installation of
conduit to serve electric vehicle parking spaces to enable the easier installation
of future charging stations.
■ Encourage the installation of charging stations for commercial projects over a
certain size and any new residential project that has open parking.
■ Encourage buildings (and more substantially, whole neighborhoods) to be
designed along an east -west axis to maximize solar exposure. Where feasible,
require new development projects to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds,
landscaping and sun screens to reduce energy use; and to use regenerative
energy heating and cooling source alternatives to fossil fuels.
■ Continue to implement parking lot tree planting standards that would
substantially cool parking areas and help cool the surrounding environment.
For all of the above reasons, the benefits of the Hexcel Redevelopment Project outweigh its significant
and unavoidable environmental impact.
3
Exhibit E
City of Dublin HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT pRniFrT
Final EIR I Page 19
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is a CEQA-required component of an
EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 and Public Resources Code §21081.6 requires a public
agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program to ensure efficacy and enforceability of
any mitigation measures applied to a proposed project. The Lead Agency must adopt an MMRP
for mitigation measures incorporated into the project or proposed as conditions of approval. As
stated in Public Resources Code §21081.6 (a)(1):
"The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the
changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in
order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting
or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project
implementation."
Table 4-1 represents the MMRP for the Project. This table lists each of the mitigation measures
proposed in the EIR, including mitigation refined or updated in the Final EIR in Chapter 3,
Changes to the Draft EIR, and specifies the timing and responsible party for each mitigation
measure.
City of Dublin
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Table
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 20
Air Quality
Responsible for
Approval / Monitoring
roject Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
During
MM AQ-1. Implement Basic Construction Emission Control Practices.
• Responsible for
construction
The construction contractor shall comply with the following BAAQMD
approval: City of
Basic Construction Measures, as applicable, for reducing construction
Dublin
emissions of uncontrolled fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5):
■ Implementation:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,
graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times
per day.
Project applicant
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site
shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be
removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per
day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per
hour (mph).
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be
completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as
possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off
when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes
(as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title
13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear
signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access
points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned
in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 21
Timing
Responsibl
Approval / Monitorin
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure
ompletion
ate
Initials
be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in
proper condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to
contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person
shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The
BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance
with applicable regulations.
Biological Resources
During
construction
MM BIO-1: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
A. To the extent practicable, construction activities and any tree
trimming/removal shall be performed from September 16 through
February 15 to avoid the general nesting period for birds. If
construction or tree trimming/removal cannot be performed during
this period, nesting bird surveys and active nest buffers (as
necessary) shall be implemented as follows:
i. Nesting Bird Surveys: If Project -related work is scheduled during
the nesting season (typically February 15 to August 30 for small
bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for
owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a
qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for active nests of such
birds within 7 days prior to the beginning of Project construction.
Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding the work area
shall be determined by the qualified biologist, but should be at
least: i) 50 feet for passerines; ii) 300 feet for raptors. Surveys
shall be conducted at the appropriate times of day and during
appropriate nesting times, as determined by the qualified
biologist.
ii. Active Nest Buffers: If the qualified biologist documents active
nests within the survey area, an appropriate buffer between the
nest and active construction shall be established. The buffer shall
Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
■ Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified biologist
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 22
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure
Responsible forompletion
Approval / Monitoring /
Implementation
Initials
be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged
and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the
qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of the nest
to characterize "normal" bird behavior and establish a buffer
distance which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The
qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during
construction activities and shall increase the buffer if the birds
show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive
flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position,
and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not
possible, the qualified biologist shall have the authority to cease
all construction work in the area until the young have fledged
and the nest is no longer active. Construction shall only be
allowed to impact a migratory bird or its nest, including its
young, if a permit from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is obtained
in accordance with the MBTA and all permit conditions are
adhered to.
Prior to
construction
MM BIO-2: Roosting Bat Surveys and Avoidance
A. The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a
bat habitat assessment in all project areas that require tree removal.
The qualified biologist shall identify and document the location of
potentially suitable bat roosting habitat prior to construction
activities. If no suitable bat habitat is observed, the biologist shall
inform the Project Applicant, and no further considerations are
required. If bat roosting habitat is observed, the location of such
habitat areas shall be provided to the Project Applicant, and the
following requirements shall be implemented throughout the
construction period:
■ Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
• Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified biologist
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 23
Responsibl completion
Approval / Monitorin
Timing Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure ate Initials
i. Removal of trees that provide suitable bat roosting habitat shall
be conducted outside of the bat maternity season (April 15 to
August 31) and overwintering season (October 16 to January 15)
to the extent feasible.
ii. Presence/absence surveys shall be conducted 2 to 3 days prior to
removal of any trees in suitable bat habitat, at any time of year.
If presence/absence surveys are negative, work may proceed
with no restrictions. If presence/absence surveys detect bats
within trees planned for removal, work should proceed in
accordance with the following restrictions:
• If a maternity colony of bats is observed during maternity
season (April 15 to August 31), tree removal shall not occur
until August 31 or when maternity season has ended based on
surveys conducted by a qualified biologist.
• If bats are observed during overwintering season (October 16
to January 15), tree removal shall not occur until January 15
or until bats are no longer present based on surveys
conducted by a qualified biologist.
• If bats are present outside of maternity or overwintering
seasons, construction shall follow a two-phase tree removal
system conducted over 2 consecutive days. On the first day
(in the afternoon), limbs and branches will be removed using
chainsaws or other hand tools. Limbs with cavities, crevices,
or deep bark fissures will be avoided, and only branches or
limbs without those features will be removed. On the second
day, the entire tree shall be removed.
Cultural Resources
Prior to building
demolition
MM CUL-1: HABS Recordation
In consultation with the City of Dublin Planning Division, the Project
applicant shall document the Hexcel Corporation R&D facility prior to
■ Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 24
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition
Responsibl completion
Approval / Monitorin
of Approval / Miti ate Initials
demolition. Documentation shall be performed by a Secretary of
Interior -qualified professionals (in history or architectural history) and
be consistent with the standards of the National Parks Service (NPS)
Historic American Building Survey (HABS) and shall consist of the
following elements:
1. Historical Report: A qualified historian or architectural historian shall
assemble historical background information relevant to the Hexcel
Corporation R&D facility in short format Historic American Building
Survey (HABS), based on HABS guidelines for historical reports. Much
of this information may be drawn from the previous Historical
Resource Evaluation and would detail critical information such as the
property's significance, physical description, history, and a summary
of information sources.
2. Photographs: Large -format, black and white photographs of the
Hexcel Corporation R&D facility shall be taken and processed for
archival permanence in accordance with HABS, Historic American
Engineering Record (HAER), and HALS (Historic American Landscapes
Survey) Photography Guidelines in effect at the time of recording.
The standards require large -format black -and -white photography,
with the original negatives having a minimum size of 4"x5". Digital
photography, roll film, film packs, and electronic manipulation of
images are not acceptable.
The photographs shall be taken by a professional with HABS
photography experience. A minimum of 10 and a maximum of 24
photographs must be taken, detailing the site, building exteriors, and
interiors, specifically the R&D portion of the building. Photographs must
be identified and labeled using HABS/HALS standards.
Following completion of the HABS documentation, including the short
form historical report and large -format photographs, and approval by
the City of Dublin, the materials shall be placed on file with the City of
Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified historian or
architectural
historian
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 25
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure
Responsibl
Approval / Monitorin
ompletion
a e
Initials
Dublin Planning Division, and the Dublin Historical Society at the Dublin
Heritage Park and Museums.
Prior to building
demolition
MM CUL-2: Interpretive Displays
In concert with HABS documentation (MM CUL-1), the Project applicant
shall install permanent interpretive displays or signage for public
exhibition detailing the history and significance of the Hexcel
Corporation R&D facility at the Project site. The interpretive displays or
signage could be based on the photographs produced in the HABS
documentation and the historic archival research previously prepared
as part of the Project.
The interpretive displays or signage shall be prepared by an
architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the
Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, in coordination with an
exhibit designer.
Interpretive displays or signage at the Project site shall be located
outside of the new building, near the publicly accessible sidewalk
and/or inside the new building in a prominent space, such as the lobby,
where they may be viewed by employees and visitors.
• Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
• Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified historian or
architectural
historian
Prior to
construction
MM CUL-3: Archaeological and Tribal Monitoring
A. A qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the
Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology
shall be retained by the applicant prior to implementing
construction or soil remediation activities that involve
earthmoving or soil excavation, and the archaeologist shall be
available for consultation or evaluation of any cultural resources
uncovered by such activities. Prior to the start of excavation, the
archaeologist shall produce an Archaeological Testing Plan and an
Archaeological Treatment and Monitoring Plan, in consultation
with the City of Dublin, and through them, with any consulting
Native American tribes.
• Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
• Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified
archaeologist
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 26
Responsibl completion
Approval / Monitorin
Timing Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure ate Initials
i. The Archaeological Testing Plan will define the following:
• Methods and scope of archaeological testing to be done
prior to the start of construction (e.g., GPR, hand
excavated test units, trenching with flat edged bucket).
• Treatment of any discoveries during testing.
ii. The Treatment and Monitoring Plan will comply with mitigation
measures 4, 5, 6, and 7, set forth in the Dublin Village Historic
Area Specific Plan, Appendix B, and will specify the following:
• Archaeological testing to be done prior to the start of
construction.
• Archaeological and Tribal monitoring requirements, which
will be based on the results of archaeological testing and
consultation with Native American tribes.
• Procedures and considerations for handling,
documenting, analyzing, and curation of any historic -era
or pre -contact era artifacts encountered during project
activities.
• Procedures and considerations for handling,
documenting, analyzing, and curation of any human
remains from the historic era. For human remains of
Native Americans from any time period, treatment
protocols would be established with the designated MLD.
B. If an archaeological resource or human burials are discovered
during archaeological testing, consideration will be given to
options that avoid or minimize impact.
C. If an archaeological resource (or suspected resource) is
discovered during monitoring of project activities, construction or
excavation activities within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be
temporarily halted or directed to other areas, pending the
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 27
Timing
Responsibl completion
Approval / Monitorin
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure ate Initials
archaeologist's evaluation of its significance. If the resource is
significant, data collection, excavation, or other standard
archaeological or historical procedures shall be implemented to
mitigate impacts, pursuant to the Treatment and Monitoring Plan
and the archaeologist's direction. If any human remains are
encountered, the archaeologist shall contact the appropriate
County Coroner immediately, and security measures shall be
implemented to ensure that burials are not vandalized until the
decision of burial deposition has been made pursuant to
California law. If human remains are determined to be Native
American interments, the Coroner shall contact the Native
American Heritage Commission pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 5097.98 and follow the procedures stated herein
and other applicable laws. A report by the archaeologist
evaluating the find and identifying mitigation actions taken shall
be submitted to the CPUC. Where appropriate to protect the
location and sensitivity of the cultural resources, the report may
be submitted under Public Utilities Code Section 583 or other
appropriate confidentiality provisions.
Prior and during
construction
MM CUL-4: Inadvertent Discovery Protocols
A. Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall
retain a qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the
Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology to
implement archaeological awareness training for all construction
personnel involved with ground disturbing or excavation activities.
The training shall include information regarding the possibility of
encountering buried cultural resources, the appearance and types
of resources likely to be seen during construction, notification
procedures, and proper protocols to be followed should suspected
or confirmed resources be encountered by the crew. This training
■ Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
• Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified
archaeologist
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 28
Responsibl completion
Approval / Monitorin
Timing Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure ate Initials
shall be provided once to each worker involved in ground -disturbing
activities before they begin work, and shall be documented in
training records.
B. In the event that precontact or historic -age resources (or suspected
resources) are inadvertently discovered during Project
implementation, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find shall
be stopped, the City of Dublin's Project Manager shall be notified,
and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the City of Dublin
to examine the find, pursuant to Mitigation Measure 7 set out in the
Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, Appendix B. Project
personnel shall not collect or move any historic material. The
archaeologist shall evaluate the find(s) within 48 hours to determine
if it meets the definition of a historical or unique archaeological
resource and follow the procedures outlined below:
i. If the find(s) does not meet the definition of a tribal cultural
resource, a historical resource or a unique archaeological
resource, no further study or protection is necessary prior to
resuming Project implementation.
ii. If the find(s) does meet the definition of a historical resource or
unique archaeological resource, then it shall be avoided by
Project activities and preserved in place. If avoidance is not
feasible, as determined by the City of Dublin, the qualified
archaeologist shall make appropriate recommendations
regarding the treatment and disposition of such find(s), and
significant impacts to such resources shall be mitigated in
accordance with the recommendations of the archaeologist prior
to resuming construction activities within the 50-foot radius.
iii. If the find(s) does meet the definition of both a tribal cultural
resource and a historical or unique archaeological resource, then
it shall be treated in accordance with MM CUL-3.
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 29
Responsible forompletion
Approval / Monitoring / I=
Timing Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure Implementation Initials
C.
Recommendations for treatment and disposition of find(s) could
include, but are not limited to, archaeological monitoring,
collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural
materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovery shall
be submitted to NWIC.
i. In the event that archaeological resource(s) are discovered during
Project implementation, an archaeological monitor shall be
retained to monitor all ground- disturbing activities in the vicinity
(i.e., within 50 feet) of the find.
Archaeological monitors have the authority, upon the finding of a
potential resource, to request that work be slowed, diverted, or
stopped if archaeological resources are identified within the direct
impact area.
If the resource is determined by an archaeologist to be a historical
or unique archaeological resource, the archaeologist shall amend
the Treatment and Monitoring Plan, with measures to avoid or
reduce impacts to the resource. The treatment plan measures
may include, but not be limited to, avoidance and preservation in
place (the preferred method if feasible), capping, incorporation of
the site within a park or other open space, or data recovery. If the
resource is also a tribal cultural resource, then designated
representatives from the consulting tribe(s) shall make
appropriate recommendations regarding the treatment and
disposition of such find(s) in accordance with MM CUL-3 and
these recommendations shall be incorporated into the treatment
plan.
Geology and Soils
During
construction
MM GEO-1: Avoid Impacts to Unique Paleontological Resources
To minimize the potential for destruction of or damage to previously
unknown unique, scientifically important paleontological resources
■ Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 30
Responsible forompletion
Approval / Monitoring /
Timing Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure Implementation Initials
during earthmoving activities at the Project site, the Project applicant
shall do the following:
• Prior to the start of earthmoving activities, retain either a qualified
archaeologist or paleontologist to inform all construction personnel
involved with earthmoving activities regarding the possibility of
encountering fossils, the appearance and types of fossils likely to be
seen during construction, and proper notification procedures should
fossils be encountered.
• If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving
activities, the construction crew shall immediately cease work within
50 feet of the find and notify the Project applicant and the City. The
Project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate
the resource and prepare a recovery plan, based on SVP Guidelines.
The recovery plan may include, but is not limited to, a field survey,
construction monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures,
museum curation for any specimen recovered, and a report of
findings. Recommendations in the recovery plan that are determined
by the City (as the CEQA lead agency) to be necessary and feasible
shall be implemented before construction activities can resume
within 50 feet of the site where the paleontological resource or
resources were discovered.
■ Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified
archaeologist or
paleontologist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Prior to
construction
MM HAZMAT-1: Perform a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
• Prior to the start of earthmoving activities at the Project site, the
Project applicant shall retain the services of a qualified remediation
firm to perform a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). The
Phase II ESA shall be limited to only those areas where chemical use,
storage, and handling have previously occurred. Soil borings shall be
obtained as part of the Phase II ESA, along with groundwater
samples if necessary. The samples shall be submitted to a laboratory
■ Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
■ Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified
remediation firm
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 31
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure
Responsible forompletion
Approval / Monitoring /
Implementation
Initials
for environmental testing and the results shall be reported in the
Phase II ESA, copies of which shall be provided to the Alameda
County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH) and the City of
Dublin Building Department. If there are no detections of
constituents of concern, or the amounts are below regulatory agency
threshold levels, no further actions shall be required.
• If the results of laboratory analyses from the Phase II ESA
demonstrate that constituents of concern are present at levels that
exceed regulatory agency threshold levels, the Project applicant shall
consult with ACDEH (and other regulatory agencies such as the
SWRCB if necessary) regarding the necessary actions for
remediation. All necessary remedial activities shall be completed by
the Project applicant, with a certification by the lead agency with
remedial oversight (e.g., ACDEH or SWRCB) that no further action is
required, prior to the start of construction activities at the Project
site.
Prior to building
demolition
HAZMAT-2: Perform Sampling of Materials To Be Demolished.
Prior to demolition of any building in the project area, the building shall
be sampled to determine if the building contains lead paint and/or
asbestos. If either of the materials are determined to be present, they
shall be handled and disposed of as a hazardous material and in
compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
■ Responsible: City of
Dublin
■ Implementation:
Project applicant
with assistance from
qualified
remediation firm
Transportation and Traffic
Project design
Condition of Approval:
• Requires vegetation maintenance for sight distance to achieve a
minimum sight distance of 250 feet at each driveway access point
• Prohibits trucks from accessing the eastern driveway
■ Responsible: City of
Dublin
■ Implementation:
Project applicant
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 32
Responsibl
Approval / Monitorin
Timing Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure I
Tribal Cultural Resources
ompletion
ate Initials
Prior to and
MM TR-1: Inadvertent/Unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources
• Responsible for
during
Discovery Protocols
approval: City of
construction
The City of Dublin shall require the following steps to be taken,
including as a part of all contracts related to construction of the Project,
Dublin
• Implementation:
as applicable:
Project applicant
A. Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall
with assistance from
retain representatives from consulting tribe(s), if available, to
representatives from
implement Tribal Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training for all
construction personnel involved with ground disturbing or
excavation activities. The training shall include information
regarding the possibility of encountering buried tribal cultural
resources, the appearance and types of tribal cultural resources that
could potentially be seen during construction, notification
procedures, and proper protocols to be followed should suspected
or confirmed tribal cultural resources be encountered. This training
shall be provided once to each worker involved in ground -disturbing
activities before they begin work and shall be documented in
training records.
consulting tribe(s)
B. If tribal cultural resources or potential tribal cultural resources are
discovered during Project implementation, all activity within a 50-
foot radius of the find shall be stopped, the City of Dublin's Project
Manager shall be notified, and Tribal Representatives from the
consulting tribe(s) shall be immediately notified. The Tribal
Representative(s) shall evaluate the find(s) within 48 hours to
determine if it meets the definition of a tribal cultural resource (PRC
§21074) and follow the procedures outlined below:
i. If the find(s) does not meet the definition of a tribal cultural
resource, no further study or protection is necessary prior to
resuming Project implementation (but see MM CUL-3 and CUL-4)
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 33
Timing
Responsibl completion
Approval / Monitorin
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure ate Initials
ii.lf the find(s) does meet the definition of a tribal cultural resource,
then it shall be avoided by Project activities and preserved in
place. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed by
the City of Dublin to be necessary and feasible to preserve in
place, avoid, or minimize impacts to the tribal cultural resource.
If avoidance is not feasible, as determined by the City of Dublin,
Tribal Representatives from the consulting tribe(s) if available,
shall make recommendations regarding the culturally
appropriate treatment and disposition of such find(s) and
significant impacts to such tribal cultural resources shall be
mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of the
consulting tribe(s), if they are available, prior to resuming
construction activities within the 50-foot radius.
iii. If the find meets the definition of both a tribal cultural resource
and a historical or unique archaeological resource, then it shall
be treated in accordance with the measures described in Section
C. below and MM CUL-4.
C. Culturally appropriate treatment may include, but is not limited to,
minimal processing of materials for reburial, minimizing handling of
tribal cultural resources objects, leaving objects in place within the
landscape, or returning tribal cultural resources objects to a location
within the Project area where they would not be subject to future
disturbance. No cultural soil maybe removed from the Project site.
Permanent curation, testing, or data collection of tribal cultural
resources will not take place unless requested in writing by the
consulting tribe(s).
D. All fill soils imported and used for this Project must be clean,
engineered fill.
E. The applicant shall enter into a tribal monitoring agreement with the
consulting tribe(s) prior to the start of ground disturbing activities.
City of Dublin
HEXCEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final EIR I Page 34
Responsible forompletion
Approval / Monitoring /
Timing Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval / Mitigation Measure Implementation Initials
The tribal monitoring agreement shall form the terms and
compensation for the tribal monitoring with the consulting tribe(s)
and be utilized in combination with the tribal cultural resource
treatment. Tribal Monitors have the authority to identify sites or
objects of cultural significance and to request, upon the finding of a
potential tribal cultural resource, that work be slowed, diverted, or
stopped if such sites or objects are identified within the direct impact
area. Only the consulting tribe(s) can recommend culturally
appropriate treatment of such sites or objects, via their Tribal
Monitor. Work within 50 feet of the discovery location cannot
resume until all necessary investigation and evaluation of the
discovery under the requirements of the tribal monitoring
agreement have been implemented.
Energy Conservation
During
construction
See Air quality mitigation measure MM AQ-1. Implement Basic
Construction Emission Control Practices.
■ Responsible for
approval: City of
Dublin
• Implementation:
Project applicant