Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 Attch 7 DEIR Exh A - City of
.Menge I)airN7 Dublin
s
X111. NIL WIN 1111
loll
� v MCI
MM MM mom I OM =0 IF s
1 -0111 I os s�I
IS
I W41 11M 11"1
... ....
� � �� �'IYA i����•%�11YAN1�= Inll�l X1111
owl -�1 r,'�.•�'� a
NO
.► �- --�� __ � DUBLIN
y. CEMETERY .'
Heritage Park
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Owl lwwiwas■wwlu antIOMww MWOMM walsi■a w■■lulu w sn
_ wli��irni��iwti�IMii■�wiiiloif■isiu.u�nl�noli��ii�l�ii�►n>�i=s
nw.�w�l�sl�i�i�l■�iwt�lwwu_ww■iwiwwwi�w�■�il�wil■wi�wl■� _._
�ului��.�l�le�i�i �.w�l■��Itiw�u�i�ilii■iiTiwir�iwiil■��1
; slwiwwwuwunli= _ ��111■w�w�1 .w�o�lA■�uSlMON"t ..
cili■wiww��- — ��ei■.�wa�i in�■wwwsii�i�in�w■
..i_ ■L. � ]nom
dlf■ _J ■■■noun noun t R►
twill p
011is—Ifff JI■■ 4
�'.wu.wwwawuww■i.w�i�iwr Y�
+u IL
IL ' rry
A�-- Company 1 II (■ �I,�,I,Ii,�,�,I �_
c �_
HERITAGE PARK
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2013092043
March 2014
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Summaryof Proposed Project............................................................................................................................. I
I. Introduction 1-1
Purpose......................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
EnvironmentalReview Process........................................................................................................................ 1-1
ReportOrganization.............................................................................................................................................. 1-3
ImpactTerminology............................................................................................................................................... 1-6
2. Project Description 2-1
2.2 Regional Location.....................................................................................................................................2-1
2.3 Project Location........................................................................................................................................2-1
2.4 Existing Setting/ Baseline Conditions............................................................................................2-1
2.4 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning................................................2-2
2.5 Purpose and Objectives.......................................................................................................................2-2
2.6 Proposed Land Uses..............................................................................................................................2-3
2.7 Circulation and Parking.........................................................................................................................2-4
2.8 Infrastructure Improvements..............................................................................................................2-5
2.9 Construction Activities..........................................................................................................................2-6
2.10 Requested Actions, Entitlements, and Required Approvals..............................................2-7
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts& Mitigation Measures 3-1
3.1 Aesthetics.....................................................................................................................................................3-3
3.2 Air Quality.................................................................................................................................................3-13
3.3 Cultural Resources...............................................................................................................................3-43
3.4 Geology and Soils.................................................................................................................................3-55
3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change...............................................................3-69
3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................................................3-83
3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality.......................................................................................................3-95
3.8 Land Use and Planning....................................................................................................................3-1 1 1
3.9 Noise.............................................................................................................................................I...........3-117
3.10 Public Services and Utilities...........................................................................................................3-131
P�=„K—*y-H-
-d Associates.Inc.
Page i
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Table of Contents
4. CEQA Considerations 4-1
4.1 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Effects................................................................4-1
4.2 Significant Irreversible Changes.........................................................................................................4-1
4.3 Growth Inducement...............................................................................................................................4-2
4.4 Energy Conservation..............................................................................................................................4-3
4.5 Effects Found Not to be Significant................................................................................................4-6
4.6 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................................................................................4-8
4.7 Project Alternatives..............................................................................................................................4-14
5. References 5-1
ReferencesCited.....................................................................................................................................................5-1
Listof Preparers.......................................................................................................................................................5-5
Appendices
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Responses to the NOP
Appendix B: Air Quality—Air Quality Modeling
Appendix C: Geology and Soils — Geotechnical Report and Fault Rupture Hazard
Investigation
Appendix E: Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
(ESA)
Appendix F: Hydrology and Water Quality —Technical Memorandum
Appendix G: Noise
Note: Appendices are available for down load from the City of Dublin's web site:
(www. o:dub&i .ca.us)
„nmley-Horn
d Asses; ta h,
Pace Pae ii
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Table of Contents
List of Figures
Note —Fgures are located at the end of each respective section in the Draft EIR.
Figure 2-1: Regional Location
Figure 2-2: Project Vicinity
Figures 2-3a: Photographs of the Project Site
Figure 2-3b: Photographs of the Project Site
Figure 2-4: Surrounding Land Uses
Figure 2-5: Site Plan
Figure 2-6a: Conceptual Residential Design
Figure 2-6b: Conceptual Residential Design
Figure 2-7a: Conceptual Commercial Office Building Design
Figure 2-7b: Conceptual Commercial Office Building Design
Figure 2-8: Preliminary Utility Plan
Figure 2-9: Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan
Figure 2-10: Demolition Plan
Figure 2-1 1: Preliminary Grading Plan
Figure 2-12: Tree Removal Plan
Figure 2-13: Landscaping Plan
Figure 3.4-1: Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map for the Calaveras Fault
Figure 3.4-2: Calaveras Fault Traces and Exploratory Trenching
Figure 3.4-3: Habitable Building Setback Zone
Figure 3.7-1: FEMA Flood Zones
Figure 3.8-1: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
Figure 3.8-2: Existing Zoning Designations
Z►J K—ey Nom
h and Aaso.v— Page i i i
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Table of Contents
Figure 3.8-3: Proposed General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use Map
Figure 3.9-1: Proposed Noise Reduction Measures
List of Tables
Table S-1: Executive Summary of Project Impacts.........................................................................................3
Table 2-1: Existing and Proposed Water Demand....................................................................................2-6
Table 3.2-1: Local Ambient Air Quality Levels.........................................................................................3-15
Table 3.2-2: National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards...........................................3-21
Table 3.2-3: BAAQMD Project Level Thresholds.................................................................................3-23
Table 3.2-4: San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Status I.........................................................3-26
Table 3.2-5: Proposed Project Construction Emissions.......................................................................3-28
Table 3.2-6: Proposed Project Long-Term Operational Emissions................................................3-34
Table 3.5-1: BAAQMD GHG Thresholds..................................................................................................3-77
Table 3.5-2: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................3-79
Table 3.5-3: Project Consistency with the City's Climate Action Plan Measures .................3-81
Table 3.7-1: Pre- and Post- I 0-Year Stormwater Flows...................................................................3-104
Table 3.8-1: City of Dublin General Plan Consistency Analysis....................................................3-1 14
Table3.9-1: Noise Descriptors.......................................................................................................................3-1 18
Table3.9-2: Noise Measurements................................................................................................................3-1 19
Table 3.9-3: City of Dublin Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments
.........................................................................................................................................................................3-121
Table 3.9-4: Maximum Nose Levels Generated by Construction Equipment......................3-123
Table 3.9-5: Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment............................................3-126
Table 3.9-6: Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Parking Lots................................................3-128
Table 3. 10-1: Enrollment Capacity of Schools Serving the Project Site....................................3-132
am:e,_Ho,1.
Page iv nd Associates.Inc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Table of Contents
Table 3.10-2: DSRSD Current and Projected Water Meter Connections by Customer Type
.........................................................................................................................................................................3-134
Table 3.10-3: Wastewater Generation.......................................................................................................3-145
Table 3.10-5: Proposed Project Solid Waste Generation Rates.................................................3-148
Table 4-1: Trip Generation of the Proposed Project Compared to Existing Conditions.....4-8
Table 4 -2: Comparison of Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project................................4-19
/� K-1.y HOrn
h A—V— Page v
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
This summary provides a brief description of the proposed project, known areas of
concern, project alternatives, and all potentially significant impacts identified during the
course of this environmental analysis. This summary is intended as an overview and should
be used in conjunction with a thorough reading of the Draft EIR. The text of this report,
including figures, tables and appendices, serves as the basis for this summary.
Summary of Proposed Project
Project Location
The project site is located at 1 1875 Dublin Boulevard (known as the Heritage Park office
complex) within the Dub/in Vi//age Historic Area Specific Plan area in the City of Dublin.
The project site is bound by San Ramon Road to the east; Dublin Boulevard to the north;
and Donlon Way to the west; and Interstate 580 (1-580) to the south.
Project Description
The Heritage Park project (hereinafter ''proposed project'')(City of Dublin Project
Application # PLPA 2013-00002) is a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment to
change the land use designations of the project site from ''Retail/Office" to ''Medium
Density Residential.'' The proposed project would include the demolition of an 1 10,000
square foot existing office complex known as the "Heritage Park" office complex and
would construct 54 small-lot single family homes and a two-story 14,000 square foot office
building on approximately 6.6 acres at 1 1875 Dublin Boulevard. Project entitlements
include the following:
Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan
Site Development Review
Vesting Tentative Tract Map(s)
Heritage Tree Removal Permit
Development Agreement
Summary of Environmental Impacts
All impacts identified in the subsequent environmental analysis are summarized in Table S-
1: Executive Summary of Project Impacts, which identifies impacts by each technical section.
Where mitigation measures are proposed, their title is included in the table. A complete
description of each mitigation measure can be found in the respective environmental
resource section.
Summary of Cumulative Considerable Effects
The proposed project would not result in any significant cumulative impacts.
P1 X,1Ki Il y HO
-d Associates.hc Page ES-1
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Summary of Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR describe and evaluate alternatives to the project that
could eliminate significant adverse project impacts or reduce them to a less-than-significant
level. The following alternatives are evaluated in this EIR in the Chapter 4 - CEQA
Considerations.
• Alternative #I — No Project Alternative
• Alternative #2 — Retail/Office Alternative
Page ES-2 b M� . Y. .
ntl Associates.� .
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Table S-1: Executive Summary of Project Impacts
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of
Without Mitigation Significance
Aesthetics
Impact 3.1-1: Damage Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant
to Scenic Resources
along Scenic Highways
Impact 3.1-2: Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant
Degradation of the
Visual Character of the
Project Site and
Surrounding Area
Impact 3.1-3: Light and Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant
Glare
Air Quality
Impact 3.2-1: Short- Potentially MM 3.2-1 a: Implement Short-term Less than Significant
term Construction Significant Construction Best Management
Emissions Practices
MM 3.2-1 b: Implement NOX
Reduction Measures
Impact3.2-2: Long- Potentially MM 3.2-2: Implement only natural Less than Significant
Term Operational Significant gas hearths in residential units
Emissions—Regional
Emissions
Impact 3.2-3: Long- Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant
Term Operational
Emissions- Localized
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Impact 3.2-4: Long- Potentially MM 3.2-4: Provide Upgraded Less than Significant
Term Operational Significant Ventilation Systems. Exposure to
Emissions—Toxics Air Odorous Emissions
Contaminants
Impact 3.2-5: Exposure Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant
to Odorous Emissions necessary
Impact 3.2-6: Long- Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant
Term Operational necessary
Emissions—Clean Air
Plan Consistency.
Cultural Resources
Impact 3.3-1: Historical Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant
Resources
Z„Ki .y-Horn C
\� antl ASSO v� ,hc. Page ES-3
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of
Without Mitigation Significance
Impact 3.3-2: Potentially MM 3.3-2a: Archaeological Less than Significant
Archaeological Significant Monitoring and MM 3.3-2b: Halt
Resources Work/Archaeological Evaluation
Site Specific Mitigation
Impact 3.3-3: Potentially MM 3.3-3: Halt Less than Significant
Paleontological Significant Work/Paleontological
Resources Evaluation/Site Specific Mitigation
Impact 3.3-4: Disturb Potentially MM 3.3-4: Halt Work/Coroner's Less than Significant
Human Remains Significant Evaluation/Native American
Interred Outside of Heritage Consultant/Compliance
Formal Cemeteries with Most Likely Descendent
Recommendations
Geology and Soils
Impact 3.4-1: Potential Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant
for Landslides
Impact 3.4-2: Potential Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant
for Fault Rupture
Impact 3.4-3: Exposure Potentially MM 3.4-3: Preparation of Design- Less than Significant
of People or Structures Significant Level Geotechnical Report
to Seismic Ground
Impact 3.4-4: Exposure Potentially MM 3.4-3: Preparation of Design- Less than Significant
of People or Structures Significant Level Geotechnical Report
to Liquefaction
Impact 3.4-5: Result in Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant
Soil Erosion
Impact 3.4-6: Exposure Less than Significant MM 3.4-3: Preparation of Design- Less than Significant
to Expansive Soil Level Geotechnical Report
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Impact 3.5-1: Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary. Less than Significant
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Impact 3.5-2: Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary. Less than Significant
Consistency with
Applicable GHG Plans,
Policies, or Regulations
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 3.6-1: Routine Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary. Less than Significant
Transport and/or
Disposal of Hazardous
Materials
P1
Page ES-4 b.- and� d Asssocia—a
tes Inc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of
Without Mitigation Significance
Impact 3.6-2: Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant
Handle/Emit Hazardous
Materials in the Vicinity
of a School
Impact 3.6-3: Interfere Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant
with an Emergency
Response
Plan/Emergency
Evacuation Plan
Impact 3.6-4: Potentially MM 3.6-4: Review Files for the Less than Significant
Accidental Conditions Significant former Dublin Square Shopping
During Construction Center and Prepare a Worker
Safety Plan
Impact 3.6-5: Potentially MM 3.6-5: Conduct a Vapor Less than Significant
Accidental Conditions Significant Intrusion Investigation
During Operation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 3.7-1:Violate Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant
Water Quality necessary
Standards or Waste
Discharge
Requirements
Impact 3.7-2: Deplete Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant
Groundwater Supplies necessary
and Groundwater
Recharge
Land Use and Planning
Impact 3.8-1: Create Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant
Land Use necessary
Incompatibilities or
Physically Divide a
Community
Impact 3.8-2: Conflict Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant
with Applicable Land necessary
Use Plans, Policies, or
Regulations
Noise
Impact 3.9-1: Exposure Potentially MM 3.9-1: Implement Short-Term Less than Significant
to Short-term Significant Construction Best Management
Construction Related Noise Practices
Noise and Vibration
Impact 3.9-2: Exposure Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant
to Short-Term necessary
Construction Related
Vibration
W�„K,miey Horn C'
\� and Associates.Inc. Page ES-5
Heritage Park Draft FIR
Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of
Without Mitigation Significance
Impact 3.9-3: Exposure Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant
to Long-Term necessary
Stationary Noise
Impact 3.10-4: Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant
Exposure to Long-Term necessary
Mobile Noise
Public Service and Utilities
Impact 3.10-1: Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant
Increased Demand for necessary
Fire Protection Service
Impact 3.10-2: Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant
Increased Demand for necessary
Law Enforcement
Service
Impact 3.10-3: Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant
Increased Demand for necessary
Educational Facilities
Impact 3.10-4: Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant
Increased Demand for necessary
Park and Recreation
Facilities
Impact 3.10-5: Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant
Increased Density for necessary
Library Services or
Other Public Facilities
Impact 3.10-6: Change Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant
in Wastewater necessary
Demand and Extension
of Wastewater
Infrastructure
Impact 3.10-7: Change Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant
in Water Demand and necessary
Extension of Water
Infrastructure
Impact 3.10-8: Change Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant
in Stormwater Runoff necessary
Impact 3.10-9: Change Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant
in Generation of Solid necessary
Waste
i nnad As-Ho,
Page ES-6
�� nssociates.Inc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Introduction
1 . Introduction
Purpose
This project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the potential environmental
effects of the proposed Heritage Park Office Complex General Plan and Dublin Village
Historic Area Specific Plan Amendment Study (hereinafter the "proposed project'') in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA
Guidelines. A full description of the proposed project is described in Chapter 2: Project
Description.
This EIR focuses on evaluation of the following environmental issue areas: aesthetics, air
quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gases and climate change, hazards
and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public
services and utilities.
This EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the
City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is an
"informational document" with the intended purpose to: ''inform public agency decision-
makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify
possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the
project." Although the Draft EIR does not control the ultimate decision on the proposed
project, the City must consider the information in the Draft EIR and respond to each
significant effect identified in the Draft EIR through findings in conjunction with any project
approval. As defined in Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines, a ''significant effect on the
environment" is:
"...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 a
physical change is significant.''
Environmental Review Process
The review and certification process for the Draft EIR will involve the following procedural
steps:
Notice of Preparation
In accordance with Section 15063(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Dublin
determined that an EIR would be necessary for the proposed project; therefore an Initial
Study was not prepared. In accordance with Section 15082(a) of the CEQA Guidelines,
the City of Dublin Community Development Department circulated a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), responsible and trustee
agencies and to the Alameda County Clerk for a period of 30-days to solicit comments on
/M„K,—y MOrn
and A—ales.Inc Page I-
Heritage Park Draft FIR
Introduction
the scope of the Draft EIR regarding the proposed project (See Appendix A). The
comment period of the NOP was from Friday, September 20, 2013 to Monday, October
21, 2013. Four comments letters were received on the NOP from the following agencies:
a Alameda County Transportation Agency
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
® Alameda County Flood and Conservation District (Zone 7)
Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered during preparation of the Draft
EIR and the comment letters are included in Appendix A of this Draft EIR.
Draft EIR
The Draft EIR contains a description of the proposed project, description of the
environmental setting, identification of project impacts and effects found not to be
significant, mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, and an analysis of project
alternatives.
Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City fled a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the
State Office of Planning and Research, in accordance with Section 15085 of the CEQA
Guidelines.
Public Notice/Public Review
The Draft EIR will be circulated for review and comment by the public and other interested
parties, agencies and organizations for a 45-day public review period from Monday March
3, 2014 through Thursday, April 17, 2014. Concurrent with the Notice of Completion
(NOC), the City provided a public Notice of the Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR for
public review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(a), and invited
comments from the general public, Responsible and Trustee Agencies, organizations, and
other interested parties. Notice of the time and location of a City meeting to receive
comments on the Draft EIR will be published prior to the meeting.
All comments or questions regarding the Draft EIR should be addressed to:
Mike Porto, Consultant Project Manager
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, California 94568
Tel: (925) 833-6610
Fax: (925) 833-6628
mike.porto @dublin.ca.gov
Page 12 i ZF1 Ktmi¢y-Horn
and As-ciates.Inc
Heritage Park Draft FIR
Introduction
Response to Comments/Final EIR
Following the public review and comment period for the Draft EIR, a Final EIR will be
prepared. The Final EIR will respond to comments received during the public review and
comment period. The City will review and consider the Final EIR prior to the decision to
approve, revise, or reject the proposed project or an altemative to the proposed project.
Certification of the Final EIR
If the City of Dublin finds that the Final EIR is ''adequate and complete," the City of Dublin
may certify the Final EIR upon findings in accordance with CEQA.
Project Consideration
After review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City of Dublin may act upon the
proposed project. A decision to approve the proposed project would be accompanied by
written Findings in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and, if applicable,
Section 15093 (Statement of Overriding Considerations).
Report Organization
Sections 15122 through 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines identify the content requirements
for Environmental Impact Reports. Among other things, an EIR must include: description of
the project and environmental setting; an environmental impact analysis; mitigation
measures; alternatives to the proposed project; identification of significant irreversible
environmental changes; growth-inducing impacts; and cumulative impacts.
The environmental issues addressed in the Draft EIR were established through the
preparation of environmental documentation and supporting technical reports developed
for the proposed project, public agency responses to the NOP and comments received.
Based upon documentation, technical reports, NOP responses, consultation with the City
of Dublin, and review of the project plans, the City of Dublin has determined the scope for
this EIR. This Draft EIR is organized in the following manner.
Section S—Executive Summary
This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project and provides a concise
summary matrix of the project's environmental impacts, associated mitigation measures.
Section 1.0—Introduction
This section provides an introduction and overview of the Draft EIR review and certification
process.
Section 2.0— Project Description
The project description provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including
project location, site conditions, intended objectives, background information and physical
and technical characteristics of the proposed project.
2„KIi y-Horn
b.. and A—ales InC Page 1-3
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Introduction
Section 3.0—Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section contains an analysis of environmental topic areas to be addressed, as identified
below. Each subsection contains a description of the existing setting of the planning area
and surrounding area and identifies project-related impacts and recommends mitigation
measures where necessary. The following major environmental topics are addressed in
Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR:
• Subsection 3.1, Aesthetics: The potential change in character of the project site as
measured against the existing setting and visual conditions and surrounding land
uses is discussed within this subsection of the Draft EIR. Project visibility, scale,
additional light and glare, and visual character are considered relative to existing
conditions at the project site. The analysis is based on a site reconnaissance, photo
documentation of the project site and vicinity, elevations of the proposed project,
and existing policy documents (e.g. City of Dublin General Plan and Dub/in V//age
Historic Area Specific Plan).
• Subsection 3.2, Air Quality: This subsection addresses the requirements of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and analyzes local and regional
air quality impacts associated with the proposed project including both short-term
construction impacts and long-term operational impacts from mobile and stationary
sources. It also addresses the potential for exposure to objectionable odors and
toxic air contaminants from Interstate 580 and surrounding uses. This analysis is
based on air quality modeling performed for the proposed project by RBF
Consulting, which is included in Appendix B of the Draft EIR.
Subsection 3.3, Cultural Resources: This subsection analyzes the presence or
absence of potentially significant archaeological and historic resources within the
project site based on existing studies including the Dublin Village Historic Area
Specific Plan / General Plan Amendment Mitigated Negative Declaration and
associated resource technical studies. Since the proposed project includes a
General Plan Amendment, the City of Dublin completed the Senate Bill (SB 18)
consultation process on June 1, 2013. This subsection also analyzes the potential
impacts to heritage trees that are located on the project site.
Subsection 3.4, Geology and Soils: This subsection examines potential geologic and
seismic hazards, as well as any engineering constraints and general soil suitability for
the proposed project. Information contained in this section is based on various
planning documents including the Soil Survey of Alameda County, as well as a
geotechnical report and a fault rupture investigation prepared by Stevens Ferrone &
Bailey in March 2012 and June 2013 on behalf of the project applicant, which was
peer reviewed by Cal Engineering and Geology on behalf of the City on July 15,
2013 and August 8, 2013. The geotechnical report, fault rupture investigation and
peer review is included in Appendix C of the Draft EIR.
E Subsection 3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change: This subsection
analyzes the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project on
Page 14 i_F,Kjrn¢'-Horn
\ a d Associates.hK
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Introduction
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change. The GHG emissions
modeling for the proposed project is included in Appendix B.
• Subsection 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials: This subsection evaluates the
potential presence of hazardous materials and contaminated soil within the project
site. The potential for onsite sources of contamination such as leaking hazardous
waste containers; lead-based paints; and asbestos-containing building materials,
among other items is also addressed within this subsection of the Draft FIR. This
subsection is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by
Bureau Veritas in February 2012. The potential risk of these conditions in proximity
to proposed development and human activities is evaluated within this subsection
of the Draft FIR. The Phase I ESA is included as Appendix D of the Draft FIR.
• Subsection 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality: The impacts of the proposed
project on hydrology, storm drainage, water resources and water quality are
discussed within this subsection. The analysis also identifies existing drainage
patterns, potential flood hazards, the proposed drainage plan, and stormwater
retention requirements of the City of Dublin. This section is based upon a pre- and
post-development storm water calculations prepared by Carlson, Barbee & Gibson,
Inc.
• Subsection 3.8, Land Use and Planning: The relationship of the proposed project to
relevant regional and local plans, including the Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific
Plan and the City of Dub/in Genera/ Plan and other local planning documents, is
discussed in this subsection. The analysis focuses on project consistency with
adopted plans and policies and the proposed project's relationship to the City of
Dublin General Plan and the Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Plan
• Subsection 3.9, Noise: Compatibility between the existing noise environment and
anticipated noise levels generated by the project-generated traffic, by on-site
activities and noise from area roadways and Interstate 580 with implementation of
the proposed project are examined within this subsection of the Draft FIR. The
analysis is based on a noise study prepared by Charles M. Salter and Associates,
which is included as Appendix F of the Draft FIR.
• Subsection 3.10, Public Services and Utilities: This subsection calculates demand
generated by the proposed project for additional public services such as schools,
parks/recreation facilities, police, and fire services. This subsection of the Draft FIR
addresses the provision of potable water service, wastewater treatment and
disposal, natural gas and electric service, and solid waste impacts are also addressed
in this subsection of the Draft FIR.
Section 4.0—CEQA Considerations
This section of the Draft FIR addresses the required discussions and analyses of various
topical issues mandated by CEQA Guidelines Section 15 126.2, including: significant and
unavoidable environmental effects; growth inducing impacts; significant irreversible
environmental changes and effects found not to be significant.
�Z„K^I y-Horn
� d As—ales,Inc Page 1-5
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Introduction
This section also addresses alternatives to the proposed project and cumulative impacts.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable
alternatives to the proposed project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the
project and avoid and/or lessen the environmental effects of the project. The alternatives
analysis compares the proposed project with two selected alternatives, which include the
following:
• Alternative #I — No Project Alternative
• Alternative #2 — Retail/Office Use Alternative
Section 5.0— Report Preparers and References
The purpose of this section is to provide a list of all authors and agencies that assisted in
the preparation of the report by name, title, and company or agency affiliation. It also
itemizes supporting and reference data used in the preparation of the Draft FIR and lists all
governmental agencies, organizations, and other individuals consulted in preparing the Draft
EIR.
Appendices
This section includes all notices and other procedural documents pertinent to the Draft FIR
as well as all technical reports prepared in support of the analysis.
Impact Terminology
This Draft FIR uses the following terminology to describe environmental effects of the
proposed project:
Standards of Significance: A set of criteria used by the lead agency to determine at what
level, or ''threshold'', an impact would be considered significant. Significance criteria used in
this FIR include the CEQA Guidelines and Statutes; factual or scientific information;
regulatory performance standards of local, state, and federal agencies; and the goals,
objectives, and policies of the City of Dublin General Plan.
Less Than Significant Impact A less than significant impact would cause no
substantial change in the environment and no mitigation is required.
Potential/,Significant Impact.'A potentially significant impact may cause a substantial
adverse change in the physical conditions of the environment. Mitigation measures
and/or project alternatives are identified to reduce project effects to the
environment.
Significant Impact Significant impacts are identified by the evaluation of project
effects using specified standards of significance. Mitigation measures and/or project
alternatives are identified to reduce project effects to the environment.
Significant Unavoidable Impact A significant and unavoidable impact would result in
a substantial change in the environment for which no feasible mitigation is available
Page I-6 i ZF,Kzi.,Horn.
,,Ass We ,
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Introduction
to reduce the impact to a less than significant level, although mitigation may be
available to lessen the degree of the impact.
• Cumulative Impact- Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual affects
which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase
other environmental impacts.
Pte^K—ey-Horn
b and Ass wes.Inc
Page I-7
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Project Description
2. Project Description
The proposed project is a General Plan and Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan
Amendment to change the land use designations on a 5.85 acre portion of the 6.6-acre of
the project site from Retail/Office (RO) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). The
proposed project would include the demolition of an 1 10,000 square foot existing office
complex known as the Heritage Park office complex and would construct 54 small-lot
single family homes and a two-story 14,000 square foot office building on approximately
6.6 acres.
2.2 Regional Location
The project site is located in the City of Dublin in northern Alameda County, near the
center of the Tri Valley region. Regional access to the City is from Interstate 580, Interstate
680, and the Dublin/Pleasanton line of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Cities that border
Dublin include San Ramon to the north (in Contra Costa County), Pleasanton to the south
and Livermore to the east. The regional location is shown in Figure 2-1: Regional Location.
2.3 Project Location
The project site is located at 1 1875 Dublin Boulevard within the Dub/in t///age Historic
Area Specific P lan area. The project site is bound by San Ramon Road to the east; Dublin
Boulevard to the north; and Donlon Way to the west; and Interstate 580 (1-580) to the
south. The project vicinity map is shown in Figure 2-2: Project Vicinity,
2.4 Existing Setting / Baseline Conditions
The project site currently contains a number of two-story commercial/office buildings
totaling 1 10,000 square feet of commercial/office space. The buildings are wood frame and
were constructed between 1978 and 1981. The remainder of the project site is comprised
of surface parking and landscaping, including 137 trees.
The project site is located approximately three to five feet below Donlon Way and slopes
from west to east at an elevation of 375 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the western
portion of the project site to 365 feet msl in the eastern portion of the project site.
Existing conditions of the project site are shown in photographs in Figure 2-3a and Figure
2-3b: Photographs of the Project Site.
Surrounding Land Uses
Surrounding land uses include the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums and a dog kennel to
the west across Donlon Way; a church, restaurant, and gas station bordering the project
site to the north; residential and commercial across Dublin Boulevard to the north; office
space to the east across San Ramon Road; and Dublin Creek and Interstate 580 to the
south. Surrounding land uses are shown in Figure 2-4: Surrounding Land Uses.
��Kimsey-Hom
and A�.,es. Page 2-1
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Project Description
2.4 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning
General Plan Designations
The City of Dub/in Genera/ Plan (City of Dublin 20 10) identifies the general locations,
density and extent of land available for housing, business, industry, natural resources
protection, recreation, and other uses.
The project site is designated Retail/Office in the City of Dub/in Genera/ Plan. The
following land use designations surround the project site: Medium/High Density Residential
(MHDR) to the north; Retail/Office (RO) and Parks/Public Recreation (PPR) to the west;
and Retail/Office (RO) to the east. Surrounding land use designations are shown in Figure
3.8-1: General Plan Land Use Designations.
Zoning
According to the City of Dub/in Zoning Map, the project site is zoned Planned
Development (PD). The zoning map of the project site is shown in Figure 3.8-2: Zoning
Designation.
Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan
The Dub/in V//age Historic Area Specific Plan was developed by the City to guide future
development to be sensitive to the area's historic past and to formalize the City's
commitment to preserving and enhancing the area's remaining historic, cultural, and
archaeological resources for the future. The Specific Plan includes goals and objectives for
the plan; an inventory of historic resources; and design standards and guidelines for future
development, including guidelines for the preservation and enhancement of historic
resources within the Specific Plan area.
The project site is designated Retail/Office (RO) and zoned PD in the Dub/in V//age
Historic Area Specific Plan.
2.5 Purpose and Objectives
Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), a clear statement of objectives
and the underlying purpose of the proposed project shall be discussed in the
Environmental Impact Report. The City of Dublin and the project applicant have provided
the following project objectives for the proposed project:
• Design new housing and commercial uses consistent with the Dub/in Vi//age
Hstoric Area Specific Plan.
• Ensure a viable infill project that provides for the creation of new housing in
proximity to Downtown Dublin and public transit.
• Create a community that is compatible in scale and design with surrounding land
uses.
Page 2-2 ►=rJ K-1e,Ha,
d A-,Ie he
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Project Description
Establish a cohesive community feel in the project area through compliance with
the Dublin Historic t///age Specific P lan design guidelines that ensure consistency
between individual neighborhoods while allowing unique architectural expression.
2.6 Proposed Land Uses
On November 20, 2012, the Dublin City Council adopted a resolution approving the
initiation of a General Plan and Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan Amendment Study
to change the General Plan land use designation for the portion of the project site that is
planned for residential development from Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential.
Following demolition of the Heritage Park office complex, the 6.6 acre project site would
be developed with 54 small-lot single-family homes on 5.85 acres, and a two-story 14,000
square foot office building on the remaining 0.75 acres. New drought-resistant landscaping
and lighting is proposed to complement the building architecture. A site plan of the
proposed project is shown in Figure 2-5: Site Plan.
The General Plan Amendment Study will be completed concurrently with processing other
entitlements requested by the project applicant. These include the following:
• Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan
• Site Development Review
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map(s)
• Heritage Tree Removal Permit
• Development Agreement
Single Family Residential Homes
The two-story 54 single-family residential homes would range in size from +/- 2,012 to
3,167 square feet and would be designed consistent with the development standards and
design guidelines set forth in the Dublin V//age Historic Area Specific Plan as well as
architectural guidelines to be submitted by the project applicant. The proposed single
family residential component of the proposed project would have an average density of 8.2
dwelling units per acre.
The single-family residential homes would be comprised of Craftsman and American
Farmhouse architectural styles and would be within the height limit of 45 feet (for more
than five units) prescribed by Chapter 8.3 6, Development Regulations of the City of Dublin
Municipal Code. Architectural elements and details would be constructed at a similar scale
and character as the surrounding land uses. These include the use of front and upstairs
patios and the use of varying building materials (e.g. board and batten siding and shingles)
that would break up the perceived mass of the building and provide visual interest.
Garages would generally be recessed from the front of each home. The conceptual design
PI
�
bndA—W— Page 2-3
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Project Description
of the proposed single-family residential units is shown in Figure 2-6a and Figure 2-6b:
Conceptual Residential Design.
Commercial Office Building
The proposed two-story commercial/office building would be located in the northwestern
corner of the project site adjacent to Donlon Way. The commercial building would be
comprised of 7,000 square feet per floor, for a total of 14,000 square feet. The ground
level of the building would have a wrap-around porch element, with low sloping roof
planes, exposed rafter ends, and trellis work. A lobby entry at the center of the building
would be comprised of a covered trellis and gable roof. An outdoor patio is also
incorporated to one side, framed with a low river rock wall. The second level of the
commercial building would have gable elements and sloping roofs. Mechanical equipment
would be screened by the sloping roof around the perimeter.
The bottom floor of the commercial office building would have river rock at the base, wall
shingles at the ground level, board and battens for the second level, and a composition
roof. All windows would be vertically oriented. The conceptual design of the proposed
commercial office building is shown in Figure 2-7a: and Figure 2-7b: Conceptual
Commercial Office Building Design.
Sound Walls
The proposed project includes an I I-foot noise barrier along the southern and eastern
boundaries of the project site bordering Interstate 580 and San Ramon Road. The sound
wall would continue in the northeastern portion of the project site between Lots #23
through #26. A five foot sound wall would be constructed along the northern border of
the project site between Lots #19 through #22 and a parking lot located north of the
project site.
2.7 Circulation and Parking
Primary access to the project site would be provided off Donlon Way and would include
an internal network of streets (Streets A through E). The residential component of the
proposed project would include a total of 250 parking spaces, including 108 garage spaces,
108 driveway spaces, and 34 guest spaces. Additionally, six new publicly accessible parking
spaces would be constructed along the east side of Donlon Way.
The parking area for the proposed commercial building would be shared with the two
adjacent properties located north of the project site (Church of Christ and the Frankie,
Johnnie, and Luigi restaurant) adjacent to Dublin Boulevard. The parking lot would include
71 standard spaces; 40 compact spaces; and six accessible spaces for a total of 1 18 parking
spaces. The project applicant proposes to enter into a shared parking agreement with the
church and restaurant to share these spaces, taking into account hourly and day of week
parking demands between the uses.
i� K-ley_Horn
Page 2-4 � nd As„�
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Project Description
2.8 Infrastructure Improvements
Stormwater
The project site is divided into two drainage areas. These drainage areas will be maintained
with the proposed improvements. Drainage Area I is 0.9 acres and it made up of the
existing church and restaurant buildings. The total flow generated by Area I was estimated
to be 1.7 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Carlson, Barbee Gibson, 1 1/24/13). Total post
development flow was estimated to be 3.4 cfs, for a net increase of 1.7 cfs. Area I
discharges into an existing 27'' storm drain main located in Dublin Boulevard, which has a
full flow capacity of 17.0 cfs. At present, it is not known yet if there is sufficient capacity in
this 27'' storm drain to accommodate the additional flow. The project applicant plans to
conduct a more details analysis as part of final design to determine if there is sufficient
capacity in the existing storm drain main. If not, a portion of the runoff generated by Area
I would be detained within a planned bioretention area to ensure that post development
flows do not exceed pre-development flows off site.
Drainage Area 2 is 7.1 acres and includes the existing office buildings and parking lots. The
total flow generated by Area 2 was estimated to be 1 1.7 cfs. Stormwater from Area 2
would be retained in one of two bio-retention ponds before being discharged into an
existing 24" storm drain pipe, located in the southeast corner of the site. This pipe
connects to an existing concrete lined channel (Dublin Creek) located within the Caltrans
right-of-way. The full flow capacity of the 24" outlet pipe was determined to be 12.4 cfs.
The total post-development flows generated by Area 2 was determined to be 8.5 cfs, or a
reduction of 3.2 cfs (Carlson, Barbee Gibson, I 1/24/13).The preliminary infrastructure
improvement plans are shown in Figure 2-8: Preliminary Utility Plan and Figure 2-9:
Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan.
Potable Water
The project site has multiple water laterals, which serve the existing office buildings located
off of Donlon Way. The proposed project would include an additional connection point to
the existing eight-inch main within Dublin Boulevard to create a looped system. As shown
in Figure 2-8: Preliminary Utility Plan, the on-site water system will serve Single Family
Residential Lots 8-54, while Lots 1-7 will be served with individual laterals from the public
water main located in Donlon Way.
Water Demand
As shown in Table 2-1: Existing and Proposed Water Demand, the proposed project
would result in a reduction in the water demand of 26,669 gallons per day as compared to
the existing commercial/office uses at the project site.
P�M^Kimiey-Horn
,,and Associates inc. Page 2-5
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Project Description
Table 2-I: Existing and Proposed Water Demand
Land Use Units and Acres Water Generation Rate Water Generation
Existin g Land Use
Commercial/Office 0.10 gallons per day/square
1 10,000 square feet (interior) and 3,125 1 1,000 gpd (interior)
feet gallons per day per acre 20,625 gpd (exterior)
6.6 Acres (exterior)
Proposed Land Use
Commercial/Office 14,000 Square 0.10 gallons per day/square 1,400 gallons per day
Feet feet (interior) and 3,125 (interior)
0.75 Acres gallons per day per acre 2,344 gallons per day
exterior exterior
Medium Density 54 units 225 gallons per day/dwelling 1,215 gallons per day
Residential unit
Subtotal 2,615 gpd (Interior)
2,344 gpd Exterior
(8,385) gpd (Interior)
(18,281) gpd (Exterior)
Net Difference 26,669 d
1. Rates from DRSD do not take into account recycled water use.
Source: DRSD and RBF Consulting,2013.
Sanitary Sewer
As shown in Figure 2-8: Preliminary Utility Plan, the proposed project would connect to the
existing eight inch sanitary sewer main located in Donlon Way. The existing sewer is
approximately five feet deep at the proposed tie-in point and therefore the proposed
project would require installation of a sewer pump. The on-site sewer system would serve
Lots 8 to 54 and Lots I to 7 and would have laterals connecting to the existing sewer main
located within Donlon Way. A separate sewer lateral would be installed for the
commercial office building, which would connect to the existing main in Donlon Way.
2.9 Construction Activities
Demolition, Grading and Excavation
The proposed project would include grading and site preparation activities within the entire
project site. This would include the demolition the two-story commercial/office buildings
totaling and removal of asphalt and existing utilities, generating approximately 2,500 tons of
mixed material. Figure 2-1 1: Demolition Plan presents the proposed demolition plan.
Approximately 15,700 cubic yards of soil would be imported to the project site in order to
elevate the grade on the north, east, and west parts of the project site. The proposed
project also includes the construction of several retaining walls located throughout the
project site including one at the southerly and easterly boundaries, which would be part of
the proposed sound walls. The preliminary grading plan for the proposed project is shown
in Figure 2-1 1: Preliminary Grading Plan.
Page 2-6 h C �ldAs �,�-
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Project Description
Tree Removal and Landscaping
Based on the Preliminary Tree Report prepared by HortScience (October 2013) for the
project applicant, the project site contains 137 trees. Of these, 33 were rated as Excellent,
37 Good, 40 Fair and 27 Poor. There are 19 Heritage trees as defined by Section 5.60 of
the City of Dublin Municipal Code (Heritage Tree Ordinance). 18 of these Heritage trees
are Coast redwood and one is a Coast live oak.
As shown in Figure 2-12: Tree Removal Plan, the proposed project would remove 107
trees, 16 of which are classified as Heritage trees. Of these Heritage trees, five of them are
California black walnuts located on the western edge of Donlon Way. 30 trees would be
preserved including three Heritage trees; namely two coast redwoods (29-inch and 25-
inches in diameter) and one coast live oak (28 inches in diameter) located on the
perimeter of the project site. To help off-set the impacts to these Heritage Trees, the
project applicant has agreed to fund the City in the amount of $19,000 to assist in the
planting trees in the proposed Orchard in the Heritage Park. This payment would be
provided to the City prior to issuance of the site grading permit.
As shown in Figure 2-13: Landscaping Plan, the proposed project would include extensive
on-site landscaping. This includes planting 13 trees (36'' box) along Donlon Way.
Numerous other trees and shrubs would be planted on site including redwoods, crape
myrtle, Japanese maple, and Southern magnolia.
2.10 Requested Actions, Entitlements, and Required Approvals
Initial entitlements required for development at the project site in the Dublin Village
Historic Area Specific Plan include the following actions to be taken by the Dublin City
Council:
EIR Certifcation.• Certification of the Heritage Park Environmental Impact Report
(EIR), including findings that identify significant environmental impacts of the
proposed project and mitigation measures that must be implemented as part of the
Project, which will be reflected in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP) and imposed as conditions of approval on subsequent discretionary
approvals. This action will be adopted by resolution.
Genera/Plan Amendment For the proposed residential portion of the project site,
the City of Dublin General Plan will be amended to: 1) Change the text to reflect
the new General Plan designation from Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential
and 2) Change the General Plan Land Use Map from Retail/Office to Medium
Density Residential for the residential portion of the project site.
Specific Plan Amendment For the proposed residential portion of the project site,
the Dublin t/'l/age Historic Area Specific P/an will be amended to: 1) Change the
text to reflect the new Specific Plan designation from Retail/Office to Medium
Density Residential and 2) Change the Specific Plan Land Use Map from
Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential for the residential portion of the
project site.
ey-H-n
C KimsAssociates ln Page 2-7 and
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Project Description
• Zoning Ordinance Amendments The zoning designation would remain Planned
Development; however, the zoning text would be amended to include provisions
and development regulations as they pertain to the respective Retail/Office and
Medium Density Residential portions of the project site.
• Development Agreement(DA).-Approval of a DA between the City of Dublin and
the project applicant. This action will be adopted by ordinance.
• Vesting Tentative Map:Approval of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. This action
will be adopted by resolution.
• Site Development Review. Approval of site and architectural review for the
proposed project. This action will be adopted by resolution.
• Grading and Improvement Plans Approval of site-specific grading plans and
improvements for individual neighborhoods. This action is ministerial and approved
by the City Engineer or Public Works Director.
The FIR is also available for use by Responsible and Trustee Agencies or other agencies
that may have jurisdiction or approval authority for the proposed project. These agencies
may include:
San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board
• Dublin San Ramon Services District
• Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7)
Page 2-8
P-Mn Kimsey-1J
Dixon Grove SACRAME
® COUNT
SONOMA ` NAPA
Sebastopol ®COUNTY I
' COUNTY \ I
RoPhnert (\X, ® \ Vacaville
Cotati Na a ` SOLANO
Sonoma p Fairfield COUNTY
\ 101 �� ® Galt
Petaluma Suisun City
p` ® Rio
Vista ,
J
Vallejo ' Lo
Novato ` Benicia �o
MARIN \�__ _�
QCOUNTY _
S
Rafa Hercules
X c and Martinez Antioch
®'.I Concord Stockton
101 Lafayette CONTRA
Walnut Creek COSTA Q ` AQ
1 COUNTY JOUNTY
�t B rkele Orinda counry
usalito ®� Danville ,1
!� r Lathrop
SAN FRANCISCO,
COUNTY �\ Oakland \ /
San lam CI San Ramon ,
Francisco'! I� -. -'/ Tracy
Dublin...
-- - PZroject Site
,
Daly 101^ Sang ® Livermore
City \LeandroL Hayward Pleasanton
Pacifica `San ALAMEDA I
/ ,Mateo Union COUNTY I
Millbrae /
- � City
D
Hillsboroug R 0�,�m Newark Fremont
Half Moorr ® _
Bay /1
Palo Milpitas
'_Alto
� 101 �®
Los i STANISL
Itos Santa
� Clara couN
QCupertino `)
San Jose \\\/
Saratoga SANTA I
OCLARA l\
COUNTY �I
® Los
I Gatos
Morgan
0
/ Q -,.,� Hill
T
Scotts
Valley SANTA CRUZ
�� COUNTY
Santa Capitola Gilroy
2 Cruz ^�\
Wa\ ville /�✓
- AdIk Hollister
Heritage Park EIR
Regional Location
CONSULTING Figure 2-1
A3- =CAmpanY
ll •
x
{ I.
.
•t _, 1c ;
y
�e j oect
� A i� .a•
Site
t-
ker
a.
f L 'w4 M
g i W
U 0
IL
O
N
3 J
C
O 00
N YI
C
E L
`. o cn 4J
;._ E 2 s
v
J. CL
d
O
Q
lf.
+- O
0 3
E
00-0
E
' o
l.1
o
� E _ o cL
Al-
s
_ U,
0 p O a Z
N
> D _
' , ► w M
rd
.°' ii
O
V
.o
a
s
4J
� � O
cc o H
o u
o
' 12 bA
O
4J
L O
od
v
c c CL
o
0
E
�; ao
v7 �
0
0 3
' 2 >
>
L
0
E
0
' r V
E LA
co
N
N
O C
L
0
tio
L
td
C ri
a
'
Q 0 0 ro
L 0O
0 V_m O
-C L'C 0
� u
ay N- C N
N C coC
N
U b
In
U a
3 N 0 • U
N
> O U a
Commercial
..•% mmer'
mercial /
ILO' I � ffice
:•" . ". �`F e,� }, �,,- „�:.— fir,,.
a
II
Dubl
Heritage Par'k' � �
and Museu
a w
f'
AfM 4w-
.. cw..v�m..ems- � �► i ,.
a
Source.City of Dublin,RBF Consulting(2013) Heritage Park EIR
Surrounding Land Uses
CONSULTING Figure 2-4
p3--Company
CHURCH OF CREST 20'-
]
lio
(TO RWAII) ■ LUIGI,TOO!
(TO REMAIN)
HERIT GE BOLLARDS HELL STATION
PROPOSED s (TO RDAAIN)
PARK -91AI OF WORK
3' 1'00 0 I is'A 'm� FUTURE CELL
I T N71'4414"t 102.16- –TOWER SITE•
6 WE 164. AT&T
20*– 24� .
5'DEDICATI(
HERITAGI
CHALLENGE 19 20 Z--N71*44'14 73.19' NI
IV 33' 200 DIARY PIA 2B PLAN x 21
' ' 10'. ■ 21
PLAN 2A 22 24
PLAN 3B PLAN IA 25
PLAN 111 26
� PLAN 1C
24
-STREET A
ETD
SEE DETAIL A
THIS SHEET
18 30
LM 2A 49 50 51 / I i 47 1 /
PLAN 53 RAN 38 PLAN 1A PLAN 2B 52 PLAN 3B
28
2B RM 3C PLAN 3C 27
17 PLAN 1A
PLAN 113 4.5' PPROPOWSED
4.5 48 RETANDIG WALL
2 16 PLAN 2B 53 3128 32 33
PLAN 2A PLAN
3' PLAN 1A PLAN IA
20'
47
PLAN 3A 54
KM 1A
3 PLAN 1B
RM 5A 46
PROPOSED 14
2
37
' I 4 13 PLAN 36 PLAN 3A
PLAN 48 PLAN 1C I PLAN 2C PLAN to / 7zl *5. PROPOSED
WZt
RETANNRG
� / / t PROPOSED 11'SdN1DWN1
12
PLAN 2A
5' S C CALAVERAS 39
FAULT PLAN
PLAN 58 11 m T—p 40
PLAN 1B PLAN 2A
' t I 20' 42
PLAN 2C
41
9
PLM 31
APN
7 ,.941-1550-001-10
PLAN 5A 8
PLAN M
150.40'
.325VIrW 2.27— PROPOSED 11'SOUNDWALL PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIGHT—OF—WAY
1 PROPERTY UNE
SIDEWALK.CURB&GUTTER
--———————- LIMIT OF WORK
BIO-RETENTION DRAINAGE AREA
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
Source:Carlson,Barbee&Gibson,Inc.(2014)
Heritage Park EIR
Site Plan
CONSULTING Figure 2-5
A=- company
µ
�f
i
5 =° no -
Jw
yam,` � •
�4
w�
dam
s
�e A'
av
in
y ' �
Z •J Rf'r I..
clip." _ >I
1�s61 urea
Np
fair
GGGS z.
O •
'it$q Ya
1 •
�w r,pie EVER
I 4
■WA a `
eel
0 MUM
•
T
e
ej
1
7 ,°
:1
R
1
T APP
wool
.• 1S
t
E iE r
w t
M ILI� fly
M K'®
Mi
All
$73®d9 .4 x •...�� ��
♦4 .. �4 1 R�:..
•
y WE MW ■©m,
'■o®
■i-M
s MMM
.+.• i ®.a � ��'i� 4a
■no ^k%� •
a KIM
rx
alum
Nam
i MINE
lot
��t• esr~ ` si.
1
e
, ry
..r u 1
5
EX INV
CHURCH OF .5
E J0 &
PR%rrArCTE C, LUIGI TOO! SHELL STATION
M RUM)
J
CB X 1FI I PROPM
2 INV 363.8 12'INV 36141�0t,WORK
Ss 4 sS
X=TOR BACKFLOW AT&T A;;ROAD
SDI H 4
12'INV 364.0 A
9
19— 20 21 /1 .31615
TO RD"
NV 22 23
Pump STATION FT 3W 6 10 24
8:INV WT%9.11 INV .6 '1 —INV IN 355.9 F
SSMI-I 3 SSMH 5
8'INV 356.5 8'INV 357.4
El
351149
z w 36 CO 7 NV 1—/
7. 3 1 NV 90.8
�5
18
T 49 51 29 28
I--
52
0: 27
�z Ul/
13.2
2 16 58 3- � 4831 9 n
2 13 32 3 0--
15 4:6
54 34
'1
3
1 _ _
46 35
14 43
' i __-.. /' Nv 967
38
13 „ 27
45 44 V ML*
12 6 /
i w
4 8'IN 98.3 I
F12 -1
f
5 a w f T -
INV 36TO
40
1 NV 961 EX 2'r W PK
42. INTO WIDENED OVAR
UNDER
6 !tv*Po.
3=5
41
9 0.11
APN
7 941-1550-001-10
5
PROPOSED
EXISTING PROPOSED
FIRE SERVICE
EXISTING PROPOSED _DESCRIPTION MANHOLE
PROJECT BOUNDARY CATCH BASIN
CURB,GUTTER,SIDEWALK&DRIVEWAYS M M FIELD INLET
O BIO-RETENTION DRAINAGE AREA BUBBLE UP
AREA DRAIN
SD SD STORM DRAIN Ak FIRE HYDRANT
SANITARY SEWER T TRASH
WATER (D SUMP PUMP (FOR BIO-RETENTION
1 Source:Carlson,Barbee&Gibson,Inc(2014) Heritage Paris EIR
411) Preliminary Utility Plan
CONSULTING Figure 2-8
A 3- =Company
Vuu►1�` �! _�""I -��'"�- -"""���� �J III
p -
LSII� I r ' I r r
■ r
F
i�/
� / �I► r
Y
IVA
Vd
qojo
��r
..... .. ...
DUBLIN BOULEVARD
I r
CHURCH OF CHRIST r ' b b.
(TO REMAIN) FRANM,JOHNNIE&LUIGI,TOO! b
IX P VEYENT "'•
x !, (ro rErNM) ro p
I
r; SHELL STATION °
v b (M w")
b •
1
—
i ss PPE t /////p 6205.. Pre
,
Po91DM
mm
—
.....:.... .:
E%'01 IF Sa PrE�: . .. :::.:. .....
.........................
FOAM 71 LF
1
b
... ...........................
ro sE wEMOrEn) + +
� b
i � ^ O
�w o
b
( j (100 30, SF MIN
FOR STOCUUMPROCESSING °
. 1 ., tE PflIPRD w b �
EX 268 l!`W�PIPE
TO BE R MOVED
1 °y ro eE REMOVED 4,
SD
1
t
I I >
m ro
BE
1 APN b b
I EX 155 EE 2 PWE ,, 941-1550-001-10
.y� O
TQ D.E. YPL �
b
EXISTING BUILDING TO BE REMOVED(BUILDING FOOTPRINT= 82,370 SFt)
EXISTING PAVEMENT/SIDEWALK TO BE REMOVED (166,740 SFt)
....«.-...-- EXISTING UTILITIES TO BE REMOVED
EX SD EXISTING STORM DRAIN PIPE TO REMAIN
EX SS EXISTING SANITARY SEWER PIPE TO REMAIN
EX W EXISTING SANITARY SEWER PIPE TO REMAIN
Source:Carlson,Barbee&Gibson,Inc.(2014) Heritage Park EIR
PF Demolition Plan
CONSULTING Figure 2-10
A3- =Company
DUBLIN 13OULEVARD
GE I CHURCH OF aws TC P .4 1A TC 3
P"& (M BEM") TC 371.5 TC 3]CC e
JOHNNIE F
vw LLJIGI,TOO! SHELL STATION UN
U TC (M REMAN)
TC 371
TC 371 TC 370.8 TOP 1713.1-W "-_LUT OF WOMM
B TC 372.5 TC 771.0 TC 372.4 C TC 371.]
941-1550-0 C
EX 3N 2L_ nv
TC TC 370.7 TC 369.5 -
T TC 369.1 19 C
P=1
' 1 +_ P OFFICE c 1126 zu (I/)- '
TC 3743 B/W 37 pn., 22 23
7C 3M.9 P -1 24
TC 36 6,n"'vp p il., p
36 4 TC
8 365.3
371.6, �70.7 S7
STREET A
% 3,33% TC 372.3 ID 5.2
366.8 i.317
B/W B/W 362.5 IN 1 36•
B 374.;i8 49 $0 $1
P i74A p Me P 360 ..... FEMM fm OVOL"
P 3M3 7' M7.5 29 TAIM
311�\ ;;2 P wX7A 2
37 4 9/W W
P 368.8 27 17 7 B/W 3M 36- p
B /w 5.�
2 I6 48 ER A
p B/W 367.5 p 3 M 366.6
P 36L2 32 P M&O
--F1W-356I B/W 365.7 P357.1
dl 1 -71 �47 365.9 D Sw�
15 314A. 34
'ii�'\ p 375.5 '36.7 D
366
z
P 37.6 ZLJ -S 35 Vj
1 14 P 375
P 376.0 M 3740 L�
RETN"G IN IOCKER C4 i TC
BOARD OF FENCE P'Nia i xa7 3
4 p j64- 36
P J77.2 13 91W 367.7 1 "1/1-1 -
P 376.2 EX
TW 369.91 7
1 8 3163 C 374.5 12 369.6 81W 367.5 367"
P 376.3 14�3jU
:ij 5 373.8 -2.5� 371�5 TC 11 1117
P 376.0
I 1I 42 B/w 371-9 4d 0SM aw"I EX /PIPE MOVAM
0 3754 P 3M�_- ....... NARDM MEL
10 OVMRM
P 375.5 B/W=4
F 377.4
9
P 375.1
941-1550-001-10, A
-C-
F I
TC 37 3n. E
�77 p
7"
4
J- f M 4'WiMM
EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION
SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY
RETAINING WALL
SOUNDWALL
SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER
STORM DRAIN
EX 369.29 x364.68 SPOT ELEVATIONS
x
40 OVERLAND RELEASE DIRECTION I
Source:Carlson,Barbee&Gibson,Inc.(2014) Heritage Park EIR
Preliminary Grading Plan
CONSULTING Figure 2-11
A-�- cumpany
LIN BOULEVARD _
I
CHURCH OF CHRIST — FRANM JOHNNIE&LUIGI,TOO!
X R (TO REMAIN)
(r0 ROM)
i _j±: >
SHELL STATION
1 HERTTAGE ; I \ = nD RE11N1)
CID
Izi
JCID
\\ HERITAGE TREE SUMMARY
NOTES
iR®9 SPECIES 7RUNKDIAME7ER PN.) PROPOSE ON
VATHM PROJECT AREA
31 COAST RMWDOD� JO COAST REDWOOD
27 RE710RE W1 o PROJECT AREA
COAST REDW000 PRESERVE EDGE OF PROJECT AREA;RESTADRANT
40 CDA REDWOOD D PRESER,E EDEE 6 PROJECT AREA:RESTAIMANT
p1E EDGE OF PROJECT AREk AT&T PACUTY
. MAST DRMWOOD 28 22 �MOVE VEM PROJECT-
OMUWST UTHN' V`�/� / ^- •m n COAST REDWOOD 30 AREA
COAST R
90 EIYYOOD
27 REMOVE WTIDI AREA
RV RO
ZB yONE RIM PECT AREA
91 COW REDWOOD
REhM WM PROJECT AREA
92 MAST REDw9DD
93 COAST REDWOOD
32 REMOVE M7NN PROJECT AREA
94 CAST REDWOOD
30 RELOW WT W PROECT AREA
n IEyOAE W1TIW,PROJECT AREA
EXISTING NON—HERITAGE TREE TO BE REMOVED 95 COAST"`DM
ss Garr RmWaaD
Sl REypyE MI➢IN PEOJECT AREA
97 COST REDWOOD 29
SNOW ERT11M PROJECT AREA
EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE REMOVED COAST gEDWOro REWaE INTO PROJECT
AREA
,Op
fQLOYE wTNM RIQECT AREA
338 EXISTING NON—HERITAGE TREE TO BE PRESERVED CAST REDWOOD 32 RaM WONM PROJECT AREA
124 CAST REDWOOD 30
125 CAST IEDWOC
31 RDJCNE W1TO PROJECT AREA
® OWING HERITAGE TREE TO BE PRESERVED raow MTNM PROJECT AREA
124 C WAST REDOOD JO
Source:Carlson,Barbee&Gibson,Inc.(2014) Heritage Park EIR
0 Tree Removal Plan
CONSULTING Figure 2
A=company
FAULT LINE AND SETBACKS
,TRASH RECEPTACLE
g AREA WITH
CONCRETE
19 2O WOE(' ` ,I VING,TYP &
PPA
• ~v i OF n PI.N12 RANS -
21 O K
FLOWERING ACCENT F'^C 6I `PLAN2 22 23 24
TREE VG j GgAN pLM17 2C
r.-q-,r- ^1 9 T PuNJ,
ACCENTTREE `MIT OF WOK 26
PLAN,
ENTRY PILASTERS -. . _ .-. '-__• _ '..
6'GOOD NEIGHBOR
FENCE AT RETAINING 16 '
WALL
PLAN PLAN, 1 N1 29
1 9ALT PLAN - .
MA 6-UNIT CLUSTER Rµ PLAN
MAILBOX , o SALT PLAN; 27
G PLAN,
2
PLAN 4 482 53 31 32 33 0
LOW FRONT GATE AND 16 PLAN PLAN I O
HEDGE ALONG PLAN RANI
DONOLON WAY AND - 3
i
LOOP ROAD
47 54 -x1A5rI PLAN; IN/tl _ PLAN 34 1 O
3 4z
PLAN 5 LG
D
O - '--12 46 35 43 PLLµ, Q
Z -
• PLAN, ,
p 4 38
PLAN. 13 PUN. 36
PLAN 9
PLAN
S GOOD NEIGHBOR G
FACE BETWEEN LOTS, 12
PLAN
6'WOOD GATE ON 0; __..
GARAGE SIDE OF PLAN 39
UNIT.TYP
11 40
TRASH RECEPTACLE PIAN
PLAN 2
AREA WITH CONCRETE
PAD&PAVING,TYP • 0 42 ,q,
$OUNDWALL
PLAN PUW2 PLAN
L7
_ (2)1 Si1NR CLUSTER MAILBOX
,
-_.. ACCENTTREE �QCe
\C
• - ''.. 9
PLAN FLOWERING ACCENT TREE 0\
7 G PLNI3 BID DETENTION AREA
PLAN 5
PLµ, PROPOSED SHRUBS PALETTE
' LIMIT OF WORK
BOTANICAL NAME COMMONNAME SIZE SPACING
SHRUBS IGAL Ir O.C.
DWARF LILY OF THE NILE &GAL ;•O.C.
— — AGAPANTHUS'PETER PAN' LILY OF THE NILE
AGAPANTHUS'MIDKNIGHT BLUE' BOXWOOD 5GAL vO.C.
BUXUS M.J.'GREEN BEAUTY' PINK BREATH OF HEAVEN &GAL ;'O.C.
COLEONEMA PULCHRUM COMPACT ESCALLONIA SGAL ;'O.C.
ESCALLONIA COMPAKTA FORTNIGHT LILY 1 GAL S O.C.
PROPOSED TREE PALETTE FETUCA GARDENIA ,GAL 7O.C.BLUE FIETSSP. UCA GARDENIA ;GAL YO.C.
GARDENIA SP. i GAL O.C.
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME GREVILLEA
' SIZE CITY GAURA LINDHEIMERI GAURA S 2'GAL 4'O.C.
GREVILLEA SP. I GAL Ir O.C.
HEMEROCALLIS HYBRIDS EVERGREEN OAVLILLY &GAL .'O.C.
SYMBOL LIRIOPE MUSCARI BLUE TURF LILY SGAL CO.C.
STREET TREE LOROPETALUM C.'RAZZELBERRI' CHINESE FRINGE FLOWER ;GAL Y O.C.
HARBOR DWARF NANDINA SGILL TO.C.
O pLATANUS RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE 24"BOX 8 NANDINA IX HARBOR DWARF' CAT MINT 4'O.C.
NEPETA'SIX HILLS GIANT' SWEET OLIVE i GAL
OSMANTHUS FRAGRANS IGAL
78'O.C.
DWARF NEW ZEALAND FLA% &GAL Ir O.C.
O pLATANUB RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE 36"BOX S PHORMIUM 700 SPRATT' DWARF NEW ZEALAND FIAX
PHORMIUM TOM THUMB' NEW ZEALAND FLAX &GAL SOC.
PHORMIUM'MAORI SUNRISE' SGAL S'O.C.
PHOTINIA FRASERII PHOTINIA SO
FRONT YARDIACCENT TREE VARIEGATED PITTOSPORUM s GOAL ;•D.C.
15 GAL 22 PITTOSPORUM T.'VARIEGATA'
ACER PALMATUM JAPANESE MAPLE IS GAL PITTOSPORUM T.'WHEELERS DWARF DWARF PITTOSPORUM SGAL 4'O.C.
O CARPINUS BETELUS HORNBEAM 15 GAL PODOCARPUS M.MAKI YEW PINE GAL 4'O.C.
LAGERSTOREMIA SPP. CRAPE MYRTLE 15 GAL RHAPHIOLEPIS SP. INDIA HAWTHORN I GAL S O.C.
PRUNUS C.'KRAUTER VESUVIUS' PURPLE LEAF PLUM CARPET ROSE S GAL ;•O.C.
15 GAL ROSA SP. GERMANDER
PVRUS C.CHANTICLEER FLOWERING PEAR i5GAL TEUCRIUM F.'COMPACTUM' SGAL SO.C.
TRISTANIOPSIS LAURINA WATER GUM VIBURNUM T.'SPRING BOUQUET' LAURUSTINUS 5GAL CO.C.
PISTACHE CHINENSIS CHINESE PISTACHE 24"BOX 16 WESTRI.G,TA FRUTICOSA
COAST ROSEMARY
24"BOX
MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA 86 VINES
15 GAL i GAL S O.C.
LAGERSTROEMIA SPP. CRAPE MYRTLE TRALHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDIES STAR JASMINE
SGAL 20
O ACER PALMATUM JAPANESE MAPLE 15GAL GROUNDCOVERS rD.C.
NANDINA DOMESTICA HEAVENLY BAMBOO BEARBERRY I GAL'
ARC7OSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI WILD STRAWBERRY CLUMPING I GAL ,S•O.C.
FRA 01 CHILOENSIS IGAL 1Y O.C.
SCREENING TREE GAZANIA'WHIRO WHITEALIAN A ;'D.C.
REDWOOD 24"BOX & AUSTRALIAN BLUEBELL CREEPER 1 GAL
SEQUOIA SEMPERVIRENS SOLLVA HETEROPHYLLA
' Source:Carlson,Barbee&Gibson,Inc.(2014) Heritage Park EIR
Landscape Plan
CONSULTING Figure 2-13
A—Cumpany
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Environmental Setting, Impacts& Mitigation Measures
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures
Each environmental section in this chapter presents information in four parts:
• Environmental Setting - provides a general overview of the conditions on and
adjacent to the planning area.
• Regulatory Setting — describes the local, state and federal regulations which are
relevant to the proposed project.
• Relevant Project Characteristics - provides a more detailed description of the
elements of the proposed project that are relevant to the impact analysis for a
particular topic. Relevant project information may relate to the size, characteristics
and/or location of project elements. Any project elements that may cause impacts,
as well as those that may serve to minimize impacts, are identified.
• Impacts and Mitigation Measures - provides a brief description of standards that
were used to evaluate whether an impact is considered significant based on
standards identified in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and agency policy or
regulations. Impacts are identified and analyzed. Mitigation measures that would
reduce potentially significant or significant impacts are identified, as well as the
significance of the impact after implementation of mitigation measures. If a
potentially significant impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level
through the application of mitigation, it is categorized as a significant unavoidable
impact.
Referenced figures are presented at the end of each section.
C„a mley Horn
dA—w- Page 3-1
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Aesthetics
3.1 Aesthetics
This section describes the aesthetic and visual resources of the project site and its
surroundings, and discusses the potential aesthetic impacts that may result with
implementation of the proposed project. The primary visual and aesthetic issues are
related to redevelopment of the proposed project and its visibility from Interstate 580 to
the south and from the Heritage Park and Museums located to the west of the project site.
Visual impacts were evaluated using a combination of a site reconnaissance, building
elevations and architectural renderings prepared by the project applicant, review of photo
documentation and aerial photographs, and a review of existing policy documents (e.g. City
of Dublin General Plan and Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan).
Environmental Setting
Visual Image
Visual images dominate an observer's impression of a district, city, or region. To
understand how visual images influence an observers impression, the aesthetic value of an
area must first be defined. Aesthetic value is a measure of visual character and scenic
quality combined with a viewer's response to the area. Viewer response is a combination
of viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity. Viewer exposure to a viewshed varies with the
number of viewers, the number of views seen, the distance of the views, and the viewing
duration. Viewer sensitivity is related to the extent of the public's concern for particular
visual resources.
Both natural landscapes and the built environment contribute to perceived visual images
and aesthetics value of a view. Aesthetic value is influenced by geologic, hydrologic,
botanical, wildlife, recreational, and urban features. Visual images and their perceived visual
quality can vary significantly seasonally and even hourly as weather, light, shadow, and the
elements that compose the resource change.
Definition of Terms
Numerous methods have been developed to characterize the scenic quality of a visual
resource and the viewer response to that resource. However, no standard approach to
visual analysis exists. Instead, several approaches that focus on different visual aspects or
issues are used. One commonly used set of criteria includes vividness, intactness, and unity.
• Vividness is the visual power or memorability of landscape components as they
combine in striking or distinctive visual patterns.
• Intactness is the visual integrity of the natural and human-built landscape and its
freedom from encroaching elements; this factor can be present in well-kept urban
and rural landscapes, as well as in natural settings.
Unity is the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape
considered as a whole; it frequently attests to the careful design of individual
components in the landscape.
��Krm!ey-Horn
h � Ass—ales Inc Page 3-3
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Aesthetics
Regional Visual Setting
The City of Dublin is located in the Tri-Valley region of the East San Francisco Bay Area.
The visual setting of the region is defined by several urban communities (Pleasanton,
Livermore, Danville, Dublin, and San Ramon) that are surrounded by hillsides, vineyards,
and natural open space.
Project Setting
The project site is flat and is developed with a number of two-story commercial office
buildings. The buildings are generally set back from the street edge are a light grey color.
The surface parking lots are surrounding by landscaping which largely consists of trees (137
in total) and lawn. A number of pedestrian pathways provide access from the perimeter
sidewalk to the interior building spaces. Photographs of the existing project site are shown
in Figure 2-3a and Figure 2-3b: Photographs of the Project Site.
Surrounding Land Uses
Surrounding land uses include the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums and a dog kennel to
the west across Donlon Way; a church, restaurant, and gas station bordering the project
site to the north; residential and commercial across Dublin Boulevard to the north; office
space to the east across San Ramon Road; and Dublin Creek and Interstate 580 to the
south. Surrounding land uses are shown in Figure 2-4: Surrounding Land Uses.
Scenic Vistas
A scenic vista is a view that possesses visual and aesthetic qualities of high value to the
community. Scenic vistas can provide views of natural features or significant structures and
buildings. The term "vista" generally implies an expansive view, usually from an elevated
point or open area. There are no designated scenic vistas in the project vicinity.
Scenic Resources and Roadways
According to the City of Dublin General Plan, 1-580, 1-680, and Dougherty Road were
designated scenic routes by Alameda County in 1966. These are primary routes from
which people traveling through Dublin gain their impression of the City. Therefore, it is
important that the quality of views be protected.
Interstate 680 (1-680) is also designated as a State Scenic Highway. According to the State
Scenic Highway website, ''the scenic aspects of the corridor feature the rolling wooded hills
of the Contra Costa range contrasted with the flat Sunol Valley ringed by distance hills to
the north and east.'' While not officially listed, 1-580 is eligible for listing as a State Scenic
Highway.
Section 5.6, Implementing Policy B in the City of Dublin General Plan requires that design
review be conducted for all projects visible from a designated scenic route. The project
site is partially visible from 1-580.
The project site does not contain any natural resources, monuments, or unique buildings
that would be classified as scenic resources.
h , nd As—ate Inc
Page 3-4
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Aesthetics
Light and Glare
Lighting nuisances can generally be categorized by the following:
• Glare — Intense light that shines directly, or is reflected from a surface into a
person's eyes;
• ''Skyglow''/Nighttime Illumination — Artificial lighting from urbanized sources that
alters the rural landscape in sufficient quantity to cause lighting of the nighttime sky
and reduction of visibility of stars and other astronomical features; and
• "Spillover'' Lighting — Artificial lighting that spills over onto adjacent properties,
which could interrupt sleeping patterns or cause nuisances to neighboring residents.
The project site is part of a city and region that contributes to nighttime lighting. Existing
office buildings at the project site that have reflective surfaces can also cause glare at certain
times of the day based on the location and angle of the sun.
Regulatory Setting
State
Streets and Highway Code, Section 260 et seg. - State Scenic Highway Program
The California Scenic Highway Program (CSHP) was created by the Legislature in 1963
with the purpose of preserving and protecting scenic highway corridors from change, which
diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. The stated intent (Streets and
Highway Code Section 260) of the California Scenic Highway Program is to protect and
enhance California's natural beauty and to protect the social and economic values provided
by the State's scenic resources. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how
much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape,
and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler's enjoyment of the view.
The CSHP includes a list of highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic
highways or have been so designated. These highways are identified in Section 263.1 of the
Streets and Highways Code.
State highways nominated for scenic designation must first be on the statutory list of
highways eligible for scenic designation in the State Scenic Highway System. County
highways nominated for scenic designation that are believed to have outstanding scenic
values are considered eligible and do not require any legislative action. Both State and
county highway nominations follow the same process and have the same requirements.
Scenic highway nominations are evaluated using the following criteria:
The State or county highway consists of a scenic corridor that is comprised of a
memorable landscape that showcases the natural scenic beauty or agriculture of
California (see definition for ''vividness'', under Section III: Step 1, Visual
Assessment).
M„K-ley-Hem
b� -d ASaoao-M, Page 3-5
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Aesthetics
• Existing visual intrusions do not significantly impact the scenic corridor (see
definitions for ''intactness" and "unity'' below, under Section III. Step I: Visual
Assessment).
• Demonstration of strong local support for the proposed scenic highway
designation.
• The length of the proposed scenic highway is not less than a mile and is not
segmented.
The status of a state scenic highway changes from eligible to officially designated when the
local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to the California
Department of Transportation for scenic highway approval, and receives notification from
Caltrans that the highway has been designated as a Scenic Highway. According to the
California Department of Transportation (Ca/trans) Scenic Highway Program (CSHP),
Interstate 680 is officially designated as a State Scenic Highway. While not officially listed
Interstate 580 is eligible for listing as a State Scenic Highway.
Local
Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan
The following design guidelines for residential, commercial and mixed-use land uses in the
Dublin Vil/age Historic Area Specific Plan would be applicable to the proposed project.
Residential Design Guidelines
The residential design guidelines require that future single family homes within the Specific
Plan area honor the image and character of historic Dublin (e.g. small to moderate-sized
single family homes, etc.). Multi-family uses should be designed to resemble a single family
home and the site design should resemble a more traditional neighborhood character (e.g.
streets have sidewalks, etc.). Residential design guidelines include but are not limited to the
following:
a Incorporation of Local Vernacular, Folk Victorian, and Craftsman/California
Bungalow architectural styles;
M Be constructed with pedestrian-oriented mass and scale;
K Ensure compatibility between building forms and architectural design of the home;
9 Ensure design of side and rear facades;
r Construction of one to two-story homes;
Use of building materials reflect the traditional and historic character of Dublin
Village;
9 Use of simple building colors that were commonly used in the 1800s and 1900s;
6 Incorporation of window fenestration that is compatible with the architectural style
of the home; and
Incorporation of detached garages.
P�On K,mley-Horn
Page 3-6 \� antl ASSOaa;es
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Aesthetics
Commercial and Mixed-Use Design Guidelines
Commercial and mixed-use design guidelines encourage buildings to have a strong
relationship with the street and sidewalk. Site planning guidelines address a range of design
topics including:
• Parking lots behind buildings;
• Building footprints;
• Driveway locations;
• Parking lot driveways;
• Shared driveways;
• Shared parking;
• Pedestrian circulation;
• Loading facilities;
• Trash disposal areas;
• Land use buffers; and
• Heritage trees and resources.
Commercial and mixed-use design guidelines encourage commercial architecture to
emulate the vernacular architecture that once existed in Dublin Village (e.g. relatively simple
buildings with a pedestrian-oriented scale). Porches are highly recommended, as well as
wood framed construction (e.g. vertical wood siding, wood shingle siding, and brick or
stone as a building base).
General Design Guidelines
General design guidelines applicable to both residential and commercial and mixed-use
development include lighting standards that address the appropriate use of light (e.g.
designed to be directed and shielded and the control of off-site glare), as well as
landscaping guidelines that addresses the use of indigenous drought-tolerant plant material,
enhancement of landscaping around walkways, the use of fencing and screens, parking lot
pavement materials, and land use buffers.
City of Dublin General Plan
The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to aesthetics and
visual character within the project area.
5.6: Guiding Policy A. Incorporate County-designated scenic routes, and the proposed
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.
5.6: Implementing Policy B. Exercise design review of all projects visible from a designated
scenic route.
P-Mn Ki Il y-Flom
�M �d As �tl s t,c Page -
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Aesthetics
In addition to the above policies, the General Plan Community Design and Sustainability
Element contains a number of policies related to urban design and visual character. Policies
address a range of topics, including:
• Site and Building Design;
• Landscaping and Natural Features;
• Gathering and Open Space Areas;
• Signage, Lighting, and Art;
• Parking and Circulation; and
• Villages.
Relevant Project Characteristics
The proposed project would demolish the existing office buildings and construct 54 two-
story single family residential units, as well as a two-story 14,000 square foot commercial
office building. The proposed project would also include grading and site preparation
activities, including the removal of 107 trees.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Criteria for Determining Significance
In accordance with the CEQA, State CEQI Guidelines Appendix G, and agency and
professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project
would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
• Substantially damage scenic resource, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings, within a state scenic highway;
• Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and
surroundings, and/or
• Create a new source of substantial light or glare, such that it poses a hazard or
nuisance.
Methodology
The analysis of potential aesthetic impacts within this section is based on a site
reconnaissance of the project site and surrounding area, a review of policies and guidelines
in both the City of Dublin General Plan and the Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Plan,
and review of the site plans including the building elevations and architectural renderings of
proposed project.
Potential impacts were assessed by forecasting the anticipated appearance of future
development within the project site based on the site plan and conceptual elevations to
evaluate the aesthetic value of the project site. Nighttime lighting and day and nighttime
I� Kiml y HO
Page 3-8 h � -dASSa,W-
Heritage Parlc Draft FIR
Aesthetics
glare were assessed qualitatively and existing sources of light and glare were identified and
quantified where possible.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista
According to the City of Dublin General Plan, there are no designated scenic vistas in the
project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista.
Damage to Scenic Resources along Scenic Highways
Impact 3.1-1: Portions of the project site may be visible from Interstate 580 (1-
580), which is eligible as a State Scenic Highway and locally
designated scenic routes. However, because the project site is
already developed and would be required to comply with
development standards and design guidelines in the Dublin Village
Historic Area Specific Plan, no scenic resources would be adversely
affected as a result of implementation of the proposed project.
Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact.
Traveling west on 1-580, the project site is generally shielded from view due to existing
trees and other vegetation, however, there is a brief momentary view of the southern
office building. Traveling east on 1-580, views of the project site are blocked by the San
Ramon Road overpass. After the overpass, the existing site is partially visible for a brief
period. The project site is most noticeable along the eastbound on-ramp of 1-580 adjacent
to San Ramon Road.
In compliance with the General Plan, all projects that are visible from 1-580 would be
subject to design review per the policy of the General Plan. In addition, the proposed
project would be subject to the development standards and design guidelines in the Dublin
V1/age Historic Area Specific Plan, including building height and massing, site planning,
architecture, lighting, and landscaping. With implementation of these development
standards and design guidelines, and the requirement for design review as part of the
permitting process, the proposed project would improve the visual appearance of the site
and be more consistent with the visual character of the surrounding residential and
commercial land uses. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact,
and no mitigation is required.
Degradation of the Visual Character of the Project Site and Surrounding Area
Impact 3.1-2: Implementation of the proposed project would alter the existing
aesthetic character of the project site by redeveloping the project
site from eight commercial office buildings to a combination of
residential and office development. The Dublin Vllage Historic Area
Specific P/an includes development standards and design guidelines
/6Mn K-1.y-Mom
►� A95ooi8tB5 Page 3-9
Heritage Park Draft FIR
Aesthetics
that are designed to create a more visually appealing environment
within the planning area, which includes future development at the
project site. With implementation of these design standards and
guidelines, the proposed project is not anticipated to degrade the
visual character of the project site and surrounding uses and is
therefore considered a less than significant impact.
The existing two-story office buildings were constructed between 1978 and 1981 and
generally look dated and to be of poor architectural character. These buildings were
constructed with wood siding and flat roofs. Perimeter balconies surround most of the
office spaces resulting in dark void spaces on the ground level. The facades have little
architectural detail and consist of long, unarticulated "walls
The buildings are set back from the street and contain large open surface parking. From an
urban design perspective, the project site is not pedestrian-friendly and would be
considered incompatible with the City's design standards as described in the General Plan
Community Design and Sustainability Element as well as the development standards and
design guidelines as described in the Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Plan.
The proposed project has been designed in accordance with the Dublin Vllage Historic
Area Specific Plan. The proposed 54 single family residential homes would be two stories
and comprised of Craftsman and American Farmhouse style. Architectural elements and
details are consistent with these architectural styles providing variation in building form and
providing an appropriate scale with surrounding land uses (e.g. Heritage Park and
Museums). Proposed architectural details include the use of front and upstairs patios and
the use of different building materials (e.g. board and batten siding and shingles) that would
break up the perceived mass of the building and provide visual interest.
The proposed two-story 14,000 square foot commercial office would have a wrap-around
porch element, with low sloping roof planes, exposed rafter ends, and trellis work. A lobby
entry at the center of the building would be comprised of a covered trellis and gable roof.
An outdoor patio is also incorporated to one side, framed with a low river rock wall. The
second level of the commercial building would have gable elements and sloping roofs.
Mechanical equipment would be screened by the sloping roof around the perimeter. The
bottom floor of the commercial office building would have river rock at the base, wall
shingles at the ground level, board and battens for the second level, and a composition
roof.
As shown in Figure 2-12: Tree Removal Plan, the proposed project would remove 107
trees, 16 of which are Heritage trees. 30 trees would be preserved including three
Heritage trees; namely two coast redwoods (29-inch and 25-inches in diameter) and one
coast live oak (28 inches in diameter) located on the perimeter of the project site. To help
off-set the impacts to these Heritage Trees, the project applicant has agreed to fund the
City in the amount of $19,000 to assist in the planting trees in the proposed Orchard in
the Heritage Park. This payment would be provided to the City prior to issuance of the
site grading permit.
P�Z„K,m!ey-Horn
antl A--l-Inc
Page 3-10
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Aesthetics
As shown in Figure 2-13: Landscaping Plan, the proposed project would include extensive
on-site landscaping. This includes planting 13 trees (36" box, species to be determined)
along Donlon Way. Numerous other trees and shrubs would be planted on site including
redwoods, crape myrtle,Japanese maple, and Southern magnolia.
The overall change in the visual character of the project site from commercial/office uses to
a combination of residential and commercial/office uses would result in a change to the
character of the project site. However, the proposed project would be considered a
beneficial change in that it would be more consistent with the design guidelines and
historic-contextual design intended in the Dub/in I/"//age Historic Area Specific P/an and
thereby, would complement the surrounding uses. Therefore, the proposed project would
not result in the degradation of the visual character of the project site, which would be
considered a less than significant impact. No mitigation measures are necessary.
Light and Glare
Impact 3.1-3: The project site and its surroundings are currently developed with
buildings and site improvements that currently generate daytime and
night-time light and glare. Additional sources of daytime glare and
nighttime lighting would be introduced with implementation of the
proposed project. The Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Ran
includes design guidelines to reduce light and glare. With
implementation of these design guidelines, the proposed project
would result in a less than significant impact to light and glare.
Implementation of the proposed project result in a slight increase in daytime and nighttime
light and glare. The main sources of daytime glare would be from sunlight reflecting from
structures with reflective surfaces, such as windows. The main sources of nighttime light
and glare would be from additional lighting, including, but not limited to, internal and
external building lights from proposed residential uses, parking lot lights, street lighting, site
lighting, lights associated with vehicular travel (i.e., vehicle headlights), and any new security
lighting associated with the new commercial building.
The Dublin V//age Historic Area Specific Plan includes design guidelines that address lighting
within the project site, including, site lighting (e.g. ensuring that lighting is directed and
shielded) and glare (e.g. designing lighting so that only the intended area is illuminated and
off-site glare is controlled. The proposed project would be required to comply with these
lighting standards by demonstrating the proposed exterior lighting is non-intrusive while still
providing an adequate amount of light. Compliance with the design guidelines would
ensure that the proposed project does not introduce substantial light and glare which
would pose a hazard or nuisance. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than
significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
PVZ"K,mley-Hw
h� .ndASSoo.1-I- Page 3-1 1
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Aesthetics
/��Kimiey-Nan
�� and Assocn;es.Inc
Page 3-12
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
3.2 Air Quality
This section analyzes the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project
on air quality, including short-term construction emissions, long-term operational impacts,
and potential impacts on sensitive receptors. The air quality modeling for the proposed
project is included in Appendix B of this Draft EIR.
Environmental Setting
Regional Setting
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
The City of Dublin is located in eastern Alameda County, which is within the San Francisco
Bay Area Air Basin (hereinafter "Basin"). The Basin includes San Mateo, Santa Clara,
Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, and Marin counties, and forms a climatological sub-region.
This climatological sub-region stretches from Richmond to San Leandro, bounded to the
west by the San Francisco Bay and to the east by the Oakland-Berkeley Hills. The
Oakland-Berkeley Hills have a ridgeline height of approximately 1,500 feet, a significant
barrier to air flow. The most densely populated area of the sub-region lies in a strip of land
between the bay and the lower hills.
High ozone levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG)
and nitrogen oxides (NOx). These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological
conditions to form high ozone levels. Controlling these emissions of these precursor
pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area's attempts to reduce ozone levels. The highest
ozone levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are
downwind of air pollutant sources. High ozone levels aggravate respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases, reduced lung function, and increase coughing and chest discomfort.
Particulate matter is another problematic air pollutant in the Bay Area. Particulate matter is
assessed and measures in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a
diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM 1o) and fine particulate matter where particles have
a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2_5). Elevated concentrations of PM io and PM2.5
are the result of both region-wide (or cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. High
particulate matter levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung
function, increase mortality (e.g., lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function in
children.
Topography and Meteorology
Ambient air quality is commonly characterized by climatological conditions, the
meteorological influences on air quality, and the quantity and type of pollutants released.
The Basin is subject to a combination of topographical and climatic factors that reduce the
potential for high levels of regional and local air pollutants. The Basin is characterized by a
complex terrain consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and the San Francisco
Bay. It is generally bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the north by the Coast
Ranges, and on the east and south by the Diablo Range.
P�=„K, ey-Horn
b� „dASSOOmt— Page 3-13
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
Climate in the Basin is dominated by the strength and location of a semi-permanent,
subtropical high-pressure cell over the northeastern Pacific Ocean, as well as the
moderating effects of the adjacent oceanic heat reservoir. Mild summers and winters,
moderate windfall, daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity characterize regional
climatic conditions. In summer, when the high pressure cell is strongest and farthest north,
fog forms in the morning and temperatures are mild. In winter, when the high pressure cell
is weakest and farthest south, occasional rain storms occur.
In the City of Dublin, the climate is typically warm during summer, when temperatures tend
to be in the 70s and 80s, and cool during winter, when temperatures tend to be in the 50s.
The warmest month of the year is July with an average maximum temperature of 89
degrees Fahrenheit, while the coldest month of the year is December with an average
minimum temperature of 39 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperature variations between night
and day tend to be moderate during summer with a difference that can reach 32 degrees
Fahrenheit, and moderate during winter with a difference of approximately 19 degrees
Fahrenheit. The annual average precipitation in Dublin is 15.33 inches. Rainfall is fairly
evenly distributed throughout the year. The wettest month of the year is February, with an
average rainfall of 2.98 inches (Weather Channel 2013).
Sunlight
The presence and intensity of sunlight is another important factor that affects air pollution.
Typically, ozone is formed at higher temperatures. In the presence of ultraviolet sunlight
and warm temperatures, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)
react to form secondary photochemical pollutants, including ozone.
Temperature Inversions
An inversion is a layer of warmer air over a layer of cooler air. Inversions affect air quality
conditions significantly because they influence the mixing depth (i.e., the vertical depth in
the atmosphere available for diluting air contaminants near the ground). The highest air
pollutant concentrations in the Basin generally occur during inversions.
Under ideal meteorological conditions and irrespective of topography, pollutants emitted
into the air would be mixed and dispersed into the upper atmosphere. However, the
region experiences temperature inversions in which pollutants are trapped and accumulate
close to the ground. The inversion, a layer of warm, dry air overlaying cool, moist marine
air, is a normal condition in the Basin. The cool, damp, and hazy sea air capped by coastal
clouds is heavier than the warm, clear air that acts as a lid through which the marine layer
cannot rise.
Local Ambient Air Quality - - - -
Criteria Air Pollutants
Local ambient air quality is monitored by the Bay Area Air Quality management District
(BAAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB); refer to Table 3.2-1: Local
Ambient Air Quality Levels. CARB monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air-
Page 3-I4 �ZF,KmeyHo,r ssociates
nd A .I-
Heritage Park Draft FIR
Air Quality
monitoring stations across the State. Air quality monitoring stations usually measure
pollutant concentrations ten feet above-ground level; therefore, air quality is often referred
to in terms of ground-level concentrations.
Table 3.2-I: Local Ambient Air Quality Levels
Standards (Allowable Amount) Days (Samples)
Pollutant Year Maximum i State/Federal
California Federal Concentration Standards was
Primary Exceeded
Ozone (03) 2010 0.150 ppm 3/1
1 hour Z 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 2011 0.115 3/0
2012 0.102 2/0
Ozone (03) 2010 0.098 ppm 6/3
8 hour Z 0.07 ppm 0.08 ppm 2011 0.085 9/2
2012 0.090 4/3
Carbon 2010 1.49 ppm 0/0
Monoxide(CO) 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm 2011 Not Available NA
8 hour 3 (8 hour) (8 hour) 2012 Not Available NA
Carbon 2010 0/0
35 ppm 20 ppm 2.40 ppm
Monoxide(CO) 2011 0/0
I hour 3 for I hour for I hour 2012 0.55 0/0
Nitrogen 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm 2010 0.058 ppm 0/NA
Dioxide(NO2) z (1 hour) (I hour) 2011 0.057 0/NA
2012 0.043 0/NA
Particulate 50 pg/m3 150 pg/m3 2010 42.8 pg/m3 0/0
Matter(PM1()) 3.41 (24 hours) (24 hours) 2011 Not Available NA
2012 Not Available NA
I pg 3
Fine Particulate (annual 35 pg/m3 201 34.7 NA/0
Matter(PM2.5) 2'S arithmetic (24 hours) 201 1 1 45..4 4 NA/2
2012 31.1 NA/0
mean)
Sulfur Dioxide 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm 2010 0.003 ppm 0/0
(SO2) 3 (24 hours) (24 hours) 2011 Not Available NA
2012 Not Available NA
Notes:
1. Maximum concentrations are measured over the same period as the California standard.
2. Livermore Monitoring Station is located at 793 Rincon Avenue,Livermore,California 94550.
3. Berkley Monitoring Station is the only station in the San Francisco Air Basin that monitors SO2 and is located at 1340 Sixth Street,
Berkeley,California 94710.
4. PMIO exceedances are based on State thresholds established prior to amendments adopted on June 20,2002.
5. PM 10 and PM2s exceedances are derived from the number of samples exceeded,not days.
Source:Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement System,Summaries from 2010 to 2012 as found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/
The nearest monitoring station to the project site is located in the City of Livermore at 793
Rincon Avenue. This station monitors all of the criteria pollutants except for PM 10 and
Sulfur Dioxide (S02). The Berkeley Monitoring Station is the only station in the San
Francisco Air Basin that monitors S02 and is included in Table 3.2-1: Local Ambient Air
Quality Levels. The following air quality information briefly describes the various types of
pollutants monitored at the local stations.
P1 F1 Ki Il y-Horn
�= and Associates.Inc Page 3-15
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
Ozone
Ozone occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the earth's surface is
the troposphere. The troposphere extends approximately ten miles above ground level,
where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratospheric (the "good" ozone)
layer extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on earth from the sun's
harmful ultraviolet rays (UV-B).
''Bad'' ozone is a photochemical pollutant, and needs VOCs, NOx, and sunlight to form;
therefore, VOCs and NOx are ozone precursors. VOCs and NOx are emitted from
various sources throughout the area. To reduce ozone concentrations, it is necessary to
control the emissions of these ozone precursors. Significant ozone formation generally
requires an adequate amount of precursors in the atmosphere and several hours in a stable
atmosphere with strong sunlight. High ozone concentrations can form over large regions
when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles
from their origins.
While ozone in the stratosphere protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, high
concentrations of ground-level ozone can adversely affect the human respiratory system
and other tissues. Many respiratory ailments, as well as cardiovascular disease, are
aggravated by exposure to high ozone levels. Ozone also damages natural ecosystems
(such as forests and foothill communities) and damages agricultural crops and some man-
made materials (such as rubber, paint, and plastics). Societal costs from ozone damage
include increased healthcare costs, the loss of human and animal life, accelerated
replacement of industrial equipment, and reduced crop yields.
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and
stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-
based fuels. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO
emissions. At high concentrations, CO can reduce the oxygen-carrying capacity of the
blood and cause headaches, dizziness, unconsciousness, and death.
Nitrogen Dioxide
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to
the formation of ground-level ozone, and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain.
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), often used interchangeably with NOx, is a reddish-brown gas that
can cause breathing difficulties at high levels. Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have
a high concentration of combustion sources (e.g. motor vehicle engines, power plants,
refineries, and other industrial operations).
NOx can irritate and damage the lungs, and lower resistance to respiratory infections such
as influenza. The health effects of short-term exposure are still unclear. However,
continued or frequent exposure to NOx concentrations that are much higher than those
normally found in the ambient air may increase acute respiratory illnesses in children and
OP�2"a—ey-Horn
Page 3-16 ► r,d As
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
increase the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2
may aggravate eyes and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction.
Coarse Particulate Matter(PMio)
PM 10 refers to suspended particulate matter (PM) which is smaller than 10 microns. PMio
arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, construction
operations, and dust storms. PMio scatters light and significantly reduces visibility. In
addition, these particulates penetrate the lungs and can potentially damage the respiratory
tract.
Fine Particulate Matter(PM2.5)
Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to fine particulate matter,
both Federal and State standards have been created for PM2.5. The impacts of fine
particulate matter primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing
cardiopulmonary disease.
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur dioxide is a colorless, pungent gas belonging to the family of sulfur oxide gases (SOX),
formed primarily by combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels (primarily coal and oil), and
during metal smelting and other industrial processes. Sulfur dioxide (S02) is often used
interchangeably with sulfur oxides (SOX). The major health concerns associated with
exposure to high concentrations of SOX are effects on breathing, respiratory illness,
diminishment of pulmonary defenses, and aggravation of existing cardiovascular disease.
Major subgroups of the population that are most sensitive to SOX are individuals with
cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease (such as bronchitis or emphysema), as well as
children and the elderly. Emissions of SOX also can damage the foliage of trees and
agricultural crops. Together, SOX and NOX are the major precursors to acid rain, which is
associated with the acidification of lakes and streams, and the accelerated corrosion of
buildings and public monuments. Sulfur oxides can react to form sulfates, which significantly
reduce visibility.
Other Pollutants
CARIB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' (TACs) with no
threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for
the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations
specified for these pollutants. Additionally, because ambient concentrations of lead have
decreased in the Basin, these pollutants are not measured at the monitoring stations.
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)
According to Section 39655 of the California Health and Safety Code, a toxic air
contaminant is "an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality
or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human
health". In addition, substances that have been listed as Federal hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs) pursuant to Section 7412 of Title 42 of the United States Code are TACs under
Z„Kiml V Horn
\� and Assoaates.Inc Page 3-17
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
the State's air toxics program pursuant to Section 39657 (b) of the California Health and
Safety Code.
TACs can cause various cancers, depending on the particular chemicals, their type, and
duration of exposure. Additionally, some of the TACs may cause other health effects over
the short or long term. TACs of particular concern for posing health risks in California are
acetaldehyde, benzene, 1-3 butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-
dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, perch lorethylene, and diesel
particulate matter.
Reactive Organic Gases and Volatile Organic Compounds
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are organic chemical compounds with sufficiently high
vapor pressure such that they will tend to vaporize and enter ambient air under standard
conditions. A wide range of carbon-based molecules, such as aldehydes, ketones, and
hydrocarbons are VOCs. Hydrocarbons are organic gases, liquids, or solids that are formed
solely of hydrogen and carbon. A subset of VOCs are reactive in the context of ozone
formation at urban (and possibly regional) scales. Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs) are
defined to be those VOCs that are regulated because they lead to ozone formation. Both
ROGs and VOCs can be emitted from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or
other carbon-based fuels. The major sources of VOCs are combustion engine exhaust, oil
refineries, and oil-fueled power plants; other common sources are petroleum fuels,
solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint (via evaporation).
Reactive VOCs may result in the formation of ozone and its related health effects.
Carcinogenic forms of VOCs are considered toxic air contaminants ("air toxics''). Some
reactive VOCs are also toxic; an example is benzene, which is both a reactive VOC and a
carcinogen.
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general
population. Sensitive populations (or sensitive receptors) that are in proximity to localized
sources of toxics and CO are of particular concern. Land uses considered sensitive
receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-
term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement
homes.
Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include residential, institutional, and
recreational/park uses. Several multi-family units are located approximately 210 feet north
of the project site along Dublin Boulevard, and two single-family residences are located
approximately 100 feet to the southwest along Donlon Way. The Heritage Park and
Museum is located approximately 105 feet to the west of the project site. The Church of
Christ is located approximately 95 feet north of the project site along Dublin Boulevard,
and the Dublin Cemetery is located approximately 280 feet to the west along Donlon
Way.
Page 3-18 ���.�dA Hon
�� nd Associates.IrK
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
Odors
Offensive odors rarely cause physical harm; however, they can be very unpleasant, leading
to considerable stress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local
governments and agencies. Facilities commonly known to produce odors include
wastewater treatment facilities, chemical manufacturing, painting/coating operations, feed
lots/dairies, composting facilities, landfills, and transfer stations. Offensive odors rarely cause
physical harm, and no requirements for their control are included in State and Federal air
quality regulations. However, the BAAQMD has identified land use and operation types
that are typically associated with producing odors. No facilities in the project vicinity have
been reported as releasing offensive odors. Additionally, the proposed project does not
propose uses identified by the BAAQMD as sources of odors.
Regulatory Setting
Regulatory oversight for air quality in the Basin rests with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region IX office at the Federal level, CARB at the State level, and with the
BAAQMD at the regional level.
Federal
Environmental Protection Agency
The principal air quality regulatory mechanism on the Federal level is the Clean Air Act
(FCAA) and, in particular, the 1990 amendments to the FCAA and the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that it establishes. These standards identify levels of air
quality for "criteria'' pollutants that are considered the maximum levels of ambient
(background) air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect
the public health and welfare. The criteria pollutants are 03, CO, NO2 (a form of NOX),
S02 (a form of SOX), PMio, PM2.5, and lead (Pb); refer to Table 3.2-2: National and
California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The EPA also has regulatory and enforcement
J urisdiction over emission sources beyond State waters (outer continental shelf) and those
that are under the exclusive authority of the Federal government, such as aircraft,
locomotives, and interstate trucking.
State
California Air Resources Board
CARB administers the air quality policy in California. The California Ambient Air Quality
Standards (CAAQS) were established in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford-Carrell Act. These
standards, included with the NAAQS in Table 3.2-2: National and California Ambient Air
Quality Standards, are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the
NAAQS. In addition to the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility
reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfates.
Ki `,-Ham
h aid A M Page 3-19
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
Local
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD is responsible for regulating stationary, indirect, and area sources of
pollution within the Basin. The BAAQMD is one out of 35 air quality management districts
that have prepared Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to accomplish the five percent
annual reduction goal required by the CCAA. The following notes efforts by the
BAAQMD to address ozone and ozone precursors through the implementation of the
Ozone Strategy and Clean Ait Plan.
Page 3-20 �C FI--A,--°W-1�
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
Table 3.2-2: National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Califomia' Feder-a12
Pollutant Averaging Time s Attainment 4 Attainment
Standard Status Standards Status
I Hour 0.09 ppm 180 p/m3) Nonattainment N/A' N/A5
Ozone(03)
8 Hours 0.07 ppm 137 /m3 N/A 0.075 ppm 147 /m3 Nonattainment
Particulate Matter 24 Hours 50µ /m3 Nonattainment 150 P/M3 Unclassified
(PMio) Annual Arithmetic 20µg/m3 Nonattainment N/A' Unclassified
Mean
Fine Particulate 24 Hours No Separate State Standard 35 /m3 Nonattainment
Matter(PM2.5) Annual Arithmetic 12µg/m3 Nonattainment 12.0µg/m3 Nonattainment
Mean
8 Hours 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) Attainment 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) Unclassifed/
Carbon Monoxide Attainment
(CO) I Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) Attainment 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) Unclassified/
Attainment
Dioxide
Nitrogen Annual Arithmetic 0.030 ppm( µg )57 /m3 ppm ( µg N/A 0.053 100 /m3 Unclassified/
g Mean ) Attainment
(N 0,) I Hour 0.18 m 339 /m3 Attainment 100 b 188 /m3 N/A
Lead(Pb) 30 days average 1.5 /m3 Attainment N/A 3 N/A
Calendar Quarter N/A N/A 1.5 /m N/A
24 Hours 0.04 ppm 105 /m3 Attainment 0.14 ppm Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide 3 Hours N/A N/A N/A Attainment
(SO2) 1 Hour 0.25 m 655 /m3 Attainment 75 ppb 196 /m3 N/A
Annual Arithmetic N/A N/A 0.030 ppm Attainment
Mean
Visibility-Reducing 8 Hours(10 a.m.to Extinction coefficient=
Particles 6 .m.,PST 0.23 km @<70%RH Unclassified
No
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 Attainment Federal
Hydrogen Sulfide I Hour 0.03 ppm 42µ /m3 Unclassified Standards
Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm 26 /m3 N/A
Notes:
µg/m3= micrograms per cubic meter, ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; km = kilometer(s); RH = relative humidity; PST= Pacific Standard Time; N/A = Not
Applicable
1. California standards for ozone,carbon monoxide(except Lake Tahoe),sulfur dioxide(I-and 24-hour),nitrogen dioxide,suspended particulate matter-PMio and visibility-reducing
particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in
Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. In 1990,CARB identified vinyl chloride as a toxic air contaminant,but determined that there was not sufficient
available scientific evidence to support the identification of a threshold exposure level. This action allows the implementation of health-protective control measures at levels
below the 0.010 parts per million ambient concentration specified in the 1978 standard.
2. National standards(other than ozone,particulate matter and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The
EPA also may designate an area as attainment/unc/assi6ab/e,if.(I)it has monitored air quality data that show that the area has not violated the ozone standard over a three-year
period; or(2)there is not enough information to determine the air quality in the area. For PM 10,the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per
calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM25,the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily
concentrations,averaged over three years,are equal to or less than the standard.
3. Concentration is expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference
pressure of 760 mm of mercury. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury
(1,013.2 millibar);ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume,or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
4. National Primary Standards:The levels of air quality necessary,with an adequate margin of safety,to protect the public health.
5. The Federal I-hour ozone standard was revoked on June 15,2005 in all areas except the 14 8-hour ozone nonattainment Early Action Compact(EAC)areas.
6. The EPA revoked the annual PM,C standard in 2006(effective December 16,2006).
7. To attain this standard,the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum I-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm(effective
anua 22,2010.Note that EPA standards are in units of b and California standards are in units of m.
Source: Califomia Air Resources Board and U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, une 4.2013.
2005 Ozone Strategy. The BAAQMD prepared the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy, which
was adopted on January 4, 2006, and describes how the Basin will fulfill Califomia Clean Air
Act planning requirements for the State I-hour ozone standard and transport mitigation
requirements through the proposed control strategy. The 2005 Ozone Strategy explains
P K,mley-Horn
► and ASS .teslnc Page 3-21
Heritage Park Draft FIR
Air Quality
how the BAAQMD plans to achieve these goals with regard to ozone, and also discusses
related air quality issues of interest, including the public involvement process, climate
change, fine particulate matter, the BAAQMD's Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE)
program, local benefits of ozone control measures, the environmental review process,
national ozone standards, and photochemical modeling.
2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. In March 2010, the BAAQMD, in cooperation with the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG), published the draft 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, which
supersedes the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. The 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan
updates the 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the CCAA to
achieve the following:
Implement all feasible measures to reduce ozone; provide a control strategy to
reduce ozone, particulate matter, toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gases
(GHGs) in a single, integrated plan;
Review progress in improving air quality in recent years; and
Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010 to
2012 time frame.
The control strategy includes stationary-source control measures to be implemented
through BAAQMD regulations; mobile-source control measures to be implemented
through incentive programs and other activities; and transportation control measures to be
implemented through transportation programs in cooperation with the MTC, local
governments, transit agencies, and others. The 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan also
represents the Bay Area's most recent triennial assessment of the region's strategy to attain
the State one-hour ozone standard.
Thresholds Under CEQA, the BAAQMD is a commenting responsible agency on air
quality within its jurisdiction or impacting its jurisdiction. The BAAQMD reviews projects
to ensure that they would: (1) support the primary goals of the latest Air Quality Plan; (2)
include applicable control measures from the Air Quality Plan; and (3) not disrupt or hinder
implementation of any Air Quality Plan control measures.
The BAAQMD adopted their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to assist lead agencies in
evaluating air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Basin. The CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines provide BAAQMD-recommended procedures for evaluating potential
air quality and GHG impacts during the environmental review process consistent with
CEQA requirements. In addition to providing new thresholds for GHG emissions, the
201 1 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide updated significance thresholds for criteria
pollutants and supersede the BAAQMD's previous CEQA guidance titled BAAQMD
CEQA Guidelines Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans (1999).
Ki J.y Hw
Page 3-22 ►� ..dAssociates1-
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the
BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds. The court
issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease
dissemination of them until the BAAQMD had complied with CEQA. Per CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.7 (Thresholds of Significance) the City of Dublin will nonetheless
exercise its own discretion to rely on the thresholds within the Options andlustification
Report (dated October 2009) prepared by the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD Options and
Justification Report establishes thresholds based on substantial evidence and are consistent
with the thresholds outlined within the 201 1 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.
On August 13, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court
decision, holding that BAAQMD's promulgation of the thresholds was not a project subject
to CEQA review. First, the court reasoned, the State CEQA Guidelines establish a
procedure for adopting significance thresholds, and CEQA review of the thresholds
themselves is not part of that procedure. Moreover, in adopting the thresholds, BAAQMD
had undertaken a public review process and considered substantial evidence, so that
requiring CEQA analysis would be duplicative. The court also found insufficient evidence to
show that the thresholds would qualify as a "project'' subject to CEQA by causing a
physical change to the environment. Finally, the court concluded that BAAQMD's
thresholds were supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious.
If the project is in excess of the established project level thresholds, as illustrated in Table
3.2-3: BAAQMD Project Level Thresholds, a significant air quality impact may occur and
additional analysis is warranted to fully assess the significance of impacts.
Table 3.2-3: BAAQMD Project Level Thresholds
Pollutant/Precursor Construction Operations
ROG 54 54
NOX 54 54
PM o 82 82
PM25 54 54
Notes:
tpy=tons per year, Pl=fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less;
l day=pounds per day; PM,o=respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less;
NOx=oxides of nitrogen; ROG=reactive organic gases.
I. For Plan level impacts, BAAQMD includes Control Measures to address construction emissions. Significance is determined based on
Project's compliance with Control Measures. If Plans comply with the measures,the impact is less than significant.
Source: BAAQMD, Options and/u5ti6cation Re oil,October 2009 and BAAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines,May 201 1.
The Thresholds of Significance for local community risk and hazard impacts are identified
below, which apply to both the siting of a new source and to the siting of a new receptor.
Local community risk and hazard impacts are associated with TACs and PM2,5 because
emissions of these pollutants can have significant health impacts at the local level. If
emissions of TACs or fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of
2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5) exceed any of the Thresholds of Significance listed below,
the proposed project would result in a significant impact.
P�Z„K,mley-Horn
►� and Aesooiatez.Inc Page 3-23
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
• Non-compliance with a qualified risk reduction plan; or,
• An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million, or a non-cancer (i.e.,
chronic or acute) hazard index greater than 1.0 would be a cumulatively
considerable contribution;
• An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (pg/m3)
annual average PM2.5 would be a cumulatively considerable contribution.
State Air Toxics Program
Toxic air contaminants are another group of pollutants of concern in California. There are
hundreds of different types of toxic air contaminants, with varying degrees of toxicity.
Sources of toxic air contaminants include industrial processes such as petroleum refining
and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry
cleaners, and motor vehicle engine exhaust. Public exposure to toxic air contaminants can
result from emissions from normal operations, as well as accidental releases of hazardous
materials during upset spill conditions. Health effects of toxic air contaminants include
cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death.
California regulates toxic air contaminants through its air toxics program, mandated in
Chapter 3.5 (Toxic Air Contaminants) of the Health and Safety Code (Health and Safety
Code Section 39660 et seq.) and Part 6 (Air Toxics "Hot Spots'' Information and
Assessment) (Health and Safety Code Section 44300 et sec.). CARB, working in
conjunction with the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, identifies
toxic air contaminants. Air toxic control measures may then be adopted to reduce
ambient concentrations of the identified toxic air contaminant to below a specific threshold,
based on its effects on health, or to the lowest concentration achievable through use of
best available control technology (BAC4T) for toxics. The program is administered by
CARB. Air quality control agencies, including the BAAQMD, must incorporate air toxic
control measures into their regulatory programs or adopt equally stringent control
measures as rules within six months of adoption by CARB.
Attainment Status
The Basin is considered in attainment or unclassified for most of the criteria pollutants for
State and Federal considerations, except for 03, PMio, and PM2.5. Under Federal
regulations the Basin is designated an unclassified/attainment area for PM 10 standards (see
Table 3.2-4: San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Status).
City of Dublin General Plan
The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to air quality within
the project area.
7.4: Implementing Policy A. Request the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) to establish an air quality monitoring station in Dublin.
,,m,ey-Ho,n
Page 3-24 ►� Md nc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Criteria for Determining significance
In accordance with CEQA, State CEQ-1 Guidelines, and agency and professional standards,
a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation;
• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors);
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and
• Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
��I�Kimley-Horn
62 ,and As—al-Inc Page 3-25
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
Table 3.2-4: San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Status r
Pollutant State Federal
Carbon Monoxide CO —8 hour Attainment Attainment
Carbon Monoxide CO —I hour Attainment Attainment
Ozone 03 —8 hour Non-attainment Non-Attainment
Ozone 03 — I hour Non-attainment --2
Nitrogen Dioxide NO2 — I hour Attainment Unclassified
Nitrogen Dioxide—Annual Arithmetic Mean -- Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide S02 —24 hour Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) — I hour Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) —Annual Arithmetic _ Attainment
Mean
Particulate Matter(PM 10) —Annual Arithmetic Non-Attainment --
Mean
Particulate Matter PMIO —24 hour Non-Attainment Unclassified
Particulate Matter(PM2,5) —Annual Arithmetic Non-attainment Attainment
Mean
Particulate Matter PM2.5 —24 hour -- Non-attainment
Sulfates—24 hour Attainment --
Lead—Calendar Quarter Attainment
Lead—30 Day Average -- Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide— I hour Unclassified
Vinyl Chloride chloroethene —24 hour -- --
Visibility Reducing Particulates' Unclassified --
Notes:
N/A—Not Applicable
I. In order for an area to meet a particular standard,all time tests of the applicable standard must be met. Separate designations
are not made for each time component of the standard. For instance,an area might meet the annual cntena of the State PM,o
standard but not the 24-hour requirement. In that case, the area fails to meet the standard and would be designated
nonattainment for the State PM 10 standard. Thus, a single designation is made for each State and Federal standard based on
whether or not the area meets all the aspects of the standard. Designations for State standards are made by CARB while
designations for Federal standards are made by EPA.
2. The national I-hour ozone standard was revoked by the EPA on June 15,2005.
3. The EPA lowered the 24-hour Pl standard from 65 g/m3 to 35 g/m' in 2006. EPA issued attainment status designations for
the 35 g/m3 PM25 standard. The EPA designation will be effective 90-days after publication of the regulation in the Federal
Register. President Obama has ordered a freeze on all pending Federal rules;therefore,the effective date of the designation is
unknown at this time.
Source:BAAQMD,Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status,2012.
(http://hank.baaqmd.gov/pin/air—quality/ambient air ualit .htm
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Short-Term Construction Emissions
Impact 3.2-1: The proposed project may result in future short-terra air quality
impacts associated with construction activities, including grading,
operation of equipment, and demolition of existing structures on the
project site. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Construction of the proposed project would commence with demolition of the existing
eight commercial/office buildings and associated improvements in August 2014. Following
demolition, building construction would span over a period of approximately two years.
Construction activities would include grading, paving, site preparation, and architectural
P�Z/,Ki ;ey Horn
Page 3-26 1111 r,d4sate 1'
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
coating. The project also includes the import of 15,000 cubic yards of soil for the grading
phase of the proposed project.
The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared utilizing the California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2. As shown in Table 3.2-5:
Proposed Project Construction Emissions, short-term construction air emissions would
increase criteria pollutant air emissions in the project vicinity. In particular, NO. emissions
in 2014 and 2015 would exceed BAAQMD's 54 lbs./day threshold. All other emissions
would be under the thresholds through year 2016 construction activities.
P1 K,m V H° Page 3 27
��„and Assocow,Inc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
Table 3.2-5: Proposed Project Construction Emissions
Source
Estimated Average Emissions (pounds/day)
ROG NOx3 PMI0 PM2.5
2014
Total Unmitigated Emissions 5.79 59.20 21.56 12.89
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? No Yes No No
Total Mitigated Emissions' 2.16 32.92 8.90 5.26
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
2015
Total Unmitigated Emissions 5.13 56.0 10.34 6.09
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? No Yes No No
Total Mitigated Emissions' 2.02 30.36 4.88 2.74
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82a 54
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
2016
Total Unmitigated Emissions 29.21 32.0 3.52 2.40
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Total Mitigated Emissions, 26.16 16.65 2.02 1.27
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx= nitrogen oxides; PMio = particulate matter less than 10 microns; PM25 = particulate matter less
than 2.5 microns;lbs./da =pounds per day.
Notes:
I. Emissions estimates calculated using CaIEEMod.
2. The reduction/credits for construction emission mitigations are based on mitigation included in Ca1EEMod and as typically required
by the BAAQMD (Basic Control Measures and Regulation 6:Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions). Fugitive dust mitigation
includes the following:replace ground cover on disturbed areas quickly,water exposed surfaces twice daily,and proper
loading/unloading of mobile and other construction equipment.
3. Enhanced mitigation involves compliance with an additional control measure requiring the use of CARB Certified low-NOx
emissions equipment.
Refer to Appendix B,Air QualitZ and Greenhouse Gas Data,for detailed model in ut/out ut data.
Fugitive Dust Emissions
Fugitive dust (PM 10 and PM2,5) from grading and construction is expected to be short-term
and would cease following completion of the proposed project improvements. Most of
this material is composed of inert silicates, which are less harmful to health than the
complex organic particulates released from combustion sources. These particles are either
directly emitted or are formed in the atmosphere from the combustion of gases such as
NOx and SOx combining with ammonia. The greatest amount of fugitive dust generated
by the proposed project is expected to occur during site grading and excavation activities.
Dust generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious
b� d -Horn.Page 3-28 j Z
.„
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
health problem. Of particular concern is the amount of PM io generated as a part of fugitive
dust emissions.
CalEEMod calculates PM io and PM23 fugitive dust as part of the site earthwork activity
emissions; refer to Table 3.2-5: Proposed Project Construction Emissions. Maximum
particulate matter emissions would occur during the initial stages of construction, when
grading activities would occur. There are a number of feasible control measures that can
be reasonably implemented to significantly reduce PMio and PM2.5 emissions from
construction activities. The BAAQMD recommends the implementation of all
Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), whether or not construction-related
emissions exceed applicable significance thresholds; refer to Mitigation Measure 3.2-I a.
ROG Emissions
In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt and surface
coatings creates ROG emissions, which are 03 precursors. In accordance with the
methodology prescribed by the BAAQMD, the ROG emissions associated with paving
have been quantified using CalEEMod. In addition, based upon the size of the buildings,
architectural coatings were also quantified in CaIEEMod.
The highest concentration of ROG emissions would be generated during the application of
architectural coatings towards the end of the building construction phase. As required by
law, all architectural coatings for the proposed project structures would comply with
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coating, Regulation 8, Rule 3 provides
specifications on painting practices and regulates the ROG content of paint. As indicated in
Table 3.2-5: Proposed Project Construction Emissions, project construction would not
result in an exceedance of ROG emissions during any construction phase or year.
Therefore, the project would be in compliance with BAAQMD construction thresholds for
ROG emissions.
Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust
Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on the
CalEEMod program defaults. Variables factored into estimating the total construction
emissions include: level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces/types of
equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction
personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported onsite or offsite.
Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the
transport of machinery and supplies to and from the project site, soil import, emissions
produced on-site as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting
materials and workers to and from the site. Emitted pollutants would include ROG, NOx,
PMio, and PM2,5. As shown in Table 3.2-5: Proposed Project Construction Emissions,
unmitigated NOx thresholds would be exceeded during the 2014 and 2015 construction
years. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 b would be required to reduce NOx emissions.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 b would reduce NOx emissions to a less than
significant level in the 2014 and 2015 construction years.
P� „Z Kimley-HOm
\� and A-ates,Inc Pace 3-29
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
Structural Asbestos
Asbestos is a strong, incombustible, and corrosion resistant material, which was used in
many commercial products prior to the 1940s and up until the early 1970s. If inhaled,
asbestos fibers can result in serious health problems. Asbestos Containing Materials
(ACMs) are building materials containing more than one percent asbestos (some state and
regional regulators impose a one-tenth of one percent threshold). The on-site 1 10,000
square foot office complex requires demolition as part of the proposed project; therefore,
the potential for ACMs to be found on-site is considered likely. The BAAQMD regulates
the demolition of buildings and structures containing asbestos. On-site demolition activities
would be conducted in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 1 1, Rule 2 (Asbestos
Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing). Rule 2 provides measures to control
emissions of asbestos to the atmosphere and includes wetting methods, removal in units,
removal by chute or container, containment requirements, and disposal requirements.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with compliance with BAAQMD
regulations. Refer to Section 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for an additional
discussion of asbestos.
Total Daily Construction Emissions
Due to the extent of the construction activities for the proposed project (demolition,
grading, soil import, hauling, etc.), construction NOx emissions would exceed BAAQMD
short-term construction emission thresholds in 2014 and 2015. As such, the proposed
project would have the potential to also violate Federal and State ambient air quality
standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 a and 3.2-1 b would reduce 2014
and 2015 construction NOx emissions to levels below BAAQMD thresholds by requiring
the BAAQMD's BMPs, and by utilizing Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to
reduce emissions from diesel trucks, generators and off-road equipment (e.g., cranes,
dozers, graders, pavers, etc.). As the proposed project would generate construction
emissions below BAAQMD thresholds with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 a
and 3.2-1 b, this potentially significant impact would be reduced to a less than significant
impact with regards to short-term construction emissions.
Mitigation Measures:
MM 3.2-1 a Implement Short-term Construction Best Management Practices Prior to
issuance of any Grading or Demolition Permit, the City Engineer and the
Chief Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and
contract specifications stipulate that the proposed project adhere to the
most recent BAAQMD CEQA guidelines regarding short-term construction
best management practices. These may include the following:
Water all active construction areas to maintain 12 percent soil moisture.
All grading shall be suspended when winds exceed 20 miles per hour.
L All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site
shall be covered.
P�ZF J Kim ey-Horn
Page 3-30 16- ,eod Ae o Ve Jnc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
• Pave, apply water two times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on
all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction
sites.
• Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction
areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
• Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to
exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
• 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. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt
runoff to public roadways.
• Site access points from public roadways shall be paved or treated to
prevent track-out.
• Replace vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed
as soon as possible.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when
not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to two minutes. Clear
signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturers specifications. All equipment shall be
checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in
proper condition prior to operation.
It Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to
contact at the City 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.
MM 3.2-1 b Implement NOx Reduction Measure,-.- The following measures shall be
implemented during construction to reduce NOx related emissions. They
shall be included in the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and contract
specifications and shall include the following:
All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be
equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission
reductions of NOx.
P�ZF,K-ley
b- d"�s°"-1- Page 3-31
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
• All contractors shall use equipment that meets the California Air
Resources Board's most recent certification standard for off-road heavy
duty diesel engines.
• The idling time of diesel powered construction equipment shall be
minimized to two minutes.
IL The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road
equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction
project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a
project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent
PM reduction compared to the most recent California Air Resources
Board fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include
the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, altemative
fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on
devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become
available.
IL Utilize existing power sources (i.e., electrical power) when available.
This measure would minimize the use of higher polluting gas or diesel
generators.
Long-Term Operational Emissions — Regional Emissions
Impact 3.2-2: Implementation of the proposed project could result in regional air
emissions from operational sources in exceedance of BAAQMD significance
thresholds. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in new long-term operational
emissions generated by new area, energy, and mobile source air emissions. Operational
emissions from area, energy and mobile sources are depicted in Table 3.2-6: Proposed
Project Long-Term Operational Emissions.
Area Source Emissions
Area source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for natural gas
associated with the development of the proposed project. The primary use of natural gas
would be from woodstoves (hearths), consumer products, architectural coating, and
landscaping. As shown in Table 3.2-6: Proposed Project Long-Term Operational Emissions,
unmitigated area source emissions from the proposed project would not exceed
BAAQMD thresholds for NOx, PMio, or PM23, but would exceed thresholds for ROG.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-2, which requires natural gas hearths
for the proposed residential units, would reduce operational ROG emissions to levels
below BAAQMD thresholds.
n
Page 3-32 m y-No
m
d Associates.Inc.
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
Energy Source Emissions
Energy source emissions would be generated as a result of electricity and natural gas (non-
hearth) usage including space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting,
appliances, and electronics.
Mobile Source Emissions
Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative
emissions. According to the preliminary traffic analysis for the proposed project, the
project would result in a net reduction of 600 vehicle trips compared to existing conditions.
As such, mobile emissions from motor vehicles would also be expected to be reduced with
implementation of the proposed project. As shown in Table 3.2-6: Proposed Project Long-
Term Operational Emissions, unmitigated mobile source emissions generated by vehicle
traffic associated with the proposed project would not exceed established BAAQMD
thresholds for PM2.5, ROG, NOx, and/or PMio.
_ZFJ K,m"H— Page 3-33
end As!t 1�
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
Table 3.2-6: Proposed Project Long-Term Operational Emissions
Source Estimated Average Emissions(pounds/day)
ROG NOx PM I O PM2.5
Existing
Area 2.67 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.06 0.51 0.04 0.04
Mobile 8.07 23.11 7.63 2.33
Total Existing 10.8 23.62 21.04 3.65
Unmitigated Emissions
Area 100.85 1.33 16.43 16.43
Energy 0.06 0.55 0.04 0.04
Mobile 3.41 9.36 4.40 1.26
Total Proposed-Unmitigated 104.32 22.71 20.87 17.73
Mitigated Emissions
Areal 4.22 0.05 0.11 0.1 I
Energy 0.06 0.48 0.04 0.04
Mobile 3.26 8.63 3.70 1.05
Total Proposed-Mitigated 7.54 9.16 3.85 I.20
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54
Net Emissions 4.87 9.16 3.85 1.20
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 823 54
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Notes: ROG=reactive or ganic gases;NOx=nitrogen oxides;PM,o=particulate matter less than 10 microns;PM25=particulate
matter less than 2.5 microns;lbs./day=pounds per day.
I. Emissions estimates calculated using CaIEEMod.
2. Area source mitigation includes the use of low VOC paints and only natural gas hearths (BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 3),which
are included in Mitigation Measure 3.2-2
Refer to A endix B,Air QualitX and Greenhouse Gas Data,for detailed model input/output data.
Total Emissions
As shown in Table 3.2-6: Proposed Project Long-Term Operational Emissions, the total
unmitigated operational emissions associated with implementation of proposed project
would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for NOx, PM 10, and/or PM2,5, ROG emissions
from area sources (i.e., hearths) would be in exceedance under this scenario. However,
ROG emissions from area sources would be reduced to levels within BAAQMD thresholds
with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-2, and compliance with BAAQMD
Regulation 6, Rule 3 (Wood-Buming Devices), which restricts wood burning and places
limits on excessive smoke. As such, operational emissions for the proposed project would
not exceed thresholds for ROG, NOx, PM 10, and/or PM2.5 emissions. Therefore, overall
operational emissions would be reduced from potentially significant to less than significant
with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-2.
Page 3-34 [Z►,Ki 11,Han
and Associates.In
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure:
MM 3.2-2 Implement only natural gas hearths in residential units: The
proposed project shall include natural gas hearths only in the
proposed on-site residential units. These shall be incorporated into
the project design to reduce operational ROG air emissions to
ensure consistency with BAAQMD emission thresholds. The
project applicant shall demonstrate the incorporation of natural gas
hearths prior to approval of final design documents.
Long-Term Operational Emissions - Localized Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Impact 3.2-3: Carbon monoxide concentrations are low in the project vicinity and
the proposed project would result in carbon monoxide
concentrations that would be well below the State and Federal
standards. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than
significant impact on localized carbon monoxide concentrations.
The Basin is designated as attainment for carbon monoxide (CO). Emissions and ambient
concentrations of CO have decreased dramatically in the Basin with the introduction of the
catalytic converter in 1975. No exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS for CO have
been recorded at nearby monitoring stations since 1991. As a result, the BAAQMD
screening criteria notes that CO impacts may be determined to be less than significant if a
project is consistent with the applicable congestion management plan (CMP) and would
not increase traffic volumes at local intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour for
locations in heavily urban areas, where "urban canyons'' formed by buildings tend to reduce
air circulation. The proposed project would result in a net reduction in vehicle trips
compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the
number of vehicles at intersections. As such, effects related to CO concentrations would
be less than significant.
Long-Term Operational Emissions —Toxics Air Contaminants
Impact 3.2-4: The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to
substantial long-term operational pollutant concentrations,
particularly from vehicles and trucks on adjacent roadways. These
impacts are considered potentially significant.
Impacts to Off-Site Receptors
The proposed residential and office uses would not generate toxic air contaminants (TAC)
that would pose a possible risk to off-site uses. Any possible off-site TAC impacts would
result solely from construction. Combustion emissions from construction equipment
would be generated during project construction and could expose sensitive receptors to
diesel particulate matter (DPM) and other TACs. DPM exhaust emissions for project
construction from off-road heavy equipment were calculated using CaIEEMod. These
activities are expected to occur over a three year period.
P�„K-ley-Morn
h-2 2ndA—mt- Page 3-35
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
The BAAQMD has developed screening tables, the most recent of which are dated 201 1,
for air toxics evaluation during construction to determine if a proposed project is
sufficiently limited and setbacks are adequate to ensure that impacts to sensitive receptors
from exposure to carcinogenic DPM emissions during project construction are less than the
levels shown in BAAQMD screening tables (BAAQMD 2013). There are existing homes
(approximately 210 feet [64 meters] to the north and 100 feet to the southwest) closer
than the setback distance that would allow the local risks and hazards to be screened out.
A quantitative screening-level impact analysis is therefore required.
The BAAQMD's Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Rlsks and
Hazards (BAAQMD 201 1) was used to complete this screening-level health risk
assessment. The BAAQMD recommends a two-tiered approach for screening-level health
risk assessments: a screening-level dispersion model is initially applied to project emissions
using generally over-predictive assumptions and if the predicted health risk is not within
acceptable levels, then a more sophisticated dispersion modeling is necessary.
A screening-level individual cancer analysis was conducted to determine the maximum
PM2.5 concentration from diesel exhaust. This concentration was combined with the DPM
exposure unit risk factor to calculate the inhalation cancer risk from project-related
construction activities at the closest sensitive receptor. The EPA AERSCREEN air
dispersion model was used to evaluate concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 from diesel
exhaust. The AERSCREEN model was developed to provide an easy to use method of
obtaining pollutant concentration estimates and is a single source Gaussian plume model,
which provides a maximum one-hour ground-level concentration. The model output for
this analysis is included in Appendix B.
As shown in Table 3.2-5: Proposed Project Construction Emissions, the worst construction
year would be in Year 3 and that 1.27 tons of PM2.5 (mitigated emissions, refer to Mitigation
Measure 3.2-1 a) would result from on-site construction activities. With this emissions rate
input into AERSCREEN, the predicted maximum one-hour off-site DPM concentration is
0.4472 g/m3. The hourly to annual scaling factor is 0.1. AERSCREEN output thus indicates
that project construction would produce a maximum annual DPM concentration of 0.045
g/m3. This is less than the individual project PM2.5 significance threshold of 0.3 g/m3.
Annual PM23 concentrations during the other years of construction would be less than the
peak Year 3 maximum of 0.12 tons of PM2,5 exhaust on-site. Therefore, the annual average
PM23 concentrations in any other year would also be less than the 0.3 g/m3 significance
threshold.
The excess individual cancer risk factor for DPM exposure is approximately 300 in a million
per I gg/m3 of lifetime exposure. More recent research has determined that young
children are substantially more sensitive to DPM exposure risk. If exposure occurs in the
first several years of life, an age sensitivity factor (ASF) of 10 should be applied. For
toddlers through mid-teens, the ASF is 3. The DPM exposure risk from construction
exhaust thus depends upon the age of the receptor population. As a worst-case
P�� �1imi Horn
�
Page 3-36 dA—.1-11
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
assumption it was assumed that the Year 3 DPM emissions maximum persists at that level
for up to 3 years of construction. However, as indicated in Table 3.2-7: Construction
Related Health Risk, even with the application of ASFs, the exposure risk to off-site
residences is below BAAQMD threshold. It should be noted that the results depicted in
Table 3.2-7: Construction Related Health Risk conservatively assume that the worst case
emissions would occur during each of the construction years.
Table 3.2-7: Construction Related Health Risk
Age Excess Cancer Riskl
<0 to 2 Years2 5.79 in a million
3 to 15 Years 1.74 in a million
>15 Years 0.58 in a million
BAq QMD Si nificance Threshold >l0 in a million
Notes:
I. DPM (p g/m3)*300 x 10-6 x ASF weighted months/840 months (70 years)
2. <0 years indicates in utero,third trimester
As indicated above, the maximum individual cancer risk would be below the 10 in a million
significance threshold for all age-groups, resulting in a less than significant impact. The risks
for the existing residential uses located near the project boundary, would also be less than
significant.
The significance thresholds for TAC exposure also require an evaluation of non-cancer risk
stated in terms of a "hazard index'' (HI). An acute or chronic HI of 1.0 is considered
individually significant. HI is calculated by dividing the acute or chronic exposure by the
reference exposure level. For DPM, there is no published acute non-cancer risk reference
level. The chronic reference level for DPM is reported by California Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to be 5.0 µg/m3. The chronic HI for
construction activities would be 0.09, which would be a less than significant impact
On-Site Risk and Health Hazards
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommend that existing stationary and mobile
emissions sources within 1,000 feet of the project vicinity also be considered in addition to
the project's sources. The BAAQMD defines a receptor to be "a place where people live,
play, or convalesce". These types of receptors would include residences, schools, school
yards, parks, daycare centers, nursing homes, and medical facilities. The proposed project
would develop single family residences approximately 350 feet north of the 1-580 freeway.
The BAAQMD and CARB recommend site-specific health risk assessments be performed
when siting sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a freeway. Long-term exposure to toxic
air contaminants of potential concern within the project site includes DPM which is emitted
mostly from diesel powered cars and trucks on the 1-580 freeway. Following the
BAAQMD risk and hazard screening analysis process, the proposed project would fail the
initial and advanced screening for PM25 and lifetime excess cancer risk.
OP�Z„KITIev-H-
►� and A55oclates.Inc Page 3-37
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
To confirm the results of the screening analysis, a refined dispersion modeling analysis was
conducted utilizing local meteorology, emission rates, and highway estimates. Refined
dispersion modeling was performed using the EPA AERMOD model, which is a dispersion
model that predicts air pollutant concentrations from various sources. The dispersion
modeling utilized freeway traffic data from Caltrans (Caltrans 2012), as well as emissions
rates and vehicle fleet data from the EMFAC model. Assumptions and calculations used in
determining the health risk with respect to roadway usage in the project area is included in
Appendix B.
Based on the results of the analysis described above, receptors were modeled within the
project site where the residences would be located. The modeling identified the maximum
potential cancer risks as 16.28 cases per million at the project site. It should be noted that
this represents the worst case within the project site. The range of cancer risk within the
project site based on distance from 1-580 is 4.20 to the 16.28 cases per million. Based on
the modeling results, potential cancer risks could exceed the 10 in one million threshold for
residences within 600 feet of the north edge of 1-580 freeway general purpose lanes. As a
result, Mitigation Measure 3.2-4 would be required for all dwelling units within 600 feet of
the 1-580 freeway. It should be noted that emissions from heavy-duty diesel trucks are
expected to decline due to the effect of new EPA engine and fuel standards. Additionally,
the CARB Diesel Risk Reduction Plan set a goal to reduce diesel particulate matter by 85
percent (from a 2000 baseline) by 2020, which would reduce the emissions and risk levels
identified above. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 a and I b and Mitigation
Measure 3.2-4, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 a and I b (described above).
MM 3.2-4 Provide Upgraded Ventilation Systems Prior to the issuance of
building permits, the Community Development Director shall
confirm that all building plans and contract specifications require
residential dwelling units within 600 feet of the north edge of the 1-
580 general purpose lanes to be equipped with sealed heating,
ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems. The sealed air
system shall be designed so that all ambient air introduced into the
interior living space would be filtered to remove diesel particulate
matter (DPM) and other particulate matter at minimum of up to 75
percent of particulates of 0.3 micron or larger in size from the
ambient air that is introduced to the system, and 90 percent of
particulates of I micron or larger.
This mitigation measure also requires a commitment by the
applicant to ensure regular maintenance and replacement of filters
as needed. This requirement will be included as part of the
Page 3-3 i3 P1 Z"Ki ;ey-Han
d Associates.Inc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
conditions of approval and could be done as part of the
responsibility of the Home Owner's Association.
Project design specifications shall stipulate that the heating
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system intakes shall be
placed as far away from 1-580 as feasible. The design shall also
require positive pressure with the HVAC system in all occupied
spaces to prevent the incursion of outside air that bypasses the
HVAC filters.
Exposure to Odorous Emissions
Impact 3.2-5: The proposed project would not generate excessive amounts of
odors in the project area, and would be required to comply with
applicable regulatory requirements that will ensure any impact is less
than significant.
Construction Odors
Construction activities under the proposed project could generate airborne odors
associated with the operation of construction vehicles (i.e., diesel exhaust) and the
application of architectural coatings. However, these odors are temporary in nature.
Emissions would occur during daytime hours and would be isolated to the immediate
vicinity. As such, these odors would be short-term and limited to people living and working
near the source and therefore would be considered a less than significant impact.
Operational Odors
Objectionable odors may be associated with a variety of pollutants. According to the
BAAQMD CEQI Guidelines, common sources of odors include wastewater treatment
plants, landfills, composting facilities, refineries, and chemical plants. However, these facility
types are not present within the project area.
Potential operational airborne odors within the project vicinity could be created by cooking
activities associated with the residential uses. These odors would be similar to existing
residential uses in the area and would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the new
buildings. The other potential source of odors would be new waste receptacles within the
project site. The receptacles would be stored in areas and in containers, and be emptied
on a regular basis, before potentially substantial odors have developed. Additionally, City
regulations require protection from excessive odors (City of Dublin Municipal Code
Chapter 8.64, Home Occupations Regulations, and Chapter 8.20, Residential Zoning
Dlstricts). Further, BAAQMD Regulation No. 7, Odorous Substances, establishes general
limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous
compounds.
Therefore, with adherence to the Municipal Code regulations and BAAQMD Regulation
No. 7, implementation of the proposed project would not create operational-related
/Z„K-1.y H-
b- andAssocaces.hc Page 3-39
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people within the City and would
result in a less than significant impact.
Long-Term Operational Emissions— Clean Air Plan Consistency
Impact 3.2-6: Construction-related and operational criteria pollutant emissions may
conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Plan.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a
potentially significant impact
The most recently adopted air quality plan in the Basin is the Bay Area 2010 Clean AirP/an
(CAP). The CAP outlines how the San Francisco Bay Area will attain air quality standards,
reduce population exposure and protect public health, and reduce GHG emissions.
On November 20, 2012, the Dublin City Council adopted a resolution approving the
initiation of a General Plan and Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan Amendment Study
to change the land use designation for a portion of the property (5.85 acres) from
Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential. Although the proposed project also includes
14,000 square feet of office space on-site, this would not be considered a regionally
significant project that would significantly affect regional vehicle miles traveled pursuant to
the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15206). Furthermore, the proposed project would result in
a net reduction in vehicle trips and the number of new housing units would not exceed
existing planned housing and population estimates as described in the City of Dublin
General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to exceed the
level of population or housing foreseen in regional planning efforts. As such, the proposed
project would not have the potential to substantially affect housing, employment, and
population projections within the region, which is the basis of the CAP projections.
As described above, the net increase in regional operational ROG emissions generated by
the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD's emissions thresholds with
implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-2, and compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 6,
Rule 3 (Wood-Buming Devices). These thresholds are established to identify projects that
have the potential to generate a substantial amount of criteria air pollutants. Because the
proposed project would not exceed these thresholds, the proposed project would not be
considered by the BAAQMD to be a substantial emitter of criteria air pollutants, and would
not contribute to any non-attainment areas in the Basin. Therefore, with the
implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-2, the project would be in compliance with state
ozone standards, and the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan and impacts would be less than
significant after mitigation.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are discussed in Section 3.5, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, which concludes that the proposed project would reduce its ''business as usual"
GHG emissions by 15.2 percent. The proposed project would also result in 990.37 metric
tons of CO2 equivalent per year (MTCO2eq/year), which is below the BAAQMD's 1,100
/Z K-1 -Hwn
d 4 --
Page 3-40
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
MTCO2eq/year GHG threshold. Therefore, the proposed project would support the 2010
Bay Area Clean Air Plan goal and performance objective to reduce GHG emissions.
Mitigation Measure
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 (described above).
/� K— -Horn
►� ar,dAee .!a ,hc Page 3-41
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Air Quality
Page 3 42 i CF,a soci
ii l H-
nd Asates.Inc
Heritage Park Draft FIR
Cultural Resources
3.3 Cultural Resources
This section analyzes the potential impacts to archaeological, paleontological, and historical
resources, which may be present within the project site, Background information and
analysis within this section is based on existing background reports including the Dublin
V/lage Historic Area Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the Dublin General Plan.
Environmental Setting
Historic Resources
Regional Setting
Prior to the arrival of the European settlers, the City of Dublin was inhabited by the
Ohlone and Bay Miwok Indians. The first recorded arrival of Europeans in the Amador
Valley took place in April of 1772. Lieutenant Pedro Fages, Fray Juan Crespo and a dozen
Spanish soldiers marched through the Valley while traveling from Drake's Bay to the
Presidio of Monterey. Lieutenant Fages was impressed with the beauty of the Valley and
the expedition likely stopped to obtain water from what is known as Alamilla Springs.
For over 60 years, Alamilla Springs remained in its natural state until the Mexican
Government passed the Secularization Act of 1833. In August of 1835, Governor Jose
Figueroa granted over 16,000 acres of land to Jose Amador, a previous civilian
administrator, or Mayordomo of Mission San Jose. Shortly thereafter, Amador built a two-
story, Monterey-style adobe near Alamilla Springs, which became the first settlement of
present-day Dublin and the principal stopping point for travelers in search of water, food,
and lodging.
The Mexican Rancho era of California History ended when American citizens in California
revolted against the Mexican government. On June 6, 1846, California became an
independent republic. The signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 officially
ended the Mexican American War and ceded the entire northwestern part of Mexico,
including present day Arizona, California, New Mexico, Texas, and parts of Colorado,
Nevada, and Utah to the United States.
After the Mexican American War, Amador was forced to sell parts of his property and two
Irish-immigrants named Michael Murray and Jeremiah Fallon purchased 245 acres each from
Amador in 1852. They built wooden homes near Amador's Adobe and Alamilla Springs.
In 1853, James and Will Dougherty arrived in the Valley and purchased 10,000 acres of
Rancho San Ramon. Dougherty and his family initially made their home in the old Amador
Adobe. By the late 1850s, the tiny settlement know as Amador's or Dougherty's Station
had grown to include several dwellings and a few commercial, religious, and civic buildings.
A formal cemetery was also established in 1859. In 1860, the Amador Hotel was built,
which became a stopping point for the stagecoaches that ran between Oakland and
Stockton, and Martinez and San Jose.
'_"arm ov Morn
b� dA-atesInc Page 3-43
Heritage Park Draft FIR
Cultural Resources
By 1878, the settlement had grown to include a school, a church, a cemetery, a Sunday
School, two hotels, a general store, a harness shop, a shoe shop, and a blacksmith shop.
The settlement was named after Ireland's Capital City, Dublin due to the presence of a
large number of Irish American immigrants in the area.
Despite its early growth, Dublin's chances of becoming a major commercial center were
halted when the Central Pacific Railroad was built over several miles from the settlement.
The railroad hurt the stagecoach business and inhibited Dublin's potential to grow into a
major commercial and population center.
Dublin's fate changed in the early 1900s due to the increased automobile ownership and
improvements in transportation infrastructure. CA-21, a north-south highway from Benicia
to San Jose (now San Ramon Road) and the east-west Lincoln Highway or Route 50 (now
Dublin Boulevard) both made Dublin an important crossroads for automobile travelers. By
1934, Dublin had grown to include a school, a church, two hotels, a grocery store, a
blacksmith shop, fire gas stations, and a library. Both sides of Lincoln Highway were lined
with businesses.
Between the mid 1930's to the end of the World War II, Dublin Village did not change
substantially. After World War II, suburban growth began to spread across the Valley.
Interstate 680 and Interstate 580 were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. By the mid-
1970s, most of the older buildings that made up Dublin Village had been destroyed by
neglect, fire, or were demolished for residential development, leaving only a handful of
historic buildings. Local preservation efforts in the 1970s saved some of these resources
from demolition, Resources that were lost were replaced with suburban shopping centers,
office buildings, and apartment complexes.
Dublin Village Historic Area
The original settlement of the Dublin Village now consists of several properties that are
developed with office, commercial, residential, and civic land uses. Several of the historic
structures remain and border the project site to the west across Donlon Way at the
Heritage Park and Museums, which is a ten acre park that includes the St. Raymond's
Catholic Church, the Old Murray Schoolhouse, Pioneer Cemetery, Green's store, and two
bungalow style homes. The Old Murray Schoolhouse serves as a permanent exhibit on the
history of the City and the Kolb House serves as a museum.
Archaeological Resources
In 2003, the project site and vicinity was surveyed by William Self Associates, Inc. as part of
the Dublin V//age Historic Area Specific Plan to identify and map archaeological resources.
Pursuant to a records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) there were
eight archaeological sites identified within a quarter mile radius of the Dublin Village
Historic Area Specific Plan area. In addition to the records search through the NWIC,
William Self Associates also conducted a pedestrian survey of the Specific Plan area. The
pedestrian survey resulted in the identification of previously unrecorded historic resources.
The pedestrian survey was also successful in identifying high probability archaeological areas
Kanley-Horn
Page 3-44 � and As—ales.Inc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Cultural Resources
within the boundaries of the Dub/in V//age Historic Area Specific Man, which include those
areas within 493 feet centered on Dublin Creek, as well as those in the general vicinity of
St. Raymond's Church, Pioneer Cemetery, and the Dublin Square Shopping Center site
(William Self Associates, Inc. 2003).
Native American Coordination
To aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places (''cultural places'') through local
land use planning, Senate Bill (SB) 18, effective September 2004, requires local government
to notify and consult with California Native American tribes when the local government is
considering adoption or amendment of a general or specific plan, which applies to the
proposed project. The City of Dublin sent letters to the tribal contacts as formal invitations
for consultation under SB 18 for a 90 day review period, which concluded on June 1, 2013.
Regulatory Setting
Federal
Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966
Federal regulations for cultural resources are governed primarily by Section 106 of the
NHPA of 1966. Section 106 of NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into account the
effects of their undertakings on historic properties and affords the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The
Council's implementing regulations, ''Protection of Historic Properties," are found in 36
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800. The goal of the Section 106 review process is
to offer a measure of protection to sites, which are determined eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. The criteria for determining National Register of
Historic Places eligibility are found in 36 CFR Part 60. Amendments to the Act (1986 and
1992) and subsequent revisions to the implementing regulations have, among other things,
strengthened the provisions for Native American consultation and participation in the
Section 106 review process. While federal agencies must follow federal regulations, most
projects by private developers and landowners do not require this level of compliance.
Federal regulations only come into play in the private sector if a project requires a federal
permit or if it uses federal money.
National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places is ''an authoritative guide to be used by Federal,
State, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the Nation's cultural
resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from
destruction or impairment." However, the Federal regulations explicitly provide that a
listing of private property on the National Register of Historic Places ''does not prohibit
under federal law or regulation any actions which may otherwise be taken by the property
owner with respect to the property."
''Historic properties,'' as defined by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, include
any "prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible
for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the
p�MrJ K—ey-H— Page 3-45
b� and Associates.Inc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Cultural Resources
Interior'' (36 CFR 800.16(1)). The eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic
Places is determined by applying the following criteria and evaluating integrity, developed by
the National Park Service in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act:
The quality of significance in American 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:
a) That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history; or
b) That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
c) That embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction,
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; or
d) That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history (36 CFR 60.4).
State
State historic preservation regulations affecting the Project include the statutes and
guidelines contained in CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and Section
21084.1 and Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines). CEQA requires lead agencies
to carefully consider the potential effects of a project on historical resources. An "historical
resource'' includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place,
record or manuscript, which is historically or archaeologically significant (Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1). Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that a
historical resource for CEQA purposes can be listed or eligible for listing on the California
Register of Historical Resources, and can include unlisted resources subject to
determination by a local agency.
California Register of Historical Resources
In 1992, the Governor signed Assembly Bill (AB) 2881 into law, establishing the California
Register of Historical Resources. The California Register of Historical Resources is an
authoritative guide in California used by State and local agencies, private groups, and
citizens to identify the State's historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be
protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change. The criteria
for eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources are based upon National
Register of Historic Places criteria. Certain resources are determined by the statute to be
included on the California Register of Historical Resources, including California properties
formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register of Historic Places, State
Landmarks, and State Points of Interest.
Page 3-46 ��►,K "
g and Associates 1-
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Cultural Resources
The State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) has broad authority under Federal and
State law for the implementation of historic preservation programs in the State of
California. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) makes determinations of
eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of
Historical Resources.
The appropriate standard for evaluating "substantial adverse effect" is defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1 (q) and 21084.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(b), Substantial adverse change means demolition, destruction, relocation, or
alteration such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired. Such
impairment of significance would be an adverse impact on the environment.
Cultural resources consist of buildings, structures, objects, or archeological sites. Each of
these entities may have historic, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific
importance. Under State CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact would result if the
significance of a cultural resource would be substantially adversely changed by proposed
project activities. Activities that could potentially result in a significant impact consist of
demolition, replacement, substantial alteration, and relocation of the resource. The
significance of a resource is required to be determined prior to analysis of the level of
significance of project activities. The steps required to be implemented to determine
significance in order to comply with State CEQA Guidelines are:
• Identify cultural resources;
• Evaluate the significance of the cultural resources; ;
• Evaluate the effects of a project on all cultural resources based on established
thresholds of significance; and
It Develop and implement measures to mitigate the substantial adverse effects of the
project on significant cultural resources.
Sections 6253, 6254, and 6254.10 of the California Government Code authorize state
agencies to exclude archaeological site information from public disclosure under the Public
Records Act. In addition, the California Public Records Act (CPRA; Government Code
Section 6250 et. seq.) and California's open meeting laws (The Brown Act, Government
Code Section 54950 et. seq.) protect the confidentiality of Native American cultural place
information. The CPRA (as amended, 2005) contains two exemptions that aid in the
protection of records relating to Native American cultural places by permitting any state or
local agency to deny a CPRA request and withhold from public disclosure:
"Records of Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places and records of
Native American places, features, and objects described in Section 5097.9 and
Section 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code maintained by, or in the possession
of, the Native American Heritage Commission, another state agency, or a local
agency" (GC Section 6254(r)); and
�Z11 K-m.Y-Horn
�� As—aces.Inc Page 3-47
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Cultural Resources
"Records that relate to archaeological site information and reports maintained by, or
in the possession of, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Historical
Resources Commission, the State Lands Commission, another state agency, or a
local agency, including the records that the agency obtains through a consultation
process between a California Native American tribe and a state or local agency"
(GC Section 6254.10).
Likewise, the Information Centers of the California Historical Resources Information System
maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation prohibit public dissemination of records
search and site location information. In compliance with these requirements, and those of
the Code of Ethics of the Society for California Archaeology and the Register of
Professional Archaeologists, the locations of cultural resources are considered restricted
information with highly restricted distribution and are not publicly accessible.
Any project area located on non-Federal land in California is also required to comply with
State laws pertaining to the inadvertent discovery of Native American human remains.
California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054
These sections collectively address the illegality of interference with human burial remains,
as well as the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites. The law
protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction, and
establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are
discovered during construction of a project, including the treatment of remains prior to,
during, and after evaluation, and reburial procedures.
California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 5097.5
Paleontological resources include fossil remains, their respective fossil sites, and the fossil-
bearing strata and associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic
site data. In California, paleontological resources are addressed by State CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G, section V.c, which addresses impacts on fossil sites; California Code of
Regulations Title 14, Section 5097.5.
Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The following policies in the City of Dub/in Genera/ Plan are applicable to cultural and
historic resources:
76: /mp/ementing Po/icyA. Preserve Dublin's historic structures. Seven sites in or near the
Dublin 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 heritage park. As many as a dozen potentially significant historic and
prehistoric sites have been identified in the Eastern Extended Planning Area.
Page 3-48 ��n-dA "�
� .y H. t
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Cultural Resources
76: Implementing Policy B. Follow State regulations -- 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. Relevant Project Characteristics
Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan
The Dublin t//lage Historic Area Specific Plan includes preservation and rehabilitation
techniques that apply to all structures and resources that are eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places and/or the California Register of Historic Resources.
Resources located in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan that are eligible include
the St. Raymond's Church, Old Murray Schoolhouse, Pioneer Cemetery, Green Store, and
Alamilla Springs.
The Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan also provides development standards and
design guidelines for future residential and commercial, and mixed-use development within
the Specific Plan area, which are summarized in Section 3.1 Aesthetics.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Criteria for Determining Significance
According to the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant
impact on cultural resources if one or more of the following were to occur.
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in Section 15064.5;
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5;
IL Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature; and/or
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Methodology
Impacts evaluated in this section were assessed based on a review of historical documents
that describe the setting of the project site and surrounding area, as well as a review of the
Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Historical Resources
Impact 3.3-2: The project site is currently developed with a complex of eight two-
story wood-clad commercial/office buildings, which are not
considered historic resources and would be demolished with
implementation of the proposed project.
C F1 ndA at Page 3-49
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Cultural Resources
The project site is located within the Dublin Vllage Historic Area
Specific Plan adjacent to the Heritage Park and Museums, which
contains several eligible historic structures. The proposed project
would be designed in accordance with the design guidelines in the
Dublin Vi//age Historic Area Specific Plan to be compatible with the
character of the Specific Plan area. Therefore, this is considered a
less than significant impact.
The proposed project has been designed in accordance with the Dublin Vllage Historic
Area Specific Plan. The proposed 54 single family residential homes would be comprised
of Craftsman and American Farmhouse style. Architectural elements and details in the
proposed project are consistent with these architectural styles providing variation in
building form and to provide an appropriate scale with surrounding land uses (e.g. Heritage
Park and Museum). Proposed architectural details include the use of front and upstairs
patios and the use of different building materials (e.g. board and batten siding and shingles)
that would break up the perceived mass of the building and provide visual interest.
The proposed two-story 14,000 square foot commercial/office building would be located in
the northern portion of the project site along Donlon Way and would be comprised of
7,000 square feet per floor. The ground level of the building would have a wrap-around
porch element, with low sloping roof planes, exposed rafter ends, and trellis work. A lobby
entry at the center of the building would be comprised of a covered trellis and gable roof.
An outdoor patio is also incorporated to one side, framed with a low river rock wall. The
second level of the commercial building would have gable elements and sloping roofs.
Mechanical equipment would be screened by the sloping roof around the perimeter. The
bottom floor of the commercial office building would have river rock at the base, wall
shingles at the ground level, board and battens for the second level, and a composition
roof.
With incorporation of these architectural details into the proposed project, future
residential and commercial/office development would attempt to recapture the character
of the Historic Dublin Village and contribute to the sense of place consistent with the
historic feel of the Heritage Park and Museums site. Therefore, the proposed project
would result in a less than significant impact to the historical resources located within the
Heritage Park and Museums (e.g. St. Raymond's Church, Pioneer Cemetery, etc.) site west
of the project site across Donlon Way.
Archaeological Resources
Impact 3.3-2: The proposed project has been previously disturbed with
development of the Heritage Park commercial/office complex.
However, based on the existence of the archaeological resources
within and adjacent to the Dublin t///age Area Specific Plan, there is
a high probability of identifying Native American archaeological
resources and encountering historic-period archaeological resources
Page 3 50 i Kimiev Horn
=F,
and Associates.Inc.
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Cultural Resources
within the Specific Plan area and at the project site. Therefore, this
is considered a potentially significant impact.
Although the project site has previously been disturbed, archaeological resources have
been found within and adjacent to the Dublin Vllage Specific Plan area as documented in
the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Mitigated Negative
Declaration. Areas within 493 feet centered on Dublin Creek, as well east of St.
Raymond's Church, Pioneer Cemetery, and the Heritage Park site are considered having a
high probability of identifying Native American archaeological and historical resources
(William Self and Associates Inc. 2003). As the project site is located within this high
archaeological probability area, this is considered a potentially significant impact. The
following mitigation measure would ensure that the proposed project does not result in
the destruction or disturbance of undiscovered archaeological, cultural or pre-historic
resources and would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
MM 3.3-2a Archaeological Monitoring. An archaeological monitor shall be present at
the project site during ground disturbing activities (e.g. grading and
excavation) during construction of the proposed project. If anything is
discovered during the archaeological monitoring, the project applicant shall
implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-21b.
MM 3.3-21b Halt Work/Archaeological Evaluation/Site-Specific Mitigation. If any
potential archaeological, pre-historic or cultural artifacts are encountered
during site grading or other construction activities, all ground disturbance
within 50 feet of the discovery shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist
can identify and evaluate the resource(s) in accordance with State CEQA
Guidelines 15064.5(f). The archeological consultant shall immediately notify
the project sponsor and the City staff of the encountered archeological
deposit. If the deposit does not qualify as an archaeological resource, then
no further protection or study is necessary. If the deposit does qualify as an
archaeological resource then the impacts shall be avoided by project
activities. If the deposit cannot be avoided, adverse impacts to the deposit
shall be addressed in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines 15126.4(b).
Measures may include, but are not limited to archaeological data recovery,
etc. Upon completion of the assessment by the archaeologist, a
professional-quality report shall be submitted to the City, the project
applicant, and the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State
University in Rohnert Park. The project applicant shall fund and implement
the mitigation in accordance with Section 15064.5(c) through (f) of the
CEQA Guidelines and Public Resources Code 21083.2.
P1 K, .y m
b� and"-ales,Inc Page 3-51
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Cultural Resources
Paleontological Resources
Impact 3.3-3: No paleontological resources are known to exist within the project
vicinity. However, the presence of unknown paleontological
resources could be discovered during site preparation and grading
activities, which would be considered a potentially significant impact.
Fossil resources are not anticipated to occur within the project site based on the records
search and survey conducted for the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, which
included the project site. However, ground and site preparation activities during project
construction have the potential to disturb or destroy unknown paleontological resources
that have not previously been identified or recorded. Implementation of the following
mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts on paleontological resources to a less
than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
MM 3.3-3 Halt Work / Paleontological Evaluation / Site-Specific Mitigation. If
paleontological resources are encountered during subsurface construction
activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until a
qualified paleontologist can evaluate the finds. If the paleontological
resources are found to be significant, they shall be avoided by project
construction activities and recovered by a qualified paleontologist. Upon
completion of the recovery, a paleontological assessment shall be
conducted by a qualified paleontologist to determine if further monitoring
for paleontological resources is required. The assessment shall include: 1)
the results of any geotechnical investigation prepared for the project area;
2) specific details of the construction plans for the project area; 3)
background research; and 4) limited subsurface investigation within the
project area. If a high potential to encounter paleontological resources is
confirmed, a monitoring plan of further project subsurface construction shall
be prepared in conjunction with this assessment. After project subsurface
construction has ended, a report documenting monitoring, methods,
findings, and further recommendations regarding paleontological resources
shall be prepared and submitted to the Director of Community
Development.
Disturb Human Remains Interred Outside of Formal Cemeteries
Impact 3.3-4: Due to the disturbed nature of the project site, there are no known
human remains interred outside of formal cemeteries that are
anticipated to be disturbed during short-term construction activities.
However, human remains could be discovered during site
preparation and grading activities, which would be considered a
potentially significant impact.
Page 3-52 �K,m.e�_Ftan
� antl Associates.Inc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Cultural Resources
The majority of the project site has been previously disturbed from development of the
Heritage Park commercial/office complex. Based on the records search and pedestrian
survey conducted by William Self Associates, there are no known human remains buried
within the boundaries of the Dublin Visage Historic Area Specific Plan area. However, the
project site is located within a high archaeologically sensitive area and has the potential to
uncover human remains interred outside of a formal cemetery, which could be unearthed
as a result of project excavation and grading. This is considered a potentially significant
impact. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, the proposed project
would result in a less than significant impact to the disruption of human remains interred
outside of formal cemeteries.
Mitigation Measure
MM 3.3-4 Halt Work/Coroner's Evaluation/Native American Heritage Consultant/
Compliance with Most Likely Descendent Recommendations. In the event
that human remains are encountered during grading and site preparation
activities, all ground-disturbing work within 50 feet of the remains shall cease
immediately and a qualified archaeologist shall notify the Office of the
Alameda County Coroner and advise that office as to whether the remains
are likely to be Native American. If determined to be Native American, the
Alameda County Coroners Office shall notify the Native American
Heritage Commission of the find, which in turn will then appoint a "Most
Likely Descendent. (MILD)." The MILD in consultation with the
archaeological consultant and the project sponsor will advise and help
formulate an appropriate plan for treatment of the remains, which might
include recordation, removal, and scientific study of the remains and any
associated artifacts. After completion of the analysis and preparation of the
report of findings, the remains and associated grave goods shall be returned
to the MLD for burial.
�„and Associates.Inc
Page 3-53
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Geology and Soils
3.4 Geology and Soils
This section of the Draft FIR describes the existing geologic, seismic, and soil conditions
present at the project site, and evaluates potential project impacts under these conditions
associated with faults, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure such as
liquefaction, landslides, and unstable geologic units and/or soils. A Fault Rupture Hazard
Investigation was prepared by Stevens Ferrone & Bailey Engineering Company, Inc. (SFB
Engineering) in March 2012 and June 2013. These reports were peer reviewed by Cal
Engineering and Geology (CE&G) in July 2013 on behalf of the City of Dublin. The Fault
Rupture Hazard Investigation and peer review is included as Appendix C of this Draft FIR.
Environmental Setting
Geologic Structure
The City of Dublin is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province of California,
an area characterized by a series of northwestern trending ridges and valleys dominated by
the San Andreas Fault System. To the west, the East Bay Hills have formed from a
compressional interaction between the Calaveras fault to the east and the Hayward fault to
the west.
Topography
The project site is situated at an elevation of approximately 375 feet above mean sea level.
The hills directly to the west and southwest of the project site are comprised of Miocene
sedimentary rocks primarily consisting of shales and sandstones, which have undergone
intense folding and faulting and generally strike to the northwest. In the project vicinity, the
Calaveras fault separates the Miocene rocks from the Plio-Pleistocene Livermore gravels.
East of the project site, the Amador Valley and the Livermore Valley is a tectonically
formed depression that has been overlain with late Tertiary and Quaternary alluvial
deposits
The project site is underlain by Holocene alluvial fan and fluvial deposits that have been
previously mapped as medium dense to dense, gravelly sand or sandy gravel that generally
grades upward to sandy or silty clay. These deposits were primarily derived from the
canyon creeks located west of the project site.
Soils
According to the Alameda County Soil Survey(NRCS 1996), the project site is comprised
of Yolo loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes. The Yolo loam series consists of well-drained,
moderately deep to very deep, loamy soils on nearly level valley floors west of Livermore
and on the gently sloping to strongly sloping fans in small valleys east of Hayward. These
soils formed under grasses and scattered oaks in alluvium from shale and sandstone. Runoff
on the Yolo loam soil is slow to medium and the erosion hazard is slight to moderate.
To determine the characteristics of the soils within the project site SFB Engineering
conducted a field exploration on February 21 and 22, 2012, which consisted of drilling six
P 22"Kimey-Horn
k� ,andAesw,tee nc Page 3-55
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Geology and Soils
exploratory borings to a maximum depth of 25 feet. In addition SFB Engineering
performed two exploratory trenches between 120 and 140 feet long and about 10 feet
deep for a fault rupture hazard investigation from February 13 to 16, 2013.
The near surface materials encountered in the exploratory borings consisted of clayey fills
that extended to an average depth of about two to three feet, except in one boring where
the fill extended to a depth of approximately eight feet. Borings 1, 2, 5 and 6, which were
sampled west of the Calaveras fault were comprised of soft to stiff silty clays that were
inter-bedded with relatively thin layers of loose to medium dense sands or gravel. Borings
3 and 4, which were sampled east of the Calaveras fault, were comprised of stiff to very
stiff silty clays (SFB Engineering 2013).
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils shrink or swell significantly with changes in moisture content. Clay content
and porosity of the soil changes the volume. The most common cause of changes in the
soil moisture content is seasonal fluctuations due to rainfall; however, improper surface
drainage or underground water pipe leaks may cause shrinking or swelling of soil. The
shrinking and swelling, which is caused by expansive clay often results in damage to
overlying structures, including foundations, floor slabs, pavements, sidewalks, and other
improvements that are sensitive to soil movements. Usually, damage from expansive soils
can be minimized or eliminated by using site-specific engineering techniques. Based on the
geotechnical investigation, the soils at the project site are considered moderately expansive
and would be subject to volume changes with changes in moisture content (SFB
Engineering 2013).
Erosion Potential
Soil erosion is the process by which soil particles are removed from a land surface by wind,
water, or gravity. Topsoil is the uppermost layer of soil, usually the top six to eight inches,
and has the highest concentration of organic matter and microorganisms. Topsoil erosion
is of concern when the topsoil layer is blown or washed away. Most natural erosion occurs
at relatively slow rates; however, the rate of erosion increases where the ground surface is
steep and when land is cleared and/or left in a disturbed condition, such as during the
preparation and excavation phases of construction activities.
The project site is predominately level and is comprised of primarily impervious surfaces.
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the Yolo loam soil is
characterized as having a slight to moderate erosion hazard with runoff characterized as
slow to medium (NRCS 1996).
Liquefaction, Landslide Risk, and Other Soil Hazards
During earthquakes, ground shaking may cause a loss of strength in cohesionless saturated
soils. This process is called liquefaction and occurs most commonly in loose sands
associated with a high water table.
F�=„Ki ey-Horn
Page 3-56 N� .r,dAsso—tesmc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Geology and Soils
According to the Seismic Hazard Map of the Dublin Quadrangle, the project site is located
in a liquefaction hazard zone as designated by the State of California. The geotechnical
investigation evaluated groundwater levels in borings to assess impacts on liquefaction and
ground surface damage potential. According to the geotechnical analysis, the project site
contains isolated saturated thin sand and gravel lenses of less than five feet thick that have a
moderate to high potential for liquefying when subjected to a design basis earthquake. The
earthquake induced liquefaction could result in residual volumetric strains varying from 1.5
percent to three percent, aerial ground surface settlements of up to about an inch and
differential settlements of up to half an inch across typical residential foundations (SFB
Engineering 2013).
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is the lateral movement of soil towards a free face (such as incised river
channel or open body of water) during earthquakes. The geotechnical investigation
evaluated the potential for lateral spreading and determined that the potential for lateral
spreading is low (SFB Engineering 2013).
Landsliding
The project site is generally flat and there are no major slopes within or adjacent to the
project site. Therefore the potential for landsides is considered low.
Faults/Seismic Hazards
A fault is a fracture in the crust of the earth along which land on one side has moved
relative to land on the other side. Most faults are the result of repeated displacements
over a long period of time. A fault trace is the line on the earth's surface defining the fault.
An active fault is defined by the State Mining and Geology Board as a fault that has "had
surface displacement within Holocene times (about the last 1 1,000 years)." This definition
does not mean that faults lacking evidence of surface displacement within Holocene times
are necessarily inactive. A fault may be presumed to be inactive based on satisfactory
geologic evidence; however, the evidence necessary to prove inactivity is sometimes
difficult to obtain and locally may not exist. A potentially active fault is a fault that shows
evidence of surface displacement during Quaternary time (about the last 1.6 million years).
The middle third of the project area is located within a currently designated Alquist Priolo
(A-P) Earthquake Fault Zone for the Calaveras Fault as shown in Figure 3.4-1: Alquist Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone Map for the Calaveras Fault. The Calaveras fault is depicted by a
dashed line on the Earthquake Fault Zone map, which indicates that the California Geologic
Survey considers this trace to be an inferred location.
Earthquake intensities vary throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, depending on
numerous factors including the magnitude of earthquake, the distance of the site from the
fault and the type of materials underlying the site. The U.S. Geological Survey indicated
that there is a 63 percent chance of at least one magnitude 6.7 of greater earthquake
striking the San Francisco Bay region between 2008 and 2037. Therefore the project site
will likely be subject to at least one moderate to severe earthquake that will cause strong
/Z„K-ley-Horn
�� and A—cmresInc Page 3-57
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Geology and Soils
ground shaking. Several other active faults in the project vicinity include the Pleasanton
fault located two miles to the northeast; the Hayward fault located 7.6 miles to the
southwest; the Verona fault located 8.2 miles to the southeast; the Marsh Creek fault
located 1 1.0 miles to the northeast; the Greenville fault located 1 1.5 miles to the east; the
Las Positas fault located 12 miles to the southeast; Clayton fault located 12.3 miles to the
northeast; Concord-Green Valley fault located 13.8 miles to the northwest; Crosley fault
located 14.8 miles to the south; Carnegie fault located 18.8 miles to the southeast; the
Monte Vista fault located 25.7 miles to the southwest; the San Andreas fault located 26.5
miles to the southwest; and the Serra fault located 27.4 miles to the west.
Calaveras Fault
The Calaveras fault is a zone that forms a major discontinuity in the Amador Valley region,
separating the highly folded Upper Cretaceous Great Valley sequence to the west of the
fault and Plio-Pleistocene Livermore gravels on the east side of the fault. The nor-them
segment of the Calaveras fault in the project vicinity exhibits geomorphic features
characteristic of Holocene dextral strike-slip movement such as deflected drainages, linear
troughs, linear scarps, and closed depressions.
Aerial photographs were reviewed by SFB Engineering to determine if geomorphic features
could be attributed to the Calaveras fault within the project site. Fault created features
were observed in the 1939 photos and many of the features still exist in the 1965 and
1971 photographs. Development of the existing commercial/office space at the project
site destroyed most of the fault features in the photographs from 1980 when the existing
office building was constructed. The most prominent geomorphic features that can be
attributed to the Calaveras fault is a linear trough and lineament that extends across the
project site in a nearly north-south direction. North of the project site, the trough and
lineament connects with east facing scarps located on the east sides of low lying hills. The
scarps appear to have been created by the Calaveras fault truncating the hillsides. South of
the project site, the linear trough appears to become less apparent and coincides with the
topographic slope breaks that face eastward. Further south, east facing scarps associated
with truncated hillsides are evident in the aerial photography along Foothill Road,
Numerous fault studies have been performed at the project site and in the project vicinity.
Figure 3.4-2: Calaveras Fault Traces and Exploratory Trenching shows the location of the
fault traces, as well as the locations of exploratory trenches performed historically at the
project site and in the project vicinity. To provide additional detail regarding the location of
the Calaveras fault across the project site, SFB Engineering excavated two exploratory
trenches at the locations shown in Figure 3.4-2: Calaveras Fault Traces and Exploratory
Trenching, which were located within 15 feet of the fault. Both trenches excavated by SFB
Engineering encountered the Calaveras fault. The soils in the trenches appeared to be
deformed showing a downward dip toward the west. Outside of this zone, the soils
maintain a relatively constant depth profile and appeared not to be affected by the faulting.
The results of the trenching by SFB Engineering indicate that no additional active fault traces
except the Calaveras fault are located within the project site.
Page 3-58 P =FJ Ki I1 y Ho
.-d Assomat 1,
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Geology and Soils
The regional studies performed for the California Geologic Survey and the U.S. Geologic
Survey resulted in one single active trace of the Calaveras Fault being located within the
vicinity of the project site. Approximately 43 trenches were excavated to the north and
south of the project site for the AP fault investigations, which encountered only one single
active trace of the Calaveras Fault. Collectively, the results of the regional studies and site
specific AP studies show only one active trace of the Calaveras fault, a trace that is
constrained along an alignment adjacent to the west side of San Ramon Road just north of
Interstate 580 and most likely along Foothill Road south of Interstate 580.
Fault/Surface Ruptures
Surface rupture occurs when movement on a fault deep within the earth breaks through to
the surface. Fault ruptures almost always follow pre-existing faults that are zones of
weakness. Rupture may occur suddenly during an earthquake or slowly in the form of fault
creep. Sudden displacements are more damaging to structures because they are
accompanied by shaking. Fault creep is the slow rupture of the earth's crust.
As discussed above, the middle third of the proposed project is located within a currently
designated AP Earthquake Fault Zone for the Calaveras fault that was confirmed by
trenching conducted by SFB Engineering. A single active fault trace extends across the
project site at the approximate location shown in Figure 3.4-3: Habitable Building Setback
Zone. The previous AP fault trenching performed to the north and south of the project
site provides adequate coverage to show that only one active fault trace from the
Calaveras fault extends across the project site. The active fault trace forms a straight linear
line across the project site and that it is well constrained to that location, which was
confirmed by SFB Engineering in the trenching completed at the project site. Future fault
rupture is expected to occur along the straight linear fault projection shown in Figure 3.4-3:
Habitable Building Setback (SFB Engineering 2013).
Ground Shaking
Some ground shaking is likely at the proposed project area in the event of a major
earthquake on one of the nearby faults. The Modified Mercalli (MM) intensity scale
measures the intensity of an earthquake's effects in a given locality, and is perhaps much
more meaningful to the lay public because it is based on actual observations of earthquake
effects at specific places. On the MM intensity scale, values range from I to XII. The most
commonly used adaptation covers the range of intensity from the conditions of"l: not felt
except by very few favorably situated, to XII: damage total, lines of sight disturbed, objects
thrown into the air.'' An earthquake has one magnitude, but can have a range of
intensities, which decrease with distance from the epicenter.
The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay area, which is a region of high
seismicity. Similar to all sites located in the San Francisco Bay area, the project site is
expected to experience at least one moderate to large earthquake during the lifespan of
the proposed project. The Calaveras fault traverses the project site and other nearby faults
could result in strong ground shaking at the project site.
P�� K,,I.y-Horn
h � and Assoc re 1 Page 3-59
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Geology and Soils
Earthquake intensities will vary throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, depending upon
numerous factors including the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance of the site from
the causation fault and the types of materials underlying the site. The U.S. Geologic Survey
indicated that there is a 63 percent change of at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater
earthquake striking the San Francisco Bay region between 2008 and 2037. Therefore, the
project site would likely be subjected to at least one moderate to severe earthquake that
will cause strong ground shaking. According to the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
interactive de-aggregation model developed by the U.S. Geological Survey, the project site
has a ten percent probability of exceeding a peak ground acceleration of approximately
0.63g in 50 years (SFB Engineering 2013). The actual ground surface acceleration may vary
depending upon the local seismic characteristics of the underlying bedrock and overlying
unconsolidated soils.
Regulatory Setting
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 (originally enacted as
the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act and renamed in 1994) and is intended to
reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during earthquakes. The
main purpose of the law is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human
occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The law only addresses the hazard of
surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. 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. The
maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in
planning efforts. Local agencies must regulate most development projects within the zones.
Projects include all land divisions and most structures for human occupancy.
California Building Standards Code (CBC)
The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the CBC.
The CBC is based on the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which is used widely throughout
the United States (generally adopted on a state-by-state or district-by district basis), and
has been modified for conditions within California. The CBC requires extensive
geotechnical analysis and engineering for grading, foundations, retaining walls, and other
structures, including criteria for seismic design.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The CGS provides guidance with regard to seismic hazards under the Seismic Hazards
Mapping Act. Seismic hazard zones are identified and mapped by the CGS to assist local
governments in land use planning. The intent of the Act is to protect the public from the
effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, ground failure, or other hazards
caused by earthquakes. In addition, CGS Special Publication 1 17, Guidelines for Evaluating
and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, provides guidance for the evaluation and
Page 3-60 �MF,a m ,-Hw
d Associates.Inc.
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Geology and Soils
mitigation of earthquake-related hazards for projects within designated zones of required
investigations.
Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to geology, soils and
seismicity.
Environmental Resources Management, Conservation Element
7.2: Guiding Policy I: Regulate grading and development on steep slopes, with special
concern for potential problems of erosion and siltation.
7.2: Implementing Policy J: Require erosion control plans for proposed development.
Erosion control plans shall include recommendations for preventing erosion and scour of
drainage ways, consistent with biological and visual values.
Environmental Resources Management Seismic Safety and Safety Element
8.I: Guiding Policy A. Geologic hazards shall be mitigated or development shall be located
away from geologic hazards in order to preserve life, protect property, and reasonable limit
the financial risks to the City of Dublin and other public agencies that would result from
damage to poorly located public facilities.
8.1.1 Implementing Policy A. All structures shall be designed to the standards delineated in
the Uniform Building Code and Dublin grading ordinance. A "design earthquake" shall be
established by an engineering geologist for each structure for which ground shaking is a
significant design factor.
8.1.1: Implementing Policy 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.
8.1.1: Implementing Policy C. 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, should be designed to accommodate the
maximum expected offset from fault rupture. Site specific evaluations should determine the
maximum credible offset.
8.1.2: Implementing Policy A. A preliminary geologic hazards report must be prepared for
all subdivisions. Any other facility that could create a geologic hazard, such as a road or a
building on hillside terrain, must also have such a study. Each of the hazards described in
the Seismic Safety and Safety Element must be evaluated. This hazard analysis shall be
prepared by a registered engineering geologist.
8.1.2: Implementing Policy B. Detailed geologic studies will be required at the tentative
subdivision map stage for all projects within the Landslide Hazard Area Boundary on the
�C"Kim'ey-Horn
h � ,and As—ales Inc Page 3-61
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Geology and Soils
Geologic Hazards and Constraints map, and for other proposed projects if the preliminary
investigation indicates a potential geologic hazard. Proposals for mitigation should be
included at this stage. The detailed analysis for projects in the Landslide Hazard Area
Boundary must consider.
I. Cumulative effect of new development on a partially developed slide;
2. Effects of septic leach systems, garden watering, and altered drainage patterns;
3. Impact of a maximum credible earthquake;
4. Where applicable, passage of the Calaveras Fault through or under landslide
deposits;
5. Debris flow and other downslope hazards (especially common east of Dublin).
Care must be taken not to locate structures in the path of potential debris flows.
6. Where published maps identify or show "ancient" or Quaternary slides on sites of
proposed development, their stability must be analyzed, and effects of the
proposed development on the area's stability must be evaluated by a soils engineer.
8.1.2: Implementing Policy C. If the preliminary report indicates liquefaction potential, an
engineering analysis and design, if necessary, to mitigate liquefaction hazards, shall be
required for all structures planned for human occupancy.
8.1.2: Implementing Policy D. Evaluation for shrink-swell potential shall be included with all
soils reports and design recommendations formulated where the potential is present.
These analyses and recommendations shall include public streets and utilities, in order to
reduce future public repair costs.
8.1.2: Implementing Policy E. A fault rupture evaluation, as outlined by the State of
California for Special Studies Zones (Alquist-Priolo Act), shall be required for all
development within the Revised Special Studies Zones as shown on the Geologic Hazards
and Constraints map. The fault rupture evaluation should be conducted after building sites
are specifically defined. Sites situated outside of this zone but within the Preliminary Zones
(Slossen, 1973) shall be evaluated if proposed for multifamily dwellings or for public or
recreational facilities.
8.1.2: Implementing Policy F. Any changes in grading or building design that would be
significantly affected by geologic hazards or soils conditions, or in turn would significantly
alter geologic or soils conditions, shall be accompanied by a re-analysis of those conditions.
In addition, any conditions discovered during excavation or grading that significantly depart
from the previously described geologic and soils setting shall be evaluated.
8.13: Implementing Policy A: Post-earthquake or damage reconstruction of existing
structures shall be permitted only if mitigating factors are incorporated.
8.1.4: Implementing Policy A: A procedure to review all required reports and data shall be
established with the Alameda County Geologist or a consulting engineering geologist shall
be retained as reviewer. This individual shall participate in the review process from the
earliest proposal stage to completion of the project.
Page 3-62 -d A
��„ d Associates.Mt
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Geology and Soils
8.1.4: Implementing Policy B: A file of all geologic and soils reports and grading plans shall
be maintained as reference material for future planning and design on each site as well as
on adjacent sites.
8,1.4: Implementing Policy C: City and developer shall endeavor to fully disclose hazards to
present and future occupants and property owners.
8.1.5: Implementing Policy A: In 1978 Alameda County adopted an Earthquake Response
Directive to be incorporated in the County Emergency Operations Plan (updated March
1980). The directive applies fully to the unincorporated area and to eight contract cities.
Dublin will adopt its own multi-hazard response plan.
8.1.5: Implementing Policy B: The City will prepare a route plan for evacuation of Dublin in
the event of a major seismic event.
Relevant Project Characteristics
The proposed project includes a 25-foot fault set-back zone where no residential or
commercial development is proposed in accordance with the recommended set-back by
SFB Engineering. Development of the proposed project would be in accordance with the
California Building Code (CBC), City of Dub/in Genera/Plan, and City's Building Code.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Criteria for Determining significance
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines,
as amended. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a
significant adverse geology and soils impact if it would result in any of the following:
• Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
• Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault;
• Strong seismic ground shaking;
• Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or
o Landslides.
• Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;
• 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 landslides,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;
E Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property; and/or
hC FJK-ley
ndA6 .T,,,I- Page 3-63
Heritage Park Draft FIR
Geology and Soils
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.
Methodology
Impacts evaluated in this section were assessed based on the Geotechnica/ lnvest/gation
and a Fault Ground-Rupture /nvestigation prepared by SFB Engineering in March 2012 and
June 2013, respectively and a peer review by Cal Engineering and Geology on behalf of the
City in July and August 2013; the Alameda County Soil Survey (NRCS), and the City of
Dublin General Plan.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Septic Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems
Wastewater disposal in the project vicinity is provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services
District (DSRSD). The proposed project would connect to the existing wastewater
system. The proposed project would not need to use septic tanks or other altemative
wastewater disposal systems. Consequently, the threshold of significance for septic tanks
or altemative wastewater disposal systems would not apply to the proposed project and
no further analysis is required. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Potential for Landslides
Impact 3.4-1: Due to the relatively flat topography within the project site and the lack of
steep slopes within or adjacent to the project site, the potential for
landslides is considered less than significant.
Due to the relatively flat topography and the lack of steep slopes within or adjacent to the
project site, landslides are not considered to be a potential significant geologic hazard.
Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated due to the lack of landslides within
the project area.
Potential for Fault Rupture
Impact 3.4-2: The proposed project is currently located within the designated
Alquist-Priolo fault zone for the Calaveras fault, which was
confirmed by SFB Engineering in their Fault Rupture Hazard
Investigation (SFB Engineering 2013) and peer reviewed by CE&G
on behalf of the City. The Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation
recommended that no habitable structure be constructed within 25
feet of the active fault trace, but that other improvements may be
located within this zone, such as open space, walkways, parking, etc.
The proposed project includes a 25-foot fault set-back zone where
no residential or commercial development is proposed. Therefore,
the potential for fault rupture at the project site would be
considered a less than significant impact.
Page 3 64 i Z f,k,-eY-Ho
-d Associates.Inc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Geology and Soils
The middle third of the proposed project is located within a currently designated AP
Earthquake Fault Zone for the Calaveras Fault. A single active fault trace extends across
the project site at the approximate location shown in Figure 3.4-3: Habitable Building
Setback Zone. The previous AP fault trenching performed to the north and south of the
project site provides adequate coverage to show that only one active fault trace from the
Calaveras fault extends across the project site.
The recent fault trenching performed at the project site by SFB Engineering (20 13)
revealed that the active fault trace forms a straight linear line across the project site and
that it is well constrained to that location. Soils observed in the trenching showed evidence
of four fault rupture events, the most recent event having occurred approximately 365
years ago and that the fault rupture recurrence interval between those events is tentatively
on the order of about 400 to 600 years. Future fault rupture is most likely to occur along
previous traces of fault rupture. Future fault rupture is expected to occur along the straight
linear fault projection shown in Figure 3.4-3: Habitable Building Setback Zone.
The proposed project includes a 25-foot fault set-back zone where no residential or
commercial development is proposed in accordance with the recommended set-back by
SFB Engineering. In addition, future development within the project site would be
performed in accordance with the latest edition of the CBC, the City Building Code, and
policies of the City of Dub/in Genera/ Plan. Compliance with the statutory and design
requirements would ensure that no significant impacts related to fault zone rupture would
occur. Therefore, the potential for fault rupture is considered a less than significant impact
with incorporation of the 25-foot setback into the design of the proposed project, and no
mitigation is required.
Seismic Ground Shaking
Impact 3.4-3: Ground shaking is likely to occur at the project site and in the project
vicinity in the event of a major earthquake on one of the nearby faults
resulting in the exposure of people and/or structures to potentially
significant adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
The proposed project is located in a seismically active region. Earthquakes on any of the
potentially active faults within the surrounding region could produce moderate ground
shaking within the project site depending on the magnitude, characteristics, and location of
the seismic event. Structures within the project site would be required to be designed to
the most stringent standards in accordance with applicable parameters described in the
current CBC. Specific engineering design and construction measures required by the CBC
for the construction of new buildings are required to reduce the potential for adverse
effects to human life and property caused by seismically induced ground shaking.
Additionally, the proposed project would be regulated under the requirements of the
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, the policies of the City ofDubiin Genera/Plan,
and the City's Building Code.
P K-ley-Horn
► and Asso wa ,1- Page 3-65
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Geology and Soils
To provide the adequate level of information to properly design and engineer future
development consistent with statutory requirements and the City's Building code, the City's
Public Works Department requires an engineering geologist to perform design-level
geotechnical studies and submit them to the City for approval. In addition, the proposed
project would be required to comply with all applicable CBC requirements with regard to
the design and construction or installation of structures and improvements with regard to
resisting damaging forces of seismic ground shaking. Therefore, Implementation of the
following mitigation measure would therefore ensure that the proposed project would not
expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking which would reduce this
potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
MM 3.4-3 Preparation of Design-Level Geotechnical Report The project applicant
shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design
level geotechnical report that incorporates the recommendations in the
geotechnical investigation by Stevens Ferrone and Bailey Engineering
Company, Inc. (March 2012). These include maintaining a minimum 25 foot
setback from the center line of the Calaveras fault trace, construction of
post-tensioned slab foundations, and over-excavation of disturbed weak
soils and fill. The design level geotechnical report shall address site
preparation and grading (including measures to address potential
liquefaction and expansive soils), building foundations, CBC seismic design
parameters, and preliminary pavement sections. This report shall be
submitted in conjunction with Building Permit application(s) and reviewed
and approved by the City. Recommendations from the design-level
geotechnical report shall be incorporated into the project design and
construction documents.
Liquefaction
Impact 3.4-4: The proposed project could expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects of liquefaction. This is considered a potentially
significant impact.
Generally, when liquefaction occurs because of earthquakes, the conditions of cohesionless
surface material accompanied with relatively shallow water tables underlying the area were
the factor. In such cases, ground vibration increases the pore pressure resulting in water
moving upward whereby turning the sand or silt into a quicksand like condition. The
surface characteristics include the development of sand boils, surface cracks, ground
settlement and differential compaction. Without proper soil engineering, foundation
design, and construction, the proposed project could expose people and/or structures to
hazards associated with seismic-related ground failure.
Page 3-66 [��1 ,',d'AO Ato 1¢
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Geology and Soils
According to the geotechnical investigation, the project site has a moderate potential for
liquefaction during a strong earthquake. Based on the geotechnical investigation there is
the potential for liquefaction to occur within the occasional interbedded layers of loose to
medium dense sandy soils that exist below the groundwater table.
Future development within the project site would be required to comply with the City's
Building Code, liquefaction regulations of the CBC, and the City's standard engineering
practices and design criteria. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM 3.4-3 would require that
the project applicant prepare a design-level geotechnical report, which would address
liquefaction and reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.
Soil Erosion
Impact 3.4-5: Implementation of the proposed project may result in soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil during short-term construction activities within the project
area. This is considered a less than significant impact.
The majority of the project site is covered with impervious surfaces including buildings,
parking lots, and sidewalks associated with the existing development within the project
area. Earth-disturbing activities (e.g. grading and excavation) associated with construction of
the proposed project has the potential to increase erosion if proper sedimentation and
erosion control methods are not in place. According to the Natural Resources
Conservation service (NRCS), the Yolo loam soil is characterized as having a slight to
moderate erosion hazard with runoff characterized as slow to medium.
The City of Dublin Public Works Department Policy No. 95-1 I requires that all plans
specify both long-term and short-term erosion control measures that will be implemented
during construction activities to control runoff, erosion, and sediment movement prior to
issuance of a building permit. In addition, in order to comply with the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process for storm drainage and construction
site discharge, projects involving construction that are greater than one acre in size within
the project area are required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which would be submitted for review by the City of Dublin
Public Works Department during the Grading/Site Work and Building Permit process. The
SWPPP describes the stormwater BMPs (structural and operational measures) that would
control the quality (and quantity) of stormwater runoff. In addition, the NPDES permit
requires implementation of non-point source control of runoff through the application of a
number of Best Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs are meant to reduce the
amount of constituents, including eroded sediment, that enter streams and other water
bodies. Examples of BMPs typically used in the City of Dublin include: Vegetated swales in
parking areas; inspect dumpsters and other waste containers periodically; repair or replace
leaky dumpsters and containers, cover dumpsters and other waste containers, never
dispose of waste products in storm drain inlets recycle wastes or dispose properly.
CM„antl'ASSOCiat-Inc
Page 3-67
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Geology and Soils
Compliance with the City of Dublin Public Works Department Policy No. 95-1 1: the
NPDES permit process; and the City's Building Code requirements the proposed project
would result in a less than significant impact from erosion during construction activities.
Expansive Soil
Impact 3.4-6: Implementation of the proposed project would include future development
within an area that has expansive soils. With adherence to the City's
Building Code and CBC requirements, this is considered a potentially
significant impact.
According to the preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared for the proposed project,
soils within the project site would be subject to expansion. A design level geotechnical
analysis would be required for the proposed project as required by Mitigation Measure MM
3.4-3. In addition, the proposed project would be required to adhere to the City's Building
Code and CBC requirements. Therefore, with compliance with regulatory requirements
and measures in the design level geotechnical report, which would address expansive soils,
this potentially significant impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.
P te„K,—y-H-
Page 3-68 ►� nd As—aces nc
rt
x0.1 Y
♦ " 4
A
u
� � � f'k rt 1 , • y �/
nr
•
� t'• � sue, 'qf"�. oa `p a � .:
L • • Ip .. 4 %'...
• 1
s .
•
Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault
' Zone Boundaries (Approximate)
- Location of Calaveras Fault Trace
(Approximate)
Source:Stevens Ferrone&Bailey Engineering Company,Inc.,City of Dublin,RBF Consulting(2013)
Heritage Park EIR
' Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map for the Calaveras Fault
CONSULTING
Figure 3.4-1
' A'- Company omp
` MAf1 .
Linear notch/ ;,E-facing scarp
Z- 011
\J Notch__,`; Linear notch bounded ag
on east by low,scarp
W-facing scarp z
E-facing scarp'
SW-facing scarps-
' _Shorp E-focing scarp in alluvium visible in
f ` - 1939 cericl photographs BUT-BUU-279-118
NE-facing scarp--" and 13UT-BUU-279-117
' East Facing
Soil Scarp .
' Arcuate, sloping SW-facing scarp _
Linear soil pattern and low E-facing
visible in 1939aerial photographs
BUT-BUU-279-115 and BUT-BUU- escarp in alluvium visible in 1939 aerial
279-116 photographs BUT-BUU-279-116 and,;
BUT-BUU-279-117
eitCl -Fiu;m7
Linear soil soil pattern and Ipw��
E-facing scarp in oliuviu hear ) x'
still visible here in 1977 Trou h g C a-
a --- SITE
�- NE Facing
Scarp in Soil (?)
••R ~'Sharp NE-facing scores
Trund6d
Hillside
NE Fac g
' Solid Line Where Clearly Evident, Scarp A ---
Dashed Where Approximate NE-facing scarp
SW-facing scarp along fan
channel in Ntio-Meistoce
Source:Stevens Ferrone&Bailey Engineering Company,Inc.(2013)
Heritage Park EIR
0 Calaveras Fault Traces and Exploratory Trenching
ACONSULTING Figure 3.4-2
A-. Company y
Site uxveyed?
Boundary Locat
� �au
I�
CF- -
n of Trench by .S e
112 and 6/11113 to
ning
' on of Trench Reported
n of Active
ce
e —2
' g Zone 1 Location of
SFB — Fault To
B Be Surveyed
1+40 0+00
Approximate Location of Trench by
SFB (2/13/12 to 2/16/12 and 6/11/13 to
6/14/13), with Stationing
1 Approximate Location of Trench Reported
by Terrasearch (1975)
Approximate Location of Active
Calaveras Fault Trace
' -------- Building Setback Line
r��M' No Habitable Building Zone
NOTE:Topographic Map was provided by CBG(2013).
Source:Stevens Ferrone&Bailey Engineering Company,Inc.(2013)
Heritage Park EIR
. . Habitable Building Setback Zone
0
A NG
Figure 3.4-3
' A-. Co Company
' Heritage Park Draft EIR
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
' This section analyzes the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project
on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change. The GHG emission modeling for
1 the proposed project is in Appendix B.
Environmental Setting
Greenhouse Gases
The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere is called the
1 "greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a
three-fold process, summarized as follows: short wave radiation emitted by the Sun is
absorbed by the Earth; the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long wave
' radiation; and GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb this long wave radiation and emit this
long wave radiation into space and toward the Earth. This "trapping" of the long wave
(thermal) radiation emitted back toward the Earth is the underlying process of the
greenhouse effect.
The most abundant GHGs are water vapor and carbon dioxide. Many other trace gases
' have greater ability to absorb and re-radiate long wave radiation; however, these gases are
not as plentiful. For this reason, and to gauge the potency of GHGs, scientists have
established a Global Warming Potential for each GHG based on its ability to absorb and
' re-radiate long wave radiation.
GHGs include, but are not limited to,the following:2
Water Vapor(Hz� Although water vapor has not received the scrutiny of other
GHGs, it is the primary contributor to the greenhouse effect. Natural processes,
such as evaporation from oceans and rivers, and transpiration from plants,
contribute 90 percent and 10 percent of the water vapor in our atmosphere,
respectively.
' The primary human related source of water vapor comes from fuel combustion in
motor vehicles; however, this is not believed to contribute a significant amount (less
than one percent) to atmospheric concentrations of water vapor. The
I ntergove m mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has not determined a Global
Warming Potential for water vapor.
The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere,which varies in height from the Earth's surface to 10 to 12
kilometers.
2 All Global Warming Potentials are given as 100-year Global Warming Potential. Unless noted otherwise, all Global
Warming Potentials were obtained from the I ntergovem mental Panel on Climate Change. (Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, Climate Change, The Soence of Climate Change— Contribution of Working Group /to the
Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, 1996).
Coln and ASSOCatM
Page 3-69
Heritage Park Draft EIR '
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
• Carbon Dioxide (COJ. Carbon dioxide is primarily generated by fossil fuel
combustion in stationary and mobile sources. Due to the emergence of industrial ,
facilities and mobile sources in the past 250 years, the concentration of CO2 in the
atmosphere has increased 39 percent.3 Carbon dioxide is the most widely emitted
GHG and is the reference gas (Global Warming Potential of 1) for determining '
Global Warming Potentials for other GHGs.
• Methane (CHI Methane is emitted from biogenic sources, incomplete
combustion in forest fires, landfills, manure management, and leaks in natural gas
pipelines. In the United States, the top three sources of methane are landfills,
natural gas systems, and enteric fermentation. Methane is the primary component ,
of natural gas, which is used for space and water heating, steam production, and
power generation. The Global Warming Potential of CH4 is 21.
• Nitrous Oxide (N200). Nitrous oxide is produced by both natural and human ,
related sources. Primary human related sources include agricultural soil
management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and ,
stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic acid production, and nitric acid
production. The Global Warming Potential of N20 is 310.
_Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs. HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both
stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling
and foam blowing is growing, as the continued phase out of chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) gains momentum. The Global
Warming Potential of HFCs range from 140 for HFC-152a to 11,700 for HFC-23.4
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Primary aluminum production and semiconductor
manufacturing are the largest known man-made sources of two per fluorocarbons
(PFCs): tetrafl uoro methane (CF4) and tetrafl u oro methane (C2F6).
PerFluorocarbons are potent GHGs with a Global Wan-ning Potential several '
thousand times that of CO2, depending on the specific PFC. PFCs are also
relatively minor substitutes for ozone-depleting substances. The estimated
atmospheric lifetimes for CF4 and C21`6 are 50,000 and 10,000 years respectively.
The Global Warming Potentials of CF4 and C2F6 emissions are approximately 6,500
and 9,200, respectively.5
• Su/fur hexafluoride (2EF6. Sulfur hexafluoride is a colorless, odorless, nontoxic,
nonflammable gas. It is most commonly used as an electrical insulator in high
voltage equipment that transmits and distributes electricity. Sulfur hexafluoride is
the most potent GHG that has been evaluated by the IPCC with a Global
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of United States Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to
2011,April 2013.
4 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Accessed on July 15,2013.
s http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/fgases.htmi '
Ibid.
CC/i
Page 3-70
' Heritage Park Draft EIR
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Warming Potential of 23,900. However, its global warming contribution is not as
high as the Global Warming Potential would indicate due to its low mixing ratio
compared to CO2 (4 parts per trillion [ppt] in 1990 versus 365 parts per million
[ppm], respectively.6
' In addition to the six major GHGs discussed above (excluding water vapor), many other
compounds have the potential to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Some of these
substances were previously identified as stratospheric ozone (03) depletors; therefore,
their gradual phase out is currently in effect. The following is a listing of these compounds:
' Hydroch/orofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and
chemical composition to CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for refrigerant
products and air conditioning systems. As part of the Montreal Protocol, all
' developed countries that adhere to the Montreal Protocol are subject to a
consumption cap and gradual phase out of HCFCs. The United States is scheduled
to achieve a 100 percent reduction to the cap by 2030. The Global Warming
' Potentials of HCFCs range from 93 for HCFC-123 to 2,000 for HCFC-142b
/,/,/ trichloroethane. 1,I,1 trichloroethane or methyl chloroform is a solvent and
degreasing agent commonly used by manufacturers. The Global Warming Potential
' of methyl chloroform is 110 times that of CO2.8
Ch lorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CFCs are used as refrigerants, cleaning solvents, and
aerosols spray propellants. CFCs were also part of the EPA's Final Rule (57 FR
3374) for the phase out Of 03 depleting substances. Currently, CFCs have been
replaced by HFCs in cooling systems and a variety of alternatives for cleaning
solvents. Nevertheless, CFCs remain suspended in the atmosphere contributing to
the greenhouse effect. CFCs are potent GHGs with Global Warming Potentials
ranging from 4,000 for CFC I I to 14,000 for CFC 13.9
Regulatory Setting
' Federal
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) requires the EPA to define national ambient air quality
standards (national standards) to protect public health and welfare in the United States.
The FCAA does not specifically regulate GHG emissions; however, on April 2, 2007 the
U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. U.S. Envlronmental Protection Agency, determined
6
Ibid.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Global Warming Potential for
' Ozone Depleting Substances,dated October 29,2009.Accessed on November 5,2013.
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/1996/january/Day-19/pr-372.html,
s Ibid.
9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Class I Ozone Depleting Substances, August 19, 2010. Accessed on
' November 5,2013.
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ods.html
ranft ft
Page 3-71
Heritage Park Draft EIR '
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
that GHGs are pollutants that can be regulated under the FCAA. The EPA adopted an
endangerment finding and cause or contribute finding for GHGs on December 7, 2009. '
Under the endangerment finding, the Administrator found that the current and projected
atmospheric concentrations of the six, key, well-mixed GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs,
PFCs, and SF6) threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
Under the cause or contribute finding, the Administrator found that the combined
emissions of these well-mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle
engines contribute to the GHG pollution which threatens public health and welfare. '
Based on these findings, on April 1, 2010, the EPA finalized the light-duty vehicle rule
controlling GHG emissions. This rule confirmed that January 2, 201 1, is the earliest date '
that a 2012 model year vehicle meeting these rule requirements may be sold in the United
States. On May 13, 2010, the EPA issued the final GHG Tailoring Rule. This rule set '
thresholds for GHG emissions that define when permits under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing
industrial facilities. Implementation of the Federal rules is expected to reduce the level of
emissions from new motor vehicles and large stationary sources.
State '
California Global Climate Change Regulatory Programs
Various statewide and local initiatives to reduce California's contribution to GHG emissions
have raised awareness that, even though the various contributors to and consequences of '
global climate change are not yet fully understood, global climate change is occurring, and
that there is a real potential for severe adverse environmental, social, and economic effects
in the long term. Every nation emits GHGs and as a result makes an incremental '
cumulative contribution to global climate change; therefore, global cooperation will be
required to reduce the rate of GHG emissions enough to slow or stop the human-caused
increase in average global temperatures and associated changes in climatic conditions. '
Executive Order S-1-07. Executive Order S-1-07 proclaims that the transportation sector
is the main source of GHG emissions in California, generating more than 40 percent of '
statewide emissions. It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation
fuels sold in California by at least ten percent by 2020. This order also directs CARB to
determine whether this Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) could be adopted as a discrete
early-action measure as part of the effort to meet the mandates in AB 32.
Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order S-3-05 set forth a series of target dates by which 1
statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; '
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
6
Page 3-72 n
►� Wda,ft
i
' Heritage Park Draft EIR
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
The Executive Order directed the secretary of the California Environmental Protection
Agency (Cal/EPA) to coordinate a multi-agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the
target levels. The secretary will also submit biannual reports to the governor and California
Legislature describing the progress made toward the emissions targets, the impacts of
global climate change on California's resources, and mitigation and adaptation plans to
combat these impacts. To comply with the executive order, the secretary of Cal/EPA
created the California Climate Action Team (CAT), made up of members from various
State agencies and commissions. The team released its first report in March 2006. The
report proposed to achieve the targets by building on the voluntary actions of California
businesses, local governments, and communities and through State incentive and regulatory
' programs.
Executive Order S-13-08. Executive Order S-13-08 seeks to enhance the State's
management of climate impacts including sea level rise, increased temperatures, shifting
precipitation, and extreme weather events by facilitating the development of State's first
climate adaptation strategy. This will result in consistent guidance from experts on how to
' address climate change impacts in the State of California.
Executive Order S-14-08. Executive Order S-14-08 expands the State's Renewable Energy
' Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Additionally, Executive Order S-21-09
(signed on September 15, 2009) directs CARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of
electricity sold in the State come from renewable energy by 2020. CARB adopted the
"Renewable Electricity Standard" on September 23, 2010, which requires 33 percent
renewable energy by 2020 for most publicly owned electricity retailers.
' Executive Order 5-20-04. Executive Order S-20-04, the California Green Building Initiative,
(signed into law on December 14, 2004), establishes a goal of reducing energy use in State-
, owned buildings by 20 percent from a 2003 baseline by 2015. It also encourages the
private commercial sector to set the same goal. The initiative places the California Energy
Commission (CEC) in charge of developing a building efficiency benchmarking system,
' commissioning and retro-commissioning (commissioning for existing commercial buildings)
guidelines, and developing and refining building energy efficiency standards under Title 24 to
meet this goal.
' Executive Order S-21-09. Executive Order 5-21-09, 33 percent Renewable Energy for
California, directs CARB to adopt regulations to increase California's Renewable Portfolio
Standard (RPS) to 33 percent by 2020. This builds upon SB 1078 (2002) which established
the California RPS program, requiring 20 percent renewable energy by 2017, and SB 107
(2006) which advanced the 20 percent deadline to 2010, a goal which was expanded to 33
' percent by 2020 in the 2005 Energy Action Plan 11.
Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006). California passed the
' California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; Califomia Health and Safety
Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500 - 38599). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and
market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a
CC/1 b ASSOCMO&
Page 3-73
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be
reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to '
AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also
includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then
CARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the
authorization of AB 32.
Assembly Bill 1493. AB 1493 (also known as the Pavley Bill) requires that CARB develop '
and adopt, by January 1, 2005, regulations that achieve "the maximum feasible reduction of
GHG emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and other vehicles determined by
CARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the '
State."
To meet the requirements of AB 1493, CARB approved amendments to the California
Code of Regulations (CCR) in 2004 by adding GHG emissions standards to Califorriia's
existing standards for motor vehicle emissions. Amendments to CCR Title 13, Sections
1900 and 1961 and adoption of 13 CCR Section 1961.1 require automobile manufacturers ,
to meet fleet-average GHG emissions limits for all passenger cars, light-duty trucks within
various weight criteria, and medium-duty weight classes for passenger vehicles (i.e., any '
medium-duty vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating less than 10,000 pounds that is
designed primarily to transport people), beginning with the 2009 model year. Emissions
limits are reduced further in each model year through 2016. When fully phased in, the '
near-term standards will result in a reduction of about 22 percent in GHG emissions
compared to the emissions from the 2002 fleet, while the mid-term standards will result in
a reduction of about 30 percent. ,
Assembly Bill 3018. AB 3018 established the Green Collar Jobs Council (GCJC) under the
California Workforce Investment Board (CWIB). The GCJC will develop a comprehensive '
approach to address Califomia's emerging workforce needs associated with the emerging
green economy. This bill will ignite the development of job training programs in the clean
and green technology sectors. '
Senate Bill 97. SB 97, signed in August 2007 (Chapter 185, Statutes of 2007; PRC Sections
21083.05 and 21097), acknowledges that climate change is a prominent environmental '
issue that requires analysis under CEQA. This bill directs the Governors Office of Planning
and Research (OPR), which is part of the State Natural Resources Agency, to prepare,
develop, and transmit to CARB guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions (or '
the effects of GHG emissions), as required by CEQA.
OPR published a technical advisory recommending that CEQA lead agencies make a good-
faith effort to estimate the quantity of GHG emissions that would be generated by a
proposed project. Specifically, based on available information, CEQA lead agencies should
estimate the emissions associated with project-related vehicular traffic, energy consumption, '
water usage, and construction activities to determine whether project-level or cumulative
impacts could occur, and should mitigate the impacts where feasible. OPR requested CARB
Page 3-74 Can"and° '&k
' Heritage Park Draft EIR
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
technical staff to recommend a method for setting CEQA thresholds of significance as
' described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 that will encourage consistency and
uniformity in the CEQA analysis of GHG emissions throughout the State.
The Natural Resources Agency adopted the CEQA Guidelines Amendments prepared by
OPR, as directed by SB 97. On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administration Law
approved the CEQA Guidelines Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State
' for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The CEQA Guidelines Amendments
became effective on March 18, 2010.
' Senate Bill 375. SB 375, signed in September 2008 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008), aligns
regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and land use and
housing allocation. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt
' a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy (APS) that will
prescribe land use allocation in that MPOs regional transportation plan. CARB, in
consultation with MPOs, will provide each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs
' emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035.
These reduction targets will be updated every eight years but can be updated every four
years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve
the targets. CARB is also charged with reviewing each MPO's SCS or APS for consistency
with its assigned targets. If MPOs do not meet the GHG reduction targets, transportation
' projects may not be eligible for funding programmed after January 1, 2012.
Senate Bills 1078 and 107. SB 1078 (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) requires retail sellers
of electricity, including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to
provide at least 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. SB 107
(Chapter 464, Statutes of 2006) changed the target date to 2010.
Senate Bill 1368. SB 1368 (Chapter 598, Statutes of 2006) is the companion bill of AB 32
and was signed into law in September 2006. SB 1368 required the California Public
' Utilities Commission (CPUC) to establish a performance standard for base load generation
of GHG emissions by investor-owned utilities by February 1, 2007. SB 1368 also required
the CEC to establish a similar standard for local publicly owned utilities by June 30, 2007.
' These standards could not exceed the GHG emissions rate from a base load combined-
cycle, natural gas—fired plant. Furthermore, the legislation states that all electricity provided
to California, including imported electricity, must be generated by plants that meet the
standards set by CPUC and CEC.
CARB Scoping Plan. On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its Scoping Plan, which
functions as a roadmap to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32
through subsequently enacted regulations. CARB's Scoping Plan contains the main
strategies California will implement to reduce COzeq emissions by 174 million metric tons
CCn and AsgocOft W= Page 3-75
Heritage Park Draft EIR ,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
(MT), or approximately 30 percent, from the State's projected 2020 emissions level of 596
million MT CO2eq 10 under a "Business As Usual" (BAU)1 1 scenario. This is a reduction of '
42 million MT CO2eq, or almost ten percent, from 2002 to 2004 average emissions, but
requires the reductions in the face of population and economic growth through 2020.
CARB's Scoping Plan calculates 2020 BAU emissions as the emissions that would be
expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction measures. The 2020 BAU
emissions estimate was derived by projecting emissions from a past baseline year using
growth factors specific to each of the different economic sectors (e.g., transportation,
electrical power, commercial and residential, industrial, etc.). CARB used three-year
average emissions, by sector, for 2002 to 2004 to forecast emissions to 2020. At the time '
CARB's Scoping Plan process was initiated, 2004 was the most recent year for which actual
data was available. The measures described in CARB's Scoping Plan are intended to
reduce the projected 2020 BAU to 1990 levels, as required by AB 32. ,
Local
Bay Area Air Quality Management District '
The BAAQMD is the public agency responsible for regulating stationary sources of air
pollution in the nine counties that surround San Francisco Bay. The BAAQMD also ,
provides guidance to Lead Agencies, consultants, and other parties regarding air quality
analyses conducted pursuant to CEQA. The BAAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Guide lines
provide BAAQMD-recommended procedures for evaluating potential air quality and GHG '
impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements.
The BAAQMD's approach to developing a threshold of significance for GHG emissions is
to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially
conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions
needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate GHG '
emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute considerably to a
significant cumulative impact. Stationary-source projects include land uses that would
accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an ,
Air District permit to operate. If annual emissions of operational-related GHGs exceed
these levels, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution
to a cumulatively significant impact to global climate change.
10 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2eq) -A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse ,
gases based upon their global warming potential.
"Business as Usual" refers to emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of GHG reductions. See
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm. Note that there is significant controversy as to what BAU
means. In determining the GHG 2020 limit, CARB used the above as the "definition:' It is broad enough to allow '
for design features to be counted as reductions.
GZFJ
Page 3-76 and"sS0C�k°
' Heritage Park Draft EIR
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the
' BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the Thresholds. The court
issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the Thresholds and cease
dissemination of them until the BAAQMD had complied with CEQA. Per CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.7 (Thresholds of Significance) the City of Dublin will nonetheless
exercise its own discretion to rely on the thresholds within the Options and justification
Report (dated October 2009) prepared by the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD Options and
' Justification Report establishes thresholds based on substantial evidence and are consistent
with the thresholds outlined within the 2010 CEQA Air Quality Guide lines On August 13,
2013, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Courts decision, holding that
' BAAQMD's promulgation of the thresholds was not a project subject to CEQA review.
The court also concluded that BAAQMD's thresholds were supported by substantial
evidence and not arbitrary or capricious. Table 3.5-1: BAAQMD GHG Thresholds,
presents the project-level thresholds for GHG emissions.
' The BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related
GHG emissions. However, the BAAQMD recommends quantification and disclosure of
construction GHG emissions. The BAAQMD also recommends that the Lead Agency
' should make a determination on the significance of these construction generated GHG
emission impacts in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction goals, as required by the
Public Resources Code, Section 21082.2. The Lead Agency 1s encouraged to incorporate
' best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction, as feasible and
applicable.
' Table 3.5-I: BAAQMD GHG Thresholds
Project Type Construction- Operational-Related
Related
' Compliance with Qualified Climate
Action Plan
Projects other than Stationary None OR
Sources' 1,100 MTCO2eq/yr.
' OR
4.6 MTCO2e /SP2/ r.
Stationary Sources None I 10,000 MTCO2e / r.
' MTCO2e / r.= metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year
Notes:
1:According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines,a stationary source project is one that includes land uses that
would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require a BAAQMD
' permit to operate. Projects other than stationary sources are land use development projects including
residential,commercial,industrial,and public uses that do not require a BAAQMD permit to operate.
2: SP=service population residents+em Io ees
Source: BAAQMD, Options and Justification Report, October 2009 and BAAQMD, CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines,May 2011.
Page 3-77
Heritage Park Draft EIR ,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
City of Dublin
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan '
The City of Dublin prepared a Climate Action Plan (CAP) and Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration in October 2010. The City's CAP provides background on actions '
taken to curb GHG emissions; presents Dublin's baseline GHG emissions inventory in 2005
and forecast for GHG emissions in 2020 based on business-as-usual scenario; establishes a
GHG emissions reduction target; and presents steps for implementation of the CAP and '
monitoring and verification of the CAP to achieve the designated emissions reduction
target. The CAP serves as the City's qualified GHG Reduction Plan and programmatic
tiering document for the purposes of CEQA for the analysis of impacts to GHG emissions '
and climate change. The City has determined that the reduction target under the CAP will
reduce the impact from activities under the CAP to a less than significant level under
CEQA. If a proposed project is consistent with the applicable emission reduction measures '
identified in the CAP, the project would be considered to have a less than significant impact
(i.e. less than cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impact) due to
GHG emissions and climate change consistent with Public Resources Code Section '
21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15 183.5, 15064, and 15130.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures '
Criteria for Determining Significance
In accordance with CEQA, State CEQA Guide lines, and agency and professional standards,
a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:
• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a '
significant impact on the environment.; and/or
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of ,
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (the City's Climate Action Plan).
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ,
Impact 3.5-1: Greenhouse gas emissions generated by the project would not have a
significant impact on the environment. This is considered a less than
significant impact.
GHG emissions associated with the proposed project (i.e., COz, NZO, and CH4)would be '
generated by construction activities, as well as from vehicle miles traveled (VMT), area
sources, energy consumption, water supply, and solid waste generation. Implementation of
the proposed project is not anticipated to generate other forms of GHG emissions in
quantities that would facilitate a meaningful analysis.
Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions '
BAU GHG emissions are those that would occur as a result of implementation of the
proposed project (54 small lot single family homes, and a 14,000 square foot office ,
C C
Page 3-78
/1��
' Heritage Park Draft EIR
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
building). As previously stated, BAU refers to emissions that would be expected to occur
in the absence of GHG reduction measures. The proposed project would demolish and
replace the existing 1 10,000 square foot office complex; therefore, Table 3.5-2: Estimated
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, presents the estimated CO2, N20, and CH4 emissions of the
' proposed project, as well as the existing uses.
Table 3.5-2: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CO2 CH4 N20
Total Metric
Source Metric Metric Metric Tons Metric LMetHc Tons of Tons of
Tons/yr' Tons/yr of CO2eg2 Tons/yr e 2 CO2eq
' Existing Emissions
Area Source 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile Source 1,233.81 0.06 1.30 0.00 0.00 1,235.17
'
Energy 731.81 0.03 0.63 7.75 2,403 3,143.22
Waste 20.77 1.23 25.80 0.00 0.00 47.80
Water Demand 49.98 0.64 13.40 0.02 6.20 70.24
' Total Existing Emissions 2,036.37 1.96 41.13 7.77 2,409.20 4,496.43
Proposed Business As Usual Emissions
Area Source 10.22 0.02 0.42 0.00 0.00 10.66
Mobile Source 794.92 0.03 0.63 0.00 0.00 795.58
'
Energy 305.92 0.01 0.21 0.00 0.00 306.14
Waste 15.77 0.93 19.50 0.00 0.00 36.20
Water Demand 15.17 0.20 4.20 0.00 0.00 19.57
' Total Proposed Emissions 1,142.00 1.19 24.96 0.00 0.00 1,168.15
Net Business As Usual GHG -3,328.28 MTCO2eq
Emissions
' GHG Threshold 1,100 MTCO2e
Notes:
1. Emissions calculated using CalEEMod computer model.
2. CO2 Equivalent values calculated using the EPA Website, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator,
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html,accessed November 11,2013.
3. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.
.
Refer to Appendix B,Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data,for detailed model input/output data.
' Direct Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
' Direct project-related GHG emissions include emissions from area and mobile sources.
Table 3.5-2: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, estimates the CO2, N20, and CH4
emissions of the proposed project. The proposed project Is not anticipated to generate
other forms of GHG emissions in quantities that would facilitate a meaningful analysis.
Therefore, this analysis focuses on these three forms of GHG emissions. GHG emissions
estimations are based on an estimate of traffic trips, as well as land use data.
' Mobile source emissions would represent the greatest amounts of GHGs generated from
the proposed project. The proposed project would directly result in 795.58
CUPI W,ft
Page 3-79
Heritage Park Draft EIR '
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
MTCO2eq/year of mobile source GHG emissions. Area source emissions as a result of the
proposed project would be 10.66 MTCO2eq/year. N2O and CH4 emissions were first '
calculated in metric tons/year, then converted to MTCO2eq/year utilizing the EPA's GHG
equivalencies calculator. Converting emissions to comparable units (MTCO2eq/year)
allows for the summation of all GHG emissions. ,
Indirect Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Energy consumption emissions were calculated using CalEEMod and project-specific land '
use data. The potential development within the project area would indirectly result in
306.14 MTCO2eq/year due to energy usage; refer to Table 3.5-2: Estimated Greenhouse '
Gas Emissions.
Water demand for the proposed uses would be approximately 264 million gallons of water ,
per year. Emissions from indirect energy impacts due to water supply would result in 19.57
MTCO2eq/year.
Total Business As Usual Greenhouse Gas Emissions '
As shown in Table 3.5-2: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the BAU GHG emissions
at project buildout would total 1,168.15 MTCO2eq/year, net emissions would be reduced ,
by 3,328.28 MTCO2eq/year due to the reduction in mobile source emissions, etc. The
BAAQMD threshold for GHG emissions is 1,100 MTCO2eq/year, therefore, the proposed
project would not exceed the BAAQMD GHG threshold under the BAU scenario. ,
Therefore, GHG emissions would be less than significant.
Consistency with Applicable GHG Plans, Policies, or Regulations '
Impact 3.5-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with an
applicable greenhouse gas reduction plan, policy, or regulation. This is '
considered a less than significant impact.
As previously noted, the City of Dublin prepared a CAP and Initial Study/Mitigated '
Negative Declaration in October 2010. The City's CAP serves as the City of Dublin's
qualified GHG Reduction Plan and programmatic tiering document for the purposes of
CEQA for the analysis of impacts to GHG emissions and climate change. The City has '
determined that the reduction target of 20 percent from BAU under the CAP would
reduce the impact from activities under the CAP to a less than significant level under
CEQA. If a proposed project is consistent with the applicable emission reduction measures '
identified in the CAP, the project would be considered to have a less than significant
impact. Table 3.5-3: Project Consistency with the City's Climate Action Plan Measures,
discusses the project compliance with several of the CAP measures aimed at reducing '
community-wide GHG emissions.
Page 3-80
' Heritage Park Draft EIR
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Table 3.5-3: Project Consistency with the City's Climate Action Plan Measures
tTransportation and land Use Measures
A.1.1: Transit-Oriented Development. Measure A.I.I The project site is located approximately 0.42 miles from
' discusses the City's plan for the Dublin Transit Center, the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. Additionally,
located near the existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. the project site is located within walking distance (less than
The Dublin Transit Center allows for the construction of 0.4-mile) of Wheels Bus Routes 503, 10, 3, and R along
' high-density residential uses, campus office uses, San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard. Because the
commercial uses, and a park. project site is located within close proximity to transit,
residents and employees would be encouraged to utilize
transit. Therefore, the proposed project is compliant with
' CAP Measure A.1.1.
A.1.8: General Plan Community Design and Sustainability The proposed project is an infill project, and incorporates
Element. The Community Design and Sustainability the General Plan Community Design and Sustainability
' Element establishes design principles, policies, and Element vision for a diverse, functional and aesthetically
implementation measures to enhance the livability of appealing community that guides compatible land uses,
Dublin and encourages a high level of quality design that community design, and sustainable development to
supports sustainability. preserve a healthy quality of life for the present and future
' generations. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent
with CAP Measure A.1.8.
A.1.10: Bikeways Master Plan. Policies in the City's The City's Bikeways Master Plan provides goals, policies
' Bikeways Master Plan include the continued development and standards for developing and implementing a bikeway
of successful bicycle and pedestrian trail corridors, system. The proposed project promotes viable
improved bicycle access to parks and open space areas, transportation altematives to the automobile and supports
improved bicycle lanes and/or routes on several key cross- walking and bicycling throughout the project site and
' city corridors, bikeways on key freeway crossings, the vicinity, with safe and convenient access to transit, open
development of education and enforcement programs, space,trails, parks, and other recreational amenities. Thus,
and improvements to the City's Bicycle Parking Ordinance. as the proposed project would be consistent with the
' City's Bikeways Master Plan, the project would be
compliant with CAP Measure A.I.10.
Ene Measures
A.2.1: Green Building Ordinance. In 2009,the City passed The Green Building Ordinance provides policies and
a Green Building Ordinance requiring residential projects standards that address the City's requirements for
over 20 units to reach 50 points on the GreenPoint Rating encouraging sustainable design and construction practices
system. Altematively, LEED for Homes is approved in the of buildings. The proposed project would comply with the
' ordinance. Other types of rating systems may be approved California Green Code requirements. Additionally, the
by the City's Green Building Official on a case-by-case proposed project would include high efficiency lighting in
basis. The majority of residential projects within the City the proposed residential units and office building. As the
are subject to the Green Building Ordinance. proposed project is consistent with the City's Green
Building Ordinance, the proposed project would be
compliant with CAP Measure A.2.1.
Solid Waste and Recycling Measures
A.3.1: Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance. The City requires all construction and demolition projects
Since 2005, the City has implemented a Construction and to recycle at least 50 percent of waste generated on a job
Demolition Debris Ordinance with a required 100% of site. As the proposed project would be required to
asphalt and concrete recycled, and a minimum of 50% of comply with the City's Construction and Demolition
' all other materials recycled. The City's diversion rate has Debris Ordinance, the proposed project would be
consistently been between 80% and 90% since 2005, well compliant with CAP Measure A.3.1.
above the 50%requirement.
Page 3-81
Heritage Park Draft EIR '
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
1
Climate Action Plan Measure Pro ect Applicability
A.3.4: Commercial Recycling Program. In 2005, the City Free recycling service is available to all commercial '
began offering a free commercial recycling program that customers that subscribe to garbage service. The
also includes free indoor recycling containers for schools proposed project encourages solid waste reduction
and businesses. Indoor recycling containers encourage measures, including implementing recycling and '
employees and students to recycle by conveniently composting services on the project site. Convenient and
locating recycling containers near their work areas, readily accessible recycling facilities would be provided
A.3.6: Promote Commercial Recycling. In 2005, the City within the new residential and office developments. Thus,
began promoting commercial recycling in the City. The the proposed project would be compliant with CAP 1
City has developed commercial recycling guides for Measures A.3.4 and A.3.6.
businesses and the City's franchise waste hauler conducts
two business audits per business day to increase diversion 1
efforts in the commercial sector. Programs for recycling
contribute to reducing the energy and transportation
needed to manufacture and ship virgin products and
therefore play an important role in the City's efforts to '
reduce GHG emissions associated with the waste sector.
The proposed project includes several measures that would be consistent with the CAP '
measures. The project would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for GHG
emissions, as it would result in a net reduction of 3,328.28 MTCOZeq/year. Therefore, as
the project is consistent with the CAP, and the CAP is consistent with AB 32, the 1
proposed project would not hinder the State's GHG reduction strategies for meeting the
goals established by AB 32, and the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD's
1,100 MTCOZeq/year threshold, a less than significant impact would occur. 1
1
1
i
1
i
i
Page 3-82 can" " '
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
' The purpose of this section is to identify the potential for the proposed project to expose
the public or the environment to hazards and hazardous materials related to existing
' conditions or new hazards created as a result of the proposed project. Where significant
impacts are identified, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to the
extent feasible. This section is based on a review of the Phase I Environmental Site
' Assessment (ESA) prepared for the project site on behalf of the project applicant by
Bureau Veritas (dated February 21, 2012). The Phase I ESA is included as Appendix D of
this Draft EIR.
Environmental Setting
Regional Setting
The proposed project is located in the Amado r-Livermore Valley region of eastern
Alameda County, within the California Coast Ranges Physiographic Province. The project
' site consists of a broad alluvial plain within the Amador-Livermore Valley that contains
sedimentary deposits derived from the surrounding hills.
' Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials include substances that are corrosive, poisonous, radioactive,
flammable, or explosive. Although the City of Dublin has industrial and commercial
' activities within and in the project vicinity that store, use, and dispose of hazardous
materials, no regional groundwater conditions have been identified in the project area.
Hazardous Materials Transport
Hazardous materials are transported through the City regularly along major transportation
corridors, including Interstates 580 and 680, and several arterial streets (including San
' Ramon Road, Amador Valley Boulevard, and Dublin Boulevard). Local streets within the
City provide access to commercial and industrial businesses.
' Airport Hazards
The closest airport to the project site is the Livermore Municipal Airport, which is located
' approximately 5.8 miles east of the project site. The airport is a general aviation airport
which serves private, business, and corporate tenants and customers. Based on Figure 3-1,
Airport Influence Area, of the Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
' (August 27, 2012), the project site is not located within the airport influence area.
Wildland Fire Hazards
According to the City of Dublin General Plan, steep, inaccessible slopes and brush create a
high fire hazard in the western hills. Additionally, areas within the Extended Planning Areas
that are adjacent to open space are susceptible to fire hazards. Due to the location of the
' project site (within a developed area of the central portion of the City), the proposed
project is not located within an area that would be subject to wildland fires.
Page 3-83
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Project Setting
The project site consists of a complex of two-story commercial office buildings (Heritage '
Park Office). These buildings were constructed between 1978 and 1981. Other developed
areas of the project site include paved areas for parking as well as areas of omamental '
landscaping. One AT&T-owned cellular telephone tower and associated equipment shelter
are located at the northeast comer of the project site.
Adjoining uses primarily consist of commercial and institutional uses. Institutional uses '
(Church of Christ) and commercial uses (Shell Station and a restaurant) are located to the
north of the project site. San Ramon Road bounds the project site to the east and
commercial office buildings are present beyond. Vacant land associated with Dublin Creek
and transportation uses (Interstate 580 [I-580]) are located to the south. Donlon Way
bounds the western portion of the project site, with Heritage Park and Museums located '
beyond.
Current Operations '
There are approximately 80 tenant office spaces on-site within the existing Heritage Park
Office complex. The interior areas variously include offices, kitchenettes, and restrooms.
There is one hydraulic elevator located on-site. ,
Hazardous Materials
Currently, no regulated quantities of hazardous materials are present within the project site. t
The Phase I ESA noted one hydraulic elevator tank on-site that stores hydraulic oil. The
hydraulic oil tank appeared to be in good condition, with no obvious staining or leaking. '
Two pad-mounted transformers owned by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) were observed
on the project site in paved parking areas. No obvious evidence of release from these
transformers was observed as part of the Phase I ESA. '
Government Code Section 65962.5
Govemment Code Section 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control '
(DTSC) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to compile and update a
regulatory sites listing (per the criteria of the Section). The State Department of Health
Services is also required to compile and update, as appropriate, a list of all public drinking '
water wells that contain detectable levels of organic contaminants and that are subject to
water analysis pursuant to Section 1 16395 of the Health and Safety Code. Section 65962.5
requires the local enforcement agency, as designated pursuant to Section 18051 of Title 14 ,
of the Califomia Code of Regulations (CCR), to compile, as appropriate, a list of all solid
waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste. The
project site is not listed on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Govemment Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2013).
Historical Uses '
Based on the Phase I ESA, the project site appears to have been developed for
residential/agricultural use from 1906 until the late 1970s. By 1981, the project site appears
Page 3-84
con. ftIn.
' Heritage Park Draft EIR
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
to have been developed with the existing on-site structures. Although not documented at
' the project site, agricultural chemicals (e.g., organochlorine pesticides and metal
compounds) may have been applied while the site was under agricultural production.
These activities can result in residual agricultural chemicals to be present in the near surface
' soils (i.e., I to 3 feet below ground surface [bgs]). These residual agricultural chemicals may
influence the off-site disposal of soil or pose a health risk to residential site users at the
project site. However, based on the Phase I ESA, these residual chemicals, if present, are
not typically at concentrations that would require cleanup by a regulatory agency or pose a
significant human health risk. In addition, the project site was redeveloped, following this
historical use, to the existing on-site commercial/office uses. Therefore, based on the past
' disturbance of the project site and unlikely presence of elevated concentrations, the Phase I
ESA determined that this historical use is not anticipated to have resulted in an
' environmental condition associated with the current on-site soil conditions.
Since development of the Heritage Park Office complex by 1981, occupancy has generally
been related to office use, but has included some light biomedical operations that
generated medical waste until at least 1996. According to the Phase I ESA, bio hazardous
wastes associated with the Chabot Dialysis Center were historically observed in small
' containers inside one on-site building and large containers outside one building. The bio
hazardous wastes were reportedly hauled off-site by a licensed waste contractor and there
were no reported non-compliance citations against Chabot Dialysis Center. No
' underground storage tanks (USTs) or aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) were identified.
Several 55-gallon drums of acid stored outside of one building was noted in the Phase I
ESA. A reverse osmosis water purification system consisting of two carbon tanks, one
' water softener tank, one brine tank, and one 550-gallon water holding tank was also
documented. No manufacturing activities were noted in association with the project site.
Based on the Phase I ESA, no contamination has been reported in association with these
' past on-site activities.
Potential Groundwater Contamination
Based on the Phase I ESA, in 2008, the City of Dublin redeveloped the former off-site
Dublin Square Shopping Center to a city park (Heritage Park). This property is located
approximately 200 feet west and up-gradient of the project site. During park construction,
three USTs and a concrete vault were discovered and removed from the northwestern
portion of the property. In addition, 280 tons of petroleum-impacted soil was removed.
Verification groundwater sampling was not conducted and this off-site property remains an
' active open case under regulatory oversight by the Alameda County Department of
Environmental Health (ACDEH). According to the Phase I ESA, the unknown status of
groundwater associated with this up-gradient release presents a potential contamination
tconcern for groundwater underlying the project site.
C�I1 d As=m,a%W_ Page 3-85
Heritage Park Draft EIR '
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Regulatory Setting
Federal and State
A material is considered hazardous if it has been designated as such by a federal, state, or
local agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. The '
California Code of Regulations defines a hazardous material as a substance that, because of
physical or chemical properties, its quantity, concentration, or other characteristics, may
either (1) cause an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or
incapacitating illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health
or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of, or
otherwise managed (22 CCR Section 66260.10 and California Health and Safety Code
[HSC] Section 25501). Based on this definition, "hazardous materials" include, but are not
limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material that a handler or the
administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health '
and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the
environment (22 CCR Section 66260.10).
Chemical residuals in soil that are the result of the normal application of fertilizer, plant
pesticides for agricultural purposes do not constitute a release of hazardous substances
under the California Hazardous Substances Account Act (HSC Section 25321 (d)). '
Similarly, the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) exempts parties from liability for the application of federally-registered
pesticides [42 USC Section 9607(i)].
Regulation of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes occurs at the federal, state, and
local levels of government. On the federal level, many hazardous materials-related '
regulations are promulgated by the EPA. Additional regulations pertaining to work place
standards and for transportation of hazardous materials are enforced by the United States
Department of Labor Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and the '
United States Department of Transportation (DOT).
In 1993, Senate Bill 1082 gave the California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA)
the authority and responsibility to establish a unified hazardous waste and hazardous
materials management and regulatory program (Unified Program). The purpose of the
Unified Program is to consolidate and coordinate six different haz ardous materials and
hazardous waste programs, and to insure that they are consistently implemented
throughout the state. The unified program is overseen by CaIEPA with support from the
DTSC, SWRCB, the Office of Emergency Services, and the State Fire Marshal.
State law requires county and local agencies to implement the Unified Program. The
county and local agencies in charge of implementing the program are called "Certified ,
Unified Program Agency" (CUPA). The Alameda County Department of Environmental
Health (ACDEH) is the designated CUPA for the City and is the administrative agency that ,
coordinates and enforces numerous local, state, and federal hazardous materials
CZn
Page 3-86
and AssocWe&
i
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
i
management and environmental protection programs in the City. The CUPA administers
the following programs:
Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program —Chapter 6.95 of the Health and Safety Code
establishes minimum statewide standards for Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBP's).
HMBP's contain basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of
hazardous materials and/or waste. Each business shall prepare a HMBP if that business
uses, handles, or stores a hazardous material and/or waste or an extremely hazardous
material in quantities greater than or equal to the following:
55 gallons for a liquid
500 pounds of a solid
200 cubic feet for any compressed gas
Hazardous Waste Generator Program -The Hazardous Waste Generator Program
regulates businesses that generate any amount of a hazardous waste. Proper handling,
recycling, treating, storing and disposing of hazardous waste are key elements to this
program.
Underground Storage Tank Program - The UST program regulates the construction,
operation, repair and removals of UST systems used to store hazardous materials and/or
waste.
California Accidental Release Program - The California Accidental Release Program (Cal
ARP) requires any business that handles more than threshold quantities of an extremely
hazardous substance to develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP). The RMP is implemented
by the business to prevent or mitigate releases of regulated substances that could have off-
, site consequences through hazard identification, planning, source reduction, maintenance,
training, and engineering controls.
' Tiered Permitting Program - The Tiered Permitting Program regulates the onsite treatment
of hazardous waste.
Aboveground Storage Tank Program - Facilities with a single tank or cumulative
aboveground storage capacities of 1,320 gallons or greater of petroleum-based liquid
product (gasoline, diesel, lubricants, etc.) must develop a Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure plan (SPCC).
An SPCC plan must be prepared in accordance with the oil pollution prevention guidelines
in the Federal Code of Regulations (40 CFR, 1 12). This plan must include procedures,
methods, and equipment at the facility to prevent discharges of petroleum from reaching
navigable waters. A Registered Professional Engineer must certify an SPCC plan and a
complete copy of the plan must be maintained on site.
C./1 a„"°"c°', k= Page 3-87
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Local
Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH)
The ACDEH is the administrative agency that coordinates and enforces numerous local,
state, and federal hazardous materials management and environmental protection programs
in the County. As the CUPA, the County administers the following programs:
• Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program
• Hazardous Waste Generator Program
• Underground Storage Tank Program
• California Accidental Release Program
• Tiered Permitting Program
• Aboveground Storage Tank Program
• Survey and inspection of waste tire facilities using a grant from the CalRecycle.
City of Dublin General Plan
The Seismic Safety and Safety Element of the City of Dublin Genera/Plan (General Plan)
includes the following policies pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials at the project
site:
8.3.4.l A.• Guiding Policies
I. 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.
2. Minimize the risk of exposure to hazardous materials from contaminated sites. ,
8.3.4.l B.• Implementing Policies
I. Consider formation of a regional hazardous materials team consisting of specially ,
trained personnel from all Tri-Valley public safety agencies.
2. As part of the City's Comprehensive Emergency Response Plan, the City has
adopted a Hazardous Materials Response Plan. The City will periodically review the
Plan to prepare for and respond to emergencies related to hazardous materials.
3. Periodically review and enforce the City's ordinances regulating the handling, '
transport, and storage of hazardous materials and hazardous waste.
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.
Page 3-88
,e&,n
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1
City of Dublin Zoning Code
Chapter 8.60, Hazardous Waste Facilities Location Procedure, regulates hazardous waste
facilities in the City of Dublin. The purpose of Chapter 8.60 is to establish uniform
standards, land use regulations, and a permit process for controlling the location, design,
maintenance and safety of off-site hazardous waste facilities. These standards, regulations
and process are intended to be consistent with Article 8.7 of the California Health and
1 Safety Code, applicable portions of the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management
Plan, and the City of Dublin General Plan.
City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan
The purpose of the City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan is to reduce the risk of open
land wildfire to the lowest practical level consistent with the reasonable protection of
1 wildlife habitat and other open space values. The Wildfire Management Plan was adopted
by the City of Dublin in 1996 and amended in 2001 and revised in 2002. The Wildfire
Management Plan provides for development of. a Fire Buffer Zone between open
space/undeveloped lands and developed properties.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Methodology
This section is based on the Phase I ESA prepared for the project site and included as
Appendix E of this Draft EIR.
Criteria for Determining Significance
In accordance with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, agency and professional standards, a
project impact would be considered significant if the project would:
1 . Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
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;
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school;
Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment;
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area;
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area;
C�I1
Page 3-89
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan; and/or '
• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands.
Potential for Airport Hazards
The closest airport/airstrip to the project site is the Livermore Municipal Airport which is
located approximately 5.8 miles to the east. Furthermore, according to the Livermore
Municipa/Airport Master Plan, the project site is not located within the approach zones and
is not located within an unacceptable noise contour. Therefore, the proposed project
would not result in a safety hazard for any people residing or working in the area, which
would be considered no impact. ,
Potential for Wildfire Hazards
Wildfire impacts may be considered significant if the proposed project would expose ,
people or structures to a significant risk, loss, injury or death involving wildfires, including
where wildlands are located adjacent to urban areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands. As the project site is located in an urban area in the central portion of the '
City and is surrounded by existing development, it is not subject to potential wildfire
hazards and the proposed project would therefore have no impact in this regard.
Government Code Section 65962.5
The project site is not listed on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, no impact would result in this regard.
Routine Transport, Use, and/or Disposal of Hazardous Materials ,
Impact 3.6-1 The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials as implementation of existing federal,
state and local standards and regulations would ensure that the
proposed project would have a less than significant impact.
The proposed project involves the demolition of existing commercial structures and the
construction of residential and office uses. Based on age of the existing structures
(constructed between 1978 and 198 1) located at the project site, ACMs and LBPs are not
anticipated to be associated with on-site building materials. Furthermore, long-term
operations associated with proposed residential uses would not involve the routine
transport, use, or disposal of substantial quantities of hazardous materials. Proposed office
uses (such as medical office or laboratory/research operations) could store, handle, and/or
transport hazardous materials. If this is the case, these businesses would be required to
procure business plans and adhere to strict procedures enforced by the ACDEH. Thus,
Page 3-90 cOn ", -atmk
1 Heritage Park Draft EIR
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
implementation of the existing federal, state, and local standards and regulations,
' implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impact.
Handle/Emit Hazardous Materials in the Vicinity of a School
Impact 3.6-2 Residential uses at the project site are not anticipated to handle/emit
hazardous materials in the vicinity of a school. Future commercial
uses would be required to comply with existing federal, state and
local standards and regulations if minor amounts of hazardous
materials are used on-site. Therefore, the proposed project would
1 result in a less than significant impact pertaining to the handling of
hazardous materials in the vicinity of a school.
The nearest school to the project site is the Little Kids Learning Center (located at 11760
Dublin Boulevard approximately 0.08 mile northwest of the project site). Construction
activities are not anticipated to include the handling of regulated quantities of hazardous
1 materials. Regulated hazardous materials are not typically associated with residential uses.
Minor amounts of hazardous materials may be handled/stored/used on-site within the
proposed office building. However, these businesses would be required to procure
1 business plans and adhere to strict procedures enforced by the ACDEH. Thus, with
implementation of the existing federal, state, and local standards and regulations, the
proposed project would result in a less than significant impact pertaining to the handling of
hazardous substances, if any, within a quarter mile of a school site.
Interfere with an Emergency Response Plan/Emergency Evacuation Plan
Impact 3.6-3: The proposed project would result in a decrease in vehicle trips to the
project site and therefore would not obstruct or impair the operation of
1 major streets in the project vicinity including Dublin Boulevard and San
Ramon Road. In addition, the proposed project would be required to
comply with the City of Dublin emergency evacuation routes and
1 emergency access at the project site. Therefore, the proposed project
would have a less than significant impact on emergency response plans and
evacuation routes.
The project site is currently accessed at two driveways along Donlon Way. With
implementation of the proposed project, the project site would continue to be accessed
from Donlon Way. Project operations would also result in a net decrease in persons at
the project site and vehicle trips accessing the project site. The proposed project would
not obstruct or impair operation of major streets in the vicinity, including Dublin Boulevard
and San Ramon Road. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not
physically interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
through the City. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the
City of Dublin emergency evacuation routes and emergency access at the project site.
Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on emergency
response plans and evacuation plans.
CC/1 wAS ASSOCOM ft Page 3-91
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Accidental Conditions During Construction
Impact 3.6-4: Construction activities at the project site may result in accidental
conditions as a result of potentially contaminated groundwater
underlying the project site. This is a potentially significant impact ,
However, with implementation of the recommended mitigation, this
potentially significant impact would be reduced to less than
significant levels.
One of the means through which human exposure to hazardous substances could occur is
through accidental release, particularly during construction/site disturbance activities.
Construction equipment may result in petroleum-based fuel spills. The level of risk
associated with this type of spill is not considered significant due to the small volume and
low concentration of hazardous materials utilized during the construction phases. The
project contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety
procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such
substances into the environment in the event of a spill. Standard construction practices
would be observed such that any materials released would be appropriately contained and
remediated as required by local, state, and federal law, as identified above.
Human exposure of contaminated groundwater can also have potential health effects on a
variety of factors, including the nature of the contaminant and the degree of exposure.
Based on the Phase I ESA, potentially contaminated groundwater may underlie the project
site as a result of past release from USTs at Heritage Paris. Construction workers could be
exposed to hazardous substances during grading/excavation activities, should groundwater
be encountered. This is a potentially significant impact. 1
With implementation of the following mitigation measure, this impact would be reduced to
a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
MM 3.6-4 Review Files for the former Dublin Square Shopping Center and Prepare a r
WonkerSafetyPlaa Priorto issuance of a grading permit, an environmental
consultant with Phase II/site characterization experience shall review the
existing files maintained by the Department of Toxic Substances and
Control, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Alameda
County Department of Environmental Health for the Heritage Park site and
prepare a worker safety plan to ensure constriction worker safety during
grading/excavation activities.
Accidental Conditions During Operation
Impact 3.6-5: During operation of the proposed project, there is the potential for the '
residential uses to be exposed to hazardous vapors as a result of
contaminated groundwater in the vicinity of the project site. This is a
Page 3-92
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
potentially significant impact. With implementation of the recommended
' mitigation,this impact would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the construction of residential and
office uses at the project site. Long-term operations would not involve the routine
transport, use, or disposal of any regulated hazardous materials (other than those typical of
office uses). However, proposed residential uses could be exposed to hazardous vapor
conditions as a result of potentially contaminated groundwater in the vicinity.
Based on the Phase I ESA, a release of hazardous materials to the groundwater has not yet
received case closure from the appropriate regulatory agency at the Heritage Park site.
The project site is also located adjacent to an existing Shell gasoline station (adjoining the
project site to the northeast). Although this gas station has received case closure by the
SWRCB for former releases to groundwater, this case closure was obtained assuming
commercial uses at the project site. Based on available files maintained by the SWRCB,this
site includes land use restrictions for commercial uses (no residential uses allowed),
indicating that some residual contamination may still be present (SWRCB 2013). With
these considerations, there is a potential for vapor encroachment onto the project site
from this off-site use as well. The intrusion of subsurface vapors into buildings is one of
many exposure pathways that must be considered in assessing the risk posed by releases of
hazardous chemicals into the environment. Based on the moderate potential for
' contaminated groundwater underlying the project site and adjoining gasoline station uses,
vapor intrusion into proposed structures could occur. This is a potentially significant
impact.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.65, impacts to persons at the project site as
a result of vapor intrusion would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measure
MM 3.6-5 Conduct a Vapor Intrusion Investigation. Prior to issuance of building
1 permits, vapor intrusion investigations shall be conducted by a qualified
Environmental Professional, in consultation with the Alameda County
Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH) or other appropriate
agency if applicable. Should the environmental professional determine that
proposed buildings could be impacted by vapor intrusion, the Environmental
Professional shall recommend specific design measures to be incorporated
into the building design that would reduce these indoor air quality
concentrations to below applicable regulatory thresholds.
1
can�
Page 3-93
Heritage Paris Draft EIR
Hydrology and Water Quality
3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
This section of the Draft EIR discusses the hydrologic and water quality setting of the
proposed project and surrounding area. This section also evaluates the potential impacts
that the proposed project will have on water resources. The discussion of hydrology and
water quality issues within the proposed project area was based on a technical
memorandum prepared by Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. in November 2013. The
technical memorandum is included as Appendix F.
Environmental Setting
Regional Setting
The climate of the Livermore-Amador Valley is characterized as Mediterranean, with cool
1 wet winters and warm dry summers. The average annual temperature of the area ranges
from a low of 42 degrees (Fahrenheit) to a high of 73 degrees. The mean annual rainfall in
project vicinity is approximately 17 inches (the majority of which falls between October
1 and April). Analysis of long-term precipitation records indicates that wetter and drier
cycles lasting several years are common in the region. Severe, damaging rainstorms occur
at a frequency of about once every three years.
Surface Water
The project site is located in the City of Dublin, within the western portion of the
Livermore-Amador Valley hydrologic region. The project site is relatively flat, with on-site
elevations ranging from approximately 375 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the western
portion of the project site to 365 feet above msl in the eastern portion of the project site.
Surface water generally flows from west to east.
In an undeveloped setting, when rainfall intensities exceed the infiltration capacity of surface
i soils, run-off flows over the ground surfaces toward established natural drainage channels.
Stormwater runoff is then conveyed away from the area in creeks and streams. In a
developed setting, an increased portion of the natural soils would be covered with
' impervious surfaces (i.e. roads, driveways, and roofs), increasing amounts and altering flow
patterns of runoff.
In developed portions of the City of Dublin, storm drainage is conveyed in underground
pipes, channels, and to a lesser extent, swales. New development is required to install
adequately-sized storrn drains, connected to the City's system, to accommodate increased
' runoff volumes. Stormwater drainage is managed by the City of Dublin Public Works
Department and all runoff in the vicinity is directed to regional storm drain facilities owned
and maintained by Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (Zone 7).
Reservoirs/Dams
There are 29 reservoirs/dams in Alameda County. The following reservoirs are located
within 12 miles of the proposed project:
CC/1��
Page 3-95
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Hydrology and Water Quality
• Don Castro Reservoir is located approximately 9 miles to the east of the proposed
project in Hayward. It is maintained by the Alameda County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District for flood control, and by the East Bay Regional Park
District as a recreational facility.
• Lake Chabot Reservoir is located approximately nine miles west of the project area.
It was completed in 1875 by damming San Lorenzo creek and served as the
primary water source for the East Bay Area.
• The Upper San Leandro Reservoir is located approximately 13 miles northwest of
the project area. It was built by the East Bay Water Company in 1926 and is
maintained by the East Bay Municipal Utility District. '
• The San Antonio Reservoir is located approximately 13 miles south-southeast of
the project area. Built in 1964 by the City and County of San Francisco, it is ,
managed by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). The reservoir
captures local rain and runoff from the Alameda Watershed and contributes surface
water supplies to the SFPUC Water System.
• Lake de Valle is located approximately 14 miles southeast of the project area. De
Valle Dam and Lake de Valle were built in 1968 as part of the State Water Project.
It provides storage for the South Bay Aqueduct and flood control for Alameda
Creek. The East Bay Regional Park District manages the Lake de Valle Regional
Park, which is also a designated State Recreation Area.
Groundwater Basin
The proposed project is located within the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, which ,
contains a surface area of approximately 109 square miles. The Livermore Valley
Groundwater Basin lies approximately 40 miles east of San Francisco and 30 miles
southwest of Stockton, within a structural trough of the Diablo Range. The Livermore
Valley Groundwater Basin extends from the Pleasanton Ridge east to the Altamont Hills
(about 14 miles) and from the Livermore Upland north to the Orinda Upland (about three
miles). Surface drainage features include Arroyo Valley, Arroyo Mocho, and Arroyo las
Positas as principal streams, with Alamo Creek, South San Ramon Creek, and Tassajara
Creek as minor streams. All streams converge on the west side of the basin to form
Arroyo de la Laguna, which flows south and joins Alameda Creek in Sunol Valley, and
ultimately draining to the San Francisco Bay. Some geologic structures restrict the lateral
movement of groundwater, but the general groundwater gradient is from east to west,
towards Arroyo de la Laguna and from north to south along South San Ramon Creek and
Arroyo de la Laguna. Elevations within the basin range from about 600 feet in the east,
near the Altamont Hills, to about 280 feet in the southwest, where Arroyo de la Laguna
flows into Sunol Groundwater Basin.
The entire floor of the Livermore Valley and portions of the upland areas on all sides of the
valley overlie groundwater bearing materials. The materials are mostly continental deposits
from alluvial fans, outwash plains, and lakes. They include valley-fill materials, the Livermore ,
Page 3-96
C�Ii,'� k
i
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Hydrology and Water Quality
Formation and the Tassajara Formation. Under most conditions, the valley fill and
Livermore Formation yield adequate to large quantities of groundwater to all types of wells,
with the larger supply wells being located in the Main Basin. The Main Basin is composed of
Castle, Bernal, Amador, and Mocho sub-basins.
' Groundwater Quantity
The groundwater resources in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin are managed by
Zone 7, under authority from California Water Code Section 30000 (County Water
District). Zone 7 routinely monitors groundwater within the Main Basin. Two
independent methods are used to estimate groundwater storage: 1) Hydrologic Inventory;
and 2) Nodal Groundwater Elevation. The Main Basin is estimated to have a total storage
capacity of which approximately 126,000 acre feet are available for Zone 7 operational
storage. Zone 7's goal is to maintain 128,000 acre feet of groundwater in storage at all
times. The natural sustainable yield of the Main Basin is approximately 13,400 acre feet per
year, which is ten to I I percent of the total estimated useable groundwater storage. Based
on the sustainable yield value, the retailers within Zone 7 including the Dublin San Ramon
Services District (DSRSD) are permitted to pump 7,245 acre feet of water per year. Each
retailer has an established "Groundwater Pumping Quota" (GPQ). Zone 7 pumps
DSRSD's GPQ.
Zone 7 pumps only water that has been previously recharged as part of its artificial
recharge program using its surface water supplies. During high demands, groundwater is
used to supplement surface water delivered via the South Bay Aqueduct (SBA) and treated
at one of the Zone 7's two surface water treatment facilities. Groundwater is also used
when the SBA is out of service due to maintenance and improvements or when Zone 7's
surface water treatment plants are operating under reduced capacity due to construction
repairs, etc.
Finally, Zone 7 uses its stored groundwater (both local and non-local) under emergency or
drought conditions when there may be insufficient water supply available. Zone 7 also
pumps groundwater out of the Main Basin during normal water years to help reduce salt
loading in the Main Basin. To achieve additional salt removal, a demineralization facility has
been in operation since 2009. Zone 7 plans to recharge 9,200 acre feet per year on
average, which means that Zone 7 can pump an equivalent of 9,200 acre feet per year on
average from the Main Basin.
Groundwater Quality
The Main Basin is characterized by relatively good quality groundwater that meets all state
and federal drinking water standards. However, there has been a slow degradation of
groundwater quality as evidenced by rising Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and hardness
levels over the last few decades. To address this problem, Zone 7 developed a Salt
Management Plan (SMP), which was approved by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) as a condition of the Master Waste Reuse Permit and incorporated into
Zone 7's Groundwater Management Plan in 2005.
1
Con Page 3-97
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Hydrology and Water Quality
Zone 7 implements a wastewater and recycled water monitoring program as part of the
Groundwater Management Plan. In 2009, 20 percent of the recycled water produced in the
service area was applied over the Main Basin. Nitrates and salinity have historically been the
primary water quality parameters of concern in recycled water, but nitrates have become
less of a concern since 1995 when the City of Livermore, which along with DSRSD '
stopped nitrifying is effluent. In addition to recycled water application over the Main Basin,
there are also approximately eighty septic tanks over the Main Basin that discharge their
settled effluent but their use is not monitored.
To further manage the quality of water in the Main Basin, Zone 7 also runs a Toxic Site
Surveillance Program documenting and tracking sites across the groundwater basin that '
pose a potential threat to drinking water supplies.
As part of its efforts to address salinity in the Main Basin, Zone 7 completed construction ,
of a wellhead demineralization facility in 2009. Employing a reverse osmosis membrane-
based treatment system, this facility allows for the removal and export of concentrated
minerals or salts from the Main Basin and the delivery of treated water with reduced TDS ,
and hardness levels to Zone Ts customers.
Water Qualitx
The quality of surface and groundwater at the proposed project area is affected by land
uses within the entire watershed. Drainage from the project site affects the quality of
water in Dublin Creek and San Francisco Bay. Water quality in surface and groundwater
bodies is regulated primarily by the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards
(discussed below).
Project Site Setting
The project site is 6.6 acres and is covered with impervious surfaces (e.g. buildings and
parking lots). The existing improvements are located approximately three and five feet
below Donlon Way and generally slope from west to east. There is an existing storm drain
system on-site, which collects the local drainage from the roofs and parking lot and conveys
it to a 24 inch pipe located in the southeastern portion of the project site. This existing 24-
inch pipe ultimately conveys the stormwater to a concrete line drainage channel located
within Caltrans right-of-way between the southern property line and Interstate 580. The
existing flow rate at the project site is 13.4 cubic feet per second (Carlson, Barbee &
Gibson, Inc. 1 1/2413).
Flooding '
According to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by FEMA (Panel 06001 C0304G and
Panel 06001 C0308G), portions of the project site are located within the boundaries of the
500-year flood zone (see Figure 3.7-1: FEMA Flood Zones). A 100-year flood zone is
located adjacent to but entirely outside of the project boundary along Dublin Creek.
Page 3-98 ccn'�" W_
' Heritage Park Draft EIR
Hydrology and Water Quality
Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water Act
' The principal law governing pollution of the nation's surface waters is the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act [CWA]). Originally enacted in 1948, it was
amended in 1972 and has remained substantially the same since. The CWA consists of
two major parts: provisions that authorize federal financial assistance for municipal sewage
treatment plant construction and regulatory requirements that apply to industrial and
municipal dischargers. The CWA authorizes the establishment of effluent standards on an
' industry basis. The CWA also requires states to adopt water quality standards that "consist
of the designated uses of the navigable waters involved and the water quality criteria for
1 such waters based upon such uses".
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
To achieve its objectives, the CWA is based on the concept that all discharges into the
nation's waters are unlawful, unless specifically authorized by a permit. The National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is the permitting program for discharge of
pollutants into surface waters of the United States under Section 402 of the CWA. Thus,
industrial and municipal dischargers (point source discharges) must obtain NPDES permits
from the appropriate RWQCB (i.e., the Central Valley region). The existing NPDES (Phase
1) stormwater program requires municipalities serving more than 1,000,000 persons to
obtain a NPDES stormwater permit for any construction project larger than five acres.
Proposed NPDES storrnwater regulations (Phase II) expand this existing national program
' to smaller municipalities with populations of 10,000 persons or more and construction sites
that disturb more than one acre. For other dischargers, such as those affecting
groundwater or from non-point sources, a Report of Waste Discharge must be filed with
the RWQCB. For specified situations, some permits may be waived and some discharge
activities may be handled through being included in an existing General Permit.
' Construction activity includes any clearing, grading, stockpiling, or excavation that results in
soil disturbances of one acre of total land area or more. Construction activities disturbing
less than one acre are still subject to this permit if the activity is part of a large common
' plan of development or if significant water quality impairment will result from the activity.
The General Permit requires all dischargers whose construction activity disturbs one acre
' or more to:
• Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that
specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent all construction pollutants
' from contacting stormwater and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion
from moving off-site into receiving waters; and,
1
• Eliminate or reduce non-storrnwater discharge to storm sewer systems and other
waters of the United States; and inspect all BMPs.
G�11
WW AssocatM W_ Page 3-99
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impaired Waterbodies
CWA Section 303(d) and Califomia's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
(described below) require the State to establish the beneficial uses of its State waters and
to adopt water quality standards to protect those beneficial uses. Section 303(d)
establishes a total maximum daily load (TMDL), which is the maximum quantity of a
particular contaminant that a water body can maintain without experiencing adverse effects,
to guide the application of State water quality standards. Section 303(d) also requires the
State to identify "impaired" streams (water bodies affected by the presence of pollutants or
contaminants) and to establish the TMDL for each stream.
Federal Flood Insurance Program I
Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Act of 1968 and the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The intent of these acts is to reduce the need for large ,
publicly funded flood control structures and disaster relief by restricting development on
floodplains. FEMA administers the NFIP to provide subsidized flood insurance to
communities that comply with FEMA regulations limiting development on floodplains. '
FEMA issues FIRMs for communities participating in the NFIP. FIRMs delineate flood hazard
zones in the community.
A Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) is an area within a floodplain having a one percent or
greater chance of flood occurrence within any given year (commonly referred to as the
100 year flood zone). SFHAs are delineated on flood hazard boundary maps issued by
FEMA. The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and the National Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 1994 make flood insurance mandatory for most properties in SFHAs.
For any changes within the 100-year flood zone, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) would need to be prepared. A CLOMR is FEMA's comment on the proposed
project that would, upon construction, affect the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of a ,
flooding source and thus result in the modification of the existing regulatory floodway, the
effective Base Flood Elevations (BFE) or the SFHA.
State ,
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act '
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act acts in cooperation with the CWA to
establish the Surface Water Resources Water Control Board (SWRCB). The SWRCB is
divided into nine regions, each overseen by a RWQCB. The SWRCB, and thus each '
RWQCB, is responsible for protecting Califomia's surface waters and groundwater supplies.
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act develops Basin Plans that designate the
beneficial uses of Califomia's Hvers and groundwater basins. The Basin Plans also establish
narrative and numerical water quality objectives for those waters. Basin Plans are updated
every three years and provide the basis of determining waste discharge requirements,
taking enforcement actions, and evaluating clean water grant proposals. The Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act is also responsible for implementing CWA Sections
401-402 and 303(d) to SWRCB and RWQCBs.
Page 3-100 CCn and Assocmm&h�
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Hydrology and Water Quality
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates surface
water and groundwater quality in San Francisco Bay, including the City of Dublin. The area
under the RWQCB's jurisdiction comprises all of the San Francisco Bay segments extending
to the mouth of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Winter Island near Pittsburg). In its
efforts to protect surface waters and groundwaters of the San Francisco region, the
RWQCB addresses region wide water quality concerns through the creation and triennial
update of a Water Qua lity Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan, 201 1)
and adopts, monitors compliance with, and enforces waste discharge requirements and
NPDES permits.
The RWQCB's overall mission is to protect surface waters and groundwater in the Region.
The Water Board carries out its mission by:
Addressing Region-wide water quality concerns through the creation and triennial
Updating a Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan);
Preparing new or revised policies addressing Region-wide water quality concerns;
Adopting, monitoring compliance with, and enforcing waste discharge requirements
and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits;
Providing recommendations to the State Water Board on financial assistance
programs, proposals for water diversion, budget development, and other statewide
programs and policies;
' . Coordinating with other public agencies that are concerned with water quality
control; and
Informing and involving the public on water quality issues.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP
The SWPPP has two major objectives: 1) to help identify the sources of sediment and
other pollutants that affect the quality of storm water discharges, and 2) to describe and
ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants
in both stormwater and in non-stormwater discharges.
BMPs include activities, practices, maintenance procedures, and other management
practices that reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-
stormwater discharges. BMPs include treatment requirements, operation procedures, and
practices to control site runoff, spillage, leaks, waste disposal, and drainage from raw
materials storage. BMP implementation must take into account changing weather
conditions and construction activities, and various combinations of BMPs may be used over
the life of the project to maintain compliance with the CWA. The General NPDES Permit
gives the owner the discretion to determine the most economical, effective, and innovative
BMPs to achieve the performance-based goals of the General NPDES Permit.
1
,M
Page 3-101
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Hydrology and Water Quality
There are two categories of BMPs: structural and non-structural. Structural BMPs are the
specific construction, modification, operation, maintenance, or monitoring of facilities that
would minimize the introduction of pollutants into the drainage system, or would remove
pollutants from the drainage system. Non-structural BMPs are activities, programs, and
other nonphysical measures that help reduce pollutants from non-point sources to the
drainage system. In general, nonstructural BMPs are source control measures.
The issue of pollution in stormwater and urban runoff has been recognized by both federal
and state agencies, and there has been a growing concern regarding activities that discharge
water affecting California's surface water, coastal waters, and groundwater. Discharges of
water are classified as either point source or non-point source discharges. A point source '
discharge usually refers to waste emanating from a single, identifiable point. Regulated
point sources include municipal wastewater, oil field wastewater, winery discharges, solid '
waste sites, and other industrial discharges. Point source discharge must be actively
managed to protect the state's waters. A non-point source discharge usually is a waste
emanating from diffused locations. As a result, specific sources of non-point source '
pollution may be difficult to identify, treat, or regulate. The goal is to reduce the adverse
impact of non-point source discharges on water resources through better management of
these activities. Non-point sources include drainage and percolation from a variety of
activities such as agriculture, forestry, recreation, and storm runoff with the latter being the
most common in the Dublin area.
Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to hydrology and
water quality.
Environmental Resources Management- Conservation Element
7.2: Guiding Policy A: Maintain natural hydrologic systems.
7.2: Guiding Policy B: Regulate grading and development on steep slopes.
7.2: Implementing Policy C: Enact and enforce erosion and sedimentation ordinance
establishing performance standards in relation to maintenance of water quality and
protection of stream courses.
7.2: Implementing Policy D: Enact ordinance requiring on-site runoff control.
7.2: Implementing Policy E: Review development proposals to insure site design that
minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff.
7.2: Implementing Policy F: Restrict development on slopes of over 30 percent.
7.2: Implementing Policy G: Development projects shall comply with the requirements of
the Urban Runoff Program.
Page 3-102
C:on
and Assocatm k�
Iii
' Heritage Park Draft EIR
Hydrology and Water Quality
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7,Water Agency
Stream Management Master Plan
For the past 40 years, stormwater has been conveyed primarily on channelized arroyos,
many of them concrete, to convey storrnwater through the area as quickly as possible. In
2006, Zone 7 released the Final Stream Management Master Plan (Zone 7, 2006), which
articulates a vision over the next three decades to create a flood-protection program that
relies largely on using a future "chain of lakes," a series of mined-out gravel pits between
Livermore and Pleasanton, to detain stormwater in the Valley. The stored water would be
released downstream only after storms pass through the area — meaning arroyos can be
kept in a more natural state than under the channelization method.
Not only significantly less expensive when it comes to flood control, this technical approach
also affords opportunities to: improve the water supply through groundwater recharge,
' enhance arroyo water quality and habitat, increase the connectivity of trails and recreational
opportunities in the Valley, and promote public understanding of watersheds of through
educational programs.
Of the 45 conceptual projects identified in the Stream Management Master Plan, ten would
' remove or modify fish-passage barriers in Arroyo Mocho, Arroyo del Valle and Arroyo de
la Laguna. Others would restore natural stream flows, replace plants with native types,
stabilize stream banks, create wetlands and other habitat for sensitive species, and install
trails and educational kiosks near Valley arroyos.
Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program
' The City of Dublin is a co-permittee of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program
which was started in 1991. This local government and community Program educates the
public on how to keep businesses and homes from contributing to stormwater pollution,
and also coordinates its activities with other pollution prevention programs, such as
wastewater treatment plants, hazardous waste disposal, and water recycling.
' 3.8.3 Relevant Project Characteristics
As shown in Figure 2-9: Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan and described in Table
3.7-1: Pre- and Post- 10-Year Stormwater Flows, the project site is divided into two
drainage areas. These drainage areas will be maintained with the proposed improvements.
Drainage Area I is 0.9 acres and it made up of the existing church and restaurant buildings.
The total flow generated by Area I was estimated to be 1.7 cubic feet per second (cfs)
(Carlson, Barbee Gibson, 1 1/24/13). Total post development flow was estimated to be 3.4
cfs, for a net increase of 1.7 cfs. Area I discharges into an existing 27" storm drain main
' located in Dublin Boulevard, which has a full flow capacity of 17.0 cfs.
At present, it is not known yet if there is sufficient capacity in this 27" storm drain to
accommodate the additional flow. The project applicant plans to conduct a more details
analysis as part of final design to determine if there is sufficient capacity in the existing storm
drain main. If not, a portion of the runoff generated by Area I would be detained within a
r,on lallndAsWcwtfth� Page 3-103
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Hydrology and Water Quality
planned bioretention area to ensure that post development flows do not exceed pre-
development flows off site.
Drainage Area 2 is 7.1 acres and includes the existing office buildings and parking lots. The
total flow generated by Area 2 was estimated to be 11.7 cfs. Stormwater from Area 2
would be retained in one of two bio-retention ponds before being discharged into an
existing 24" storm drain pipe, located in the southeast comer of the site. This pipe
connects to an existing concrete lined channel (Dublin Creek) located within the Caltrans ,
right-of-way. The full flow capacity of the 24" outlet pipe was determined to be 12.4 cfs.
The total post-development flows generated by Area 2 was determined to be 8.5 cfs, or a
reduction of 3.2 cfs (Carlson, Barbee Gibson, 1 1/24/13).
Table 3.7-I: Pre-and Post- 10-Year Stormwater Flows
Pre-Stormwater Post-Stormwater '
Drainage Area Acres Flows(cfs) Flows(cfs) Net Change(cfs)
Area 1 0.9 1.7 3.4 1.7 ,
Area 2 7.1 11.7 8.5 (3.2)
Total 8.0 13.4 11.9 (1.5)
Source: Carlson,Barbee&Gibson, 1 1/24/13
Impacts and Mitigation Measures '
Criteria for Determining Significance
In accordance with the CEQA, State CEQA Guide lines, and agency and professional
standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:
• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; ,
• Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- ,
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted;
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the '
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; '
• Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned Stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff;
• Otherwise substantially degrade water quality;
Page 3-104
Con k.
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Hydrology and Water Quality
•i
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map;
• Place within a 100-year flood-hazards area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows;
• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; and/or
• Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Methodology
Impacts evaluated in this section were assessed based on previously published reports by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Department of Water Resources,
and information from the City of Dub/in Genera/ Plan, as well as a hydrology technical
memorandum prepared by Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. in November 2013.
' Impacts to surface and groundwater quality were analyzed by reviewing existing
groundwater and surface water quality reports that pertain to the project site; identifying
existing on-site ground and surface waters, and evaluating existing and potential sources of
water quality pollutants based on the types of land uses and operational activities that may
occur at the project site. Additionally, the applicability of federal and state regulations,
ordinances, and/or standards to surface and groundwater quality of the project site and
subsequent receiving waters was assessed.
' Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow
The proposed project is located more than 14 miles from the shore of the San Francisco
' Bay and approximately 32 miles from the Pacific Ocean. In addition, there are no large
water bodies in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to
be affected by a tsunami or seiche. The project site and surrounding properties are also
' relatively flat and would not be subject to mudflows. Therefore, no impacts from seiche,
tsunami or mudflow are anticipated to occur.
Flooding Exposure/ Risk, Including the Failure of a Levee or Dam
According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Dam Failure Inundation
' Maps the project site is not located within the limits of potential inundation zone from a
catastrophic failure of the dam at Lake del Valle, which is located approximately 10.5 miles
southeast of the project site (ABAG 2013). In addition, the State Division of Safety of
' Dams under the authority of the Department of Water Resources inspects this and other
dams under its jurisdiction on an annual basis to confirm if each dam is safe, performing as
intended and is not developing problems. Roughly a third of these inspections each year
include in-depth instrumentation reviews of the dam surveillance network data.
r:cn„' W Page 3-105
Heritage Park Draft EIR ,
Hydrology and Water Quality
The Division also periodically reviews the stability of dams and their major appurtenances in
light of improved design approaches and requirements, as well as new findings regarding '
earthquake hazards and hydrologic estimates in California. Based on the continued dam-
safety compliance inspection conducted by the Division of Safety of Dams, the risk of
flooding from catastrophic dam failure is considered low. Therefore, the proposed project '
would not experience flooding from failure of a levee or dam and would have no impact in
this regard.
Place Housing or Structures Within a 100-Year Flood-Hazards Area Which Would Impede or
Redirect Flood Flows
According to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by FEMA (Panel 06001 C0304G and '
Panel 06001 C0308G), portions of the project site are located within the boundaries of the
500-year flood zone (see Figure 3.7-1: FEMA Flood Zones). Approximately 15,700 cubic '
yards of soil would be imported to the project site to elevate the grade on the north, east,
and west parts of the project site, which would modify the current boundaries of the 500-
year flood zone. ,
A 100-year flood zone is located adjacent to but entirely outside of the project boundary
along Dublin Creek. The proposed project would not modify any portion of this 100-year
flood zone.
Because the proposed project would not alter or otherwise affect the existing boundaries
of a 100-year flood zone, no impact would occur.
Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements '
Impact 3.7-1 Construction-related activities resulting from implementation of the
proposed project may result in the degradation of surface water
quality, which is considered a less than significant impact. ,
Implementation of the proposed project would require construction and grading activities.
During these activities, there will be the potential for surface water to carry sediment from ,
onsite erosion and small quantities of pollutants into the storm water system and local
waterways including Dublin Creek, which is located south of the project site. Soil erosion ,
may occur along project boundaries during construction in areas where temporary soil
storage is required. Small quantities of pollutants have the potential for entering the storm
drainage system, thereby potentially degrading water quality.
Construction of the proposed project would also require the use of gasoline and diesel
powered heavy equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, water pumps, and air
compressors. Chemicals such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, hydraulic oil, lubricating i
grease, automatic transmission fluid, paints, solvents, glues, and other substances will be
utilized during construction. An accidental release of any of these substances could degrade '
the water quality of the surface water runoff and add additional sources of pollution into
the drainage system.
Page 3-106
C�I1 mk�
' Heritage Park Draft EIR
Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of the proposed project would result in an area of disturbance of more
than one acre. To assure implementation of the proposed project would not adversely
affect short-term water quality, the proposed project must comply with NPDES permit
requirements as defined under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act . This includes the
' preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which requires Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to control erosion, siltation, and contaminated runoff from
construction sites.
' BMPs for storm water quality treatment are classified as structural and nonstructural.
Structural measures may include bio-filters, wetlands, infiltration basins, or mechanical
structures designed to remove pollutants from storm water. Non-structural measures such
as street sweeping, public education, or hazardous substance recycling centers are
preventive measures intended to control the source of pollutants. Typical BMPs included
' in a NPDES permit include:
• Use of sand bags and temporary desiltation basins during project grading and
' construction during the rainy season (November through April) to prevent
discharge of sediment-laden runoff into storm water facilities;
'
• Installation of landscaping as soon as possible after completion of grading to reduce
sediment transport during storms;
• Hydroseeding of graded building pads if they are not built upon before the onset of
' the rainy season;
• Incorporation of structural BMPs (e.g., grease traps, debris, screens, continuous
' deflection separators, oil/water separators, drain inlet inserts) into the project design
to provide detention and filtering of contaminants in urban runoff from the
developed site prior to discharge to storm water facilities; and
' . Stenciling of catch basins and other publicly visible flood control facilities with the
phrase, "Don't Dump - Pollutes Our Creeks."
' Additionally, prior to construction grading, the project applicant must file a Notice of Intent
(NOI) to comply with the General Permit and prepare the SWPPP, which addresses the
measures that will be included in the project to minimize and control construction and
post-construction runoff to the "maximum extent practicable." Moreover, project grading
plans must conform to the drainage and erosion standards adopted by the City of Dublin
and are subject to approval of the City of Dublin. The SWPPP will also be reviewed by the
' Zone 7 Water Agency to ensure adequacy and appropriateness of BMPs.
Typical measures, or their equivalent, will be included in the SWPPP, which will be
implemented to prevent storm water pollution and minimize potential sedimentation
during construction.
Restrict grading to dry season (April through October) or use BMPs for wet season
erosion control;
' . Preclude non-storm water discharges to the storm water system;
r:on dAs tf.kr- Page 3-107
Heritage Park Draft EIR ,
Hydrology and Water Quality
• Perform monitoring of discharges to the storm water system;
• Construction practices will include the use of stabilized construction entrances
and/or wash racks, street sweeping, use of erosion control devices, including damp
sweeping, straw bales and/or silt fences, and storm drain inlet protection to '
minimize contamination from storm water runoff;
• Provide temporary cover of disturbed surfaces to help erosion control during
construction; and '
• Provide permanent cover to stabilize the disturbed surfaces after construction has
been completed. '
Compliance with NPDES permit requirements, as well as the City of Dublin's drainage and
erosion standards, will ensure that this impact is less than significant impact and no
mitigation is required. '
Deplete Groundwater Supplies and Groundwater Recharge
Impact 3.7-2 The proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to the ,
amount of available groundwater available, degrade groundwater
quality, or decrease groundwater recharge in the project area. This '
is considered a less than significant impact
The water source for the proposed project would rely on surface water supplies from the '
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), the purveyor of potable water in the City of
Dublin. DSRSD purchases wholesale water from Zone 7, who in turn purchases 70
percent of its water from the State Water Project (SWP). The remainder of the Zone 7 ,
water is from groundwater aquifers through the Livermore-Amador Valley.
As shown in Table 2-1: Existing and Proposed Water Demand, the proposed project '
would result in a reduction in the water demand as compared to the existing
commercial/office uses at the project site of 8,385 gallons per day (interior) and 18,281
gallons per day (exterior). In addition, the proposed project would increase the amount of '
pervious surfaces at the project site, which would increase the amount of groundwater
recharge within the project site. Because the proposed project would result in an overall
reduction in the amount of water use and increase the amount of pervious surfaces, the '
proposed project is not anticipated to deplete groundwater supplies and/or affect
groundwater recharge over existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would
have a less than significant impact on the groundwater basin. i
Substantially Alter Existing Drainage Patterns
As described in Table 3.7-1: Pre- and Post- I 0-Year Stormwater Flows, implementation of ,
the proposed project would decrease the net peak 10-year storm water flows from the
project site from 13.4 cfs to 1 1.9 cfs, for a net reduction of 1.5 cfs. All stormwater would '
be detained on-site in one of three bioretention basins before being discharged into
existing stormwater facilities. Because the post-development stormwater flows would be
Page 3-108
CC►1 aWftsomMmk�
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Hydrology and Water Quality
reduced and stormwater would flow into existing facilities, there would be no impact on
existing drainage patterns of the site or area.
wd C�/1"°"AnocwtftW Page 3-109
Legend
' FEMA Flood Zone:500-Year Flood Zone
_ FEMA Flood Zone: 100-Year Flood Zone
Project Site Boundary
A i
Apo-
r�
4�b�
t .1
Source:City of Dublin,RBF Consulting(2013)
Heritage Park EIR
' . . . 0 FEMA Flood Zones
CONSULTING
A Company Figure 3.7-1
1
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Land Use and Planning
3.8 Land Use and Planning
This section of the Draft EIR examines the land use and planning impacts associated with
proposed project. Specifically, this section analyzes the change in land use characteristics;
analyzes potential conflicts between surrounding land uses, as well as the relationship of the
proposed land use changes to relevant planning policies that guide land use decisions.
Background information and analysis within this section is based on the Dub/in I///age
Historic Area Specific Plan, the City of Dublin General Plan, and the City of Dublin
Municipal Code.
Existing Conditions
Existing Land Uses
The topography of the project site is generally flat and is currently developed with a two-
story, 1 10,000 square foot wood frame office complex. The remainder of the project site
is comprised of surface parking and landscaping including several large and small diameter
trees. Existing conditions of the project site are shown in photographs in Figure 2-3a and
Figure 2-3b: Photographs of the Project Site.
Surrounding Land Uses
Surrounding land uses include the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums and a dog kennel to
the west; a church, restaurant, and gas station to the north; office space to the east across
San Ramon Road; and Interstate 580 to the south. Surrounding land uses are shown in
Figure 2-4: Surrounding Land Uses.
General Plan Designations
The City of Dublin General Plan (City of Dublin 20 10) identifies the general locations,
density and extent of land available for housing, business, industry, natural resources
protection, recreation, and other uses. The project site is designated Retail/Office. The
following land use designations surround the project site: Medium/High Density Residential
to the north; Retail/Office (RO) and Parks/Public Recreation (PPR) to the west; and
Retail/Office (RO) to the east. Existing land use designations are shown in Figure 3.8-1:
Existing General Plan Land Use Designations.
Zoning
According to the City of Dublin Zoning Map, the project site is zoned Planned
Development (PD). The zoning map of the project site is shown in Figure 3.8-2: Existing
Zoning Designations.
Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan
The project site is designated RO and zoned PD in the Dublin Vllage Hlstonc Area Specific
Plan, consistent with the current General and Zoning Designations..
K—ey Ho,,
�� dA—W-1' Page 3-1 1 1
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Land Use and Planning
Relevant Project Characteristics
The proposed project includes a General Plan and Specific Plan amendment to change the
General Plan land use designation for the residential portion of the project site from
Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Criteria for Determining Significance
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines,
as amended, with the exception of thresholds added to consider compatibility with
adjacent uses, and physical impacts on the environment from potential urban decay or
blight (often characterized by property abandonment and/or desolate urban landscapes).
For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant
adverse land use and planning impact if it would result in any of the following:
• Change or intensify development within the project area that creates
incompatibilities with adjacent land uses
• Physical division of an established community
• Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific
plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect
• Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan
Conflict with Applicable Conservation Plans
The project site is developed and there are no habitat or natural community conservation
plans in the project area and therefore, no impacts would occur.
Create Land Use Incompatibilities or Physically Divide a Community
Impact 3.8-1: Implementation of the proposed project would redevelop the
project site from a commercial/office development to medium
density residential and commercial/office use. Because the site is
located within an urban setting with existing residential and
commercial uses, the proposed project is not anticipated to create
incompatibilities with adjacent land uses or physically divide an
established community. This is considered a less than significant
impact.
Land use incompatibility can occur where differences exist among uses that are near each
other. These incompatibilities may result from differences in the physical scale of
development, noise levels, traffic levels, hours of operation, and other factors.
►=/1 a meY-Ho,n
Page 3-1 12 � "'d A-1-"`
Heritage Park Draft FIR
Land Use and Planning
The project site is an infill redevelopment site located adjacent to existing urban
development. Surrounding land uses include the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums and a
dog kennel to the west; a church, restaurant, and gas station to the north; office space to
the east across San Ramon Road; and Interstate 580 to the south.
The proposed project would be consistent with the design standards and guidelines in the
Dublin I///age Historic Area Specific Plan and would provide a development that
implements the overall vision for the Specific Plan area, which enhances the historic nature
of the area and provides pedestrian connections to surrounding uses, Therefore, the
proposed project would not create land use incompatibilities and/or physically divide a
community.
Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations
Impact 3.8-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with goals and
policy of the City of Dublin Genera/ P lan, nor the City of Dub/in Municipal
Code. This is considered a less-than-significant impact.
For the proposed residential portion of the project site, the City of Dublin General P lan
and the Dublin I///age Historic Area Specific Plan will be amended to: I) Change the text
to reflect the new General Plan/Specific Plan designation from Retail/Office to Medium
Density Residential and 2) Change the General Plan Land Use Map and Specific Plan Land
Use Map from Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential for the residential portion of
the project site (see Figure 3.8-3: Proposed General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use Map).
The zoning designation would remain Planned Development; however, the zoning text
would be amended to include provisions and development regulations as they pertain to
the respective Retail/Office and Medium Density Residential portions of the project site.
With the adoption of the land use and zoning amendments, the proposed project would
be consistent with the City of Dublin General P lan.
The proposed project's consistency with the City of Dublin General Plan is discussed in
Table 3.8-1: City of Dublin General Plan Consistency Analysis. Consistency with policies
related to environmental effects are addressed in each technical section of the Draft EIR.
As demonstrated, the proposed project would not be in conflict with the applicable land
use policies of the City of Dublin General Plan. Therefore, this would be considered a less
than significant, and no mitigation is required.
�Z„and Associates.Inc.
Page 3-113
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Land Use and Planning
Table 3.8-1: City of Dublin General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Dublin General Plan Consistency Analysis
Land Use Element
20 HousingAuailability
Implementing Policy B – Designate site available for Consistent. The proposed project would redevelop
residential development in the primary planning area the project site from commercial office to residential
for medium to medium high density where site and office uses. The proposed residential uses would
capability and access are suitable and where the be consistent with the surrounding residential uses
higher density would be compatible with existing to the north of the project site across Dublin
residential development nearby. Boulevard.
Circulation and Scenic Highways Element
5.3.l Primary and Extended Planning Areas
Implementing Policy 3 - Encourage higher densities Consistent. The project site is located approximately
and mixed use developments near major transit lines 0.42 miles from the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
and transit transfer points as a means of encouraging Station. Additionally, the project site is located
the use of public transit. This type of transit- within walking distance (less than 0.4-mile) of
oriented development is especially encouraged near Wheels Bus Routes 503, 10, 3, and R along San
the east Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and in the Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard. Because the
Transit-Oriented District of the Downtown Dublin project site is located within proximity to transit,
Specific Plan area. residents and employees would be encouraged to
utilize transit. Therefore, the proposed project
would be consistent with Implementing Policy 3.
Community Design and Sustainability Element
10.7.3/, Site and Building Design
Policy B - Encourage buildings with varied massing, Consistent The commercial/office building would
heights, articulation techniques, and architectural and include building articulation that would ensure it
signage treatments to ensure compatibility with would be compatible with adjacent existing
adjacent uses, in commercial, office, industrial, and commercial uses and the proposed residential uses
mixed use areas. to the south. The ground level of the building
would have a wrap-around porch element, with low
Policy J - Design inviting and attractive office sloping roof planes, exposed rafter ends, and trellis
buildings that incorporate modern and work. A lobby entry at the center of the building
contemporary architectural design elements and would be comprised of a covered trellis and gable
design features that enrich the appearance of the roof. An outdoor patio is also incorporated to one
gathering places, encourage people to use them, and side, framed with a low river rock wall. The second
have attractive appearances from the public right-of- level of the commercial building would have gable
way, in office areas. elements and sloping roofs. Mechanical equipment
would be screened by the sloping roof around the
perimeter. Therefore, the proposed project would
be consistent with these policies.
i ZF,a m,e,.-Ho,�
Page 3-1 14 l "—'°`-h
Heritage Park Draft FIR
Land Use and Planning
Policy G - Encourage the diversity of garage Consistent. The single-family residential homes
orientation and setbacks, architectural styles, building would be comprised of Craftsman and American
materials, color and rooflines, and other design Farmhouse architectural styles. Architectural
features, on all sides of all buildings in residential elements and details would include the use of front
areas. and upstairs patios and the use of varying building
materials (e.g. board and batten siding and shingles)
that would break up the perceived mass of the
building and provide visual interest. Garages would
generally be recessed from the front of each home.
Therefore, the proposed project would be
consistent with this policy.
Policy H - Orient buildings toward major Consistent. The proposed residential homes and
thoroughfares, sidewalks, pedestrian pathways, and the proposed commercial/office building located
gathering spaces, and incorporate clear and along Donlon Way would be oriented towards the
identifiable entries where feasible in campus office street with sidewalks connecting with Dublin
areas. Boulevard. Therefore, the proposed project would
be consistent with this policy.
10.7.3.2. Landscaping and Natural Features
Policy H - Preserve Mature trees and vegetation, Consistent. As shown in Figure 2-12: Tree Removal
with special consideration given to the protection of Plan,the proposed project would remove 107 trees,
groups of trees and associated under growths and 16 of which are classified as Heritage trees. Of
specimen trees. these Heritage trees, five of them are California
black walnuts located on the western edge of
Donlon Way. 30 trees would be preserved
including three Heritage trees; namely two coast
redwoods (29-inch and 25-inches in diameter) and
one coast live oak (28 inches in diameter) located
on the perimeter of the project site. To help off-set
the impacts to these Heritage Trees, the project
applicant has agreed to fund the City in the amount
of $19,000 to assist in the planting trees in the
proposed Orchard in the Heritage Park. This
payment would be provided to the City prior to
issuance of the site grading permit.
As shown in Figure 2-13: Landscaping Plan, the
proposed project would include extensive on-site
landscaping. This includes planting 13 trees (36"
box) along Donlon Way. Numerous other trees
and shrubs would be planted on site including
redwoods, crape myrtle, Japanese maple, and
Southern magnolia.
C��Wmly .
. -d AS���,�In, Page 3-1 15
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Land Use and Planning
10.8.8.Implementation Measures.,Land Use Pattems and Designs
Implementation Measure A — Review new Consistent. The project site is located across the
neighborhood design and layout for conformance street from Dublin Heritage Park and Museums,
with the following standards: which is a ten acre park that includes historic
buildings, lawns, a historic cemetery, and picnic areas.
I. Design neighborhoods so that a park, civic, The project site is also located within a '/2 mile of
semi-public, or publicly-accessible passive Mape Memorial Park, which contains recreational
use space, at least '/2 acre in size, lies within facilities including play equipment and sand volleyball
a '/4 mile walk distance of 75 percent of courts.
planned and existing residences and
commercial businesses. The space can be
either a public park or a privately-owned as
long as it is accessible to the general public.
2. Design neighborhoods so that a park, civic,
semi-public or publicly accessible
recreational facility at least one acre in size
with either indoor or outdoor recreational
amenities lies within a '/2 mile walk distance
of 75 percent of planned and existing
residences and commercial businesses.
Recreational facilities must include some
physical improvements and may include
"tot lots," swimming pools, sports fields,
community buildings, or recreation centers,
or can be any public park. The recreational
facility can either be a public park or
privately owned, as long as it is accessible
to the general public. It can be a facility that
charges a fee for use.
Page 3-I 6 iZ n K—ey-Horn.
ntl Associates.Inc
1
Legend
_ Parks/Public Recreation
Medium-High Density Residential
_ Retail/Office
® Business Park/Industrial
_ Downtown Dublin -Transit-Oriented District
_ Downtown Dublin- Retail District
p Project Site Boundary €
1 .f
1
t
t
F�A.
1
1
1 Source:City of Dublin,RBF Consulting(2014)
Heritage Paris EIR
1
FBF Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
0
CONSULTING
A+Company Figure 3.8-1
Legend
Planned Development(PD)
_ Retail Commercial (C-1)
Neighborhood Commercial (C-N)
Commercial Office (C-O)
_ Downtown Dublin Zoning District(DDZP)
_ Multi-Family Residential (R-M)
Agriculture (A)
Project Site Boundary
1,
i~ l
_i
t i 1
a x
e
,. ,q.;..
e R
dT
ax �
}
1
c
Source:City of Dublin,RBF Consulting(2014)
Heritage Park EIR
0' . . . Existing Zoning Designations
CONSULTING
A`_ Company Figure 3.8-2
Legend
Parks/Public Recreation
'IT"'W
Medium-High Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Retail/Office -
Business Park/industrial r
Downtown Dublin-Transit-Oriented District
Downtown Dublin-Retail District
Project Site Boundary w
e
_� ., .. � e■ve' .>_ ..
Y 1'
•
r
y .+
•
•
}
Source:City of Dublin,RBF Consulting(2014)
Heritage Park EIR
V.1.5 1.� 0 Proposed General Plan and Specifc Plan Land Use Map
CONSULTING
AEI,. cumpdny Figure 3.8-3
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Noise
3.9 Noise
This section addresses potential noise impacts from the construction (including demolition),
traffic, and operations that could occur with the proposed project. Data used to prepare
this analysis were drawn from the City of Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin Municipal
Code, and the Heritage Park Environmental Noise Study, prepared by Charles M. Salter
Associates (dated July 18, 2013).
Environmental Setting
Noise Scales and Definitions
Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and
frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of
sound is the decibel (dB). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all
frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to
human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by
discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human
ear.
Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide
range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to
the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In general, a I dB change in the sound
pressure levels of a given sound is detectable only under laboratory conditions. A 3 dB
change in sound pressure level is considered a ''just detectable'' difference in most
situations. A 5 dB change is readily noticeable and a 10 dB change is considered a doubling
(or halving) of the subjective loudness. It should be noted that, generally speaking, a 3 dBA
increase or decrease in the average traffic noise level is realized by a doubling or halving of
the traffic volume; or by about a 7 mile per hour (mph) increase or decrease in speed.
For each doubling of distance from a point noise source (a stationary source, such as a
loudspeaker or loading dock), the sound level will decrease by 6 dBA. In other words, if a
person is 100 feet from a machine, and moves to 200 feet from that source, sound levels
will drop approximately 6 dBA. For each doubling of distance from a line source, like a
roadway, noise levels are reduced by 3 to 4.5 dBA, depending on the ground cover
between the source and the receiver. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10
dBA higher than another is judged to be twice as loud; 20 dBA higher four times as loud;
and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very
loud). Numerous methods have been developed to measure sound over a period of time;
refer to Table 3.9-1: Noise Descriptors.
►.��and Associates.Inc. Page 3-I 17
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Noise
Table 3.9-I: Noise Descriptors
Term Definition
Decibel (dB) The unit for measuring the volume of sound equal to 10 times the
logarithm (base 10) of the ratio of the pressure of a measured
sound to a reference pressure 20 micro ascals .
A-Weighted Decibel (dBA) A sound measurement scale that adjusts the pressure of individual
frequencies according to human sensitivities. The scale accounts
for the fact that the region of highest sensitivity for the human ear
is between 2,000 and 4,000 cycles per second hertz
Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) The sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying
signal over a given time period. The Leq is the value that expresses
the time averaged total energy of a fluctuating sound level.
Maximum Sound Level (LR,ax) The highest individual sound level (dBA) occurring over a given
time period.
Minimum Sound Level (L,,,,,) The lowest individual sound level (dBA) occurring over a given
time period.
Community Noise Equivalent Level A rating of community noise exposure to all sources of sound that
(CNEL) differentiates between daytime, evening, and nighttime noise
exposure. These adjustments are +5 dBA for the evening, 7:00 PM
to 10:00 PM, and +10 dBA for the night, 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.
Day/Night Average (Ld,) The Ldp is a measure of the 24-hour average noise level at a given
location. It was adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) for developing criteria for the evaluation of
community noise exposure. It is based on a measure of the
average noise level over a given time period called the Leq. The
Ld, is calculated by averaging the Leq's for each hour of the day at a
given location after penalizing the "sleeping hours" (defined as
10:00 PM to 7:00 AM), by 10 dBA to account for the increased
sensitivity of people to noises that occur at night.
Exceedance Level (L,) The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and
90% (Loi, Lio, Lso, 1_90, respectively) of the time during the
measurement period.
Source:Cyril M. Harris, Handbook of Noise Control 1979.
Mobile and Stationary Noise Sources
Both mobile and stationary noise sources contribute to the existing noise levels within the
project vicinity. The primary noise sources in the project vicinity include commercial/retail
uses, car and truck traffic with high volumes of traffic along Interstate 580 (1-580), and noise
from adjacent local roadways. Traffic along these roadways generates substantial noise
levels at roadside receptors. In addition, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station is
located approximately 2,228 feet east of the project boundary. The station is located
within the median of 1-580 and any associated noise is generally masked by freeway traffic
noise which is just audible from the eastern boundary of the project site. The Heritage
Park and Museums and a dog kennel are located to the west of the project site.
Stationary noise sources include the existing on-site office complex, activities associated
with the surrounding commercial/retail and residential uses, and recreational uses at the
Heritage Park and Museums located to the west. Although a portion of the project site is
Page 3-1 18 lh � -d'q=�°`t-he
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Noise
occupied, little activity occurs within the site. Existing on-site stationary source noise is
limited compared to the surrounding areas. The primary stationary noise sources in the
project vicinity occur from the adjacent commercial areas and include parking lot noise, and
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. As described above, Heritage
Park and Museums is located west of the project site, which includes outdoor
recreational/instructional space. Stationary noise from use of the outdoor space at the
Heritage Park and Museums is limited to infrequent events.
Ambient Noise Levels
In order to quantify existing ambient noise levels at the project site and vicinity, Charles M.
Salter Associates conducted long-term noise measurements at the project site between
June 25 and June 28, 2013; refer to Table 3.9-2: Noise Measurements. The noise
measurement sites were representative of typical existing noise exposure within and
immediately adjacent to the project site. Noise monitors were attached to utility poles at a
height of 12 feet above grade and recorded noise levels for approximately 72 hours. The
results of the field measurements are indicated in Appendix G (Noise Data). Existing
measured noise levels range from approximately 66 to 74 dBA Leq.
Table 3.9-2: Noise Measurements
Site No. Location Le (dBA) Ldn (dBA)
I Southern portion of on-site office complex parking lot, 66.0 70.0
near westbound Interstate 580 on-ramp.
2 Eastern portion of on-site office complex parking lot, 71.0 72.0
near San Ramon Road.
3 Near commercial use located to the north of the 74.0 73.0
project site, adjacent to Dublin Boulevard.
Source:Charles M.Salter Associates,June 25 to June 28,2013.
Sensitive Receptors
Land uses that are considered sensitive receptors to noise include residential areas, schools,
hospitals, churches, recreational areas, and transient lodging. Residential areas are also
considered particularly sensitive to noise during the nighttime hours. Several multi-family
units are located approximately 210 feet north of the project site along Dublin Boulevard,
and two single-family residences are located approximately 100 feet to the southwest along
Donlon Way. The Heritage Park and Museums site is located approximately 105 feet to
the west of the project site. The Church of Christ is located approximately 95 feet north
of the project site along Dublin Boulevard, and the Dublin Cemetery is located
approximately 280 feet to the west along Donlon Way.
► -d Associates.Inc Page 3-1
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Noise
Existing Regulatory Setting
State of California Guidelines
The State of California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) /Noise Element Guidelines
include recommended interior and exterior level standards for local jurisdictions to identify
and prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. The OPR Guidelines
describe the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in
terms of dBA CNEL.
According to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Guidelines, single-family homes
are considered to be ''normally acceptable" in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL
and "conditionally acceptable'' up to 70 CNEL. Multiple-family residential uses are
"normally acceptable" up to 65 CNEL and ''conditionally acceptable'' up to 70 CNEL. The
State indicates that locating residential units, parks, and institutions (such as churches,
schools, libraries, and hospitals) in areas where exterior ambient noise levels exceed 65
dBA CNEL is undesirable. The OPR recommendations also note that, under certain
conditions, more restrictive standards than the maximum levels cited may be appropriate.
As an example, the standards for quiet suburban and rural communities may be reduced by
5 to 10 dB to reflect their lower existing outdoor noise levels as compared with urban
environments.
In addition, Title 25, Section 1092 of the Califomia Code of Regulations, sets forth
requirements for the insulation of multiple-family residential dwelling units from excessive
and potentially harmful noise. Whenever multiple-family residential dwelling units are
proposed in areas with excessive noise exposure, the developer must incorporate
construction features into the building's design that reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA
CNEL.
Local
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 measured at the property line of
the receiving land use. The land use compatibility noise criteria provide the basis for
decisions on location of land uses in relation to noise sources and for determining noise
mitigation requirements. Table 3.9-3: City of Dublin Land Use Compatibility for
Community Noise Environments shows the noise standards for the City. As indicated, the
normally acceptable exterior noise level for the City of Dublin is 60 CNEL or less for noise-
sensitive residential land uses and parks, and 70 dBA or less for retail, commercial, office,
and industrial land uses. Noise levels up to 70 dBA are considered conditionally acceptable
for most noise sensitive land uses.
The following policies in the City of Dublin General /fan are applicable to noise in the
project vicinity:
Page 3-120 �stn-d'ASS{oove bx
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Noise
Guiding Policy A. Where feasible, mitigate traffic noise to levels indicated by Table
3.10-2: City of Dublin Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments.
Table 3.9-3: City of Dublin —Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments
Corn unity Noise osure Ldn or CNEL, dBA
Land Use Category Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly
Acceptable Acce table Una table Unacce table
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
Office, Retail, Commercial 70 or less 71-75 76-80 Over 80
Industrial 70 or less 71-75 Over 75 --
Ldn = Day night average; NA = not applicable.
Notes:
NormallyAccepttable: Specified 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 have been 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 be discouraged. If new construction or development does
proceed,a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise-insulation features must be
included in the design.
Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Source:City of Dublin, City of Dub/in Genera/Plan,adopted February 1 11 1985,updated January 19,2010.
• Implementing Policy F. Noise impacts related to all new development shall be
analyzed by a certified acoustic consultant.
• Implementing Policy H. Review all multi-family development proposals within the
projected 60 CNEL contour for compliance with noise standards (45 CNEL in any
habitable room) as required by State law.
Consistent with the Noise Element of the City of Dub/in Genera/ Plan, the normally
acceptable outdoor noise exposure standard for residential sites is 60 dBA or less. Project
designers may use one or more of four available categories of mitigation measures: site
planning, architectural layout (bedrooms away from noise source, for example), noise
barriers, or construction modifications.
City of Dublin Municipal Code
The City's Municipal Code includes standards pertaining to noise control within the City.
Municipal Code Section 2.28.020 prohibits any person within the City to make any loud, or
disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which annoys or
disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace or safety of any reasonable
person of normal sensitivity present in the area. Section 8.36.060(C) (3) states that for lots
less than 5,000 square feet, mechanical equipment that generates noise (i.e., swimming
pool, spa, and air conditioning equipment) on the property shall be enclosed as necessary
to reduce noise at the property line to a maximum of 50 dBA at any time. For lots 5,000
square feet or larger, mechanical equipment that generates noise when located within a
i K m,eY o
Page 3-12
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Noise
required setback as allowed by this subsection, and within 10 feet of an existing or potential
residence, or an existing paved patio area on adjoining property, shall be enclosed as
necessary to reduce noise at the property line to a maximum of 50 dBA at any time.
Relevant Project Characteristics
The proposed project includes an I I-foot noise barrier along the southern and eastern
boundaries of the project site bordering Interstate 580 and San Ramon Road. The sound
wall would continue in the northeastern portion of the project site between Lots #23
through #26. A five foot sound wall would be constructed along the northern border of
the project site between Lots #19 through #22 and a parking lot located north of the
project site.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Criteria for Determining Significance
In accordance with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, agency and professional standards,
a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:
Expose persons to, or generate, noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
Expose persons to, or generate, excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels;
E Substantially permanently increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project;
r Substantially temporarily or periodically increase ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project;
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, expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; and
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Exposure to Short-term Construction-Related Noise and Vibration
Impact 3.9-1: The proposed project may result in short-term construction-related
noise at nearby noise sensitive land uses. This is considered a
potentially significant impact.
Construction activities have a short and temporary duration, lasting from a few days to a
period of several months. Groundborne noise as well as other types of construction-
related noise impacts may occur during the initial site preparation, which can create the
highest levels of noise. Generally, site preparation has the shortest duration of all
construction phases. Activities that occur during this phase include earthmoving and soils
Page 3-122 PZn K1 .y H°,
\ nd Associates.Inc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Noise
compaction, and demolition of existing buildings and facilities. High groundborne noise
levels and other miscellaneous noise levels can occur during this phase by the operation of
heavy-duty trucks, backhoes, and other heavy-duty construction equipment.
Noise from construction activities is generated by the following primary sources: (1) the
transport of workers and equipment to and from construction sites, (2) truck trips
transporting cut/fill; and (3) the noise related to active construction equipment. These
noise sources can be a nuisance to local residents and businesses or unbearable to sensitive
receptors (i.e., residences, hospitals, nursing homes, schools, day care facilities, etc.). The
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has compiled data regarding noise generating
characteristics of specific types of construction equipment and typical construction activities.
These noise levels would decrease rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate
of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance.
Construction noise can be created by the operation of heavy-duty trucks, backhoes,
bulldozers, excavators, front-end loaders, scrapers, and other heavy-duty construction
equipment. Table 3.9-4: Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment,
describes the anticipated construction equipment noise levels and is based on the quantity,
type, and Acoustical Use Factor for each equipment type that would be used.
Table 3.9-4: Maximum Nose Levels Generated by Construction Equipment
Acoustical Use Factor' [!�(IBA)50 Feet
Type of Equipment (percent)
Crane 16 81
Dozer 40 82
Excavator 40 81
Generator 50 81
Grader 40 85
Other Equipment(> five horse power) 50 85
Paver 50 77
Pile Driver(impact) 20 101
Pile Driver(sonic) 20 96
Roller 20 80
Tractor 40 84
Truck 40 80
Welder 40 73
Note:
I. Acoustical use factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction
equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction
o eration.
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (4HWA-HEP-05-
054),Janua 2006.
Operating cycles for construction equipment used during these phases may involve one or
two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power
settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents,
P�Z^K-I.Y-)IM
►� and Associates.Inc. Page 3-I
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Noise
which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the
hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). These noise level estimates take into account the
distance to the receptor, attenuation from molecular absorption, and anomalous excess
attenuation.
Construction noise impacts generally occur when construction activities occur in areas
immediately adjoining noise sensitive land uses, during noise sensitive times of the day, or
when construction durations last over extended periods of time. Construction activities
associated with the proposed project could generate significant amounts of noise during
demolition, grading and construction operations. During these construction phases,
adjacent sensitive receptors could be exposed to sporadic high noise levels associated with
construction equipment (as a result of power tools, jack-hammers, truck noise, etc.); refer
to Table 3.9-4: Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment. The
closest construction activities could occur to a noise sensitive receptor is approximately 75
feet from the Church of Christ located to the north of the project site. The majority of the
construction would occur at distances greater than 75 feet from the nearest sensitive
receptors and would not be expected to interfere with normal recreational, institutional, or
commercial activities in the project area.
It is anticipated that construction traffic would access the potential construction sites within
the project site from several major roadways, including Dublin Road, San Ramon Road, as
well as from collector streets such as Donlon Way. As stated above, various sensitive
receptors exist in the project vicinity, and could be exposed to excessive noise levels from
construction vehicles along the surrounding roadways.
The proposed project would be subject to compliance with the implementing policies of
the Noise Element of the City ofDub&7 Genera/Flan, and Municipal Code; however the
Municipal Code does not provide thresholds for construction activities. Additionally,
implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 would reduce construction noise associated
with the proposed project by limiting construction to the less noise sensitive periods of the
day and ensuring that proper operating procedures are followed during construction so
that nearby sensitive receptors are not adversely affected by noise and vibration.
Therefore, following compliance with City standards and implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.9-1, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
MM 3.9-1 Implement Short-Term Construction Best Management Noise Practices
Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Public Works Director and the
Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and
specifications stipulate that the following basic construction mitigation
measures shall be implemented for all construction projects:
All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and
sound control devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) no
Page 3-124 6. -d';ssa`w-
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Noise
less effective than those provided on the original equipment and no
equipment shall have an un-muffled exhaust.
• The contractor shall maintain and tune-up all construction
equipment to minimize noise emissions.
• Stationary equipment shall be placed so as to maintain the greatest
possible distance to the sensitive receptors.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off
when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five
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 equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the
greatest possible distance to the sensitive receptors.
• A qualified ''Noise Disturbance Coordinator' shall be designated
amongst the construction crew whom shall be responsible for
responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When
a complaint is received, the Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the
City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of
the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, malfunctioning muffler,
etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the
compliant, as deemed acceptable by the Planning Department.
• Select demolition methods to minimize vibration, where possible
(e.g., sawing masonry into sections rather than demolishing it by
pavement breakers),
• Construction trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to
sensitive receptors, preferably major roadways (San Ramon Road,
and Interstate 580). Construction trucks should, to the extent
practical, avoid the weekday and Saturday a.m. and p.m. peak hours
(7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.).
Exposure to Short-term Construction-Related Vibration
Impact 3.9-2: The proposed project could result in short-term construction-related
vibration that could result in vibration impacts to nearby sensitive receptors
during grading and construction activities. This is considered a less than
significant impact.
Project construction can generate varying degrees of ground-bome vibration, depending on
the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of
construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish
in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity
►�„and Associates.Inc. Page 3-125
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Noise
of the construction activities often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and
construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range
from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and
perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground-
bome vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published standard vibration velocities for
construction equipment operations. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for
continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.2 inch/second) appears to be conservative.
The types of construction vibration impact include human annoyance and building damage.
Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the
threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be
cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not
experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This
distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground
geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings
respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. The vibration
produced by construction equipment, is illustrated in Table 3.9-5: Typical Vibration Levels
for Construction Equipment.
Table 3.9-5: Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment
Approximate peak particle Approximate peak particle
Equipment velocity at 25 feet velocity at 75 feet
Cinches/second inches/second
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.017
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.015
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.001
Auger/drill rigs 0.089 0.017
Jackhammer 0.035 0.007
—Vibratory hammer 0.035 0.007
Vibratory compactor/roller 0.003 0.001
Notes:
I. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006.
Table 12-2.
2. Calculated using the following formula:
PPV eQ'P= PPV-,x(25/D)"
where: PPV (equip) =the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the
distance
PPV (ref) = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 12-2 of the FTA
Transit Noise and Obration Impact Assessment Guidelines
D=the distance from the equipment to the receiver
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines,May 2006.
Ground-bome vibration decreases rapidly with distance. As indicated in Table 3.9-5:
Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment, based on the FTA data, vibration
velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during
project construction range from 0.003 to 0.089 inch-per-second peak particle velocity
Page 3-126 lh F and'As-a;e_,,�
Heritage Park Daft EIR
Noise
(PPV) at 25 feet from the source of activity. The closest structures to the project site are
the nearby churches (i.e., Old St. Raymond's Church along Donlon Way and the Church of
Christ along Dublin Boulevard) which are located over 75 feet from the nearest
construction activity areas. With regard to the proposed project, ground-bome vibration
would be generated primarily during site clearing and grading activities on-site and by off-
site haul-truck travel. At 75 feet from the source of activity, vibration it range from
0.001 to 0.017 inch-per-second PPV. Therefore, as each of these values is below the 0.2
inch-per-second PPV significance threshold, and the nearest structures are located over 75
feet away from construction activity areas, the vibration impacts associated with
construction would be less than significant.
Exposure to Long-Term Stationary Noise
Impact 3.10-3: Sensitive receptors could be exposed to noise levels in excess of allowable
City noise standards. However, project design features will be included as
part of project construction which will reduce noise levels to be consistent
with and/or lower than City noise standards. This is considered a less than
significant impact.
The proposed project would result in minimal long-term stationary noise impacts on
sensitive receptors in the project vicinity, which consist of residential, institutional, and park
uses adjacent to the project site. Typical stationary noise sources associated with the
proposed land uses on the project site (single family residential and commercial/office)
include parking lot noise, HVAC systems, and noise associated with residential uses,
including outdoor mechanical equipment, audible noise from domestic animals and outdoor
activities. The proposed on-site uses would be required to comply with the City's noise
standards established in the City of Dublin Municipal Code. The following discusses
potential stationary noise impacts associated with the project.
Delivery Trucks and Parking Areas
Typically, a medium 2-axle truck used to make deliveries can generate a maximum noise
level of 75 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. These are levels generated by a truck that is
operated by an experienced "reasonable'' driver with typically applied accelerations.
Higher noise levels may be generated by the excessive application of power. Lower levels
may be achieved, but would not be considered representative of a nominal truck
operation. The residential uses located in the northeastern portion of the project site
would be located approximately 50 feet from the nearest commercial use. Noise from
delivery trucks on this commercial property could expose the residents on the project site
to excessive noise levels above City standards (60 dBA for exterior, 45 dBA for interior).
Noise associated with parking lots is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community
noise standards, which are based on a time-averaged scale such as the CNEL scale; refer to
Table 3.9-6, Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Parking Lots. The instantaneous
maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up and car pass-
bys may be an annoyance to the adjacent residential uses on-site.
W M„Y iey No r
,
d Associates.Inc Page 3-127
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Noise
Table 3.9-6: Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Parking Lots
Noise Source Maximum Noise Levels at 50 Feet from
Source dBA Le
Car door slamming 63
Car starting 60
Car idling 61
Source: RBF Consulting,2013.
The commercial uses to the north of the project site include parking areas as close as 50
feet from the proposed residential uses on the project site. Most of the noise generated in
the parking area would be at a distance of 50 feet from the nearest sensitive on-site
residential use.
The proposed project includes five-foot and I I-foot noise barriers surrounding the
exteriors of the residential portion of the project site to reduce exterior noise levels from
adjacent uses and traffic noise at on-site sensitive receptors to below City standards (60
dBA) (Charles Salter and Associates 2013) In addition, the proposed project will include
windows with a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 28 to ensure interior noise
levels are below the City's 45 dBA CNEL interior standard. Construction of the sound wall
and installation of STC-compatible windows will ensure that stationary noise impacts from
delivery trucks would be less than significant.
Mechanical Equipment
The uses surrounding the project site require the use of heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning units (HVAC). HVAC systems typically result in noise levels that average
between 40 and 50 dBA Leci at 50 feet from the equipment. As the future residential uses
on the project site would be located approximately 50 feet from the nearest surrounding
use, and further from the closest potential location of the HVAC equipment, potential
noise levels would be below the City's limits of 60 dBA for residential uses (Noise Element
of the City of Dub/in Genera/Plan). As such, a less than significant impact would occur in
this regard.
Impacts to On-Site Receptors
The proposed project would place sensitive receptors (i.e., residential and commercial
uses) within 330 feet of the 1-580 freeway. According to the noise study prepared for the
project, noise levels would be approximately 67 dB at the residential yards along the edge
of the project site (Charles M. Salter and Associates 2013). To reduce noise levels within
the City's residential standards of 60 dB, the proposed project would construct an I I-foot
barrier along the southern and eastern perimeter of the project site. This barrier would be
continuous from grade to top, have no cracks or gaps, and have a minimum surface density
of three pounds per square foot (e.g. one-inch thick plywood, CMU) (Salter,July 18, 2013).
Additionally, to reduce interior (i.e., residential and commercial) noise levels to the City's 45
dBA standard, windows with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) ranging from 28 to 38
Paoe 3-128 ►.I11in1e}`"°`"
b antl Associates.Inc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Noise
would be installed (see Figure 3.9-1: Proposed Noise Reduction Measures). With
construction of the sound wall and STC-compliant windows, on-site sensitive receptors
would not be exposed to excessive noise and a less than significant impact would occur in
this regard.
Exposure to Long-Term Mobile Noise
Impact 3.9-4: Development of the proposed project would not permanently
increase noise levels from mobile sources (vehicular traffic) in the
project area, and would not expose persons to excessive airport-
related noise. This is considered a less than significant impact.
In order to assess the potential for mobile source noise impacts, it is necessary to
determine the noise currently generated by vehicles traveling through the project site.
According to the trip generation prepared for the proposed project, the existing land use
(Commercial/Office) on the project site generates approximately 1,41 1 daily trips. The
proposed project's land uses (Medium Density Residential and General Office) would
generate approximately 81 1 daily trips. Therefore, there would be an overall reduction of
600 daily trips and an associated reduction in traffic noise levels as compared to existing
conditions. Furthermore, neither a public nor private airport is located within two miles of
the project site; therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
P�Z„Ki ;l y Hw
b �dA moire,h Page 3-129
rvp�.y,p..-..,. �'^'.:1'F�""-`... +-•v,•°'Z..•••,,.}; .a w.._.»..1 ��P�:iu<.11,6,1tTYAY,:^YYLK LA.JVi,31i;
NOTE: NOISE BARRIERS TO BE LOCATED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. THEY
ARE CURRENTLY SHOWN ON ADJACENT PROPERTY TO CLARIFY THEIR
LOCATION. - m
Gil I� d1 6 c,F
i ` ,
LL
Imo_
0
0
1
= STC 38 ® = 11' HIGH NOISE BARRIER
' = STC 35 ® = 5' HIGH NOISE BARRIER
o = STC 32
= STC 28 C ID
CHARLES
M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC.
' - °^-- -- FOR ACOUSTICAL DESIGN INFORMATION ONLY
' Note:STC=Sound Transmission Class
Source:Charles M Salter Associates,Inc.(2014)
Heritage Park EIR
0 Proposed Noise Reduction Measures
CONSULTING
A2=' COmpjn," Figure 3.9-
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Public Services and Utilities
3.10 Public Services and Utilities
This section of the Draft EIR analyzes the impacts associated with implementation of the
proposed project on public services and facilities and services, including fire protection, law
enforcement, schools, libraries, parks/recreation facilities, stormwater drainage, potable
water, wastewater treatment, solid waste management, and other public utilities.
Information in this section is derived primarily from the proposed project, as well as
personal communication with service providers.
Environmental Setting
Fire Protection
The proposed project would be served by the Alameda County Fire Department
(hereinafter "ACFD''), which provides fire protection and suppression services under
contract to the City of Dublin. ACDF currently consists of 36 line personnel.
ACDF has 28 fire stations, three of which are located in the City of Dublin. Station No. 16
is located at 7494 Donohue Drive; Station No. 17 is located at 6200 Madigan Avenue; and
Station No. 18 is located at 4800 Fallon Road.
• Station No. 16 houses one engine company, a patrol and a water tender, and a
patrol. This station provides initial response to west and downtown Dublin.
• Station No. 17 provides service to the west, and central core sections of Dublin
and would provide initial response to the project area. This station houses one
engine and one truck company.
■ Station No. 18 provides the primary response for the eastern most portions of
Dublin. This station includes one engine company and one bulldozer.
Law Enforcement
The proposed project would be served by the City of Dublin Police Department. Police
services for the City of Dublin are performed under contract to the Alameda County
Sheriffs Office. As of June 2013, the City of Dublin has 51 sworn personnel (Personal
Communication with Lieutenant Nate Schmidt, Alameda County Sherrfff; Department/City
of Dublin Police Department, June 5, 2013).
Police Services are provided by the Alameda County Sheriff personnel located at the
Dublin Civic Center, 100 Civic Center Plaza. Services provided include uniformed police
officers patrolling the City in marked vehicles, criminal investigations, crime prevention, drug
enforcement prevention education programs, and special investigation officers responsible
for narcotic and vice suppression. Response times to various places in the City can vary
depending on the time of day and the available units. The average response time to a life-
or-death emergency averages approximately 3.5 to five minutes. For non-emergencies, the
response time is typically 15 minutes. Dispatch and some data processing functions are
handled at the Sheriffs Office facilities located in Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward.
Dublin police also enforce city ordinances and state laws within the limits of the City of
Dublin.
ZF,K, IeY-H, Page 3-131
rid Assoaat-hC
Heritage Park Plan Draft EIR
Public Services and Utilities
Schools
The Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) provides public education in the City of Dublin
and the surrounding area (including the proposed project area). The DUSD includes five
elementary schools, one K-8 school, one middle school, a comprehensive high school, a
continuation high school, and a K-3 parent participation program. The elementary schools
all feature before and after school child care.
The proposed project would be served by Dublin Elementary School, Wells Middle School
and Dublin High School. Primary and secondary school facilities, 20 12-20 13 student
enrollment, and the school's optimum capacity are identified in Table 3.10-1: Optimum
Capacity of Schools Serving the Project Site,
Table 3.10-I: Enrollment Capacity of Schools Serving the Project Site
[Dublin de Level and School Student Enrollment in
me 2012-2013 Optimum Capacity Excess Capacity
mentary
675 755 80
Middle School
Wells 802 1,063 261
High School
Dublin HS 1,864 2
Source: Dublin Unified School Distnct,2013.
For planning purposes, a school district's projected student generation rates are based on
dwelling units. Student generation rates are the average number of students residing in a
home. It is also an indicator of the number of students that will come from new housing
developments. According to the Dublin Unified School District's Demographic Study and
Facilities P lan, 2011-2012, each new single-family home (large and medium lot single family
home) generates an average of 0.75 K-12 students per home; medi um density housing
including single family residential with lots less than 4,000 square feet generates an average
of 0.525 K-12 students per home; medium-high density attached housing (otherwise known
as "townhomes'') generate an average 0.295 K-12 students per home; and a new high
density residential (multifamily housing development) generates an average of 0.125 K-12
students per unit (DUSD 2012).
Libraries
The Dublin Public Library is located at 200 Civic Plaza, and is a partnership between the
City of Dublin and the Alameda County Library. The City of Dublin owns the library
building and contracts with Alameda County for library services. The Dublin Public Library
contains a collection of 145,700 materials including books, DVDs, and audio books,
newspapers, and magazines funded with $1.3 million dollars given to the Library by the City
of Dublin.
Page 3-132 == nv 1-HOm
V Associates Inc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Public Services and Utilities
The Alameda County Library provides library services from ten branch libraries in the cities
of Albany, Dublin, Fremont, Newark, and Union City, and the unincorporated communities
of Castro Valley and San Lorenzo. The Alameda County Library is funded primarily by
local property taxes, with additional revenue from State grants and contracts with cities for
additional open hours and services.
Parks/Recreation Facilities
The City of Dublin's current park system includes thirteen parks and two open space areas.
The City's Parks and Community Services Department manages park planning and
development, and the Public Works Department coordinates park maintenance. The
nearest City parks to the project site include:
Dublin Heritage Park and Museums —The Dublin Heritage Park and Museums is a
ten acre park located across Donlon Way that includes historic buildings, lawns, a
historic cemetery, and picnic areas.
Mape Memorial Park — Mape Memorial Park is located between San Sabana and
Calle Verde streets, off of Mape Way north of the project site. The park contains
barbeque grills, drinking fountains, picnic tables, play equipment, sand volleyball
courts, and walkways/trails.
The City's existing trail network consists of bikeways located along Amador Valley
Boulevard, Village Parkway, San Ramon Road, Alamo Creek, Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara
Creek and Dougherty Road, a public local trail along Martin Canyon Creek, and a regional
trail link along the Iron Horse Trail.
Stormwater Drainage
The City of Dublin Public Works Department maintains the City's storm drain pipelines
that are located within the public streets. The Alameda County Water Conservation
District Zone 7 (Zone 7) owns and operates regional storm drain facilities that collects
runoff from the City.
Existing storm drain facilities are located within the project site, including a 24-inch storm
drain pipe that discharges into a hardened channel to the south of the project site.
Water
The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) is the purveyor of potable water in the
City of Dublin. DSRSD has provided drinking water to more than 60,000 people in Dublin
since March 1961 and in Dougherty Valley since May 2000. In addition to potable water,
DSRSD also provides recycled (reclaimed) water for irrigation and other non-potable uses.
DSRSD Ordinance No. 301 requires recycled water use for approved customer categories
for all new land uses, including commercial, multi-family residential, and institutional
irrigation uses with the DSRSD potable water service area. The City of Dublin also has
Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations that reduce water use for irrigation (refer to the
Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.88).
DSRSD's Urban Water Management Plan Ounei 201 1) (here e tier ''DSRSD aW20P0.
includes a projection of future potable a
p�ZF,jm,ey.„wn Page 3-133
� d Associates.1W.
Heritage Park Plan Draft EIR
Public Services and Utilities
This projection is shown in Table 3.10-2: DSRSD Current and Projected Water Meter
Connections by Customer Type.
Table 3.10-2: DSRSD Current and Projected Water Meter Connections by Customer Type
Demand Source 2010' 20152 2020 2025 2030 2035
Potable Water
Residential (Total DRSD 15,661 18,397 23,598 25,451 26,553 26,970
Service Area)3
Commercial 1,218 I,982 2,166 2,4 15 2,527 2,569
Landscape Irrigation' 686 1,120 1,338 1,504 1,587 1,613
Institutional/Governmental5 106 232 274 304 307 311
Potable Water Subtotal 17,671 21,731 27,375 29,674 30,973 31,463
Recycled Water 283 452 732 860 885 910
Total 17,954 22,183 28,108 30,534 31,858 32,373
Notes:
I. DSRSD water accounts as of December 31,2010.
2. DSRSD land use projections as of March 201 1,
3. Future residential dwelling units based on the sum ofthe residential units anticipated for individual projects and
subdivisions per the land use projections and anticipated development scheduled as provided by the city of Dublin and
individual developers.
4. Future projections for number of commercial,school,and imgation connections based on current density of those
connections applied to future projected acreage for those land uses.
5. Future jail connections assumed to remain the same as existing jail connections
Source:Dublin San Ramon Services Dist id 2010 Urban Water Mana ement Plan 201
DSRSD is responsible for planning to supply sufficient water to meet the anticipated
growth in demand, in which it is planned to use a combination of potable and recycled
water supplies as well as conservation of water resources to meet demand.
The wholesale supplier of water to DSRSD is Zone 7. DSRSD has a contract with Zone 7
which establishes the obligations between the parties to meet demand in the DSRSD
service area. Under the contract, DSRSD is obligated to purchase all of the treated water
it requires from Zone 7, unless Zone 7 is unable to deliver sufficient water. If Zone 7 is
unable for a period of time to deliver sufficient water to satisfy DSRSD's needs, DSRSD is
permitted to acquire water from other sources during the period that Zone 7 has
insufficient water. Zone 7 relies on a combination of supplies to meet treated and
untreated (i.e. raw surface water) demands. Zone 7's water supplies consist of imported
surface water and local runoff.
Zone 7 conducts a periodic review of its water supply reliability. The most recent review
was completed in July 2011. The sustainability and reliability of Zone 7's existing water
supply system is achieved first by having sufficient long term supplies to meet demands and
then by storing surplus water in wet years for use in dry years; it is heavily dependent on
having enough wet years to balance the dry years. This balance between wet and dry years
is evaluated by comparing projected yields from existing water supplies over a wide range
Page 3-134 `=�,K-1.,.14—
d Associates.I-.
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Public Services and Utilities
of historic hydrology to make sure that Zone 7 can meet 100 percent of its treated water
customer water supply needs during: an average water year, the worst single dry year from
the historic record that represents the lowest yield from all available supplies; and multiple
dry water ears from the historic record. Traditionally, if the projected yields over a long
range of hydrology can be shown to meet a future demand every year, then the system is
called sustainable for that level of demand. In general, if long-term average yields from
existing water supplies are less than projected water demands, then over time, the storage
reserves needed to meet reliability goals will erode and the system is not sustainable.
Zone 7 and DSRSD currently charge connection and other fees on new development
within their service area. Fees are used for construction of planned water system capital
improvements including storage, pumping, transmission, and on-going system water
maintenance and improvements.
Sewer/Wastewater
DSRSD is also the purveyor of wastewater collection services in the City of Dublin and a
portion south San Ramon and Pleasanton. DSRSD wastewater collection system includes
over 170 miles of sanitary sewers ranging from six to 42 inches in diameter that are from
five to over 40 years old.
Disposal of treated wastewater is under the jurisdiction of the Livermore-Amador Valley
Water Management Authority (LAVWMA). Wastewater collected from the DSRSD
service area travels by gravity to the DSRSD wastewater treatment plant, which is located
near the southeast corner of Interstate 580 and Interstate 680 in the City of Pleasanton.
The plant has an average dry-weather flow (ADWF) capacity of 17.0 million gallons per day
(mgd). At projected buildout, the secondary facilities will have an ADWF capacity of 20.7
mgd; 10.4 mgd of this influent is projected to originate from the DSRSD service area. The
remaining 10.3 mgd of influent is projected to originate from Pleasanton, which is treated
by DSRSD by contract.
Disposal of treated effluent from DSRSD's wastewater treatment plant in Pleasanton is the
responsibility of the LAVWMA. LAVWMA exports secondary treated wastewater to the
East Bay Discharges Authority interceptor pipeline for ultimate discharge to San Francisco
Bay via a deepwater outfall. LAVWMA facilities are designed to export a maximum flow of
41.2 mgd during wet weather events.
DSRSD currently charges wastewater connection and other fees on all new development
within the District's service area and would require the developer to enter into a planning
agreement with the District to cover wastewater collection and wastewater treatment.
Fees are used for construction of planned wastewater treatment and collection system
capital improvements, as well as on-going wastewater system maintenance.
Solid Waste Management
Coordination of the solid waste management activities in Alameda County is the joint
responsibility of the County's Waste Management Authority and local jurisdictions. The
City of Dublin currently contracts with Amador Valley Industries (AVI), a private company
for residential and commercial garbage collection within the City limits. The City of Dublin
i 2FJ Kimsey Ho Page 3-135
� and Associates.Inc
Heritage Park Plan Draft EIR
Public Services and Utilities
also has an aggressive and comprehensive recycling program and collects both recycling and
organics. All single-family residences are provided with recycling containers. In addition,
free recycling service is available to all commercial customers that subscribe to garbage
service. In regards to construction and demolition debris, the City requires all construction
and demolition projects to recycle at least 50-percent of waste generated on a job site.
Solid waste generated within the project site would be deposited at the Altamont Landfill.
The Altamont Landfill has a total estimated permitted capacity of 62,000,000 cubic yards.
The total estimated capacity used is 16,280,000 cubic yards (or 26.3 percent), and the
remaining estimated capacity is at 45,720,000 cubic yards (or 73.7 percent). The estimated
closure date of this landfill is January 2029.
Electricity and Natural Gas
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity to all or part of 47 counties in
California, and provides natural gas to all or part of 39 counties in California, constituting
most of the northern and central portions of the state. PG&E provides electricity and
natural gas service to the City of Dublin. PG&E charges connection and user fees for all
new development, in addition to sliding rates for electrical and natural gas service based on
use. Electricity and gas services are currently offered in the project vicinity.
Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, entitled ''Energy Efficiency Standards
for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings," specifies requirements to achieve the State's
minimum energy efficiency standards. The standards apply to new construction of both
residential and nonresidential buildings, and regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling,
ventilation, water heating and lighting. Compliance with these standards is verified and
enforced through the local building permit process. Projects that apply for a building
permit on or after January 1, 2010, must comply with the 2008 Energy Efficiency Standards.
In addition, the California Energy Commissions' EnergyAware P/arming Guide is available as
a reference tool to assist in project planning.
Regulatory Setting
State
Schools
School Facilities Act of 1998
The School Facilities Act of 1998 (also known as Senate Bill [SB] 50), provides state funding
for new school construction projects that can satisfy certain criteria for such funding,
including eligibility due to growth, Division of State Architect plan approval. However, the
Act also dramatically limits the maximum amount of impact fees, which can be charged by
school districts as mitigation for new residential, commercial, and industrial construction.
The Act also prohibits local agencies from denying a development application on the basis
of a person's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that exceeds the fee amount and
refusing to approve any legislative or adjudicative act on the basis that school facilities are
inadequate.
Page 3-136 ��"Kimev Hon,
b \� and Associates Inc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Public Services and Utilities
Parks and Recreation
Quimby Act
Since the passage of the 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477),
cities and counties have been authorized to pass ordinances requiring that developers set
aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. The goal
of the Quimby Act was to require subdividors to provide park and recreational lands to
meet the increased demand from new subdivisions. Originally, the Act was designed to
ensure "adequate" open space acreage in jurisdictions adopting Quimby Act standards,
which ranged from three to five acres per 1,000 residents.
Water Supply and Distribution
Title 22 California Code of Regulations
The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) promulgates and enforces state
regulations for drinking water treatment facilities and distribution systems. These state
regulations are at least as strict as federal drinking water regulations, although not all federal
regulations are currently incorporated into corresponding state regulations. These state
drinking water regulations are contained in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22.
The CDPH also regulates the distribution and use of recycled water through CCR Title 22.
Urban Water Management Plan
In 1983, the California Legislature enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act
(Water Code Sections 10610 - 10656). The California Urban Water Management Planning
Act requires that each urban water supplier, providing water for municipal purposes either
directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet
of water annually, shall prepare, update and adopt its urban water management plan at
least once every five years on or before December 3 1, in years ending in five and zero.
Wastewater Treatment
Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (CWA (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.)) have as their goal the restoration of the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of
the nation's waters. The primary regulatory mechanism to achieve the goal is the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The CWA requires that parties seeking
to discharge pollutants to the water of the United States obtain a permit under the
NPDES. The federal government has delegated responsibilities for implementing the CWA
NPDES program in California to the State. A discharge of pollutants from a source with a
single readily identifiable point of discharge, such as a municipal wastewater outfall, is only
permitted if it meets certain quality standards, known as effluent limits. Effluent limits are
based on available wastewater treatment technology. For surface water discharges of
stormwater runoff, additional regulations may apply, as discussed further below.
CWA Section 303(d)(1)(A) requires states to identify surface waters within their
boundaries where numeric or narrative water quality objectives are not being achieved or
pv ZFj K-ley Ho Page 3-137
h� .d Associates Inc.
Heritage Park Plan Draft EIR
Public Services and Utilities
maintained and/or where beneficial uses are not fully protected after application of
technology-based controls. Section 401 of the CWA requires applicants for federal
licenses or permits to obtain safe certification that any discharge of pollutants to surface
waters from a proposed activity will comply with the CWA, including applicable water
quality standards. CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230) regulate dredge and
fill activities that affect jurisdictional wetlands and waters, including water quality aspects of
such activities.
California Porter-Cologne Act
The California Porter-Cologne Act created an administrative structure and procedures for
management of water quality in the state. California's water quality program is
administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and by nine Regional
Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). Each RWQCB is responsible for regulating
water quality within their watershed. In accordance with the Porter-Cologne Act, each
RWQCB implements the Basin Plan developed for its region by issuing and enforcing waste
discharge requirements to individuals, communities, or businesses whose waste discharges
can affect water quality. These requirements can be either waste discharge requirements
(WDRs) for discharges to land (which may impact groundwater), or federally delegated
NPDES permits for discharges to surface water.
Solid Waste
Integrated Waste Management Act
The Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) mandates that communities reduce their
solid waste. The Act requires local jurisdictions to divert 25 percent of their solid waste by
1 995 and 50 percent by 2000, compared to a baseline of 1990. AB 939 also establishes an
integrated framework for program implementation, solid waste planning, and solid waste
facility and landfill compliance.
Local
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee
Chapter 7.78, Public Facilities Fee of the City of Dublin Municipal Code establishes a public
facilities fee in order to finance public facilities and to pay for each development's fair share
of construction and acquisition costs of improvements to public facilities that are caused by
future development.
City of Dublin General Plan
The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to public services
and utilities within the project area:
Parks/Recreational Facilities
Guiding Policy A. Expand park areas throughout the primary and extended planning areas
to serve new development.
Guiding Policy B. Maintain and improve outdoor facilities in conformance with the
recommendations of the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Page 3-138 PIZ/1^ IeS HO
� d A socmWt Inc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Public Services and Utilities
Implementing Policy C. Acquire and improve parklands in conformance with the standards
and policies recommended in the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Solid Waste
Guiding Policy A. Ensure that adequate solid waste disposal capacity is available to avoid
constraining development consistent with the Dublin General Plan.
Implementing Policy B. Continue to enforce City Source Reduction and
Recycling/Household Hazardous Waste Elements.
Implementing Policy C. Cooperate with Alameda County, as necessa , for adoption and
ry
implementation of the County Integrated Waste Management Plan,
Implementing Policy D. Prior to project approval, the applicant shall demonstrate that
capacity will exist in solid waste disposal facilities for their projects prior to issuance of
building permits.
Implementing Policy E. Large scale projects should be required to submit a plan that
demonstrates how they will contribute towards the City's State mandated diversion
requirement.
Sewage Treatment and Disposal
Guiding Policy A. Expand sewage treatment and disposal capacity to avoid constraining
development consistent with the Dublin General Plan.
Implementing Policy B. 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.
Water Supply
Guiding Policy A. 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 B. Consider obtaining water from the East Bay Municipal Utility
District and other sources.
Relevant Project Characteristics
Public Services
Based on a population estimate of 2.73 persons per household and construction of 54
residential units, the proposed project would increase the population by approximately 147
persons, which would increase the demand for fire and police protection service;
educational facilities; parks and recreation facilities; and library services. Utilities would be
served by existing services and upgraded to serve the proposed project.
=
=F,am,ey.,a� Page 3-139
tl A55oc��leS.Inc
Heritage Park Plan Draft EIR
Public Services and Utilities
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Criteria for Determining Significance
In accordance with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, agency and professional standards,
a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:
E Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or
need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
• Fire protection,
• Police protection,
• Schools,
• Parks, or
• Other public facilities;
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board;
E 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;
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments;
E Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects;
E Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed;
E Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects;
• Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs; and/or
• Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Methodology
Information in this section is derived primarily from the City of Dublin General P/an, the
DSRSD Urban Water Management Plan, Dublin Unified School District Demographics
Update, as well as personal communication with service providers.
Page 3-140 ���-d As ...Jmc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Public Services and Utilities
Impacts and Mitigation Measure
Electricity, Gas and Telecommunications
Comcast currently provides cable television and Internet service; AT&T and numerous
long-distance telecommunication companies provide telephone and cellular phone service;
and PG&E provides electrical and natural gas services to the City. The project site is already
served by these utilities and there is adequate infrastructure in place both on and adjacent
to the project site to serve the proposed project. As such, redevelopment of the
proposed project is not anticipated to result in the need for construction of new electricity,
gas or telecommunications infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed project would have no
impact on electricity, gas and telecommunications.
Increased Demand for Fire Protection Service
Impact 3.10-1: The proposed project would not significantly increase the need for
fire protection services such that it would result in the need for or
the construction of new or physically altered facilities to meet the
City's response times or other standards for fire protection services.
This is considered a less than significant impact.
The City of Dublin contracts with the Alameda County Fire Department to provide fire
and rescue services. The County of Alameda currently provides the City with 36 line
personnel that are assigned to the City at three fire stations (Stations 16, 17 and 18).
Station No. 16 located at 7494 Donohue Dr. would be the first responder to any fire or
emergency occurring within the project vicinity. This station has one engine and one truck
company.
Although the number of calls for service from the project site would likely increase with
redevelopment of the project site from commercial/office use to residential and
commercial/office use, the proposed project would be required to meet certain State
building and fire codes. Typically, these codes require a development plan that provides for
fire protection systems, ingress and egress, maximum occupancy limitations, and
construction techniques and materials dictated by the proposed use of the structure (refer
to the City of Dublin's Municipal Code, Chapter 5.08, Fire Code). Specifically, the Fire
Department would review for conformance with locally-defined performance standards,
including the California Fire Code, as adopted by the Fire Department, and California
Building Code standards. Site access, capacity of the water mains, road widths and turning
radii, road grades, surfacing, load bearing capability, sprinkler systems, stand pipes, smoke
detectors, and fire alarms would also be reviewed for consistency with Fire Department
standards.
The proposed project will be required to fund its own project-specific on-site and off-site
improvements consistent with existing City regulations and requirements. The City would
collect public facilities fees (Chapter 7.78 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code) from the
project applicant to help off-set fire protection-related capital improvements and on-going
maintenance expenses incurred by new development prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
=n Kimsey-H.In Page 3-14 1
h and Assoc ales.Inc
Heritage Park Plan Draft EIR
Public Services and Utilities
As the proposed project would be required to comply with the Fire Code and other
applicable fire protection regulations and to pay the City's public facilities fee, the proposed
project is not expected to create any adverse impacts on fire protection services that
would result in significant environmental impacts. Therefore, this would be considered a
less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Increased Demand for Law Enforcement Service
Impact 3.10-2: The proposed project would not significantly increase the need for
law enforcement services, which would result in the need for the
construction of new or physically altered facilities in order to meet
the City's response times. Therefore, the proposed project would
have a less than significant impact on law enforcement services.
The City of Dublin contracts with the Alameda County Sheriffs Department for police
services. The County Sheriff, under consultation with the City, designates a commanding
officer that functions and is empowered to act as the City's Police Chief. Patrol, criminal
investigation, crime prevention, and business office functions are handled at the Dublin
Civic Center location. Dublin Police Services is staffed so that there is a five-minute
response time to all emergency calls. The City of Dublin has 51 sworn personnel with a
population of 46,572, for a ratio of 1.09 sworn personnel per 1,000 residents.
Although the addition of new residents to the project site would slightly increase the
demand for police services as compared to commercial/office uses on the project site,
implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to have an adverse effect on
response times for police services and would not affect the Department's ability to serve
the proposed project.
The proposed project would be required to comply with Chapter 7.32.300 (Building
Security) and Chapter 7.32.3 10 (Nonresidential building security) of the City's Building
Code, which includes building standards aimed at reducing law enforcement calls within the
City. In addition, the City would collect public facilities fees (Chapter 7.78 of the City of
Dublin Municipal Code) from future development to help off-set police service capital
improvements and on-going maintenance expenses incurred by the new development
prior to issuance of a Building Permit to ensure that the proposed project will not cause
impacts on law enforcement services that would result in significant environmental impacts.
Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on law
enforcement services, and no mitigation is required.
Increased Demand for Educational Facilities
Impact 3.10-3: Implementation of the proposed project would increase the number
of students in the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). The
proposed project would include the construction of 54 residential
units, which would generate approximately 28 students. These
students would attend Dublin Elementary School, Wells Middle
School and Dublin High School The proposed project would be
Page 3-142 K-1CV-HO
�� d Associates Inc
Heritage Park Draft FIR
Public Services and Utilities
required to pay school impact fees as required under State law to
the DUSD. This is considered a less than significant impact
The proposed project would allow for a future net new development potential with a
maximum of 54 residential units within the project site. Children from the proposed
residential dwelling units would likely attend DUSD schools including: Dublin Elementary
School; Wells Middle School; and Dublin High School. Based on the DUSD's student
generation rate for medium density housing (single family residential with lots less than
4,000 square feet) of 0.525 K-12 students per home and 54 homes, the proposed project
would generate approximately 28 students. As shown in Table 3.10-1: Enrollment Capacity
of Schools Serving the Project Site, there is currently an excess capacity of 977 students at
the schools that would serve the proposed project.
Future development within the project site would be required by law to pay school impact
fees at the time of the building permit issuance. The DUSD currently charges development
fees in the amount of $2.97 per square foot of residential development and $0.47 per
square foot for commercial and industrial uses. These fees are used by the DUSD to
mitigate impacts associated with long-term operation and maintenance of school facilities.
A project applicant's fees would be determined at the time of the building permit issuance
and would reflect the most current fee amount established by the DUSD. School fees
exacted from residential and commercial uses would help fund necessary school service
and facilities improvements to accommodate anticipated population and school enrollment
growth within the DUSD service area, and would allow for the DUSD to allocate these
funds as deemed necessary. Therefore, the increased demand on the DUSD is considered
a less than significant impact on school services, and no mitigation is required.
Increased Demand for Park and Recreation Facilities
Impact 3.10-4: The proposed project would increase the demand for park and
recreational uses within the project site. However, development
projects within the project area would be required to pay the City's
Public Facilities Fee prior to Building Permit issuance. This is
considered a less than significant impact.
ion of the proposed project would increase the demand for neighborhood and
Implementat
community parks due to the projected increase in the residential population generated by
the proposed project. The City of Dublin Genera/Plan establishes park standards that call
for five net acres per 1,000 residents. Based on a population estimate of 2.73 persons per
household and construction of 54 residential units, the proposed project would increase
the population by approximately 147 persons. This would result in the demand of .73
acres of parks. The proposed project includes private open space at the residential units
(e.g. private porches).
The Parks and Community Services Department Public Facilities Fee would be applied to
development at the project site. The Public Facilities Fees would vary according to the size
of residential units, the location of the development, and a credit for the dedication of land
p�M K—y y Han Page 3-143
\ aid A--Wt
Heritage Park Plan Draft EIR
Public Services and Utilities
and funding for construction of the parks. With payment of the City's public facilities fees
(Chapter 7.78 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code), the proposed project would have a
less than significant impact on park and recreation facilities in the City, and no mitigation is
required.
Increased Demand for Library Services or Other Public Facilities
Impact 3.10-5: The proposed project would result in an increase in demand for
library services. The proposed project would provide adequate
property tax revenue to the City, a portion of which is used to fund
libraries and other public facilities. Existing library facilities have
adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. In addition, the
proposed project would not physically impact other public facilities.
This is considered a less than significant impact.
The Dublin Library is a partnership between the City of Dublin and Alameda County
Library. Although the proposed project would increase the demand for library services,
funding for additional library facilities and other public facilities would be provided with an
increase in property taxes and therefore additional demand for these services could be met
concurrent with implementation of the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed
project is not anticipated to require the construction of new library facilities; would not
cause or accelerate the physical deterioration of existing library facilities; and would not
physically impact other public facilities. This would be considered a less than significant
impact, and no mitigation is required.
Change in Wastewater Demand
Impact 3. 10-6 The proposed project would result in a decrease in the amount of
wastewater generated at the project site. Implementation of the
proposed project would not require the construction of new
wastewater treatment facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities.
Additionally, the existing service provider has an adequate capacity
to meet this demand. Therefore, this would be considered a less
than significant impact.
DSRSD provides wastewater collection services in the project vicinity. The proposed
project would connect to the existing eight inch sanitary sewer main located in Donlon
Way. The existing sewer is approximately five feet deep at the proposed tie-in point and
therefore the proposed project would require installation of a sewer pump. The on-site
sewer system would serve the Single Family Residential Lots 8 to 54 and Lots I to 7 and
would have laterals connecting to the existing sewer main located within Donlon Way. A
separate sewer lateral would be installed for the commercial office building, which would
connect to the existing main in Donlon Way.
As shown in Table 3.10-3: Proposed Wastewater Generation, the proposed project would
result in a dry weather flow of 1,410 gallons per day (gpd) based on an average daily flow
of 256 gpd per Single Family Residential unit and 367 gpd per acre for commercial/office
Page 3-144 cZn Kme,-HO,n and As-;es.1n.
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Public Services and Utilities
use. Compared to the existing wastewater generation of 2,426 gpd, the proposed project
would result in a reduction of the dry weather flow of 1,674 gpd.
Table 3.10-3:Wastewater Generation
Wastewater
Land Use Units and Acres Wastewater Generation Rate* Generation
Existing Land Use
Commercial/Office 6.6 Acres 367.64 gallons per day per acre 2,426 gpd
2,426 d
Subtotal
Pro osed Land Use
Commercial/Office 367.64 gallons per day per acre
0.75 Acres
Single Family Residential 256 gallons per day per SFR
54 SFR units SFR ,410 d
Subtotal -I,1 674 d
Total
*Rates from DRSD
Based on the existing wastewater generation, the proposed project is not anticipated to
result in dry weather wastewater flows that exceed existing infrastructure in the project
vicinity. The proposed project would be responsible for the cost and construction of new
backbone infrastructure, including the extension of collection lines required to serve the
proposed project.
Public facility improvements for sanitary sewer drainage are managed and maintained by
the DSRSD. In the District's Capital Improvement Plan, the costs of capital improvement
projects are assigned to Local Sewer Replacement (Fund 210) and/or Local Sewer
Expansion (Fund 220). The Replacement fund represents costs that are allocated to
existing users (generally through sewer rates), and the Expansion fund represents the costs
allocated to future users (generally through connection fees). Implementation of these
actions would ensure that adequate wastewater infrastructure exists to serve the proposed
project. In addition, implementation of the proposed project would comply with
wastewater treatment requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB).
The wastewater treatment plant has an excess capacity of 5.52 million gallons per day and
could adequately serve the proposed project and therefore would have a less than
significant impact on the existing wastewater treatment plant. The proposed project would
be required to pay the sanitary sewer connection fee to the DSRSD in order for the
District to serve the proposed project. This is considered a less than significant impact, and
no mitigation is required.
Change in Water Demand and Extension of Water Infrastructure
Impact 3.10-7: Implementation of the proposed project would result in a decrease
in the water demand at the project site. This would be considered
a less than significant impact.
=
=F,j m Y.H— Page 3-145
a A—,,a Mn
Heritage Park Plan Draft EIR
Public Services and Utilities
As shown in Table 2-1: Existing and Proposed Water Demand, the proposed project
would result in a decrease of 26,669 gallons per day with redevelopment of the project site
from commercial/office to residential and commercial/office uses.
The project site has multiple water laterals, which serve the existing office buildings located
off of Donlon Way. The proposed project would include an additional connection point to
the existing eight-inch main within Dublin Boulevard to create a looped system. As shown
in Figure 2-10: Preliminary Utility Plan, the on-site water system will serve Single Family
Residential Lots 8-54, while Lots 1-7 will be served with individual laterals from the public
water main located in Donlon Way.
The proposed project would be required to pay connection and other fees to Zone 7 and
DSRSD who currently charge connection fees for the construction of planned water
system capital improvements including storage, pumping, transmission, and on-going system
water maintenance and improvements. With the payment of connection fees, the
proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to water infrastructure in the
City.
Change in Stormwater Runoff
Impact 3. 10-8: Implementation of the proposed project would result in a decrease in
stormwater flows through the project site. The proposed project would be
required to install proposed drainage improvements and pay applicable
impact fees at the time of issuance of the building permits. Therefore, this is
considered a less than significant impact.
As previously mentioned, the City of Dublin Public Works Department maintains the City's
storm drain pipelines that are located within public streets. Zone 7 owns and operates
regional storm drain facilities that collect runoff from the City.
Surface water management consists of both on-site runoff and the management of off-site
runoff extending through or around the project site. As part of demolitions, a majority of
existing storm drain facilities would be removed from the project site. As described in
Table 3.7-1: Pre- and Post- I 0-Year Stormwater Flows, implementation of the proposed
project would decrease the net peak I 0-year storm water flows from the project site from
13.4 cfs to 1 1.9 cfs, for a net reduction of 1.5 cfs,
All stormwater would be detained on-site in one of three bioretention basins before being
discharged into existing stormwater facilities. Stormwater in the residential area would
drain into two bioretention basins located at the southern edge of the project site (Parcel
D and Parcel E), before being discharged into an existing 24-inch storm drain pipe and into
Dublin Creek.
Stormwater from the proposed commercial office building would be collected in a separate
bio-retention basin located within a re-configured parking lot before being discharged into a
27-inch storm drain located under Dublin Boulevard.
Page 3-146 Can j mley-H—
d Ass ales.Irk
Heritage Park Draft EIR
Public Services and Utilities
In accordance with the Alameda County Clean Water Program, low impact design (LID)
site design measures for water quality protection will be implemented to adequately
address the impacts of the proposed project and to show compliance with the post-
construction, long-term requirements of Provision C.3. Water quality features include
bioretention areas, flow-through planters, tree well filters, median filters and "treatment
trains." Trash capture facilities would also be incorporated into the system. These on-site
facilities would be connected to the stormwater drain system in the backbone roadways.
Stormwater Pollution Previsions Plans (SWPPPs) would also be prepared, as a separate
document, to control short-term construction-related discharge pollutants as required by
the CA State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 99-08-DWQ.
In addition to installing the proposed drainage improvements, the proposed project would
be required to pay applicable impact drainage fees at the time of development, which
includes development impact fees to Zone 7 based on total increases in impervious
surfaces associated with future development. Compliance with existing stormwater
regulations and payment of these development impact fees to Zone 7 would ensure that
the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on stormwater
infrastructure and services, and no mitigation is required
Change in Generation of Solid Waste
Impact 3.10-9: Implementation of the proposed project would increase the generation of
solid waste, but would be served by landfills with adequate capacity to
accommodate the increase. This is considered a less than significant impact.
Development of the proposed project would convert the project site from commercial
office uses to a combination of residential and commercial development within the City.
Solid waste services are currently provided by Amador Valley Industries (AVI) and include
the collection of waste, recycling, and organics.
The proposed project would also generate construction debris during construction
activities from the demolition of the existing office uses and removal of other
improvements (e.g. asphalt and building materials, etc.). The City requires all construction
and demolition projects to recycle at least 50 percent of waste generated on a job site
(Chapter 7.30 of the Municipal Code). The City of Dublin also has an aggressive and
comprehensive recycling program. All single-family residences are provided with recycling
containers. In addition, free recycling service is available to all commercial customers that
subscribe to solid waste collection.
All solid waste generated by development under the proposed project would be deposited
at the Altamont Landfill. The Altamont Landfill has a total estimated permitted capacity of
62,000,000 cubic yards. The total estimated capacity used is 16,280,000 cubic yards (or
26.3 percent), and the remaining estimated f this capacity is at 45,720,00 cubic landfill is January 20290 Developmdent under
percent). The estimated closure date
the proposed project would occur over an extended period of time, meaning the Altamont
V�=F,K—Y-HOm Page 3-147
and Associates.Inc.
Heritage Park Plan Draft FIR
Public Services and Utilities
Landfill would see an incremental increase in additional project solid waste until ultimate
buildout of the proposed project.
The proposed project calls for the construction 54 residential homes and a 14,000 square
foot commercial office building. Table 3.10-5: Proposed Project Solid Waste Generation
Rates provides the projected amount of solid waste with implementation of the proposed
project.
Table 3.10-5: Proposed Project Solid Waste Generation Rates
Solid Waste Generation Solid Waste
Land Use S uare FeetlUnits Rate* Generation
Existin Land Use
Non-Residential (Office) 110,000 2.5 lb./1000 sq. ft./day
.1375 tons/day
Subtotal 1375 tons/da
Pro osed Land Use
Non-Residential
(Commercial 14,000 sq. ft. 2.5 Ib./1000 sq. ft./day
017 tons/day
Retail/Office
Residential .
1223 lb./unit/day 54 residential units 33 tons/day
Subtotal
Difference 12.48 tons/day
1).34 tons/da
*Rates from CalRec cle Website:,2013
The proposed project would generate approximately 12.34 tons of waste per day. The
Altamont Landfill's permitted maximum disposal rate is 1 1,500 tons/day. The proposed
project's solid waste generation amount represents approximately 0.1 percent of the
landfill's maximum daily disposal rate. In addition, future development within the project
area would be required to reduce 75 percent of trash through recycling and the
composting of organics, which would also reduce the overall waste generation of the
proposed project. Therefore, the Altamont Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate
the waste disposal needs of the proposed project. This would be considered a less than
significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Page 3-148 P1�/ Kmle>H�
b� ,and Ass aces.Inc
Heritage Park Draft FIR
CEQA Consideration
4. CEQA Considerations
This section of the EIR discusses long-term implications of the proposed project as required
by CEQA. The topics discussed include significant irreversible commitment of resources,
growth-inducing impacts, significant and unavoidable environmental effects, energy
conservation and effects found not to be significant. Cumulative impacts and alternatives to
the proposed project are also discussed herein.
4.1 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Effects
Unavoidable adverse impacts are those effects of the proposed project that would
significantly affect the environment, and cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level
as identified in the previous analyses. The proposed project would not result in any
significant and unavoidable impacts.
4.2 Significant Irreversible Changes
Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss the significant
irreversible environmental changes that would be involved if the proposed project would
be implemented. Examples include the following: uses of nonrenewable resources during
the initial and continued phases of the project, since a large commitment of such resources
makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely; primary and secondary impacts of a project
that would generally commit future generations to similar uses (e.g., highway improvements
that provide access to a previously inaccessible area); and/or irreversible damage that could
result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the proposed project.
Analysis
Although, the project site is currently developed, a variety of nonrenewable and limited
resources would be irretrievably committed for construction and operation of the
proposed project, including but not limited to: oil, natural gas, gasoline, lumber, sand and
gravel, asphalt, steel, water, land, energy, and construction materials. With respect to
operational activities, compliance with all applicable building codes, as well as project
mitigation measures or project requirements, would ensure that all natural resources are
conserved or recycled to the maximum extent feasible.
The proposed project would result in an additional demand on public services and utilities.
For example, an increase in the intensity of land uses within the project site would result in
an increase in regional electric energy consumption to satisfy additional electricity demands
from the proposed project. These energy resource demands relate to initial project
construction, transport of goods and people, and lighting, heating, and cooling of buildings.
However, the proposed project would not involve a wasteful or unjustifiable use of energy
or other resources, and energy conservation efforts would occur with new construction. In
addition, the proposed project would be constructed and operated in accordance with
specifications contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Therefore, the
use of energy on-site would occur in an efficient manner.
pv� a,meY-Horn Page 4 I
�� i d Associates.Inc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
4.3 Growth Inducement
CEQA requires that growth-inducing aspects of a project be discussed in an EIR.
According to CEQA, it must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily
beneficial, detrimental or of little significance to the environment. A project would have
growth-inducing effects if it would:
• Foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing
(either directly or indirectly) in the surrounding environment;
• Remove obstacles to population growth;
• Tax existing community services or facilities, requiring the construction of new
facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or
• Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the
environment, either individually or cumulatively.
If a project meets any one of these criteria, it may be considered growth inducing.
Generally, growth inducing projects are either located in isolated, undeveloped, or
underdeveloped areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure such as sewer
and water facilities or roadways, or encourage premature or unplanned growth.
To comply with CEQA, an EIR must discuss the ways in which the proposed project could
promote economic or population growth in the vicinity of the project and how that growth
will, in turn, affect the surrounding environment [CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)].
Foster Economic Growth
The proposed project would increase population growth through increased residential
units, which would indirectly contribute to commercial sales and activities within the City, as
well as enhance the economic viability of the regional area.
The positive revenue stream may result in the creation of indirect and induced jobs.
Indirect jobs are those that would be created when the future owners and/or managers of
the retail-commercial uses purchase goods and services from businesses in the City and the
region, and induced jobs are those that are created when wage incomes of those
employed in direct and indirect jobs are spent on the purchase of goods and services in
City and the region.
The project fosters economic growth primarily as the result of purchases of goods and
services as well as payment of taxes and salaries, which affects the regional economy of the
City and County, and on a more indirect basis, California. Therefore, the positive revenue
stream and the resulting increased economic viability of the proposed project could result
in indirect growth-inducing impacts.
Remove Obstacles to and/or Foster Population Growth
Growth can be induced in a number of ways, including the direct construction of new
homes and businesses, the elimination of obstacles to growth, or through the stimulation of
Page 4-2 i MFJ K,m� ey-Horn
Heritage Park Draft EIR
CEQA Consideration
economic activity within the region. The discussion of the removal of obstacles to growth
relates directly to the removal of infrastructure limitations (typically through the provision
of additional capacity or supply), or the reduction or elimination of regulatory constraints
on growth that could result in growth unforeseen at the time of project approval.
The elimination of either physical or regulatory obstacles to growth is considered to be a
growth-inducing effect. A physical obstacle to growth typically involves the lack of public
service infrastructure. The extension of public service infrastructure, including roadways,
water mains, and sewer lines, into areas that are not currently provided with these services
would be expected to support new development. Similarly, the elimination or change to a
regulatory obstacle, including existing growth and development policies, could result in new
growth.
The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in the area beyond
that already forecasted for the City of Dublin. The City of Dublin Housing Element
estimates that the population of the City will be 62,700 residents in 2020. The proposed
project provides for the future development of 54 residential dwelling units. Based on
population estimates of 2.73 persons per household, the proposed project would increase
the population in the City by approximately 147 persons. With a current population of
approximately 46,934 residents in the City, the proposed project would represent
approximately .58 percent of this growth.
Although the proposed project would increase the population in the City and includes a
General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment, the proposed designations would be generally
consistent with the nature of surrounding development; would be within the estimate of
population growth per the City of Dublin Housing Element, and would represent an
incremental increase in population with implementation of the proposed project.
Therefore, the proposed project would not be growth inducing as a result of removing an
obstacle to growth.
Tax Existing Community Services or Facilities or Encourage Other Activities that Could
Affect the Environment
The proposed project would not require significant regional public infrastructure upgrades
for any utility or service. Water demand, wastewater generation, and stormwater runoff
would be less as compared to existing conditions. Under these circumstances, the
proposed project would not be growth inducing as a result of taxing existing communities
or facilities such that construction of new facilities would be required or would not
encourage other activities that could affect the environment.
4.4 Energy Conservation
Public Resources Code Section 21 100(b)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Appendix F require a
description (where relevant) of the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of
energy caused by a project. In 1975, the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill
1575 (AB 1575) in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s. Appendix F of the State CEQA
Guidelines provides guidance for assessing potential impacts that a project could have on
i n�mey-Ho Page 4-3
Heritage Park Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
energy supplies, focusing on the goal of conserving energy by ensuring that projects use
energy wisely and efficiently. Because Appendix F does not include specific significance
criteria, this threshold is based on the goal of Appendix F. Therefore, an energy impact is
considered significant if the proposed project would:
Develop land uses and patterns that cause wasteful, inefficient, and
unnecessary consumption of energy or construct new or retrofitted
buildings that would have excessive energy requirements for daily
operation.
Project Energy Consumption
Short-Term Construction
In 1994, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted the first set of emission
standards (Tier 1) for all new off-road diesel engines greater than 37 kilowatts (kW). The
Tier I standards were phased in for different engine sizes between 1996 and 2000,
reducing NOx emissions from these engines by 30 percent. The EPA Tier 2 and Tier 3
standards for off-road diesel engines are projected to further reduce emissions by 60
percent for NOx and 40 percent for particulate matter from Tier I emission levels. In
2004, the EPA issued the Clean Air Non-road Diesel Rule. This rule will cut emissions
from off-road diesel engines by more than 90 percent, and will be fully phased in by 2014.
As described in Section 3.2, Air Quality, the project would incorporate Mitigation Measure
3.2-1 b to ensure that the proposed project utilizes diesel construction equipment that is
equipped with Best Available Control Technology, complies with CARB's most recent
certification standards for off-road heavy duty diesel engines, and achieves a 20 percent
NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction during all construction phases.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 b would not only reduce exhaust emissions,
but would also improve the fuel economy of the equipment fleet. As such, 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 the region or
State. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the
proposed project would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Also, diesel powered
construction equipment in general will continue to become more efficient as the EPA
standards phase in.
Long Term Operations
Transportation Energy Demand
Pursuant to the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the National Highway
Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for establishing additional vehicle
standards and for revising existing standards. Since 1990, the fuel economy standard for
new passenger cars has been 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg). Since 1996, the fuel economy
standard for new light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less) has been 20.7
Page 4-4 �X/1 Kimsey.Horn
and ARO .,-Inc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
CEQA Consideration
mpg. Heavy-duty vehicles (i.e., vehicles and trucks over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight)
are not currently subject to fuel economy standards. Compliance with Federal fuel
economy standards is not determined for each individual vehicle model. Rather,
compliance is determined based on each manufacturer's average fuel economy for the
portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States.
As discussed in Section 4.5, Effects Found Not to be Significant, the proposed project
would result in a 600 net vehicle trip reduction as compared to existing conditions. In
addition, the project site is located in proximity to the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
station, and Wheels Routes 503, 10, 3, and R transit stops. As such, the proposed project
is not anticipated to result in any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive long-
term operational fuel consumption. The proposed project involves typical residential, and
office use type trips which would include internal trip capture rates. Fuel consumption
associated with vehicle trips generated by future development within the project area
would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.
Other Non-Motorized Transportation Options
The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) provides public transportation
for the Tri-Valley communities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton. Additionally, the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station provides LAVTA with easy connections to San Francisco
and the East Bay via BART. Additionally LAVTA operates the Wheels local bus system,
which provides regular bus service in Dublin as well as bus rapid transit service along Dublin
Boulevard. The project site is located within 0.50 miles of the West Dublin/Pleasanton
BART station, and 0.40 miles of Wheels Bus Routes 503, 10, 3, and R transit stops.
Residents and employees would be encouraged to utilize the existing transit options in the
project vicinity. The proximity of the project site to BART and Wheels routes would
reduce the number of trips to and from the proposed project. The proposed project
would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of transportation
energy.
Building Energy Demand
According to Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Data, the proposed project
would result in a net reduction of approximately 1.54 million kilowatt hours (kWh)
demand of electricity per year compared to the existing office complex on-site . In addition,
the proposed project would be expected to result in a net consumption reduction of
232,360 British Thermal units (BTU) of natural gas per year compared to existing
conditions. The proposed project would involve operations typical of residential and office
uses, requiring electricity and natural for typical lighting, climate control, and day-to-day
activities. Additionally, as stated in Section 3.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and C/imate
Change, the proposed project would incorporate energy efficiency measures, including
exceeding Title 24 requirements, and high efficiency lighting. Therefore, the proposed
project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary .
CZfJ K ',V-H Page 4-5
d Associates Inc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
Energy Efficiency Measures
Title 24, California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-residential
Buildings, was established by the California Energy Commission (CEC) in 1978 in response
to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California's energy
consumption, and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential
buildings. In 2010, the CEC updated Title 24 standards with more stringent requirements.
The 2010 Standards are expected to substantially reduce the growth in electricity and
natural gas use. Additional savings result from the application of the Standards on building
alterations. For example, requirements for cool roofs, lighting, and air distribution ducts are
expected to save about additional of electricity. These savings are cumulative, doubling as
years go by.
Implementation of the project design features would result in reduced project-related
GHG emissions. For example, the proposed project would comply with the Tier I
requirements of Title 24, Part I I (California Green Building Standards Code) of the
California Code of Regulations. Tier I requires projects to exceed Title 24 by 15 percent.
Additionally, the proposed project would install high efficiency lighting. The project would
adhere to all Federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency. As such, the
proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption
of building energy.
4.5 Effects Found Not to be Significant
A significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial or potentially substantial
adverse change in the physical environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15382). The term
"environment,'' as used in this definition, means the physical conditions that exist within the
area that will be affected by a proposed project including land, air, water, minerals, flora,
fauna, ambient noise and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. The area involved
shall be the area in which significant effects would occur either directly or indirectly as a
result of the proposed project. The "environment" includes both natural and man-made
conditions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360).
Detailed analyses and discussion of environmental topics found to be significant are
provided within Section 3.0 of this EIR. Section 3.0 also identifies impacts that are found to
be less than significant. The project site is an urban infll area and the following
environmental resources do not exist on the project site and/or are not considered to have
the potential to cause a significant environmental impact. As such, detailed analyses of the
following environmental resources were not included in the EIR:
E Agricultural and Forest Resources — The project site is developed and is not being
utilized for agricultural uses. The project site is designated ''Other Land'' on the
Alameda County Important Farm/and Map that is published by the California
Department of Conservation (DOC). In addition, the project site does not contain
any forest resources as defined by the CEQA Guidelines.
Page 4-6 C:F1 K,me,..HO,n
and Associates.Inc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
CEQA Consideration
Biological Resources - The proposed project would remove 107 trees, 16 of which
are classified as Heritage trees. Of these Heritage trees, five of them are California
black walnuts located on the western edge of Donlon Way. 30 trees would be
preserved including three Heritage trees; namely two coast redwoods (29-inch and
25-inches in diameter) and one coast live oak (28 inches in diameter) located on
ject site. To help off-set the impacts to these Heritage
the perimeter of the pro
Trees, the project applicant has agreed to fund the City in the amount of $19,000
to assist in the planting trees in the proposed Orchard in the Heritage Park. This
payment would be provided to the City prior to issuance of the site grading permit.
As shown in Figure 2-13: Landscaping Plan, the proposed project would include
extensive on-site landscaping. This includes planting 13 trees (36'' box) along
Donlon Way. Numerous other trees and shrubs would be planted on site
including redwoods, crape myrtle, Japanese maple, and Southern magnolia.
Mineral Resources — According to the California Department of Conservation,
Califomia Geologic Survey, the project site is not identified as an area with
significant mineral deposits (DOC 2013).
Population and Housing - The proposed project provides for the future
development of a maximum of 54 residential dwelling units. Based on population
estimates of 2.73 persons per household and 54 residential units, the proposed
project would increase the population by approximately 147 persons upon buildout
of the proposed project. With a current population of approximately 46,934
residents in the City, the proposed project would represent approximately .31
percent of this growth. Although the proposed project would increase the
population in the City and includes a General Plan Amendment, the proposed
designations would be consistent with the nature of surrounding development;
would be within the estimate of population growth per the City of Dub/in Housing
Element. See also, Section 4.3 above regarding growth inducement.
There is no existing housing within the project site and therefore, the proposed
project would not displace any existing housing.
Transportation and Circulation - As shown in Table 4-1: Trip Generation of the
Proposed Project Compared to Existing Conditions, the proposed project would
result in a decrease in average daily trips during the AM and PM peak hours as
compared to the trip generation for the existing development.
pr Url Kimsey-Morn Page 4-7
and A55o Iles.InC
Heritage Park Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
Table 4-1: Trip Generation of the Proposed Project Compared to Existing Conditions
ITE Description ITE Size Units Trips
Code Daily AM PM
Existing Conditions
General Office 710 I 1 0,000 SF I,4 I I 207 202
Proposed Trip Generation
General Office 710 14,000 SF 294 39 94
Single Family
Residential 210 54 DU 517 41 55
Total 811 80 149
Delta -600 -127 -53
Source:RBF Consulting 2013
Based on this preliminary analysis which shows a net reduction in trips, and the fact that the
Downtown Dub/in Specific Plan EIR where most the project trips would be travelling
allows for relaxed level of service (LOS) standards in the downtown area, the proposed
project would have no impact during the AM and PM peak hour.
4.6 Cumulative Impacts
CEQA Requirements
CEQA defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects which, when
considered together, are substantial or which compound or increase other environmental
impacts. An evaluation of cumulative impacts is required by CEQA when they are
significant, but need not be as detailed as the discussion of project impacts. Cumulative
conditions are defined as conditions in the foreseeable future. The CEQA Guidelines
require that an EIR discuss the cumulative impacts of a project where the project's
incremental effect is cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.
The criteria for determining significance of cumulative impacts are the same as those that
apply to the project-level analysis unless otherwise noted in this section, where other
agency standards regarding cumulative analyses may apply. Where the combined
cumulative impact associated with the project's incremental effect and the effects of other
projects is not significant, the EIR indicates why the cumulative impact is not significant and
is not discussed in further detail in the EIR. Where the EIR identifies a significant cumulative
impact, but finds that the project's contribution to that impact would be less than
considerable, an explanation for that conclusion is provided.
Page 4-8 :ZF,Kim,.y-„one
and A—ate5.Inc.
Heritage Park Draft EIR
CEQA Consideration
According to the California State CEQA Guidelines section 15130 (a)(1), there is no need
to evaluate cumulative impacts to which the project does not contribute. Relevant
potential cumulative impacts to which the proposed project could contribute include:
aesthetics; air quality; cultural resources; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials;
hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; noise; public services and utilities; and
transportation and circulation. Each of these topics is addressed herein.
Cumulative Impacts Analysis and Assumptions
Impacts associated with cumulative development were analyzed based on the proposed
project's effects in combination with a summary of projections in the adopted City of
Dublin General Plan (February 1 1, 1985, Updated May 2013) and the City's Capital
Improvement Program (CIP).
Aesthetics
The proposed project is located within an already urbanized area of the City and neither
the project site nor surrounding area contain any scenic resources. Although
implementation of the proposed project would allow redevelopment of the project site
from commercial/office to residential and commercial/office uses, the proposed project is
consistent with the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan which guides the design of
future development within the area. The design guidelines in the Dublin Village Historic
Area Specific Plan would also ensure that the proposed project does not introduce
substantial light and glare, which would pose a hazard or nuisance. The proposed project
would also be required to comply with a number of other City policy documents that
address urban design and aesthetics, including the Streetscape Master Plan, Community
Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan and the Bikeways Master Plan. In
addition, future development would be required to undergo Site Development Review.
The above considerations ensure that cumulative development would result in a less than
significant cumulative impact.
Conclusion., The proposed project would be required to comply with the design
standards and guidelines in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan as well as
other City policy documents, which would ensure that the proposed project does
not contribute to cumulative light and glare in the City and surrounding areas, and
would ensure that the proposed project is of quality design. The existing setting
together with the design features of the proposed project would ensure the
project's cumulative contribution to aesthetics would result in a less than significant
cumulative impact in regards to aesthetics.
Air Quality
Cumulative Air Quality Impacts
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in regional air
emissions from area, energy, and mobile sources in exceedance of the BAAQMD
thresholds with application of Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 a, 3.2-1 b, and 3.2-2. The
BAAQMD recommends that for any project that does not individually have significant
p�Z"KIMI¢y-Horn Page 4-9
kh. and Associates.1K
Heritage Park Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
operational air quality impacts, the determination of significant cumulative impact should be
based on an evaluation of the consistency of the project with the local general plan and of
the general plan with the regional air quality plan. As noted above, the proposed project
would be consistent with the primary goals and applicable control measures of the Bay
Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, Further, the proposed project would not disrupt or hinder
implementation of the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan control measures. As a result, the
proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to Bay Area 2010 Clean
Air Plan consistency.
Conclusion: With mitigation, any project contribution to cumulative air quality
impacts would be less than significant. The same analysis and conclusion apply on a
cumulative level and the proposed project would result in a less than significant
cumulative impact as to consistency with the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan.
Cumulative Odor Impacts
Cumulative development may result in airborne odors associated with construction
equipment, as well as from commercial uses (e.g. restaurants) and other uses in the City.
City regulations require protection from excessive odors (City of Dublin Municipal Code
Chapter 8.24, Commercial Zoning Districts, Chapter 8.64, Home Occupation Regulations,
and Chapter 8.20, Residential Zoning Districts). Further, BAAQMD, Regulation No. 7
(Odorous Substances) establishes general limitations on odorous substances and specific
emission limitations on certain odorous compounds.
Conclusion:The proposed project consists of residential and office uses, which do
not generate significant sources of odors. Further, the project would be required to
comply with the City's Municipal Code regulations and BAAQMD Regulation 7.
Therefore, cumulative odor impacts would be less than significant.
Cultural Resources
The project site is located within a high archaeologically sensitive area. Mitigation measures
MM 3.3-2a: Archaeological Monitoring and MM 3.3-2b: Halt Work/Archaeological
Evaluation/Site-Specific Mitigation are incorporated into the Draft EIR to address the
potential for unidentified archaeological resources within the project site. Implementation
of these mitigation measures would ensure that the proposed project would not have a
significant cumulative impact to cultural resources.
Conclusion: No significant cumulative impacts are predicted relative to cultural
resources after mitigation. Therefore, the proposed project as mitigated would have
a less than significant cumulative impact to cultural resources.
Geology and Soils
The geographic context for the analysis of impacts resulting from geologic hazards generally
is site-specific, rather than cumulative in nature, because each construction site has unique
geologic considerations that would be subject to uniform site development and
Page 4-10 C G"and'A aoo.we
Heritage Park Draft FIR
CEQA Consideration
construction standards. As such, the potential for cumulative impacts to occur is limited.
Impacts associated with potential geologic hazards related to soil or other conditions
(liquefaction, expansive soils, surface fault rupture, etc.) occur at individual building sites.
Buildings and facilities in the City of Dublin would be sited and designed in accordance with
the City's Building Code. General Plan, Specific Plan and findings from a design-level
geotechnical study prepared for future development in accordance with Mitigation Measure
MM 3.4-3: Preparation of Design-Level Geotechnical Report.
Cumulative development could expose soil surfaces and further alter soil conditions,
subjecting soils to erosional processes during construction. To minimize the potential for
cumulative impacts that could cause erosion, all proposed construction projects in the City
are required to be developed in conformance with the provisions of applicable federal,
state, county, and City laws and ordinances. Adequate control of sedimentation and
erosion must be incorporated into individual projects to address current legal requirements
for control of erosion caused by stormwater discharges. The proposed project would be
required to comply with the provisions of the NPDES permitting process and local
implementation strategies, which would minimize the potential for erosion during
construction and operation. In addition, future development would be required to comply
with the City of Dublin Public Works Department Policy No. 95-I I to control erosion
during construction activities. Compliance with this permit process, in addition to the City's
Building Code and other legal requirements related to erosion control practices, would
minimize cumulative effects from erosion. Therefore, cumulative impacts would considered
be less than significant.
Conclusion., Extensive federal, state and local regulations address erosion and
sedimentation control. Adherence to all relevant plans, codes, and regulations with
respect to project design and construction would provide adequate levels of safety
regarding geologic and seismic hazards and would prevent soil erosion. The
proposed project is required to be sited and designed in accordance with the City's
Building Code. General Plan, and findings from a design-level geotechnical study in
accordance with Mitigation Measure MM 3.4-3: Preparation of Design-Level
Geotechnical Report. Therefore, the proposed project as mitigated would result in
a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to geology and soils.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Cumulative development has the potential to result in an increase of greenhouse gas
emissions in the region. As discussed above, the proposed project would result in a net
reduction of GHG emissions of 3,328.28 MTCO2eq/year due to a reduction in mobile
source emissions. The BAAQMD threshold for annual GHG emissions is 1,100
MTCO2eq/year; as such, the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for
GHG emissions.
Conclusion: The proposed project would be consistent with the City's CAP.
Therefore, as the project is consistent with the CAP, and the CAP is is with
AB 32, the proposed project would not hinder the State's GHG reduction
p, KIl y-Horn Page 4-1 1
��and Associates.Inc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
strategies for meeting the goals established by AB 32. Since the proposed project
would not exceed the BAAQMD's 1,100 MTCOZeq/year threshold, there would
be a less than significant cumulative impact with regards to global climate change,
and a cumulative contribution from project-related GHG emissions.
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
The proposed project could result in the accidental release of hazardous materials,
particularly during construction activities. In addition, future development within the project
site could include hazardous waste typical of proposed residential and commercial uses
such as the routine transport, use, or disposal of any regulated hazardous materials.
Cumulative development would likely generate similar types of waste from operational and
construction impacts, all of which would be regulated by federal, state and local statutes.
Conclusion: Hazardous materials and substances are highly regulated at the federal,
state, and local levels. Compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws
that regulate, control, or respond to hazardous waste, transport, disposal, or clean-
up would ensure that cumulative development, which includes the project site as
well as implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 3.6-4, and MM 3.6-5 would
ensure that the proposed project as mitigated would have a less than significant
cumulative impact in regards to hazards and hazardous materials.
Hydrology and Water Quality
As described in Table 3.7-1: Pre- and Post- I 0-Year Stormwater Flows, existing pre-
development off-site stormwater flows stormwater outflows from the project site was
calculated to be 13.4 cubic feet per second (cfs) for a 10-year storm event. Post-
development stormwater flows would be 1 1.9 cfs, resulting in a net decrease of 1.5 cfs for
a ten year storm event (Carlson, Barbee, & Gibson 2013). All stormwater would be
treated in one of three on-site bioinfiltration basins prior to leaving the project site.
Conclusion: Compliance with NPDFS construction of the bio-retention basins
would ensure that the proposed project would have a less than significant
cumulative impact in regards to stormwater runoff and water quality.
Land Use and Planning
The City of Dublin has planning programs such as the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and
Municipal Code, that have established plans and guidelines for growth and development
within the City under buildout of the City of Dublin General Plan. The proposed project
would not conflict with habitat conservation plan, create land use incompatibilities or
physically divide a community, conflict with applicable land use plans, policies or regulations,
or result in urban decay or blight.
Conclusion: Development of the proposed project would be compatible with
surrounding land uses and would not conflict with applicable plans or policies.
Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed project with respect to future
Page 4-12 ►=/ 1 Kimiey-Hoer
and Aga„'es.�
Heritage Park Draft EIR
CEQA Consideration
development would result in a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to
land use and planning.
Noise
Upon completion of construction and during operation of other cumulative development,
it is expected that each project would generate noise from stationary sources (e,g., HVAC
equipment, parking lot noise, etc.). The noise generated by stationary equipment
associated with cumulative projects cannot be quantified due to the speculative nature of
conceptual nature of each development. However, each cumulative project would require
separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessment, which would address potential
noise impacts and identify necessary attenuation measures, where appropriate.
Additionally, noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, so noise impacts from
stationary sources would be limited to each of the respective sites and their vicinities.
Other potential development anticipated under the General Plan is not located in close
proximity to the project site.
Conclusion: Due to distance, it is unlikely that stationary noise associated with the
proposed project would overlap with stationary noise sources of other cumulative
development. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in significant
stationary noise impacts that would significantly affect surrounding sensitive
receptors. Thus, the proposed project and identified cumulative projects would
result in a less than significant cumulative impact.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in an overall trip reduction of
600 trips (RBF Consulting 2013), Therefore, the proposed project would not
contribute to cumulative mobile source noise as it would result in lower traffic
noise levels as compared to existing conditions. Thus, the proposed project, in
combination with cumulative background traffic noise levels, would result in a less
than significant cumulative impact in this regard.
Public Services and Utilities
Significant cumulative impacts to public services would occur if cumulative development
would overburden the public service agencies, and if utility providers were unable to
provide adequate services. Implementation of the proposed project in combination
cumulative development would result in the increased demand for public services, which
would result in the need for the provision of fire and police protection services, educational
services, and parks and recreation facilities with the construction of residential uses at the
project site. However, development fees would provide funding in order to help off-set
capital improvements and maintenance to these services. Therefore, the proposed project
would have a less than significant cumulative impact on public services.
The proposed project would result in less of a demand for water and wastewater as
compared to existing conditions. The proposed project would result in a decrease of
8,385 gallons per day of interior water use and 18,281 gallons per day of exterior water
i6"K-lay-Horn Page 4-13
and A-sociates.inc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
use as compared to existing conditions. The proposed project would result in a decrease
of dry weather flow of 1,674 gallons per day of wastewater as compared to existing
conditions. The wastewater treatment plant currently has capacity for 17.0 million gallons
per day of dry weather flow with an average flow per day of 1 1.48 million gallons per day
and excess capacity of 5.52 million gallons per day. Therefore, the wastewater treatment
plant has capacity to serve the proposed project and the water demands can be provided
by DSRSD.
Conclusion: The increased need for funding of public services would be covered by
the City's public facilities fee (Chapter 7.78, of the City of Dublin Municipal Code),
which is assessed on all new construction. Development fees are assessed on a
project-by-project basis to fund improvements to meet the increased demand on
public services. As a result, the proposed project would have a less than significant
cumulative impact in regards to public services. The generation of wastewater and
demand for water can be accommodated by the DSRSD and therefore, the
proposed project is anticipated to result in a less than significant cumulative impact
to utilities.
4.7 Project Alternatives
The alternatives discussion briefly identifies and describes several alternatives as developed
by City staff that would feasibly attain most of the project objectives and would avoid or
reduce significant environmental impacts of the proposed project including the following:
• Alternative #I — No Project Alternative
• Alternative #2 — Retail/Office Alternative
This section discusses the environmental impacts associated with each of these alternatives
as compared with the impacts resulting from the proposed project. The impact level of
each of the altematives (less, similar, greater) is noted in parentheses at the beginning of
each comparison. Table 4.5-2: Comparison of Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project
at the conclusion of this section provides a summary. This section also identifies the
"environmentally superior'' alternative.
4.10.1 Relationship to Project Objectives
Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), a clear statement of objectives
and the underlying purpose of the proposed project can help the City develop a
reasonable range of alternatives. Each alternative would be evaluated as to how well it
meets the objectives of the project, as currently proposed. The City of Dublin and the
project applicant have provided the following project objectives for the proposed project:
L Design new housing and commercial uses consistent with the Dub/in I///age
Historic Area Specific Plan,
Ensure a viable infill project that provides for the creation of new housing in
proximity to Downtown Dublin and public transit.
Page 4-14 [ZF,K—ey.Horn
Heritage Park Draft EIR
CEQA Consideration
• Create a community that is compatible in scale and design with surrounding land
uses.
• Establish a cohesive community feel in the project area through compliance with
the Dublin Historic Ili//age Specific Plan design guidelines that ensure consistency
between individual neighborhoods while allowing unique architectural expression.
4.10.3 Alternative #I — No Project Alternative
Characteristics
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: the project site
remaining in its current state or development of the project site under its current General
Plan land use and zoning designations. Because the proposed project proposes General
Plan land use changes, Alternative #I — No Project Alternative considers the
environmental effects of not approving the proposed project with the continuation of the
existing 1 10,000 square foot commercial/office complex at the project site into the future.
Comparative Analysis
Aesthetics (slightly greater . There would be no change in the visual character of the
project site under the No Project Alternative. Therefore, the existing structures would
remain, which are considered inconsistent with the vision of the Dublin Vllage Historic
Area Specific Plan. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in slightly greater
impacts as compared to the proposed project.
Air Quality(slightly greater). The No Project Alternative would continue commercial/office
uses at the project site into the future and would not place residential uses adjacent to
Interstate-580. However, mitigation measures incorporated herein would reduce potential
health risk hazards to residential uses to a less than significant level. In comparison to the
proposed project, the No Project Alternative includes a slightly greater volume of vehicle
trips and air quality emissions during operations, which would result in slightly greater air
quality emissions compared to the proposed project. Therefore, the No Project
Alternative would result in slightly greater air quality emissions as compared to the
proposed project.
Cultural Resources (less). The No Project Alternative would eliminate potential damage to
any unknown cultural resources, including historic, archaeological, or paleontological
resources, and/or human remains that could result with construction of the proposed
project. Although, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to
cultural resources with mitigation measures incorporated herein, the No Project Alternative
would result in slightly less impacts to cultural resources as compared to the proposed
project.
Geology and Soils (similar). Impacts under the No Project Alternative would be similar to
the proposed project in that the project site could still be exposed to seismic ground
��K-1.v Han Page 4-15
Gand Associates lnc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
shaking, liquefaction, soil erosion, and expansive soils. Although the No Project Alternative
would not expose up to 54 residential units to seismic ground shaking, development
associated with the proposed project would still be required to comply with the City's
Building Code and the California Building Code. In addition, the proposed project has been
designed to incorporate a 25-foot buffer for the Calaveras fault that traverses the project
site . Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in similar impacts as compared to
the proposed project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change (slightly greater). The No Project
Alternative has slightly greater greenhouse gas emissions due to greater vehicle emissions as
compared to the proposed project. Therefore, the No Project Alternative results in slightly
greater impacts as compared to the proposed project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (similar). Similar to the proposed project, the No Project
Alternative includes hazardous waste typical of commercial uses such as the routine
transport, use or disposal of regulated hazardous materials. Therefore, the No Project
Alternative would have similar impacts as compared to the proposed project.
Hydrology and Water Quality (greater). Surface water runoff under this alternative is
greater due to the amount of impervious surfaces at the project site and increased
stormwater runoff as compared to the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project
includes the installation of two proposed bio-retention parcels that would collect and clean
stormwater runoff before discharging it from the project site in compliance with the
Regional Water Quality Control Board current standards. As the No Project Alternative
does not currently meet current standards, impacts under this alternative would be greater
as compared to the proposed project.
Land Use and Planning (similar). The No Project Alternative would result in no change to
existing conditions and would continue to be consistent with the land use designation in
the Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Plan and the City of Dublin General Plan, The
proposed project would amend these documents to be consistent with the proposed land
use. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in similar impacts as compared to
the proposed project.
Noise (less). The No Project Alternative would result in no short-term construction as
compared to the proposed project. Additionally, the No Project Alternative would not
require noise barriers and would not expose single family residences to long-term traffic
noise exposure from Interstate 580. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in
less impacts as compared to the proposed project.
Pub/ic Services and Utilities (similar). The No Project Alternative would result in less
impacts to public services due to a reduction in demand for schools, fire, police, and parks
from residential uses as compared to the proposed project. However, the demand for
water, sewer and stormwater runoff under the No Project Alternative would be greater as
Page 4-16 [MFJ„me,Hom
�d Associates.in.^
Heritage Park Draft EIR
CEQA Consideration
compared to the proposed project. Overall, impacts to public services and utilities under
the No Project Alternative would be similar to the proposed project.
Ability to Meet Project Objectives
This alternative would not be consistent with any of the project's objectives, including
ensuring a long-term financially viable infill project in the Dub/in t///age Historic Area
Specific Parr, providing housing capacity to meet the city's projected housing needs in City's
Housing Element; and creating a desirable livable community with a strong sense of place
for the residents of the City of Dublin.
4.10.4 Alternative #2 — Retail/Office Alternative
Characteristics
Alternative #2 — Retail Office would consist of a 172,498 square foot retail and office uses,
consistent with the existing land use designation and maximum Floor to Area Ratio (FAR)
of .60 in the Dub/in V//age Historic Area Specific Plan. This would result in an increase of
62,498 square feet at the project site of retail and office uses as compared to existing
conditions.
Under Alternative #2, the retail and office uses would be constructed consistent with the
design standards and guidelines in the Dublin t/llage Historic Area Specific Plan, The
proposed retail/office use would be located outside of the 25-foot buffer zone of the
Calaveras Fault, and outside of the FEMA 500-year flood zone.
Comparative Analysis
Aesthetics (similar). Alternative #2 would be consistent with the vision of the Dub/in
Village Historic Area Specific Plan and the City of Dublin General Plan. Therefore,
Alternative #2 would result in similar impacts as compared to the proposed project.
Air Quality (greater). Alternative #2 would not place residential uses adjacent to
Interstate-580. However, mitigation measures incorporated herein would reduce potential
health risk hazards to residential uses proposed by the proposed project to a less than
significant level. In comparison to the proposed project, Alternative #2 would result in an
increase in vehicle trips to the project site, which would subsequently increase mobile
source emissions. Therefore, Alternative #2 would result in greater air quality emissions as
compared to the proposed project.
Cultural Resources (similar). Alternative #2 would include ground disturbing activities (e.g.
grading and excavation) within a high archaeological sensitivity area. Therefore, Alternative
#2 would result in similar impacts to cultural resources with mitigation measures
incorporated herein.
Geology and Soils (similar). Impacts under Alternative #2 would be similar to the
proposed project in that the project site could still be exposed to seismic ground shaking,
liquefaction, soil erosion, and expansive soils. Alternative #2 would also be required to
�F,a,mley-�� Page 4-17
� nd Associates.I�
Heritage Park Draft FIR
CEQA Considerations
comply with the City's Building Code and the California Building Code, as well as
incorporate a 25-foot buffer for the Calaveras fault. Therefore, Alternative #2 would result
in similar impacts as compared to the proposed project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change (greater). Alternative #2 would result in
greater greenhouse gas emissions due to an increase in vehicle emissions from more
vehicle trips to the project site.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (similar). Similar to the proposed project, the Alternative
#2 would include hazardous waste typical of commercial uses such as the routine
transport, use or disposal of regulated hazardous materials. Therefore, Alternative #2
would have similar impacts as compared to the proposed project.
Hydrology and Water Quality (similar). Surface water runoff under this alternative would
be similar as compared to the proposed project, as both projects would have similar site
coverage and both would be required to comply with Regional Water Quality Control
Board standards that require post-development off-site flows to be similar or less than pre-
development conditions.. Therefore, Alternative #2 would result in similar impacts as
compared to the proposed project.
Land Use and Planning (less). Alternative #2 would continue to be consistent with the
land use designation in the Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Plan and the City of Dublin
General Plan. The proposed project would amend these documents to be consistent with
the proposed land use. Therefore, Alternative #2 would result in similar impacts as
compared to the proposed project.
Noise (similar). Alternative #2 would result in the construction of retail/office instead of
residential and commercial/office uses. This would result in a slight reduction of noise
impacts as compared to the proposed project due to the reduced exposure of residential
uses to noise from Interstate 580. However, the proposed project incorporates noise
barriers into the project design, which would reduce project noise impacts to a less than
significant level. Therefore, this alternative would result in similar impacts as compared to
the proposed project.
Public Services and Utilities (similar). Alternative #2 would result in less impacts to public
services as compared to the proposed project due to a reduction in demand for schools,
fire, police, and parks. However, the demand for water, sewer and increased stormwater
runoff is anticipated to be greater as compared to the proposed project. Therefore,
Alternative #2 would be similar to the proposed project.
Consistency with Project Objectives
This alternative would be consistent with the project's objectives, including ensuring a long-
term financially viable infll project in the Dublin I/llage Historic Area Specific P1,317 and
creating a desirable livable community with a strong sense of place for the residents of the
Page 4-18 MrJ Ki Ii y.Fim
b- ald Associates Im
Heritage Park Draft EIR
CEQA Consideration
City of Dublin. It would not be consistent with the objective of providing housing capacity
to meet the city's projected housing needs in City's Housing Element.
4.10.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(e)(2) requires that the environmentally superior
alternative be identified. If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project
Alternative, the EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other
alternatives. The environmentally superior alternative is Alternative #2 — Retail/Office
Alternative followed by Alternative #I — No Project Alternative.
Table 4 -2: Comparison of Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project
EAesthetics mental Category Alternative#11 —No Alternative#2—
Pro'ect Alternative Retail/office Alternative
Slightly Greater Similar
lit Slightly Greater Greater
Cultural Resources Less Similar
Geology and Soils Similar Similar
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Climate Slightly Greater Greater
Change
Hazards and Hazardous Similar Similar
Materials
Hydrology and Water Greater Similar
Quality Less
Land Use and Plannin Similar
Noise Less Similar
Public Services and Similar Similar
Utilities
Ability to Meet Project Less Less
Ob ectives
Ki Il y-H.M Page 9-19
C.►1�„d Asso 1-hl
Heritage Park Draft EIR
References
S. References
References Cited
Alameda County. Livermore Airport Master P/an, 201 1. Airport Data.com, Camp Parks
Heliport (4CA3) Information, Accessed May 20, 2013. htLp://www.airport-
data.com/airporU4CA3/.
Alameda County, Alameda County Hydrology and Hydraulics Manual. 2003.
Alameda County. Livermore Municipal Airport Draft Land Use Compatibility Plan, 201 1.
Alameda County Flood Control and Conservation District. Hydrologic Procedures and
Design Discharges for the Zone 7 1997.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Dam Failure Inundation Map web site
(http://gis.abag.ca.gov/Website/Daminundation/). Accessed June 18, 2013.
ABAG. 2000 Census Data. http://www.abag.ca.gov/abag/overview/datacenter/popdemo/.
Accessed June 18, 2013.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Options andjustification Report,
October 2009.
BAAQMD. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, May 201 1.
BAAQMD. Stationary Source Risk & Hazard Analysis Tool, Alameda Permitted Sources,
May 30, 2012.
BAAQMD. Tools and Methodology web site (http://www.baagmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-
and-Research/CEQA-GUI DELI NES/Tools-and-Methodology.aspx) Accessed November 1 1,
2013.
BAAQMD. 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. September 2010.
Brian-Kangas-Foulk. Santa Rita Drainage Master Plan. 1995.
Bureau Veritas. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. February 21, 2012.
California Department of Conservation (DOC). Califomia Geological Survey web site
�http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/mlc/Pages/index.aspx�. Accessed October 14,
2013.
California Department of Conservation. Alameda County Important Farmland Map, 2010.
Z"a m ey-Horn Page 5-1
d AS$O—IeS.1n
Heritage Park Draft EIR
References
California Air Resources Board. Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement System,
Summaries from 2010 to 2012 web site (http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/). Accessed
November 5, 2013.
California Department of Transportation. Traffic and Vehicle Data Systems Unit, All Traffic
Volumes on California State Highways, 2012 web site (http://traffic-
counts.dot.ca.gov/2012all/index.html). Accessed November 4, 2013.
Cal Engineering and Geology. Geotechnical and Geologic Review, Geotechnical and Fault
Rupture Hazards Reports, Proposed Heritage Park Residential Development, Dublin
Boulevard, Dublin, California. July 2013.
Cal Engineering and Geology. Second Geotechnical and Geologic Review, Geotechnical
and Fault Rupture Hazards Reports, Proposed Heritage Park Residential Development,
Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, California. August 2013
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson. Heritage Park Hydrology Analysis November 4 and
November 24, 2013.
City of Dublin. City of Dublin General Plan, adopted February 1 1, 1985, updated January
19, 2010.
City of Dublin. Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Plan. 2006.
City of Dublin. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Draft Dublin Vllage
Historic Area Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, Draft Parks and Recreation
Master Pan 2006 Update, Dublin Historic Park Draft Master Plan, and Dublin Village
Historic Area Rezoning. May 2006
City of Dublin. City of Dublin Municipal Code.
City of Dublin. City of Dublin Final Model Development Report. Apn12012.
City of Dublin. Wildfire Management Plan. Adopted July 1996. Revised November 2010.
City of Dublin. City of Dublin Climate Action Plan. 2010.
Cyril M. Harris. Handbook of Noise Control. 1979.
Charles M. Salter and Associates, Inc. Heritage Park Environmental Noise Study. July 18,
2013.
Charles M. Salter and Associates, Inc. Heritage Park Noise Requirements for Single Family
Homes September 16, 2013.
Dublin San Ramon Community Services District (DSRSD). 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan. June 201 1.
Page 5-2 ../1 K-1i,born
and Associates.Inc
Heritage Park Draft EIR
References
Dublin Unified School District. Ca/PADS Enrollment. October 2013.
Dublin Unified School District. Demographics Update, Board of Trustees Meeting. March
2012.
Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guide lines,
May 2006.
HortScience. Preliminary Tree Report, Heritage Park October 2013.
Intergovern mental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change, The Science of Climate
Change — Contribution of Working Group l to the Second Assessment Report of the
IPCC. 1 996.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Alameda County Soil Survey. 1 996.
State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker Database web site.
(http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/) Accessed October 15, 2013.
Stevens, Ferrone & Bailey Engineering Company. Updated Fault Rupture Hazard
Investigation. June 26, 2013.
Stevens, Ferrone & Bailey Engineering Company. Geotechnical Investigation, Heritage Park
Residential Development. March 2, 2012.
TJKM Transportation Consultants. Shared Parking Analysis for Heritage Park
Office/Church/Restaurant Uses in the City of Dublin. September 9, 2013.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of United States Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2009. April 201 1.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. High GWP Gases and Climate Change,
June 14, 2012.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing
of Global Warming Potential for Ozone Depleting Substances, October 29, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/1 996/January/Day-19/pr-372.htm1, accessed on November 29,
2012.
United States Environmental Paooe�oioone/ods htm�/access�zon NDepmbe�2012 Substances,
August 19, 2010. http://www.ep g
U.S. Environmental Protection .Agency
ons/ ase�f ases html). EmIssions web
July 15 2013.
site
(http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemiss g g
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Protection of Stratospheric Ozone.' Listing of
Global Warming Potential for Ozone Depleting Substances, dated October 29, 2009
=
=f,K-1 Y-„orn Page 5-3
tl AS-IeS.1n
Heritage Park Draft EIR
References
(http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/1 996/January/Day-19/pr-372.htm1). Accessed on November
5, 2013.
The Weather Channel Web Site:
(http://www.weather.com/outlook/events/weddings/wxci1matoIogy/monthly/graph/USCA03
14). Accessed November 4, 2013.
William Self and Associates. Archaeo%gica/Assessment Report, Don/on Way Specific
pan,
August 2003.
Page 5-4 =fin K—m H-
antl A—ate Inc.
Heritage Park Draft EIR
References
List of Preparers
City of Dublin
Mike Porto, Consultant Project Manager
Luke Sims, Community Development Director
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director
Andrew Russell, City Engineer
Obaid Khan, Senior Civil Engineer
Jayson Imai, Senior Civil Engineer
RBF Consulting
Bill Wiseman, Vice President
Erika Spencer, Senior Environmental Planner
Jonathan Schuppert, Environmental Planner
Eddie Torres, Air Quality and Noise Specialist
Achilles Malisos, Air Quality and Noise Specialist
Ryan Chiene, Air Quality and Noise Specialist
2222573.1
a^,QY_„a� Page 5-5
C�„ d Associates Inc