Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 6.1 - 1163 Kaiser Dublin Medical Center_updated
Page 1 of 10 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL DATE: September 20, 2016 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager SUBJECT: Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Prepared by: Kristi Bascom, Consulting Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will consider the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center project, which allows up to 950,000 square feet of medical campus uses in three main buildings, 250,000 square feet of commercial uses, a parking structure, and associated site, roadway frontage, and landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals include a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to create new land use districts, Planned Development Rezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), and Site Development Review for the first phase of development (a 220,000 square foot medical office building). Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approval of a project -specific Development Agreement is also being considered. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing; deliberate; and adopt the following Resolutions: a) Certifying an Environmental Impact Report, adopting Environmental Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program under CEQA for the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project; b) Amending the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan related to the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center project; and c) Approving Site Development Review Permit fo r Phase 1A of the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center project. Staff further recommends that the City Council waive the readings, and INTRODUCE the following Ordinances: a) Amending the Zoning Map and approving a Planned Development Zoning District with a related Stage 1 Development Plan for the whole project site and a Stage 2 Development Plan for Phase 1A of the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center; and b) Approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals related to the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center project. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Page 2 of 10 Thecostto process this application is borne bythe applicant. Pleaserefer to the DevelopmentAgreementsection of thisstaffreport for additionalinformation about financialimpacts. DESCRIPTION Kaiser FoundationHealth Plan, Inc. hassubmitted an application tobuild a medical campus and associatedcommercial center on approximately 58 acres of land southof Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara Roadand FallonRoad. Thepropertycurrently has a GeneralPlan landusedesignationofCampusOffice, whichallows forthe development ofa “campus-like setting for officeandother non-retailcommercial uses.” Typical uses includeprofessional and administrative offices (includingmedical), research anddevelopment, businessandcommercialservices, andlimited light manufacturing. Theproject site is shown inthe VicinityMapbelow: Figure 1: ProjectVicinity Kaiseracquiredthepropertyseveralyearsago with the intentofeventuallyconstructing amedicalcampus to serve the greater Tri-Valleyarea. If approved, the project will be developed in threephasesoverthe course of up to25years, consistingof approximately 1.2 million squarefeetofmedicalcampus and commercialusesonthe project site, as follows: Page 3 of 10 Building/Use Size (in squarefeet) Building Size Estimated Construction Phase 1A “TheHub” medical office building with advanced facilitiesincluding an urgent careclinic, medical office space, and a radiation/oncology center 220,000 3 stories < 60 feet tall 2016-2020 Phase 1B Commercial uses includingretail, office, ancillary health-relatedfacilities, and business park 250,000 Up to 4 stories 60 feet tall 2016-2020 Phase 2 High-Acuity MedicalServices building possibly a hospital) 400,000 5 stories 85 feet tall 2025-2035 Phase 2 EnergyCenter 50,000 2 stories 40 feet tall 2025-2035 Phase 3 MedicalOfficeBuilding 2 280,000 6 stories 90 feet tall 2035-2040 Phase 3 ParkingStructure 6 stories < 70 feet tall 2035-2040 TotalProject 1,200,000 The siteplan (atfull build out) is included as Attachment 1 to this StaffReport. OnApril 19, 2016, the City Councilreceived a report onthe status of the project andopportunity for the CityCouncil to provide feedbacktotheApp licant and Staffregarding the project as describedabove. ANALYSIS Project Applications Kaiser has appliedforthe following landuse entitlements: 1. General Planand EasternDublinSpecificPlan Amendment. 2. Planned Development Rezone (with a related Stage 1 DevelopmentPlan for the whole site and Stage 2DevelopmentPlan for Phase 1A). 3. Site Development Review for thePhase 1A MedicalOffice Building and related site improvements. 4. Certification of an Environmental ImpactReport. When the futurephases of theprojectarereadytomoveforward, planningapplications at that timewillinclude: 1. PlannedDevelopmentRezoning (with a relatedStage 2 Development Plan) and Site Development Review for eachfuture development phase: a. Phase 1B - CommercialCenter b. Phase 2 - HighAcuityMedicalCenter and Energy Center c. Phase 3 - MedicalOffice Buildingand parking garage 2. Conditional Use Permit(s) to establishanyusethat is required bythe Planned Development Zoning District to have one. Page 4 of 10 3. Vesting Tentative ParcelMap to subdividetheproperty, dedicate right of way, and formalize easements. General Planand Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Inorder to accommodate theproject as proposed, two new landuse categories are proposed to be created for inclusion in both the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The existing landuse designation is Campus Office, which allows a variety of officeuses (including medical), but which does not explicitlyidentify the proposed medical-relatedusesto the extent desired by Kaiser. Therefore, two new land use categoriesare proposed: “MedicalCampus,” whichappliestothe Kaiser Medical Center portion of the site, and “MedicalCampus/Commercial,” which applies to the commercially-designated portionofthe site. Theproposed description for the MedicalCampus land use categoryidentifies the range ofoutpatientprimary and specialtycareservices that Kaiser intends to provide at thefuturemedicalcenter (Phases 1A, 2, and 3). Theproposeddescription for the MedicalCampus/Commercial landuse category identifiestherange of commercial uses thatare expected forthe commercial parcel (Phase 1B) including retail, office, hotel, andrestaurants. Thelanguage for both landuse catego ries is provided in Attachment 2 to the Staff Report. PlannedDevelopmentRezoning ThePlanned Development Rezoning forthe propertywillestablish the detailed Development Plan (site plan) for the site, thespecific uses that are permitted by right, conditionallypermitted, andprohibited, theoveralldevelopmentdensity and intensity e.g. FAR, buildingheights) forthe site, anddesignguidelinesforthefuturemedical centerand commercial buildings. Kaiser is proposing that the Planned Development ZoningDistrictallowhospitals as a permitted use, whereas citywide, hospitals are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. ThePlanned Development ZoningDistrict contains developmentstandards to address issuestypicallyaddressed through a Conditional Use Permitthat are relatedtohospitalssuchas noiseand compatibilitywith surroundinguses. If approved, thePlannedDevelopmentZoning Districtwill have a related Stage 1 Development Planfortheentire58 -acreprojectarea and aStage 2 Development P lan forPhase 1A. ThePlanned Development Zoning District recognizes the phased development of the Kaiserproject and includes a Stage1 Development Planfor Phase 1Aonly, Phases1Aand 2 combined, and the full campus with Phases 1A, 2, and3 completed, which is the final buildoutcondition. ThedetailsofthePlanned Development ZoningDistrictareprovided in Attachment 3to the Staff Report. Page 5 of 10 Phase 1A Site Development Review The first phaseof the KaiserDublinMedicalCenter isthe 220,000square foot medical officebuilding. This facility - referred to as “The Hub” - will containadvancedmedical facilities, urgent care clinics, medical office spaces, and a connected radiation/oncology center, along with surfaceparking for nearly 1,000 vehiclesan d associated site improvements. The detailed ProjectPlansforPhase 1A areincluded as Exhibit A to Attachment 4. Additionaldetails on the key project components areprovidedbelow. SitePlan The siteplan for Phase 1A includes the construction of thetwo mainentry driveways into theproject site that alignwithKeegan Street and LockhartStreet, the 220,000 square foot medicaloffice building, the associated parkingfield, perimeterlandscaping along the lengthof DublinBoulevard andthe medical campusportion of Interstate 580, photovoltaic panels in the southernparking lot, and landscaping throughoutthemiddle portionof the site. Sheet A1.1 of the ProjectPlans (Exhibit A toAttachment 4) identifies thephysicallimitsofPhase 1Aand those improvements thatwill be installed with the firstbuilding inthe medicalcampus. Access, Circulation, andParking Vehicular access tothemedical office buildingwill be provided byboththe Keeganand Lockhart Streetentry driveways. Parking lots exist on both the northand south sides of thebuilding, thepatientdrop-offpoint is onthe north sideof the building, theshuttle dropoff ison the north side ofthebuilding, and the loadingdock/service area is onthe west side. Thereareclear, accessible pedestrianpathways fromeveryparkingarea, the busstop on Dublin Boulevard, and from the public sidewalk to all building entry points. Sheet A1.4 of the ProjectPlans (Exhibit A toAttachment 4) illustratesthe pedestrianpathways through and aroundtheproject site. ThePhase 1Asiteplan identifies978parkingspaces for themedical office building, including 100 accessible spaces, 50 spacesfor fuel-efficient vehicles, and 29 spaces for car/vanpools. Theremainderof the parkingstalls are regularand compactsizes as well as motorcycle parking. All oftheparkingsizes and otherrequirementsare in conformance with the DublinZoningOrdinance. The Zoning Ordinance requires a total of 880 parkingspaces for a 220,000squarefoothealthclinic/medical office building (1 spaceper 250 square feet), so the project has 98 morevehicularspaces than is required. The project also provides 28 long-termand 28 short term bicycleparking spaces in bothlockersand racks. The southernparking field is expectedtobecovered with photovoltaicsthatwill provide shadeforparked cars, but included inthe Project Plans is an alternate plan thatincludesthetreeplanting plan in theeventthatthe photovoltaics are notfeasible. Either the photovoltaics or the trees willberequiredto beinstalledpriortooccupancy of thebuilding (Condition of Approval 49 noted in Attachment 4) Building Design/Architecture: Kaiser has opened anumberof new medical office buildingsandhospitals in theBay Page 6 of 10 Area in recentyears. With each newfacility, lessonsarelearnedanddesigntechniques areimproved. The designconcept forthe Dublinmedical campus is to incorporate materials, features, andanarchitectural statement that is compatible with the other buildings inthe vicinitywhileallowing for creativeand imaginative design that will provide amenitiesbeyondthoseexpected in conventional developments. The building is primarilyorientedalongan east -west axiswith the medical officesand urgent care at thewestern-mostportionofthebuilding andthe cancercenter on the eastern side. The building is four stories and stands58’6” tall to the peakoftheroof parapet. The building (and the restof thefuture campus) has a contemporary aesthetic with themain building materialsbeing an aluminum and glass curtain wallsystem blendedwithconcrete panels in white andgrey, accentmetal panels with a horizontal wood effect, corrugated metal panels for theroofscreen, and perforatedsilver/grey panels on the south side of the buildingserving as sunshades. Sheet A3.1 of the Project Plans demonstrates theexteriormaterialpalette, and SheetA7.1 illustrates the locationof the variouscolorsandmaterialson the buildingelevations. Sustainability Kaiserserves a key role in developingnationallyrecognizedhealth-based green buildingstrategiesfor the health care sector, andthey intendtoincorporateKaiser’s leadingsustainablebuilding standards and green initiatives into the DublinMedical Center Project. As part of its commitment togreenbuilding, Kaiser willpursueLEED Goldcertification or equivalent forthe buildings that it develops onthe ProjectSite. To attain this goal, Kaiseranticipates implementing many of the following less -typical green strategies: PVC-freematerials (such as resilientflooring, carpet androofs) Low or VOC-freepaints CFC-freerefrigerants Formaldehyde-freecasework Cogenerationelectricityproductionand heat recovery Permeablepaving to reduce stormwaterrunoff in parkingareas Thermal fluid heaters as a high-efficientwaterheating source Landscape Concept: Thelandscapeconcept for Phase 1A is “building within a garden.” Sheet L.1.2 most clearlyillustrates the variouslandscapeandhardscape amenities thatsurroundthe building - focused primarily on thesouthernandeasternsidesof the building. There are avariety of sittingareas (“rooms”) that are connected by pedestrian pathways surrounded by generous amounts of landscaped spaces. Thevarious materia ls and finishesthat are will be employed in the outdoor roomsand pathways areshownon Sheet L.3.0 of the Project Plansandthetreeand plant palettesareshownon Sheets L.5.0, 5.1, and 5.2. Sheet L.6.0 of the Project Plans shows severalprecedent ima ges thatdemonstratethedesign goals for themedical office buildinglandscapeconcepts. TheResolution approving a Site DevelopmentReview PermitforPhase 1A ofthe Page 7 of 10 KaiserDublinMedicalCenter is Attachment 4 to the Staff Report. DEVELOPMENTAGREEMENT TheApplicantrequested a DevelopmentAgreement forthe KaiserDublinMedical Centerproject. Theproposed DevelopmentAgreement would give Kaiser a vested right to develop the proposedproject for a period of 25 years. This is a long periodof timeto vestdevelopmentrights, butStafffeels it is reasonablefor a master-planned medicalcampus. In exchange, Kaiser has agreed to termsthatbenefit the City's General Fund. In particular, Kaiserwould commit to activelymarketing the Commercial Parcel (Phase 1B). The promptdevelopment of thatparcel would benefit the City's GeneralFund by generating significantsales and property tax fromadevelopmentthat would be largely tax exempt at build out. If Kaiser hasnot soldthe Commercial Parcel when it seeks a property tax exemptionfor any developmenton the site, the DevelopmentAgreementwould terminateunlessKaiser makes a paymentequal to 200,000 in today's dollarsforeachyear it desirestoextend the term. Theproposed Development Agreement also obligates Kaiser to takecertainsteps toensurethatsales anduse tax revenue associated with its constructionand purchases is allocated to the City ofDublin. Staffbelieves that the agreed -upon terms are reasonable in light of Kaiser's non-profitstatus and thepublicbenefits its servicesprovide to the community. An Ordinanceapproving the DevelopmentAgreement is included as Attachment 5 with theDevelopment Agreement included as Exhibit A to Attachment 5 to the Staff Report. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT A DraftEnvironmentalImpactReport (FEIR) was prepared for theKaiserprojectand was circulated for a 45-day publicreviewperiodthatclosedonMarch 21, 2016. Comments werereceivedfromsevenpublicagencies, one comment letterfromthe Project Applicant, and one comment letterfrom a Dublin resident that does not support theproject. Responses to comments wereincorporated into theFinalEIR (FEIR). The DEIR and FEIR are included as Exhibit A toAttachment 6 of this StaffReport. TheEIR examinedpotentialenvironmentalimpactsresulting from theproject at fullbuild out in the following topic areas: Aesthetics, Light, andGlare Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Biological Resources CulturalResources Geology, Soils, andSeismicity Hazards and HazardousMaterials Hydrology andWater Quality Land Use Noise Public Services and Utilities Transportation Page 8 of 10 Insummary, the EIR concludesthat the projectwillhavesignificantimpacts in several topicareas andmitigation measures have beenwritten to reducetheimpacts to a level that is less thansignificant. These impacts areprimarily related to aesthetics, air quality, biology, cultural resources, geology, hydrology, noise, and transportation. As is typical for other projects of this size, several other impactswere identifiedwhere, evenwith the implementation of mitigation measures, the effects to the environment are still expected to be significant. Thereare impacts to vehiculardelays at certainstreet intersections in the future, notable greenhouse gas emissions, and air pollutionimpacts thatcannot be mitigated. Iftheproject receives supportfromtheCityCouncil, the following components arepart of the resolution (Attachment 6) certifying the EIR: 1. Exhibit B: The Findings onImpactsand Mitigation Measuresoutlines the reasonswhichproposedmitigation measures areexpected to besuccessful in reducing the impactsof the project. 2. Exhibit C: The FindingsConcerning the Infeasibility of Alternatives and Potential Mitigation Measuresoutlinesthereasons which measures that havethepotential tomitigateproject-relatedimpactsare not desirable or arenotbeingproposed. 3. Exhibit D: A Statementof Overriding Considerations (SOC) that identifies all environmentalimpacts that cannot be mitigated and explain why the project is beingapproved. The SOC, is required in order to certify the EIR and, if desired by a majorityoftheCityCouncil, ultimatelyapprovetheproject. 4. Exhibit E: The Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Planoutlines those measures needed to reducetheimpacts of the proposedproject, thetimelinefor implementing the measures, andthe agency/departmentresponsiblefor confirming their implementation. PLANNING COMMISSIONACTION: OnMay 10, 2016, a Study Session washeld with thePlanningCommission to receive a report onthe projectstatusand provide feedback on theprojectdesign. The Commissionprovidedfeedback for Kaiser’s consideration onthe buildingand site/landscape design. OnAugust 23, 2016, the PlanningCommissionreviewed the project applications in their entirety. After discussion anddeliberation, the Commission voted unanimously to recommendapprovaloftheprojecttothe City Council, andthePlanningCommission adopted the followingResolutions: 1. Resolution 16-16RecommendingCityCouncilcertificationof a Final Environmental Impact Reportand AdoptionofEnvironmental Findings under CEQA forthe Kaiser Dublin MedicalCenterproject 2. Resolution 16-17 Recommending that the CityCounciladopt a Resolution amending the General Plan and the EasternDublinSpecificPlan related to the KaiserDublinMedicalCenterproject; Page 9 of 10 3. Resolution 16-18 Recommending that theCityCouncilAdopt an Ordinance amending the Zoning Mapand approving a Planned Development Zoning District with a related Stage 1 DevelopmentPlan for thewholeproject siteand a Stage 2 Development PlanforPhase 1A 4. Resolution16-19 Recommending thattheCity Counciladopt an Ordinance approving a DevelopmentAgreementbetween theCity of Dublinand Kaiser FoundationHospitals related to the Kaiser Dublin Medical Centerproject; and 5. Resolution 16-20 Recommending that the CityCounciladopt a Resolution approving Site Development Review for Phase 1Aof the Kaiser DublinMedical Centerproject. The resolutions are included as Attachments 7 to 11 of this staff report. NOTICINGREQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: A notice of this publichearing waspublished in the EastBay Times. All persons who haveexpressedaninterest in being notified ofactionsrelatedto this projectwere notified viaemail. Noticesweremailed to all propertyownersandtenants within 300 feetoftheKaiser site and also to an expanded areabeyond300feet, as shownbelow: Figure2: Public Noticing Thetotalmailing listwas over 2,000addresses. The Staff Report for this public hearing was also available on theCity’s website. Acopy of this Staff Report was provided to the Project Applicant. ATTACHMENTS: 1. KaiserDublinMedicalCenterSitePlan 2. ResolutionSpecificPlan Amendment andGeneral PlanAmendment Page 10 of 10 3. OrdinancePlanned Development 4. Resolution Site Development Review 4. Exhibit A - Project Plans 5. Ordinance DevelopmentAgreement 5. Exhibit A - Kaiser DevelopmentAgreement 6. Resolution Certifying an Environmental ImpactReport 6. Exhibit A - Draft EIR Kaiser 6. Exhibit A - FinalEIRKaiser 6. Exhibit B - FindingsConcerning Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures 6. Exhibit C - FindingsConcerning Infeasibilityof Alternatives and PotentialAdditional Mitigation Measures 6. Exhibit D - Statement of OverridingConsiderations 6. Exhibit E - Mitigation Monitoring and ReportingProgram 7. Planning CommissionResolution 16-16 8. Planning CommissionResolution 16-17 9. PlanningCommissionResolution 16-18 10. Planning CommissionResolution 16-19 11. Planning CommissionResolution 16-20 x I T - -1 ENERGYCNTRPH2 E I oou CANCERCENTER P H i PH A 1 I Iwo 1 COMMERCIALSITE 1 PKGSTRUCT1230CAR MOB2 II' IIwnmeLru ermee 6LEVELSPARil A PH 3 r i BASEMEN PH3 x I T - -1 ENERGYCNTR PH 2 1 RESOLUTIONNO. xx-16 A RESOLUTIONOFTHECITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDINGTHE GENERAL PLAN AND THEEASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN RELATED TOTHE KAISER DUBLIN MEDICAL CENTER PROJECT PA 08-50 and PLPA 2016-00007 APNs 985-0061-005-00 and 985-0027-009-02) WHEREAS, theApplicant, Kaiser FoundationHospitals, submitted a PlanningApplication for the Kaiser Dublin Medical Centerproject, which is comprisedof 950,000square feet of medicalcampus uses in three main buildings, 250,000square feet ofcommercial uses, a parkingstructure, and associated site, roadwayfrontage, and landscapeimprovements. Requested land use approvals includeaGeneralPlan Amendment andEasternDublinSpecific Plan to create two new land usedistricts, Planned DevelopmentRezoning (Stage1 and Stage 2), and SiteDevelopment Review for Phase 1A (a 220,000square foot medical office building), a request for a DevelopmentAgreement, and certification ofa Final EnvironmentalImpact Report, amongother related actions. Theseplanning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “KaiserDublin Medical CenterProject” or the “Project”; and WHEREAS, theGeneralPlanandEastern DublinSpecific Plan land usedesignation for the project site is amended from “CampusOffice” to “MedicalCampus” and “Medical Campus/Commercial” in accordancewith the exhibit within the resolution. Inaddition, other provisionsoftheGeneralPlanandEasternDublinSpecificPlanare amended to ensure consistency with the new landuse designations forthe project site; and WHEREAS, the CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct (CEQA), together with the State guidelinesandCityenvironmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmentalimpacts and thatenvironmentaldocuments be prepared; and WHEREAS, the City prepareda Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Projectwhich reflected the City’s independentjudgmentandanalysis of thepotential environmentalimpacts of the Project; and WHEREAS, the DraftEIR was circulated for45 days for public comment in Februaryand March 2016; and WHEREAS, comments received on the DraftEIRwerereviewedandrespondedto, and the Final EIR (thatcontainstheResponsetoComments) datedAugust 9, 2016 was prepared; and WHEREAS, consistent with section65352.3 oftheCaliforniaGovernmentCode, theCity obtainedacontact list oflocal Native Americantribesfrom the NativeAmerican Heritage Commission and notified the tribesonthe contactlist of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposedGeneral Plan Amendment. None of the contacted tribesrequested a consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and nofurther action is required undersection 65352.3; and 2 WHEREAS, on August 23, 2016, thePlanningCommission adopted Resolution16-16 recommending that the City Council certify theFinalEIRfor the project, which Resolution is incorporated hereinby referenceand available for r eview at CityHallduringnormal business hours; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2016, thePlanningCommissionadoptedResolution16-17 recommending that theCityCouncilapprovethe proposedGeneral Planand Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, which resolution is incorporatedherein by referenceandavailable for review at City Hallduringnormal business hours; and WHEREAS, a StaffReport, dated September 20, 2016and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendments, EasternDublin Specific Plan Amendments, Planned DevelopmentRezoning and approval of a related Stage 1 andStage 2 Development Plan, SiteDevelopmentReview, and certificationof a Final Environmental Impact Report, forthe City Council; and WHEREAS, theCity Council held a properly noticedpublic hearing on the Project, including the proposed GeneralPlanandEasterDublinSpecificPlan amendments, on September20, 2016, at which time all interestedpartieshadthe opportunity to beheard; and WHEREAS, on ___________, theCityCouncil adoptedResolution xx-xx certifying the KaiserDublinMedical Center ProjectEIR and adoptingCEQAfindings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and MitigationMonitoring and Reporting Program for theProject; and WHEREAS, theCityCouncil considered theFinal EIR and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, andtestimony to evaluatetheProject. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDthat theforegoingrecitalsaretrue and correct and madeapartof this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEDthat theCity Council finds thattheGeneral Plan and Eastern DublinSpecific Plan amendments, as setforth below, arein thepublicinterest, will promote generalhealth, safety and welfare, andthattheGeneralPlanasamendedwillremain internallyconsistent. Theproposedproject is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies of theGeneral Plan in eachof the Elements and will allow for developmentof a medical campusand associatedcommercialdevelopmentin anarea thathas longbeenplannedfor campus-style usesand ancillary commercial uses. The development of theproject is consistent with the goals and policies ofthe General PlanLand Use Element, PublicLandsandUtilities Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Community Design and Sustainability Element, and theEconomic Development Element . The General Plan amendmentsnoted belowwillensure that theimplementation of theproposedproject isin compliance with the General PlanandthateachElementwithintheGeneralPlan is internally consistent. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEDthat theCityCouncil hereby adoptsthefollowing amendmentstotheGeneral Plan: 3 Figure 1-1 (Land Use exhibit) shallbeamended with newdesignations for theproject site as noted below: Section 1.8.1.6.B (Commercial Industriallanduse categories) shall be amended toadd the following two newland use categoriesand descriptions: Medical Campus (FAR: .25 to .80); Employeedensity: 260 square feet peremployee This designation is intended to provide an attractive, campus-like setting for medicaloffices, hospitals, andothernon-retail commercial uses that donotgeneratenuisancesrelated to emissions, noise, odors, or glare. Anticipatedusesinclude, but are not limitedto, a comprehensiverange ofoutpatientprimary and specialtycare services, professi onal and administrative offices, hospital/medicalcenters (including full service hospital s/medical centers with 24 houroperations, and related centralutility plant), skillednursing, assisted living, licensedcare, andassociatedparkingstructures and/or facilities. Structured parking square footage is included in theFARcalculation. Medical Campus/Commercial (FAR: .25to .60); Employee density: 510 square feet per employee This designationaccommodates a range of commercial uses includingregional- and community-serving retailuses, professional and administrative offices, hotel, entertainment, limited automotive sales, andeatinganddrinking establishments. Table 2.2 (Land Use DevelopmentPotential: EasternExtended Planning Area) shall be amendedtoadd two new land usecategories underthe “Commercial” heading. Theacreage for theKaiser Dublin MedicalCampus (approximately 58 acres) will be removed from the Medical Campus / Commercial Medical Campus 4 CampusOffice” category and added to the “MedicalCampus” and “Medical Campus/Commercial” categories with the appropriate acreage. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEDthat theCityCouncilherebyadoptsthefollowing amendmentstotheEasternDublinSpecificPlan: Figure 4.1 (Land Use Map) shall be amendedwith a new designation for the project site as shownbelow: Table 4.1 (Eastern DublinSpecific Plan Land Use Summary) shallbeamended to add two newland use categories underthe “Commercial” heading. TheacreagefortheKaiserDublin MedicalCampus (approximately 58 acres) will beremovedfrom the “Campus Office” category and added to the “MedicalCampus” and “MedicalCampus/Commercial” categories with the appropriateacreage. Table 4.2 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population andEmployment Summary) shall be amendedto addtwonew landuse categories under the “Commercial” heading. The developmentpotential for the KaiserDublin MedicalCampus (1.2 million square feet in total) will be removed fromthe “CampusOffice” category and added to the “MedicalCampus” and MedicalCampus/Commercial” categories with theestimatedemployeenumberand estimated number of jobs. Table 4.4 (Tassajara GatewaySubarea Development Potential) and Table4.7 (Fallon Gateway Subarea Development Potential) shall be amended to add two new land use categories. Theacreage, density, and development potentialforthe Kaiser DublinMedical Campus (1.2 million squarefeet in total) willbe removedfrom the “Campus Office” categoryand added to the “MedicalCampus” and “Medical Campus/Commercial” categories in each respective table. Medical Campus / Commercial Medical Campus 5 Section 4.8.2 (Commercial land use categories) shallbe amended toadd the following two new land usecategories and descriptions: MedicalCampus (FAR: .25 to .80); Employee density: 260square feet per employee This designation is intended to provide an attractive, campus-like setting for medical offices, hospitals, andothernon-retail commercial uses that donotgeneratenuisancesrelated to emissions, noise, odors, orglare. Anticipated uses include, but are not limited to, a comprehensiverange ofoutpatientprimary and specialtycare services, professionaland administrative offices, hospital/medicalcenters (including full service hospitals/medical centers with 24 houroperations, and related centralutility plant), skillednursing, assisted living, licensed care, and associated parkingstructures and/or facilities. Structured parking square footage is included in theFARcalculation. Medical Campus/Commercial (FAR: .25to .60); Employee density: 510 square feet per employee This designationaccommodates a range of commercial uses including regional - and community-serving retailuses, professional and administrative offices, hotel, entertainment, limitedautomotive sales, andeatingand drinkingestablishments. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ____day of _____, 2016 bythe following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: CityClerk 1 ORDINANCENO. xx – 16 AN ORDINANCE OF THECITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THEZONING MAP AND APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICTWITH A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WHOLE PROJECT SITE AND A STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PHASE 1A OFTHE KAISER DUBLIN MEDICAL CENTER PROJECT PA 08-50 and PLPA 2016-00007 APNs 985-0061-005-00 and 985-0027-009-02) The DublinCityCouncildoesordain as follows: SECTION 1: Findings A. PursuanttoSection 8.32.070 of the Dublin MunicipalCode, the CityCouncil finds as follows. 1. TheKaiser Dublin MedicalCenter Project (“the Project”) PD-Planned Development zoning meetsthe purpose and intent ofChapter 8.32in that it provides a comprehensive development plan thatcreates a desirable use ofland that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the layoutand design of thesite plan. 2. DevelopmentofKaiser Dublin Medical Center Project underthePD-Planned Development zoning will be harmonious and compatible with existingandfuture development in the surrounding area in that the site willprovide newretail, restaurant, andpersonal services to residents in an area that has similarusesnearby and is also adjacenttoexisting and futureworkplacesandresidentialneighborhoods. B. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, theCityCouncil finds as follows. 1. ThePD-PlannedDevelopmentzoning for KaiserDublinMedicalCenter Project will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding area in thatthe proposed SitePlan has taken into account sensitive adjacencies and will provide a widerangeofamenities to the surrounding neighborhoods. 2. The project site conditionsweredocumented in the Environmental ImpactReport EIR) thathas beenprepared, and the environmentalimpacts that havebeenidentified will be mitigatedtothegreatest degree possible. Thereareno site challengesthatwere identified in the EIR thatwill present an impedimenttoutilization of the site for the intended purposes. There areno majorphysical or topographicconstraintsand thus the site is physically suitable forthe type andintensity of the retail commercial center approved throughthePDzoning. 3. The PD-Planned Development zoningwill not adversely affect thehealth or safety of persons residing or workingin thevicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety andwelfare in that the project willcomply withall applicabledevelopment regulations and standards andwillimplement all adopted mitigation measures. 2 4. ThePD-Planned Development zoning is consistent with and in conformance with the Dublin GeneralPlan, as amended, in that theproposed use as a medical campus and adjacent commercial shoppingcenter is consistent with the proposedMedicalCampus and MedicalCampus/Commercial land usedesignations for the site. C. Pursuant to the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act, the City Council adopted a Final EIR via Resolution xx-16on _______________, prior to approving the Project. SECTION 2: Pursuantto Chapter 8.32, Title 8of the City of DublinMunicipal Code theCityofDublin Zoning Map is amended torezone the propertydescribed below to a PlannedDevelopment Zoning District: 58 acres southof Dublin Blvd. betweenGrafton Station and FallonGateway. Interstate 580formsthe southernboundary of thesite. (AssessorParcelNumbers985 -0061-005- 00 and985-0027-009-02) (“the Property”). A map of therezoning area with a relatedStage1 Development Plan is shownbelow (entire project siteand outlinedin red): A map of the rezoning areawith arelatedStage2DevelopmentPlan for Phase 1A only is shownbelow: 3 SECTION 3. The regulationsforthe use, development, improvement, and maintenance of theProperty are set forth in thefollowingStage 1 Development Plan for theentire58acre Project area, which is hereby approved. Anyamendments to the Stage1 Development Plan shall be in accordance with section8.32.080 of the DublinMunicipal Codeorits successors. Stage 1 and Stage2 DevelopmentPlan for theKaiser Dublin Medical Center Project This is a Stage 1andStage 2 Development Planpursuantto Chapter 8.32 ofthe Dublin Zoning Ordinance. This DevelopmentPlanmeets all the requirements for both a Stage 1 and Stage 2 DevelopmentPlan and is adopted as part of thePD-PlannedDevelopment rezoning forthe KaiserDublinMedical Center Project, PA 08-50and PLPA-2016-00007. The PD-PlannedDevelopmentDistrictand this Stage 1/Stage 2 DevelopmentPlan provides flexibility to encourage innovative development while ensuringthat the goals, policies, and actionprogramsoftheGeneralPlanand provisions of Chapter 8.32 of theZoningOrdinance are satisfied. The following Stage 1 DevelopmentPlan appliestotheentire58 -acreproject siteand the Zoning District for theproject site is PD-PlannedDevelopment (PA 08-050). 1. Statement of Permitted Uses. PermittedUses (as defined bythe Zoning Ordinance) forthe MedicalCampus (identified as Phases1A, 2, and 3): Health Services/Clinics—including, withoutlimitation, a comprehensive range of outpatient primary and specialty careservices, urgentcare, radiation/oncology 4 services, outpatientsurgery, diagnostic servicesincluding radiology and telemedicine, women’s services, inpatient care, includingdiagnosticandtreatmentservices, surgical services and emergencycare, and supportingancillary healthcare services such as optical, pharmacy, laboratory, educationand training MedicalOffices and MedicalOfficeBuildings High-AcuityMedicalCenters/Hospitals (including full serviceHigh-Acuity Medical Centers/Hospitals with 24-hour operations) CentralUtility Plants, including renewable energy facilities, and ancillarystructures to serve the project site ParkingStructuresancillary tomedical uses SkilledNursing, AssistedLiving, or Licensed CareFacilities Day CareFacilities PermittedUses (as defined bythe Zoning Ordinance) for theCommercialparcel identified as Phase1B): Hotel or resort Eating and drinking establishments1 Entertainment (including movie theater, performance venue, or similar) Automotive sales (outdoor display/storagearea limited to 10% of the subjectparcel) Thefollowingretailuses: o Home Furnishings o Clothing/Fashion o OfficeSupplies o HomeAppliance/Electronics o Hardware o Jewelry o Bookstore o SportingGoods o Grocery2 o Otherretail establishments determined by theCommunityDevelopmentDirector to be similar (in termsofCityrevenuegenerationanduse type) to the foregoing3 Conditionally PermittedUsesfor the Commercial parcel (identified as Phase 1B) Membership-based warehouse retail store4 Professionaland Administrative Offices Research and Development Automotive sales (outdoordisplay/storagearea more than10% ofthesubjectparcel) Fitness/Health Club2 Notes: 1. Up toa maximumof 20% of thetotal buildingsquarefootage onthe commercialparcel. Drive -through or traditional fast-food chainrestaurants shallnotbe permitted. 2. Up to a maximum of 30% of the totalbuildingsquare footage on the commercialparcel 3. TobaccoRetail usesshallnotbe permitted. 4. CUP analysis will require a trip generation assessment/site plan review and potentially a supplemental analysis to determineif theuse generatestrafficmore thanwhat was assumed inthe EIR 5 2. Stage 1 SitePlan. 3. Site area, proposeddensities, anddevelopment regulations. MaximumBuilding Height: 90 feet Signage Pursuant toan approved Master Sign Program Minimum LotSize None Maximum lot coverage None MaximumBuilding Area 1.2 million square feet MaximumFloor Area Ratio 80 ParkingStall Dimensions Standards Per Chapter 8.76Off-StreetParking And Loading Regulations of the DublinZoning Ordinance MinimumSetbacks None ParkingSpacesRequired: Per Chapter 8.76Off-StreetParking And Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance 4. Phasing Plan. Building/Use Size (SF) Estimated construction timeframe Phase 1A “The Hub” medical office building 220,0002016-2020 6 Phase 1B Commercial parcel 250,0002016-2020 Phase 2 High-Acuity Medical Servicesbuilding possibly a hospital) 400,0002025-2035 Phase 2 EnergyCenter 50,000 2025-2035 Phase 3 2nd Medical Office Building 280,0002035-2040 Phase 3 ParkingStructure 2035-2040 TotalProjectSize 1,200,000 SF 5. Concept LandscapePlan. The landscapedesignconcept is being established with the detaileddesigns for Phase 1A, which areincluded inthe ProjectPlans associatedwith thePhase1ASDR application. Thesame plant paletteand designvocabulary approved forPhase 1A shall continuethrough the remainderof the project site. 6. Consistency with GeneralPlan and any applicable Specific Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin SpecificPlan (as amended). 7. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The InclusionaryZoningRegulations do not regulate non-residentialprojects, so therefore this is not applicable. 8. AerialPhoto. An aerialphoto is on file with the Community Development Department. The followingStage 2 DevelopmentPlanapplies to Phase 1A only. TheZoning District forthe projectsite is PD-PlannedDevelopment (PLPA-2016-00007). 1. Statement of Compatibility with Stage1 Development Plan. ThePhase 1A portionof theKaiserDublinMedicalCenter Project is whollyconsistent with the Stage 1 Development Plan. 2. Statement of Permitted Uses. Same as Stage 1 Development Plan. 3. Stage2 Site Plan 7 4. Sitearea, proposed densities a. Grossarea: 22.2 acres b. Net area: 22.1 acres 5. Development Regulations MaximumBuilding Height: 60 feet Signage Pursuant toan approved Master Sign Program Minimum LotSize None Maximum lotcoverage None MaximumBuilding Area 220,000squarefeet Maximum Floor Area Ratio 80 Parking Stall Dimensions Standards Per Chapter 8.76 Off-StreetParking And LoadingRegulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance MinimumSetbacks None ParkingSpacesRequired: Per Chapter 8.76 Off-StreetParking And LoadingRegulations of the DublinZoning Ordinance 6. Architectural Standards. Theconceptualarchitecturaldesign of theprojectshallreflect the following standards as illustrated inthe ProjectPlans. The architectural designshall: Employ a variety of materials, texturesand colors to provide visual interest in the project and to complement its surroundings. Use diversity of colorsand textures inthe buildingfinishes to provide a variedand interestingbaseformforthebuildings. Incorporatefeaturessuch as differentwallplanes, heights, walltextures, roof elements, storefrontdesigns, awnings, canopies, trellises, base treatments, signs, light fixtures and landscaping to contribute layersofdetail at the pedestrianlevel. Providefunctionaloutdoorplazaswherepeoplewillgatherand socialize, with landscaping, outdoorseating, enhancedpavingtreatment, andotherfeatures to provide an appropriateurbanscale for thecenter. 7. Preliminary Landscaping Plan. 8 8. Compliance with adopted Mitigation Measures. The Applicant/Developer shallcomply with all applicableactionprogramsandmitigationmeasuresof the Eastern Dublin Specific Planand General Plan Amendment EIR and theKaiser DublinMedical Center Project EIR. SECTION 4. The CityClerk of theCity of Dublinshallcause this Ordinance to be posted in at l eastthree (3) publicplaces in theCity of Dublin in accordancewith Section36933 of theGovernmentCodeof the StateofCalifornia. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effectand be enforced thirty (30) days from andafter its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of theCity of Dublin, on this _________ day of _____________ 2016, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: 9 CityClerk RESOLUTIONNO. XX-16 A RESOLUTION OF THECITYCOUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RESOLUTIONAPPROVING A SITEDEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR PHASE 1A OF THE KAISERDUBLIN MEDICAL CENTER PROJECT PA 08-50 and PLPA 2016-00007 APNs 985-0061-005-00 and 985-0027-009-02) WHEREAS, theApplicant, Kaiser FoundationHospitals, submitted a PlanningApplication for the Kaiser Dublin Medical Centerproject, which is comprisedof 950,000square feet of medicalcampususes in threemain buildings, 250,000 square feet of commercial uses, a parkingstructure, and associated site, roadwayfrontage, and landscapeimprovements. Requested land use approvals includeaGeneralPlan Amendment andEasternDublinSpecific Plan to create two new land usedistricts, Planned DevelopmentRezoning (Stage 1 andStage 2), and SiteDevelopment Review for Phase 1A (a 220,000square foot medical office building), a request for a DevelopmentAgreement, and certification ofa Final Environmental Impact Report, amongother related actions. Theseplanningand implementing actions are collectively known as the “KaiserDublin Medical CenterProject” or the “Project”; and WHEREAS, theproject site is locatedwithin a Planned Development Zoning District; and WHEREAS, theProjectPlans, attached as Exhibit A, illustrate the site layout and building elevations for approximately 220,000squarefeet of medical officeuses, which arepermitted by the EasternDublinSpecific Planand General Plan, as amended ; and WHEREAS, theSiteDevelopment Review application collectively defines this “Project” and is available and on file in the CommunityDevelopmentDepartment; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the CaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality Act certainprojects are required to be reviewed for environmentalimpactsandwhenapplicable, environmental documentsprepared; and WHEREAS, onAugust 23, 2016, thePlanningCommissionadoptedResolution16-16 recommendingthatthe City Councilcertify the Final EIR for the Project, which Resolution is incorporated herein byreferenceandavailable for reviewat City Hallduring normal business hours; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2016, thePlanningCommissionadoptedResolution16-17 recommending that theCityCouncilapprovethe proposedGeneral Planand EasternDublin SpecificPlan amendments relatedtotheProject, whichresolution is incorporated herein by referenceandavailable for review at City Hall duringnormalbusiness hours; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2016, thePlanningCommissionadopted Resolution 16-20 recommending that theCity Council approveSiteDevelopmentReview for Phase 1A of the KaiserDublin Medical Center Project, whichresolution is incorporatedherein by reference and available for reviewat City Hallduringnormalbusiness hours; and 2 WHEREAS, the PlanningCommissiondid hold a public hearing onsaid application on August 23, 2016for thisproject, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated September 20, 2016and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendments, EasternDublin Specific Plan Amendments, Planned DevelopmentRezoning and approvalofa related Stage 1 andStage 2 Development Plan, SiteDevelopmentReview, and certificationof a Final Environmental Impact Report, fortheCityCouncil; and WHEREAS, on ___________, theCityCouncil adoptedResolution xx-xx certifying the Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project EIR and adoptingCEQAfindings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project; and WHEREAS, theCity Councilheld a properlynoticedpublic hearing on the Project , including the Site Development Reviewapplication, on September 20, 2016 , at which time all interestedpartieshadtheopportunity to beheard; and WHEREAS, propernotice of thepublichearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, aStaffReportwas submitted recommendingthattheCityCouncil approve the Site Development Reviewapplication; and WHEREAS, the City Councildidhear anduseindependentjudgmentandconsidered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove setforth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thattheCityCouncil of theCityofDublin does hereby makethefollowingSite Development Reviewfindingsanddeterminations regarding the KaiserDublinMedicalCenter Project: A. Theproposal is consistent withthe purposes of Chapter8.104 (Site Development Review) of the ZoningOrdinance, with the GeneralPlan, and any applicableSpecific Plans and designguidelinesbecause: 1) The project provides an orderly, attractive andharmonious developmentcompatible with the site’s environmental constraints and with surroundingproperties and neighborhoods. The developmentgives thoughtfulconsideration tobuildinglocation, architecturalandlandscapedesignand theme, vehicularandpedestrianaccessand on -site circulation, parking and traffic impact. Itcomplies withdevelopment regulationsand the requirements of thezoning district, as required by Section 8.104.020.A of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; 2) the project is utilizing traditionalbuildingforms with contemporary, high -qualitymaterials andfinishes in compliance with the design guidelinesoftheEastern Dublin Specific PlanandCommunityDesign and Sustainability Elementofthe General Plan; 3) the projectwillserve to activate the areaandprovideservices to existingand future residents and workers in the vicinity; 4) theproposedprojectwillconform to the density, design, andallowable uses as stated inthe Stage 2 Development Plan as required by Section 8.104.020.B ofthe DublinZoningOrdinance; 5) theproject includesstreetscapeenhancements to complement thosealready in place; and 6) the 3 project is consistentwith the General Plan and EasternDublin SpecificPlan, as amended. B. Theproposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because: 1) The architecture and landscapedesign for the project provides an appropriate pedestrian scale withcommercial retail uses, restaurantsandthe proposed layout of buildings, landscaping andparkingare well -suitedto the uses; 2) the overalldesign of theproject is consistentwith the designrequirements of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; 3) theproposedproject is consistentwith the EasternDublin SpecificPlan in that taller buildingsandmoreintensiveusesshouldbelocatedsouth ofDublin Boulevard and near freeway interchangeswhere convenientvehicular access will limittraffic impacts to the restofDublinandthemedical office building is intended to serve the community as well asthe region; 4) the overall project is consistent with the total developmentpotential for the site as stated in theStage 1 andStage2 Development Plan; 5) theproposed development is compatiblewith the GeneralPlanLand Use designationsofMedicalCampus and Medical Campus/Commercial (as amended) whichallows for medical officeuses; and 6) the proposed project meets the intent of the Dublin GeneralPlan whichdiscourages projects that do not relate wellto the surroundingdevelopments and the proposed project is compatible with thesurrounding neighborhoo d thatincludesresidentialand commercial uses. C. Thedesign of the project is appropriate to theCity, the vicinity, surrounding properties, andthe lot(s) in which the project is proposedbecause: 1) The architecture and landscape design forthe projectprovides an appropriate pedestrian scale andthe landscaping and parking areas are well-suitedto the uses; 2) theoverall design of the project is consistent with thedesignrequirements of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 DevelopmentPlan; 3) the proposeddevelopment is compatible with the GeneralPlanLand Use designationofMedical Campus and Medical Campus/Commercial (as amended), which allows for medicalofficeuses; and 4) the proposed project meets the intentof the DublinGeneralPlanwhich discourages projectsthat donot relate wellto the surrounding developments and the proposed project is compatible with thesurroundingneighborhoodthatincludes office, residential, and commercial uses. D. Thesubject site is suitableforthe typeand intensityofthe approveddevelopment because: 1) theproject willprovide additionalmedicalfacilities in thatwill be of benefit to the Dublincommunity and is within the densityrequirements of the Planned Development ZoningDistrict, theGeneralPlan, and theEastern Dublin Specific Plan; 2) the project providesfor its owninfrastructureandrequiredservices and is designed toincludesufficientvehicularandpedestrianaccess, with parking to support the use s; and 3) the proposeddensityof the site is consistent with the GeneralPlanand EasternDublinSpecificPlan (as amended). E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographicfeatures are addressedbecause : 1) the project site is relatively flat; 2) the roadway and utility infrastructure to serve the site already exists, and 3) futureapprovalof grading and improvement plans will enable the site tobe modified to suit theproject, which will be developed for thesite in accordance with Citypolicies and regulations. 4 F. Architecturalconsiderationsincluding the character, scaleand quality ofthe design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site andotherbuildings, screening of unsightly uses, lighting, building materialsandcolors and similar elements result in a projectthat is harmonious withits surroundings and compatible with other developments in thevicinity because: 1) the architectural style and materialswill be consistent and compatiblewith the contemporary architectural style, colors, and materials being utilized onother commercial projects in theCity; 2) the project is utilizingtraditionalbuilding forms withcontemporary, high-qualitymaterials and finishes in compliance with the designguidelinesof the Eastern Dublin SpecificPlan; 3) the size and scale of the development will be similartoother buildings in the project vicinity; and 4) unsightlyuses (e.g. loadingdocks, parking lots) will be screenedwith appropriate materialsthatare architecturally compatible with the buildingdesign. G. Landscapeconsiderations, including the location, type, size, color, textureand coverage of plant materials, and similarelements havebeen incorporated into the project to ensure visual relief, adequatescreening and an attractive environmentfor thepublic because: 1) the Preliminary LandscapePlan for the project site emphasizes thecreation of a comfortable pedestrian environment thatwillinclude a variety of outdooramenities for patientsandvisitors; 2) landscapingwill be providedthroughout theparking fields both at thefrontandrearoftheproject buildings; and 3) theproject perimeter and interiorlandscaping is consistent with othercommercialdevelopment in thevicinity and conformstothe requirements of the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. H. The sitehas been adequately designedto ensure thepropercirculationforbicyclist, pedestrians, and automobiles because: 1) all infrastructureincludingdriveways, pathways, sidewalks, and streetlightinghave been reviewed for conformance with City policies, regulations, and best practicesandhavebeen designed withmulti - modaltravel in mind; and 2) development of thisproject willconform to the major publicimprovements already installed allowing patrons thesafeandefficient use of these facilities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEDthat theCityCouncil of theCity of Dublindoes hereby approve Site Development Review for theKaiserDublinMedicalCenter Project, subject to the conditionsincludedbelow. CONDITIONSOF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise, all Conditionsof Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of buildingpermits or establishment of use, and shall be subjecttoPlanningDepartmentreview and approval. The following codesrepresentthose departments/agencies responsible for monitoringcompliance of the conditionsof approval. [PL.] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police, PW] Public Works [P&CS] Parks & CommunityServices, [ADM] Administration/CityAttorney, FIN] Finance, [F] AlamedaCounty Fire Department, [DSR] Dublin SanRamon ServicesDistrict, CO] Alameda CountyDepartment of EnvironmentalHealth, [Z7] Zone 7. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHENREQ’D Prior to: PLANNING CONDITIONS 5 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHENREQ’D Prior to: 1. Approval. This Site Development Reviewapproval is forPhase 1Aof the Kaiser DublinMedicalCenter, which is a220,000 square foot medicalofficebuilding. Thisapprovalshall be asgenerallydepictedand indicated onthe plan set preparedbySmithGroupJJR, Sherwood DesignEngineers, and RHAA, stampedreceived onJuly29, 2016and asgenerallydepicted bythe colorand materialboardsubmitted along with the project. The project plans andcolorandmaterialboardare on file inthe Community DevelopmentDepartment. This Site Development Reviewapproval is as furtherspecifiedas the following Conditions of Approval forthis project. PL Ongoing 2. Effective Date. This SDR approvalbecomes effective oncethe accompanying FinalEIRhas been certified by theCity Council and once boththe Planned Development ZoningDistrictand the project Development Agreement havebeen approved by City Counciland are effective. PL Ongoing 3. Site Development Review Expiration. Construction or useshall commencewithin one (1) year of Site DevelopmentReviewapproval or the Site Development Review shall lapse and become null and void. If there is a disputeas to whether the Site DevelopmentReview has expired, the Citymay hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. Such a determination may be processedconcurrentlywith revocationproceedings in appropriatecircumstances. Ifa Site Development Reviewexpires, a newapplicationmust be made and processedaccording to the requirements ofthe ZoningOrdinance. PL One Year After Effective Date 4. Time Extension. The originalapprovingdecision-maker may, upon the Applicant’s writtenrequest for an extension of approval prior to expiration, upon the determination thatall Conditions of Approval remainadequateand all applicablefindings of approvalwillcontinue to be met, grant an extension ofthe approval for a period notto exceed six 6) months. All time extensionrequests shall be noticed anda public hearing shallbe heldbefore the originalhearingbody. PLPrior to Expiration Date 5. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall operate thisusein compliance with the Conditions of Approval of thisSite Development Review Permit, the approved plans and the regulationsestablished in the ZoningOrdinance. Any violation of the terms or conditionsspecified may be subject to enforcement action. PL On-going 6. Revocation of Permit. The Site Development Review approval shall be revocable for cause in accordancewithSection 8.96.020.I of the DublinZoningOrdinance. Any violation of the terms orconditions of this permit shall be subject to citation. PL On-going 7. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Applicant/ Developer shall complywith applicableCity of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau, Dublin PublicWorks Department, DublinBuildingDepartment, Dublin PoliceServices, Alameda CountyFloodControlDistrict Zone 7, Livermore AmadorValleyTransit Authority, Alameda County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon ServicesDistrict andthe CaliforniaDepartment of HealthServicesrequirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of buildingpermitsor the installation of any improvements relatedto thisproject, the Developer shallsupplywritten statementsfrom eachsuchagency or department to the Planning Department, indicating that all applicableconditions requiredhave been or will bemet. Various Building Permit Issuance 8. Required Permits. Developer shall obtain all permitsrequired by other agencies, if applicable, including, but not limited to AlamedaCounty PW Building Permit 6 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHENREQ’D Prior to: Flood Control andWater Conservation DistrictZone 7, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional WaterQualityControlBoard, Caltransandprovidecopies of the permits tothe Public Works Department. Issuance 9. Fees. Applicant/Developer shallpay all applicable fees in effect atthe timeof buildingpermit issuance, including, but notlimited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Traffic Impact Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin UnifiedSchool DistrictSchoolImpact fees, Fire Facilities Impact fees, AlamedaCounty Flood andWater Conservation District (Zone7) Drainageand Water Connection fees; or anyother fee thatmaybe adopted and applicable. Approved Development Agreementsupersedes whereapplicable. VariousBuilding Permit Issuance 10. Indemnification. The Developer shalldefend, indemnify, andhold harmless the City of Dublinand its agents, officers, and employees from anyclaim, action, orproceedingagainst the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, CommunityDevelopmentDirector, Zoning Administrator, or anyother department, committee, or agency ofthe City to the extent such actions arebrought within the time period required by Government Code Section66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that the Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying the Developer of anysaidclaim, action, or proceeding andthe City's full cooperation in the defense of such actionsorproceedings. ADM On-going 11. Clarification of Conditions. In the eventthatthere needs to be clarification to the Conditions of Approval, the Director of Community Development andthe City Engineer have the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developerwithoutgoing to a public hearing. The Director of CommunityDevelopment andthe City Engineer also have the authority tomake minor modifications to these conditionswithoutgoing toa publichearing in order for the Developer to fulfillneededimprovementsormitigationsresulting from impacts to this project. PW On-going 12. Modifications. Modifications or changes to this Site Development Reviewapproval may be considered by the CommunityDevelopment Directorif the modifications or changesproposed comply withSection 8.104.100 of the Zoning Ordinance andwith the EasternDublin Specific Plan. PL On-going 13. Equipment Screening. Allelectrical equipment, firerisers, and/or mechanicalequipment shall be screened frompublicview by landscaping and/or architectural features. Anyroof-mounted equipment shall be completely screened from adjacentstreet view by materials architecturally compatible with the building andtothe satisfaction of the CommunityDevelopmentDirector. The BuildingPermitplans shall show the location of all equipment and screening for review and approval by the Director of CommunityDevelopment. PL Building Permit Issuance and Through Completion/ On-going 14. Master Sign Program. A Master Sign Programwill be reviewed and approved atthe Staff-level forall project-relatedsignageincluding, but notlimited to, wall signs, monument signs, communityidentification signage, addresssignage, directionalsignage, parking signage, speed limitsignage, retailtenantsignage, and other signagedeemed necessary bythe City. The wall and monumentsignsshownin the ProjectPlans are for illustrative purposesonly andthe full details ofthe signsizes, materials, andconstructionshall be shown in the separate PLInstallation of any project- related signage 7 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHENREQ’D Prior to: signpackage. 15. Construction Trailer. The Applicant/Developer shallobtain a Temporary UsePermit prior to the establishment ofany construction trailer, storage shed, or container units onthe project site. PL Establishment ofthe temporary use 16. Final Building and Site Improvement Plans shall be reviewedand approvedby the Community DevelopmentDepartment staff prior to the issuance of a buildingpermit. All such plans shallinsure: a. Thatstandard non-residential security requirementsas established by the Dublin PoliceDepartmentareprovided. b. That ramps, specialparkingspaces, signing, and otherappropriate physical features for the disabled, are provided throughout the site for all publicly used facilities. c. Thatcontinuousconcretecurbing is provided for all parkingstalls, if necessary. d. Thatexteriorlighting ofthe buildingand site is not directed onto adjacentpropertiesand the light source is shielded from direct offsite viewing. e. That all mechanical equipment, including air conditioning condensers, are architecturallyscreened fromview, andthat electricaltransformers are eitherunderground, architecturally screened, orscreened by landscape of an adequate size. Electrical and gas meters shall be screened to the greatestdegree possible. f. That all vents, gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc., are painted to match the color of adjacentsurface. g. That all materialsandcolors are tobe as approved by the Dublin CommunityDevelopmentDepartment. Onceconstructedor installed, all improvements are tobe maintained in accordance with the approvedplans. Any changes, which affect the exterior character, shallbe resubmitted to the DublinCommunity DevelopmentDepartment for approval. h. That all exteriorarchitecturalelementsvisible from view and not detailed onthe plans be finished in a style and in materials in harmony with the exterior ofthe building. All materials shall wrap to the insidecorners and terminate at a perpendicularwallplane. i. That all other publicagencies that require review ofthe project are supplied with copies ofthefinal building and site plansand that compliance is obtained withat leasttheir minimumCode requirements. PLIssuanceof Building Permits 17. Construction Noise. Developer shall prepare a construction noise managementplanthatidentifiesmeasures tobe taken to minimize construction noise on surroundingdevelopedproperties. The plan shall include hours of constructionoperation, use of mufflers on construction equipment, speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes andidentify a noisemonitor. Specificnoise management measuresshall be provided prior to project construction. PL/PWOngoing 18. Public Art. The Applicant/Developerintends to acquire and install public art onthe project site in accordancewithChapter 8.58ofthe DublinMunicipal Code. The value of the publicartproject is required to equalorexceed 0.5% ofthe building valuation (exclusive of land) for PL Art to be installed prior to occupancy 8 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHENREQ’D Prior to: the entireproject. The Building Officialwilldetermine the building valuation atthetimeof Plan Check submittal for the first buildingpermit on site. An agreement that sets forththe ownership, maintenance responsibilities, and insurance coverage forall public art on siteshall be executed prior to occupancy. All public art installations aresubject to approval of the City Council upon recommendation by the Heritage and CulturalArts Commission. 19. CalTrans coordination. ConsultwithCalTransregardingdetails of proposedimprovementsalong theI-580 interface. PL Approval of Improvement Plans 20. ConstructionTrafficMitigation Plan. Shall be prepared and submitted to theCity for review and approval priortothe issuance of the first gradingpermit. Construction traffic and parkingmay be subject to specificrequirements by the City Engineer. Ifthe plan will result in traffic restrictionsand/or detours to any statehighways, CalTrans may require an impactstudy tobe prepared andthe measuresoutlined in the studyfollowed during construction. PL/PW Issuanceof grading permit. 21. MitigationMonitoring Program. The Applicant/ Developer shall complywith The Kaiser DublinMedical Center FinalEnvironmental ImpactReport (EIR) certified by City CouncilResolution xx-xx, including all mitigation measures, action programs, and implementation measures containedtherein. The EIR is onfile with the Community DevelopmentDepartment. PL On-going BUILDING CONDITIONS 22. Building Codes andOrdinances. Allprojectconstruction shall conform to all buildingcodes and ordinances in effect atthe time of buildingpermit. B Through Completion 23. Building Permits. To apply for buildingpermits, Applicant/Developer shall submit five (5) sets of construction plans to the Building & Safety Division forplancheck. Eachset of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval. The notations shall clearlyindicate howall Conditions of Approvalwill or havebeen compliedwith. Constructionplanswill notbe acceptedwithout the annotatedresolutionsattached to each set of plans. Applicant/Developer willbe responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participation non-Cityagenciesprior tothe issuance of buildingpermits. BIssuance of Building Permits 24. Construction Drawings. Constructionplans shall befully dimensioned includingbuilding elevations) accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposedconditions onsite), andpreparedand signedby a California licensed Architect or Engineer. All structuralcalculations shall be prepared and signed by a CalifornialicensedArchitect or Engineer. The siteplan, landscape plan anddetails shall be consistent with eachother. BIssuance of building permits 25. HVAC Systems. Airconditioning units and ventilation ducts shall be screened from adjacentstreet view withmaterialscompatible to the mainbuilding. Unitsshall be permanentlyinstalled on concretepadsor other non-movable materials tobe approved bythe Building Officialand Director of Community Development. PL, B Occupancy of any tenant space 26. Addressing. Addresswill be required on all doorsleading to the exterior ofthe building. Addressnumbers/letters shallbe in a contrasting color tothe surface on which they are applied andbe able tobe seen from the street, 4 inchesinheight minimum. B Occupancy of any building and ongoing 27. Temporary Construction Fencing. Temporary constructionfencing shall be installed alongthe perimeter of all work underconstruction. B Through Completion 9 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHENREQ’D Prior to: 28. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of recordshall be retained to provideobservationservices forall components of the lateraland verticaldesign ofthe building, includingnailing, hold-downs, straps, shear, roof diaphragm andstructuralframe of building. A written report shall be submitted totheCity Inspector prior to scheduling the final frame inspection. B Scheduling the final frame inspection 29. Green Building Guidelines. TheGreen Building checklistshall be included in the masterplans. The checklist shall detail whatGreen Pointsare beingobtained and where the information is found within the masterplans. (Prior to first permit). Prior to each permit final, the project shall submit a completed checklist withappropriateverification that all GreenPointsrequiredby 7.94ofthe DublinMunicipal Code have been incorporated. B Through Completion 30. Foundation. GeotechnicalEngineer for the soils report shall review and approve the foundationdesign. A lettershall be submitted to the BuildingDivision onthe approval. BPermit issuance 31. Cool Roofs. Flat roofareas shallhavetheirroofingmaterial coated withlightcolored gravel or paintedwithlightcolored or reflective materialdesigned for Cool Roofs. B Through Completion 32. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. Show the location of Electric VehicleCharging Stations. Include the numberandlocation ofEV chargingstations on plans. B Through Completion 33. Solar Zone – CA Energy Code. Show the location ofthe SolarZone onthesite plan. Detail the orientation ofthe Solar Zone. This information shallbe shown in the masterplan check. This condition of approvalwill be waived if the projectmeets the exceptionsprovided in the CAEnergy Code. B Through Completion 34. AccessibleParking. Therequired number of parkingstalls, the design andlocation ofthe accessible parking stalls shall be as requiredby the CABuilding Code. B Through Completion 35. Copies of Approved Plans. Applicant shall provide City with two (2) reduced (1/2 size) copies ofthe City of Dublin Building Plans stamped approved”. B 30 daysafter permit and each revision issuance 36. Electronic File: The applicant/developer shall submit all building drawings and specifications for this project in an electronicformat to the satisfaction of the Chief BuildingOfficial prior to the issuance of building permits. Additionally, all revisions made to the buildingplansduring the project shall be incorporated into an “AsBuilt” electronic fileand submittedprior to the issuance ofthe final occupancy. BIssuance of the final occupancy PLANNING - LANDSCAPE 37. Final landscapeand irrigation system plans. Alllandscape submittals shallinsure: a. That plantmaterial utilized will be capable of healthy growthwithin thegiven range ofsoil andclimate. b. Thatproposedlandscapescreening is of a height and density so that it provides a positivevisual impact within three years from the timeof planting. c. All ground covershall be a minimum of 1 gallon, shrubs shall be a mix of 1 and 5 gallon (at least 50% 5 gallon), andtrees shall be a mix of 15 gallon and24” box size. 36” boxtrees (or larger) shall be installed at key locations. Public street trees shall be24” box. d. That a planfor an automaticirrigationsystem be providedwhich assuresthat all plants get adequatewater. PIssuance of buildingpermit 10 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHENREQ’D Prior to: e. Thatconcrete curbing is to beusedatthe edges of all planters and paving surfacesunless otherwise designed. f. Thatall cutand fill slopes conform tothe mastervestingtentative map and conditionsdetailed in the Site DevelopmentReview packet. g. Thatall cutandfill slopes gradedand notconstructedby September 1, ofanygiven year, are hydroseededwithperennial or native grasses and flowers, and thatstockpiles ofloose soil existing on that datearehydroseeded in a similarmanner. h. Cut and/or fill slopesexceeding a3:1 gradeshallbe stabilized with jute netting or approved equalto controlerosion. Trees planted on slopesthatexceed a 3:1 grade shall be installed with approvedrock slopeprotectionaboveandbelow the treepit to catchgrade. i. That a warranty from the owners or contractorsshall be required to warranty allshrubsand groundcover, all trees, and the irrigation systemfor one year. A permanentmaintenanceagreement onall landscapingwill be required from the ownerinsuring regular irrigation, fertilization and weed abatement, if applicable. 38. Water Efficient Landscaping Regulations. The Applicant shallmeet all requirements ofthe City of Dublin's Water-EfficientLandscaping Regulations, Section 8.88ofthe DublinMunicipal Code. PIssuance of the building permit 39. OpenSpace Areas. Private open space areasshall be planted and irrigated to createlandscapethat is attractive, conserves water, and requires minimalmaintenance. PIssuance of the building permit 40. Plant Clearances. All trees planted shall meet thefollowing clearances: a. 6' from the faceof building walls or roof eaves b. 7’ fromfire hydrants, storm drains, sanitarysewers and/orgas lines c. 5' from top of wing of driveways, mailboxes, water, telephone and/or electrical mains d. 15' from stopsigns, street or curb sign returns e. 20' from either sideof a streetlight f. Plantclearances may be modifiedwithapproval from the Community DevelopmentDirector ona case by casebasis. P Approval of Final Landscape Plans 41. Landscaping at Street/Drive AisleIntersections. Landscaping shall notobstruct the sight distance of motorists, pedestriansorbicyclists. Except fortrees, landscaping (and/orlandscape structuressuchas walls) at drive aisle intersections shall notbe tallerthan 30 inches above the curb. Landscaping shall be kept ata minimum height and fullnessgiving patrolofficers andthe general public surveillance capabilities ofthe area. PL Ongoing 42. Lighting. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare a photometric plan to the reasonablesatisfaction ofthe City Engineer, Director of Community Development, the City’s ConsultingLandscapeArchitectand Dublin PoliceServices. The photometric planshallshow lightinglevelswhich takesinto consideration poles, low walls and other obstructions. Exterior lighting shallbe providedwithin the surfaceparkinglot andon the building, and shall beofa design and placement soas not to cause glare onto adjoiningproperties, businesses or to vehicular traffic. Lighting usedafter daylight hours shall be adequate to provide for security needs. The parking lot lights shallbe designed to eliminate any pockets of high andlow illuminated areas. Prior to Occupancy, the PL, PW, PO Building Permit Issuance 11 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHENREQ’D Prior to: Applicant shallrequest an inspection ofthe lighting levels in the structure to determine if lighting is sufficient. If additional lights are required tobe installed to meet the 1.0 foot-candlerequirement, the Applicant shall do so prior to Occupancy. 43. Irrigation SystemWarranty. The applicant shallwarranty the irrigation system and planting for a period of oneyear fromthedateof installation. The applicant shall submit for the Dublin Community Development Department approval a landscapemaintenance plan for the CommonArealandscapeincluding a reasonable estimate of expenses for thefirst five years PFinal sign-off on Sitework Permit 44. Sustainable Landscape Practices. The landscapedesignshall demonstrate compliance withsustainablelandscapepracticesas detailed inthe Bay-FriendlyLandscapeGuidelines by earning a minimum of 60 points or more onthe Bay-Friendly scorecard, meeting 9 of the 9 required practices and specifyingthat 75% of thenon-turf planting only requiresoccasional, little or no shearing or summerwater onceestablished. Finalselection and placement of trees, shrubsand ground coverplants shall ensurecompliancewith this requirement. Herbaceousplants shall be usedalong walks to reducemaintenance and the visibility of the sheared branches of woody ground cover plants. Planters for mediumsized treesshall bea minimum ofsixfeet wide. Small trees or shrubsshall be selected for planting areaslessthansix feet wide. P Approval of Final Landscape Plans 45. Copies of Approved Plans. The Applicant shall provide the City with one full size copy, one reduced (1/2 sized) copy and oneelectronic copy of theapproved landscapeplans prior to construction. PIssuance of any building permit 46. Plan Coordination. Civil ImprovementPlans, JointTrench Plans, Street Lighting Plans and Landscape Improvement Plans shall be submitted on the same sizesheet and plotted atthe same drawing scale for consistency, improvedlegibility and interdisciplinarycoordination. P Approval of Final Landscape Plans 47. Utility Placement and Coordination: Utilitiesshall be coordinated with proposed tree locations to eliminate conflicts between trees and utilities. Submit typicalutilityplans for each housetype to serve as a guide during the preparation offinal grading, planting and utilityplans. Utilities may have to be relocated inorder to provide the required separationbetween the trees and utilities. The applicantshall submit a final tree/utilitycoordination planas part ofthe construction document reviewprocess to demonstrate thatthis condition has been satisfied. P Approval of Final Landscape Plans 48. SouthernParking Lot. Sheets L1.0 andL1.1ofthe Project Plans identifytwo alternatives for the southernparking lot: the installation of photovoltaicarrays or the planting of treesin the parkinglot. One of these twooptions shallbe executedprior tothe occupancy ofthe building. This is notan element that can be deferred until post- occupancy. P Building occupancy FIRE PREVENTION 49. Aerial fire apparatus access roadsshallhave a minimumunobstructed width of 26 feet exclusive of shoulders. At least one ofthe required accessroutesmeetingthis condition shall be located within a minimum of 15feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entireside ofthe building. F Approval of Improvement Plans 50. New Fire Sprinkler System & Monitoring Requirements. In accordancewith The Dublin FireCode, fire sprinklersshall be installed in the building. The systemshall be in accordancewith the NFPA 13, the CA FireCode andCABuildingCode. Plans andspecifications F Permit issuance 12 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHENREQ’D Prior to: showingdetailed mechanical design, cut sheets, listingsheetsand hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval and permit prior to installation. Thismay be a deferredsubmittal 51. FIRE SPRINKLER MONITORINGSYSTEM (NOT FIRE ALARM SYSTEM). Alarm, supervisory and troublesignalsshall be distinctly different andshall be automatically transmitted to an approved supervising station. One EXTERIORapproved audible device, located onthe exterior of the building in an approved location, shall be connected to each automaticsprinklersystem. Suchsprinkler water- flow devicesshall be activated bywater flow equivalent to theflowofa singlesprinkler ofthe smallest orifice sizeinstalled inthe system. Visible alarmnotificationappliances shallnot be requiredexcept when required by California FireCode section 907. F Permit issuance 52. FD Building Key Box. Building Access. A Fire Department KeyBox shall be installed at the main entrance tothe Building. Notethese locations onthe plans. The key box should be installedapproximately 5 1/2 feet above grade. Thebox shall be sized to hold the master keyto the facility as well as keys for roomsnotaccessible by the master key. Specialty keys, such as thefire alarm controlbox keyand elevator controlkeysshallalso be installed in the box. F Occupancy of any building 53. Gate Approvals. Fencingandgates that cross pedestrian access and exit paths as well as vehicle entrance and exitroads need to be approved for fire department access and egress as well as exiting provisionswhere such is applicable. Plans needtobe submitted that clearly showthe fencing and gates anddetails of such. This should be clearly incorporated as part ofthe site planwith details provided as necessary. F Details to be shown on building and/or sitework permit; installation to be complete prior to occupancy of any building 54. Addressing. Addressing shall be illuminatedor in an illuminated area. The addresscharacters shall be contrasting to their background. If address is placed on glass, the numbers shall be on the exterior ofthe glass anda contrastingbackgroundplacedbehind the numbers. BuildingAddress. The building shallbe provided with alladdresses or the assignedaddressrange so as tobe clearlyvisible fromeither direction of travel on the street the addressreferences. The address characters shallnotbe less than 5 inches in height by 1-inchstroke. Largersizes may be necessarydepending onthe setbacksand visibility. Multi-Tenants. Where a building has multipletenants, address shallalso be provided near the main entrancedoor of each tenant space. The address shall be highenough on the building to be clearly visible from the driveway, street or parking area it faces even whenvehicles are parked in front ofthe tenant space. The address shall not belessthan 5-inches in heightwith a ½-inchstroke. F Occupancy of any building 55. Fire hydrants. Fire hydrants shall be installed throughout the project andalong the projectstreetsasrequired by theFire Department and 2010California Fire Code. Allfire hydrants and FDCs shall be noted on the site plan. F Occupancy 56. Driveway Modifications. Accessonto the project site from allpublic streets mayneed minormodifications to meet Fire Departmentaccess requirements. F Approval of Improvement Plans 13 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHENREQ’D Prior to: 57. FIRE SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION 1. Clearance to combustibles from temporary heatingdevices shall be maintained. Devices shall be fixedin place andprotected from damage, dislodgement or overturning inaccordancewith the manufacturer’s instructions. 2. Smokingshall be prohibited except in approved areas. Signs shall be posted “NO SMOKING” in a conspicuous locationin eachstructure or location in which smoking is prohibited. 3. Combustibledebris, rubbish and waste material shall be removed from buildings atthe end of eachshift of work. Flammable and combustibleliquid storage areas shallbe maintained clear of combustiblevegetationandwastematerials. F Ongoing during construction and demolition DUBLINSAN RAMON SERVICESDISTRICT 58. Complete improvement plansshall be submitted to DSRSDthat conform to the requirements of the Dublin SanRamon Services District Code, the DSRSD “StandardProcedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation ofWaterand Wastewater Facilities”, all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. DSRSD Issuance of any building permit 59. All mainsshall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate future flow demands in addition to each developmentproject's demand. Layout and sizing ofmainsshallbe in conformancewith DSRSD utility masterplanning. DSRSD Issuanceof any building permit 60. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD’s existing sanitary sewersystem. Pumping of sewage is discouragedand may only be allowedunder extremecircumstances following a caseby casereviewwithDSRSD staff. Anypumpingstation willrequire specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminarydesignreports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to requirepayment of present worth 20 yearmaintenancecosts as well as other conditions within a separate agreementwith the applicant for any project that requires a pumping station. DSRSD Issuanceof any building permit 61. Domesticand fire protectionwaterline systems for Commercial Development shall be designed tobe looped or interconnected to avoid deadendsections in accordancewith requirements ofthe DSRSD StandardSpecifications andsound engineering practice. DSRSD Issuanceof any building permit 62. DSRSD policyrequires public water and sewerlines to be locatedin public streetsratherthanin off-street locations tothe fullestextent possible. If unavoidable, then public sewer or water easements must be establishedover the alignment ofeach publicsewer or waterlinein an off-street or private streetlocation to provideaccess for future maintenance and/or replacement. DSRSD Issuanceof any building permit 63. Locations and widths of all proposedeasementdedications for water andsewerlinesshall be submitted toand approved by DSRSD. DSRSD Issuanceof any grading permit or a site development permit 64. Prior to issuance by theCity of any BuildingPermitor Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever comes first, all utilityconnection fees includingDSRSD and Zone7, plan checking fees, inspection fees, connection fees, and fees associated with a wastewaterdischargepermitshall bepaidto DSRSD in accordancewith the rates and schedulesestablished in the DSRSD Code. DSRSD Issuanceof any building permit 14 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHENREQ’D Prior to: 65. Prior to issuance by theCity of any BuildingPermitor Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever comes first, all improvementplansfor DSRSD facilitiesshall besigned by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvementplansshallcontain a signatureblock for the District Engineer indicatingapproval ofthe sanitary sewer or waterfacilitiesshown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the applicantshall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer’s estimate of construction costsfor the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a one-yearmaintenancebond, anda comprehensive general liability insurancepolicyin the amountsand forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The applicant shall allowat least 15 working days forfinal improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer. DSRSD Issuanceof any building permit 66. Nosewerline or waterlineconstruction shall be permittedunless the proper utility constructionpermit has beenissued by DSRSD. A construction permitwill only be issued after all of the items in Condition No. 66 havebeensatisfied. DSRSD Issuanceof any building permit 67. The applicant shallhold DSRSD, its Board of Directors, commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the samefromany litigation, claims, or finesresultingfrom the construction and completion ofthe project. DSRSDOngoing 68. Improvementplans shall includerecycled water improvements as required by DSRSD. Services for landscapeirrigation shall connect to recycled water mains. Applicantmust obtain a copy ofthe DSRSD RecycledWater Use Guidelinesand conform to the requirements therein. DSRSD Issuance of any building permit 69. Above-groundbackflowprevention devices/doubledetectorcheck valves shall be installed on fire protection systemsconnected to the DSRSD watermain. The Applicant shall collaboratewith the Fire Department and DSRSD to size andconfigure thefire system. The Applicant shall minimize the number of backflow prevention devices/double-detector check valve through strategicplacementand landscaping. DSRSD Issuance of any building permit and ongoing 70. Development plans will notbe approved until landscapeplans are submitted for DSRSD reviewandapproval. DSRSDApproval of Final Landscape Plans 71. Grading for construction shall be done withrecycledwater. DSRSDOngoing 72. Temporarypotableirrigationmeters in areaswithrecycled water service shall only be allowed for cross-connection and coveragetesting for a maximum of14 days. DSRSDOngoing 73. The sewer main shown onthe plans is a 10-inchmain with a2% slope tothe main in Dublin Boulevard. Thisappears to be a largermain than is neededand a largerslope than needed. Review and confirm this is the bestapproach. DSRSDApproval of improvement plans 74. The water supplemains shown onthe plansindicate the domestic consumption on Zone 1 and thefire suppression system on Zone 2. Thismeans the firessuppressionsystemwillhaverelatively high pressure due to its elevation in comparison totheZone2 reservoirs. Review and confirmthis is thebest approach. DSRSDApproval of improvement plans 75. The recycled watersupple for landscapeirrigation shows a double detectorcheck on the facilitiesfeeding the irrigationnetwork. The double detectorcheck is probably not needed. Review and confirm this is the bestapproach. DSRSD Approval of improvement plans 15 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHENREQ’D Prior to: 76. Cityof Dublin and DSRSD shall review the proposed project’s building plans to determine applicable fireflow requirementsand whether additionalinternalpotablewaterstoragemust be provided. DSRSD Issuanceof first building permit PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTEDthis ____day of _____, 2016 bythe following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: CityClerk s • • s • • s • • • o • • • • • • • • sss • • • • • • • I Ma Dam 7282018 8 02 04 PM J 1 l 7 1/ 1/ 1/ 111 411 PN V Q7 .... .co I 1 IIII— Io Z cr 7.. 7 nn".. rn V 0 611012111Y' co — o in CD r- I 0 rn C Or Z 14 Q) Z Z Y. i. n G) t- 48 CD irt ,..,, 1,-; t.,:= 4-,,,. .,,. I' 1 C) cn 44 CD I tri- X CD 0 i - - I G)rn j A tar L L' • ja i1_ 1 l ! J iii GU7' U) 0 v 5" -" 1: "::: areceeaccanaginFAae. a1t,= Cl) ;° n o to t- 1 O D C , •, rn m N N T W r O G G A $ 111 1 5E1" E99 gi $ i; O1 — 4 D W- m CD co > 0 0 oWi; i i 1 490 . x .<,: 2) 5; 2 g, <., F:,- 3, g wz r: tril m Fr) Z z I .... 1 z XI - 0 iliniiir.!?.. .!!! !, 1?.......,..._ 1 rn ut c T N i iliiSl A 5 8'/,; l` N.) D NCO 8; iiiIiii I iiiiiii g i I a 1- 7-.) — ro D I Z o m l. o> a Z - rri 71 W o O MI o. 0 728/ 2016 3 37 47 P61 hiMr I I I I o 0 • o00 00 • 000. 00000 1401 P 11 Till NMI 11 1 1 000000000 1 hoRg .,..- . 1. .! rtL tatt C i!! i 000• o i 4 $ w A D 2- 1 1 > 5.°° , A r i i 4 z 1g 2 882 i : 000000. 0° 1 11111111 ! Iz w r I i: ' 11iøJinJr1 l o, i 9 N g. 1 t$ 1 i baaa. 9i 0 Ii lit l;! !! t RA 1 iii% rinila: Tae' 14 iA l i, i lam/%%/. --:-/ ?-. 4 it eg Q q § I 1` t ira3aEfli d s pa a! ip :•\. 1_`\ t a/• ¢. 4"- p F7 Si m! 1 i \ ot` ry di ml° s Q m i lii N E Ili4& a./ 7",. . 01110"—. 111111 Mb p A ep L T 7 ute I Ila I. 1 ei 10 o 1 II .. II F5 S Fi m 11 ' iiiirr ' j ; : i I i ! } III 0 iII la lI ill d 11 14 i p m ws. MAW is i l4' ! x I" ii p i ii= A i' I tM1hr 11 1 e: 3 r, o gie = lt s r66 eras r- 66°° $ Ir.• a;` 0 -, 3: ! _ a l liq Will 6. ...:... i . ilielle a rAA I: iii : i— 4 4 1$ 1 io! till iii . 1 0..- f 1 F Q ! g x 0:, 4. 40, 111..-- 0. 0. iirtillsosit 11, 01. 1).• f 9 I ttvj out 1 ia i ,$I AV 111' 41111-- c-'- I-7i— x to N. l' oo: I aIa 211$ Si lip 1 4 11TH IhI'! o • 111 111 Nr:. isi i d i HE P II 1 fig II! Ifif F till f 1111i1 ' 1 - 8 ' 1 n a o III ( I ill ! l III 11fIlf @ 11 1/ ! JiFi_ 1 a i i I E i iP 1 hi 1! ; 11 R D 1$ / 5 i q 1111 1 II I co 2 r4 3 PI V 5 i 2 1 i ilk 11 D in Q i if 2 f 9 if k 5 t s e g W g a i X P 5 G7 t• I • 0 It • R IV i i i i ! i 1 1 c 1 1 1. g 111 11111 i ! A Q t & i 5 € c II Q aR Y Q F4 s C illiII; jIiiI n n n a` a I 1l is !$ p 111141 1 -- I m Q m o HR a d n i< e i ai115 iA i ai M° Pl D i11 v p 1' A° a m 8y i' $ Q m Y i l 6 BiIIi 5l" F iii l2i gi! $ 9r! 11 _ 8a 1 m o Ql $ ppe_ Q 1. £ 9 I Ala m i F U D 4 ra 3I 3 Y C7 118 119 y fi g a is a ii g e ° O a r i i o i, i@ f qQ aRga RS ve ii f' D D sga $ i Q S Q p" i cn T 1 1. 8. 4d; 311818 Dt3a ! d 11164 i T T CD i 3 i S - 8E a aA 8. g ^ g 3a-. d AA S —¢• aQ e 6 AQ° m: L7 9 4 ! 6i 8 rig! Ali fis m g$ $ Q e g 1 ' W 1 13 s 9 $ Tim m v E cn 15B Qf Af$ .€ Z Z 1 a e1 ! ix 0 p• F g lF i P4 ill D 0 a iE i sp i t ° i F 6. F FQ z z m 311q W al a a' p i, i, a ° 6 w Q 12 i • iya = ogil y4 ' al $° Ii s3 ' ° c) Zz 1 ip g El R ' ai` m m P11 9511 ^ IP 6 re: & ilgl l i 7 l6. T T Lit -< Q 8$ g 8 cn m ni14F I d > S e o 2 it 1 ! I gFa. 0 1 OD 1 A i Sly 6J 0W i T Ab y y 1. 11 , 1 o 4 ono s rt' m yC 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I : m 3 f D 7C Z 1. 34 N DI 4) 111111111111 II 1 1 111111 • 1111111111111111111111991191111111180011 • • • • • • • • • • • 111111111 o vOW5. 1A I0. ser_ OW n101_ Oes91A2 DASOR 00. 00 Co rA. 6. 00. 00 Corer, Pe0lo lop. t, 727R016 6. 3053 MARCH*. Wad E1( 30. 00 r 01m teener 1. 1 I I 1 I Y Y ^ r A i Y - C. - - S P P " i Y ' Y N - P1 il ii14 le , gt . I. gir P qnfi$, Ipikni'% Mr' 18e )§' 1; 111PrPiv A twa t 1g! 4 Tg I!! i!° 2t =. 0 = s & a LT R tt." gg ai 6 $ S g X< a4_$, q $ s'= a^° B 5 061, 0, 0 1 A € ` A i w= Igg 2 5, a€$ yfi_ l° F^ r4 AA i " la xd" A F° . sg asp t- a la 9 3d $°' 8 b 8 € ski 6a la 3 p g $ ie d x a Igg" a 0 S€ R 2b8 a P Jj lliIJ gm AJ 8 i 8 t i! J1 ii1ilhiii< 8 a fi b i$` q° A IT a $ QA 24519. e' ! ij! J: IU RV Q 3a ep F. i 24Y ' y ig 8s" AA ° 4F z ' O i q te,§ APi S q ih 3 8;. 8 inxi 5p' ' ys' a A 4 gg a °° € F ! Ifl! 1;; g a 9 A° $. A a Q di n mi.- g g q Pr. 4a_ ja o g$ X 3 ss'' t d 8 7 ° o F is g° F ` V ' a 1 g, 1 Q a t8 ' I / Pt 1 I I 1 I j , I I . OfI r rtt II c ti C7 z 1 cn I 4 i„,„,(._.',. it...., .......-. o.•.., 71i f-•:..-,...."_-..--- ir".-,--_---.-.,.,.,„•,,,.-,---,..-.-,-! 0,.,, i' 11 I, 1 ,: - R!, i1' 3 y I 1 t. _ __ 1.'' in ' Ily. ...,, -. 81:.___ g,, n 7 :: . I\„, __ 1, . r----_ . . can 1 R388Y8s° 8Y4NS8R8as8g888 J g L 4 C gSiFIFFI idccccc sgg At o 6HNier" NN m w u v, ° 4i * 40. 7- 1 ts- N nb, CFFFFFg ANT /. 1\ \ it i i . 82 f P N Pt r,Si%Stl11 < n, a A" 0 N aaa N I! e 8 - a 2 ga% te i ” cR gil 151 AvIEG6c6bb) 2 ,— m$ 288° 5a, agp ia. a ^ g§ SQ?$ t;§ 8,,, a$ = ,, saA, frAW. - CO 14 Pw16 s ' 1? f g $ e - a 1; 1A- 0 * i aQaQ ag$ ioa , 1I a! a I, ! III; ( z Pt/ NI , 511 Y 4 Mg! ` R a p ir t [ Qaa n M M j1rA" 1mk > 1F W R A A61 F AP 4£ E 2 $ Mliiiin ; e a E' Il Ei g : s MA a 41- g ex hAir 1, s . puw! svly, 85, 44,. altg010' • ' " " i 4 . WEIA gp 0112 OP A V 1e = 3 C i O° t " c m i r7 s o D r z it{ i i 1j O 111. 97 c 2o gl D n { { C 4 0= CI w< n I I Z O om m A z QO - 1 Y-- Iii, m O 9 CD I O 1 m I 1 1 B99119911991199911998990099990999119111999999991199 .1201516129- Kasa_ DWOrtikDe09002CDASDR- 00. 20 O. eil Stamwsla P% n ; CO 20 WIMP DETAILED MAN Pal* LOC.. M720166: 3231 GYARCH N olsea E7( 3000 a 42. 00 fr N). 1. 1 I L` I I ( 1 II \:< y 1 I II I 1 t, 1 I + T i I 1 ." " 1: 1; 1{ GAN ST 4 I' V X 1414 NV. 1146.. 1. 7 41 6' 4.. - 4C4kLIZ• XV` N.--- -'' ZIN. 10101. \ OM IVIlab. IN 1 t 1 1 f ...*: I tk4N..• 1. 4 MI1% 1 ONZ\ 74..• 1, '' t.''% Nab Ilii;.... \ IN A kV%.,,...; t:%. NA. . 4t„.. .,,,, a ,,,,,, N, s •,, Z. 12‘,,,,, t • IgZ.,,,,....• Ssok. • 6.• 01 b. N 0 w''° YO,.. w. i:. .."' 0.w. s> i.\.'• 741:-..:.' , > ets ssc 1.' '. I7:, iii. EFi ..." a\\ aL1' 142111100031NissriamomuatessaeNO IN e::. \ ii+' r+•+` BGs \\\ i' O° Q•.. •- \. I\ ,„ 1\ I- \ I NI 1 iI 1\ 1, Nr ...,. 1 i. , 11 0\ 1 kNi 1 1 1 . ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• , k, N.---. --- c—,... --:-.--. --: 4 ... • - • ........ ti ---,.._-:, ik ,_.. t N, x.\ 1 4 I: 1 . 1 i NI NN1 N -- 1.-- 1 . :.,:: 41,•••,..— . \ s, A,. _ ma\ oftmeN I ' . i • 0:\ ' I \ I\\ 1 ., \. t i 1 5 1. iINS's 1. i:: 1'.'.',, f;. A' X11 1 g5 c6d s..•,,::.:..:::::. i.„...,,.. •..- ••‘., \\\.'‘ ' l NI: 1.i kts, 0 \. i, i 1 1 1 ' ' •, -, ' •••••• - .' • N111 ' N. . i k l l It& 4 , f., ' :, -;--- 2- - ,,:•':. •..„ ‘ s. , \ s , I oi. k : 5 1,N%.. • ice f \ 1f.. i:. S\\, \\\ I\\ • tlI. \\\ I \ \\. 1\ N\> i g,, \\ \\\\ \\\ \\!\ R 8- A I 1 ..:: c::_ N\\ 4 r Nom' ST I. 1, 1,'' s41,,L4 + 14%.-\ -..--• '': 3:'',.,,,,.. 1'.::-. ^-.' W f i I r , In/ 1 1,, 1 - A 1 1 \ O 1 rr 1 Q A. N a 1 QUO ` s tc° I a > R7 8 gsr• i, $$ ' I.. s o'..° ;' F F 4 e” E M' IHI g qi, i N. : \ \ A W I: vi ii Wk. ` a o Sa o 0- Of r r gg gg cn1111 cep a- P Z I — Q 4 3 3 I ox Ir! s IwnC 1 U Elm 3 I€ ff • •• o I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I a C A z 1;7 ajrrl I Liii_ : 11._ . --"- A— I 98999 • 899999899999999 • 900999999988998 • 119999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 , , , . s . . . . . . . . . . 912018115. 129_ KUSw_ 0. orr61_ Dtsgna32_ CO' SOR C100 5M Layout Plan dwg C1. 00 Sea laroul Plan lPablo Lopaz, 7272076 6. 33 58 MARCH hra Nand El( 30. 00 n42. 00 Inchaa). 1' 1 II III I I ' I _ l 11,\ J n il 1 . 1 g C PROP- k!. Ni -- I .._ 4 4___ .__ : c $ ts'_. JAG V. < V), 49 C9. l, 4 t¢ t' 1t Q 1 t liAa rN 7 t III 4 ar g pe 4J I 1 Nb 4-..,..:.- i s, , L. I I P 3 mO I w y oa V P_ xl: rip I 4• If I j y y i' ii r 1 I. r I III a i1i c. LI I 1 I I I , u I kj,' 11 Ir,. u: 1 r c yb i ({ i I ! I L nr X50' t9 pwr_ z. r emu• wr \. _ Tl Jr r 1 ; P D [ 7 [] _ w 4t w_ r. rte . r* wry 6,,. r• r•. v_ tao 6.' rr xa '' ' let • 1 I T n •.+ ran - rIt P k f I r F L I s I I g p J v r— I I I f c ¢ I NI VA: I!' 41. r' ffflr' u; u: uaucc, n_ H r a. r_. ,- r„ p-- " r C p. n. s 1 n i C40 10 101111A . , i_ 1 ur Illi L3 —• i , 1 I AR A ma 4' In j e e "' r la _ I I i rt. r_ - 711: ;;,, rr s'.,`_ ,, s_ .' P n . 1• all x ^ 1 I I( H J tlrp a'— I I 11. SY J I qj4 _._._ 1T ._.._ 4_. PRpPERiY_ INE r I t , i, I I l • rt \\\} N.. I I 1 z C N r, N q. sE 8g s iv 7d 5 5 l a 01 4 a i 8 IN 1 A 0 1! 1 1 1111 Csfa m Li f E. lill§ i l Ir IIIIIII IIIII Q d z 0 § m f 0 „ / . , SC, ' 0 , / S00 , / 111 / / , 0 . , . . / / , / i V01A76. 1AJ( Yw_ DiM109_ OwV C1A0 sit. Laya4P6n. v.. C1. OtSne Loyal Plan teCbaPadoLOpa:. 712720166: 14OBPUAR J1ul bleed Et( 3O. 004420909 . 1. 1 I I 3 aggNB sagu v n n n n n eg s s " a a n3L , i 4 y 2 pp 5 k 5 k u Y G n4 ; 3 8 0 n 2 2 2 w 2 w N n nO Y 2 2 n 2 o a m ^ 8. 9 8 i u N 2 3• P r r r Y r. y r H v t% t% t' w , ; r r ; , , 8 8 8 7. ° a a ,. = = 8 8 8 8 $ 3 A 3' 8 8 1F w $ Y 8 8 - 8 w. 2 , u r., 8 8 9 815 88 8. g 8 H 1g g i 8 8 1. g m 2 8 H 8 8 8 6 Y 8 8 8 8 8 g 8 $ s 8 8 8 x 8 s 8 - 5Y555B51 $ $' s ; i ; ; ; n ; nu 5x55555 ° t. 5 ° 55555555 . clggg § i555s5 $ 5os55' 5 5 § Rg § 555548. 5 ; 55555 $ 55gsg § 8311$ ° 88 :. w 888X8888 .'. 48888880. T8 . SS88888888mooe 888 .. 0 88W9' 88888888 ' 8844988885 ?. 228aa.. X88 184888 v $ J•^ ! S SS O Y Y is. r U Y Y y S > S o x o 0 o w N Y o Y ? O v to u D O N M O O Y V O G O O O r O O C G O O G O 0 0 G F Y' O G Y 0 0 0 O O C G O G G G O O C O O O U O O O O O O G O G C O G O O O G O O O O 0 p G C G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1 i o n r8. n n n n n c n n n n n n n n n 2 n p ais i5i , 21 _• § ds ., s . ,. w _ siu ., uiF w _ § ' i o .. aix : w5 _ o . eae , aa. . ,. w 68.. . a. . .. w eae .. 0. .. . a. w _ , $ 8S88Y ; : - 8 e N ' y = ' ° N r 4 o v v k "+ 8. 8 o E ° . 8. $ 5 = 8 Y ; X s °- 8 S'. s U 5 Y Y u S 0 s k p g 3 L v t . . . . . w : a v w w : 3• G 8 2 t 8 8 2 $ 8 8 8 u w s' 8 S 8 8 8 Y & 2 8 3 5 $ 0 8 $ w u o 8 8 8 • 0 8 m o y 8 _ 8P. s e 44444iiigiii44444444444444 41444 444444444441414444444444q14444 O @ 8 8 8 $ 8 8 $ 8 8 8. 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Y 8 m 8 k $ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 v 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 L $ = = ! S $ 8 8 8 $ $ 8 8 $ $ $ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 « X 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 5555 8 5 $ 5 ' 3 I ! 5s $ 5555 ; 555555555555535555 55 $ 515 $ 5 $ e qQ A Q O O G G O G G O O O O O O O O p O O tl p j O 3 0 o 8. e .. & v Y w _ 18 8 8 8 8 Y 8 w 1711. 8 e S .. S v 2 4 w _ S 8 k ; k .. X 8 w _ 8 8 8 w ; v . .. w r ' r r r . . S R N Y 8 w _ 4 m ., a a . a. w - ' i o S 4 & v Y N 4 3 8 8. 8 r-.. t 8 8 8 8 8 k ie $ 8 8 8. . 8 r a. Q S g g > 8 4 ... S S 7C t s 8 4 Y 8 _ 8 4 8 4 0 8 8 8 _ 8 8 8 8 8 8. $ § $ 2 8 8 8 •& 8 ^- a 2 $ - 2 3 8 8 SG 8 L S 8 g 2 2 2 Z Z Z Z—• 2 Z 2 2 Z Z Z Y S — N 2 2 Y 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 1 $ oii4 $ 4 4 $ 44' 4Y $ 4 4 $ $ 4 4 44 i $ 4a44 4 $ 4 $ g 4 4 4i k iiRg 8. $ $ $ s $ $ 28. 8 2 , s $ $ $ = a8 $ $ $ N $ x $ $ 4. $ 8 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 8. $ $ $ $ $ $ 8. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ a $ tt $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ f 8888888. $ 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. $ " 38. 8 $ 8 5' 48. 8 8. : : : : ; : ! 58858 { 8888 $ $ 8. 8888. 8. 88. $ $ 5 $ 888 ; $ $ $ $ ss $ 5 $ $ $ $ 8t m 8 mm r, r , 2 & m „ 8 nm m 8 8 1 $ mm 8 a C r8331sstevsaaa . . s atJ88888 8. 3 ° . 1 $ 238811! 88 ; ° 44444441gg4444444444Iik $ $ $ $ $ 8 $ $ $ $ $ 8 8 8 $ 8 $ 8. 8 1 55555555 ! 555555 , 5555 .!: 0 g i N 3CA ti gg r$ r Fir- 0.. apr -- Q Q i 3s Pt ! mom g 1 ill likiX 8,-,' 72 2r) m t 1 Qty O m I 0, 015t15- 129_ KA set- DWIn04_ 061, 4 01 COSDR C2. 00 Gr• Ivy. a• 0C2. 000wdapPYn, Pade LOpez. 7272016 6 36 28 PMMCH M6bed El 30. 00 a 4200 Inds6). 11 I I r o f ; ° I I I I I - fir-;, ' i ` - - N. I 1 I, I I I II< i 1 . 7____ r_ l___ , ,„ I iii, i 1±_ : J y, I I I 111 y- i L I r 1 [ 9 l' is'..:' 1 L r 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 LJ L L - , I N 17 k c I V. r-— :, I L I ist.. I I II . I I i k' I I— i I. i J'=% I I i . ill, 1• s . 2- 1 .\,\ I 1.. : :, \ s;:`` ; -., _______:;., __-. 7.--'----- -. " I 11 rr I J fie/% /- _ y• I I. Ili ill 1.4, , : \ *---- ,). 1 1 1 .- 1_ _ r .- 1 i mil i r 1 ii 111 i II r- L '-' 7.."- m"-, 14::: , 1 \ N I1 yy k ice' 1 1 11( 1' r<— r I 1-• 1 I E , 1 II I. 1 I II • II ` 1 41 1\ 1J I I 1 s '' 1_ Z tESgg R s s°,,, 2 . c a g> s 5g1 , o$$§ C0 F' g Y U P 8 ! S 3 $ ;€ Av°, A. - r r$ $ A 4 242/-' $" g m 4 1ib PiI ;! i : I z °gi $$ g tFF" o S. s. . 8 m-, im = Cg 2 go Oi II* o. 9,- 14§{^ g7 4€ a 3$ m oF"" N: s H N z t!? t rgi )' A 8z A . - 1? 0 n 710 PFgg6 b gr1 $ g p. Si 2i A' gii^ E i OH 1' 114 F'! n 9WI ! 1 ! y' riiu I I • • 1 1 It P O Oi1 • 1 140 On"!Zm L•' mZ III; oil' c 7, - o lilt' +` C OTo g m m Z n II III Hill II Zat, mo 0 1 m O I a I II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II ii II II II II II C; 0 II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II P- 12015115- 129_ KalsorAtie0a_ Dosgn, 02_ CINSDR_ C2 CO Coscurg. 0wg, C2. 01 Gra00p, PaOlo Lopez 027/ 20t 6 6. 36 50 MARCH tul blesC Et( 30. 00 x, 42. 00 Inc060 1 i 1! I I I I: I I I I I i I I ti 1 4 L i. I t I. I I 5, I ' i i 1 i I I ,. :, PROPEIVY ONE PI 1 ' II t, ."... A I 18 A A. 9 1/ 1 1 . •'.-. hl------------'-''' I t `' 8 LI i q _ i __ 7;::•-----..-.. _!___„. 5- 1 `... ..-,,— - ..-, 5'- 0 a 8 ''' t"'” k t\ t a , ---* 4.- 4.-- - ref ____ 6_ -.— _ v-- ___ i , r--- s s I 1 V-- j-- 7- — I 11-- ---- -: - g — g 2 @ i a 1, 1 g g I , a ,, ; oi i 1 . sin- t g 1 0 ''-., 8 gt .= - % t .., _ ^ .• e A,, a 0 8 i g t I 1 7, I - 1---" t• -. . . 7: 0 _ z. : i 1; • ,,,, . - r; 1 e. 1 tf, t is. •. 4'^• 1. i. _ . 9. 1 „._ ,, igi4 • 33--------- ea JURA. 1111 : I a a A 8 4 0 R' A • i i k n. 4 4 1 tl. i. i \* 0 i ; vv/ . i. i I It' e te'• 60, a fa % :: 2 i a I a a t s W i a ri g 1 I • .. 4 dtf, t s 1%, a: i 4: -----\ g 0 ,.:..., g4 -• VI' 18 I - 8 1 V% I 11P1 C4. ' a 1 r. I ., : ; 8 P 1: ii ' ; 1 1 • a 4 g , 2. 4 il- . g., - l 1.• - 1 • — 7 \ 77 '•,,;, t'. 8\ I tt " Pg , 1 h , 1 9 % ; - atr. '‘ I a mi , v ., , 11 I • I 111 a • 9. P. I alAg I ' K'''. 2. J114..• 1 ' • ti r079 1 I 4' 41 i fa \ 6 1 4' gt\ 8! .. I li I ' 1 0 re- A i,,,,? 4 A s, g g ,. 1. 11 I I f.' t a g 5 1 li I g8 8 a a i I I I lsig 7---- a•• 0- - 0 ''', 46 1 I II 1._ a Air riti I t % U ; .,:,; a . 0 I I 1 ,- 1 I Zi t 1 P • . ' - V l''' _ e ' i 1.! ''' 8 • 1 r'. 4 ) . A . I i k/ .. ', . . • IL. 1 1. 01. 4) ri & M,'';";--. 1. _ I 4; 1 1 I i,, ' I I 88 Wg; ,, ' 4eg. ,,./ 0 4 a ,,,/ g It g g - z.' ir ti' 6 0 X a : 9,...„ " S $ a 4,. t 11' I ! V9• d ,, LA I 1 I S 41 g V) .- r", tt) 208 I 8 M g n 11°'' t t r; i 1 I I1 I t 1 4. 4... gi , J 4* I. s4` 8 - 44., i I I 6 . II jill A I I 1 g i 11' n - Al-- i(, il 1 1., I a - a C % 00A a ca . 0% 0 ' 1' 1 II c. n. I Ow i ''.. et e* 0 LI CI 2 I,, \ I/ itcs° \ 0 1 I 11:, ito- v" ', CI I l II I 4, nP I o i A' 1!, II I '', = I r- il I Fo.‘, l MATCHLINE- SEE C2. 02 4-- sr- 11/4. • r; s. t . 0 00e0c, es ® SOOG890-, Li ; ;„ ! lg, ILV- 7, iH rcr; Wilq 2. S i,— W 6 r, S.:, 9: 822 . suf; 8c I si.J x i g g i a 7:4 I I i I ' i 0 0 \ I 11 1 IIII 1 ESni I. 16: 1 I; il; L co 24 ,, x fil§ 53 z 0 Z I— 1 ./ ' 7 0 6 2 1 0 1111 I 5ipir. I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII t > m Z z 1. § I 1 rn Emory 1181111 • 111111111111111181111OSSOSSOOO1111111109119118 • 111111111111111 pvoi ski 5. 129_ 1(.... 0,, tin, 34 13.. 0, 02_ 1: 030a C2, 00 G49. . 02 Gadire. Pabb Lopex. 7/ 27/ 2016 6 37 15 PUNCH Ad bleed El( 30. 00 x 42. 00 Ind. 11/. 1 I I I I I l. I j\ 4.1 - • ....!*. s., 1 I,^ m• 2 i 1 1 MATCHLINE- SEE C2. 01F- 1 l - - -, 1... , —._._,_,..;.. ' 1_ _ _ _._. . ... y,_ _.,.. xi5.:- 4 1 f a MA a 4/ 1111W.. ; '' MO a tilli; 1110 a i a a r." 1 . 8 1 I. i 1 ' 1 Ise , A......, " it I t n- a • 3. 4, e8 3 1 v v .., ag ° tO lit- 0 1" 0100 gi\ In '-' 5 - n ' Cr' .... 4,, Da.„! u; s k 2 0 a as gis , u. 0 _: rre, . tt • ' . I I M- le I A t t CINI, It' k 111.. 11, 1 7 '.., Q7r i s ,. .. n- a a. r4 I ,. s., sit , 3 10 ... g I 3 L ,- - -, T; T. i t . .. : , : \ t t 3 a 8:: s., I t 4: .. 3 '' I : J 413 '' / ci, 6- .?' ts i 1 - 4,,, et, t) 0 0 0?. 4) - 1" 1 Ilt .,, . fi- 03. I ,I 1 1 ,...,-,•,,-: i N .., of . i' ; if 1 I : i- 1 1 f', 3, 8 , I I'' * i 7 As -- a)8 if z3 S - 1tr I or . 3 t- t f . \ 1 S ‘ N A p \ 3 ' e v, ...' o k- ' i t ri' 4 ID a c:•'' o JAL.co . „ A0 I 1 11 '•'‘ l Ria4t A I 1 ' 7;":"..)••.- S' , i” , 1 .! I 1.- ' -('.."'. z...:. ' Ili : ' 1:< I a: 1 7 2• I 10 I 3 . I 2 ri 1 y 4 ' • ' I e A A 1:". I t AS_ zz, of - 4 s ki ..,:' s., c1 , s A 9 -, 1 ' \ I • I i g - t A e 011 ' i I., 0 II I W7.,, f 404/ t r.., '', 1 . I g6 rg,,, .. I ; 1 VI 8 i., 5 t,,, ..,,,. 1 \ I\ x 1 „ i-f2,,,,,,,' :: A A w, n 4 I 0 I I 0 g , 3 i I 4 . --.„,.% I ,-, A g , :. - g- I `" ., 1- 51. r__,°'--_------,., . p• s, i , i . .. k . a aa I aa• % a a 1 i ; \ i 1r27 i \ ,:. ;:. i ' 1.::':' r4 1: t., ' t:... 3.. r. r. , ..,, i 0 rj._ I I - I 5:- ..-, ------, V-- • 1 : 4 "' 1 jlaas ) t 1. - a- r_._ r y ev. I • I\ •,,,,,---.),--, 1-------- A- . „• 06 1A.--:.--------- T. a. s ---"-- ....' ll.„-:-- -:----.------.--;-.'''' l-- 2.—. 1,--- ---- IL! 1 - 16 1,. 2__---: ok a a a, • i 1 t-• I 4,At 9...., eii 2%= ___..,„. a ...._."..._..__ L t4 0 tt,.. h.,... \ , .,.. e a...._____ Iti. j._ __ 4 t - . I O- 1". 0. a- - a_,,,,„, ___ ___ __,, grAtl'' 1 ,, t71 t Niijort: kr - a Si ''' it L I..s.!.: •; 4 , e a! A.'..,..,: t0,./ ••.. e,„. ' PM C.1,•, I„,•/ rgat I4e ss,‘ f k' 0 ., t.;. ' 0 s , \ , s e 0 o.., C„ I al 41 2 4`/ 4\ 1' .; •• a 09- t • t • , - ,-, Vi -.”( -,. 8 8 e ,.• A 4 ,-. - ,„' - 7-- T- I ,.• t , ... 4( ' AR, 0 , ,, A, a frk 1 --- tt- 1- - - s ':/ i •-.,(,,, t/ ''' P 0 x z lost a a '„ ,. r.. ,,, et I A." ............---„,, , g • --,--..... , .... s 1 x. s.....\ ta; 7-----• b: t , .....--- 11211 c_::::......... 1...._,: v___..............'-... 7-=- 77:= ...'-•. --• ::. ' . 0 l' alk- 1• 11..... 1 ri al x 4, 13----- ... 7 ‘ .......... 1 S• - j__ ..'",,: efir..___..._: 41-:,.. 2L. 7. 1_ 7.-. X.:', 1: A. r.. i.......:...... 1 . _ 111 i II, • i . 1 9. 93.... • 1 .....,- i-- 4 F• .., - ri -. F z___ Yiliit ......./._ _..;----...: __ -.....,-.=---;..---=-- — .. -.- ......—;--- ir--,. -- 1:--,----..: 74-. 4- —.— --."--- 7----.--;:....':............... . --: i'-'. ..___. ___ __, .... ''' ......-- --- r--,- -;: j c• i. . . a t.• S 1. w AI ii' j p, Sr b ,-' I' I I 7, 4 7.- 4 sF1 1 A R,‘ Z i ''. ',_.• I 1/----. 7 2 I TS i n 1 I I Z 1 I I x 1 i,'• 1 I t I I x r.: 7: V I 3 opeo© eeGeeeeeet z gi g g, i ,, A .,- . 2 r rki ' A ,„ i* -. ',,, si ._ - > 0 tr, , 2, tp. O. 41gt ; 1 1 al6' itg ' - 1111 1° 5'--. % 8§ RA53 g a om -- II Aia g - iii p- P-* a y. ' 1 ' 4, 1 1 §- 2 k g gs,.. i 2!.. A -- Z.'2 V k' g b P, a S3 it gV 0' p,-.. 0 7 — H I 0 P 0 *. . i I I I i 0 :, gi 0 1 ill 1 IIII 1 r-—- r—— 1 m owxg i sgsw, 1 ,,, .. 1 0 f III c 5; ! Ai , I 21, U I Ni i 34' 6^ er Alil' i , r 1 i 0 ! Ill; Z") iii= 0 a li ' 21 " V iii g 0 r.,, 1) 111 I 1 I Z ---±". • f 1 3 6. Q • • • • 0 0 • • • . • • • • • • • • . . • • • • . i i1 P37015115. 129_ Kau 801004_ DwIpYM CCASOR_ C2. 00 Grwn00e0. C203 Grad% Patb LapN 7t2712018 6 37 41 MARCH 8101eed Et( 30. 00. 4200 Wau). 1 I I I I I 11 c E r V II I 1 i 1 I y I 1 1 I s x s I II a a Agg II PR° PERtt L E- x __ -\\ __ V a » s g I— j a z — fit— — f— a fit- — L— — f1j- iF= Ii a f-- a r tea° e s s4` a a l< c I III If » g g 5 » o`, O a 84' t' r is ` lx ..: I x s M a. r L a ti , asp-- Eh. ir I / s. a 1 fl I I! e. a , g a g a g r. • tiQ rye r.. a '»» i a ; a a a a a t 1 c° s ttii' al H Q y oa a y l S. I I1 a '„ I a as a as a' a a • ”` 0 i s I a s o sxI rx nrR » aA » » d » x ata Y= • a s a »» ca a a L » Ha " e I 1 I 0 1! l a C »: . .----'----!. , - I L- Y a I C xa h;! tl 1 3 T w aIc s u . rs rr 1 u H 1 I I I I /\' i 1 ° 1 O O 1. 0a Ir I• 5 eI A 1 O a aQ a ) ' a 8S. . a as as as I kle). H 4 0011- ' 7a 6 » 00 ; a © Or0 4" a 4 © a O L 0 w' a II a M 1 Y 1 ask r AlIM.. A. 1111111 a0 a « a as as a s I » f s ',, as s a' la »»• » m ; i` s I : I! A s a ' u :. p r I gsa 00 g 00 HY g 00 I e 00 e = 4 F K ' F ' F, sy I 1 1' I' d 1 S I O » a u 11 I lob I[ 3 I L .. a L'..$ t' 1 •'-: i t I I I i i 1 r,2a as a aLf aa a s L' J E — N.- ° I. g as ; L» a N I 1 V a uI r a r I h L- J [ 1 I aa,, a I I I r I I; 8° _ s 0441Cba© s , - O» u. F 8 08' t aaa 1E \ 0 , . - a 11: . Ir St e C: F » O.:. I I 8a SS 8 a• N _ I-- J 1 m / ; 3 I . MATCHLINE- SEE C2. 04 5!! aly Q g ggg- olitiSx • 8 si Ra a p a Qg p F a" R N Z r 0( 1 1 B a o H O / I qx i~ T x Z g u, ci T x Iii§, O 1119 ti ti N I , y I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III I C N g g pz Z O 1 p c % A g W 1 B • • s • s • • • s • s • • • • • • • • • • • • oass • • • s • s • • • • • • • • ss 1 P17 01. 0 75- 129_ urw_ Outa001_ U 9NO2_ CO\ SOR C2. 000rs6n9+ 9. C7. M Grating Patio LWe+. 7/ 27/ 2016 6 38 06 PMARCHU• El( 90. 00. 42031714). 1. 1 J I t J I f I t I MATCHLINE- SEE C2. 03 t 2 is a I Y[ 6. ,. a, u a ,; Y it iI s 3; I g EI! ' H iI71 0 ::: 0 f d AlJ I I aa aa r as F*' aria I r. a ' a 00 . a x f I ill' I a r as as a' p p aaaa Q g \. 10.., 1i Ili' oas a0 b 0 O SS 6 0 a" E p 0 a 9. 1 g Ntv x V- c g c as a i. I• 46 - '"--- I . I I as0 . s.Y IV m Y 3 0 I s 1 r k' A a 8 1 . .. JP--_ a r/ g Iv a Rd FF I g s. . V . Y 1. u 1 x• a as. Rf` Z1 Z91 IY+ a: i f3;!- 6r? 1: _ 4 a aNI= 4 tii. b., u,` , O Q aw ' 1 Y I 11 a." rzva: Ca o cs » or s cs I- _ Q x" a V ' 4 i 1;\ 1 0 1 © , 0 0•• if © 211 0 0 " e" v ! 00 • © ; . 1 00 L.'© -. 0 c . e . N x . a I - '',‘\:, ' t d— I 7- 1.1a a I a a a g S ar- ::- a, as S • ; as ° 74 ; 8 as ' Ret ; a > Y f \ q f Mg' s, Y Ya $ x uu'• cs S l x s` \' e, a Oa a 00 00 00 ea, 00 6 y r\. . t pti s ; t tt, x I t x r a s p, t 4 I i— — nr — — —... f - .--_. — — Ui — — j' y - o - gar a4,-- p I 1„ I as as as a I aa. 0 i' a\ c 1 I N a as 14 a n a ;;; '~ a I : t a ry t i j l'• x e t e j'.• O O O '. a u a O O s O 00 It g 0 . .. 1 if. . o. 4<;,,,,• 601;.,, i snn s I., e1 ' .' N 4_ L - ..• ,-- x ` 7444 f dad g 1....... n05 s yyam 1- A PROPIR! Y I NF: F k l If Y 1 I OeeG® ee 0000000 g ; „ / 1 101 $ titrx.. ' tY § rm i s i `> 1 0101 c I c/ % ii rd s Az ' § F 8 l b g s 1 iU111 as T 01 l o Iii H owxo Chi ; 1 — —--——— t I / 0 1 INN1 i 3 s 02 - i I t 0 0 6 3 3 I AMC,, s ZO Z xi g G7 t . 1 O PA°- O i 9 Cp Fo m N y IIIIIIIIIIIIIiII gC, T,© m Z N Q 0 1 Z 0 1111 8 i m I I 11 . 11 11 11 41 41 . 11 41 10 • 11 A10 01 41 41 4iCa11 40 11 11 © a41 41 11 40 40 • sssOss10 41 511 10 11 012019116129 Krw_ D. 0e04_ Osgi CASOR 03. 00 LftIIy . C3. 00 Uth Pablo(. 084727/ 2018 84032 PYAACH fill need El IJ8. 001 4200 Inches). 1 I I I I I 1 I., 1 i i I °_ 1 ks I I • 13 I+ I rH i W i i I', 61,' ti- , i I 1 ' l 1 I: u b r a. Y . a. cr M 1 r yy y- I 1 1 4. I III r.. 777: I I 1 y 1 y 1 41i I i J Y- L I 11 I 4.. q a I I, 1 a 1 t O 0, tl i r I I __ -- t y - - yl`-- fit - R I p - - I I I I I 0 1 IiI i E• I G a y IL: [ Y 1 i n, , G I I I I' IP Li aI r 1 t n II a 1 II y.__.-_ < o.. ro+. - cwr c1, I I 2 Spy — t-_ '— a I 1 I r 9 1;__-'—._ O s _: • I 6 I Il ../ I II/ ;' a I n', q I I 4 i ti— _ 1 1 I 1 IJi_. I11 I iyI r iTfl – ; t– – tl J 1_ __ ig • • I _ I • _ a I o I c\ I a e-,-— C- r , I J I I 1 n I I/ I r, I 1 i 1 P- - Y— – Y I I 41. -'+' I 1 S. I , ,', fi I I Q , 1, 11. 14, ,: ; I , 1 1 1 41' F \ I I 11' s!' 1 ; I i 7 Imo/ I i 4 ti I nill I MN i a I Ole w o o: 1. - Win ill I- I Pill L_ —— — 1 — — ey, 1 i 1( IF_.___ O .•••••••. cs== w: iliLI I I 1 I 6t® 111 t1 1 I I H! k 1 i IaI 1 en 4 p Il I 1 II 1 1 1 1O 1\ 1 1 j . i i. ' 7 '' i..\' I Q 1 I i111 ay , 4 w Z i 4§ P3XRiiEElii §§ i1; F1 S F1m-< 1Pn 666666Y66 9 6 till AIBfA = = W;> 1 Q r r.. i $ A ^• g A ' i, Npp Y A n a F R 33 IRE 2,` _ 1§ t 6666668666666Y 1466666 R 11 1 ppz = log, C 2° p 44 II II 2 g78 ;. Neo wcw z kpinli ' i w . • Iwzirl. . rmaP.;.: ti . , I ! I ICI II p. E541; 5« 55, mo55g` g5gg= g At § 4t C 4 R 8, N.. N.> 3IW Wti.. r,,.° sYzs^ s E • n f y I as 11' : 221A, > 1 • ao 1 1 111 > 111 m ', It' l 4 r' 6 °€ 2 * I I I I I I c G 3 i• moo. m ex I- WIZ a ( O- }}}{ 1l11 II- 0 1111 I[ I f L r IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 z W r 1 1 I 69996699999669999909999009969999969999999699P120,51151 29_ K• ser- DibNi04_ Des4002_ CDSD11 C3. 00 Ut1MAw9. C3A1 WryPeeb Lop44. 742720168: 40. 54 MARCH N Deed El 00. 00 4 4240YWw+). 1' 1 I I It1 1 F. s.;' II1 I i Y I I t 0, z 1 1 a I ezz N m^ I I a II I t r, i 1,\ 1n1\ I i I p g p 7Y UNE- I.\::,-):: 1. 11--- pK w ti N m...-..--...... o . P < - r --- N• ., I V 1• 0'• . ua r++ vary — ua ..+ r+•-- r+. a. uauwa_. aau. a... u... .. 0+.- a.. u.. a.. u....... 0 , •_ .. i lit-" 417".-:-.,., 27412.; P— • = I - assuu. aa. a... u.. a• aa.. a auaa..+......... m. s.. aa.. v. u........... 1 I 1' II P • i o x c Z 1' 7RS i I I 7 I I Y r— r Y /..— - E ::: T:— JT: T—+ if1 . A • • i. g • 1 Y— I I, 1 Y 1 m_ 2 t 1 , 1 I i0gn I° ' Y-_ 1111 R, 9 I fi r J ii °$ s o o JiJ i 11 i e°,. r-- c- u— u u u u u— u J i \_', a. a. o S / s s s / s / s , s s s s , / , / O , s / s . © O . s s s s s / „ . , / , s / s , .• 1. 1. 2015l15. 122Jwwoleurotwlv+ 02_ wMhou. ca. at LMMi. v do Ew. i. 7n7aO1 6: 4119 MARCH u Dud El MOO 421: 01noll. 1 I v I I III II : • 6., ' 21 I _ 1 _ I', LINE 01 e t1 21 t I Ii i II p i N s, Q 11 1 Ili i ill 9,.. ftli : I I m,: 4 , Il I I i 4 o C I I '' g2 Tw i I` U, I i 1 u 111 a—.— rr a E .. .. i.' RI a I I Itl: Iii 1 r= i I 1` T P I lil s g0 \( t a 6% r 5- O 0IY a.£. a- a 015 J d A yt\\\ l i, z- PAZ •/ C Iti g a1 - Ate ' t II 1 W a 1 < < s ox , 1! i i 4. 1 \ • I \ _ i CJI a I 1' S( q I 1 0 k a \ II 1._.- II p S N., 8t a 1 . 1, L I r I I. • o, I 1 111, SW,. I I li d t U gig m \ I Tri. ir....-- 4 \ t 4 C I .. \ 1 Y\ \' a-- 1 i° i ieM v I II A iF a. /\) „ — . «. T1+ % 1 " ,_\ rJLi:°: 11 s r. r - ' g K' m L J i p .', 1. o42Y - 1. R.. iof 2 a n 41 '-, . 1 4 aawY+• 0, Z l ti- ' i...._ ____ s, 7- 7,,.._,...‘ T ik' N•\ i . - A 010';' 1. 2".‘......... 7 x. 21 o LLin ' v,§• I 6 of Kw 1• s, 8-~ _ r• l. I• YL. r;_ Nn a• G- = z 1 11 vvt ao V< yt I n 4 I o 2- x 1 . 7\,' 0 I a; 1 I I c '' I I ' II m a I I 11t' \ i A j I . PROPERTY LINE I 1', t j I I i 1 I 0 I 1 ' y 1 11; 1 1 . 2I 1 2, • 9 . t5 ,, 6688615 55, . J,„— m4g ! g' R k o S nnnnnnf iii a c n Ai Q . IR 8 = 3 a i S m r srX''' ;; gta , g PR-, R o; R° wmm. 1•,^ m P aax i. . a.. g A. 9 ?^ ', 2g N R * a" I G) 6 p EsY4 So € YY - SO° KKYXNYPXWkKm55m5Q P. 5 op-L. CI 0: A g`- ,- gA 9 ATE g ogg 1 i I 11 li N NH A° InQ G 000000 A .*> i° 8® I I I 1 1 $ 1 I A 811 g Purr rr. s I f @ e " 6 tNECGiCEIa6sN$$ - e a Y a 2 R 50 °"€ s I i I 11 11 Chi a T-- 7 ? 0 € iii i 3 Do 5 CEL c0 l I_ Off ' x I MT = ZCOZ 1111 ' r- 31 ! I :.. i rsi" J 0 611§, DZg' n I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I1 C z z Ft W D I' y Q 0 Z L gyp` I N I 000 • • • Ci00 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . c...„. 3. 00,.. y....... 03 UIfry. P. dO LLDse. 7R7R0116 641 a PMARCI1 At Deed ET 00. 00 a 400Inches t I I I I I II l I 11 1 I 1 I 4 ti um I 1 Y4r . A rw. H N wp I I P f« f4 2 4V r, g E, w: 1; Y g o uS g O PROPERTY UNE i- - N vl V m w 0 1 c• p I .• L----- 1----,,..,----. ---- -''''''- - ------- — -- --.,..-.. 111....- „---__- .--__„-- -- soL,_ 75-_-,---=_ !. __ -__„ 1, 1__ . I u P POOwy vV 4 L2 a— A o d J` Q F — " Y o s® I.... — u I I) e., 5- 0010 I J. S Dw0 u e4!• S 0010 u Y u Y 1 lr S- Op1 I», r, 5- 000 fl f I 0S It 1 _ s—_. s ; A i 4- T2 f- 3—. 3 1 A i w ., T xY f I i li Y Y Y a in 1' of I• 1' r . w i 0 v • L w s Y US. 0 H It ki 2---- I fits i. I ro I poo pl I i I J: I j. xr8u _ R 4 I I QP... w w 1 O p I L I g= z el d Y a Fl c - C o I 3 YkkYa iI fd r r c I s 9eo9 u. YV 15* FIRE f. OR ALIT 1 `._ i___: Y.. wv x x c 9 I EnsEME LT. TW-• fi r C f 0 G i I r U IS Ip 5. 0010 Ib/. S• n010 SW 40010 i II3 o { S I c O L . 1 L I r I I z2a m YMC Y v i o Li gp i g, G.: 3 P Uw 4r; qN T s s"•- kl 1 t. sir 5 LI Nry d I I © _ J sC — 7 c t__ Ovvl I I ri i. . I i ee. r, Y0010 W I I• 7 r 1 I--- — 9 0 I I rI I g I s I C i• m I '- Immo Y t 2• 4 a_ I r YYY C I I : 7111t; Y Is I ea 5_ o 11111-----. •. t 5_ 0000 1. 6, 1-. f_ 0005 I I i`^ I o O i sxi. s- a n i IIIIIIE 1 I _ - _ or o wr . P kt I al ar t o I o w r I'. II • w. laor._. ^. — .. s. wos r: srlI seoO L P A s. N Q I r 7 c- I i 08 I I < 2^ n • I z I I I g Q I r g 2 I li m 11 f I r 4 l n f i I s s H S I I . HE 03. 04 I s < . IIII o7; 1Zw7OI. rN_ o w w. n. l. r • i ii EA SQl rg S $ w m a$$ l f a s 21 n A R ^ 1 A a s g- V ` p a ii oIq n R R R5i t ` l L yy o Y, i ii i i' o 5.. 5 5 5. 55 xW : 5.= 5 i 5 tts6s Rs4w_ t* D x s g - Q, g tix b v c 1 F. 11 at y Ye"" 6000000' 6' 6' oo o 0 X 2$ > a AP = R y xg" e ' A* $ NN NM ti wwww -~ N; w;; Y ww a ; P z 0988ccoo m$.= 8© I - iI I I I } 1 1 g t sit at ig6 18 1 l I III II V C C C CD 07 L-,-, cu_ 1` Ya zO P19 ' O om 3 n I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4; g z wa W Z I;': , I - I may t p I I I I I I 1 II , v . . , CB . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . - 1512015\ 15129_ O5w_ Duo1n' 411_ EloPeit CD490Rp. 661Mry. 0.' 6, C3. 04 UINy WOI. tra[, 72720116MOOf6URCR u OMod El p0. 012 it 4210Inch 11. 1 I I I I tNATCHI. IN .- SEE C3 03 1 I Go C•i p .. Ca 8 0 Ca 14,- 2 1.!!: 1 1 u r 5\ U 61° 4 g isss= 9 T.- r, I I 5\ 2"_ 15 N I 3 Y , \ I j u II I I I Airs oN C - r" , , Ps \ ,© 2 1 ”.' F.; li I j rgs g w g s a nermi 1 I wr sama gar s- omo 1 ms r • MN 1 m Y4X N II 2 4 1158 lu 4A I r j i; ' I 1 1=--. -._ l © r 9 I., I . as sao, o 1, I I yH li L. i o w` yS 3 k A 5\ i. a 2 I, s IF qN tT. S F > mN L- Sv Wiz. OW.$- aom w s- ao a n1. s- aoio J V N + 2- K7 i. s- a. on A E r 1 0 YA Ya I a$ II 1 1 Voss- i, m,» w . i ..... _ ,,,,.... J' L 1 E• s I a4 II s 0 ., , 1 1, I A . .,_ . ,..- ---." -" --* N.. VS '`, LL 1 1. .. \ • )\''--- . • Li 3. o 1 111 I <. s Sm i g Y H v I M I ( zi-- 7- E T , YY,- c S$ Lf: L s 4RA m I I 7,!:= I v I ao15rtlr- L_ J A A g s 4 I 1 ,Im 1 0 IN i 1 G 7. Q Q QZ A FEi• iR WP'^ asr... mMiw' 4* Za. a.. P.,.. . 1 S ` \ c^ N' u^>^ QAR! AEn= q g ; Fagg€ = g 8 i ! i ! bi! Ii fi r.' n y a aia Y a g S 0 2 0 S m z i p a sSm, 1 Q a i ' $ i ' - 1; y 5\ R 2, II 4 g a 8, 999° I94P P* 3 1 n 3 i 2 :, i' 8 s . ,. l ? D s= 4 ati aaa 5\ 4 n C r - A 0w22 2° Y` N i Y R V cx' eat astgs °: ws aws $ el g 7 4 S F F A g; i, 1 2 ; 1 P„ m PPPw - ti III Yp >~ 4 8 9, tst e• wop a41 1 I i 1 I I I• y7- p 13 o 0 0 00440lt® .' WI I I I III ' I I y ' a' ar ii eb a wsCNis ae N a -' I I 6 a 12 a • 1 I r-- T---, ! o0 1 1 l i in 3 oco 0. I 1 11! 11 -! F'!'. , J 7 lip. f lT1 l' il§ n nrIII'; I 1 4 y0 c cpi,. z 1 y IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIQ s „ d m ill o J moo` m 1 I I I I I SOSSOSS11118111111111111SOCIOSSIDSOOSSOOSSSOISOOOSOSSO9%150 6. 129- 1( ame aanM_ Deegro COESDRUAO D. I. Y4wp. G 00 See Dee6 Pa Lop, yr66. 43: 49 MARCH h• deed E,( 30. 00 x 42. 0° Yrlae), l 1 1 _ I I I I 1 opg 0 91 rvrI ti 4 Z$ 7 8 p Ec$ A w o y 4 F ; Y OS : e K tig 4 Of R q p " A N8 , 6' to2• j•. I n C I 4wQ f 4 N iii g iti: I '' q i'" Alf ci, sR M. f I 4 ll' x 0 s s3 3,, 0 Tit o• • tI . 4 . i 4> q e e 7 b s s o 6 . ` y • ^ i 11: w j.. i'• gd , ti. 1 =, g I i, s 0. a• o f, ti, pb. r• i,/ l p I— III : a ^, a^ a a w 0• 11, 000 III . g., m o Art N4— St) ball U t SZ o i P 0. 2 9 0 . . c- p-. >. 44! if° ip : k li flE n ; R a R$ I a = a N€. b j 9 Q fP>= 2° R 8c p 04Y, l cn VARI¢ PER a 2q• mN1S 4 T. O 5` ; a€ g iy> n, S Z Cu rtin LP EEEV bi LEN AN VMtS p t 8?• 21; A °> i wZS a d ( 01 YAM) _ { PER PUW Pa 1111 O R9oPm = V: 5. i ! ii 1,. 0 1r8 r, I F< e 9 ix g — j_ S Ana f . N i G14i+' 1' ' Ij$ I ,. 0.R. I psi a F 1_ " R s sas q x a .• ` bg rb " ` tom, t 8A R0. Q\ F 0 F 11- iiii RSAs e 4 O M 100410P 2" 7t-. A 88 b my d07. i! i PM141 NI I. 6p, , g . r, i E 9 5Q Q H n .. ii Or= 111 ` 7 cp, z.. oibn$ kR R z^ c> Y d'"$ TII k Se x 1111 — ` fr t 2 4 li ` ITI A i 1' 1j N Cl"-- In -- 84 5 // 8 884 Bi _ I 9 III— 4' v o 45 a (- 1 9 _ 1 1 ° Q Vo, 3 s It ' 1, 98 III 1 ,. IX'/% <. aar R I — 4 0 ° p 3e F. ,• Aoi,'. II 3 a Bat OP R tZ/ is 3 r o o w 27, s W '! t t' V I ngA g 10,, kisMs‘ 3R14 1- 1 C ens j y• ,, : 1 53 i ti 4! 4ir i_ SG fd w cNcc 0 0 i r __ _ _. ,. 0 8 o25 II iQJ r L tttf: m n cn ; c - IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII , If A z m I,. I ni' O y 3 o i m 00 • • • • © 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • P62016616129 Knuar_ D, dnO4_ DeapAO2 CC' SDR U. 00 OMWIAWp, GA1 SNOW& Pablo lope,/ 2720166 44: 13 MI ARCH All OIe. tl El I30X0 K42 0011Achesj. 1 1 I I I I. O R o a K IN lb a a' g A' X44 n s sX Ya L t. es uax _ P r D c $ T. Sx b YY yy 3 1 m ua ; tA•', b 3 y: ' t Yin r 0 No F7 p. SIDEWALK Ica _ i I E jmg y I m t> I Ii i q IF CROSSWALK IF PROVIDED av pJt. i " X tix II m g I 1 ± 4 p p I 4xM 4 1 T. SX RIO - T iX a" I. SX Nu 1 - o ` J- 1. 5% x 1l 111K/, 1 YPR .. ff L x a. Se a I,IiILWW X D p tiC m I= nm. fr T5 3..... ` aR P PLANTINGAREA CRO65NALK If PROVIDED I 1 e Yin — aim Y° K t. sr% i 1 IN 2 i ^ 9R_ g Ap sX Ud ` o m w r - I u q I€ E a« NI iI±;:: D T. SXY x ! i v. r Y` sx• TAT m Cm" 5 ago' Y f' liaa ut la i g. V ; f gi VW; 0 R a a ii?' lii . g 9a° ao . , Zia" oa° peI.. a In X s'' io8 gab . Rya g gxog' .„ $^ -° $ 38 w 2a ` Agl R$ m oy o o v g (• b i' o = G gl5AP 5 . 1 il% 20 oI • 1" 1ii Vii"!°AI p 1 1. 0 n of W 1 ! $ 3 0' = R. o 9. 7" 30- $ o °--° o' 1° . S oo.. ` 42 oo Z of a, 6_ f 4, 0 ; PI ° er•. id - ! , o °' 4 n• :. z n g n ° 0 2 qa> -. eg R q . s 10 dS -; Ri ' ao oal " o ai 1 I:: W 0 3 , ° o o O S 4>? P- 8 0•= p:' S gg Y, oo" o " o 1; 83• > _ t i a& 3 I. Ya - !,.`.: ii 4,A a$ ^ g3 ga - a €— . s z F Aa o it ! r o Q °. g S 3; 9 • a- - 7° - o3 ,, aoo e a Fti"\ t' • 4At 1 . F z n z W is.' hp $ o -. n ' ea 1,,„ ci R x o III g ao . ; S s; s. pg flc cn n N ns 3 Til a 3 ; = a rasa R Fir! a $ o ^ oa s. R v e•; g s-. 1 a:• S oK _ o ° j q°> S a ax a V881/ dSEI NVId OUVONVIS O3SIA3l1 SIOZ i i p M I i 3 JV Dr 0. r . 2. 9. 2 _ 0 v., D lilt 1111 0)," I H. i; 0 A = x I cn I I IgI I I I I I I I I I I I 40, g z Z DO rn m 1 Y\ t01511N2e- Kaaer_ Udnla Desg1O2- COMP G. 00 Dealt Op. G At Darer Devb. P+ do Low, 7/ 27/ 201664431 MARCH U EbM El 30. 00 a12. O 140041 I I I I Os p pp V i E 0 iePG !, I' I F a T R l m i 1 A rn I A I4g i r-. iq RA •. G A I P 1S A AF- gi! yi WRa d gr L i mdi:i A 0g - 1---` W . .: 1 a lfr m I( 11C3 J a" i I` l- Ill. g LiMAL' sl; 1A5 3R Ek II HI I • X1;/ 0 8 1 I R AI gN AA ag aQ r rII j! i ril b£ XliAgqeAl; i> A P PI # i 4g! R y i- Ii= so gliA s A I f yo a i 2Hg ! i ! I y ; a r A. i i la A g 0A. PIC aA 1' f p^ 4 1 1 I 1 S R s_ x g 3 1i 1g2x2 F>• ! A ..$ g 2 c A itA t: 4 IFila¢ i g- 1 I ILLI1` . b. saAwsA _ 8 p SRI gR 2 V. i at 1 A 1 . 41-- , ii! Jj a8 pI rr 1 J 7— _ L. I_- JL y- o p § ! % . Is - r - S . ;'. 4 ' I' 1 1 1 .) [ ob 1° I-- s q ! 1 1' 1 I 11 ' a t 2, i A§ ? Q , 4p E i ` 4b C r1cLIi:• i• 1J Y V- i 11 1 O d : , - i API J 1R1• f : I i 3' I! as a aabe I r1 5111; r 5 0 1 l[ 51$ n ii 4 oc A k R j? 1 7. a : A 1 4g1 i. 0 2 ti••'" 1 8 V " i I WA, r` fig f[` T 0 - A I EE// by , 0 o Tili R 4 n. ie Al*= 111- 1111 t.i./ 17' ' 3,.,/.;/ T., 9 tom' m 41= 111---.TIE 12 a NO 1.)' 1 A 14 1 3` ml q= y is = III= 111- 11 a9 A 161 1E4E] Il s s• ae= dry ". i1= 1 1 avkggvii\ s work= 1 111111= 3 gt Limo 1i 1i 1 R 4 II= III= T _ g i Vii' - F7Q I i [ I Q A4 > a I Jli— ills Asa IT t i i' i, 3' 11- 4iF111-.. 1 m- f Si aA 4 0 • __ ' III-- 1 I I zS 6 kii .. i 1 M I 111_ . R GAS 21 0.%:%-; g- > g w LII I— i 4 ` s$ = i X04. 0- 1 1p1: ; g 86i ls• lo11 III— IIF- N R A> op,. IF II— 11- 1111 ` R so a4 o w- 1111-,, a IJilW i \ N a. mNm U I$ im§ 6a E N- A9of r 10 F C O I g 9. o I i T Vli E' O x e Y N y S wa In 111 b O l l lf d m I A I o - O Pi m N s N Ys rn o • • • • ® o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 14. 12075115. 129 N. w_ Dudn1M_ OYpt02 COAeoR SA. 00004814. 044CA 03° ramp Deals Raba Loper.. m7r2016 8 44 57 PIAAROI kibMCEl OO42 k. dlaM 1 I I I r O ir IS 0 MeM iiiJjI&: l I a I moo R A2 2 ; s °% 1 $ 21 \,/ , 2 1 is i I • ,® ui MO = 0: 341141, 5 2' q!' , i0 W 1 0 % LZ* 1>' s, Ail!- IN w , o, -- 5 , c, --- 1 Pi gs, itly 1 . 71. 1i' 4: IF p ii P Fit € P 4 gb 11. lit k g o r", e• YM... ICI 1=' i'. s Ba a Fit ^ 8 0 laQ 4 iTI, . 64 a rW U,_ O ' 8 r y- e s. RZ awEU a y." 10 NE gip= 1L; g a a II _ I I- _. A y $ i 0 0 to O ft 8t 1 o. o o e G c: o i ...: r az 4044- 1--- 1-- pq g ilq-' § i vw i nri m w B f ' o 0 ! igiA ill $ A` 1 o yE 8290 V aA 02 91 k14$ p 52 P.. a` 2 Zr n amp ° a Z s 29 2 o a11. 412A A' x W§ N Z,,, a t.FtM g s a m_ 43& a r- 1:; 6; i Al 2 q k p i i IA R E4 9 $- o 1 d° r, R a q II4, o ai a = pXt. a B a _.<° € II 1 YN. COVERERFR S 53 i OS. k ' i, it y y JIIIIHIHIIIIIL M gg DZgD c IIII 12111 Om I LE to n O y 11. 11 I I I II II • • • • • • • • • • • • • 000 • • • • • © • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I r120+ 611642 *. JM O NNip102SCAsoa 400DsU*. aeC4. 04 onrupData/. P, b17 7872016 64517 MARCH hi tend El mo° 612. 60 incn. 01 1 I I I 9 i O PA a g r x g a a a a ' ? a s o Z TQ 8 r 21A ib S b l i 8 S e F. ER m N: P-, F T. 5 0R 1 > N nA III b QF w X k o ,. rt f/ 7 W' l p aTq 1, 4: 04,, aa w i NI`f) a z i re Ir' C n x 1 P t S > q . m - o° P w 2 IA 4 t' Ohs i 9 s $ $ ? g do, ' '. osgdp ; p° gs 5Yi imiwg, A ilip, 111k,V7.•..: 71/ At '‘.,\\ i-•', 1 0 t i der! CIIr Il ri t ') ;ill= g;. POE 1 rco 4 so Ag t,; ru; 5E( 55 BEA 4./.-- I 1' ., 9,. ! - N Qy-. ISC{ 1 It i iT gE,t aD 4 Q q! I1Rs! b1'® gyItIPP1 jj I I ' a 8•— F 8 2 of a Q g Ib ,, 11I tAf i $ ii!' r aN $ I 4! F v I E li i 3 aw= }..„. :, LiEjIuI! L' li: go 671 Z c imo 1 P I IIm Oy 1111 m I N m i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • o • • • • o © • • • • • • • • • • • • i P 12015NS129_ N4Nr_ OItlI11M_ ENMgVO2 CESEIR GAO DMEY4gG- 033310430sfatio LOpeer27, 2016 E. 45: 37 PNARCH AA OM El( 3CA0 x 4200 YM4A). 1. 1 I I I I 1 O _ P a P', PV• YN, y m sg Sao4 . AA' P lAp g g. 0 A. r74% spa ix[ volt 2) A , BEDCINC W. I. 01P- 91 , Okt All" P .., g2a R ( SEE NOM 5; rta I 1 E WE v \ mQQF Sri QQA 8 8 _ 91 yC n isttuNts t L' y' pg i im15 ! ; Ti., 1 \ il Ar A s pzF vg 3 AM Vg 4 ig g vg 0n O P R p PP .. my,! PN 7qq. z Z eft ao< 411aill ilnik c... . 7, ... s AA 5.... P. S. A. IA ... - z A a -. RS° f' gN S o F R IB c A AOp EEN5On-" SLEEVE Wet Ng c Y 48 -. 84!". 810- p a fx DEPTH Q., T8IFAN 0 9 x== ECECDS AM$ CC-. 0P_ rwhm em m af F 1 Mi Ill liI F I o O m 4 a€ A,., ARtx,.- gO Ili oA El p6 8 g .., ° gFm ea. $ 8 g i°' T•= a o° om SS 8 0" $ ° P £ y 3 8 e % z4 1n n CI: g e A ; A A; 1414 a+ Q a ' g el v, C „ A 0 o c„ g g f AP 23 o 8 g Z P ' 3 m yV A O • 813DI SOWRNIS M71\ 01h\ A CE.( Ali( 4 Hai: Aa t I 1 133W0 51410M fIB, Mp odd MOO ,.„ 1r,., t e,, ttM 1 777 aNO 9W[ Y t YHIl 10f 130 ` 46 L C • rar nos m, a mss ql S' IUflLW 20d SNOLLVJO1 Q1iVONVIS 4, S; g tiPS ri I oltAi... 4, N, N tPaEAC[ 1 ro wai^ ' A a I 1 q 1 kil .., R Ai i iti, I 1 - A ti ,, Ilih i,.., 1: v 1 1 1 8 41 s LL ss; 6: i Ag 5# a .. iI.',! 1QA • . .. a • . • Fi m Z ooA ,,, ii r i Ili to 8 C b a L I• L e . 9 4 1 2 A. of, es tilts a o L L • C e a y eggs I ••;^ m : gig i' l 2 z,, 2- 8 1,4 g. os O S er A § F8' Jx',' Orr I11 O r i/ i 7j p G./ Ti P K • b a e a . czi gq w ga O o JJ p. 4 o.. . 34;. f n o 11,( No $ ztiF a g 8 f I> A R w " 4 ' ' I I ; b L4 0 E;Fp S t I.., l b n x ; n at . T1 < 4 O Z m s I • i R .. ``, j.-. 7 iil C t ' q is 8.': o c' . sf III r I; z ; ... n Y. F A 11+ IIF° 1 a I t 0 1 , — ___;„,, --.:' ? 0° 1 ! i lAw = Il I 11 7; llll. , f I 0 IIIIII IIIIIIIIII I / Ig?„ d f. m z mrn cs • • • • o ® o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PA2015'. 15. 120_ Kaaer_ OW1160+ Deu9n102_ CU' SOR AOO DeMYAwg, G. 06 LR/ ry DeYb.. PaMe Lopez. 7RIR010 645: 57 PMARC111J bleed El( 00. 00 a 42. 00 ICy41. 1. 1 i I I I I I a, OO• O O 0 L t~ 7 a c F in O LA O 916• 111• CCL1 ^' i 42, A r FF- r 5:, smITR5 I II Agi G /;• i! 11--°IaEuN. 5 : ' n 1r$ 1 1. # (::: 44$ V a , ge0;" gc c i1t! ill gg x F. Ill l' A $ P wren( 1w) - Ya 2>° gg sti8 r° m°° m> I b 7 Li 8 , ig' di„ w; as I u: _ 11" ;!! ; ev ^ 4_ eflo g; T e 6 i'; g; a o g "° t co QB b > S v a hi g aYO. W., z c A ry, pn^ p mil - FF..:-- m , Z4r( ? g1 _> a € C i, O NZ n L- y Z 1II tt. F 1_ Mg.!!! me ` Z v p y - 1 I141I 4 Q__ gtt g Fg - g '< R., Y ,' l lg a L ° i a , r..., F M 0 7 b2 y 8 lift. th se tE2I CP fiT 1 Fl 1 Q- AC • Fsm Rt A g > m, I z Ilk AAt ° 0 $,‘ 0 tkiiirdifil I ry PI r 8 7 g R F 7rE d nor 1 YAc i wrw , 1E I i; 1E* * i- Q 1$ 3* MN Q AR a 8 i S n" 6 i 7S W 0 R 4 YYY4R G 7 g 1 Q$ a$ S n b$ b A a; S A b x P O I q O ie 's8 Fs ; Jh - N M Q' mEx Q iT 6• YM. 6' MN. QR y . 4'- v v. j01 g° T __ (] 0N) S FRpQ114 i Q j y. 1pful m 7 elg 43 Og i 0 0 . . . . . . , . . . . . . . / . . . . P12015k15129_ harses_ Dto.' OI_ 0I61POR_ ONele. 6w. G. 07 Utley Dew1011H6 Laps= 1727Q0166: t6: t6 MARCH SA teed E1( 30A0' 42. 0101040. 1: 1 I I I g so O EXTENSIONS m a ° A E x ri 56. 06 m 42. 00- 1300'- s J JJ MN 3% 719. CI 7 l O I' MN. 111- 1— 11 0 o z a . ID z rn r 0 0 . R G ao.,.. o O Z O O I.. d POP MUM N CO' El R b i 5 C O X 1° 1 10. 00 10. 03' 6. 1. 3- sS0' 600• A xBL0 Ill Ill is I. J, O rn 1P h IIIP rn $ $ a i O K i I 1-- 1 ONO •° ' t1 •. m O r ap $ 1y6 @@662 W 0, A O N W A r- RX a ' X J^^ CIR N ' 0 m 0 x x 11 N A Lo ea iFie a y•$. q A qq a m 3 E. m l4 g4? 4 a s_"< W3 7 7C 0, P o ' m -' o' 3 3 s ar- o a a 0 o b n 7, 36 00' PG& E ASSEMBLY CODES LQ 26. 00• n I 2 Y ° S Y Y > m W! O III II J II, ob S y ID F 1 o t1 a S as a I I I= 1 I s. Pi A A A § 11 z n a a DI I 0 04- 3361 3x5 X 42 50701 G a 11— 11161 3 - 04. 3588 3X5 x 54• 60001 a ' rn C Z -- 02- 5604 Inddental AL SPUCE 5001 C o. p - Lll— a! pi rn1 8 02. 5603 Incidental AL TRANSFORMER 500$ 3 f S 1— I _ 1; 1-A l i6 04- 1614 HFT CONCRETE TRANSFORMER 18109 l) 1' ( I, I I N 04- 1616 HFT CONCRETE EQUIPMENT 1810$ 4-._ ': a. o M i i Rpp3V 04- 3362 Extension, 12' Depth 970$ 2 I 0 • 1 I Rb p a t j— I AAA 04. 3531 Extension, Za• Depth 19401 iF * it iF iE iF n 11 a 11= 11 ill . 1 03 v F'" X' 0 2 xP xP t a s a a a n A d B V 0 o @ m c n C " N N 3 3 o,0In m • vm D 0 I- mD•..: I O< C C pm - o 3 r- 0 , ,,, l 61 v3Z b s l m m I I w Z z o> o I 0 N m= 0a) yc rn i4 m N m o GGG $ z is _ o a t ___. ,, I ; 1. 011 1i 1 v a o w fs I aIltaa,, Ite° M i 9 z 4-.. 11, 4: AP. I 11 x "--" I I 6 U n a os. j P .? 0. 63 3 A d x m 1 § ‘ f., D ( II E! L fiitl r 1 y 1 I O 111 y yC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II ax WE c. t% II,‘;' M o G 3 199 v x° 7c v+ PxlP-' `)':. f, 3Z g m z IT I S S , • • • • • / „ S , S S S S . S S , S S . / . • , S S . , S . S • , S P. 1015115. 129_ Naar_ Da* E14_ DeepPO2_ COSOR CA 00 Oelad44xp. C4. G8 Bondary Se4bwµ. Pabb LdpaR7, 227I20188. E33 PU RCHE Mood E1; 300314 42. 08 Ytlw) 11 I I I I I U S v o v w, 10p}. POC•; 1E- 342. 09 1 10. 17141I II 7. 25 I 24- SANITARY SEER IExISTNC) 1.. X'X ti g k k ., P I 1 8 g" 1 I s 1 01 g 10+ 18. 31 1 I w I1 1 I( D CI V 11 1 lip ri , .. 7. 84 48 no G i a 1 iF p : j" 0 x O' I E r,, 30 o t ' 13s3 I I n N' a 1- 13 o r., O i o C) I o l, 7 p I x g1&) 1 g t e 1 E 8 fJ /) I c o 7,. Cn fk o 0 pH God z O CI O r o z 2" r o, F14 z 4 I 4x I XI 1 y 1 1- 1J- 1 I I I 1 0- N-- I T 1 1 1 1 II I' U^ KAR 11 I 1.-- l I 1 Y g. m k N M 8 m ^ o z u o v U o 1-- o o ao U a poC 6 iE-. 114. i7 o fl Ig ci 10+ 00 JO Pi ra b 12 20. F 1.• - NA xi IN 1 gI 8 10., 5. 57 _ o ' E y I s, r r s I1 m tin 8. 2724 o rn 0 1 A Y 800 l I O 0 is,< rn I l 1 c n 0 8x : I 9 o . 0( y` ,. E U ED 1 G 1{ E G g' V Y fA 1 2& 8 10. 89 45 1 v a IV C/.{) C) O Oo 1 $ O 101+ 1 n N + J IS I P, 7 1/ i 1 c z 1 tT1 E O c w I 1 I g o I og o I L,. tJ l 4 x 0 nCi7 I s,,. > s 23 zi P: 1 1 0: 1E rrrr/ a OR I 1 Ci7 H it t 1 s i IIlg vii v g > G s x g g s 44 co N 0Zm -"" 0 ' III x a a S oznz AO 8 WM flit O o o Wm Illit c ro z o g I 4: b w g C mn II; 7 y I s z A c V z p m 1 1 1 sssssssssssssssssss ssssvosssssssssssssssssss RID* 10/ 12/ 20159 25 38 AM Mho! I I Iy D1m aA m s Fi m A Ilk 0Q9yy 51 NS > m r• y A o n2 Z 1 i- AO 0 g z co KEEGAN STREET L —. 1 .. O D 0 x0_ ao 1 i 4, , I r . i l r m isi 2 i CD 4 E1 ig ..- at. ) a Ij / C ' 7 9 Z- I+ A r w YI Q LOCKHART STREET IFH s 6 4 E 4 a 8f z T F o c u m m y rn6 O I. o R 91 o x A cAi O m r9 p n o V S Z L Z wA i I 0 i a. _ A 3 cco O O PF ioaaT C= 00 o 0 p v+ m y ' E c zczc O Illllllllilllllill 0 z X CO Z C I I X) m I. i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • r • • • • P910189 10112/ 20159 25 95 AM / aim 00 r - - pm rj 1 f A pTpS , A z 0 2/ mZA 718 x8 Lf, u o y zI1 z Eco p r KEEGAN STREET 1 . . . 44 . r—"-- e r' 0 5a o D zp 0 W i na .. Nm 2/yyy n• w t,' O 1. Tax 0 vT k . 4- Z wk. b 14., m*' n ., 1' k jfl rz,„, Z o p c m e LOCKHART STREET l I . 1 mm 9 FX 1 f apn'' O O yA D OD N A SB a PI 19 g Au 7 i- 8 lk, S a CA a 9 S Omm O I 1 QQ 3 I 93N g D W Dco e,- E,- 701 NC3 Z O FRA G7 CO o 0 p N al r_ y y CO . go 1 2 z W z 00 z C_, IIIIHIIIlItIII I o a D/ A I I I 73 f` f 00 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Pd as 10/ 12/ 2016925 as AM arm I 1 1 r m n m In QCg n D n j z5z i• 0 D f/ 7 k C f1 m D k Ji ' O 1) S m g QJ J G. ' F I 3 L t r r L . . 5 y I mayy 7 r 4. ss ! yA F A 1 ' J g v O R I. F II I.. 3,* 4 FR pi- 1 Y r.); ,7, i v i D or AAC D Z r 22223 1 3 El, acc ,,,,` n2 m r 4 I i Z L fg m g Pi A 4 Z h 1 x f f 1::? ja x Z r r N e,. In. A I N Ale,: i,—. — y i Iii r 0 co i m . Or' ' 1 iii I a 9 1aEi' S CC o co Z O FFF 8 ' = I CO O W D VI T/ 73 o < C zcDoro G7 Q 8 - vnWnzall) g Doz N I I 77 a ssIs . s • • • a • • • • • • • • • • • • o • • • a • • • s . Os . ss • • • • . • PYl Deb. 10/ 12120159' 25 38 MA Maw I — I 1 I Z II t 1m Z iZ n . h ` I c IX Nm k i: i' , t m z T t;.;,.. Z I lis. 0, _ , ,.. ...: ,,' s- J a Z x I I - t; Ai 1y. I f: z I IIL cf. i101 1 A t. r - 04 To I g all K r' v 1 lz r c 5,. I s`. y'...,. .. 4 . . . r': Ili 04 , :: - 15 1. INN, 1 t. 2' it 5 SAL Y r ---_ 4.;: k11101,,, r It a F N Y t 1 4l t ` ti I , 1. [ . 14'. , Z' gff e.. Ii kL& r f fir1 0E 1n Z s x PP• L____ L. r Ili' am , m rte•! ` 1 • iia 4: 4.,' Li 1. 1 _ IL i 1 - '<: . ... L m i lfftlli III rt sr; id& 11 L; 9 E' 111 3 c pppppp 1 o cn^ cs IEl' i8T = I is M a, cn A r c S IIIIIIIIIII6 p n 70 Aoo nD N $ z° may 00 ° m O 1 1 m m FM DM 10/ 12/ 2015 9 25 38 AM MYm I 1 or:, 7,,) D k J O r ki. o p X t c:114f ' r 4 M x k 0 S+ j t 1. Z fii Nor .,; 244:':.' •- • 1 , , , p, . di? z l • • i * 11. U1 •-"' 0 0 7a. . 1„. 5,..•, rt,, t. • Ill r I 4. • y it Ft .; 1 a¢ .. i, is Ls;) 4*. . •, Ilk R Vii' di/ h z x 3 S. i 111 Y . 1 . 1. • .• 1 ill 1 4,, A N. irsif 0, 4. 1!''';-.' 4. ' " .: :'., ,, ,, Z; r I I r. y t ttit. by 1 y i ft : fry. , gip• !, ` r: y._ f'.' O^• f iii 11111 I t, C % N i t rn II+ T Y . . rf f r 1 i f r opt I A r f t • t 40 e 741rs' :. f r No 1 I. f 40. 1_ a cn J i r5&.. 13 8 T S C o h1 r.. O J FFF a_ 1E 0, co ° o to U: J 12 s o z C D o mrn Qy III I S A CC D nZ r o s,-,, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 70 4.. co D cn Z ma. M I I 73 I IIIIIIIIImillw 0s MU,, 101128015 9 25 38 AM Alta I C—) rZ 0 riti1101111111111. D i r n cnm O a z 5*,: w L.. fi• 44.‘,..,. 1,': O 1 . x`' 1, 1 i lj LIMIT CFN' ORK .' L .- (+ Y.. 1 4 ~ f 4 7. L ra: 1 i F- tea c 3 03 i pt 2-' _ oZ Op o m Z CO , ct 7i I_ i c c-) r— z- y D Co m C- p III o l l lll l ill I I v• 1 I l r y\/ i ° I i m aN N• Fa Drt• 101120015 0 25 38 PM Mho, I I Ex) co ci C • a m1c13 L. 1 , II a r+. C W., 0 . , _, Aderr 14* 1 tiodiply„, i I 4 tl3 Si 1; A Yjti ti I ... p c7 um r lT 1' S rte. P m i qi r m 2 cil / 11Y,'` t ` II:!• .{% .:. .. 0 HA In p C' Z T N'+ 2'' 88 y C y' 8s a y Tw mQ 6 < m4 av A 0 m _. \/ lJ Z CO N / A W m nD D0 2 f m D CO m C7 I I• ( t , m i O t D n 1 O 1.- t, 71111T, 0 D f i m n tf - W 13 ttL N. ow t y m mn 8O DG> O¢ T x. A N llo r A priP VTQ. r T N I C` b A pO I Q y V y Z N ti D if , ' Vii° 1 C Ir: 1: I ( ( (( ( ( ( 011 ,,, 9.-- C ( ( ( ( ( t ri 4 1 x its.. ., I t a 71 f 1N D N n• S N f i0 T y 1 T IA Ai m ey > ypS2 f OM illpoll C y f2`' Z9 Li S) y AW* T y)% FZAZO> A DNCn DSO m; r2 mZyDNN, Py x4 < D< r n( 1, u G12 m GG jAZ Q j S 2p mTUAA; Tr ZTFy Oy Om ` ZO Q VA ]. I 2RIny D O TD 95 n Ai. J 5m o o f1 z u% DmA f A ak T N $ T bi "' 2 8 D AO Y m mDi Z p n p W b O I j'' ; 81 C' Q F IF Jop ^ i7 co 0 Q co z 7) m 61 g z Z z 73 1r O 4 yZmz 13 z C - IIIIIIIIIIIfIIIIIIR 4. CO > D I CU co oz r^ m 0 s • • • • • • • s • • ss • • ss • • s • • • • • s • • • • • • s • Rd Oath 10/ 12/ 20159 25 38 AM Author I I I 1 I I 7 II 1 iik _" :..: [ ; t - r- r- c in KEEGAN STRET n I , ; i , it ( 11- 1 (_ iT( 1 11TT 1 __; li' as` ru. z i?; ' g pT' o< S. 1111111 6 tL- z 6._> C m- j a y 2 i a S.•:., n'. 7!% t...- iIJ - ... a. a i i I s.\ _ a" . 0` Vs` . M 4 1 0 a i I 4 tl I 1 4 Z 3 1 . ....: __... 1.,__ T i_ 7 i vim II• a a a z n i C k L i I''' . 11 ommD .. ‘ : I1 , ' , . . 1I 2 . A ., ti i t - _ 1 _ 4 rt.• A• LOCKHEART STRET i - Z Z 1 1' yy 1 - ""' ......;: m.' ce! C.. 1::... ........, I yC e I I I I I 1 111 I I I I I 1 I I 1 ' rte\\\\\., a \,,,,, \„ x.„ \\\\„,„ a\„,. t 5 I.• ~ j r-'• I 1T- r ', 2 A w # , z \..., ' t4 ii1 a 111 5 111111 i 1 f r I a 9I9 41I 5j pn' aN (- mO riit; tri mgiCZ > S V K. A DCm D 2 g c r ; aN'< J ZC X f. x 413 nr rhh Aa'+ v• nv y vm z A 2 41 C y T ZS y Z Y c 4j: 13 > CtC7l 6i AD T;< in as NNNDTIff a m 9 ilk\*' 111°: sm vr c c tnPHP 5sm DUD TmrF r m1 vm m mZ mxzm zg A m > 560-( 5. m m'^ a- 3m 4 u) mm: a yrn2 p. cmVr' z 8 a ccV15 mtai41 ty5 < F LSm 5 m me c e I N° < A m y T 7^ m 171 6 l\\ U U U rrr r r r r r tktkt° ki wv. amam w na 4. 1ngn4i "; it,. 88888 888822 8 yN28888 8 8088888m 8 888882 a% WQ 444• 9 o. J• • i , u w Q k k 4 0 LAdc L J iN h• J4nj r.= b 4-' HLi 4 H C1 ' 4, 7';-' 414, 1 GGGnG 6 z r r r r rrr m-; rrr ; AViVi ' iVi° fig ' i ? 8283? 28 ?????? ilzzg 824?$ i ; g m m m m Cl) E J '' 4 In lUEPa 0 N D i F 2 o Z00CC s czi yp s 9 o DCnz CF IIIIIIIIIIHIHHI zmn - OD o z O m I I I x m Mt k 119 • 1199999999999999 • 911091100911119911999999999999 FictCa. low/ 7015 9 25 38 NA Pads I I I I I RV2pO N G I 9 m D C 4 g I 19 ill 1 , . 0 I 4 i T S Y i n N p- 4 Z J 1 . 1..": 11-. 1 2T, KEEGAN STRET L r r m c 4 11 cn II 0 m i ., c„,)..,( 72., c yl D m/ I i C O1 4 17:* il H' . : _ rio ; I:" i / WI 4 i 0;4 \03 \ l LI : L: EE- zo z I C-- 4. C m I I_ _ _ _ .. . .. III, iik,,,'-- ' k , s f1 ;__ . r — .-- ... e.- 71 j_.- . i « a a. r . 111,..._ . 1., ., IIL_, _: i111: 1 o` LOCKHEART STRET P j. Y Y r V T J I i r, I 1 I I 1 N N IA. i• -:- g L- S p Z o a m g Og Ps; g o n D N H D yD CnJ44> n m V n D> m LODb p•; T ; 1. 1F46 ; 8 z R a+ tt>55 p^ K• A L 11A!, 11. g 0 4 , 5.•, m1 m i Z 0. ill 0 411(.: ) y a y > s m m Q w 4U o W N N M 5y m Z ? 3 D y s g 8 444QUvi HIlilii$M So f' 3 co t s ee fa° 9 F Q 79Q S OZ X71 e ) C 2 . › co z C C y lI IHIIl r Z co. 2 y g , Q I m rn < a o a' ° m X I Zr mwmommwe Pd Ow. 10112/ 2016 9 25 38 AM Author I 1 r R D H t : I1; v o y m N i J r I D f A DZ 1 t 4 1 L3 I li 9 Ox) f 1 5-• 1-. z m KEEGAN STRET jLj = 41 O- 4( 0 _ y 11( V,, 40.., 7.- tf) I 1 i 11__... :.:,,_ -. 7:: ._._.- : 1_ 1 4::._.., . 1, ri• 01• 0 A ir 2 D •- y 4- gt LI._ ,. ti ________...,,:..., i,,,,, 4. „. 1, 4, L. m i i . i '', L ... I. OPP 7:-. ' ''''• 1 1. ‘. tr) LOCKHEART STRET f l . ' La ; ' , i I 1 11 ' 1' - --.- - ... . ---/ I 1----\ 1/ N ' 1 , r r , - rti r i L_ Q5 I A l Vhf g 3S n Z 7 x V D Y Etppn,, yyT,y,yFnnSA O a gg C Z S 3 0 A T r 1 pg> xZy > z m A N A s l; Dfn u a ; d r. eQoGln ova o Q' ADmgImgm y-. 9 Q m r," 7e_& om1 ri il ; 5 ; ii' ll' 1)(-..\) DN D D>> H Y y m m 7 K D r<77 R y > R¢ b u y n aaao g Q y ii, ro' s co rn m g co y g co . 0 c, y ' m A cW o s nZ I A W I y o I co < m D o oz m 7) ._-_ s s . © © . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . j PH Oda 10' 1212015 9 25 38 AM htiv -. I• 1), vi, a '' s ,'' 4, , ,-.. crs s. 1*. '' A C3 .,' i l CD Q 17. 3 r s 3 CD o N co r a 3 ,.„,,, t, . A' ...,.... 4.. r:,,.; ... ( D 174., 1._ '- mot Tr' d . X m r R t I I i 4 . '...?,'-..,,,,,-, . ii„, 1!- I I i 1 , Isper_ ramil o J R f" r--'; i . ,, s r I 41L. n L 6Y r I r — ;, 12 q- ! Jr ' NrY-- r' y N S 0) 1 2o u I• • OP CD U y _d N A d N 4 I I. N t N e. . CD Q N d I : T m y J' iii c WI dn ` ,, i T 1 I i 41; 14) 11,, 1, g0; g 5 0 t r Illi 1 3 m Z G) O z E 99 10, co o p 0 D r r r) I I I H z m n m y D O co n 00oz m I11 ; I m O g oovo • • • • • • • • • • • • • PH D. t. 10H 7f2O15 9' 25 38 AM Auto t - I I I CJ a r r `" p vm y fi.. Cn cc t. T t a p m or p 0 E3aryyy m o I ate 1 ` ` < c Ikc fi S C l T' to es ') .-' O23 i Ol' w iD 7J o 9.._} PIS4 67 co CT) ate# s 1 , .,, g , , YR tii a, ' 1 w a 3 f ` yy` m m 1Y A-) m 44 NAL rZ4 T on: t 2' I W t m ti' i .._, 40 2. -- ---,.. 4.-..--.,-,,-_- p 4f c, .'-,. % 2, 10- 0' lit I Tvr lA,/ ' K rtR a 3 1 m 3 ' . t. C f i 1 1 3 3 it ! i ! 7 i , Et C c ' _ _ , ao 4 I y • r,• - o z tq. 2 Si m !". l z le. CO r , A. . c< r Ira' i.;` ... J ti i I m C- y 0'm y t . 1 - 7Ks oo• 0. y Ir T n. r ,, 4011 c t, m I N 5. 3 co 1 2, 840. 18M- g = 0 r! tea. f e 0wy ZT 0 s ) 1 4"- rW S C o z H y y R F, F 19^ ._ Z CO Z co i z y C C' O IlllllIIIHIllllll Dzmn t. X r O rn < I co (. 3 zi I I I sssssssssss sssssssss ssssoosssssssssssss • ssss PH Pi. 10/ 12/ 2015 9 25 38 AM Atha I -. II y 4. 1 y m f % - Q co O I A n y O Ofr r 1 ( L101). a \ e r m N , / r L y V A r 1y'" N W m en E \ Ne..., it it .''---• / • 1 i R o i iC o z 1.- t ua D 11 m 4, .) t. " ' 6,-•,," 4N4 s‘ S. y 1 r-- 1- I 3 c r 1, • S S, ) c t h G'"• am. a m 1. t. 4 a tom, _ o a y b1. k a t I _ , 0 .`` 4. d \ m DI m T `' l' a;'.? c i m r T S• y/ c / ice' d r' li ^ 9• f it • 1r' .. T. ° ' m V 11 0 ' i/• r. Lb v 1 w t. ,, • . ' fir'' O 1 1• I,'" I r 0. 4. 4 4 is " n 1 y Jsy cn 0/ • a , ' 9 v 4 / s it' St r - r 1r " f i O T m 7 0, y 4 a' a• I a N i w•. at.. N a" 7. OD tt if m I I , ' o ice. 0/` M • . "''- i i 1.•. it t r . a P II lVil 1 CCA F paw f is g = 0ND 4 Ind D' Q Q ), Z C o Z erg§ A C12 o c> o Ati) I CI3 9 9 D z m nco CO Z I— y 111111IIIIIIIIIIII poo7, D ill z N I I I 73 T. C ® • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Pa Dot. 10„ 2/ 2015 9 25 38 AM Author I i 1 I 4 y 11 t. Sy i 1 t r 1/41 i I 1 r., VA; x r , i p” IA, f ' •_ Y n: r. cam. X. IF •-- e ,. ` •' 1 41: a;, yr . I ti` 1 t v : . y 1 mss' Y l,. q . i 1 it tar^ yr • a S .. •• , vi*• ', t r { i); ,,•-,-... i.•'' It 447'.., w . 3 w. I,, , i ,. TS v. . . t t 7 3 gin.. \ liVg. 1 A. I a 1 'I i Li. w kb il B. a Pf11 1 A Ai iz ci; 1 V. r i 1 • 11. 1.:, 1"‘ 1 11 . 1 1 v . 9 H r. &:, g „ I I 1 M tit m ! T _ coz co m C0 ° s x g ., o, o n° c ^ co r y I III11 111 r PO ga3X>OD 0 Z o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • v., Ow 7 2812011 439 39 PM adla I I I I 1 O g'q co I — 1 N 1 ft h) 4 4, , vfi F It II fi ` f II 1 I I la, H ii I y, ii'; 11 1 , 1 I II L_ 7- II 11 II 11 II- 1t 11 II 11 11 11 I I iS' a""'- I , i. i I I - 1z f I I I I . I C O I III I I 111 L, i I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 r-'" 1"- jr, 1 110:, I I 1 l I I V 1 4 1 4 1 i 1• 1 11 ISv ' I I p 11 I I C I 1 to I t I j 4 , 1 T _ 7. . I I t 16 1- I I 1 II I 1 I f I 11 T ` nt. 11 III j I I WW ± L I I t 111 1 1 1 k I t 1 1 1. 1,,-;, - o . t. III I 2=','. 4: -. 41 II H( I I I I I i • 4 1 R, _ 1 1`^, t I t 1 t I C I Iy gy 1• 11 lYI _', ., r%/ .. 1\. L. A ,_ 1 I'' 1 I 11 O I V` 1 O t' \\ 1 ;\'\ O 1= , V 1 o 1 \` 1 cc O 0 00Oo i p is 3 gaZ 55 o 2 c° JZa 1t'+ o co ) 7 p horn o a II F z y O I I II I III I A z m 00 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • as Oa* 7/ 26/ 2016 a soot PM Armor I I I I I 1 0 C NI g 01 i .- a 324 0 9 E 1 rte---— I NEST ACCESS ROAD I n I I • i 4 v 1-., . 1 , I I I I I I I 111411 I II I I I I I I LJLJJ JIU} Jj a I I I I I I I I I I I I I WHWH Cr I s o 1 I I I I I 1 I I I 17a I I f 1 f 1 f I . I3 11 c11 Il I I l I I I III ll I I I I F no mg 1 1 I fli1flTI I\ C, 1 r- 1. DCC 16‘;.-- ,`...-' _-_,---- „.... (, --\( \ \ _\__ e-,),( Thhe- I 41 EAST ACCESS R WD 0 fit 0 411 0 1 C elli_&: OO O 0 0 1 0 x sx as t T Illgi i i i 1 1 ! 11 5 m 1 a = a s• s PPP9 ? 1 !! :: 5"': i x 3 cgm it:,- m ; maw INInn N m ip gamma 7 Tr 0a y o Z m 3 S g Z IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I ' p D 4 \ y 7O N $ m I I isM • sOOSSO OM • • M • MMM • • atssssss • • MM • MMMMMM • MM a Dab 7/ 26/ 2016 4 40 26 PM AuMor I I 1 I I I 1 1 ' 1 ii I ' 1 ` 1 1 „ I 0 i i ) I II ii I , q l' q nR I v i @ B x I I J I I I z a g I I I I I I I a 1 C H 1 1 1- 7). WEST ACCESS ROAD ¢` ilial 1 r tip i ." 7"' n' t " n1M...____It, UMMIRMEAMPAIrrn; Ifmfsog., , r 1 t I 1---- 3 DOOr 00 r•." GGy1 II-. I I TtH I I I 1 I I a I L I A 1 7 I I t I 9 1 . 11.- Oh I 1I x 1+ 04* 1IJ 4! i,_ I 1 ' b9 I I ' 1 y i 1 -,\*.'-, co%„ i` i 01, , 1 , 1 c- 1-- 77i5 IR 1 lir .. isr 1: 1 1 1 _ i 4 : i: I L 1 I i ,, AA ,; I I 1 1 ° I i1 , e—/ 0 L i ), -" s--) t/ ki,„.‘,,,, ItK,-; A ' 1 I mi 1. A I t i 1 I 1 1 t k, T CI 4161011, 111 R F__ __,- i _, 13 11. 000010_..... li,,- ....,..-- 1111111• L 11111 ., a Li4- 71111: 111111. TM' ilk. , , II, %, EAST ACCESS ROAD i IVIlt i I\ \ , \ \ n--\ 1 O D t I` 1 I 111 0 ‘ % I\ 1 Ell O IIIIIiiii\ 1 o 0, 11 1 Eli- 1 O 0 OO t t 01 ,\ is o z 7 O iii° i 11 Ha 0 1g8 OM 4%) `\`\ \, v ffi0 5° b° c y b of o : o 1 s1 9to n m ^ m n m r p Fo F '' o 1 1 - p F.)° F N ti nn g n I m A o i P o g g R A l o m to as a e is' 2C- 1s 16 o % 1 1! mz g v i 1 n g H Z m G) g c2 i MI I i m EE X i 6 3d q G m o z y PA z yp o O 3 Y V m Ao C) IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i / A 1- 70 Z el 4) 0 i I I I I I 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ` pima. 7282018 4 40. 48 FM X* lor I I I 1 I I I I ii'It I I I 11 i l I I I I II y74 I F n 1 1 I I I I I I y4 1 1 I Z I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I I I NEST ACCESS ROAO.. _ __ -— 1 ORIIMI. 11.. Mb. AIM...... sra oo- ow lor mor mu. I z,_ A mom 214 . 7- _ _-- - r 0 1 1 I I 1 ll II II I I I I I f I 1 I I 1 FFF rte/ I iI ) 1 1 I I c I I t I I, 1. I I I I I I I 1 b I I i. 1, - I I 1 I I I t' I t 1 I I I . r I I- i L ._ J;! H, H 11 I I 1 I I I 1' I I l 1. I 1 1 , 1 t-- 1 ii [ I i it C 1 - YYY , HL I I 1 4.. 1 . I Ii gi I . 11q -,. L I 1 1 1 i I 144'' fkU 1° 4 i i I xa i i 1 I rg2 I I i g I 11\ \ i.. _ 3 I PI I I I I• b i 1 1 L_ J L_ _ . L_ _ J 19 I P ,, I' I,t...._ I I I '' 1 1 1 / ( I , 1 1 r- r - - 1 1- - 1 I 101 .' 1V.,., 1b C I ,, 1 I 1 1 1 I - I I I I \ k,,, N, I ---= --- 11 I I I 1 I I 11 1 111 1 11 J I 1 ' , I < I I I l , 1 Ipi, i 1 1 I I . M I I I I I I I 1 1., 1 I I r I I r , J i i . ,\, 11 1 I 1 I I I I I I ..' 1? —,,^ 7... t .'. } 6Qti I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 Ill f` 1 - '' I 1 Ili 1 _ I OI` l(, J Qq 1 1 1 ' 1 1 I im I I i 1 < 1 I ' I I, 11 1 1 I I I , I 1' I I 1 \ 1 1 I t„ it___ 1 1 • . l. J L _ -. J _ L- I I. 16. M T Ibtu y i aisiet 1 j 1 EAST ACCESS R. . __ I I' I 0 1 O t11 I I 0 i1 I 1 , 11 1 1 1 1 , l O 1 , 1 0 ti: 1 \ 1 1 0 1 I CID 0 t 1\ I V \\ CIII\ 1 0, v \ ‘ \ ( g c m m N 2• T N_ A n P F, A m N ,, x Z O o cm g T 3 OD D z W IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII A z j ° F rl I I m s • • • • • • • • • • s • • s • • • ss • • • • • s • • • • • • • • • • s • s • • • • i Rd DM 726/ 2016 4 41: 06 P% I l Aker 1 I I 1 1 1 lid ' I 1 N I 1 a] 4 I 1 g ° 1 p 9 ii In« 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 L I F I I F I I I x Or- I z'--_§-- t ,. _ YIFSTN. czss ROAD_ 4 I 4 1 1` ill MEV. 1 xaem raz. mc> a.-. ec m. r. 1. 77'''''' '' i z x' Jy Y• a- ; 1,' IAA ' w.: , I 11- 1 --... -_ - __... `_. 1 ,. L_] C_ 13 z w /__ i II 1 J 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 r C---- 000,, oo a' . I 1 1 /; I 1 1 I 1 c ' I ° 11 11 1I 111 1' ' Irl 1 1 1 I I I ga_ 1 1 1 II 1 ' C I b 11 I I I I , I 4, p I I'. l I I I I I I I i P 1 Iiy 1 ' I 1 I I i I M• I 1 0 0 1 1 1' I I dd I I ° I 4 ' f I O lYl 11 0 I : F I I I I c I h. ., 1 lil 11 11`.. I 1 I I (' I II 1l; i J Gni. , I s 7_ x 000101'- . r. 1 1 1111 1 ki. 1 ( , 1 I I I J I 1 i-:,..°, r' 4. 4 i / a ' ' ' 1 I 1 i t 1 i . gib q 1 1 q' 11 1'/ I • I 1 I I 1 I tls I ., I I _ . 4 P 1 11 1 1 i1iIi 191 : . 9• o I ' ©. wj1• ..• X 1 1 1 : I .• i -' I 11 1' 6 '. . 11 t : 1 hW I 1 l L 1 L_ I Olt I I 1 • • , 1, 0 1 , I' 1 11 I r± 1 r r 1 . I i I, 11111111111 1 4 1 1 1 N 1 I I 1 7 I ' 1 - y, I , 1 , w, 1 1 ' • ' 1 I•. 3 ' i ' _,,, lf— III y I iI_. I I I I I _ I t ,`,. YF I I I I . 1 I Z • Sj¢ Y6 I I - il1 -' 1 ' i I , 1 s` 1 I I i ii 1 , 1 , LI i 1, 1 11 $ 1 1, 1• I 1 r\ I I\ 1 1 d 1 d 1 1 1 1 s I I I 1 I ' , (' lip. i1 6) 1 I I I I ° , t l t is/ 1 I 13 r /'. \ i, Ii 1, 1 p. I 11--- i i _ g L_ t_ J __ 1, ' J _ L . 1 _. c..- I : 7. )( 4 cc 1 P E 1 lite. f: ' I, .- ‘-- t a s illirfflitt iINW1 1 Okla, - 2! i• ICY , \\\ iiiiii0A- ' if ` 11r• up lit , I 11 1 0 1 fil ' 0.'' 1 \ li 1 \ \—_—_\ \-----•• a 4141 ,+ ` 1 1 1 0 r= i 1y1 1 a 1 O 1 1 O o:) v v7 O 11: \, io, \ O 00 C O 4. p m cgs. ...!!! I Ez 2 n 2 ._. D m p y a m 1 r — 0 D Z p\\ Vl/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E f'=. 1 z b e I m CA # 1 AO Pal vats TI26/ 20I6 4 41 30 PM A for I I I I I I O 1 ' m I F 1 1 I I I; i s g . q f 6 I I V I A B 4 I I 1 I 7 9 1 I m I I 11 D I 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I y. N.,^'_'._.- J _----._,._...._- dry' Li 4 1. Ml MST ACCESS ROAD I i`'\ I 4 y it III( ill I IIIIIIIIIiiii b? L Hill 1 L 1J s A 4, 4 I u u u 11111 i r— — 0 , I _ f I 1 I -- -- 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 i 1 i I i C, 1 gl mom sria ., i - _ J U . I Igs II Y 1 8a 1 ail . y I — I a I , O v q y •• 7 1 :,. I sb' _ I T I b 1r11 p _ ____. o I i r data q I 1 o I I ve 1:01: 1 i. 91 I Ix w r F F yy I I- 5 1 t, r.,. i r n N b ICI I wv .: n mva,;+ r: I d.—_, mm F 1. i 1 i 1 i 0, _ I.,.. f- T g V_ : i• —- I 111 1 I 1 _\_\) , 1 J III% Ma 1 s s__ 1 III i A 1k$ 11 ` 1 f 1 , I ' I 1 I I 1 g 11 I 1 11 1 1 I A 1 1 1` 11 1 \ A 1 „ 1 ' 1 \ wa 11 11 j, y; 1X1 \ I 1 I 1 r \ X06 ' f' T 1 r \ v v , FS> \ ow. 0 31 N rm O i SNp gm mD i Z Z 7 m Cn m I It A 7D Z D Qy 5 it m g ,. m C) 1i oo • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • MOW. 7720/ 1016 6 62. 07 PM 0 Alor 1 I I I I 6.o T, I R I I T m C- 1 C I k\\\\\\\\ y , II n o Vo I S m Po 4• y p I i x,` J I - 1- + i(- ( 11:- ai i \ ,• ---- t7" k• 1? I 2 - c. A, II' :(, VP- y r! m D t.:.,,,,‘ 0 . n V, . f ' V---: - tt, 1 1 1-,, 50 .„0. , p .,, „,,,, :.,, yo, ,, „\ „.._„,t O i I n51 Mini n i, V. \ , == C 0 NA ,. . , M:? 1 NI I tib I 72% 7 1' I 2i p v nz P. 1 ‘‘ --. i mrkt. Ast. iiiirie, Vii. gil C C - 1 I Ir C. 02 o 6-? 1 1 ! 3,,,,, =-, m> yCO pro, c fa y D 0 1 ': - p m 3 a W IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ! D I I 0000 . 0000000 . 0 . 00000 . 00000000 . 0000000000000 • Pod DM 772772016 3 47 10 PM Puha I I I I i 1 0 P o q p 0 ' I, 0 94, 11‘ 0© 00 , 0 ' \ ampumwrmlwrmerAlirawrmowerI i II r \ i ,, Id \ t Z ME t Iv, . In - 1 .- 2 t ' r 00\ - li dik laIffr — 7 - too,- ni Illi ' l'. i U 0 i` im' e ;o ! 0 ak Am I - 0 Illifil III 1f NWiti 0 Ili_ i - - 0 _- I 1' i.--, 1 . 1 -: IV. ; 0, 00 . -- tiiip,: l ilit, 11‘ t *. ,,,: ,t v. --.......-- iat if, Q _____-- Iv 0 mo4 ii,,,,coi 8mm f v m< 10 2 t.,,,, Ors g g Cf( C7 1 Zr p IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 A o 0 6p@ I I I Plot Di 7l27A010 3: 3507 PM STMT 111461 I I I I I I 0 0 0 O © OEACI N \\ Q\ INIl- IMIIIISTnIMIIIM! 1! 1 H I iiH „ill - ilk 0 IIII d , Sale 401'.: 4: 1. 111 MOW • s‘" %." - I- El' Pi i IMIN /- N - ,lIiIhI - - - - 0 1ti 11111111111 - _ _ - 0 Ii ii X Mal 0 0 1 - vuip, 1h- __ 0 rr, tVi 0 a+ 0 o., i 0 rt0 0 t AliOt IC. - rah 0001. 11W7 .%.. .%' g,„‘ 00, 0 410 oe oi• e e co x 0. 1. 1 y A. r 3 W. gW53 a A O O` 3 d4 T 2 w : n ap 8_ A 70 mm' CEO 3 d v or f,, o O VIII iiiii iii i / i.) 1 70 14 4' W r, o y z S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plot Oak 7272016 3 23 56 PM MIT*, 0 00 q A NW 00 0O. 0 O 00000 ti 0 , 1.. 1 I I 1 1 1 1 \ I 1 I 1 I 1 glifIrkAtAUFMNatt a " It 0 de lg.__ _ _. ik-,.- licativittit 0 I. i sisle la . dagii- sTii I .--- IN i,_ ' aim_ ri . a. : 0 IIIIITI 0 O A A ii it 0 408 1 0 taot it 0 It 0 Vi4 A v‘ 0 ......, ; \ r, rte 0 0 v Cl) 2 E2 A• W yO i c d _ 1_ 4 z-,, yOC IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1 A D S S . S , S . . / S . , S . S S / S , / S / , . / / S , S . S S S S S S S S S . „ t' MCI Dale 7272016 3 08 28 PM A* o I I I 0 v 0 • 0, 100. 0000000 \© ,a 1 _ i . r-. 1 .. I \ \, o y . 0 H--ri Ito 11 1' I DWI*\.. iltari° - Il iii II 0 Iii ki - p ki 1, ilk Ail 0 0 IV All 0 617WA it 0 lilW ** tO ir vi It At? 0 411' 0 itipo• Alf At A 111101- MOTIOP 4. - Irit1711:** * \ 400- 0:. 00— 0 O 8 1. 1 1 f: 1 1 c,,.., I . i Z z 87 I 7 C n ' v O IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Q oA Z 7O D 12' i Di 4.) 0 I t • • • • i © 0 • • • • ® • $ SSSS CI • • • • • • • • • II • • • • • • • • Rq Dale 3114/ 2016 9 58 23 AM hobo, I I I I I I I 5Ogc i N T~ O 20 g 7 r r ti 5 1I 21ii111e. o O mv ti a yr 32-0 m m O N p 4} Z 1 b Lr IL F• 1:___, + r — r mm 3. i u N - 0 O O m Y a A 1" 7 mOgmm' y a C, P. V. c 23 D FT n0 m Y r iii rn2 vy N 2E MOM Ii II O N N' •• o ig s. Iii/\ p in g 11. 11..: 411.. 1..:.:.:..........:::::: CS. I 0A T i gs A$' s A E -)''' o °*, D R' D y IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 14 g 7, D Rot Dab 3/ 162016 II oo 25 AM Put. I I I I I 0 0 0 F, 1! _ 1M 14, c--- Y m ll 9 9 a 1 Ip1, 1 llill ll glll( Il g -- All si ..ram 0 Il I I r.. i I i 0. = 11111 1 i L__ l I I I mill --_._ - ---- 11111 I1 i I 1I .— ! i —- © plpll iiinia" iiiii I ) I II , r 1 1 I1 1 I 0 i ' 1I I au J I I .,) 0 iipij Emil I pin! lot II t I == tun iTiIIIlnnllln` l-- I t i rwri t I; lw® 11 I III III 01111111 I EA I, I • 111111111 X111® 111111111 r I 1111111 iiiw 111 1 Wit; 111111 O I LJ LJ Ii 11 I I; w11gwllaw 11 1 II al 11 I rrl Imr 1 u_ 1- 111= 11© J Lu 1 1 — I li Milli I` 1— go ELII I it ! al R. r tlf - I ' I`..'_!` I I El_:- irral : t I i81 f I 1 . 1 0 ill Mr , wry O I _ 1 Iw i1. r WTI r - a i R• S 71 I -.-_ .+ I 1•- 0 El will r- I 1 ` r:. 1 n CI) II I 1 IiI1 1i 11. 11, 111 L- B 111111111 III I. I 1 p' - ma 4fl I • 1 II!:: u i . " 0 N I = 1 in Ili.. 111111 o4 1 ,. i1.. 1' L .... 1111 II il1' 1 1 j i illllll 0 1= M II nn. 1 1 a I 1 Eil MI r _ 1 u 1 L Lim -_ J c°- , I a immoa u1' lu u 11_ 11111 1 iiIf_ I u I ' ta o' hull -- o 1 .-.- 1 I l-- ,— m El I a I 1... 11 O I= z d d I 0 I D r i I a I it ul Ihi 1 I„ E' _ C I 11 111 11 w II - i C i 1111111uu1! i—- 0 JI- 111111111 111. 111® 41 r. 11 11• 11111111111 t 11119 mul! ML_ -- 0 i 1 11. 11111. a J ate , a/ Ra Ta a 11 I I L a 17®_ 11- 0 L ' I 1 L __ I_. , ,:.. I M — LP II I wromeautuuratt ,' 111 I W III W, DD! II1 I LEI L to 1l I 0E1 , I CI 1 1 U' ' 1 mom PIE - i--— CI I I I I I 2__ I Y 9 9 . 4 z' i - 5 ai a 0* a • a E _ ® ' ill L . A r O 1iv, 1 m y 1 1 I1, s c8= c coccmow g £a y 0DO0 1 D- Im DrZD " V Z 0 p IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII co A g i M. won D X M A000000000000000000C © 0000 0 000 • • 00000000 . 00000 Pa Dab. 7/ 272016 2 47 21 PM Mew I I 1 I I 1 0 0 m 0 ; n1 rfripillrilF 9 x i i Ili 9 0 1 i I II I II 1 1 n II t II I 1 1 I 1 1 III 1 1 I I r 111 1 _ . c,- 0 1 1 1 1 ri --- ti 1 it F pi i 41. _ i_. , 0 0 Iii 1 1 i I 1 g i i i g 1- r H 11 1 1 I Ii i R 1 - . i. i 1 1 i t, e) i i i I I _ di. i I 1 , 1 i ii _ , . I___ 1 1' 1 1 s k Qryf 0 t 0 t vita , 1 1 VI o-= rm- mi OO i s agP s g M xi D z° o IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII D liU O\ y Z g 1 Mat D. r. 7/ 27/ 2016 2 47' 36 PM i uno. I I I I I I rN) 0 4 m i U I RF F II{1 T i 1 ii I 1 1.. 1 t I i ii-' I 7 N. 1 9-. I 1 1 1 1 1 i, 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 I a i F_ 3 c W a i w= Z D y O o c° o Z rn D z o C iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i m p 3 I. $ 1 W 1 rn I S S S . 11 , S S S / S S , / S S S , S S / S , S S S S , , , , . . S S . . . , / / . Pd Dl 7272018 2. 47 52 PM Auto, O 0 Y mmymmy Fq Fy t I S< 3xi: 771 I 7 1 1 i' I€i I Iff,.. __ 1 111 I F 0 II 1 e 0 II I . Lif_ , I , II ----.- J 5 1 EL I O r _ I i l' 1 Hu a S ' I I I 11 al II u , Q I I I f H II I 0 I 1 1 1 i 1 g n , 1 1 1 I 1 I 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V xCl) mom ' QQ w _ g M M ON T.) Z y o m o N36. m 0,z> O III IIII II I I A Ath z y o I PV 7272016 2 48 04 PM oa I Wh I I I I 0 0 4 r i I r 0 J L - rn J Q 1 n cD 8 1 L i juil__, 0 1 ---- ---1 i - - • II , 11 ' . 0 L_____ J i i I i t s A fn l+ 0 g i M c^ c c D iIU c bPal y8 CI m z D 1 1 1 1 1 1 IP g W 1 1 I I I SSSSS ® SS • • ss • sSSSSs • S • • • • . . • • • a • s . • d Dab 7# 27!! 9182 48' 19 PM * atm I I 1 I id iI[ sDqm z 1 g al 4 111 i 1 11 R al 11E1 11' 1111 0 1 VIII 111 111 i 1 iii I: Iil 1 _ 1 k O h-- I t C 5 1 T____:_., Hi I .- ' rii—: . 1 I Ill 0 ii I il ill 4 . .. - III I I. I fil ' - i I i I R 4Y 4 9 V 7 I 11 O 1111 II i ii i I I I I I i i i;J I X11 i x p la -' 2° p' 2 I m 73 lilq 2 t corr. o p 11111 l H IIIIIIIII f p D 0 r! 1 Pal Dale 7272018 2 48 30 PM Put. 1 I I I I I I 0 0 0 C DS 9 D L— 1 f 1 0 1 i i i i F F F 4 J L. _ 1 1 ii L__ _ i I ] I t! 1 1 7>` L - 0 14_ ii - J i 3E1gil 0 0 J J i . 1 -- l i L- I poi >> i m T.,. i''' 4 OPm x C' D ii! pa x.,, r;,, E Z a = 1x s D z o I IIIIIIIIIIIIII IH A MC n E' PM Dab: V2720162 48 43 PM NIw I I I I I O 0 4 i" 5m 6 fD q< g t I N ir III 1 F 1 a n r I g1 i 4 0 iii I I L 1 i a. I r 0 I 1D II I a o i L__ I 1 1 1 41 ti 1 e i i --- 1 1 1 1 1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7^ P 6 9. s ft r t 9 Y 113 J 3° AE° „" h m O D b m y c m 67 igh ffo T," i', g > y0 o adz 4 ° iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii A F0 i 0 1 r, 1 I R] D. b. 3114/ 2016 10. 38'. 38 AM START Sort I I I I I I I 0RE eo x IIIII_ I 1. 0 I 2r fITI ., I , •- IEI _if IIi- - I It 1 0iii_ lia I 1 I—±-: 0 ll 0 I IT4I II ARE. CO 0_ 1 r:-- m- 0 mi r Il t I limnI 0 IIII _ r . i- m I l 111 I 71 1 0 X11_ I IIlIIIE. 0 I 1 0 III 1 1 _ 14 F _ lI— Z. 1 111. 11111 1 , 111 1 I IIIIIIt I 1. i11 11111 1 I- d I_ I! I1. 11111 1 1 y I= rlli, II 0 3i ' S! JIII Iii i Ii 1 1_ li • II I' I P i11!! flll.- II a fn —_„ - • ! , 0 1! IIDDI 1t - TAT ). 1. L 11, c ---. k 0 I 11111 111- III 1 . .- mui - 1 pil LiJ1 _ _ Effl 0 IIIII 0 I I- I- p- `` nnnninlmm111m 1= I I II I I_ 1 11 -, 111= I= • I I i 1°.. II ii— i I 0 III EEIMIII- IEIII II I I I I 1!!! t t ! Ey ill 1--IrrTi1111—ILIIIIII------ ra II- 111-' O 111- I11- 0 1- 11 III II II CI =— 0 0 9! I- I, 0 E1 I.- i 11 g III g I II I i i- 0 lll lll , I • 0 I— I J I 1--• 11 I- 11 II- II III- I II I= I I I 1 n I I 1 11 14 I I L It I t ! I t l It t t gts ivo_II . v o E 3 CII O Iligiq 2 nr ZC nZ b yD 0-z y I I I I I I Et PI 0 c 3 0 Z I I I m S „ O S S , S . S S / S S , S S S , . S / , • $ S S I O „ / S / , / O , S / / S PI Dab 31142016 10 01 16 AM Autroi I II i'! i17' 0, I 7 04 l v 4.'., d 7 , Ilirriiii• Ai.,,, vis. ,.„ 1.,;,,,,_ A I 1 ' ill A' s* tij, i', • k: iv tilo, \\ . L, 4iiir/ .- i , It. j 1ix* it Y, / st15+ l'' 4,• / Ii, // r r n = i ti i i; ; - I/ 11114 1 ta.-- _ illit:___ 714'_ 7/ i. r, : 11 y; rl: - A e I IIli. 41 V . ow., t r / t v 1 i %, I 1111 / i • A L[. i • 5 4 c c m 0 m = O t A• 3' r' iv/ w A 1 d i 5 i D m y N m 1 kj4 M •: Z Z yy tP1# Ii r I m m> D ice" 20 0: 1 Z 2 m i I I iir4 2 z m m 1 r m A y N a 1' m illilill I I 1 Irr*";; I V li . 41111M, 1111-. 11,- 1 fs 1 I _ I "-' c o-; SI 4 . 0! 1. . F 1 1111# Medical Offices' I. laliwitill ry f i Zr 1 Y x. at -- 1' c w at a ' i t s+ zr,{ a? 4r? p ' lp 1 i P or'; r t iro it... mills la \ , wics_\_,__. ii II \ \ 7ite,*;,,:. ,.: .;:,:::: 7... fif....„.....: 7.i. w n f iA . n ii l t r tr ., t¢y S 99 i iJsz' ON20 y I;_ y = cocc mm st 5 . Fr.. = women — Z X O 4 Z S n Z ate A: z( D ID D a . D i 0X c y I I I I III I I II I I III II ! NA 1 may 1 I A 20' om Z 1 1 I A rri o • • • • Soo • • • • • • • • • • • ® • • • • • • • • • • • • Plot Dab 1/ 1212016 12. 05 52 PM Aunor I I I I I I 1, 1 r-: ti Iii 1 if JI r" ! t 1IU 1 1 _., I' c k 1 I-- i: : mss-, a— tai -. 1 1 r yt i 1 tit 1 i i 1 1 l' L1 . 1:,• 1.—... C 1 , I 1 1 1 I 1 ` I . a lt—• 111 ' I I 1 i' P I r_. 1 1 I _ 111111" WI= . 6.- 11. 1 AL N-- 11 Y MME L mod '\ I- 1 moo. " fie. i I 1-- 11, 818\ tA, I I_ 11 1 1, 1. 111 1,` \ 1\ y, W ,' 1 t 1 11 '' AUL 1 1 1 7 \ w........ 1,.., 7 m rt,' :.. 1L.. s::.':".. t..':.,;:,.;, L M V' i 0 1r I iiii1 42/ A; 404 VIII G CO 1. ar- I l AA . .-._, ,,..., 1. 1i 1 1 i il,-, , 4 i u a•- l i 1111 IF. a —.`' I _ _ 1iIII, 3• v N fir, 4N o 2cn2 0n OjO i m - Cp DZnD D cry IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII v co m 1 m oo • • • • • o • • • • oo • • • • • ® 0 • • • • • • • • • • • p... I I I 1 I I I I1 II1 1 0 I1 Ii II II 1 I C VEST ACCESS ROAD N 1II---- 1' li X111111111111111111 :, W o —' t co> J! ti r h 1 O o 111 111 J V mic ! J! J p` r I, .-- 1 l' I u . o` IuSor Ilo I! ! I! E. 0 0 0 00 00 0 o S" G I Mil pa NM IIM _ 1M MII ow L _ 2: : A ' I i ili I I K N. ! S .- r yn QQom, 1 I im•! S __ I i ,:, as m^ o2 ( i'... r, 1 t NM ! I! ! M - - i—. a 2 N N I - T - 1 Ime Ii. I s a 11 ( I A A8oe Sot i -- 02 1. m X11 ( b- 1 • gi z ir! ! !! S I Ell M• -. 1 I o r MN MI MN IIM rs . m, z ! rp ; Er ' 1 1 I I 1, II OM t I I! 1 I oo N 1 ME ! I, Mr - - I tai oot I_v I 1 min , . / . 1 4 i licA\ 13. uEcv. 11i§ L. v. 2:- I o gm' at' t , I 1 ' 1 iia fh j 1 ti• j I , 0 tin • D 1 1!,! I! ! 8, s wF 1 YTu I l i fiii NO MI 60 NCi: I MI i ' C 1 MI .+— - 1 ' of F 14:\ liT ME s • s s C I 1• 11 1! s 1! t 1! s w 1 I e 1 r- MII Ille.' _--.= I : 1. I ± __ 0- g1° 1 11111111 1 1 — IaJ s Is o i ` ; I% EAST ACCESS ROAD 0111k1111, 11161al 1 II 1 H 0 11 1 m E E I f I a d tp' v v3. 2 - + 1 I c y + pcn I 70 mO C9 F_ . 1 1 w y oCD a- to m< 0. m E iCD n 1 1 oo m B C C• rip O F ^• N. 1 ' ' , 0/ O cmo a - I fD c Ro a, m° 1m yai7 wwg 1 gX oX oX 5 X . X . x Dean 10f 1 > 1, 7 wrni I E H 0 € 3 F. OFT, g 8 s y " Is§ . c Egg 13 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII p D I%) i 7 ,, .. W rn 1 I 1 1 o • • • • • oo • • • • • • • • • • • • PM I 1 I I I 1 I I I is II I Y. I 7 I. WEST ACCESS ROAD;• In! i t 111 IIIIIIIIIIIIII >. 7 o a u I I. — r ma I EL.7 Eir U_ I-_ JIJ e j , 1111111— S i t N. M 1 g L'» ---- c 11 1 I I ral 1 1= J r 1 NM ! _ m 57 II! - A I 1I al MC 1 _ Ii! 1• ! L I yvA g Z r il IIIII I= I I- I , ti NM MN I= • 11 I I! I • 3; ER I ... __ v T . ! 10. , \ D r f atta m-' c° n$ SI i I I 13 Fs I ` V9_ _ I I I. G 6 e3 D 1 Yl PI P - 11 ILA 2?, MN I Zo E. 1 1 4 I ii r1L SD I I I < 140. m Q 1$ I i I _ - = I I ME E:101 S tg I 1\ l 11 \ i I I NM ! 57 I 1 yi D_ — — — c I I adn- oT -- E3 32E2A '''‘< l‘ t. 1 E I E 1 I gmg , y I slo I a N I 11 I d f = C I- _ E l E i a I SE INC I MEIIMINC I 1 gr m ! 1. 2. i$ ': I 1 1 i ` I= s ME ! cJ I I a Ell rri iv E 111111111R ag M. I! D l' r s _ D 1 al H - - I i w W N C o gal 1 a D i i I 1 I I rITITrm I ITITIFrI I T at ray= Er 11----- i ----\- _ _ EAST ACCESS ROAD 111 Ii C C f- C d I I 1 7, vmo s o o ^ 3 H D m n? m m n m m K?_ + 111 m W O Cal a. D N . 0. F''''' g 11 \ 1 f O 8 -' 3 a 2 7Qem dm NN= NN = I l I 4 gx x ox x Qx 1 x gx ox gx z5 I To i i t ZgZ w Q f s O y )) A dz ° A Z g QC 4 I I I f v Cr) i SO i I 1 1 oo • • • • • • • • • • • • o • • • • • • • • • • • I I I I I I Ilk 1 MI al 411111T1 ; Ili VII 2-- 9 Iiimi qi: lifth ) t hi CL—' jiFt il! flIufl _ 111Q cQ`< I ii I — a t r I j11a4[ 111 iiiii v I: tf li PARKING 1 ' atilt I f 7 ii i' Y4lIEEdni t fig it 3 alp If gig'. a ( gE i ! I i€ i iti{ I Hi p a+ ill 1 4VII 1 3 ii l 41 I Pf i3! II1E ' ;" I Q Will ill '; : e' t€ Ski Uff CD g 3 s I It ll t t ss ell it ill i 111 f I i'{ i I iri t sir> ; i g1= 1, F' ' Ill II Hi laf I liJr, lid! ; , 1 . . . . . . I ; G p 3 § 1 i 1IIj Ii 3ti! i it € ai! sssaei} i }:; 1 II F' iit ill- 2 d 41 z } u ISRi oo I11rI° ip ; + i I Ii ` v t f! JfIf t N i it ! f 1 i T e ill I EXTERIOR SIGN SYSTEM i _ Q41 ill I ( 111 i c I le, KAISER PERMANENTE 1111 I} i4. 111 1! ' j 5I OD If " I < d l i' I 1 1 b • • S 9 4 ii; IrillIr ij • a}{ tax ' it o 0 t t , ill - 111iiUh } tit 11 1PWV , U i111ifiif I l f t 6LIItIf Pi t. ift! Ih li I sl i t f L i' r t r r i ' I H t' i tai ! i j#€ i g t 4 p °# r r M 0d +,: 1 '' el ls I' t ; III ' 1 t n s n A Y g i } 1i I N oA EXTERIOR SIGN SYSTEM i w A EXTERIOR SIGN SYSTEM iI 1• 1 71i1 a 11 € i' hi g J' a pill C i — ------ -- t i PiI, } f p•. i, • Q: 1 O C © ., JT a 1. t Q p i MEDICAL OFFICES© ' O 8 '. f 6. i 3 ! N 1 a d 5 1 7 ' I k Y i Itl Ili #$ fl? HT I1+ } i: 1 ill 9 if 41111 s , y• A f r2 S S I, i iii lit 1 . JIM 1 1 $ 01 1 ' a It 1 O. O = &.. iit f O a Itt la i- o = t4 lit ijit i I 1 F lif 11 : lt 11! ' , li ill ' r; z ° 1 11 Ii : 11 1 t'!° 1, , i N pill it g P ttg i tf t III g tt_ a tt IJ iga i ' 4f iii dill w j 3. 1 '. i N Lit hi x! r 1 EXTERIOR SIGN SYSTEM t _? f 10i 1 N m 1! y 3 c° c c° C g mwmm 33 0 D m y y Ihq 4= 1 -. CEO sM 6 11I I 1 f p A 1. o i O_ y 1 1 III III III Ill III III III III III III III III III III III III III Ili Ili III III III III III © III III III III III • III III • • • III III III III III III S • Rot Oft 4 r ' r ' 1 fur 1 s ( Q =' r.. o. tifit 5.` IIH1II ` . lU lr - 0 0 v 4. 444 1 + I yI i y O tzg jil ' it 4 4 t by ft F I 4 P U [ ; t UP eDif i l8 s I g j' y _ i u, ir gp 11- 2• o1o4 a II 8 e =-, 1 EXTERIOR SIGN SYSTEM H: EXTERIOR SIGN SYSTEM 1 a a• ' r 1; E` 4. n a .' 4Tpt 1 Y 11111. S 1 1 11111111P" M . f. go 1 - 5_-- 67 ti t I r ,, I 3 T C 3: 1 CO CO 0 ( D fill iii[ i o ,- I 111111y1 v) cu III gift 1 I 1 j ii= If! S2° I 030 trilitI P) is r @ it n, 1' CQ i*` F. . i cD 11 N i Hi Ffit _ III a ; I a i Q` i 5a 4, EXTERIOR SIGN SYSTEM N W i 1 ` Q in 0_ 0- o i'-' 7 sii D —• p co yj S Q G c3 D. u i L ',_ r liflijil can 2 li Ii v cD i m 1. p T MI s I iii i I en N IOU ca p F it 3 (( i ; i i N It ` IF=' idifi. it Hp if- 3 if 11iiU l is # iF ;/. 44 iq 6Q iit ( iI+!=- ; J ft O V• q _ t ijt • 1 ''' F— N A p< t {` 1 1! N EXTERIOR SIGN SYSTEM a to g 3 m m 1 i y_ 1 CO 0 i tp $ P s F- gD tin 6 0 O y ig§ 10 tZm R' C IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII n CI a, w y Y z 1 1 0 • • • • © • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I I 1 i1iq 2 40 ! ? . ft 1 1i 112: tr 1 I I 1 , f0, 14 • s i 4 111 § 1 if i 1 D e tt G t j S _ fig f;' FF Q CD D ll Ys r Ff; ifs I6 - 0 1 i. i ' hE' D I CD n O f it I.' Co 11; grill y iti t it FI atifI{ 1 ill 414x11 im " oo v its 6t or o. I d N N co L I EXTERIOR SIGN SYSTEM I A I jrEXTERIOR SIGN SYSTEM] I c L_._ tr i o° T 1 D 7 1 . " f;,.. l f' d— iVII II r o 65, R S : j I; lf. ' i Ca 3 I 14ri4 g f i o ii y 11• 110. g ¢ g a a 1 tj 11111 hill o v f, w jU Ig Il ifs to !{ 1; £• Ii} p Iii f S r } u' '' ! 3 _ tT{ e! {! { i f it it { }} fl f i s i{ III ftt+ s f; m 01 If CD 43 MN0 E 41: 1I EXTERIOR SIGN SYSTEM o t o 411. , r. tt Ill i till a t { It v 1_ ii # I t F i r f ii i Bi ; i " O A 41C ii SI I. g a i I O l4 f O; i ct{fggt fl ti if r_ r L} of F if o tq1t9_ y f 71 I. t t 31 jtt rt -. e. 4 L Hit FS9 [ lY lai t if 1i f; r i ! F 1111 iff I I: b ii ff ' lit' gf ti 3 c tfi{ I. lif II 1 0 A EWE.' i Dig s _Ti 999 ° ®' _ MI asi gls i i 0! L m01S w I l i I A. I ('. 101111111 s' 18 tm it ul ! Q Y" _ I I if11! iIf 1 1ti • I . 3 V• I a 5 I I 9 cc I Z S i al 11 t r e, i0 a a si lil I' a zm> n l I I if t mil I flit ( F i f 1l; iiI1 I t' 1i. f 1 kl i t 33111 0 I lifiq srs gkr o t7 FAEF., _ OCIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII r z 1 N COI , ' SO o • • • • o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I I I I I I I A EXTERIOR SIGN SYSTEM 1 i i rmo lit ij it 42 I I i I o I t 1 5. I Fa' re II Ui o I 0 i j t Ii 11 g f #+ 111 1 > y I 71 I° I is i I 0 i f I 61 i} 1 o 0 r. gl Y. it i S • y 11 0 8 0 g 999 0l . O o i9. oe = s^ o s S Yu 9 Kg m Iilli 00III{ I H I b — 1 101111 1I i 41R> 1 1t 1; Ff I iii} 11 ! 11 (" i Ii' iiit 1111! # I 4r. I i ait y 801 av gym F.- r) 1 i l D< Z a° 0 • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • MOW., I I I 1- 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 3 9 S9 RE 5 9 ' i 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 99 3 - I I il i i 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 9 6 NI : 8 IS 2 2 1 8 2 8 8 8 2 2 2 IS 9 9 ^ 1€€$ a - - Q F c - f 1 p 2 2 a a a a a a a a a f F i t d F t i i f s t ; f X7 iq Y 9 8 2 1 9 1 2 9 9 P Hill I1 r 2 4 1 8 5 3 t 8 8 ti 5 - s - s 6 6 P s IMPI , ] ii 1i } } } } i } } } 5. l[ l!! i! [ ii 11, • i 11 f i i i i i i t ii i i ( i I i 14 44 44 44 44 ., 5 44 44 44 44 44 44 4; 44 44 DDOC. O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I ;< 9 9 1 1 ,' 1 1 1 1` 1 1111 1e 11 t 9111._.. ,.. 11. 01110111111111t a 8 f a a a £ 3 d a 9 ti ' i o t 9 3 : 3 5 9 ' a 5 9 9 9 3 93 3 5 3 5 9 3 3 3 a 9 9 9 e 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 2 2 22 2S 2 8 8 fi 9 9 8 iIg 1 x F 3 ( Y g g E s i s i z 8 f" 8S • t 2 2 a Ili illi m t R R t t F t t i 1 i 3II, I€ iii rivii H9Ir 19 $ 131 i1 ; i ir' r 3' n in1iY Ii4 III a: i 11 . 11; 1 j i 1li' it 1 I 1 r is a 1; II: ri ai 9s jr' r iri= 1i Li i f a i i Pb S t lin lin lillEFFITEIT i ii l IA! 1: 1r [ silililililililil s { hl ! iii Iii t; 3iSoiaa t I 1 If, 1 : I f 1, f r. ¢ v5 3 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 3 39 3 5 3 33 a p 3 3 3 9 a a 9 8 8 8 8 9 9 2 3 9 3 9 22 a 28 2 2 2 f! E 18• 2 2 9 2 8 9 2 2 - 2 2 2 . 2 2 2 2 i e e x C a i Q 1 9 ' 1g a x x f 1 8 1 i i a ; 3 1 4 1 i 1 1 1 9 F' Y ; ; 9 i" ice t r 4 s s » s= IMP PI M' 9i1IJD9 PT i li p e p p Y9 p p i } K f } S fi= 7 Y'— 1 Y Y 1 1' 2 2 ; 2 2 2 . 2 ? } 2 9 1 1 4 S r 11 g 9ifi 3 i9 g3F ty tfi, el 11 1 ` 9 ii } 1 i Ili }}} i i } l x s T l ' i' i a a3issi 1111 13 ai piss 3• is ° 1 1 l}} i 11 s a 3 i s Ei il 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 1! ill[ l1i `` 1C;; Ii!! - 47 44 4; 44 4 li 1 114 4 414 4 4 1 1 1a 1 i ; iii 11 id; II I i 4 a y f 1 5 3 9 9 3 5 3 9 3 9 9 3 a 3 3 3 - a 5 3 3 3 5 3 i iii 3 3 3 3 3 5 - a a a 3 8 8 t 8 8 ! 8 9 9 9 2 8 2 8 9 8 8 9 8 9 9 8 2 " F'. ; 9 h 3 e 5 9 2 S ? a a a a a a e a t t x n F t x t t x e li 1 4 12 1 i i 1 7 9 2 S S 8 2 - 2 . 2 . 2 - 2 P i r 8 8 8 8 8 3 ! 20Ii 1 51iii1. 1 Yi Y1 isYic. Yi` NYi` 4; aa 3° 3i;°;; 34 l 1 ` ill IN G F 9si' a allo t! Miff i i i ` i il3 }} i i} if II I}` 0 II/ fi it 49r = = r r r r r r i. e 3 i 231 . 1 14 8f v121 ! ail 3[ 12cia 3ii4f iii± i. 4f ii l. i i i I" i 1 II 1 t}};< } j} si fill I si i i i ii i i i i i i i i i R1141411111. 44 5 4; 44 44 44 a; 44 44 44 44 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1111111111i 1 51 1 1 1 1 I I I I x 4 4 4 4 ( 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 [ Mil( l jj 1 1 1 1 _ 8 ; 347 s j is P is s 4{ R 2 t 1 o ii d i C Q p @ li LI a C_ 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A A D 1 s el 43 0 m 03 1 I I I 0 . . . . . • . . . . POD** 1ReQ019 5 3e 23 PM Mixt I I i i i I i 4 i. ti6 r r r p 7 ! h • r r r r r r r 3 r r P 7 P a o A r r e r r r r r 11101 r r r r I T r r I T 4 M , r T r 41 IW 4 r T r Ir 41 td k r T T , ' T• r T r r 1.:• i T• r r r T • r•. Ir T h r 0 T r T r r r I r T Ir r r r r T 0 r 3; i I h r sE N 11 it I r I r a r I— Ir a 2 2 2 h r lb i I I ° - • X a K gi r ri W li i ii;,, 4i ii 0 T,,,,,.. m , i iRM ip i M ''' P qX1gA9 g 6 1 0 4 ' 1 ch i 1 1 term WI 9m p .) m Q 1 0 7 E D z 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 S • • • • • • 0 • • • • © • • • • • • S • • • • • • • • • • • • No NW 1f262OI85 3823 PM Paw I 1 I I I a A'5 O i 5 r . r t Z r r I r• E 1 P r r. . . r. . .. . . . : . . . r. ; r r Fr:• l• I P I:: F. r It: F: . xg.r. I E Rg r. . I- 1rE r I . f. . n I I h rr . r . - . . . . .. ., M r Ef . ? f r 7 f: , , r E : : r r f . . . . . . . . . . .:` . r x. . .,. r, iJ: f I• - - Y" s• a• . . . . . . . . ' I. E : ! r: t r. . . 7 t• - Cf r• ; C• r r • fr: . . . . . e r:: . . . : e: . . : : . , it i E F i t • r c _ f 3 : . : : . : : . . le a r L 1 n11il; iii iiiifil iiiii IOh Ifiiiffflflfl IIIIIlf 111111; Ifiiiiiiiiiiiii N - I . - • 1 X a FE F i Ili i D 11111111 p II c 1 li c ss IS fS 14 m„, ,., 1111111E1' ; E Nig z _ iiiiiiii I EEEEEEEEE. EEECEEEEEEE Fo 1 i w i .. iiiiiiiii t I EEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEL 2 P P g = g iiiiiiiiiP FEEEEEELE. EEEEEEEEEU A y sz 111111111; EILEEELLEZEEEHLELLEI iiiimiliiiiiiiiiii 1 8 g j iHIiIIIiffluIH i ri i IIIIIkIIllIII 4 71 0 - ' 0 i r”) ! li 1 col m y 8 c 1W r 4 Omm 4 - v 73 D z r) IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII N § I I I I I I I I a • • eECccccccc • • • • • Cco • • 0zz ® • • • : : : r03 • • • • • • • i o • • • • o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ruotafst20_ wwr wtnw_ D. econt R. OEST comcw OveiC0. 00 cowPWo Lww7/ 7// 2016 64eo MARCNa Mod El e30ooa42m1• 1w6- I iAA>> O> ClpSr DD55 P OO ,.-,, ywN - O U + r I m VI p n V2O ~ mC Is zy 2S OQii Ar C. s• T JO00r Q i y 0 2m r pill Q n AC O A D cm a°! l o Z @A 4 Ano . rN M' III Rp ci:% g G7 m Rrffiv 4A.. n o $ oos a 1 2zm Z s A n n 4{ $ r N p6,., N Do° m'^ 22 e1 I I im- z RI A r, YS yy Ax h II1 S n O0ms C g AZ rh p y > v— n Ng* - c . 2r T. pl° s r Xc2 n $ z c" aF. o' N.. A'§ fin nc 82e03z o F gA, 1pQ$> A yy yTX S 3A R s i ; s O d " z !' g21r' AN n82 tem$ i 8 1! Im Ong p= nnt>' fYM ` ^` 4-> i ,< Y n _ C YO r RI o gH t;-' 2 1>-. qe. : Ilp L 2 < r. A, pii n111n ,' no i o = TZ m €$ ° { Z i Ioz 4 P sm4 z $ o c nNr' 1 _ 2 i f• Z z g° r; i ic4> n F $ F55 4 5 Z {++ m K rVig62§ Mmn, a $ 22- t AA' g n,• r g` zp X.' AAO cn i 12141. Gf WM, T'" Q m 4' A 0 2" v m gA i n 2tz^ y nl. vey nr. 7ivr" 8. 72 , AAAM. v. z' lliWi s Fi M <$ P o a 0 50 m < , 2' No = c z ti ti NO = v= i, ri 2N OCV C 1 > yt O i m S yIR Z $ c£ ° gR ri A$ >°, A h nm``" z z s 3AF P2 5 rsi - $ r> nr a nf., nzo. z.. .. u n$ 2'" rn. Yi n>; seoz b'^ a 15m ' y$ N I I. N i -- o a 9 0 O_ m Z v y E 3 8g A _ O m A m N Z 2 A8„< nZ0 Rg$ N 4' - V- 4y ; AAAgm°`—'' g` I` z' AEr^ 2= V4 F 6t1 0 Kr4.° 0 ? zc ae z - : ° o o N rma Fib iJd. n o, i° 0 ym S, a n 0 < P n em 1 ! ! 1Er at n i i! xo iN nR2!^ N> Obzf gz° 12 Y r2 ar v'o D cr^ i2a> cr a° p g', P dq-.- 1- 2g0., yo€ F N o-=' cn = An2 > < c E7 m 2z gg j o A 3 Nx ^ oLL N>: y y m:>^ Igr" z r F 8 o s 2 2 3 m o 1C/y11o pyg. r8f> x2 PP1r1. 1i12g> 2oo2ppyA^ obi - R! 4s> y y r7. a a A po i_ o WA2a aninQ[ f , ACF ,>-,= N ACZ1' Sh5 O'-$ 1'. 0 NZt Ty A + A > 2 a' SII g 2 yZ, r u 2 Q a fR g > } q N> i' 3y° no ^ x 4i' j oK^ > om y" I j$ N$D o LSD L!' F v a ti" I m R N m 3 a z Fly z p ' z Sso i z c., ' 8 8 v 3. 2AA pyyy pam2 Nn "° } Q§ g°.- I,, 1, nR2v$ Ojm,.' jr. {'- ZO rm. 0 > .. M A r o 2, z., KO AfT Omgn ylQ O yX' i N yOZ A' miF y pu20s OZ> n ' r py py m r2 m yVA 22 N> 2' M io$ p gtA>.. o$: E> 2 e s „> Py A> 1" Fmmr' C< l ,, rn aLL ZZ ' 111 i Qi Q m 2 td; ° o 2‘ 4t g z'+ n 02, , _ y 2 NSQ bS> RNnm : gS`° o Vi yy w.. 1- z 4zor.. An NA°. a° z2 zim 2 R III y 2 1 4 O J! III S V y r Aip 2 M( p Q Sf pZ ili pgr ;::: 2 iF, Zm 275 "° , iz s jIf A a3! 3, Si_ IRA mys A , 4 2 IE. 1 $ 2 c° 2o Sag as gm” a2> nN o yzy2 b2e n in RApY $ ; i I 1 z$ zo N I Tz cN Z o FI z" c A8' i* • Ti I I I l I I 0 Oy- Z AP l ag 9 ` -, N 1 g 1 N Q 8m I Ill/ , I T 1 C m ° lE - T, in r x n n v . m- r o o ^ * H ° m p 0 0 " * g o a A m 00 W 1 P: j x 1 n > a > x I A A p T. flro2AA ; 2 - gmtEBN 0A9 I II 1' 3 " a z 1 2 ` y I I I' I V J N z - I i au b i m g 1 i n I1 1 n 1 H V r g 1 II N tals;: j) Cl : } 2 ( lJ r 2 -' O > S, z - = % y U '. D l FL 1 m i Cf 1. tt„ 11 an L p I I O T m D C O A C > r9. 1 r A Z O O i A Z x x I 1 O I J timmml i', 2 q " r°. ; i cQ$ n i i > a ' MUI ii i I -, op NM 1 lr t a 2 p om I° C a N m a O z) I n C g m k > N o K KEEGAN SI2 2 i r A y II AA ' A 1_ g 2 Q g" gS i`, 1 I z I : V J m.::: IAA Ai x * r z g 4 8 M v 0. 8 g z o f g i' 3 0 ' r" N a v n a 6 c I L" 1 I _+ I I_ mmIll s a 1 i § $ i $ o $ O $ ° Qo ° o > 09 s 1 A s M 1 A N 12 N m> r - 7 E e-. A 1 c2 c) A A i . S j N F +. D a S 0 rw A !.. > E z N N p O C s rar. A Yr. n I I p y R yn. )) p 1 y O p 1 r ° O ` ' _ D O p r. ml N < O n it A Z 1 [: T - I> a am z m cl A z , m x L m L " t; l: f r7 1 1 f ; ° M cR F F p o e m " FFs> i + z i i i 1 i f • I 1 O - H ` tt O Z f. D 0. 5„ N . Z > f-! O \ I I I I I I , a N ° z N 1 O 1 g N N II o- - tr I 6 1 1 z I I Z pt n yyy N 1 I I nna•, nnnnnn ot oteq fz _ II I 1 0 0 N A> 2 p2p U U 4 UUp N N N pN 2 T sI T pp N t, f- 1 T° 2°, 92. IY1 4 N O 0 4 N p N 8 4 N O O I '} I t 1 - I 000V n p0000 0000000000 - 1 jt11 1 CccccCCC«« CCC I I- - n o s n n n Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z a aZ Z Z Z Z Z 1 N..... m m m W m m m. m m m m m m r , S a a a a a a a A a a a a a a a n= 9 z 2222 222z22222= = 77 m r. n mnrin m 0 2 0 8 8 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I may,,., , I I>> 4, I T gnFFF zzooc rb bAACCCCO ow M!*. wwwwPY ' • 1 1. - m m C C C C D D D D a a a a m mw r a ogLPy- 1 0000mmmmr5l I 1O1 S a 8 S S y y,. 2 2 2 2 r r r r p 1 O n O O D D D D Z I 11 0.)..- ggFm i 1 g A r x 0D fM DDD D tiN 1 AM^ F4 oo p S S S S v v v v 1 A ' '\ \ P1 n` X 2 2 2 j 2 2 Z Z D D D D I; 1 . t 1 I P: Mgj m N N N t V V V z z z z> Y •` I z2 D a I I y 04 I I I\ \ 1 \ \ I i r\\\ \\ 1 1 I 4$*, o p10 , 1 a Y L. ,,..,_,_,_ I_ I I_, .. q ., d Q oaAwir o nne: di! - --- ISHERWOOD 0 DUBLIN BLVD ill i KAISER DUBLIN 1N c DESIGN ENGINEERS KAISER PERMANENTS FRONTAGE xL> HUB CANCER CENTER 58Ma10eo Lane. Mod Fm, DUBLIN CA O COVER DUBLIN CA' JFORNIA San NOTES, I' CS? s HUB& CANCER CENTER OICI l/ 5. w. she.. momtBnen. ar., f $ F § i ABBREVIATIONS RV: 1•' SITE DESIGN REVIEW O?, y 4 a. DUBLIN, CA 94568 P 12015, 1 6. 128_ Naear__ p0rAC4_ 0000002_ CDLgIM_ OESi C1. Cp lqw Plan Oey. 0 1 AC• L> fw Flan, Padp Lapa[,/ 2! 20166 50 09 PYMRCM N deed E 1 00 00 e, 1. 00 Yrha11 1 1 1 ' 4 o If. 4, l 8 1 i li o 1t /'; f I I I om oom' 1 ti I P A I j P ' C rx III r I r v • 0 A 6.£ 1 I I + m nut I Ou,' I z z ,,, J g A A V s m o e g egg rH I • 1A N .. m N b '' I X I 8 • m• OD - o 1 J I j 1 .\ C ri F o 1 y,, 1\ v m n I I d O N I • . / I a' 6. ma o I 1 I 0 . 1 Iii. I 1 I a C 1 1 1 • \ `: I z o 1' oz 1 1 I I O I I 1 11 I I I I I I I I I 0 I I e, I 1 1 1 1 1 i // J 11 1 f I 1 I I 1 I 1i N r 1 I I t` d I I / I I 13- I I II / 41, I 6E) I I tt I : I r I ' I III I ° 1 \ 0 m 9 1 I 1 ° 1 I I( hi • ! ; I I I I M,.. c• 1 a i . r / 11 I Y F I I 1 fi I 1 1 I E 1 I ll, y 11 1i s I I I I ' d 2. 1 1 I I gip. - 1t I • l 1 li. j 1r3 1 I I • II ' •'; I I I I it!' I F I/ I. I I ) 10' ', h I o • I I 5. 1 E 1 , I 11 ' Q q 1 6. 1 / I I sps 1 1 • I 1 0 AR / 1 1 C` rq • • ill\\ I I] I` I 1 11)) I O \ O O L. t Jr1 1 1 1 ! • 3 k I In I I m I 1 \!. L C I V 1 I 1 I 1 m Cte T I > C C 28. O A 1 If I O gA pA m m r0 1G11 1 I I J zz z _, k Znzr, a, l . N [ I m O n O O m5, . < z m r O c 6 So C C d I p a I r m n 0 p () mrn rn rr, I y o z n m 1 m m 5, m p OP. K m 11. L L / rn O $ z > S 5 m 2 i m o 1x i y o m I 1 / J 1 9 rl g IIII a I 1\ L + a f 1. l I \ Xz 9 L \ r 1 I1 i I 1 \ g I: I I I I: L' ' n I i l' 4 MATCHLINE- SEE C1. 01 1I- E DRAWING TITLE. iI1 KAISER DUBLIN v KAISER PERMANENTE. C) _ '' T, DUBLIN BLVD iii SHERWOOD FRONTAGE zx HUB- CANCER CENTER pe 8EMreanLLm1Ne° II» FOz DUBLIN CA CURB LAYOUT PLAN v, DUBLIN CALIFORNIA c' 9 F HUB& CANCER CENTER • i g@ tt SITE DESIGN REVIEW oU _ DUBLIN, CA9 568 c, ' . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P1 1015115. 110_ Rapr_ QjU1p/_ 00+ 47 102- CD' SOR_ CESr CLOGlryal Pynhy. C1A1. tryout PM, P4gplopu. 70700 01 6 50 16PM 01O1 N bk. E1( 3110. 4700 Ytree), I I 1 I \ i h., \ I 4 q I I• 8 II 1 r. r I 111 I0,, 8 MATCHLINE- SEE C1. 00 7. r ',• . 7 ii t 7 r.., 7, m ' Iri, m a '' 29+ 23. 4 R . 7 1. I it I o o m ,''- e. I ,, r. ._ 1- 4 , 0D N 1 I 111 I I (` D v P ri q t.. v 29+ 39 • 11• 4' i \ `` l P N O U ? O I \\ mm U L m ,,. U P z i 1 1p• oN ( 0 i.. o l- 5 u I 29+ 65. 71 R 94. 7 II U N t/> O N U U O < AA I ' Iry 7 7' 1 Et\ I O; VAo 4 N v m A I, Ig 1 V 4) O U 1 mz I I I ! 1 N„; L EG 1 STRt i t I 1^ I \ y I• 7 R B5. 7TF -• 1' ' A' 4' .. 1 Mal '\_ 11 IPSIF m R UU I.. al. NI I 30+ 77 62 L 2. 06• v7 / /• I I ( ' . .' I 1. a gaol I I I I o j.. I . 1 I .\• 11 5' ty -- i II 1 I] I 1. 98' 1 I 30 7 7 '' 1 1 i 1 I. 1' c 1 30• 9 22 I 30BC 1 1 I -. I_...` i f I i I 30+ 98. 25'',, 57. 91' II 1 1 I EC 1 11. I I' I C 11 1 1 I I JlN111 J,..?!... I r.4 j.. ,.. imr- IIR : , i q \ e .. I . 31 54 E2 6•._ 4' r t. I 1 I 1 1 8 , 1 I 1 • N 1 I , I i 1 8• 1 . Ii I 1 pp I f I' o lUllI a7. I X32+ 34. 2 R 69. 44' I f3C 1 1• . 05.. 161 32' : R 68. 59• I 1 1 I I ' aII' I m 1 g I u r l 1 0 1 r 1 I / IL , n 1 11 1 12+ 9020 R 5791' 1 if _ I IN 1 I no i J 1 il 32+ 94. 03 R 57 50' NI". 1 J 1 p9 I ! fgl t. AAm I I' I OA 1 1 2 1 ) L 1 I V'' A' I I \ I i 1 I f I I I I I w 4 g 1 I I lj1 I T 1 I r II i 11 8. 0' 1r, 4' LI l 1 I I 1 I I k I` u j• O I \ A + I In In , n N n o v- a T. v ti f i Imo- z a o $ Q QAA C' 1 r 0 s ` r4' z z z ` c es z 172 m o p ' I I 1 ; 10 k 1 ( I / 1 m8 6s' ii G 1' 1` 4 i, j1 1 ® r $ r, rn 1 rrai 4 Z yIQ A T Pf 4+ 1. . I 1 N m A nco -< m O f I Z 1, I m a g Z ; D MATCHLINE- SEE C1. 02 S + ai 21 R 57 50' ai v o I 1 i I 6. t! 89,_ I 1 I Pi ^ z I 341- 55. 56 R 59. 35" ' 1 I - i z f. O I II I 1 I to II 1 1 II I 9 R $ DRAWING TITLE g :( t 0 9 DUBLIN BLVD 2 it- KAISER DUBLIN ISHERWOOD KAISER PERMANENTE5 2: I1f HUB- CANCER CENTER OESKiN ENGINEERS FRONTAGE r SfifAOCOnL6ne. TThal Poor DUBLIN CA CI CURB LAYOUT PLAN DUBLIN CALIFORNIA usher enreerstan HUB& CANCER CENTER A a ' v ;`, SITE DESIGN REVIEW 3200 DUBLIN BLVD s E ... r _., DUBLIN, CA 94568 P1201A15. 129_ 141aM_ dlynVA_°• Kra02_ COl50RCPST C1. 00 Lay. Plan. O p, C1A 2- Lay. PW, P. A. low. M/ R01665026 P4MC11 41/ 01• 40 EI( 39010 a 42001' tllaa11, 1 I / \\ I l'MATCHLINE- SEE C1. 01 a 1 1- . l1 of 1.. 1 o m m 2 P d tl { i ; l t- I ' t' ' ' i 1!', & II 1 P' - .. _ _. is i' q I fa° 11 4+ 41 21 R 57. O 1 m v' N v = C1 1 m a Y", t 11. V-,• . 4+ 55 56 R 5. JS 1 1 - I 1 N O O ; I I 1" I I N ` c;',. tii Oo U e o 1 ll I t 1111 4 : O N 0Up O D I l l i O 1 O . r m 1 c um o ICJ;. I I ' I in r0 11 1 I I 34+ 85. 77 R 87. 43' 1 1 1 o 4 1140, . 11 Iii > ,-.; ; 1. I I 01. 21 R 69. 50'_ _ 8= _ 1 T I 1 .•' per 1 . l 1 C iR. i t. 1 I 1 1 11 .,- 1 1 1 1 1 I i' i I 1 1 1 -' 1 II • 1 '' • i' 1 I I ae + I 1. I I I I i 8 1 1 1II I 1 t 1' I I j I II I L• I I I 4 I, ' m 1 I 11, I • L_ 1 6L1 \:: e'e 1 , 1 I' ' 3 a06 R 1.. 1 I ... 7 PT. 7y a Ih f.,. I I •, Ny pill ' 1 3 86 2 ' -' 49 ' y a 1° l 1 1 I .:• V ' m. t •_,,- a, • a , k . j'I1 1 r 1 1 r-- R. Ise , p X4. 11 w_ 1 __ , 111 u1t { aw_ 1 O a 1 . w • .- ra'_'-... 1 41 l a II 4 7+ 14 R 99. 65• 6 I ' - 1; 11' I i ' g ii € 1 g . 1 I ' K GA STREET E 11 II Ii " I 4 1! 1 1 1 I !\ 1 0 i 1 4 38+ 03. 36 R 86. 21' 1 111 1' I' 1 u 1 111 1 \ ; ', 1 010 illnalli 4ritir 401, 11 _ Mr uI 1 o 1 11 a 7 I 1 1'. 1 1 I w.,,, t 384. 31. 1 59. 00' C 1 1 . m 11 1 1 f I ! li w. 1 A - I 1 r 1 1 q) ! D/ I 0 1 r 11, x_ I n ,, v v v m c° cog A A r 1` \ . 0'> a';!'' 1 { 1 \\ •• rn, h.° r, i m m ' o o ( 11 i 1,-_, 1 o NNNN I ` 1 cLg y mn Ss egg d 11. _ ; 1 1/• i o5 1 s17 I ILL n 5 Ki A > a z 1 ` m N m A v..- -< ,. F 4s1 I' 1 9 z zo k 1 - . i``` V 115 I1 r1 m z I( 1 11 I 1 O n o 1 5 I IJ\ \\ / 1 11 m N n 1 1 11'\ 1 1 \ i I 1 Z 4 l a. •.•'" E SEE ClA3 A 1 97, 1 I I I 4 1 r 1' I 1 i I1 n 11 Q DRAWING TITLE. ill C) DUBLIN BLVD KAISER DUBLIN Pi. KAISER PERMANENTE z'? ® SHERWOOD FRONTAGE HUB- CANCER CENTER E51°" ENGINEERS• a xx 58 Malden Lana. Third FOa DUBLIN CA Cis CURB LAYOUT PLAN i`. DUBLIN CALIFORNIA Sal Franpun, CA9410d HUB& CANCER CENTER cm N S " SITE DESIGN REVIEW 6 3200 DUBLIN BLVD f 3 7 DUBLIN, CA 94568 I P120, 915- 129 i(. yy_ Cutin1fA_ DKpyg2_ CD' SDR_ OFST C1AO Lam, Phs& ICI, Q"•• Iayco Pion Patio L( pa+ IR720166` O 36 P4 ARCM All b. d El MOO x 42, CO Nd ) I I I11' I I ` L 1 I 1 I L1 S J ' I 11 u 1 I N` i 1 Q \ \ \ \ LINE_ SEE 01. 02 k II MATai t 1, I g' t 1 1 . \ 0 1 I I V t i ` V 5111 1 g I \‘ 4tNI It I Q\ ' 13 \ \ 11 l` I l 11 I O i I 111 ° , 1:— 11 •.• 1 LL 1 \ 1 111 \ I I I \ \ ' i` 6 1 O • 5 7 I kV 151 A k:%, 11-_\ G I 1' t • fik4. 11k` . l lI \ ‘' 2\: ii-::\ N 0 I k r I/ 1 j I 0/ 0' 10 t:,, , v, .•*.:., • \ . ; ) A „ , . 1 a 1 C , I o A 1 I . a h vs 6..• 1\\` •` w\ O \, a 1 \\ D W/\\ o Z 8 m m O qq gD 1 \ ` A MMMaaa 1 Li X fy ro s s v_ m s 0 M rX C) y ZGO q\ r m SZi SZi S= i m ` R1 d. c,"-\ ,---‘ . 11‘ — -- t• -- \ m In c L 0' zD^ ya p I J I v I YFQ o I I I I I I I s I v n II I Y s o m , N N a a r y X \ \„.. b v v 9 v c b. 45+ 29 25 R 59 00' s EC\ 11'':. n .. t+\ \\ y 9 F P DRAWINGTITLE 1 C) DUBLIN BLVD ro ii; F KAISER DUBLIN nit, i $ HERWOOD + 1• KAISER PERMANENTE DESIGN ENGINEERS p FRONTAGE r i4 HUB- CANCER CENTER se' Aap6RLan6TItiMFo« DUBLIN CA CURB LAYOUT PLAN iz DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA SanF` anosoo CA94103 HUB 8 CANCER CENTER GJ E ; 9 N 14 SITE DESIGN REVIEW R"”" "°°°°"%"'` 3200 DUBLIN BLVD M = s w~ ._ DUBLIN, CA 94568 J 1 o • • • • ® • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PVCIAIS129- Krs._ Ou S4,( 4_ D. spIC2 CAS OFST C1AgO,. o. OAnArq C2 A0 Cris Dr. A69. PA61el. pc,// 1/ R0, 66S2' SPM. ARO, 41 bN- 6 E,() 0. DO. A2 00 Ind-).,, 1 ' C QI) Q O / y, O I iI I 9 g I I I w; I f/ I o P I / Kn - I w / n j F IPrgi' l Ay. mo a Aa t I ao l I x / i 1 d i Db IWO 1. 5X 1prx c• 1I£`•.. ,. Sxw. c-'F 1 ZmDA I n > I I l Rill ill Yln v. 3 2 Q o Pg. I I 4 rn 1 D SIDEYAIK I1 ; _!: ng I ! \ { 11 N yl 0 A c , n. CROSSWALK IF PROVIDED I1 a I I t°. V I + o ox q2R. Ia m1 I I • F n at j. Z 17g 1: 1-' 4P I T, I 0 Y m S } 5xr. a: I O. D j I I' a r 1 11y3 f€ v n l g I/ o n ' n, rtR R ' i I eo s^ ; R. - fig j I 1 I ii k' gm Q n I I v J°.. PL giEl n I 1'• II tk; I ; Q L• JFI g' T z> 1 i I I CROSSWALK lF PROVIDED I Min - 54T I r. tK 5z g M I I r l I I e. q- R 1m a 6 I I I I ti as - . 7e ' m € A.> °. a Y0 I N o] a D > A I I\ s i r 8 l$ n In n ' 1 1 x. v 1 m> : i' y E D f5 k ti 1 1 9 1 - r 3 . -. o a, m I I I l- L I 0 I ` ,,- m c, K8° € ti 0,:::: s: - M II I yy m F 1 I 0 p I 1 1 m p' T, . -, a r w " o i I I I i / ti S 25 aa1' P o' aI' a'°" _ a sa' a' o. ss s p i4 a; a saa a i 0 s. i1 I ; 1• N ° n " , 1i• o 3a° 7 a yi?, : •» a' n.. d§ i0 8. 3. Vd- oz y 1 v g n v a, 22. ' a g°^.' 3 84oi no: 3g " 3 g: t •: g" a. d s• n I NJ 1/ t. N ° G A i- ' lg.. o • 90 °. s; 733 3° " S : o g38 on°` g U I- i 37 igs BSz? oY i 8R' '-. - 2 ' 1 _. 892 • 9'. oy I S D V° n of ° g = = 8;° ,° o• °." v D 8 vda 2.;: a" 1 I Z 3 v. 3 4 oav 0° a° o • Foss I I Ii n v 70 ` m s o > o, s $ Y °— a " < " a ' 3 ». a a it I o > g$ , 0 0 pi , 38 i - gg; a •••.;° qS n.". t.:,' it s - 8• R. . nt ^ o83. S o" iR9hp I v ue°', n o5; . g o' oa 3a' ng S o• i%.• 0•' 7 F m I 13 P oao ? a a a 90- ° 3> bad Am I v n I. ; $ s a 1: ai sa as p a2 3s g2o°; sya7, F o I., o a I 1 r I iti aa aa pai A aA I I 1 r- y RS = o °° Sa8 03 8a " c 3 -? ° 2r Y T eF: I - 1 I I I Z so '— s ; a? ; oo3€ i° R ., 8 _ ys vm 1 I I Iw L d 1 70 " 3e R 80 Z. 2S n ogan t,? ( I I c v, §= cn a% 1' 3 aaa 21a ' S- a ° €, aa N 1 I 1° I a, tit 88, v a $ S a'.• x 3 S B Vi s' 1+ II ` k 1 D y o R, a 8 0• rS$ a I k , Cam' 0 I_ i • 8" is 80: Ixl I j, I I e D 08 0 I I f 1 I i V88V dSti NVId a VaNVIS a3SIA3t! SLOB 1, o I I 11 v L- 11117/ 1 1 I. I 1 4s 1f I i i g> 1 I I I d I I I ; ` a 1 I I j2 I I Iz I ( a m 1 l 0rA" m nr5 A '^ c HI rQQs c c cc o o a A I ti PA A 2 rZry m ° N C p! j = i K < f y°$ 8> o A i ` q $ n n n C7 v, ina I Z r^ SL ; m o 4 D O A Z , n' n A 1 \ I Z r" D I OZ ti ZA N m N A am D A I m apn > o gA a- Z z Z Z f v 5 Z L A ° Sn " m 1 / 2 O Z ° ges2 3 I 1ir I gR8 N 1 ADZ m 1 m 1 II I g° Z l i i I^ ' 0 1^ 0m 1 al 1 iy1 D 1 i gig" lD Z PI 1 0 a1 I I I I l i I I: Al 1 Ft I I il i II 8 , 1/ I H. r I I \ I. R31 r- I MATCHLINE- SEE C1. 01 2 E ! DRAWING TITLE. If N m m DUBLIN BLVD i} KAISER DUBLIN v ® SHERWOOD KAISER PERMANENTE. HUB CANCER CENTER DESIGN ENGINEERS FRONTAGE i." .' po 58 Maiden Lane. Third Floor DUBLIN CA O A GRADING & z SITE DESIGN REVIEW San h. . de,.,, BL N CA, IFCR.. ye HUB& CANCER CENTER CD s 9 a@ 1 I< k EVIEW Qo 3200 DUBLIN BLVD PAVING PLAN t v DUBLIN, CA 94568 oo • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • P ItOI AIS- 124_ 6066.__ py nIW_ p66. 9v02_ COISCEtCFSi C2A04roy panon6( y O Owe pain C60Pafb low r! 2ll20166 S2' S2 PNARCR IW tease E1( 30. 00 a 42- 00 W. I. 1 I 4 a. I 1 Q 11l 8 I I \ f' 21 I a' I g tI y ti1ATCHLINE- SF, F. C1. 00 1—' 7' 11 7 I U i,, g. 4 01! I i . e R 2 / mom I x m 2; 3. y3 w p 4 X I I I ! a, O! A. 1I t> m t{ A y , oAi°- Ki 8 I I I If q3. : nil £ j5 0,-, z7:', t'" I r i I v{ 1 1v e~ C 2N nr> I S 7 y ' 19 ins O DO9 I E 1> NZ. hf'.•. GAI \ 1Rl'. hl m'' 1 I I G1 1Fi Z A I IS nth 4_, 1 1 N° 7,-...\/ N I ili. N t'. ( V / b'" L4• 54 Ic- 1....:; 1!\\\‘‘‘\...\\:\.;,\•\-*!:\-\ 1`. 1 \\'‘\:''.\\''.\-‘\'+‘\: ' .....‘:\ j co ii 8 arx Th p 1 aI t to iNg 8"; a D y I L S. I A9 1 ; A I 1 A I, rr 71 a I p 1 A co 0$ C agyy7 I1I/ i p \ 1 i 1 i?> A I 2 r r- r . T, O r71 7; 4 A • II A 111 11 A + _ R I 1 11\ t \' T I I t ' 11 C nor Aa ! P 1\ rn Nr n`obi I i• O. O N t I VVV a Li 8 1 I;` i is 0 1 II1 a 1 I AE , 11 . 1 I I N R IE r 8 I U1 r f*_ y 1,y I I 1 ; ffiI: d I 1 2 tr 1 1 8 a I 1; 1 a 4 slur g 3' ii 4 1' i r7 O 1 I 8 0 I 1 I 1 i a v IIi1 1 i I I tan—_ U 332 I l l 1 O O O ON 1 Z . A.., I r t I I NATCI- ILINE- SEE C1. 02 11,, I, { ° ' 9 I 8 1 I I 7', N I EN A c' o I I1 A I rn m v >< cn c v A no A + 1n y y vl 2 2 v- > o v I 1 3 1 ` L 0 A \ m D >_ T A m l l D C C CO ° A A r—• r I'_ 1 O 0,- 0>m An p. z2 2 P 2 A ? 1 S * A m m O O Ia trl I. 4. j . F, e F) a Z ;°, ez 8 , E1 2 2 Z C co ; nz m r '' f° v 1 1l`' 1 y ° A p o> y m o cl 1cp1 c < '' i° in ? 1i e1 1. P •+ El 2 8> 9 mN Ay Jm y m l2'' ° C v 5 A Z 2 I I 1 1 , .' , 1Y J Ira Om V p O A I1" 5LZI1 1 I t zy> a 44 ' I, i o z n ';- 3 1 z m- .. p1 z v v> m (( 1 mz VP, A o 2 A s v g A 52a o m 5 $ z ; A z 1-16 F a I MATCHLINE- SEE C1. 02 m p . X rag ° i A ° " $ ' zs $ y t';'' f 1 g'> s sz I ° 4` I 1• a i v er IIv io I A> n • ° f I '! I u I I I — I• i i A II II I Ii o I I' I I 4 sa P ORAWINGTI7LE a( f C7 DUBLIN BLVDI: KAISER DUBLIN 1 KAISER PERMANENTE, N i SHERWOOD FRONTAGE II! 1 j HUB- CANCER CENTER DESIGN oNLENGINEER DUBLIN CA z GRADING & P DUBLIN. CALIFORNIA San Francisco, CA 44163 Cii HUB 8 CANCER CENTER y• rn o. snen 000eny neencan F P PAVING PLAN a @' W a' SITE DESIGN REVIEW 3UBIJftDUBLIN BLVD DUBLIN. CA 94568 I 1111118911111111111111111OISIOSIOOS11011111111 • 0 • 111111801111111101111 201511} 129_ KaiW_ Obln40{- 0 - COLOR- DEBT C1. 00 Grade Arn. O. va,( 2. 02 Grade pyn EPtlb low. 021/ 20166 S3 46 MARCH hA( ad El DODO.< Zep yrr), t I SEE ABOVE MATCHLINE- SEE C1. 01 t11 I U 4 4 I Il 11 E L..\ I O . I gt r- 8. 1 zt MATCHLINE- SEE C1. 01 1 8— II,_, I i I I Qkk 1` 1 I m Q I. I I y n 1„ \ e 1 I I ^ T I I - 1, + I R f u w J u 4os t w ft I a 1 8 \ 7 I 8 ki___.:_ l. . ___ i>'"/ vo' q 0 1 4 $ I U 1 r I m I l x 1 , I 1 PI oa1 N ; I 1 Pu f I a 1 ' I 1 \ 8 ® ! I1 N I k 1, 8 I g a II;' , if ___ 1I"\t I c If I 4 I I 1: II I m . ' I, Ia I i 1 gj I 1 {; • I_-- sL. I 1 1' D I 4 _ r j' I I S Eft, ( 11 i CC2. i" I II j. I I1 II_ gg 8 ` I ' Ir ° I; 1' c 1 O A SI$ n 8 I r A lI # iI IL I I' i I ygm I Azm I; p I a g 8' 2 I y- o I 1. 11' 4, am l I m D I $ I- D I' I m I mm I I. p y am9Vy 1 I Q I I v S.'- p 1 111 I OO Q 4 1 Y am I r7 1' 1 2 N x I 8 A IiN ti,< 3 & , rgi# p I Hg tk I II rn I I; A 11, 1 I N. 1 T- \ 1 J ---- I v y 8 I I a wl u 1 a o • I I e_ N 1 \ V\ z_ I r1 t. I 4 8 on tn I u I I r-1"- I N 1 8 t 1 1 - a Cc r sTltcET I I m 4 1 S 4$ y 1. l) CI FtAR' 1 5` A; Z ''' r: 1 1 N \\\ \\ \\\\\\ \ I J 1n. z 1 Y S / A N 4 J Yw n • t ',, I a l•.' Y ., of , s 1 I • I , sJ oZ f 1 f m 1 1..__ I - ..._ o Al, gal u'- i ; 1 U e I; 4 I a A A ' a ' J 1 I tr, D 1 f L,. FO 7a I 8 Iv 1 Y ` SrJ I 4m \ II j I 4 G...- I 1 o SEE BELOW I i° I C \'''. ff! omo A > a DAmA mp a c ° co b A A r v pS'' 1; 2S 8 cSc 07A Ort O„, S8j ; 8 Z 2 Z y m z P. ( al m / 7 C ' I 11, Am I I r. 1 Z p j O y = y t A0 4l n n A. Z m A x1 1^ . 1., C. CO.. I, O O U: P z° m ''_ t zz i ' t I I rm 5 \ 1 1 mvA K N rn 1 t, } va ' I 0 i 1 a OD r. l D I 1 gm r r- I c I j I t , 1 1 Q I i IG I rt ' I b t v S DZa I 1 j',\' mqN I Wt Ii , .\+ '-- E EE C1. 03 s Z l 0—• v . 1i- TCKLIN S A 1 I E I I I I 1 ,, j,. / \ \\ \ \ I\ I I o 1 I I I li I I 111 E 1 DRAWING TITLE. ill n DUBLIN BLVD 1j KAISER DUBLIN t M KAISER PERMANENTE N FRONTAGE ii. DESIGN ENGINEERS xi ps HUB- CANCER CENTER SEI Malden Lane, TRvdFox DUBLIN CA GRADING & It DUBLIN CALIFORNIA San Francesco, CA 41104 F N § F d w wsrerwooden.,...., HUB& CANCER CENTER PAVING PLAN ig° E I. SITE DESIGN REVIEW DUBLIN, CA945 8 t m at 4- 4:.....,-:-....:::.-_, DUBLIN, CA 94568 S / S S S / S S S S S S / 1 I S , I S , S . S , S S S S S S S , / S • S S S S S , S . r V1201A15- 09_ Nns_ DuLMW_ Oe. q, x72_ COSOR_ OEST 07. 00 O1a1yd.. C3A0 LbMy. DU Lapsr3/ 2110• 665641 MARCH Jul dead EI DOA a 42 00 O p 0, I 1 il/ l- a ' ii I r,x1 0—. 4, Jr I I Z y1 1Cfr S . k b I a 1 I a 4' IF Z.,,,, I t 1 i: ARNAU WI'. I, 1, I I g L. I _ " 1 I 11 I E 1 I I. y I,, - L. 1 I r N I I r , 1\ I ) I 8''' 1 I m°,, t„ 1 I L F AZmO I I 1' I NDNm • a C. I _ y1 I I 1 I 184N nC . I a l 1. I • 3 \ I DL J 1I r I ad tr II I 4 m I o I r I 1 I I I11 n I I 1 O i 1 1 CA 1 I k 1 if 0 rrl I I l 1 I N 1 I I 1, 8 , 1 I r 1 I ; I i I I 1 I 4 q I 0 1 t L I I I i. 1 I, Amy'''' y10= 80000000_ I e/ O Oto 0 . I'n1I r.T° m prn ia U ! HU° m Dti gi eI ND 2A x o om O x> y — I _ I dd r, NG, Z_, y f - I '\ : I Z my Z Il I! I I D n I rl o ' x n V) I Q I I 1. D Z A' 2?- 3 -' an 0 - x " o G l' mv_ i z° ZO C 11 ' 1 5' o5Tr' 5 SND S OSN Om ( 7 O ODOQAN v xyR o ° d/ try. T. OQ rX* 1 I i I V S m I- 2 , T, TO S. j g L O 8p V O ! O- 9y I I O D Fr O•'• Z D D 111 O rmO v p NO 1 U O rA W n t1 ° N F1 p oZ O mO N m - n N N N U) ° O 9- D pV p0 I I ODA N ° y E to D Z ; mZ A ( Z1 ' O S S , m m m D m V m I ' - 1 r A C D A Z g N PD 3: ,. C Z . z f, r1 4, 1 xL y rn f) A D D ° Om ° , Z., n n n m mp i { R7 I I\\ I m map D m F D y m N C A° II" azZ Q° ° ^ 5 a z Z a A Z Z O I 31 I I I_ o Z F ti ,- _ O A ° n O I a it', 9 ' A 2 > ' A A 6 K D 4 Vn Zy mm A 1 '' I ` I OZ ° < M Z 5 I^ M a f ppp '' 2 * A A m N m A ' • < m p I -„ JI N AA2 c r = i z c) i F I ce oi 17.= A N o A ' I Z I I 1 mv . o n 9 I 5, I 1 Rg I ^ N^ I 111 13 r gD I ga Z I I o € e a 9 I I I I ; 11L i D= y I ' l 0 I Imo' I D I 1 4 I 1 1 O 9 e u ? 7 9 E 1 n 11 u: g 1 ° I I I ZUNI I i I I I e11, i 1 II o I U; ' i I I I M \ I I T I f Iy I xI t I I d, I I 0 I 8 ;' 11- *" I Q '`, I, C' —, — , n-,. r{'— ,' ice . - M C. Ian III • MATCHLINE- SEE C2. 01 I . a g Q DRAWING TITLE. II C 1 _ 1 - DUBLIN BLVD ill P KAISER DUBLIN U ti P d KAISER PERMANENTE. FRONTAGE HUB- CANCER CENTER a, SHERWOOD DESIGN ENGINEERS Qvo 59 Malden Lane ilumFm' DUBLIN CA O 1 ii DUBLIN. CALIFORNIA V j Saq FranaaW. CA94103 UTILITY PLAN w..: mac, HUB& CANCER CENTER O 1 q SITE DESIGN REVIEW 0; 3200 DUBLIN BLVD r_ s t 1,---::',==. 17: 2- 71—*".'" DUBLIN, CA 94568 201506121 1441R_ DutWa- DW40112- COSOR-- DEBT C100 NFyep, 0. 01 UPWy. PS6b LW0, 727 20166: 6121 P URDU Owl El 00. 00 a 470010rs11 1 P Y N s o U o I I ,; MATCHLINE- SEE C2. 00 U II I 1\ I ? I f 1 I 1 use I 1, I ,,, 1 gii 14 1 0111111a11 1. 1111115m....... - ;:•,,, , , II hI STA 10 43 67 7'.. 7.' 77-,-- f- Q E C- 1 9 40 I O RIM 124 I 4• Q p Y g I I IE 33'. 90'( I F IE - 3 :. 40'( E) 1 IE 33' 11'( S) I I Ir•_ S;. r D p ©, „ f.. po , ._„_ _,, ,, o rp• lzn m o 1{. 127 1 4I 1 w.. I 0 ,,, l! R I 1 u I w KEEe KI: I. I. c mA__.. pAq 4 I m J 7 1, / STA 11+ 43. 45 7- _, i_ A. 1 E MH1I IN RIM 35 46• fi ilk 1' iF O I IE .-• 33 51'( W) I. IE = 34. 06• N I d. 1 I` ; w._` l r 1 Q" !.-- J I STA I1t7441 I I 1 1 0- S3 I 1 .' I+ I. ou. I RIM 351 f8' 1 i I 8 IE 31255'( E) 11 I (,/ N I IE = 342 60'( W) li, 1 . n I N vt% tj I 1 1p 7 I 0 0 .' 111 o aN° I i 111 g o I c F I 1I I a N I fI" I b I m '! 11 fj ag7y gm I oog Hb I rAI .. t; 1 I gk 1 F. y YIN I 1III ° 1 0 I N E- n 1 I i i R 0 4s. I 12+ d5. 95 II 1. L1 , E I a N A I 10 f W I -} I I ' ntn + I II 1 . IIl ` Av I [ 1 U C D I• T1 t Z 11 mo U ) 64._ II I r. 1 do I 1 y o 0 x I y z..• l'' N mn 1_- ' I _.. i i I' i, 1 1 V O sr, I Lf III zm 1 I f 1I m I I I O N r// A P 3 STA 13+ 79 n f 1r l r $ n' I'.4 0- 52 1 I i RIM 352. 72• O I __ o III1ff'. 1C I IE = 344. 64'( E) I < nN I t ry I IE - 341. 64' ( W) 1 a^' Illlll 1 mZ I 1 ' N 1 i r I s 1 In III g0 I f O z OF e n I 1 O O V1 1 I AYo 1 I ir . % i II 1 7. E III( a i T11 k 2 O; I 0 D * pZ O AO LA D + INDIA N N In 0 co > V D IJ O 1 O m n D g 1P pm Z _ > A m m ° O Qp 7 n 3' 3' 3' 7 I 444 y7 z a z o an ; y z z z C 4 fi= ( a A A n F N 2 m n ?? CG n O o y Z C C n Ih':+ 1 f Azg - Egl -g A m f. y Z m m ; 1 g 8 y n N a' I- n I- n V T - - i1 WNW 1 - 1- In $ 1 7. 7, MATCHLINE- SEE C2. 02 yy i A A F A m = r o A pi, 0= mN S D V K D O u1 I ; 1 1 R it I 1 r 1 I() 77 ' 1 y\ O mo; I I I D n 1 I o YRI I I ipqog , 1 • p i i 9 • z N o iz n5 Imo, n N.11 1 1 pR "_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 p I 1 OIAUIni y.. Imo• 0- 7 p 2 V F I p a a N O A m K On gin ? 0 2 n> p 1 N- § 1 FTl w N QQQ 22 + N I I I 01 I U= Im OIAN ' - ; g,,, ? zccy O C5 O X n i a6i u i> ssn ° Inn ' A R. Qm = Z cl RI I I gDg0o A Qs l' 9 = I I I o o- 1 I I 0 RR A= o s R "> t c I ki o a F* I I I UI I I no n0 S ° 2 , 3 8p r yy Omr7An° -``' O N t= il° 4 DRAWING TITLE. W S? DUBLIN BLVD i KAISER DUBLIN SHERWOOD 14- KAISER PERMANENTE., FRONTAGE I_ HUB- CANCER CENTER DESIGN ENGINEERS xix sDa 58Mwden Lam Dv/ Foot DUBLIN CA DUBLIN CALIFORNIA San Flanusco. CA 94104 UTILITY PLAN S CS' S19 w HUB R CANCER CENTER s = gg= i• SITE DESIGN REVIEW S 3200 DUBLIN BLVD m •/ 2 I DUBLIN, CA 94568 PWISI194S- Kalm- D IROI- Dwar a_ . SR_ ORSTC7. 00 Wypp0. 2lR7Atlo LCOM. 7R7/ 201665405 PUARCH NI and Et3 4 indwoI L1. MATCHLINE- SEE C2. 01— —' — ' i —• — ' - 1 —• — I la Y o G1 I I I i_ i 1 1 4 1 G j N i, I MATCHLINE SEE C2. 01 i I I I,, JTT f I vtissismin 1/ . O I. II I i1 F ,, a Ir 7/ , I I 15+ 87.. I 1 y}. I. - 71 IT" Y a- xl_ YG, I I T+ as a F I g 1 1 I • 5 Iin 4o f I I Do 1• As I I A r ' 1 I I 1 APi1 u ir O I I1 I , I-. F I zi 11 1 i k0 I is I a 9a yry] AOZ q 1 I C• 1O 1 3' 1 I r rl D1nry. Uo I I II 1 I iI ARC 1 U iE_ 1 I I Z I I II I li I I m il N j I IN I ' I I I aym I II I I i I I 1 8 • A_ D2 I I 1 II ;‘,..,-,,, zNO I N I mOrO II • I 1 1 ' 1 ,' D m. 0 aZ I I z I I 4 I_ R I 1, ogz I gN0 i 1 pi t t' A-. 0y 6-* lw U I 3'.' s'!• 1 17 3502 a I 1 9>° In : F U NA , I tip I m . U l r m, Sz _ I I 1 v 1 • tpt ' I I I I - S1 I RIM 24 N z A w u a -- - y- -----..... - u oar car I I III 10 ! j t• I, r„ w& . 111 N m O O P tr O N ' m I I m;= I. V/ I \ lI\. 1 I W ICJ 1 `+ iJ01, Inz I I \ Q i- I 1 1 i4 ter Pi\ L.„ i r Am N' Z 00000000 I CD A - omK- om JD is n f tlm Dy 2 o I l SS Y9 vv AOmlr' O 2•:-•; C D n O•- NA VI I A> Z !' I (= Z pIn OOD Zn VI 2A fTl j ,. w+ l I i \ I I I I O o. ' 1 r c a A z v in an ; m c z TSS n r r Aal"Sy'^ 8 yZ-Si y2n ,,, R2 D7. SZFZi511 -' ,,. wvai1A I m II / i t oz g 2 rA m m rA r - m ° A m m.°, Q m 1 , I Cdr II a 1 o p C n A 5 A 9 m 7 g 5 1n rA ak' A I A 1 ' i 1'' 1 I . o W II INI I 1 4 m y r A n m D o m A ; D i i t _ 1 0= A ro i m ,,^ V m m 0 I rn o i 2An m 0 g N z I Q I Iof 1 mA n 00 1' 1 '. CCC 1 mO I I i 1} I z 8 I•' I rnhi1 I o- O I a a I, I 1 t• I $ I d c 1 1 I\ . I 1 II I n I 7 it a i\ til Y. 1 ' I i l 1 I I I w Q 1 4 fig, I f I f f 1 2,' ... ' ,,• 1 EE C2. o3 o o bm i i 1 , 11 TCNI- INE_ S.__.„ I II I I I I I a t t 1 1, a , , 5 1 1 1 t f Q DRAWING TITLE g {{ k W DUBLIN BLVD KAISER DUBLIN ISHERWOOD ' II• KAISER PERMANENTE g FRONTAGE I HUB- CANCER CENTER DESIGN ENGINEERS 1 CD P z x set.+ aamLare. rlwFoo DUBLIN CA I4 DUBLIN. CALIFORNIA San Francam. CA 94103 N x UTILITY PLAN 9p HUB 8 CANCER CENTER v, wv« sna1w000erglneersc4r. r aa I: SITE DESIGN REVIEW 3200 DUBLIN BLVD F DUBLIN, CA 94568 itegl e ! • • • • ! e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i • • • • NEM P X, NI 5- 129 HWM_ Oitlmu_ Omprk2_ CD OFST 3. 000Yry. a9. C7. o] IAfy. PB[ b L. N• t. M20101450. 1 NA of lul d. M E 1 00. m x. 200 kdw). 1, t,,, . 1 \ 1. 1. 1 \ 1 I 1 - Y111 1'\\ \ W; 1 S t 1{` 1 1 1 V Ui m 1 Il' t Y Iii iti•\' I 1 z 1r j S g` 1 11• 1 41 1 e 1 i 1 1 t 1 ' I \ 1 N o ; 1 8 1 • O I y` 1 1 mpp° a . \\\•' 1 W I A2N 1 r,:..,, y N t 1 O` t' 5 1 o 1 1 11 2 p g" , tom t I,‘,\. 11' 1 1, CO/• RR M { I t l t 1` 1 a . s; '-,^ a 3 MMM 1 1nt s `\ 16 ` 1 , t\ PPP N r, „ 1 p D \ 1\ 1 1 N H= 1 -• 1 ,, \ p rn CP U\\ tom o V M. p r om r C F A o t ' p m. p O> Nm NZ m 00000000 A 02- N_ DO_mmA\ m. f mmCAZ nD On NO mrFZnl4P \ t, t .`\` 0 A O ym n ZO 2 ON p ZZ p 22 R 2 m> m2 T,.) y 9< 8 E''''' gm Q x m r9, 2N U t i, 23, 6^ o"," -, m zp gA - 7,,,, > n m w orco4 \ t Oo k y R y D m g° Z z m o S ^ DoAmc, A\ Or _ O° WNA Nr548 N m O< = Ao n rlA> DmO p \ p O OAO3Oyy . Q > X n D 8 X DE O, Jz D w yD7n t tt\` OZCN 80 M 00 ° xgri < p mjis o° vP AN e , n r z C Ry mov, pF.,. m , , L ZoTr, > x C z . m R Io v ° D AN 0op . c on m C m c t AAnO O D c' ° y AVIO AmO 1 Po Z-- o p Pm O2mp oAO m C) E pO DN F ° O2 pO mO N Am R N V N N O O V" O> AD A " O O. O 9 2 D mO D Z c mP 2 Z N N A mm m O o 71- p p ., A Z Vi r ; C m D O m m v m MZ C D O D y 2 Z Z ' R o A A T Vm m O p < f n O O C7 O y Ay A = v Z9 A m M r - m m o M n , r, 0 m A) Q m A y r;° o N n 761 Zm ZZ ' 1. A n m O ; Z CI; r D F p- A _ t\ p A An N zl m r. v Z n O V > O D O DZ ' I II o- rI, I Ib1 n` N' I pA t \\\\ p O Z v ZE" 1 III I C\\\\ I I I p \ 0 o my O Jk 3 q I I I g m AZ; y Z a I I c a \ p \\\\ I I I II om: L S I^ , $ DRAWING TITLE: if C7 m m l; KAISER DUBLIN Pi KAISER PERMANENTE DUBLIN BLVD ESHERWOOD FRONTAGE ill i 1; qi HUB- CANCER CENTER DESIGN E` 1GIYEERS O2zx 581dm0en,', T'.,", DUBLIN CA UTILITY PLAN qvi DUBLIN CALIFORNIA Sd, Frawso C 4IO; HUB& CANCER CENTER j CO f Al SITE DESIGN REVIEW 5µ > 3200 DUBLIN BLVD DUBLIN, CA 94568 SSSS SSSSSSSOO SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS . SS • • • • • • • P 12015115. 17 K Nff_ Mbn' 0/- DWOW2S01SOR- DE$ 7. 4. 00 DMM..° yU. 00 S* 041• 10. 0, 14,.. 1, 21, 20, 6/ 01' ISPI RM,/ tyi El PMAM./ 200 KN./, t. l m 3" o y 0 Fri t av v1 # zzxo Y a O mm in m n^PIy'),$ 2 V 8 mmmm , /`• igi a A• 11 2; J!:! 1 ! ffl r_ IIbi J I i / / C A }* 4"' t% A I iI m8 A / t v _ x zoo c Y £' 0 882 L vm ° zm r u -/- 3. 56' NI. y? i 1 o; 4 o : 4,: ra F. i ° co ki: amino a i n . 7, 4 aV. 1' '/ IA. msg, 4., NAV. A Nm 1R i oa = t 9\/// c,\ Li I I 8• n.. '\/ v!•', „:-. 6. 1., VT a.< .. 1• w dii. f// u mo P% 2 g rill 0 I I . r: qa2 •• zx '” a Ii:! i! i mr a- 1 ., 00 m z t- A J , 11- 1II— I T2 o TL r v, z ' ifI I- 1 I II . I i p Q z u ` r1Qo of 7. 16. 11 1— I8I—- I n I O g i PG, I0V40 xl ,-, k N o X z , i..,. S Pmt m OP^< n 26 Q C O _ Z o a frlhil 1. f1 z> 17n RPz£ L - ;! i.. 8 cm a j1l i` 0' P', a F hH20 mnP , % 1 I I I— III !' 1 41 $ g$ . atm, '. ri1 ic$ o 1 R1 R ".-, n > r /•. Q1 91 A$ T -- 1. 1.. c a• c v m z>• `// ? PI! oz ° o 96; , ; 1 I— III— I Inm >° rAouET4 1Ri 0 o Mt' j t i' v 3 A . J\ '!•' m y N y ` i' N r i i a n R rA r- i• 4< < m w, 1 III— III H 1 zm 15;• w. x mg pppp Ii— 1 mr n J c MO; 1' 1 8 N i 0_ V' t• 1 8• 70 x/,,,,, 4%,• JS o p o, xO o • s s , c, 1• Iketobi c n A ° ng o o__ .\%`\,\\%, y0 r.20 T: 4 G fli t 5513 , 225!! 2 LVL i 2 0 --. 4 9 K> c Q, i> o° ' Y' m 30 . g> F I? oy ' F>; z \/ /\/\. _ S m 1 JIgi.' m> IT , igW Vi1nl} e]' ra; X11 \ 1i 5" 1 SS 2 oi/• nA" VIR' 8' 2x52 a y1_ CI i . o> g 5.^ i zF i m cfipv^ cco-. p i f YN- Z f ot T, c $ wlel. n i x 8; I x ~ m = N ' v o O% c ^ ygp I O R'•••- KS $ u y yA Ap N yQ m C y m r0 ? prT y J. (% 1.., II ^ 1 m O K O I O yY 11% 1 y 4 J Z l, l 2 NDt, nrm l' 1 SD a C 7d z ^ A O g°'• o mm r gg m42p> m q" gy $ c ism ggR l a$ o 4.r 6g=$ 2' o z RF2 OaRo AN A yN qq m' 2Er 1 z6 I RF 12U U. Ao g e vt, t . I N 0 o I G t S? op -, 82 g ii z2. Q 1I i 0 i I i I m m °' FLOW LWE AND L , q, a t,O H PRO. IECtED FACE 9 z a 3: 1 3„ I 7 OF OM a g e>• i m 4 ...._ , Q , ce A • Ng$. I pa > a 1 j a y e 8.- f- 8 g- bg N - Iz c C7 Fi O I S m - • .\ 265.. 0 z R rQ ay/ 1 $ g i mi Is 71 o^ tip 1 Ilz I 2. 4t Y R* a--, N L g 8 J Wj z Az loc° y t- 42 c 0O m it1 o o p m ^'^ o e 2m8 zA p m z A eA n DRAWING T DUBLIN BLVD KAISER DUBLIN o HERWOOD KAISER PERMANENTE.: FRONTAGE 111 HUB- CANCER CENTER DESIGN ENGINEERS aix 0 58Maaenlan•. TmaFna DUBLIN CA 0 n li DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA G tO San Francisco. CA 9N0B O F s r DETAILS - SITE C' r ln stetwmeengneen. com HUB& CANCER CENTER i M SITE DESIGN REVIEW o2 .__ _,.. DUBLIN, CA94568 o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PV015111179_ Nawr_ Qaf 1C& 04. gnm_ COISOR_ OFST U00 N4444. 04VA. 01 0441, 494 Ds° a. Pado low/ 1]/. 01670273 PYARCR I b.. Et( 7000a 42. 00 r°• s). 1• I r O 1 M5+ vO, N . 4N- 4 f) I s> vl - 1^ Z^> I 5'' 9•( YN) SEC NOtE S 1 oP ImAi FiF - se__ . 7 - 57' .. I. 1 r ; n Ir R CNNmm_= SNP a ma o m 1 a2NDyD Dg,"' ' A of I Zf SZDZDZOy O.Zj C I I NI __ I:! VARIES I 1 • o i TG! iC mv o yA I I 1 I Nz. A.1Nr; Am A- 1 pO I s pA = Zm D rp^ SZ 2= I1 2; Zt^ O(/=` DAA1yyyy 0 OS r A 11 ...:: H N 11° RmN NF I Z 1 05 _ t a' f% I I I °: P° A a° o I qQ ncl - a no pQ pvmAm-'^ z9rr- I II GZ2 i 1y oa° isz2 ^ v I J m m p OO ZOAa co o r!. IR mp r. AF0 zruli F" ln it a c2 MA p n v_. (/ m(/ 1 a( y 2 r' I gj myy , j at d pcZOyisyDo tom o uo E$ w ' zp > PAn ° r p 7q rfi ^c go , 02 7fi q' Q m' 1> o N N ymi STY n r ry Q ` yn r- % S fT pp DNA B '( I'-- N A00 mO Z C 6 IS q e 11- 1r oi ,m F,_ N z li c> 7^ 4 . z= 0 p22 a i C ,•.. a m+ i ' cns> my a: 11 1u \' 1 Jar••.; 1+- —•;..- D e5•+ o a r. l 1/ 2' I ago m y AT, 5Qy i @NFp- • I Rio c, Ay V2 oN @- 4' a-. I I / s• I hoc <> zo Rm at X6 N / 1 6'' C IS goo 0 0 SEE NOTE a 24' „ Imo° is pl, r-- r 6` r m°' 001 61, y p fi rsim A !; i rz Yi5! rE: : iiI1iI a] JN Nmm c°^ 0' m m I N r q aZ NNm lnR>` a°• 1 Zmm : ul R 1 m IIII t 002m Q - 00 l" I VA1ES6'( MAK) N$ N 0 nm P. w $ e-: It 0 c r q! S, 2 qa 111sssi iii CC A z ZIA NZ g mo p; A Zm M s" r' J a P Z - M3 e b izp g c om y9 Yalu F": Q g '. 1¢, ti y -`- - z y m fM 1' U - F Q i , 1•i i y m m R N• o{/= ? > mo IN l I yVn lr' W> D '\ s. I11I1 z -< 2A 11Q O i A 8 DI O ay L z I a A 8 I mO IQ\ X 4 OO C r) Oti r xy z% lA QQ7( Rm z y i O \ I timXO ZOm 2 m !• f S F, 1 rNmi mD mA ,,* in- 4om Tm, L. 1m/ 11Fc mCJ KA,' m mx F fAb Q t2, 2,„ -- i1 x ° rD N Z m O D I m Sai•- 2N m ASx O N Om> m 2 C m FR NAN A,,< ptiC2T> ° pNm zKO>* A~ Cti00 O N Z FU t F 2Z m. mzOA; F omTtpm AFZpAO a z- pym R r 2 Y r rr.. 11 ppr4i r: l ym>• DS DDx ADmNmm 2m? Vm > m F. o N N DmQ . tiZpp. N> PNIP "' NAr/ g 8.- DN An Ox QFQF m< OyN Am Nr. 5 Cr 4 am {/{/ 0 Nm B c G{ ' Ai 2'Fi ZZn NyyC OZ N 42:,'. 0. z SmA_ OpA OxxpOrc5. < 2z>- ; S ap m os L SIp 53 _ e 414.,X mDNOm" 1' a' v cv z^ oo Sz Zi a o rrn• L' m v° z vnz j0m i o irrA• 1 a Re 1 ; g cam+ o g 3 i ' 6711, oz -'> g - ex)> m NIO" vj0 ° 2.);°,, z ° zNm1o= D z° ;'" OO° N' Rzo n F+ 304$ mor iZ mm m yi A o aR~ m O rn m0A ro.'/ m', o it t^ 22 & r3,• Dti " N m ; mpN> iT AyFrml NN • rO yi Fmz c --' o N= < im; !^, g 2 Xi i UI NzmN N ny ppm N Z vvNa m Omm m m RA v s a= , ra- vv 0m> A; A52o r> I n^ xmTo~ a6Dml(' i2 m $ li m a' sT oQm Pp mo 4c4mv, p i rOAi LZg N" 1Y- 0 ? Dyo ; O i Q 91 200 nx> 9mNDA; ox o cm ? AOm;; iy 1 o to P, Nm< o> SAT F° A 0. N xmN z 06Nm d0RT, m NmZ mm m S_ 5. m A a m N ~ r; i o 00 lt, CG t. A! x_ 41 • m aMlRjr' m 6 rf, 11( _ FI 40 r r dg al 31/ Y i... H3 I aJ/ a' DIMS atSar i/ i J-.. q gl b I A AI: 1 . A= SEE NOTE 2) ,. nmti r• t tD LDO, y"' I- 6./ m N 0irDA2> r I? F Nz 2 Q : M. BEDDING I l i -) L^ \ i c; FM!!! i q a 1/ r 3 p 8 CZ') a ( SEE NOTE 5) SEE20N I A F m 4 v. ,,, 2 ° Allih Mt M - MIG111111 C r z v. o x gi " np W z > A u 4~ 1Sa Q. I IS 1 ' II_ 4' ; _- ; r, vl_ p c I N. 1. N i fwlwrr r* as seKar E u N - o m a 0 4 C' 1•., T f_,_. , n n Z Q o$ a cg1NOi { 4cr7. iQnt 3F '' a A Q 1 R qo z > m ON ipvitu 2 WWI,` D l• O oz) y1z cl s' i° Frzt °: c ng `+ 1 r31(~• Z NNA ° D'^ Amm saca POo• D '.. I a£ tr • 11111, 111p r8 4' 5" ino r2imrAi i °' ° Agi o Tr n; py yamr`+ IF z N` T °¢°: o^ nv' z T, 3 Cf I 3•° n irc.' vr5' zl LTL pp Z m° m' gr> n * 6 . 7-9 9c2 d- f t RAT 3srS r'> Y1 F- FOOOO ' aiNma4Fi y( nn L t a• w a' cvriE4< mYbTrA2t4g2: 9 :' m 0 r' a• RR c z DP O > oaf m na de [ ig[f. y= • • 0T$ r0z (-,= 0, 0 r a F t; kq1 , ," N v a F^ 5 „ z€' a> r" i, Dgx vl '" as t_ • !<` I r 5 - o said e, e. a •• : s ; ^ E 9- 1 ' onp $' y>... 0... $ i Mil.. ir^ g r 5 : ° 3 - • e o $ cg loin pF T vM> 7 lsg' l fn m : n °< r' g r r• 1'+ c> a * rt' i lcr w e_ a d ° ° e m z '< ° pD €} C > zoKD Fi n 3 t a9 ° ° 4 KS ^ M\ IL n ^ Z O Z z 4 Q n m p° a i 2-.-,.., 6 7 o a r ° o S i 91 0 9 ' 2 8 x ° qa oo^ z n a, I •-_ a___ O• m O nr , 2 m N 2 m y y r lT T• a •• c 4 F a Xz Kz' ig yo ; 1 L) Iti ' I y 9si B • ° a v, m o n F. a DRAWING TITLE. el C7 3 g 3 , A DUBLIN BLVD 1z, KAISER DUBLIN qo KAISER PERMANEME SHERWOOD P A E FRONTAGE ii i3 :;; HUB- CANCER CENTER a5 DESIGN ENGINEERS n 58Ramoinge. Ord Foot DUBLIN CA O DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA San Franosco, CA94105 DETAILS - DRAINAGE wwx. sfernooeergirxers. wm HUB& CANCER CENTER A gat SITE DESIGN REVIEW 3200 DUBLIN BLVD• r®-_-_ 3 ti . DUBLIN, CA 94568 o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • P\ 20, 5% 1SI29( loar_ OWn4_ Dap002_ CO` SCR_ OFST CA. 02S. 8oMAp. G. 02 Sad AO. Papp lfgURf201870338 PNg& i NW F 11) 0. 00 a 47A0kMwx 11 y g m I; 8 4 N zrn0? 2c fr 8 a 0 7 E i: v z w i N I 1 1:':-. 1 i r f Z v O i. ' t O O a 3fdO O Cl, CO a CO f C zg8 V. z z 8 co r U d ON o dg d m n rn n O A` 0 0 z O N G z tn Li CA i y Y r c W v.to 0 1 1 v gY to Si A 0 m w a z' 0 Z i 7.‘ 24. q Q1.. o 3. N 3. sl A C n a A ri Q rn 1, F-] n c3 c3=- 3u kAF, m m rn Fa rAm A v m C" m it A mL. R. m 7 rn c I i. Hc . 2 rac I c x i CW v I G.= L S 9 a y+ p m 2i,' U 9+ v iN Aik N i C. C. a x 8. ama> m m R co N m A o N. M O B i 8 0 c„ 1 c s o a c N o n^ 0 c_ f F n n c m vmA Et S o a r' tI S x t If r y. 8 A g r o o C I rt,_____.) A 11 i x s Plm n3Ag fa Aazn i7n t• i 3 DRAWING TITLE: t( t i: KAISER DUBLIN 1 KAISER PERMANENTEO C ' DUBLIN BLVD Pi SHERWOOD 1, 1 DESIGN ENGINEERS A' FRONTAGE kip HUB- CANCER CENTER O sen, aaen Lane. TArdFbo DUBLIN CA C a ROADWAY SECTIONS S; DUBLIN CALIFORNIA F om HUB& CANCER CENTER N € F F 2 a 3200 DUBLIN BLVD• fli r: SITE DESIGN REVIEW o DUBLIN, CA 94568 I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • P% XI k1S12p- Nyw WOM W_ Drp n72_ Cp. 50R_ CfSi G. 02 6sanuaq. UA7 Oeeele Sea E. F Pala Lope: J/ 27/ 2016 703 55 N. CARCH tJ Need 77( 30. 00 a x2. 00 Mau)' 1 I 5 i e 1._ efl A FX--- r7— 1 1— rf, i tc n m a q D Z m 0 Z> sZ> 2 m • a e e 00 0d c r d ` o t r r ar 7 z z o co o r r 0 d y v A > d m m m I1 H q q m o O p z z z yY y y PIC. LM N o a I W m 3U. A m A.._C-Zrt v 0. ti 17..' S rSl i 4 = r i r m m 0 IF 1 S nf1 Via, 82 23R C Am yXi E M r a v s 1 4 ri o • 0 N V Z py G. yy y_ 29 m Aw Z 9m a p CM ie g 5 asn an b o i fL o n N q A xb x n o 11°..- t.'. r, m A A In a.. L In\ L4• ' 6- ' xE N x C S AA a 5 t' i s x si P A DRAWING TITLE 1! DUBLIN BLVD KAISER DUBLIN I$ HERWOOD KAISER PERMANEMEa 6 FRONTAGE as HUB- CANCER CENTER p DESIGN ENGINEERS b a QOo SBMaOen Lane. TmdFbp DUBLIN CA O ROADWAY SECTIONS t DUBLIN CALIFORNIA San F7anasco• cA411w HUB& CANCER CENTER I Co ,- A 1 E - G SITE DESIGN REVIEW 0 y w., Y- M DUBLIN, CA 94588 I11101e • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • ® 0 • • • • • • • • • • 00 • • • • • • • • • 9CHSikE$ 2NCryS. F401' 4. W 20 S. LLUn Kaza• Cocaato 99., 9.• Sp0t' A'/ 4p9y, FETSp099. 14•• 0• SGl,$ wwyn Khadern372. 7016 9 an 32 MARCH 9441x00( 35. 00• 2400 Irenso' I II y V 9 N m 6 1 x rn I z a4N e o N I Q h I o.AJ D P Z K a nrn Pm'mo D rl V n g n Z N' S 0 O m l' F,, N5 A n rn rr 1..-- 1 V i N m X y211 VIAD I 6'. 6; 4NN 4 ALrDm \\ V1 N. Ar SAX l• I I, C N. r i T lA 08 I / I' 7. ; 1 U a m c c' einxm O 1. VX hl _ _---_ min. T•_.. \ 0 N 0 0 I r ,, o 0 Q 4 j- ter r e 1P 0 DV 1- ox a rani" 4" 11,, rn u rno KEEGAN ST p z, w, :., r o rn 70 Z O p. A n x rn LW ti u_ fl r g— Pa a e_ fl v 4 . L VI e a _ _ Y\ 1 : / ' i it Z,( I ` O J. — LT_, T` ys i m I ap 1 IF, IIII II n i 8 m Nmo I I o Fo a f vx 0 1' W'' a R 1x zmo I I A F 9m>< „ 0OSp I m T. m I g I rn I 1nxr., I 1 I I I I 1 U I C _CT I I I I CO U ino I o II' I oN Ho' 4 B $ DRAWING TITLE i 11" P s o , g 1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLAN KAISER DUBLIN r` KAISER PERMANENTE. DUBLIN BOULEVARD AT HUB- CANCER CENTER z A e i j SanFlancrsm CA 94104 DUBLIN CA a DUBLIN CALIFORNIA v aww. cnswns. Nlg_ cet o KEEGAN STREET S a HUB& CANCER CENTER e SIGNAL MODIFICATION P :, PERMIT 1 Q 3200 DUBLIN BLVD aw_ r- 1:;....... DUBLIN, CA 94568 ASSSSSS SS SSSS • • • S00 ® • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1,( 31Sf3. ISTCnS- riya3Pryga20190N3 Kasar Caalaam Renew-, 5203 CA0SHEETSGIAp). SCN. SaovN c- 36 ; RV2016944 33 AMARCH U b 6013fi. 00‘ NFO Mea). 1I 0 CAB COAX D OM Z Z z D PTIC 0 O 00 O cc - - 1 1 M 0 N r to > D n o r) O - 1 O 1 D 0 r m O r D D D D r W 10 - 0 Lil= D U O ' O CO CO CO CO H H 6 H r D p 9 O H r. n Z Z Z Z H V H UH 1 AH w H N H Z CO C A N O CO C1 P A ( N m Z z m m m m C m Co 03 A N C m D r r r r 0 Z O ( n vD v n 2 Z m o o cc D O A O Z AD z N n m v I En r D D DZ 0CO O D DcD I cDzarn s. o Z O i› 1 O O IXI O O O O Im1 I0) to) Io I I DI. 0 \ Z z m M m x7 N 1 A N a) 1D m Z - D - u - O 1 — m m 0 O z- O Ti TI I z A I I U• 1 ( P I U) r co ( 33 CO 03 ---• W I W CO I CO W OoI p Co V) 0 O co M n r o O O o 1 z M m D I p r A 0 00 O U1 O U) D -) O > I- r OZ u) cr U3 U• D OO 1 1 0 DDD O)SSS - 1 p m En cn N( n to v v VD w v) i c) orn D co w Z A NN V1 Z.. ZZ.. 0) C3— 0 D n 3 O m (— I I I I z I I I , L7 w z—. r O D I I I I \' I — Z0 W co 0 N CO NJ v03 CT z A w 03 H Fri0 O C mc) NJ A CO N al CO A W H m rnp o 1 En En En v) En l/) Z UI I I I I I I < O — 1 z C) D 1 - 1 11 y - Ii I I r I o Z N N A A NJ Z W D3 03 C3 Ch 0) A H o 171 zi co D A W ZO m co c) C m o C m co m I 2 - I I I—m cJ N) N) N3 N) =_ Z O O O O 0 0 D En f f 1-A1 73 e e 7J 05 z ZN rn X mr m ( n ND O W O 0 C 2.D D O r r 0 r n D D D n > m r- rr C)m m m rnm m X x x m 01 m m m x x m x x x x x x x x En x x 0 1/) N 0 Z En n C) 73 O Z Z O 0 C) 5 Z m m D D m m r Z Z O r r D 13 I- M M r n0 MI rn C) Oc r r Z 1 m mZ 13 > 33 30 4 0 0 0 E._-- DRAWING TITLE. ag CD T TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLAN 1= KAISER DUBLIN S* ConevltlrtrgGrow P4 KAISER PERMANENTE DUBLIN BOULEVARD AT xx I, HUB- CANCER CENTER s" N Montgomery SI Suite 346 A KEEGAN STREET a3• DUBLIN CALIFORNIA 2anR0x) 01 CASJllX DUBLIN CA Q rHx. asronseung. r HUB& CANCER CENTER i EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE PERMIT 1 3200 DUBLIN BLVD s m • a c' ° : . re .,., DUBLIN, CA 94568 VCM6flE57C6• EbWgNs, 20151110 r, Kim/ gpypp Rohm- IS2COCCAD6[ E75GLAw9. Lco,, GI$ OrwW KNwiem! Ra? J189 N42 AVARCMN Um 0175. 00: 21. 00 Ytltlsl,, 1 L II n d! a 0rrl I Z 1 Ii • m t- f I 1 0 I m cn II 0 Q r1I I 0 I o Ccp i D z III I Pr— A 1 a a 11 1 1 1I1I 1 I 1 1 I an I I1 1111 a zom i y hi II Vc m I rpio 7 fl ZyZy O ODOC 1 I rX Q F= m- 5, 1 go Dmx 1 O Q N 4 I e; i, a a m vxa 1 iry Zo ILi f* 1 w U) 9N 1 z I \ 1 V'_ Yi v rJ Pe C 1 s 1 k _ I N 0 A O b Z T' i 6 1i \ 11 12 I v ITI 11 O, y 4/ O 9' mV s U rD F m—+ Zm NIA a m••__ 8p LOCKHART ST C ( i Z A I . 8). . a II\ ,, a, ar Q_ 41 J imigrillli e Fls N B Y Z X T. , . i• itio -.-: O' S r© Z f o, F, X ` i' F - mr x== mr o m 1- Q I 1 gi Do m 1 1 1 l IO o omm i i AN, m V I n O a 1 1 m xZ Znnm p r r , 1 1 mr. l tnx•1mFog m l 9` AOm 1 1 4I Ar 11 I mg 1 c I m° x* 1 0 1 II t1 It 1 O 1 1 C 11 1 0- 3 I 1 1 1 4 1 Z I II 0 I o OD I m ro I '. 0 a0 jl A TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLAN KAISER DUBLIN KAISER PERMANENTE.' CnIV DUBLIN BOULEVARD AT - a HUB- CANCER CENTER N' A, OC $ $U 1566 DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 62> San Fran: rsa. CA 54164 DUBLIN CA j p s N LOCKHART STREET Y ct ' HUB& CANCER CENTER L i SIGNAL MODIFICATION iN m , i PERMIT 1 w µ mw , DUB DUBLIN BLVD M> nw DUBLIN, CA 94568 ISsssssssssIssOssssssisssssssssssssss . . . . . à A45- 40. ES1106 449**• geLp.] 01511AIn Kalov 09664496 Arrow• 16700e( CAO( SHEEfSGLA. g lW6. 96^ 9 1 S eouen N1496. 769J016 9 N 43 144g101 NI Mold I)(". 16. 00. 29, 00 hdw), I 1 o z z- z z D COAX CEM C) AB O 0 0 p o 0 O c ti x 0 in r N 0 r 2 2 2 2 ~ z O W M O r, i Z Z z Z O C) D In W - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 n— O ^ > < Z Z Z Z r 9 a g 6 6 8 9 a r y 0 CO CO W CO 9 9 9 9 m Z Zi m m m m 07 V 0 Ir A w IV Z p 0 9 9 9 0 N CO A N 8888, 9 9 9 a m D r r r r Z m QD CT1 A N - O ' U CO V O) ( J1 A W N) 0 m m Z W p n co D O O N O C z z D N z D D D07- z0C0 I O D c D Ca7zrDim mi \ Z D ! D 1 O O '- i- i ® ! l !- I ! 2 1 ! 0 1 f- r1 ! ml 1 fn1 0 0 z z in m in x C N N CO N N M A D ( D Z ' o - 0 I I O O O Z Z W Z I - D I A I v) I v( r vU+ c° — W W `- NCO CO CO CO CO I W I co I I mn 0 0 0 0 0 D r0 O p O O N- I z r- 1 m O ° 4 0 r W L 00 U! U' UOCn . ZiU1 > DW o D y In rm Z O N P ( n E D rOO - 1 D 0 N O In IiI N N ^ Vi cIl) 11) C) W Z C C D_ D 00 w V r/ 1-. Z Z v P CA A Z N U1 a D3 - D C) < 0 S N W vN z N i C7 D a l a l a l l f 7 G7 C Co 7) Co i v0)( P Z O) N a - N 8 / m-\ v C O C n CC cr. 00 A In Z N A vN S Cl M p In N IA U/ IA N In In N . _ a Z- Z-. -- I Z 0 D ,/, 4 I I I1 I v1 I v- I r V/ N ZN A N 01 A 00 CO 01 01 A CO ZIn 9 0 m m v0 I- 5 0 0 0 C) 1-* 1 5 m 5 Llrj m W c I I I I I I 1 0 c m N Imo) N ^ N M S O ? O a O > N rn M- p C - I C D< Co DCDj m P1 rO m D n N x N xm In m m n x 5 x m 1 x z x Z x x z m 0 D x D x D x c 0 D Z D Z Z D m n I- p O p D n N r nn Cl0 z m Z Cl Cl m I C M Z D n C7 I 1 1 O N 730 8 2 E ! DRAWING TITLE. g i- d -- w - TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLAN f KAISER DUBLIN o fin3 KAISER PERMANENTS. N A DUBLIN BOULEVARD AT z HUB CANCER CENTER 2G MOnlgan CA 94104$ui1e16 o LOCKHART STREET i; DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA G SanEranaSw, CA94104 DUBLIN CA aww. cfscons2- y. rw1 HUB& CANCER CENTER N B ` a i EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE g r PERMIT 1 T QUl; A.T _ 3200 DUBLIN BLVD N e. ..... N =... DUBLIN, CA 5 94 68 IIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIOIIMMIIINIII MLN6FlLF82100 411pRopckt01310U/ nKW, 0m40on RMw• 15- 70g1' CAVSHEE7SO4. 9 SCIrsmann. ctSuwM lVnant7/ 1820185“ SI AM) C• I Ngoq D( 70. 0, 24. 00 Mctoo, 11 f-------. 9 I tti / JiI; FIi! !! j o O 0 1 L II ITI f`^ i A z Z f a 1 Hx6DD0—' r) I I K m CO r D D D Iil f 1 { 1 : I mQ Zr- rZW ( n 1 I 1 S mAm mmom W I p Z r< D N m 1 I Z_> oDZ D X C 1f 1 ff 1 Omzxm0D 0 I II I t I Z V) N Z- ri D p 1 I ODx - Hr' 13 Z D I 1 1- z> ce) O Z I 1 i MATCHLINE, SEE TOP RIGHT Nm2 m 2= A m I 1 I 1 I Ar— G) MD N Jr I II I DCDZZMw I I In000O0 I I D- 1DONZ I 1 I 91 — — 1 D L. I I 00000, > I I I CO i s I D zl* InO I 1 i rnpzxm I I i nr' 1 plmilp 1 I I I Z Acc I j 1 a ziCD z,* o I I 1 c) z C. I 1 i I I zma zto I I zz > = 1 1 2 j bl I I I; I 1 bliil 1 1 \ n I I 1 I I I{ r I 1 k_( I r--.. mss-=- - iV I t Q r g?' 4..... 1 e Q \ ' 1 I 1 I I I rQ : I 7 LOCKHART ST i t' . I- I I I IJ I. , I KEEGAN ST 1 It I 1 i. n. ; r, u 2_ II II' l I' 3 I. 1 1 1 v CI. CO t'+ 1 • 1 , k\ ` o I 1 I I I I r [-, r 1 1 1 1 2A s-; 11 1 1e i G CO 1 ti, I I I Li il. , 1. i I I f n 9 I IIA cI C l I b MATCHLINE, SEE BOTTOM LEFT 4 DRAWING TITLE. d a. S Q TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLAN y I' KAISER DUBLIN So0 jo P"" KAISER PERMANENTE Group CO 1 DUBLIN BOULEVARD FROM 34 HUB- CANCER CENTER 220 Ikea St Sub 146 p KEEGAN TO LOCKHART Id DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA CG/ San Flanasw, CA9! DUBLIN CA L yl Y c' abng^" HUB& CANCER CENTER I SIGNAL INTERCONNECT 5: 11 i PERMIT 1 DUB DUBLIN BLVD wA i 4_.._, DUBLIN, CA 94568 VC11SilES7CHSFlw' hgYbV01SALM Maar C. ol. an Rvw• 1} NWY'. A0541EE iS7RIPNDAq, DaInSIRP. SbdW Kvenn. 7// W 1594507 MARCH M Oboe D( 09. 00. 200 Ftos) II MATCHLINE, SEE TOP RIGHT I I I I I I m I I I R I 1 r5 I m ' I I 1 I I I II I A 1 I r- - , I g 1 1 z I I I I; i I I J I I I I g J I 1' 1 I //;, III, IsII, ri 1 I , 1 1 I NIn II II 1 I I f I rZi 1 I I I I I I 11 I I I I l I 1 I I I 0 ; I ' 1 I n I I J o I, I I In I I I 1 I r-- II 1 II I I I / z II I II I / II I I 1 I z II 1 1 1 1 I li 1 l y f r— 11 I I I 1 I II 1 I 1 1j 11 I I I 1 1 ^ 11 II 1 v_ a I I II zoo 1I mpar 1 1' II I I A" ) I 1 1 Amv 1 1 1 _ II I I z l 17-- 11 . 1 I II I f I I I I I I I I I II I LOCKHART ST I 1 I ; II i j L I I I 1 I I i I I , yz I I E z ` 1 1 1 1 I I I I ' It I I gA 1 I 1 I 1 1 i f I I I 1 I I I 1 1 11 1 I I I) IM 11111116-1 6 1 I I I 1 1 I I v 9 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I A I F-_ 1 1' 1 I 11 1 \ 1 I u 1---- I i o x I I 1 I 1 I tt AI 4o 1 rACAi PEi 1 I 11 1 \ 1 11` 11 z A I 11 I 1 ' 1 11 11 NIY m 1 I 3 1 v 1 11 \ 11 11 1 I1 I I 1 1 I I \ 1 1 1 I 1 II l N I I s 1 \ I 1 1 I 1 I I I I II I I C I 7. II 11 I I 1 I c m 11 1 1 I II 1 I I I 1 1 1 I c A‘. 11 11 `; 1 VI VV J= G6 r KEEGAN ST 1Al 1v I 1 1 \: A4 a-- k 1\ y 1 l z> IC I 11 1 m 1 i I II V, I 1 f I 1 I I I s. Cry r1 zm I o I I,, I 1 V I n I m g a z MATCHLINE, SEE BOTTOM LEFT T.. il w G x S. g yR P DRAWING TITLE sal 1 2 1 t ' iii 1, ; :. o a KAISER PERMANEME. iii- TRAFFIC STRIPING PLAN it KAISER DUBLIN a m HUB- CANCER CENTER X DUBLIN BOULEVARD FROM a 1;;+ zzo . s., e b A: t{ San DUBLIN CA p KEEGAN STREET TO DUBLIN CALIFORNIA g. H n'"""" 015 " ne HUB& CANCER CENTER 1 '` PERMIT 1 0 3200 DUBLIN BLVD a LOCKHART STREET i t 41/ "'° "'" "' DUBLIN, CA 94568 ORDINANCE NO. XX - 16 AN ORDINANCE OF THECITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A DEVELOPMENTAGREEMENTBETWEENTHECITY OF DUBLINAND KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALSRELATED TOTHE KAISER DUBLINMEDICAL CENTER PROJECT PA 08-50 and PLPA 2016-00007 APNs 985-0061-005-00 and 985-0027-009-02) WHEREAS, THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBYORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. RECITALS A. A request has been made by KaiserFoundationHospitals (“Applicant”) to enter into a DevelopmentAgreement with the CityofDublin forthe propertyknown asthe Kaiser site, which includes propertiesidentified by Assessor ParcelNumbers 985-0061-005-00 and985- 0027-009-02, an approximately 58 acre site; and B. TheApplicant, Kaiser FoundationHospitals, submitted a Planning Application for, and is proposing to obtain approvals for, theKaiser DublinMedical Centerproject, which is comprisedof 950,000 square feet ofmedicalcampususes in threemainbuildings, 250,000 square feet of commercial uses, a parking structure, and associated site, roadway frontage, and landscapeimprovements. Requestedlanduseapprovalsinclude a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to createtwo new land use districts, Planned Development Rezoning (Stage1and Stage 2), andSiteDevelopment Review for Phase 1A (a 220,000 square foot medicalofficebuilding), a request for a Development Agreement , and certificationof a Final Environmental Impact Report, amongother related actions. These planning and implementingactionsarecollectivelyknown as the “KaiserDublinMedical Center Project” or the Project”; and C. Theproject is thesubject of an EnvironmentalImpactReport (EIR), State Clearinghousenumber2015012018. On August 23, 2016, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 16-16, recommending that theCityCouncilcertify the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center FinalEIRand adopt CEQAfindings, aStatementof Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring andReporting Program forthe Project. The DevelopmentAgreementwas part of the Project analyzed in the EIR andtheimpactsof the activitiesunder the Developme nt Agreementwereanalyzed inthe EIR; and D. TheApplicant has applied for a DevelopmentAgreement whichwill vest the ProjectApprovals. E. ThePlanningCommission held a public hearing on the proposedDevelopment Agreementon August 23, 2016, forwhich public noticewas given by law; and F. ThePlanning Commissionmade its recommendation to theCityCouncil for approval of theDevelopmentAgreement by Resolution. 2 G. A public hearing on the proposedDevelopment Agreement was held beforethe CityCouncil on __________, 2016forwhich public notice was given as provided by law. H. TheCityCouncil hasconsidered the recommendation of the Planning Commission, including the PlanningCommission’s reasons for its recommendation, theAgenda Statement, all comments received in writing, and all testimonyreceived at the publichearing. Section 2. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS Therefore, on the basis of: (a) the foregoingRecitalswhichareincorporated herein, (b) the City of DublinGeneral Plan; (c) the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, (d) the KaiserDublin MedicalCenter Project EIR; (e) the Staff Report; (f) information inthe entire record of proceeding for the Project, and on thebasis of the specificconclusionsset forthbelow, theCity Councilfinds anddeterminesthat: 1. TheDevelopmentAgreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land usesand programsspecified and contained in the City’s GeneralPlan , and in the Eastern DublinSpecificPlan in that: (a) the DevelopmentAgreement incorporatestheobjectives policies, generalland uses and programs in the GeneralPlanand Specific Plan and does not amend or modifythem; and (b) theproject is consistent with the fiscalpolicies of the General Plan and Specific Planwithrespect to the provision of infrastructure and publicservices. 2. TheDevelopmentAgreement is compatiblewith the uses authorized in, and the regulationsprescribedfor, the land usedistricts in which the realproperty is locatedbecausethe DevelopmentAgreement does not amend the uses or regulations inthe applicable landuse district. 3. TheDevelopment Agreement is in conformity with publicconvenience, general welfare, andgood landuse policies in that the Developer’s project will implementland use guidelines set forth inthe EasternDublinSpecific Plan and the General Plan as articulated in Resolution No. xx-xx, amendingtheGeneralPlanand the EasternDublinSpecificPlan, adopted bythe City Council on ____________, 2016. 4. TheDevelopment Agreement will notbe detrimental to the health, safety , and generalwelfare in that the Developer’s proposed project willproceed in accordancewith all the programs and policies of the General Plan, Eastern Dublin SpecificPlan, and future Project Approvalsand any ConditionsofApproval. 5. The Development Agreementwill not adversely affect theorderlydevelopment of property or the preservation of propertyvalues in that the projectwillbeconsistent with the General Plan, theEasternDublinSpecific Plan, andfutureProjectApprovals. 6. The Development Agreementspecifiesthe duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of theproperty, andtheobligations of theApplicant. The Development Agreement contains an indemnity and insuranceclause requiring the developer to indemnify andhold the Cityharmlessagainstclaims arising outof the development process, including all legal fees andcosts. Section 3. APPROVAL 3 TheCityCouncilherebyapproves the Development Agreement (Exhibit A to the Ordinance) and authorizes the CityManagerto execute it. Section 4. RECORDATION Within ten (10) days afterthe DevelopmentAgreement is fullyexecuted byall parties, the CityClerk shall submitthe Agreement to the CountyRecorder for recordation. Section 5. EFFECTIVEDATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE This Ordinanceshalltake effect andbe in force thirty (30) daysfrom and afterthedateof its passage. The CityClerk of theCity of Dublin shallcausethe Ordinance tobe postedin at least three (3) publicplaces inthe City of Dublin in accordance withSection 36933of the Government Code of theStateof California. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY theCityCouncil of the City of Dublin, on this _____ day of 2016 bythe following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk RECORDINGREQUESTED BY: CITY OFDUBLIN WHENRECORDED MAIL TO: CityClerk City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Fee Waived per GC 27383 Space above thislineforRecorder’s use DEVELOPMENTAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OFDUBLIN AND KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS FOR THE KAISERDUBLIN MEDICAL CENTER PROJECT THIS DEVELOPMENTAGREEMENT (this “Agreement” or this “Development Agreement”) is made and entered in theCityofDublin on thisday of , 2016, byand between the City of Dublin, a MunicipalCorporation (hereafter “City”) and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, a Californianonprofitpublic benefitcorporation (hereafter referredto as “Kaiser”) pursuant to the authority of §§ 65864 et seq. of the California GovernmentCode andDublinMunicipal Code, Chapter 8.56. City and Kaiser are, from time-to-time, individually referredto inthisAgreement as a “Party,” and are collectively referredto as “Parties.” RECITALS A. California Government Code §§ 65864 et seq. (“Development Agreement Statute”) and Chapter 8.56of the DublinMunicipal Code (hereafter “Chapter 8.56”) authorize the City to enter into a Development Agreement for the development of real property with anyperson having a legal or equitableinterestinsuch property in order to establish certaindevelopmentrights in such property. B. Kaiserowns certain realproperty (the “Property”) consisting of approximately 58.7 acresofland and that ismore particularlydescribed in Exhibit A attached hereto andis incorporated herein by reference. C. Kaiserhasapplied for, and Cityhasapproved or is processing, various landuseapprovalsinconnection with the development ofthe Project, including, without limitation, a GeneralPlanAmendment (ResolutionNo. adopted on , 2016), an EasternDublin Specific PlanAmendment (Resolution No. adopted on , 2016), a Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning and Development Plan (Ord. No. adopted by the CityCouncil on _, 2016); a Stage 2 Planned DevelopmentRezoning and DevelopmentPlan for Medical Center Phase1A (Ord. No. adopted bythe City Council on , 2016), Site DevelopmentReview (SDR) approval for Phase 1A Resolution No. adopted on , 2016), and the DA ApprovingOrdinance definedbelow), whichcollectively are referred to herein as the “Existing Project Approvals” and togetherwith any SubsequentProject Approvals defined beloware referredtoherein as the “ProjectApprovals.” D. On , 2016, theCityCouncilagain considered and approvedthe DA ApprovingOrdinance and the other ordinances described above. E. Developmentofthe Property as currently anticipated by Kaiser will be subject tootherfuture discretionary andnon-discretionary City approvals and permits collectively, the “Subsequent ProjectApprovals”) includingStage2Planned Development Plans, a vestingtentative parcel map (an application for which was submitted to theCity by KaiseronJuly 28, 2016), and sitedevelopmentreview approvals, which if granted by the Cityinaccordance with thisAgreement, shall automatically becomepartofthe ProjectApprovals, except as otherwise specified herein. Page 2 F. Citydesires the timely, efficient, orderly and proper development of the Project. G. The City Councilhasfound that, among otherthings, thisDevelopment Agreement is consistentwith its General Plan and the EasternDublin Specific Plan Specific Plan”), as both have been amended bythe Project Approvals, and hasbeen reviewed and evaluatedinaccordance with the DevelopmentAgreementStatute and Chapter 8.56. H. City andKaiser have reached agreement and desire to expressherein a DevelopmentAgreement that will facilitate development ofthe Projectsubject to conditions set forth herein. I. Cityhasundertaken, pursuant to the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act PublicResources Code Section21000 et seq., hereinafter “CEQA”), the required analysisof the environmental effects that would be caused bythe Project and has determinedthosefeasiblemitigationmeasureswhich willeliminate, orreduce to an acceptablelevel, the adverse environmental impacts oftheProject. The environmental effectsofthe proposeddevelopment ofthe Propertywereanalyzed bythe Final Environmental ImpactReport (the “FEIR”) certified by City on , 20 . Cityhasalsoadopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (the “MMRP”) to ensurethat those mitigation measuresincorporated as part of, or imposed on, the Project are enforcedand completed. Thosemitigationmeasuresfor which Kaiser is responsible are incorporatedinto, and required by, the Project Approvals. J. The City is aware thatthe State of California, through its Office of Statewide Health, Planning and Development, regulates health, safety and internal designaspects of hospitalsandrelatedfacilities for publichealth and safety. K. On , 2016, the CityCouncil of the CityofDublinadopted Ordinance No. approving thisDevelopment Agreement (“the DA Approving Ordinance”). The DA ApprovingOrdinance took effect on (“the Effective Date”). NOW , THEREFORE, with reference to theforegoingrecitals and inconsideration ofthemutual promises, obligations and covenantsherein contained, City and Kaiser agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Description of Property. The Property thatisthe subject ofthis Agreement is described in Exhibit A attachedhereto (“Property”). 2. Interest of Kaiser. Kaiserhas a legal interest in theProperty in that it is the owner of the Property. 3. Relationship of City and Kaiser. It is understood that thisAgreement is a contractthathasbeen negotiated and voluntarily entered into bythe City and Kaiser Page 3 andthat Kaiser isnotan agentof the City. The City and Kaiserherebyrenounce the existence ofanyformofjoint venture or partnershipbetween them, and agree that nothingcontained herein orin anydocument executed in connectionherewith shall be construed as makingtheCity and Kaiserjoint venturers or partners. 4. Effective Date and Term 4.1 Effective Date. The effective dateofthis Agreement (“Effective Date”) is (as defined in Recital K). 4.2 Term. Thetermofthis Agreement shall commence onthe Effective Date and shall continue for twenty-five (25) yearsthereafter, unlesssaidterm is otherwiseextended or terminated as providedinthisAgreement. In the event that any third-party lawsuit is filed challenging the City’s issuance of the ProjectApprovals or its compliance with CEQA, the termofthis Agreement shall be automaticallyextended for a durationequalto the time fromthefiling of suchlawsuit to the entry of an order dismissing or otherwiseterminatingsuchlawsuit, which durationshallincludeany appeals. 4.3 Term of Project Approvals. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act GovernmentCode § 66410 et seq.), and in particular, Government CodeSection 66452.6(a), thetermofany tentative or vesting tentative map, parcel map or vesting parcel mapfor the Property or anyPortionthereof, shall be extended automatically for the Termofthis Agreement, such that suchtentative orvesting tentative mapsorparcel maps remain in effect for no lessthan the Term, and shall also be extended by any other extension(s) grantedunderthe Subdivision Map Actand/or Cityordinance consistent with the Subdivision Map Act. 5. Vested Rights/Use of theProperty/Applicable Law/Processing. 5.1 Right to Develop. Kaisershall have the vested right to develop the Project onthe Property in accordancewith the termsandconditions of this Agreement, the Project Approvals (asand when issued), and any amendments toany of them as shall, fromtime to time, be approved pursuant to this Agreement, and theCity’s ordinances, codes, resolutions, rules, regulations and officialpolicies governing the development, construction, subdivision, occupancy and use of the Project and the Propertyincluding, withoutlimitation, the General Plan, theDublinMunicipalCode, and the Specific Plan, the permitteduses of the Property, density and intensity of use ofthe Property and the maximum height, bulk and size of proposedbuildings, andthe provisions for reservation or dedication of land for publicpurposes that are in force and effectonthe Effective Date of thisAgreement (collectively, “Applicable Law”). In exercising its discretion when actingupon Subsequent Project Approvals, Cityshall apply the Applicable Law as the controlling bodyoflaw (withinwhichApplicable Law suchdiscretionshall be exercised). Notwithstanding the foregoingor anything to the contraryherein, anyamendment to the Existing Project Approvals shall not become part ofthelawKaiser isvested into underthis Agreement unless an additional amendment of this Agreement is entered intobetweenKaiser and City in accordancewith this Page 4 Agreement. In the event that such amendments to the Existing Project Approvals are sought for any distinct portionofthe Property or Project (forexample, for the Commercial Parcel as defined herein), suchamendments shall not require amendment of this Agreementwithrespect to any other portionoftheProperty or Project, except to the extentset forthin such amendment. 5.1 Fees, Exactions, Dedications. The Cityshall not apply to the Projectany development impact fee that theCity first enacts after the Effective Date. Except as otherwise set forthin this Agreement, City and Kaiseragree that this Agreement doesnotlimittheCity’s discretion to impose or require (a) payment ofany feesinconnection with the issuance ofany SubsequentProject Approvals for purposes ofmitigating environmental andother impacts of the Project, (b) dedication ofanyland, or (c) construction of any publicimprovementorfacilities (collectively “Exactions”), unlessthe Exactions could have been imposed on the Existing Project Approvals, in which case the City shallbe prohibited from imposing them. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Cityshall be permitted to impose any Exaction on the vestingtentative parcel map application submitted onJuly 28, 2016 andon a Subsequent Project Approval that requires an amendmenttothe Existing Project Approvals. Nothing in this AgreementshalllimittheCity’s ability to impose existing developmentimpactfees at ratesthatare increasedbeyond the amounts in effect on the Effective Dateorlimit Kaiser’s ability to challenge anysuchincreasesunderstate or local law. 5.2 ConstructionCodes. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.1 above, to the extentApplicable Lawincludesrequirementsunderthe state or locally adopted building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical and fire codes (collectively the Codes”), the Codes included shallbethose in forceandeffect at the time Kaiser submits its application for the relevantbuilding, grading, or other constructionpermits to City, unless governed bythe State of California as referenced in Recital J. In the event of a conflictbetween suchCodes andthe ProjectApprovals, the Project Approvals shall, to the maximum extent allowed bylaw, prevail. For construction ofpublic infrastructure, the Codes applicabletosuch constructionshall be those in force and effectat the time of execution of an improvementagreementbetween City and Kaiser pursuantto Chapter 9.16 ofthe DublinMunicipal Code. 5.3 RightsUnderVesting Tentative Map. Notwithstandinganything to the contrary contained herein, this Agreement shall not supersede any rights Kaiser may obtainpursuant toCity’sapproval of the vestingtentative map for the Project. The parties agreethat the vestingtentative map shall confer a vested right to proceed with development in accordancewith the ProjectApprovals for the lifeof the vesting tentative map. 5.4 New Rules and Regulations. During the term ofthis Agreement, the City may apply new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and officialpoliciesofthe City tothe Property which were not in forceand effect on the Effective Dateonly tothe extent theyarenot in conflict with the vestedrights granted by this Agreement, the Applicable Law, the ProjectApprovals or this Agreement. In addition toanyotherconflictsthat may occur, eachof the following new or modified Page 5 ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or officialpoliciesshall be considered a per se conflict with the Applicable Law: 5.4.1 Anyapplication or requirement ofsuch new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or officialpolicies that would (i) causeor impose a substantial financialburden on, or materially delay developmentof the Property as otherwisecontemplated by this Agreement or the Existing Project Approvals, (ii) frustrate in a more than insignificantway the intent or purpose of the Existing Project Approvals or preclude compliance therewith including, without limitation, by preventing orimposing limits or controls in the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of development ofthe Project; (iii) prevent or limit the processing or procuringof SubsequentProjectApprovals; or (iv) reduce the density orintensity of use oftheProperty as a whole, or otherwise requiringanyreduction in thesquarefootage of, or total number of , proposed buildings, structures and other improvements, in a mannerthat is inconsistentwith or more restrictive than the limitations included in this Agreement andthe ProjectApprovals; and/or 5.4.2 Ifanyofsuch ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or officialpolicies donot have general (City-wide) applicability. Kaiserspecifically acknowledges that it will be subjectto new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or officialpolicies that implement the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDESPermit issued bythe Regional W ater Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region from time to time (the “MRP”) to the extent that thepermit does not include exemptions that apply totheProject. 5.5 MoratoriumNot Applicable. Notwithstanding anything to the contrarycontainedherein, if a City ordinance, resolution, policy, directive, or other measure is enacted or becomes effective, whether by action of theCity or by initiative, and ifit imposes a building moratorium which affects all or anypartof the Project, City agrees that such ordinance, resolution orothermeasureshall not apply to the Project, the Property, this Agreement or the ProjectApprovals unless the building moratorium is imposed as partof a declaration of a localemergency or state of emergency as defined in Government Code section 8558, provided that to the extent a moratorium applies to all or anypart of theProjectthen the Term shall automatically be extended for a period of timeequal tothe period ofthe moratorium. 5.6 Revised Application Fees. Notwithstandingsection 5.1 above5.2 above, any existingapplication, processing and inspection feesthatare revised during the termofthis Agreement shallapply to the Project provided that (1) such fees have general applicability and areconsistent with Statelawlimitationsthatprocessingfees not exceed the estimatedreasonablecost of providing the service for which they are charged; (2) the application of such fees to the Property is prospective; and (3) the application of such fees would not prevent, impose a substantial financial burden on, or materially delay development in accordance with this Agreement. By so agreeing, Kaiser does not waive its rights to challenge thelegality of anysuchapplication, processing and/or inspection fees. Page 6 5.7 New Taxes. ThisAgreement shall not prohibit the application of anysubsequentlyenactedcity-wide taxes to the Projectprovided that (1) the application of suchtaxes to theProperty is prospective, and (2) the applicationofsuch taxeswould not prevent development in accordancewith this Agreement. By so agreeing, Kaiser does not waive its rights to challenge the legality of anysuch taxes, facially or as applied to its Project or Property, or to claim exemption from anytaxes to the extent allowed bylaw. 5.8 Developmentofthe Project; Phasing, Timing. Since the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 465, that thefailureofthe parties thereinto provide for the timingofdevelopment resulted in a lateradopted initiativerestricting the timing of development to prevail over suchparties’ agreement, it is the Parties’ intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that thisAgreementcontains norequirementsthat Kaiser must initiate or complete anyaction, including without limitation, development of theProject within any periodof timeset by City. Nothing in this Agreement is intended tocreatenorshall it be construed tocreate anyaffirmativedevelopmentobligations to develop theProject at all orin any particularorder or manner, or liability in Kaiserunderthis Agreementif the development fails to occur. It isthe intentionofthis provision that Kaiser be able to develop the Property in accordancewith its own time schedules andthe Project Approvals. 5.9 Processing. Nothing in this Agreement shallbe construed tolimit the authority or obligationofCity to holdnecessary public hearings, nor to limitthe discretion of Cityorany of its officers or officials withregard to thoseSubsequent Project Approvals that require the exercise of discretion by City, provided that such discretion shall be exercised consistent with the vestedrightsgranted by this Agreement, the Applicable Law and this Agreement. 6. CommunityBenefits. 6.1 Kaiser’s Obligation to Allocate Sales and Use Tax Revenue. The Landowner shall use its bestefforts to maximize the City’s allocation of sales and use taxes associated with Project construction andoperation as follows: 6.1.1 The partiesunderstand that state law gives construction contractors the option to allow certainuse tax revenuesderived from contracts of 5,000,000 or more to be allocated to the jurisdictionin which the jobsite is located, ratherthanto the countywide pool. (See California StateBoard of Equalization [“BOE”], Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual, Contractors, 260.020.) In order to ensure that suchrevenuesaccrue to theCity, Kaiser will include in any constructioncontracts a provision that requiresqualifying general contractors and subcontractors to exercise their option to obtain a Board of Equalization sub-permit for the jobsite and allocate all eligibleuse tax payments to the City. Prior to commencement ofany construction activity onsite, Kaiserwillrequire thatthe contractor or subcontractorprovide the City with either a copy of their BOEaccount number and sub-permit or a statement either Page 7 that use tax does not apply to their portionofthe project or thatthe contractor isnot eligible fora permitand the reason why. 6.1.2 Kaiser will takecommercially reasonable stepstoensure that its purchasesof tangible personal propertysubject to use tax or its making of qualifiedleasesof tangible propertyare completed in a mannerthatallocateslocal taxes f romsuchpurchases toCity. 6.2 Developmentofthe Commercial Parcel. 6.2.1 Kaiser will promptly begin marketingthe commercial site designated as “Commercial Parcel” onthe Stage 1 SitePlan) (the “Commercial Parcel”) for sale to a buyerintending to develop the CommercialParcel in a manner consistent with the uses approved for the Commercial Parcel in the Stage 1 Development Plan. Kaiser shall have an obligation toattempt in good faith tosellthe Commercial Parcel to a reputabledeveloper on reasonablecommercial terms, consistent with the then-current values in the real estate market. The partiesrecognize that values will vary depending onthe specificdevelopment the buyerintends to pursue onthe CommercialParcel, and that nothing herein obligates Kaisertoestablish a certain sale price for the Commercial Parcel. 6.2.2 Infurtheranceof its obligation to actively and diligently marketthe Commercial Parcel, Kaisershallengage a commercial real estate broker that specializes in marketingretail sites, updatetheCity Manager and Economic DevelopmentDirector on a monthly basis onthe status of its efforts, and update the City aspart of its annual review. The Cityagrees to assistand cooperatewith Kaiser with its efforts to marketthesite. City recognizes that aside from simple use categories or considerations, Kaiser’s decision to sell to a particular buyer that will be a longterm neighbor to its investment in theProject will necessarilyconsidernumerous variables other thanuseor price. 6.2.3 Notwithstanding the Termsetforth in Section 4, the Agreement shall terminate uponKaiser submitting tothe applicable tax authority a Claim forW elfare Exemption (“Claim for Exemption”) forany development onthe Property, unlessKaiserhas completed the sale ofthe CommercialParcelconsistent with therequirementsofthis Section 6.2. a) Notwithstanding the foregoing, Kaiser may elect to continue theTerm beyond the terminationarising from the filing oftheClaim for Exemption (a “Continuation Period”) by makinga payment of Two-Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000), adjustedbased on the change between the then-most recently published the CPI-U index for the SFBayArea and the same indexmost recently published on the Effective Date (“Annual Payment”) for eachone-yearperiod it desires to continue theTerm beyond the submittal of the Claim for Exemption. Thereafter, Kaisermay continue the Term bymakingan Annual Payment for each one-year ContinuationPeriod it desiresto continue theTerm. TheAnnualPaymentsshall be made, as the casemay be, prior to the submission oftheClaim for Exemption or the Page 8 end of the Continuation Period. If, at thetime a Claim for Exemption isfiled, Kaiserhas enteredan agreement for the sale ofthe Commercial Parcelto a qualif iedpurchaser, Kaisermay elect to extend theTerm beyond the termination date by making a payment of Fifty Thousand Dollars, adjustedbased on the changebetween the then-most recently publishedtheCPI-U index for theSFBayArea andthe same indexmost recently publishedonthe Effective Date, for each three-monthperiod it desires to continue theTerm beyond the submittal oftheClaim for Exemption, not to exceed one year. b) If Kaiser sells the CommercialParcelconsistentwith the requirements of this Section6.2 atany point priorto submitting the Claim for Exemption or duringany Continuation Period, theTerm for the remainder of the Propertyshall beas set forth Section 4. 7. Amendment or Cancellation. 7.1 ModificationBecauseofConflict with State orFederal Laws. The Project and Propertyshall be subject to state and federal laws and regulations and this Agreement doesnotcreateany vested right in state andfederal laws and regulations in effectonthe Effective Date. In the event that state or federal laws or regulations enacted afterthe Effective Date of this Agreement preventor preclude compliance with one or more provisions ofthis Agreement or requirechanges in plans, maps or permits approved bythe City, the parties shallmeetandconfer in goodfaith in a reasonable attempt to modifythisAgreementtocomply with suchfederal or state laworregulation. Any suchamendment or suspension of the Agreement shall be subject to approval by the CityCouncil (in accordancewith Chapter 8.56). Each Party agrees to extend to the otherits prompt and reasonablecooperationin so modifying thisAgreement or approvedplans. 7.2 Amendment by MutualConsent. This Agreement may be amended in writing from timeto time by mutual consent ofthe parties hereto and in accordance with theproceduresofStatelaw and Chapter 8.56. When a Party seeking such an amendment owns or hasan equitableright to only a portion of the whole of the Property Portion”), then such Party may onlyseekamendmentofthis Agreementasdirectly relates tothePortion, andthe Party owning anyother Portionshall notbe required or entitled to be a signatory or to consent toan amendment thataffects only theother Party’s Portion. Ifany Portion ofthe Property is subject to a documentwhichcreates an association which oversees common areas and any construction or reconstruction on or ofthe same, then the associationshallbedeemed to bethe “owner” of thatPortion of the Property for the purpose ofamending thisAgreement. 7.3 MajorAmendments. Anyamendments to thisAgreement which relateto (a) the Term; (b) the permitteduses of theProperty as provided in paragraph 5.1; (c) provisions for “significant” reservation ordedicationofland; (d) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements for subsequentdiscretionary actions; (e) an increase in the densityorintensity of useofthe overall Project; (f) the maximum heightor size of proposedbuildings; or (g) monetary contributions by Kaiser as providedin this Page 9 Agreement, shall be deemed a “Major Amendment” and shall requirenotice or public hearingbeforethePlanningCommission andthe CityCouncilbefore the parties may execute an amendment hereto. The City’s Public W orksDirectorshall determine whether a reservation ordedication is “significant” in the context of the overall Project. 7.4 MinorAmendments. Any amendmentthat isnot a Major Amendmentshall be deemed a “Minor Amendment” and shall not, except to the extent otherwiserequired by law, requirenotice or publichearingbeforethepartiesmay execute an amendment hereto. The City Manager orhis or her designee shall have the authority to determine if an amendment is a MajorAmendmentsubject to Section 7.3 above or a MinorAmendmentsubjecttothisSection 7.4. The CityManagershall have the authority to review and approveamendments tothis Agreementprovided that such amendments are not MajorAmendments. 7.5 Cancellation by MutualConsent. Except as otherwise permitted herein, this Agreement maybe canceledin wholeor in partonly by the mutual consent ofthepartiesor their successorsininterest, inaccordancewith the provisions of Chapter 8.56. Any feespaidpursuant to this Agreementpriorto the date of cancellation shall be retained by theCity. 8. Annual Review . 8.1 ReviewDate. The annual reviewdate for this Agreement shall be between July15and August 15, 2017 and thereafterbetween eachJuly 15and August 15 during the Term. 8.2 Initiationof Review. The City’s CommunityDevelopment Director shallinitiate the annualreview, as required underSection 8.56.140 of Chapter 8.56, by giving toKaiser thirty (30) days’ written notice that theCityintendsto undertakesuch review. Kaisershall provide evidencetothe Community Development Director prior to thehearing on the annualreview, asand whenreasonably determined necessary by the Community Development Director, to demonstrate good faith compliancewith the provisions ofthe Agreement. The burden of proof by substantialevidence of compliance is upon Kaiser. 8.3 StaffReports. To the extentpractical, the Cityshalldeposit in the mail to Kaiser a copy of all staff reports, and related exhibitsconcerningcontract performance at least five (5) days prior to anypublichearing addressing annualreview. 8.4 Costs. Costs reasonably incurred bythe City in connectionwith the annualreviewshall be paid by Kaiser in accordancewith theCity’s schedule of fees in effect at the time of review. 9. Default. 9.1 Remedies Available. Uponthe occurrence of an event of default, the partiesmaypursue all remedies at law orin equitywhich arenot otherwiseprovided forin this Agreement or in the City’s regulations governing development agreements, Page 10 expressly including, but not limitedto, theremedy of specificperformance of this Agreement. 9.2 Notice and Cure. Upon the occurrence of an event of default by eitherparty, the nondefaultingpartyshall servewritten notice of suchdefaultuponthe defaulting party. Ifthedefault isnot cured bythe defaultingpartywithinthirty (30) days after service ofsuchnoticeofdefault, the nondefaulting partymaythen commence any legal or equitableaction to enforce its rights underthis Agreement; provided, however, that if the defaultcannot be cured within suchthirty (30) dayperiod, the nondefaulting partyshallrefrain from anysuchlegal or equitableaction solong as the defaultingparty begins to cure suchdefaultwithin suchthirty (30) dayperiod and diligentlypursues such cure to completion. Failure to give notice shall not constitute a waiver ofanydefault. 9.3 NoDamages against City. Notwithstandinganything to the contrarycontainedherein, in no event shalldamages be awardedagainst the Cityupon an event of default or upon termination of this Agreement. 9.4 CommercialParcel. In no event shallKaiser’s failuretocomplete a sale of the Commercial Parcel, after diligent and good faith effortsin accordance with Section 6 of thisAgreement, bedeemed a default subjecttothis Section 9. Should Kaiser partially assignthis Agreement as toanyportion of the Property, the Cityshall notdeem a default by Kaiser or itsassignee a default bythe other. 10. EstoppelCertificate. Eitherpartymay, at any time, and from time to time, request written noticefromtheotherpartyrequestingsuchparty to certify in writing that, a) thisAgreement is in full force and effectand a bindingobligationofthe parties, b) thisAgreementhas not beenamended or modifiedeitherorally orin writing, or if so amended, identifying the amendments, and (c) to the knowledge of the certifying party, the requesting party isnot in default in the performance of its obligations underthis Agreement, or ifindefault, todescribe therein thenatureandamountofanysuch defaults. A partyreceiving a requesthereundershall execute and return suchcertificate within thirty (30) daysfollowing the receipt thereof, or such longerperiod as may reasonably be agreedto bythe parties. The City Managerof the City shall be authorized to execute anycertificate requested by Kaiser. Shouldtheparty receiving the request not execute and return such certificatewithin the applicableperiod, this shall notbe deemed to be a default, provided that such partyshallbedeemedto have certified thatthe statements in clauses (a) through (c) of this section are true, andany partymay rely on suchdeemed certification. 11. Mortgagee Protection; Certain Rights of Cure. 11.1 MortgageeProtection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to anylienplacedupon the Property, or anyportionthereofafter the date of recording this Agreement, including the lien foranydeedoftrust or mortgage Mortgage”). Notwithstanding theforegoing, nobreach hereofshall defeat, render invalid, diminishor impair the lienofany Mortgage made in goodfaith and for value, but all thetermsand conditionscontainedinthisAgreement shall be binding upon and Page 11 effective against anyperson or entity, includinganydeed of trust beneficiary or mortgagee (“Mortgagee”) whoacquires title to the Property, or anyportion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieuof foreclosure, or otherwise. 11.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section11.1 above, no Mortgagee shallhaveanyobligation or dutyunderthis Agreement, before or after foreclosure or a deed in lieuof foreclosure, to construct or completethe construction of improvements, or to guaranteesuch construction of improvements, or toguarantee suchconstruction or completion, orto pay, performor provide any fee, dedication, improvements or other exaction or imposition; provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall notbe entitled to devote the Property toany usesor to construct any improvementsthereon other thanthose uses or improvementsprovided foror authorized by the Project Approvals or by thisAgreement. 11.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee and Extension ofRight to Cure. If the City receives noticefrom a Mortgageerequesting a copy of anynoticeof default given Kaiser hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, thenthe City shall deliver to suchMortgagee, concurrentlywithservice thereon to Kaiser, any notice given to Kaiser with respect toanyclaim by theCity that Kaiserhas committed an event of def ault. Each Mortgagee shall have the rightduring the sameperiodavailable to Kaisertocureor remedy, orto commence to cure orremedy, theevent of default claimed set forth in theCity’s notice. The City, through its CityManager, may extend the thirty-day cure period provided in paragraph 12.2for not morethan an additional sixt y (60) daysupon request ofKaiseror a Mortgagee. 12. Severability. The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality ofany provisions, covenant, condition or term of thisAgreement shallnot render theother provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal. 13. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. 13.1 Prevailing Party. If theCityorKaiserinitiatesanyaction at law or in equity to enforce or interpret the termsand conditions of thisAgreement, the prevailing partyshall be entitled to recoverreasonableattorneys’ feesand costs in addition toany other relief to which it may otherwise be entitled. 13.2 Third Party Challenge. If anypersonorentity not a party to this Agreementinitiates an action at law orin equity to challenge the validity of any provision of this Agreement or the Project Approvals, thepartiesshallcooperate in defending suchaction. Kaiser shallbear its own costs of defense as a real party in interest in any suchaction, andshallreimbursetheCity for all reasonable court costs and attorneys’ fees expended by the Cityin defenseofany suchaction or other proceeding. 14. Transfers and Assignments. 14.1 AgreementRuns with the Land. All of the provisions, rights, terms, covenants, and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties and their respectiveheirs, successors and assignees, representatives, lessees, Page 12 andall otherpersons acquiring the Property, or anyportionthereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of lawor in anymanner whatsoever. All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitableservitude and shall constitute covenants runningwith the land pursuant to applicablelaws, including, butnot limited to, Section1468of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant to do, or refrainfromdoing, some acton thePropertyhereunder, or with respecttoany owned property, (a) is for thebenefit of such properties andis a burdenuponsuchproperties, b) runs with such properties, and (c) is binding uponeachparty and each successive owner during its ownership of such properties or anyportionthereof, and shall be a benefit toand a burden uponeachparty andits propertyhereunder and each other person succeeding to an interest in such properties. 14.2 Right to Assign. Kaiser may wish to sell, transfer or assign all or portions of its Property to other developers (eachsuch other developer is referred to as a “Transferee”). In connectionwith anysuchsale, transferor assignment to a Transferee, Kaisermay sell, transfer or assign to suchTransfereeany or all rights, interests and obligations of Kaiser arising hereunderand that pertain to the portion of the Property being soldor transferred, to such Transferee, provided, however, that: except as provided herein, no such transfer, sale or assignment of Kaiser’s rights, interests and obligations hereundershall occurwithout prior written noticetoCity and approval by theCityManager, whichapproval shall notbe unreasonably withheld or delayed. 14.3 Approval and Notice of Sale, Transfer or Assignment. TheCity Managershall consider and decide on anytransfer, sale or assignmentwithin ten (10) days after Kaiser’s notice, provided all necessary documents, certifications and other informationare provided to the City Manager to enable the City Manager to determine whether the proposed Transferee can perform Kaiser’s obligations hereunder. Noticeof anysuchapprovedsale, transfer or assignment (which includes a description of all rights, interests and obligations that have been transferred and thosewhich havebeen retained by Kaiser) shall be recorded in theofficial records of Alameda County, in a form acceptable to the CityManager, concurrently with suchsale, transfer or assignment. 14.4 Considerations for Approval of Sale, Transfer or Assignment. In considering the request, theCityManagershallbase the decisionupon the proposed assignee's reputation, experience, financial resources and accessto credit and capability to successfully carry outthe development of the Property tocompletion. The CityManager's approvalshall be for the purposes of: a) providing noticetoCity; b) assuring thatall obligations of Kaiserareallocated as between Kaiser and theproposed purchaser, transferee or assignee as provided by this Agreement; and c) assuring City thatthe proposed purchaser, transferee or assignee is financiallycapable of performing Kaiser's obligations hereunder not withheldby Kaiser. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CityManager’s approval shallnotbe required for (i) an assignment in conjunction with a sale of the CommercialParcelconsistentwith Section 6.2 above, provided that Kaisershall provide noticeofthe sale tothe City, or (ii) an assignment to an entity or entities controlling Kaiser, controlled by Kaiser, orunder common control with Kaiser, Page 13 provided that Kaiserowns and controlsnolessthan fifty percent (50%) ofsuch successorentity. 14.5 ReleaseuponTransfer. Upon the transfer, sale, orassignment of all of Kaiser’s rights, interests and obligations hereunderpursuanttoSection 14.2 ofthis Agreement, Kaiser shall be released fromthe obligations underthis Agreement, with respect totheProperty transferred, sold, or assigned, arising subsequent to the date of City Manager approval ofsuchtransfer, sale, orassignment; provided, however, that if any transferee, purchaser, or assigneeapproved by theCityManager expressly assumes all ofthe rights, interests and obligations of Kaiserunder this Agreement, Kaisershall be releasedwithrespect to all suchrights, interests and assumed obligations. Notwithstanding the foregoing, suchrelease shall be automaticwith respectto a sale of the Commercial ParceluponKaiser’s provision of notice totheCity ManagerpursuanttoSection 14.4. In anyevent, the transferee, purchaser, or assignee shallbe subject to all the provisions hereofandshall provide all necessary documents, certificationsand other necessary informationprior to CityManager approval. 14.6 Kaiser’s Right to Retain SpecifiedRights or Obligations. Kaiser may withhold from a sale, transferorassignmentofthis Agreement or anyportion of the Property transferred, certainrights, interests and/orobligations which Kaiserwishes to retain, provided that Kaiserspecifiessuch rights, interests and/or obligations in a written documentto be appended to thisAgreement and recordedwith the Alameda County Recorder prior to the sale, transfer or assignment of the Property. Kaiser’s purchaser, transferee or assignee shallthen have no interest orobligations for suchrights, interests and obligations and this Agreement shallremain applicable to Kaiser with respect to suchretainedrights, interests and/or obligations. 14.7 Omitted. 15. Bankruptcy. The obligationsof thisAgreement shallnotbe dischargeable inbankruptcy. 16. Indemnification. Kaiser agreesto indemnif y, defendand hold harmless theCity, and itselected and appointedcouncils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, and representatives from any andall claims, costs (includinglegal feesand costs) and liability for any personal injury or propertydamage which may arisedirectly or indirectly as a result ofanyactions or inactions by Kaiser, or anyactions or inactions of Kaiser’s contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in connectionwith the construction, improvement, operation, or maintenance of the Project, provided that Kaisershall have no indemnificationobligation with respect to negligence or wrongf ul conduct oftheCity, itscontractors, subcontractors, agents or employees or with respect tothe maintenance, use or condition ofanyimprovementafterthe timeit hasbeen dedicated to and accepted bythe Cityoranotherpublicentity (except as provided in an improvement agreement or maintenance bond). IfCity is named as a party to any legal action, City shallcooperate with Kaiser, shallappear in suchaction and shall not unreasonablywithholdapproval of a settlementotherwiseacceptable to Kaiser. Page 14 17. Insurance. 17.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, Kaiser shall maintain in effect a policy of commercialgeneral liability insurance with a per-occurrence combined single limit of not lessthan one million dollars ($1,000,000.00). Thepolicy so maintained by KaisershallnametheCity asan additional insured and shallincludeeither a severability of interestclause or cross- liabilityendorsement. City and Kaiseragreethatsuch insurance mayinclude alternative risk managementprograms, includingself-insurance or a combination of self-insurance and insurance, provided that suchalternativerisk managementprograms provide protectionequivalent to that specified under this Agreement. 17.2 Workers CompensationInsurance. Duringtheterm of this Agreement Kaisershall maintain W orker’s Compensationinsurance for all persons employed by Kaiserfor work atthe Projectsite. Kaisershall requireeachcontractor and subcontractorsimilarly to provide Worker’s Compensation insurance for its respectiveemployees. Kaiseragrees to indemnify the City for anydamage resulting from Kaiser’s failure to maintainanysuch insurance. 17.3 Evidence of Insurance. Prior to issuance of any permits for the Project, includinggradingpermits, Kaiser shall furnishtheCity satisfactory evidence of the insurancerequired in Sections 17.1 and 17.2 and evidence thatthecarrier is required to give the City at leastfifteen days priorwritten notice of the cancellation or reduction in coverage of a policyunless replacedwith similar coverage. The insurance shallextend to the City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees and representatives and toKaiserperformingwork on theProject. 18. Sewer and Water. Kaiseracknowledges that it must obtain water and sewer permitsf rom the DublinSanRamon Services District (“DSRSD”) which is another publicagency not withinthecontrol of theCity. City agrees that it shall not take any action with DSRSD opposing Kaiser’s efforts to reservewater and sewer capacity sufficient to serve the Project described herein. 19. Notices. All notices required or provided for underthis Agreement shall be inwriting. Noticesrequired to be given to theCityshall be addressed as follows: CityManager City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Fax No. (925) 833-6651 Noticesrequiredto be given to Kaiser shallbe addressed as follows: KaiserHealth Foundation RealEstate Department 1800 Harrison St. Oakland, CA 94612 Page 15 W ith a copy to: KaiserHealth Foundation LegalDepartment Attn: ChristopherAlonzi OneKaiser Plaza, 19 Bayside Oakland, CA 94612 A party may changeaddress by givingnotice in writing to the otherparty and thereafter all noticesshall be addressed and transmitted to thenewaddress. Noticesshall be deemed given and received uponpersonal delivery, or if mailed, uponthe expiration of 48hoursafterbeing depositedin the United StatesMail. Noticesmay also be given by overnight courier which shall be deemed given the followingday or by facsimile transmissionwhich shall be deemed given upon verification of receipt. 20. Agreement is Entire Understanding. ThisAgreement constitutes the entire understanding andagreementofthe parties. 21. Exhibits. The followingdocument is referred toin this Agreement and is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though setforth in full: Exhibit A Legal Descriptionof Property 22. Recitals. The foregoing Recitals are true andcorrect and aremade a part hereof. 23. Counterparts. This Agreement is executedin two (2) duplicateoriginals, each of which isdeemed tobean original. 24. Recordation. The Cityshall record a copy of this Agreementwithin ten 10) days following execution byall parties. 25. No Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to orshall bedeemedtoconferupon any person, other than the Parties and their respectivepermittedsuccessors and assigns, any rights or remedies hereunder. Execution Page Follows] Page 16 IN W ITNESS W HEREOF, the partiesheretohave causedthis Agreement to be executed as ofthe date and year first abovewritten. CITYOF DUBLIN By: Chris Foss, CityManager Attest: KAISER KaiserFoundation Hospitals, a California nonprofitpublicbenefitcorporation By: Caroline Soto, CityClerk Approved as to form JohnBakker, CityAttorney 2690303.3 NOTARIZATIONATTACHED) Page 17 Exhibit A Legal Description of Property Realproperty in the County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows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apcheck 1: 1 Closure Summary Precision, 1 part in: 39465693.516' Error distance: 0.000' Error direction: S85°59'03.94"E Area: 2383163.32 Sq. Ft. Square area: 2383163.317 Perimeter: 6914.620' Point of Beginning Easting: 6168280.3500' Northing: 2081813.6900' Side 1: Line Direction: S89°27'02.00"E Angle: [-89°27'02"] Deflection angle: [90°32'58"] Distance: 422.350' Easting: 6168702.6806' Northing: 2081809.6399' Side 2: Curve Curve direction: Counter-clockwise Radius: 3076.000' Arc length: 266.050' Delta angle: 4°57'20" Tangent: [133.106'] Chord direction: N88°04'19.00"E Chord angle: [177°31'21"] Deflection angle: [-2°28'39"] Chord distance: [265.963'] Easting: 6168968.4927' Northing: 2081818.5881' Side 3: Line Direction: N85°35'38.00"E Angle: [179°59'59"] Deflection angle: [-0°00'01"] Distance: 141.330' Easting: 6169109.4050' Northing: 2081829.4458' Side 4: Line Direction: S4°24'22.00"E Angle: [-90°00'00"] Deflection angle: [90°00'00"] Distance: 1.000' Easting: 6169109.4818' Northing: 2081828.4488' Side 5: Line Direction: N85°35'38.00"E Angle: [90°00'00"] Deflection angle: [-90°00'00"] Distance: 20.000' Easting: 6169129.4227' Northing: 2081829.9853' Side 6: Curve Curve direction: Counter-clockwise Radius: 1477.000' Arc length: 746.230' Delta angle: 28°56'52" 6(58%/,1 27 2685(8/$7,216 5(<(585(7$1&3DJH RI Tangent: [381.260'] Chord direction: N71°07'12.00"E Chord angle: [165°31'34"] Deflection angle: [-14°28'26"] Chord distance: [738.319'] Easting: 6169828.0190' Northing: 2082068.8959' Side 7: Line Direction: S1°56'07.00"E Angle: [-58°34'53"] Deflection angle: [121°25'07"] Distance: 1282.850' Easting: 6169871.3416' Northing: 2080786.7776' Side 8: Line Direction: N89°41'38.00"W Angle: [-87°45'31"] Deflection angle: [92°14'29"] Distance: 1181.850' Easting: 6168689.5085' Northing: 2080793.0918' Side 9: Line Direction: N88°29'04.00"W Angle: [-178°47'26"] Deflection angle: [1°12'34"] Distance: 418.990' Easting: 6168270.6650' Northing: 2080804.1734' Side 10: Line Direction: N88°29'24.00"W Angle: [179°59'40"] Deflection angle: [-0°00'20"] Distance: 38.060' Easting: 6168232.6182' Northing: 2080805.1763' Side 11: Line Direction: N1°30'40.00"E Angle: [-89°59'56"] Deflection angle: [90°00'04"] Distance: 11.000' Easting: 6168232.9083' Northing: 2080816.1725' Side 12: Line Direction: N88°29'20.00"W Angle: [90°00'00"] Deflection angle: [-90°00'00"] Distance: 100.000' Easting: 6168132.9431' Northing: 2080818.8095' Side 13: Line Direction: S1°30'40.00"W Angle: [90°00'00"] Deflection angle: [-90°00'00"] Distance: 11.000' Easting: 6168132.6530' Northing: 2080807.8134' 6(58%/,1 27 2685(8/$7,216 5(<(585(7$1&3DJH RI Side 14: Line Direction: N88°29'24.00"W Angle: [-90°00'04"] Deflection angle: [89°59'56"] Distance: 546.990' Easting: 6167585.8530' Northing: 2080822.2273' Side 15: Line Direction: N0°00'00.00"E Angle: [-91°30'36"] Deflection angle: [88°29'24"] Distance: 1030.840' Easting: 6167585.8530' Northing: 2081853.0673' Side 16: Curve Curve direction: Counter-clockwise Radius: 5076.000' Arc length: 576.590' Delta angle: 6°30'30" Tangent: [288.606'] Chord direction: S86°11'46.00"E Chord angle: [-86°11'46"] Deflection angle: [93°48'14"] Chord distance: [576.282'] Easting: 6168160.8657' Northing: 2081814.8358' Side 17: Line Direction: S89°27'02.00"E Angle: [179°59'59"] Deflection angle: [-0°00'01"] Distance: 119.490' Easting: 6168280.3502' Northing: 2081813.6900' 1 RESOLUTIONNO. xx-16 A RESOLUTION OF THECITYCOUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM UNDER CEQA FOR THE KAISERDUBLIN MEDICAL CENTER PROJECT PA 08-50 and PLPA 2016-00007 APNs 985-0061-005-00 and 985-0027-009-02) WHEREAS, theApplicant, KaiserFoundation Hospitals, submitted a PlanningApplication forthe Kaiser DublinMedical Center project, which is comprisedof 950,000square feet of medicalcampus uses in threemain buildings, 250,000 square feet of commercialuses, a parking structure, andassociated site, roadway frontage, andlandscapeimprovements. Requested land useapprovals includeaGeneralPlan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to create two newland usedistricts, Planned DevelopmentRezoning (Stage1 and Stage 2), and Site DevelopmentReview for Phase1A (a 220,000 squarefoot medical office building), a request for aDevelopment Agreement, andcertificationofa Final EnvironmentalImpact Report, amongother relatedactions. Theseplanning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “KaiserDublinMedical Center Project” or the “Project”; and WHEREAS, the CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct (CEQA), together with the State guidelinesandCityenvironmental regulations require that certain projects be revi ewed for environmentalimpacts and thatenvironmentaldocuments be prepared. It was determined that an EnvironmentalImpactReport (EIR) bepreparedto analyze theKaiser Dublin MedicalCenter project; and WHEREAS, the Citycirculated a Notice of Preparation, datedJanuary12, 2015, to public agenciesand interested parties for consultation onthescope of theEIR. The City also conducted a publicscopingmeeting on January 22, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Cityprepared a Draft Environmental ImpactReport (EI R) datedFebruary 3, 2016for the proposed Project that reflected the City’s independentjudgment and analysis of the potentialenvironmental impacts of theProject. The Draft EIR is incorporatedherein by reference; and WHEREAS, the DraftEIRwas circulated for publicreview in February and March 2016 for45 days; and WHEREAS, theCity received commentletters from State, regional, andlocalagencies as well as interestedindividuals and organizations duringthepublicreviewperiod. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the City preparedwrittenresponsesto all the comments received during the public comment period. The Cityprepared a FinalEIR (that includes the Responses to Comments), datedAugust2016, for theproposedProject, which included an annotated copy of each commentletter identifying specific comments, responses to 2 eachspecific comment, andclarificationsandminorcorrectionsto information presented in the Draft EIR. The Final EIR is attached as ExhibitA to this Resolutionand is incorporatedherein by reference (Exhibit A also contains the complete EIR – DraftEIR, Appendices, and FinalEIR combined – on a CDwithin the document). The complete KaiserDublinMedicalCenter Project EIR incorporatestheDraft EIRand theFinalEIR together. Theresponsesto comments provide the City’s good faith, reasoned analysis oftheenvironmental issues raised bythe comments; and WHEREAS, theEIR forthe Project includes the DraftEIRandthe FinalEIR collectively EIR); and WHEREAS, the Citycarefullyreviewed the comments and writtenresponsesand determinedthat the FinalEIR, including the clarificationsandminorcorrections to the Draft EIR, do not constitute significant new informationrequiring recirculation of the DraftEIRunder the standards in CEQAGuidelines section15088.5; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated August 23, 2016 and incorporated herein by reference, describedand analyzed the Project forthe Planning Commissionandcontainedinformationon the EIR; and WHEREAS, thePlanning Commissionreviewed the StaffReport, the EIR, including commentsand responses, at a noticedpublichearing on August 23, 2016 at whichtime all interestedpartieshadtheopportunity to beheard; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2016, thePlanningCommission adopted Resolution16-16 recommendingthattheCity Councilcertify theEIR for theproject, which resolution is incorporated herein byreferenceandavailable for reviewat City Hallduring normal business hours; and WHEREAS, a StaffReport, dated September 20, 2016andincorporated herein by reference, described andanalyzed the Project and EIR for theCity Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the StaffReport, theEIR, includingcommentsand responses, at anoticedpublichearing on September 20, 2016 at which time all interested parties hadthe opportunity to beheard; and WHEREAS, theEIR, including comments andresponses, reflectstheCity’s independent judgment and analysison the potential for environmental impactsfromtheProject; and WHEREAS, the EIR identifiedseveralpotentiallysignificantimpactsthatwill be reduced to a less thansignificantlevel with specifiedmitigationmeasures; therefore, approvalofthe project bythe CityCouncil willrequire adoptionoffindings on impactsandmitigations as set forth in attached Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the EIR identifiedsignificantand unavoidable environmentalimpacts of the project; thereforeapproval of theprojectwill require adoption of findings concerning mitigations as set forth in attached Exhibit B, findingsconcerning alternatives as setforth in attached Exhibit C, anda Statement of OverridingConsiderations asset forth in attached Exhibit D; and 3 WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and ReportingProgram, as required by CEQA, is attached as Exhibit E; and WHEREAS, the EIRandall of thedocumentsrelatingto the Project are available for review in the CityPlanning Division at theDublinCityHall, filePA 08-050, duringnormal businesshours. Thelocation and custodian of theEIRandotherdocumentsthat constitute the record of proceedings fortheProject is the City of Dublin CommunityDevelopmentDepartment, 100 CivicPlaza, Dublin, CA 94568, filePA 08-050. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDTHAT, the DublinCityCouncilcertifiesthe following: A. The foregoingrecitals aretrueandcorrectand made a partof this resolution. B. The City Council certifies theEIR, consisting of theDraft EIR, the separatelybound Final EIRattached as Exhibit A, and finds that the EIRhas beencompleted in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines andthe City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. C. The City Council hasindependently reviewed and considered the informationcontained in theEIR, includingthewritten comments received during the DraftEIRreviewperiod and the oraland written comments received at the public hearing, prior to acting on the proposed Project. D. TheEIRreflectsthe City’s independent judgment and analysis onthe potential environmentalimpactsof the Project. The EIR providesinformation to thedecision- makers and thepublic on theenvironmental consequences oftheProject. E. TheEIRadequatelydescribestheProject, its significantenvironmentalimpacts, mitigationmeasuresand a reasonable range of alternatives to theProject. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED thatthe Dublin CityCounciladoptsthemitigation measuresandimpact and mitigationfindings setforth in Exhibit B, thefindingsconcerning alternativesandmitigations set forth in Exhibit C, theStatementof Overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit D, and the Mitigation Monitoring or ReportingProgram set forth in Exhibit E. Exhibits A, B, C, D and E are incorporatedherein by reference, all in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of September, 2016 bythe followingvote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 4 Mayor ATTEST: CityClerk 2702554.1 www.FirstCarbonSolutions.com DRAFT Environmental Impact Report Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project City of Dublin,AlamedaCounty,California State Clearinghouse No.2015012018 Prepared for: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,CA 94568 925833 6610 Contact:Kristi Bascom,Principal Planner Prepared by: FirstCarbon Solutions 1350 Treat Boulevard,Suite 380 Walnut Creek,CA 94597 925.357.2562 Contact:Mary Bean,Project Director Grant Gruber,Project Manager Janna Waligorski,Project Manager Date:January 28,2016 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Draft EIR Table of Contents FirstCarbonSolutions iii H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\1 ADEIR\37660004 Sec00 01 TOC docx Table of Contents Acronyms andAbbreviations xi Executive Summary ES 1 Purpose ES 1 Project Summary ES 1 SignificantUnavoidable Adverse Impacts ES 2 Summary of ProjectAlternatives ES 3 Areas of Controversy ES 4 Public Review of the Draft EIR ES 5 Executive Summary Matrix ES 6 Section 1:Introduction 11 1.1 Overview of the CEQA Process 11 1.2 Scope of the EIR 12 1.3 Organization of the EIR 14 1.4 Documents Incorporated by Reference 16 1.5 Documents Prepared for the Project 16 1.6 Review of the Draft EIR 17 Section 2:ProjectDescription 21 2.1 Project Location and Setting...........................................................................................21 2.2 Project Background 22 2.3 Project Characteristics 22 2.4 Project Objectives 2 18 2.5 Intended Uses of This Draft EIR 2 19 Section 3:Environmental Impact Analysis 31 Organization of IssueAreas 31 Issues Addressed in this EIR 31 Level of Significance 31 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measure Format...................................................................32 3.1 Aesthetics,Light,and Glare 3.11 3.2 Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.21 3.3 Biological Resources 3.31 3.4 Cultural Resources 3.4 1 3.5 Geology,Soils,and Seismicity......................................................................................3.5 1 3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.6 1 3.7 Hydrologyand Water Quality 3.7 1 3.8 Land Use 3.8 1 3.9 Noise 3.9 1 3.10 Public Services and Utilities 3.10 1 3.11 Transportation 3.11 1 Section 4:Cumulative Effects 41 4.1 Introduction 41 4.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis............................................................................................42 Section 5:Alternatives to the Proposed Project 51 5.1 Introduction 51 5.2 Project Objectives 53 City of Dublin Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Table of Contents Draft EIR iv FirstCarbonSolutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\1 ADEIR\37660004 Sec00 01 TOC docx 5.3 Alternative 1 NoProject Alternative 53 5.4 Alternative 2 Reduced Density Alternative 5 5 5.5 Alternative 3 Corporate Office Campus Alternative 5 9 5.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative 514 5.7 Alternatives Rejected From Further Consideration 515 Section 6:Other CEQA Considerations.........................................................................................61 6.1 Significant Unavoidable Impacts 61 6.2 Growth Inducing Impacts 6 2 6.3 Energy Conservation 6 3 6.4 Vehicle Miles Traveled 6 9 Section 7:Effects Found not to be Significant 7 1 7.1 Introduction 7 1 7.2 Effects Found not to be Significant 71 Section 8:Persons and OrganizationsConsulted/List of Preparers 81 8.1 Persons and Organizations Consulted 81 8.2 List of Preparers 83 Section 9:References 91 List of Appendices Appendix A:Notice of Preparationand Responses 5 A.1Notice of Preparation 7 A.2 Responses 9 Appendix B:Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Supporting Information 11 B.1 Modeling Output 13 B.2 Health Risk Assessment 15 Appendix C:Biological Resources Supporting Information 17 Appendix D:Cultural Resources Supporting Information 19 Appendix E:GeotechnicalStudy 21 Appendix F:Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessments 23 F.1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 25 F.2 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 27 Appendix G:Noise Supporting Information 29 Appendix H:Public Services and Utilities Supporting Information 31 Appendix I:Water Supply Assessment..........................................................................................33 Appendix J:Transportation Impact Study 35 Appendix K:Alternatives Trip GenerationCalculation 37 City of Dublin Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Draft EIR Table of Contents FirstCarbonSolutions v H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\1 ADEIR\37660004 Sec00 01 TOC docx List of Tables Table ES 1:Executive Summary Matrix ES 7 Table 11:NOP Comment Letters 1 2 Table 21:Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Summary 2 9 Table 3.21:Air Quality Monitoring Summary 3.2 3 Table 3.22:San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Attainment Status 3.2 5 Ta ble 3.23:Greenhouse Gases 3.2 6 Table 3.24:Description of Air Pollutants 3.214 Table 3.25:BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance 3.2 37 Table 3.26:Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures 3.241 Table 3.27:Carbon Monoxide Concentration at Tassajara Rd./Dublin Blvd.3.244 Table 3.28:UnmitigatedConstructionCriteria Air Pollutants Emissions Annual Tons)3.246 Table 3.29:Unmitigated 2016 ConstructionCriteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate)3.2 47 Table 3.2 10:Unmitigated 2017 Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate)3.2 47 Table 3.2 11:Unmitigated 2018 ConstructionCriteria Air Pollutants EmissionsAverage Daily Rate)3.248 Table 3.2 12:Unmitigated 2025 ConstructionCriteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate)3.249 Table 3.2 13:Unmitigated 2026 Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate)3.249 Ta ble 3.2 14:Unmitigated 2035 Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate)3.250 Table 3.2 15:Unmitigated 2036 Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate)3.250 Table 3.216:Mitigated ConstructionCriteria Air Pollutants Emissions Annual Tons)3.2 51 Table 3.2 17:2016 Mitigated ConstructionCriteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate)3.2 51 Table 3.2 18:2017 Mitigated ConstructionCriteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate)3.2 52 Table 3.2 19:2018 Mitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate)3.2 52 Table 3.2 20:2025 Mitigated ConstructionCriteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate)3.2 53 Table 3.2 21:2026 Mitigated ConstructionCriteria Air Pollutants EmissionsAverage Daily Rate)3.254 City of Dublin Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Table of Contents Draft EIR vi FirstCarbonSolutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\1 ADEIR\37660004 Sec00 01 TOC docx Table 3.2 22:2035 Mitigated ConstructionCriteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate)3.254 Table 3.2 23:2036 Mitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate)3.2 55 Table 3.2 24:Unmitigated Annual Operational Emissions Phase 1A 2017)3.2 55 Table 3.2 25:Unmitigated Daily Operational Emissions Phase 1A2017)Summer)3.256 Table 3.2 26:Unmitigated Daily Operational Emissions Phase 1A2017)Winter)3.256 Table 3.2 27:Unmitigated Annual Operational Emissions Phase 1A and 1B 2018)3.2 57 Table 3.2 28:Unmitigated Daily Operational Emissions Phase 1A and 1B 2018) Summer)3.258 Table 3.2 29:Unmitigated Daily Operational Emissions Phase 1A and 1B 2018) Winter)3.258 Table 3.230:Unmitigated Annual Operational Emissions Phase 1A,1B,and 2(2026)3.259 Table 3.231:Unmitigated Daily Operational Emissions Phase 1A,1B,and2 2026) Summer)3.259 Table 3.2 32:Unmitigated Daily Operational Emissions Phase 1A,1B,and 2 2026) Winter)3.260 Table 3.233:Unmitigated Annual Operational Emissions Buildout 2036)3.260 Table 3.234:Unmitigated Daily Operational Emissions Buildout 2036)Summer)3.2 61 Ta ble 3.2 35:Unmitigated Daily Operational Emissions Buildout 2036)Winter)3.261 Table 3.2 36:Mitigated AnnualOperational Emissions 2017)3.2 62 Table 3.2 37:Mitigated Daily Operational Emissions 2017)Summer)3.2 62 Table 3.2 38:Mitigated Daily Operational Emissions 2017)Winter)3.263 Ta ble 3.2 39:Mitigated Annual Operational Emissions 2018)3.263 Table 3.2 40:Mitigated Daily Operational Emissions 2018)Summer)3.264 Table 3.2 41:Mitigated Daily Operational Emissions 2018)Winter)3.264 Table 3.2 42:Mitigated AnnualOperational Emissions 2026)3.265 Table 3.243:Mitigated Daily Operational Emissions 2026)Summer)3.266 Table 3.244:Mitigated Daily Operational Emissions 2026)Winter)3.266 Table 3.2 45:Mitigated AnnualOperational Emissions 2036)3.2 67 Table 3.246:Mitigated Daily Operational Emissions 2036)Summer)3.2 67 Table 3.2 47:Mitigated Daily Operational Emissions 2036)W inter)3.2 68 Table 3.2 48:Percent That Each Phase is Operational for Each Age Sensitivity Time Period 3.2 71 Table 3.2 49:Construction Related On site Off Road Equipment DPM Emissions 3.2 72 Table 3.2 50:Construction Related Average Daily Truck Trip Rates 3.2 72 City of Dublin Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Draft EIR Table of Contents FirstCarbonSolutions vii H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\1 ADEIR\37660004 Sec00 01 TOC docx Table 3.2 51:EMFAC2014 Construction Related Truck Travel Emission Factors 3.2 73 Table 3.2 52:Construction Truck Running Emissions Rates used in the ISCST3 Model 3.2 74 Table 3.2 53:Construction Truck Idling Emissions Rates used in the ISCST3 Model 3.2 74 Table 3.254:Project Average Daily Tr uck Deliveries and Trips during Operations 3.275 Table 3.2 55:EMFAC2014 Operational Running Trucks Emissions Rates 3.2 76 Table 3.2 56:Truck Travel Emissions Rates used in the ISCST3 Model 3.2 77 Table 3.2 57:EMFAC2014 Idling Trucks Emissions Rates 3.2 78 Table 3.258:Idling SourceEmissions Rates used in the ISCST3 Model 3.279 Table 3.2 59:TRU Emissions Rates 3.279 Table 3.2 60:TRU Source Emissions Rates used in the ISC Model 3.280 Table 3.2 61:Proposed Energy Center TAC Emissions 3.281 Table 3.2 62:Proposed Energy Center PM2.5 Emissions from Natural Gas Usage 3.2 82 Table 3.2 63:Cumulative I 580 Health Risks 3.283 Table 3.2 64:Cumulative Dublin Boulevard Health Risks 3.284 Table 3.2 65:Phase 1A Annual DPM Concentrations and Cancer Risks 3.2 87 Table 3.2 66:Phase 1B Annual DPMConcentrations and Cancer Risks 3.288 Table 3.2 67:Phase 2 Annual DPM Concentrations and Cancer Risks 3.289 Table 3.2 68:Phase 3 Annual DPMConcentrations and Cancer Risks 3.291 Table 3.2 69:Total Project Cancer Risks 3.2 92 Table 3.2 70:Project Non Cancer Chronic Health Risks 3.293 Table 3.2 71:Proposed Project Annual PM2.5 Concentrations 3.294 Table 3.2 72:Cumulative Cancer Risk Impacts 3.295 Table 3.2 73:Cumulative Noncancer Chronic Impacts 3.296 Table 3.2 74:Cumulative Noncancer Acute Impacts 3.2 97 Table 3.2 75:Cumulative PM2.5 Concentrations 3.2 98 Table 3.2 76:Odor Screening Distances 3.2 100 Table 3.277:Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.2 103 Table 3.2 78:Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Regulations 3.2 105 Table 3.2 79:ProjectOperational Emissions 2036)3.2 106 Table 3.2 80:Reductions from Project Land Us e andTransportation Measures 3.2 107 Table 3.2 81:Project Consistency with Applicable CAP Measures 3.2 108 Table 3.2 82:City of Dublin CAP ConsistencyAnalysis 3.2 110 Table 3.3 1:Biological Community Summary 3.32 Table 3.4 1:Known Cultural Resources within 0.50 mile Radius of the Project Site 3.49 City of Dublin Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Table of Contents Draft EIR viii FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\1 ADEIR\37660004 Sec00 01 TOC docx Table 3.4 2:Cultural Resources Reports within a 0.50 mile Radius of the Project Site 3.4 9 Table 3.51:Fault Summary 3.5 2 Table 3.52:Native Soils Summary 3.54 Table 3.6 1:SoilSample Analytical Testing Results 3.64 Table 3.6 2:Indoor Radon Testing Summary 3.65 Table 3.7 1:Dublin Meteorological Summary..................................................................................3.71 Table 3.7 2:ImpairedWater Body Summary 3.75 Table 3.8 1:Surrounding Land Use Designations 3.82 Table 3.82:Zone 7 Land Use Safety Standards 3.86 Table 3.8 3:General Plan Consistency 3.89 Ta ble 3.8 4:Specific Plan Consistency 3.8 30 Table 3.9 1:Typical A Weighted Noise Levels 3.91 Table 3.9 2:Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels,Lmax 3.93 Table 3.9 3:Vibration Levels of ConstructionEquipment 3.95 Table 3.9 4:Noise Monitoring Results Summary 3.99 Table 3.9 5:Noise Monitoring Results Summary 3.910 Table 3.96:Summary of EPA RecommendedNoise Levels to Protect Public Welfare 3.913 Table 3.97:FTA’s Construction Vibration Damage Criteria 3.914 Table 3.98:FTA’s Vibration ImpactCriteria 3.915 Table 3.99:City of Dublin Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Community Noise Exposure dB)3.9 17 Table 3.9 10:SoundPLAN Model Roadway Parameters 3.9 20 Ta ble 3.9 11:Average Daily Traffic Volumes 3.921 Table 3.9 12:Construction Noise Model Results Summary dBA)3.9 27 Table 3.10 1:Fire Station Summary 3.10 1 Table 3.10 2:Groundwater Pumped by Zone 7 on DSRSD’s Behalf 3.10 8 Table 3.10 3:Groundwater Projected To Be Pumped by Zone 7 on DSRSD’s Behalf 3.10 8 Table 3.10 4:DSRSD Current andProjected FutureWater Supplies 3.10 11 Table 3.10 5:Landfill Summary 3.10 13 Table 3.10 6:Proposed project Potable and Recycled Water Demand 3.10 21 Table 3.10 7:Project Site Potable and Recycled Water Demand Projections Contained in Urban WaterManagement Plan(a)3.10 22 Table 3.10 8:Summary of Projected Potable and Recycled Water Demand for proposed project 3.10 22 City of Dublin Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Draft EIR Table of Contents FirstCarbonSolutions ix H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\1 ADEIR\37660004 Sec00 01 TOC docx Table 3.10 9:Water Supply and Demand Comparison Normal Year 3.1026 Table 3.10 10:Water Supply and Demand Comparison Single Dry Year 3.10 27 Table 3.10 11:Water Supply and Demand Comparison Multiple Dry Year 3.10 28 Table 3.10 12:Wastewater Generation Estimate 3.10 33 Ta ble 3.10 13:Construction SolidWaste Generation 3.10 36 Table 3.10 14:Annual Operational Waste Generation 3.10 36 Table 3.11 1:Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria 3.11 8 Table 3.11 2:Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria 3.11 9 Table 3.11 3:Freeway Mainline Level of Service Criteria 3.11 9 Table 3.11 4:FreewayRamp Merge/Diverge Level of Service Criteria 3.11 10 Table 3.11 5:Existing Conditions Peak HourIntersection Levels of Service 3.11 11 Table 3.11 6:TVTC Designated Intersections Existing Conditions Peak HourIntersection Levels of Service 3.11 13 Ta ble 3.11 7:Medical Use Trip Generation Estimates 3.11 32 Table 3.11 8:Comparison of Commercial Parcel Trip Generation Estimates 3.11 33 Table 3.11 9:Trips By Analysis Phase 3.11 35 Table 3.11 10:Saturday Trip Generation 3.11 36 Table 3.11 11:Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Operations 3.11 50 Table 3.11 12:TVTC Designated Intersections Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Operations 3.11 57 Table 3.11 13:Mitigated Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Operations 3.11 59 Table 3.11 14:Near Term Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service 3.11 69 Ta ble 3.11 15:TVTC Designated Intersections Near Term Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service 3.11 72 Table 3.11 16:Mitigated Near Term Conditions Peak HourIntersection Level of Service 3.11 81 Table 3.1117:CumulativeConditions Intersection Levels of Service 3.11 94 Table 3.11 18:TVTC Designated Intersection CumulativeConditions Intersection Levels of Service 3.11 101 Table 3.11 19:Mitigated CumulativeConditions Intersection Levels of Service........................3.11 104 Table 3.1120:Existing Conditions I 580 Eastbound Mainline Levels of Service 3.11 118 Table 3.11 21:Near Term Conditions I 580 Eastbound Mainline Levels 3.11 119 Ta ble 3.11 22:Cumulative Conditions I 580 Eastbound Mainline Levels of Service 3.11 121 Table 3.11 23:Existing Conditions I 580 Westbound Mainline Levels of Service 3.11 122 Table 3.11 24:Near Term Conditions I 580Westbound Mainline Levels of Service 3.11 124 Table 3.1125:CumulativeConditions I 580 Westbound Mainline Levels of Service 3.11 125 City of Dublin Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Table of Contents Draft EIR x FirstCarbonSolutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\1 ADEIR\37660004 Sec00 01 TOC docx Table 3.1126:2025 PM Peak Hour Congestion Management Plan Roadway Segment Analysis 3.11 130 Table 3.11 27:2040 PM Peak Hour Congestion Management PlanRoadway Segment Analysis 3.11 135 Table 41:Cumulative Projects 41 Table 51:Reduced Density Alternative Summary 55 Table 52:Reduced Density Alternative Trip Generation Comparison 58 Table 53:Corporate Office Campus Alternative Summary 510 Table 54:Corporate Office Campus Alternative Trip Generation Comparison 513 Table 55:Summary of Alternatives 514 Table 56:Potential Alternative Locations 519 Ta ble 61:Energy Consumption Estimate 6 7 Table 62:Peak Energy Consumption 6 9 Table 63:Base Year Origin Destination Method–Shared Accounting 611 Table 64:Future Year Origin Destination Method–Shared Accounting 612 List of Exhibits Exhibit21:Regional Location Map 23 Exhibit22:Local Vicinity Map,Aerial Base 25 Exhibit23:Site Photographs 27 Exhibit 2 4a:Phase 1A SitePlan 2 11 Exhibit 24b:Phase 2 Site Plan 2 13 Exhibit 2 4c:Phase 3 Site Plan 215 Exhibit 3.11:Surrounding Land Uses 3.1 3 Exhibit 3.12:Visual Simulation Eastbound I 580 3.111 Exhibit 3.13:Visual Simulation Westbound I 580......................................................................3.113 Exhibit 3.31:Biological Communities 3.3 3 Exhibit 3.32:CNDDB Special Status Plants within 5 Miles of Study Area 3.39 Exhibit 3.33:CNDDB Special Status Wildlife within 5Miles of Study Area 3.311 Exhibit 3.71:Flood Hazard Areas 3.77 Exhibit 3.91:Noise Monitoring Locations 3.97 Exhibit 3.92:Construction Noise Modeling ReceptorLocations 3.911 Exhibit 3.93:Existing Noise Contours 3.9 25 Exhibit 3.94:Existing Plus Project Full Buildout Noise Contours 3.933 City of Dublin Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Draft EIR Table of Contents FirstCarbonSolutions xi H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\1 ADEIR\37660004 Sec00 01 TOC docx Exhibit3.95:Cumulative No Project Noise Contours 3.935 Exhibit 3.96:Cumulative Plus Project Full Buildout Noise Contours 3.9 37 Exhibit 3.11 1:Project Site Vicinity 3.11 3 Exhibit 3.11 2:Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,Intersection Controls and Lane Configurations Existing 2015)Conditions 3.1117 Exhibit 3.11 3:Existing Peak Hour Bicycle and Pedestrian Volumes 3.11 19 Exhibit 3.11 4:Existing Transit Facilities 3.11 21 Exhibit 3.11 5:Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities 3.11 27 Exhibit 3.11 6:StudyLocations and PreliminaryProject Trip Distribution 3.11 37 Exhibit 3.11 7:Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,Intersection Controls and Lane Configurations Project Phase 1 Added Trips....................................................................................3.1139 Exhibit 3.11 8:Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,Intersection Controls and Lane Configurations Project Phase 1B Commercial)Added Trips 3.1141 Exhibit3.11 9:Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,Intersection Controls and Lane Configurations Project Phase 1A Phase 2 Added Trips 3.1143 Exhibit3.11 10:Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,Intersection Controls and Lane Configurations Project Full Buildout Added Trips 3.11 45 Exhibit 3.1111:Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,Intersection Controls and Lane Configurations Project Full Buildout Added Trips Cumulative2040) Conditions 3.11 47 Exhibit 3.1112:Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,Intersection Controls and Lane Configurations Existing with Project Phase 1 Conditions 3.1153 Exhibit 3.1113:Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,Intersection Controls and Lane Configurations Existing with Project Full Buildout Conditions 3.1155 Exhibit 3.1114:Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,Intersection Controls and Lane Configurations Near Term 2025)Conditions 3.11 75 Exhibit 3.1115:Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,Intersection Controls and Lane Configurations Near Term 2025)Conditions with Project Phase 12 Conditions 3.1177 Exhibit 3.1116:Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,Intersection Controls and Lane Configurations Near Term 2025)Conditions with Project Full Buildout Conditions 3.11 79 Exhibit 3.11 17:Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,Intersection Controls and Lane ConfigurationsCumulative 2040)Conditions 3.11 97 Exhibit 3.1118:Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,Intersection Controls and Lane ConfigurationsCumulative 2040)Conditions with Project Full Buildout Conditions 3.11 99 Exhibit 51:Potential Alternative Locations 5 17 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Draft EIR Acronyms andAbbreviations FirstCarbonSolutions xiii H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec00 03 Acronyms.docx ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACE Altamont Commuter Express ADA Americans with Disabilities Act af acre feet af/yr acre feet year Alameda CTC AlamedaCounty Transportation Commission AM Peak Weekday morning peak hour 7 a.m.to 9 a.m.) ARB California Air Resources Board ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measures BART San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District BMP Best Management Practices BVOC biogenic volatile organic compound C Celsius CAAQS California AmbientAir Quality Standards Cal OSHA California Occupational Health and Safety Administration CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAP Clean Air Plan CAP Climate Action Plan CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CH4 methane CHL California Historical Landmarks CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS California Native Plant Society CO carbon monoxide CO2e carbondioxideequivalent CPHI California Points of Historical Interest CPUC California Public Utilities Code CUP central utility plant dB decibel DERWA Dublin San Ramon Services District/East Bay Municipal Utility District Recycled Water Authority DPM diesel particulate matter City of Dublin Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR xiv FirstCarbonSolutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec00 03 Acronyms.docx DSRSD Dublin San Ramon Services District DUSD DublinUnified School District DWR California Department of Water Resources EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act F Fahrenheit FCS FirstCarbonSolutions FHWA Federal Highway Administration GPQ groundwaterpumping quota GWh/y gigawatt hours per year GWP global warming potential HAP hazardous air pollutant HCM Highway Capacity Manual HFC hydrofluorocarbon kBTU one thousandBritish Thermal Units LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority Ldn day/night average soundlevel Leq equivalent soundlevel LOS Level of Service MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MFR multi family residence mgd million gallons per day MMTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents mph miles per hour N2O nitrous oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOC Notice of Completion NOP Notice of Preparation NOx nitrogen oxides NPDES NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places O3 ozone pCi/l picocuries per liter PeMS Performance Measurement System City of Dublin Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Draft EIR Acronyms andAbbreviations FirstCarbonSolutions xv H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec00 03 Acronyms.docx PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company PM Peak Weekday afternoon peak hour 4 p.m.to 6 p.m.) PMx particulate matter ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million PPV peak particle velocity RCRA FederalResource Conservation and Recovery Act REL ReferenceExposureLevel RM reference measurement RMP Risk Management Plan ROG reactive organic gases RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SF6 sulfur hexafluoride SFR single family residence SO2 sulfur dioxide SP service population SR State Route SRVRWP San RamonValley Recycled Water Program SWP State Water Project SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC toxic air contaminants TDM Transportation Demand Management TDS total dissolved solids Tg teragram therms/y therms per year TIF Transportation Impact Fee TVTC Tri Valley Transportation Council USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service UST underground storage tank WDR Waste Discharge Requirements Zone 7 Alameda CountyFlood Control andWater Conservation District,Zone 7 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary FirstCarbon Solutions ES 1 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\editwp\37660004 Sec00 03 Executive Summary.docx EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose This Draft Environmental Impact Report Draft EIR)is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental QualityAct CEQA)to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project State Clearinghouse No.2015012018).This document is prepared in conformance with CEQA California Public Resources Code,Section 21000,et seq.)and the CEQA Guidelines California Code of Regulations, Title 14,Section 15000,et seq.). The purpose of this Draft EIR is to inform decision makers,representatives of affected and responsible agencies,the public,and other interestedparties of the potential environmental effects that may result from implementation of the proposed project.This Draft EIR describes potential impacts relating to a wide variety of environmental issues and methods by which theseimpacts can be mitigated or avoided. Project Summary Project Location The project site is located in the City of Dublin,Alameda County,California.The approximately 58.7 acre site is located in the eastern portion of the City of Dublin and is bounded by undevelopedland and a waterquality basin/parkwest);Dublin Boulevard north);the Fallon Gateway retail center east);and Interstate 580 I 580)south). Project Description Kaiser Foundation Hospitals is proposing to develop approximately 1.2 million square feet of medical campus andcommercial uses on the 58 acre project site in multiple phases,described as follows: Phase 1A:220,000 square feet of medical office building and cancer center outpatient services).This phase would be developed between 2016 and 2020. Phase 1B:250,000 square feet of commercial uses.This phase would be developed between 2016 and 2020. Phase 2:450,000 square feet of medical campus high acuity medical services building and energy center).This phase would be developed between 2025 and 2035. Phase 3:280,000 square feet of medical office building andparking garage.This phase would be developed between 2035 and 2040. Phase 1A will be evaluated at a project level in this EIR,as this phase is expected to be developed first and sufficient detail is known to allow a more precise level of environmental review.Phases 1B, 2,and 3 would be evaluated at a program level in this EIR because they would be developed at a City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Executive Summary Draft EIR ES 2 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\edit wp\37660004 Sec00 03 ExecutiveSummary.docx later date and the uses are considered more conceptual such that a less detailed level of environmentalreview would be appropriate. Project Objectives The objectives of the proposed project are to: 1. Enhance public safety and public health by providing for major medical care facilities within Dublin to serve existing and future demand in the Tri Valley region. 2. Provide high quality health care in seismically safe new state of the art advanced care medical center within the Eastern Dublin planning area that provides community vitality, economic growth and a wide range of employment opportunities in Dublin and the surroundingregion. 3. Positively contribute to the local economy through new capital investment,the creation of new jobs,the provision of new services,and the expansion of the tax base. 4. Supplement and support existing Kaiser clinics and medical facilities in the Tri Valley region and to provide additional medical services for localresidents at facilities closer to their homes than currently exists. 5. Increase accessibility to affordableand convenient health care options in a dynamic,changing health care environment. 6. Facilitate the logical,orderly,and phased development of a high visibility,infill site in order to achieve a beneficialset of end uses at a site with goodfreeway access and proximity to public transportation. 7. Provide flexibility for the potential end uses of the Commercial Parcel area in order to be responsive to market demand while also achieving compatibility with surrounding existing and future uses including medical,commercial,hotel,and residentialneighborhoods. 8. Develop contemporary,visually appealing medical center andcommercial uses that are aesthetically compatible with surrounding development and preserve views of the surroundinghills from I 580. 9. Close a gap in the bicycle and pedestrian network within the community by providing on site pedestrianand bicycle facilities that link with existing facilities along Dublin Boulevard. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The proposed projectwould result in the following significant unavoidable impacts: Consistency with Air Quality Management Plan:The proposed projectwould generate operational emissions that would exceed regional emissions thresholds and,thus,be inconsistent with the planning assumptions in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Air Quality Management Plan.Mitigation is proposed that would require the applicant to implement emissions reduction measures;however,theywould not reduce the project’s City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary FirstCarbon Solutions ES 3 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\editwp\37660004 Sec00 03 Executive Summary.docx contribution to less than significant levels.As such,the residual significance of thisimpact is significantandunavoidable. Cumulative Criteria Pollutant Impacts:The proposed project would generate operational emissions that would exceed regional emissions thresholds,which is considered a cumulative impact.Mitigation is proposed that would require the applicant to implement emissions reduction measures;however,they would not reduce the project’s contribution to less than significant levels.As such,the residual significance of this impact is significantand unavoidable. Greenhouse Gas Emissions:The proposed projectwould generate new sources of greenhouse gas emissions that would exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management District thresholds. Mitigation is proposed requiring the implementation of feasible emissions reduction measures;however,these measures would not reduce emissions to less than significant levels.Therefore,the significance after mitigation is significantand unavoidable. Existing Plus Project Traffic:The proposed projectwouldcontribute vehicle trips to certain intersectionsand queues that would operate at unacceptable levels under Existing Plus ProjectConditions as described on Section 3.11,Transportation.Mitigation is proposed; however,it would not fully reduce project impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore,the residual significanceis significant andunavoidable. Near Term Traffic:The proposed project wouldcontribute vehicle trips to certain intersections and queues that would operate at unacceptable levels under Near Term Conditions as described on Section 3.11,Transportation.Mitigation is proposed;however,it would not fully reduce project impacts to a level of less than significant.Therefore,the residual significance is significantand unavoidable. Cumulative Traffic:The proposed project would contribute vehicle trips to certain intersectionsand queues that would operate at unacceptable levels under Cumulative Conditions as described on Section 3.11,Transportation.Mitigation is proposed;however,it would not fully reduce project impacts to a level of less than significant.Therefore,the residual significance is significantand unavoidable. Congestion Management Plan:The proposed projectwouldcontribute vehicle trips to certain Congestion Management Plan facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels as described on Section 3.11,Transportation.Mitigation is proposed;however,it would not fully reduce project impacts to a level of less than significant.Therefore,the residual significance is significantand unavoidable. Summary of Project Alternatives Below is a summary of the alternatives to the proposed project considered in Section 5,Alternatives to the proposed project. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Executive Summary Draft EIR ES 4 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\edit wp\37660004 Sec00 03 ExecutiveSummary.docx No Project Alternative The NoProject Alternative wouldresult in the project site remaining undeveloped forthe foreseeable future. Reduced Density Alternative The Reduced Density Alternative consists of reducing the proposed project’s square footage by 300,000 square feet or 25 percent to a total of 900,000 square feet.The 25 percent reduction in square footage would beapplied to boththe medical campus and commercial uses.End uses and phasing would remain the same as the proposed project. Corporate Office Campus Alternative The Corporate Office Campus Alternative consists of developing a 1.2 million square foot corporate office campus on the project sitepursuant to the existing General Plan and Specific Plan land use designation of Office Campus.”The campus would consist of four buildings with 300,000 square feet of Class A office space.The Corporate Office Campus Alternative is identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Areas of Controversy Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b),a summarysection must address areas of controversy known to the lead agency,including issues raised by agencies and the public,and it must alsoaddress issues to be resolved,including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects. A Notice of Preparation NOP)for the proposed project was issued on January 12,2015.The NOP describing the original concept forthe project and issues to be addressed in the EIR was distributed to the State Clearinghouse,responsible agencies,and other interested parties for a 30 day public review period extending from January 12,2015 through February 13,2015.The NOP identified the potential for significant impacts on the environment related to the following topical areas: Aesthetics,Light,and Glare Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology,Soils,and Seismicity Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Noise Public Services and Utilities Transportation Potentially Controversial Issues Below is a list of potentially controversial issues that may be raised during the public review and hearing process of thisDraft EIR: City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary FirstCarbon Solutions ES 5 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\editwp\37660004 Sec00 03 Executive Summary.docx Air Pollution Greenhouse Gas Emissions Land Use Lightand Glare Public Services Transportation VisualCharacter Water Supply Comments will be presented during the 45 day,statutory Draft EIR publicreview period.Decision makers would consider those commentsand response to comments as part of the Final EIR. Public Review of the Draft EIR Upon completion of the Draft EIR,the City of Dublin filed a Notice of Completion NOC)with the State Office of Planning and Research to begin the publicreview period Public Resources Code, Section 21161).Concurrent with the NOC,this Draft EIR has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies,other affected agencies,surrounding cities,andinterestedparties,as well as all parties requesting a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b)(3). During the publicreview period,the Draft EIR,including the technical appendices,is available for review at the City of Dublin officesand the Dublin Library.The address for each location is provided below: City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,CA 94568 Hours: Monday–Friday:8 a.m.to 5 p.m. Dublin Library 200 Civic Plaza Dublin,CA 94568 Hours: Monday–Wednesday:10 a.m.to 8 p.m. Thursday:10 a.m.to 6 p.m. Saturday:10 a.m.to 5 p.m. Sunday:1 p.m.to 5 p.m. Agencies,organizations,and interestedparties have theopportunity to comment on the Draft EIR during the 45 day public review period.Written comments on thisDraft EIR should be addressed to: Ms.Kristi Bascom,Principal Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,CA 94568 Phone:925)556 4557 Fax:925)833 6628 Email:kristi.bascom@dublin.ca.gov Submittal of electronic comments in Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF format is encouraged.Upon completion of the publicreview period,written responses to all significant environmental issues raised will be prepared and made available for review by the commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to the public hearing before the Dublin CityCouncil on the project,at which the certification of the Final EIR will beconsidered.Commentsreceived and the responses to comments will be included as part of the record for consideration by decision makers forthe project. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Executive Summary Draft EIR ES 6 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\edit wp\37660004 Sec00 03 ExecutiveSummary.docx Executive Summary Matrix Table ES 1 below summarizes the impacts,mitigation measures,and resulting level of significance after mitigation forthe relevant environmental issueareas evaluated forthe proposed project.The table is intended to provide an overview;narrative discussions for the issueareas areincluded in the corresponding section of this EIR.Table ES 1 is included in the EIR as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(1). Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1: Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l Se c t i o n 3. 1 Ae s t h e t i c s Li g h t an d Gl a r e Im p a c t AE S 1: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u ld no t ad v e r s e l y af f e c t a sc e n i c vi s t a No mi t ig a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t AE S 2: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d no t su b s t a n t i a l l y da m a g e sc e n i c re s o u r c e s wi t h i n a sc e n i c hi g h w a y No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t AE S 3: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t ma y su b s t a n t i a l l y de g r a d e th e ex i s t i n g vi s u a l ch a r a c t e r or qu a l i t y of th e si t e an d it s su r r o u n d i n g s MM AE S 3: Pr i o r to is s u a n c e of th e fi r s t bu i l d i n g pe r m i t fo r ei t h e r th e me d i c a l ca m p u s or co m m e r c i a l us e s a Ma s t e r Si g n Pr o g r a m sh a l l be pr e p a r e d an d su b m i t t e d to th e Ci t y of Dub l i n fo r re v i e w an d ap p r o v a l th a t se t s fo r t h st a n d a r d s fo r il l u m i n a t e d si g n a g e S e p a r a t e Ma s t e r Si g n Pr o g r a m s ma y be pu r s u e d fo r th e me d i c a l ca m p u s an d co m m e r c i a l us e s as ap p r o p r i a t e Th e Ma s t e r Si g n Pr o g r a m sh a l l se t fo r t h pe r f o r m a n c e st a n d a r d s fo r il l u m i n a t e d si g n a g e in c l u d i n g 1 li m i t a t i o n s on th e si z e lo c a t i o n an d or i e n t a t i o n of il l u m i n a t e d an d no n il l u m i n a t e d py lo n mo n u m e n t an d wa l l si g n s 2 a pr o h i b i t i o n on di g i t a l an d no n di g i t a l fr e e w a y bi l l b o a r d s fl a s h i n g os c i l l a t i n g an i m a t e d li g h t s or ot h e r mo v i n g si g n co m p o n e n t s an d 3 th e us e of di m m e r s or ot h e r de v i c e s in t e n d e d to li m i t th e in t e n s i t y of il l u m i n a t i o n du r i n g la t e ni g h t an d ea r l y mo r n i n g ho u r s Th e ap p r o v e d Ma s t e r Si g n Pr o g r a m sh a l l be in c o r p o r a t e d in t o th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t Le s s Im p a c t AE S 4: Th e pr o j e c t ma y cr e a t e a ne w so u r c e of su b s t a n t i a l li g h t or gl a r e wh i c h wo u l d ad v e r s e l y af f e c t da y or ni g h t t i m e vi e w s in th e ar e a Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e AE S 3 an d MM AE S 4: Pr i o r to is s u a n c e of th e bu i l d i n g pe r m i t fo r ea c h pr o j e c t bu i l d i n g th e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t sh a l l pr e p a r e an d sub m i t bu i l d i n g pl a n s to th e Ci t y of Du b l i n fo r re v i e w an d ap p r o v a l th a t de m o n s t r a t e th a t ex t e r i o r li g h t i n g fi x t u r e s wo u l d no t cr e a t e ad v e r s e sp i l l o v e r ef f e c t s on ad j o i n i n g la n d us e s Th e pl a n s sh a l l de m o n s t r a t e th a t al l ex t e r i o r li g h t i n g fi x t u r e s ar e ei t h e r fu l l y sh i e l d e d or em p l o y fu l l cu t of f fi x t u r e s Th e ap p r o v e d pl a n s sh a l l be in c o r p o r a t e d in t o th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t Le s s Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l Se c t i o n 3. 2 Ai r Qu a l i t y G r e e n h o u s e Ga s Em i s s i o n s Im p a c t AI R 1: Th e pr o j e c t ma y co n f l i c t wi t h or ob s t r u c t im p l e m e n t a t i o n of th e ap p l i c a b l e ai r qu a l i t y pl a n Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e s AI R 3a AI R 3b an d TR A N S 1a Si g n i Im p a c t AI R 2: Th e pr o j e c t ma y vi o l a t e an ai r qu a l i t y st a n d a r d or co n t r i b u t e su b s t a n t i a l l y to an ex i s t i n g or pr o j e c t e d ai r qu a l i t y vi o l a t i o n No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t AI R 3: Th e pr o j e c t wo u l d re s u l t in a cu m u l a t i v e l y co n s i d e r a b l e ne t in c r e a s e of an y cr i t e r i a po l l u t a n t fo r wh i c h th e pr o j e c t re g i o n is no n a t t a i n m e n t un d e r an ap p l i c a b l e fe d e r a l or st a t e am b i e n t ai r qu a l i t y st a n d a r d i n c l u d i n g re l e a s i n g em i s s i o n s wh i c h ex c e e d qu a n t i t a t i v e th r e s h o l d s fo r oz o n e pr e c u r s o r s Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 1a an d MM AI R 3a Du r i n g co n s t r u c t i o n th e fo l l o w i n g ai r po l l u t i o n co n t r o l me a s u r e s sh a l l be im p l e m e n t e d Ex p o s e d su r f a c e s e g pa r k i n g ar e a s st a g i n g ar e a s so i l pi l e s gr a d e d ar e a s an d un p a v e d ac c e s s ro a d s sh a l l be wa t e r e d tw o ti m e s pe r da y or mo r e as ne e d e d Al l ha u l tr u c k s tr a n s p o r t i n g so i l sa n d or ot h e r lo o s e ma t e r i a l of f si t e sh a l l be co v e r e d Al l vi s i b l e mu d or di r t tr a c k ou t on t o ad j a c e n t pu b l i c ro a d s sh a l l be re m o v e d us i n g we t po w e r va c u u m st r e e t sw e e p e r s at le a s t on c e pe r da y Th e us e of dr y po w e r sw e e p i n g is pr o h i b i t e d Al l ve h i c l e sp e e d s on un p a v e d ro a d s an d su r f a c e s sh a l l be li m i t e d to 15 mi l e s pe r ho u r Al l ro a d w a y s dr i v e w a y s an d si d e w a l k s sh a l l be pa v e d as so o n as po s s i b l e Id l i n g ti m e s sh a l l be mi n i m i z e d ei t h e r by sh u t t i n g eq u i p m e n t of f wh e n no t in us e or re d u c i n g th e ma x i m u m id l i n g ti m e to 5 mi n u t e s a s re q u i r e d by th e Ca l i f o r n i a ai r b o r n e to x i c s co n t r o l me a s u r e Ti t l e 13 Se c t i o n 24 8 5 of Ca l i f o r n i a Co d e of Re g u l a t i o n s C C R Cl e a r si g n a g e sh a l l be pr o v i d e d fo r co n s t r u c t i o n wo r k e r s at al l ac c e s s po i n t s Al l co n s t r u c t i o n eq u i p m e n t sh a l l be ma i n t a i n e d an d pr o p e r l y tu n e d in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h ma n u f a c t u r e r s sp e c i f i c a t i o n s Al l eq u i p m e n t sh a l l be ch e c k e d by a ce r t i f i e d me c h a n i c an d de t e r m i n e d to be run n i n g in pr o p e r co n d i t i o n pr i o r to op e r a t i o n A pu b l i c l y vi s i b l e si g n sh a l l be po s t e d wi t h th e te l e p h o n e nu m b e r an d pe r s o n to co n t a c t bo t h at th e Ci t y of Du b l i n an d at th e of f i c e of th e Si g n i Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l Ge n e r a l Co n t r a c t o r re g a r d i n g du s t co m p l a i n t s Th i s pe r s o n sh a ll re s p o n d an d ta k e co r r e c t i v e ac t i o n wi t h i n 2 bu s i n e s s da y s of a co m p l a i n t or is s u e no t i f i c a t i o n Th e Ba y Ar e a Ai r Qu a l it y Ma n a g e m e n t Di s t r ic t s ph o n e nu m b e r sh a ll al s o be vi s i b l e to en s u r e co m p li a n c e wi t h ap p li c a b l e re g u la t i o n s MM AI R 3b Pr io r to is s u a n c e of gr a d i n g pe r m i t s th e ap p l ic a n t sh a l l pr e p a r e an d su b m it do c u m e n t a t i o n to th e Ci t y of Du b li n th a t de m o n s t r a t e th a t al l of f ro a d di e s e l po w e r e d co n s t r u c t io n eq u i p m e n t gr e a t e r th a n 50 ho r s e p o w e r me e t s Un it e d St a t e s En v i r o n m e n t a l Pr o t e c t io n Ag e n c y Ti e r 4 of f ro a d em i s s i o n s st a n d a r d s Im p a c t AI R 4: Th e pr o j e c t ma y ha v e th e po t e n t i a l to ex p o s e se n s i t i v e re c e p t o r s to su b s t a n t i a l po l l u t a n t co n c e n t r a t i o n s No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t AI R 5: Th e pr o j e c t wo u l d no t cr e a t e ob j e c t i o n a b l e od o r s af f e c t i n g a su b s t a n t i a l nu m b e r of pe o p l e No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t AI R 6: Im p l e m e n t a t i o n of th e pr o j e c t wo u l d ge n e r a t e di r e c t an d in d i r e c t gr e e n h o u s e ga s em i s s i o n s th a t wo u l d re s u l t in a si g n i f i c a n t im p a c t on th e en v i r o n m e n t Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e s TR A N S 1a TR A N S 8a TR A N S 8b an d TR A N S 8c Si g n i Im p a c t AI R 7: Im p l e m e n t a t i o n of th e pr o j e c t wo u l d no t co n f l i c t wi t h an y ap p l i c a b l e pl a n po l i c y or re g u l a t i o n of an ag e n c y ad o p t e d to re d u c e th e em i s s i o n s of gr e e n h o u s e ga s e s Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e s TR A N S 1a TR A N S 8a TR A N S 8b an d TR A N S 8c Le s s Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l Se c t i o n 3. 3 Bi o l o g i c a l Re s o u r c e s Im p a c t BI O 1: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t ma y ha v e a su b s t a n t i a l ad v e r s e ef f e c t on sp e c i a l st a t u s pl a n t an d wi l d l i f e sp e c i e s MM BI O 1a Pr i o r to an y ve g e t a t i o n re m o v a l or gr o u n d di s t u r b i n g ac t i v i t i e s fo c u s e d su r v e y s sh a l l be co n d u c t e d to de t e r m i n e th e pr e s e n c e of sp e c i a l st a t u s pl a n t sp e c i e s wi t h po t e n t i a l to oc c u r in th e pr o j e ct si t e Su r v e y s sh a l l be co n d u c t e d in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h th e Pr o t o c o l s fo r Su r v e y i n g an d Ev a l u a t i n g Im p a c t s to Sp e c i a l St a t u s Na t i v e Pl a n t Po p u l a t i o n s an d Na t u r a l Co m m u n i t i e s C D F G 20 0 9 Th e s e gu i d e l i n e s re q u i r e ra r e pl a n t su r v e y s to be co n d u c t e d at th e pr o p e r ti m e of ye a r wh e n ra r e or en d a n g e r e d sp e c i e s ar e bo t h e v i d e n t an d ide n t i f i a b l e Fi e l d su r v e y s sh a l l be sc h e d u l e d to co i n c i d e wi t h kn o w n bl o o m i n g pe r i o d s an d o r du r i n g pe r i o d s of ph y s i o l o g i c a l de v e l o p m e n t th a t ar e ne c e s s a r y to id e n t i f y th e pl a n t sp e c i e s of co n c e r n If no sp e c i a l st a t u s pl a n t sp e c i e s ar e fo u n d th e n th e pr o j e c t wi l l no t ha v e an y im p a c t s to th e sp e c i e s an d no ad d i t i o n a l mi t i g a t i o n me a s u r e s ar e ne c e s s a r y If an y of th e sp e c i e s ar e fo u n d on si te an d ca n n o t be av o i d e d th e fo l l o w i n g me a s u r e s sh a l l be re q u i r e d Wh e r e su r v e y s de t e r m i n e th a t sp e c i a l st a t u s pl a n t sp e c i e s ar e pr e s e n t wi t h i n or ad j a c e n t to th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t si t e di r e c t an d in d i r e c t im p a c t s of th e pr o j e c t on th e sp e c i e s e g. Co n g d o n s ta r p l a n t an d o r Sa n Jo a q u i n sp e a r s c a l e sh a l l be av o i d e d wh e r e fe a s i b l e th r o u g h th e es t a b l i s h m e n t of ac t i v i t y ex c l u s i o n zo n e s wh e r e no gr o u n d di s t u r b i n g ac t i v i t i e s sh a l l ta k e pl a c e in c l u d i n g co n s t r u c t i o n of ne w fa c i l i t i e s co n s t r u c t i o n st a g i n g or ot h e r te m p o r a r y wo r k ar e a s Ac t i v i t y ex c l u s i o n zo n e s fo r sp e c i a l st a t u s pl a n t sp e c i e s sh a l l be es t a b l i s h e d pr i o r to co n s t r u c t i o n act i v i t i e s ar o u n d ea c h oc c u p i e d ha b i t a t si t e th e bo u n d a r i e s of wh i c h sh a l l be cl e a r l y ma r k e d wi t h st a n d a r d or a n g e pl a s t i c co n s t r u c t i o n ex c l u s i o n fe n c i n g or it s eq u i v a l e n t Th e es t a b l i s h m e n t of ac t i v i t y ex c l u s i o n zo n e s sh a l l no t be re q u i r e d if no co n s t r u c t i o n re l a t e d di s t u r b a n c e s wo u l d oc c u r wi t h i n 25 0 fe e t of th e oc c u p i e d ha bi t a t si t e Th e si z e of ac t i v i t y ex c l u s i o n zo n e s ma y be re d u c e d th r o u g h co n s u l t a t i o n wi t h a qu a l i f i e d bi o l o g i s t an d wi t h co n c u r r e n c e fr o m CD F W ba s e d on si t e sp e c i f i c co n d i t i o n s If ex c l u s i o n zo n e s an d av o i d a n c e of im p a c t s on a sp e c i a l st a t u s pl a n t sp e c i e s ar e no t fe a s i b l e th e n th e lo s s of in d i v i d u a l s or oc c u p i e d ha b it a t Le s s Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l of a sp e c i a l st a t u s pl a n t sp e c i e s sh a l l be co m p e n s a t e d fo r th r o u g h th e ac q u is it i o n pr o t e c t i o n an d su b s e q u e n t ma n a g e m e n t of ot h e r ex is t in g oc c u r r e n c e s Be f o r e th e im p l e m e n t a t i o n of co m p e n s a t i o n me a s u r e s th e pr o j e c t s ap p l i c a n t sh a l l pr o v i d e de t a i l e d in f o r m a t i o n to th e CD F W an d le a d ag e n c y on th e qu a l i t y of pr e s e r v e d ha b i t a t lo c a t i o n of th e pr e s e r v e d oc c u r r e n c e s pr o v i si o n s fo r pr o t e c t i n g an d ma n a g i n g th e ar e a s th e re s p o n s i b l e pa r t i e s in v o l v e d an d th e ot h e r pe r t i n e n t in f o r m a t i o n th a t de m o n s t r a t e s th e fe a s i b i l i t y of th e co m p e n s a t i o n A mi t i g a t i o n pl a n id e n t i f y i n g ap p r o p r i a t e mi t i g a t i o n ra t i o s sh a l l be de v e l o p e d in co n s u l t a t i o n wi t h an d ap p r o v e d by th e CD F W an d th e Ci t y pr i o r to th e co m m e n c e m e n t of an y ac t i v i t i e s th a t wo u l d im p a c t an y sp e c i a l st a t u s pl a n t s MM BI O 1b No mo r e th a n 14 da y s pr i o r to in i t i a l gr o u n d di s t u r b a n c e an d ve g e t a t i o n re m o v a l du r i n g th e ne s t i n g se a s o n F e b r u a r y 1 to Au g u s t 31 th e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t sh a l l re t a i n a qu a l i f i e d bi o l o g i s t to pe r f o r m pr e co n s t r u c t i o n br e e d i n g bi r d su r v e y s If an y ne s t s ar e fo u n d th e y sh a l l be fl a g g e d an d pr o t e c t e d wi t h a su i t a b l e bu f f e r Bu f f e r di s t a n c e wi l l va r y ba s e d on sp e c i e s an d co n d i t i o n s at th e si t e bu t is us u a l l y at le a s t 50 fe e t an d up to 25 0 fe e t fo r ra p t o r s No t e th a t th i s mi t i g a t i o n me a s u r e do e s no t ap p l y to gr o u n d di s t u r b a n c e an d ve g e t a t i o n re m o v a l ac t i v i t i e s th a t oc c u r ou t s i d e of th e ne s t i n g se a s o n S e pt e m b e r 1 to Ja n u a r y 31 MM BI O 1c Pr i o r to th e fi r s t gr o u n d di s t u r b i n g ac t i v i t i e s fo r Ph a s e 1A th e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t sh a l l im p l e m e n t th e fo l l o w i n g me a s u r e s th a t pe r t a i n th e bu r r o w i n g ow l as ap p l i c a b l e 1. Co n d u c t a Bu r r o w i n g Ow l Su r v e y an d Im p a c t As s e s s m e n t Pr i o r to th e fi r s t gr o u n d di s t u r b i n g ac t i v i t i e s th e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t sh a l l re t a i n a qu a l i f i e d bi o l o g i s t to con d u c t tw o pr e co n s t r u c t i o n su r v e y s fo r th e bu r r o w i n g ow l fo r th e en t i r e si t e Th e fi r s t su r v e y sh a l l be co n d u c t e d no mo r e th a n 14 da y s pr i o r to gr o u n d di s t u r b i n g ac t i v i t i e s an d th e se c o n d su r v e y sh a l l be co n d u c t e d wi t h i n 48 ho u r s of in i t i a l gr o u n d di s t u r b a n c e Th e su r v e y s sh a l l be co n d u c t e d in ac co r d a n c e wi t h th e Ca l i f o r n i a De p a r t m e n t of Fi s h an d Wi l d l i f e C D F W St a f f Re p o r t on Bu r r o w i n g Ow l Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l Mi t i g a t i o n If th e su r v e y s de t e r m i n e ow l s ar e pr e s e n t th e n th e me a s u r e s se t fo r t h in th i s mi t i g a t i o n sh a l l be fo ll o w e d 2. Im p l e m e n t Av o i d a n c e Me a s u r e s If di r e c t im p a c t s to ow l s ca n be av o i d e d pr i o r to th e fi r s t gr o u n d di s t u r b i n g ac t i v i t i e s th e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t sh a l l im p l e m e n t th e fo l l o w i n g av o i d a n c e me a s u r e s du r i n g al l ph a s e s of co ns t r u c t i o n to re d u c e or el i m i n a t e po t e n t i a l im p a c t s to Ca l i f o r n i a bu r r o w i n g ow l s Av o i d di s t u r b i n g oc c u p i e d bu r r o w s du r i n g th e ne s t i n g pe r i o d fr o m Fe b r u a r y 1 th r o u g h 31 Au g u s t Av o i d im p a c t i n g bu r r o w s oc c u p i e d du r i n g th e no n br e e d i n g se a s o n by mi g r a t o r y or no n mi g r a t o r y re s i d e n t bu r r o w i n g ow l s Av o i d di r e c t de s t r u c t i o n of bu r r o w s th r o u g h ch ai n i n g d r a g g i n g a he a v y ch a i n ov e r an ar e a to re m o v e sh r u b s di s k i n g cu l t i v a t i o n an d ur b a n in d u s t r i a l or ag r i c u l t u r a l de v e l o p m e n t De v e l o p an d im p l e m e n t a wo r k e r aw a r e n e s s pr o g r a m to in c r e a s e th e on si t e wo r k e r s re c o g n i t i o n of an d co m m i t m e n t to bu r r o w i n g ow l pr o t e c t i o n Pl a c e vi s i b l e ma r k e r s ne a r bu r r o w s to en s u r e th a t eq ui p m e n t an d ot h e r ma c h i n e r y do no t co l l a p s e bu r r o w s Do no t fu m i g a t e us e tr e a t e d ba i t or ot h e r me a n s of po i s o n i n g nu i s a n c e an i m a l s in ar e a s wh e r e bu r r o w i n g ow l s ar e kn o w n or su s p e c t e d to oc c u r e g si t e s ob s e r v e d wi t h ne s t i n g ow l s de s i g n a t e d us e ar e a s 3. Co n d u c t Bu r r o w Ex c l u s i o n If av o i d a n c e of bu r r o w i n g ow l or th e i r bu r r o w s is no t po s s i b l e pr i o r to th e fi r s t gr o un d di s t u r b i n g ac t i v i t i e s th e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t in co n s u l t a t i o n wi t h th e Ca l i f o r n i a De p a r t m e n t of Fi s h an d Wi l d l i f e sh a l l pr e p a r e a Bu r r o w i n g Ow l Re l o c a t i o n Pl a n as in d i c a t e d an d fo l l o w i n g th e CD F W 20 1 2 St a f f Re p o r t Mo n i t o r i n g of th e ex c l u d e d ow l s sh a l l be ca r r i e d ou t as pe r th e Ca l i f o r n i a De pa r t m e n t of Fi s h an d Ga m e 20 1 2 St a f f Re p o r t 4. Pr e p a r e an d Im p l e m e n t a Mi t i g a t i o n Pl a n If av o i d a n c e of bu r r o w i n g ow l or th e i r bu r r o w s is no t po s s i b l e an d pr o j e c t ac t i v i t i e s ma y re s u l t in im p a c t s to ne s t i n g oc c u p i e d an d sa t e l l i t e bu r r o w s an d o r bu r r o w i n g ow l ha b i t a t th e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t sh a l l con s u l t wi t h th e CD F W an d Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l de v e l o p a de t a i l e d mi t i g a t i o n pl a n th a t sh a l l in c l u d e re p la c e m e n t of im p a c t e d ha b i t a t nu m b e r of bu r r o w s an d bu r r o w i n g ow l at a ra t io ap p r o v e d by CD F W Th e mi t i g a t i o n pl a n sh a l l be ba s e d on th e re q u i r e m e n t s se t fo r t h in Ap p e n d i x A of th e CD F W 20 1 2 St a f f Re p o r t on Bu r r o w i n g Ow l Mi t i g a t i o n an d th e Pl a n sha l l be re v i e w e d an d ac c e p t e d by CD F W an d th e Ci t y pr i o r to th e fi r s t gr o u n d di s t u r b in g ac t iv i t ie s MM BI O 1d Pr io r to th e fi r s t gr o u n d di s t u r b in g ac t iv it i e s a wi ld l if e ex c l u s io n fe n c e sh a l l be in s t a l le d al o n g th e pr o j e c t si t e bo u n d a r y wi t h th e wa t e r qu a l i t y ba s i n to th e we s t Th e fe n c e sh a l l be de s i g n e d an d in s t a ll e d to pr e v e n t th e Ca l i f o r n i a re d le g g e d fr o g fr o m en t e r i n g th e pr o j e c t si t e MM BI O 1e Pr i o r to gr o u n d di s t u r b i n g ac t i v i t i e s fo r Ph a s e 1A th e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t sh a l l im p l e m e n t th e fo l l o w i n g me a s u r e s fo r th e Ca l i f o r n i a re d le g g e d fr o g C R L F as ap p l i c a b l e 1. Th e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t sh a l l re t a i n a qu a l i f i e d he r p e t o l o g i s t to co n d u c t ha b i t a t as s e s s m e n t s fo r CR L F wi t h i n th e en t i r e pr o j e c t ar e a an d ba s e d on th e re s u lt s of th e ha bi t a t as s e s s m e n t s de t e r m i n e in co n s u l t a t io n wi t h th e US F W S if pr o t o c o l le v e l CR L F su r v e y s wi ll be re q u i r e d wi t h in th e en t i r e pr o j e c t ar e a Th e pr o j e c t ap p l ic a n t ca n fo r g o th e ha b i t a t as s e s s m e n t s an d co n d u c t pr o t o c o l le v e l su r v e y s If re q u i r e d th e fo c u s e d su r v e y s sh a l l fo l l o w th e Re v i s e d Gu id a n c e on Si t e As s e s s m e n t an d Fi e ld Su r v ey s fo r th e Ca l if o r n i a Re d le g g e d Fr o g U S F W S 20 0 5 A CR L F su r v e y re p o r t pr e p a r e d to me e t th e pr o t o c o l gu id e li n e s sh a l l be su b m i t t e d to th e US F W S If no CR L F ar e fo u n d th e n no fu r t h e r mi t i g a t io n is re q u ir e d 2. If CR L F ar e fo u n d on th e pr o je c t si t e th e n th e pr o j e c t app l ic a n t sh a l l pr o v i d e in f o r m a t i o n to su p p o r t Se c t i o n 7 co n s u l t a t i o n wi t h th e US F W S an d th e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t sh a l l en s u r e no ne t lo s s of ha b i t a t th a t sh a l l be ac h i e v e d th r o u g h av o i d a n c e pr e s e r v a t i o n cr e a t i o n an d o r pu r c h a s e of cr e d i t s Th e fi n a l se l e c t e d me a s u r e s ma y be pa r t of th e Se c t i o n 7 pe r m i t t i n g pr o c e s s 3. Th e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t sh a l l ob t a i n a bi o l o g i c a l op i n i o n fr o m th e U. S Fi s h an d Wi l d l i f e Se r v i c e an d co m p l y wi t h th e co n d i t i o n s an d mi t i g a t i o n Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l re q u i r e m e n t s un d e r th e op i n i o n to en s u r e th a t no ne t lo s s of ha b it a t oc c u r s Mi t ig a t io n ma y in c lu d e bu t wo u l d no t be li m it e d to on si t e an d of f si t e pr e s e r v a t i o n an d cr e a t i o n of CR L F ha b i t a t pu r c h a s e of cr e d i t s at mi t ig a t io n ba n k s pa y m e n t of in li e u fe e s ap p r o v e d by th e ag e n c ie s or ot h e r ag e n c y app r o v e d an d re q u i r e d mi t i g a t i o n me a s u r e s 4. Av o i d a n c e me a s u r e s ma y in c lu d e th e fo ll o w i n g or eq u i v a le n t pr o t e c t iv e me a s u r e s To mi n i m i z e di s t u r b a n c e of br e e d i n g an d di s p e r s i n g CR L F co n s t r u c t i o n ac t i v it y wi t h in CR L F up l a n d ha b it a t sh a ll be co n d u c t e d du r i n g th e dr y se a s o n be t w e e n Ap r i l 15 an d Oc t o b e r 15 or be f o r e th e on s e t of th e ra i n y se a s o n, wh ic h e v e r oc c u r s fi r s t If co n s t r u c t i o n ac t i v it i e s ar e ne c e s s a r y in CR L F up l a n d ha b it a t be t w e e n Oc t o b e r 15 an d Ap r il 15 th e pr o j e c t ap p l ic a n t wo u l d co n t a c t th e US F W S fo r ap p r o v a l to ex t e n d th e wo r k pe r i o d To mi n im i z e di s t u r b a n c e an d mo r t a l it y of ad u l t an d ju v e n i le CR L F in aq u a t i c ha b it a t an d un d e r g r o u n d bu r r o w s th e pr o j e c t ap p li c a n t sh o u ld mi n im iz e th e ex t e n t of gr o u n d di s t u r b in g ac t i v i t ie s wi t h in th e s e ha b i t a t s by re q u i r i n g th e co n t r a c t o r to li m it th e wo r k ar e a to th e mi n i m u m ne c e s s a r y fo r co n s t r u c t i o n In ad d it i o n th e pr o j e c t ap p l ic a n t sh o u ld en s u r e th a t th e co n t r a c t o r in s t a ll s te m p o r a r y ex c lu s i o n fe n c e be t w e e n th e co n s t r u c t i o n wo r k ar e a an d po t e n t i a l aq u a t i c ha b it a t fo r al l co n s t r u c t io n wi t h in gr a s s l a n d s ne a r aq u a t ic ha b it a t A mi n im u m bu f f e r zo n e of 15 0 fe e t sh a l l be ma i n t a i n e d ar o u n d CR L F aq u a t ic ha b it a t du r i n g co n s t r u c t i o n No st a g in g pa r k in g ma t e r ia l st o r a g e or gr o u n d di s t u r b a n c e sh a ll be al l o w e d in th e bu f f e r zo n e Th e bu f f e r zo n e wi l l be cl e a r ly de f i n e d wi t h co n s t r u c t i o n fe n c in g pr io r to th e ini t i a t io n of co n s t r u c t io n ac t i v i t ie s an d sh a l l be ma i n t a in e d un t il co m p l e t io n of co n s t r u c t i o n Th e pr o j e c t ap p l ic a n t sh o u l d en s u r e th a t a qu a li f ie d wi ld l if e bi o l o g is t mo n i t o r s al l co n s t r u c t io n ac t iv it i e s wi t h in CR L F up l a n d ha b it a t to en s u r e no ta k e of in d i v id u a l CR L F oc c u r s du r in g pr o j e c t co n s t r u c t i o n If a CR L F is fo u n d th e n th e mo n i t o r wo u l d im m e d i a t e l y st o p co n s t r u c t io n in th a t ar e a an d co n t a c t US F W S fo r de v e l o p m e n t of a pl a n fo r ho w to pr o c e e d wi t h co n s t r u c t i o n Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l If pr e s e r v a t i o n of up la n d ha b i t a t is re q u i r e d by US F W S th e ha b it a t la n d sh a l l be wi t h i n a US F W S ap p r o v e d co n s e r v a t i o n ar e a Im p a c t BI O 2: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d no t ha v e a su b s t a n t i a l ad v e r s e ef f e c t on se n s i t i v e na t u r a l co m m u n i t i e s or ri p a r i a n ha b i t a t No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t BI O 3: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d no t ha v e a su b s t a n t i a l ad v e r s e ef f e c t on we t l a n d s or ju r i s d i c t i o n a l fe a t u r e s No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t BI O 4: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d no t ha v e a su b s t a n t i a l ad v e r s e ef f e c t on wi l d l i f e mo v e m e n t No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t BI O 5: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d no t co n f l i c t wi t h an y lo c a l po l i c i e s or or d i n a n c e s pr o t e c t i n g bi o l o g i c a l re s o u r c e s No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Se c t i o n 3. 4 Cu l t u r a l Re s o u r c e s Im p a c t CU L 1: Su b s u r f a c e co n s t r u c t i o n ac t i v i t i e s as s o c i a t e d wi t h th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t ma y da m a g e or de s t r o y pr e v i o u s l y un d i s c o v e r e d hi s t o r i c re s o u r c e s MM CU L 1: In th e ev e n t th a t bu r i e d hi s t o r i c or ar c h a e o l o g i c a l re s o u r c e s ar e di s c o v e r e d du r i n g co n s t r u c t i o n op e r a t i o n s sh a l l st o p wi t h i n 50 fe e t of th e fi n d an d a qu a l i f i e d ar c h a e o l o g i s t sh a l l be co n s u l t e d to ev a l u a t e th e re s o u r c e in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h CE Q A Gu i d e l i n e s 15 0 6 4 5 Th e ap p l i c a n t sh a l l in c l u d e a st a n d a r d in a d v e r t e n t di s c o v e r y cl a u s e in ev e r y co n s t r u c t i o n co n t r a c t to in f o r m co n t r a c t o r s of th i s re q u i r e m e n t If th e re s o u r c e do e s no t qu a l i f y as a si g n i f i c a n t re s o u r c e th e n no fu r t h e r pr o t e c t i o n or st u d y is ne c e s s a r y If th e re s o u r c e do e s qu a l i f y as a si g n i f i c a n t re s o ur c e th e n th e im p a c t s sh a l l be av o i d e d by pr o j e c t ac t i v i t i e s If th e re s o u r c e ca n n o t be av o i d e d ad v e r s e im p a c t s to th e re s o u r c e sh a l l be ad d r e s s e d Th e ar c h a e o l o g i s t sh a l l ma k e re c o m m e n d a t i o n s co n c e r n i n g ap p r o p r i a t e mi t i g a t i o n me a s u r e s th a t sh a l l be im p l e m e n t e d to pr o t e c t th e re s o u r c e s in c l u d i n g bu t no t li m i t e d to ex c av a t i o n an d ev a l u a t i o n of th e fi n d s in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h Se c t i o n 15 0 6 4 5 of th e CE Q A Gu i d e l i n e s An y pr e v i o u s l y un d i s c o v e r e d re s o u r c e s fo u n d du r i n g co n s t r u c t i o n wi t h i n th e pr o j e c t ar e a sh o u l d be re c o r d e d on ap p r o p r i a t e De p a r t m e n t of Pa r k s an d Re c r e a t i o n D P R 52 3 fo r m s an d ev a l u a t e d fo r si g n i f i c a n c e in te r m s of CE Q A cr i t e r i a Le s s Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l Im p a c t CU L 2: Su b s u r f a c e co n s t r u c t i o n ac t i v i t i e s as s o c i a t e d wi t h th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t ma y da m a g e or de s t r o y pr e v i o u s l y un d i s c o v e r e d ar c h a e o l o g i c a l re s o u r c e s Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e CU L 1. Le s s Im p a c t CU L 3: Su b s u r f a c e co n s t r u c t i o n ac t i v i t i e s as s o c i a t e d wi t h th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t ma y da m a g e or de s t r o y pr e v i o u s l y un d i s c o v e r e d pa l e o n t o l o g i c a l re s o u r c e s MM CU L 3: In th e ev e n t a fo s s i l is di s c o v e r e d du r i n g co n s t r u c t i o n fo r th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t ex c a v a t i o n s wi t h i n 50 fe e t of th e fi n d sh a l l be te m p o r a r i l y ha l t e d or de l a y e d un t i l th e di s c o v e r y is ex a m i n e d by a qu a l i f i e d pa l e o n t o l o g i s t in ac c or d a n c e wi t h So c i e t y of Ve r t e b r a t e Pa l e o n t o l o g y st a n d a r d s Th e ap p l i c a n t sh a l l in c l u d e a st a n d a r d in a d v e r t e n t di s c o v e r y cl a u s e in ev e r y co n s t r u c t i o n co n t r a c t to in f o r m co n t r a c t o r s of th i s re q u i r e m e n t If th e pa l e o n t o l o g i c a l re s o u r c e s ar e fo u n d to be si g n i f i c a n t th e y sh a l l be av o i d e d by pr o j e c t co n s t r u c t i o n ac t i v i t i e s an d re co v e r e d by a qu a l i f i e d pa l e o n t o l o g i s t Up o n co m p l e t i o n of th e re c o v e r y a pa l e o n t o l o g i c a l as s e s s m e n t sh a l l be co n d u c t e d by a qu a l i f i e d pa l e o n t o l o g i s t to de t e r m i n e if fu r t h e r mo n i t o r i n g fo r pa l e o n t o l o g i c a l re s o u r c e s is re q u i r e d Th e as s e s s m e n t sh a l l in c l u d e 1 th e re s u l t s of an y ge o t e c h n i c a l in v e s t i g a t i o n pr e p a r e d fo r th e pr o j e c t ar e a 2 sp e c i f i c de t a i l s of th e co n s t r u c t i o n pl a n s fo r th e pr o j e c t ar e a 3 ba c k g r o u n d re s e a r c h an d 4 li m i t e d su b s u r f a c e in v e s t i g a t i o n wi t h i n th e pr o j e c t ar e a If a hi g h po t e n t i a l to en c o u n t e r pa l e o n t o l o g i c a l re s o u r c e s is co n f i r m e d a mo n i t o r i n g pl a n of fu r t h e r pr o j e c t su b s u r f a c e co n s t r u c t i o n sh a l l be pr e p a r e d in co n j u n c t i o n wi t h th i s as s e s s m e n t Af t e r pr o j e c t su b s u r f a c e co n s t r u c t i o n ha s en d e d a re p o r t do c um e n t i n g mo n i t o r i n g me t h o d s fi n d i n g s an d fu r t h e r re c o m m e n d a t i o n s re g a r d i n g pa l e o n t o l o g i c a l re s o u r c e s sh a l l be pr e p a r e d an d su b m i t t e d to th e Di r e c t o r of Co m m u n i t y De v e l o p m e n t Le s s Im p a c t CU L 4: Su b s u r f a c e co n s t r u c t i o n ac t i v i t i e s as s o c i a t e d wi t h th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t ma y da m a g e or de s t r o y pr e v i o u s l y un d i s c o v e r e d hu m a n bu r i a l si t e s MM CU L 4: In th e ev e n t of th e ac c i d e n t a l di s c o v e r y or re c o g n i t i o n of an y hu m a n re m a i n s CE Q A Gu i d e l i n e s 15 0 6 4 5 He a l t h an d Sa f e t y Co d e 70 5 0 5 Pu b l i c Re s o u r c e s Co d e 50 9 7 9 4 an d 50 97 9 8 mu s t be fo l l o w e d If du r i n g th e co u r s e of pr o j e c t de v e l o p m e n t th e r e is ac c i d e n t a l di s c o v e r y or re c o g n i t i o n of an y hu m a n re m a i n s th e fo l l o w i n g st e p s sh a l l be ta k e n 1. Th e r e sh a l l be no fu r t h e r ex c a v a t i o n or di s t u r b a n c e of th e si t e or an y ne a r b y ar e a re a s o n a b l y su s p e c t e d to ov e r l i e ad j a c e n t hu m a n re m a i n s Le s s Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l un t i l th e Al a m e d a Co u n t y Co r o n e r is co n t a c t e d to de t e r m in e if th e re m a i n s ar e Na t i v e Am e r i c a n an d if an in v e s t i g a t io n of th e ca u s e of de a t h is re q u i r e d If th e co r o n e r de t e r m i n e s th e re m a i n s to be Na t i v e Am e r i c a n th e co r o n e r sh a l l co n t a c t th e Na t i v e Am e r i c a n He r i t a g e Co m m i s s i o n N A H C wi t h i n 24 ho u r s an d th e NA H C sh a l l id e n t i f y th e pe r s o n or pe r s o n s it be l i e v e s to be th e m o s t li k e l y de s c e n d a n t M L D of th e de c e a s e d Na t i v e Am e r i c a n Th e ML D ma y ma k e re c o m m e n d a t i o n s to th e la n d o w n e r or th e pe r s o n re s p o n s i b l e fo r th e ex c a v a t i o n wo r k wi t h i n 48 ho u r s fo r me a n s of tr e a t i n g or di s p o s i n g of wi t h ap p r o p r i a t e di g n i t y th e hu m a n re m a i n s an d an y as s o c i a t e d gr a v e go o d s as pr o v i de d in PR C Se c t io n 50 9 7 9 8 2. Wh e r e th e fo l l o w i n g co n d i t i o n s oc c u r th e la n d o w n e r or hi s au t h o r i z e d re p r e s e n t a t iv e sh a l l re b u r y th e Na t iv e Am e r ic a n hu m a n re m a i n s an d as s o c i a t e d gr a v e go o d s wi t h ap p r o p r i a t e di g n it y ei t h e r in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h th e re c o m m e n d a t io n s of th e mo s t li k e l y de s c e n d a n t or on th e pr o j e c t si t e in a lo c a t i o n no t su b j e c t to fu r t h e r su b s u r f a c e di s t u r b a n c e Th e NA H C is un a b l e to id e n t i f y a mo s t li k e l y de s c e n d e n t or th e mo s t li k e l y de s c e n d e n t fa i l e d to ma k e a re c o m m e n d a t i o n wi t h i n 48 ho u r s af t e r be i n g no t i f i e d by th e co m m is s io n Th e de s c e n d a n t id e n t i f i e d fa i l s to ma k e a re c o m m e n d a t io n Th e la n d ow n e r or hi s au t h o r i z e d re p r e s e n t a t i v e re j e c t s th e re c o m m e n d a t i o n of th e de s c e n d a n t an d me d ia t i o n by th e NA H C fa il s to pr o v i d e me a s u r e s ac c e p t a b le to th e la n d o w n e r Se c t i o n 3. 5 Ge o l o g y So i l s an d Se i s m i c i t y Im p a c t GE O 1: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t ma y ex p o s e pe o p l e or st r u c t u r e s to po t e n t i a l su b s t a n t i a l ad v e r s e ef f e c t s as s o c i a t e d wi t h se i s m i c ha z a r d s MM GE O 1: Pr io r to th e is s u a n c e of bu i ld i n g pe r m i t s fo r ea c h st r u c t u r e th e pr o j e c t ap p li c a n t sh a l l su b m it a de s i g n le v e l Ge o t e c h n ic a l In v e s t i g a t i o n to th e Ci t y of Du b li n fo r re v ie w an d ap p r o v a l. Th e in v e s t ig a t io n sh a l l be pr e p a r e d by a qu a l i f i e d en g i n e e r an d id e n t if y ne c e s s a r y gr a d i n g an d bu il d i n g pr a c t i c e s ne c e s s a r y to ac h ie v e co m p li a n c e wi t h th e la t e s t ad o p t e d ed it i o n of th e Ca l if o r n i a Bu i ld in g St a n d a r d s Co d e ge o l o g i c so i ls an d se i s m i c re q u ir e m e n t s Th e me a s u r e s id e n t if i e d in th e ap p r o v e d re p o r t sh a l l be in c o r p o r a t e d in t o th e pr o j e c t pl a n s Le s s Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l Im p a c t GE O 2: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t ma y re s u l t in su b s t a n t i a l so i l er o s i o n or th e lo s s of to p s o i l Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e HY D 1a Le s s Im p a c t GE O 3: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d no t be lo c a t e d on an un s t a b l e ge o l o g i c un i t or so i l No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t GE O 4: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t ma y cr e a t e su b s t a n t i a l ri s k s to li f e or pr o p e r t y as a re s u l t of ex p a n s i v e so i l co n d i t i o n s on th e pr o j e c t si t e Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e GE O 1. Le s s Se c t i o n 3. 6 Ha z a r d s an d Ha z a r d o u s Ma t e r i a l s Im p a c t HA Z 1: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d no t cr e a t e a si g n i f i c a n t ha z a r d to th e pu b l i c or th e en v i r o n m e n t th r o u g h th e ro u t i n e tr a n s p o r t us e or di s p o s a l of ha z a r d o u s ma t e r i a l s No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t HA Z 2: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t s ma y cr e a t e a si g n i f i c a n t ha z a r d to th e pu b l i c or th e en v i r o n m e n t th r o u g h re a s o n a b l y fo r e s e e a b l e up s e t an d ac c i d e n t co n d i t i o n s in v o l v i n g th e li k e l y re l e a s e of ha z a r d o u s ma t e r i a l s in t o th e en v i r o n m e n t No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t HA Z 3: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d no t be lo c a t e d on a si t e wh i c h is in c l u d e d on a li s t of ha z a r d o u s ma t e r i a l s si t e s co m p i l e d pu r s u a n t to Go v e r n m e n t Co d e Se c t i o n 65 9 6 2 5 No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t HA Z 4: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d no t cr e a t e av i a t i o n ha z a r d s fo r pe r s o n s re s i d i n g or wo r k i n g in th e pr o j e c t ar e a No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t HA Z 5: Th e pr o j e c t wo u l d no t im p a i r or in t e r f e r e wi t h em e r g e n c y ac c e s s or ev a c u a t i o n No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l Se c t i o n 3. 7 Hy d r o l o g y an d Wa t e r Qu a l i t y Im p a c t HY D 1: Co n s t r u c t i o n an d op e r a t i o n ac t i v i t i e s as s o c i a t e d wi t h th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t s ma y ha v e th e po t e n t i a l to de g r a d e su r f a c e wa t e r qu a l i t y in do w n s t r e a m wa t e r bo d i e s MM HY D 1a Pr i o r to is s u a n c e of gr a d i n g pe r m it s fo r th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t th e Ci t y of Du b li n sh a ll ve r i f y th a t th e ap p li c a n t ha s pr e p a r e d a St o r m w a t e r Po l lu t io n Pr e v e n t i o n Pl a n S W P PP in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h th e re q u ir e m e n t s of th e st a t e w id e Co n s t r u c t io n Ge n e r a l Pe r m it Th e SW P P P sh a l l be de s i g n e d to ad d r e s s th e fo l l o w i n g ob j e c t i v e s 1 al l po l lu t a n t s an d th e i r so u r c e s in c l u d i n g so u r c e s of se d i m e n t as s o c i a t e d wi t h co n s t r u c t i o n co n s t r u c t i o n si t e er o s i o n an d al l ot h e r ac t i v i t i e s as s o c i a t e d wi t h co n s t r u c t i o n ac t i v i t y ar e co n t r o l l e d 2 wh e r e no t ot h e r w i s e re q u i r e d to be un d e r a Re g i o n a l Wa t e r Qu a l i t y Co n t r o l Bo a r d pe r m i t al l no n st o r m w a t e r di s c h a r g e s ar e id e n t i f i e d an d ei t h e r el i m i n a t e d co n t r o l l e d or tr e a t e d 3 si t e Be s t Ma n a g e m e n t Pr a c t i c e s B M P s ar e ef f e c t i v e an d re s u l t in th e re d u c t i o n or el i m i n a t i o n of po l l u t a n t s in st o r m w a t e r di s c h a r g e s an d au t h o r i z e d no n st o r m w a t e r di s c h a r ge s fr o m co n s t r u c t i o n ac t i v i t y an d 4 st a b i l i z a t i o n BM P s in s t a l l e d to re d u c e or el i m i n a t e po l l u t a n t s af t e r co n s t r u c t i o n ar e co m p l e t e d Th e SW P P P sh a l l be pr e p a r e d by a qu a l i f i e d SW P P P de v e l o p e r Th e SW P P P sh a l l in c l u d e th e mi n i m u m BM P s re q u i r e d fo r th e id e n t i f i e d Ri s k Le v e l BM P im p l e m e n t a t i o n sh a l l be co n s i s t e n t wi t h th e BM P re q u i r e m e n t s in th e mo s t re c e n t ve r s i o n of th e Ca l i f o r n i a St o r m w a t e r Qu a l i t y As s o c i a t i o n St o r m w a t e r Be s t Ma n a g e m e n t Ha n d b o o k Co n s t r u c t i o n or th e Ca l t r a n s St o r m w a t e r Qu a l i t y Ha n d b o o k Co n s t r u c t i o n Si t e BM P s Ma n u a l MM HY D 1b Pr i o r to is s u a n c e of bu i l d i n g pe r m i t s fo r th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t th e Ci t y of Du b l i n sh a l l ve r i f y th a t th e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t ha s pr e p a r e d op e r a t i o n a l st o r m w a t e r qu a l i t y co n t r o l me a s u r e s th a t co m p l y wi t h th e re q u i r e m e n t s of th e cu r r e n t Mu n i c i p a l Re g i o n a l Pe r m i t Re s p o n s i b i l i t i e s in c l u d e bu t ar e no t li m i t e d to de s i g n i n g BM P s in t o pr o j e ct fe a t u r e s an d op e r a t i o n s to re d u c e po t e n t i a l im p a c t s to su r f a c e wa t e r qu a l i t y an d to ma n a g e ch a n g e s in th e ti m i n g an d qu a n t i t y of ru n o f f i e hy d r o m o d i f i c a t i o n as s o c i a t e d wi t h op e r a t i o n of th e pr o j e c t Th e s e fe a t u r e s sh a l l be in c l u d e d in th e de s i g n le v e l dr a i n a g e pl a n an d fi n a l de v e l o p m e n t dr a w i n g s Sp e c i f i c a l l y th e fi n a l de s i g n sh a l l in cl u d e me a s u r e s de s i g n e d to mi t i g a t e po t e n t i a l wa t e r qu a l i t y de g r a d a t i o n an d Le s s Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l hy d r o m o d i f i c a t i o n of ru n o ff fr o m al l po r t i o n s of co m p l e t e d de v e lo p m e n t s Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t sh a ll in c o r p o r a t e si t e de s i g n an d BM P s de s c r ib e d in th e cu r r e n t ve r s i o n of Al a m e d a Co u n t y Cl e a n Wa t e r Pr o g r a m C. 3 St o r m w a t e r Te c h n i c a l Gu i d a n c e ma n u a l Lo w Im p a c t De v e l o p m e n t fe a t u r e s in c l u d i n g mi n i m i z i n g di s t u r b e d ar e a s an d im p e r v i o u s co v e r an d th e n in f i l t r a t i n g st o r i n g de t a i n i n g ev a p o t r a n s p i r i n g or bi o t r e a t i n g st o r m w a t e r ru n o f f cl o s e to it s so u r c e sh a l l be us e d at ea c h de v e l o p m e n t co v e r e d by th e Mu n i c i p a l Re g i o n a l Pe r m i t Fu n d i n g fo r lo n g te r m ma i n t e n a n c e of al l BM P s mu s t be sp e c i f i e d Fo r ea c h de v e l o p m e n t pr o j e c t th e pr o j e c t sp o n s o r sh a l l es t a b l i s h a se l f pe r p e t u a t i n g Op e r a t i o n an d Ma i n t e n a n c e of St o r m w a t e r Tr e a t m e n t Sy s t e m s pl a n M u ni c i p a l Re g i o n a l Pe r m i t pr o v i s i o n C. 3 h Th i s pl a n sh a l l sp e c i f y a re g u l a r in s p e c t i o n sc h e d u l e of st o r m w a t e r tr e a t m e n t fa c i l i t i e s in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h th e re q u i r e m e n t s of th e Mu n i c i p a l Re g i o n a l Pe r m i t Re p o r t s do c u m e n t i n g in s p e c t i o n s an d an y re m e d i a l ac t i o n co n d u c t e d sh a l l be su b m i t t e d re g u l a r l y to th e Ci t y fo r re v i e w an d ap p r o v a l Im p a c t HY D 2: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t s wo u l d no t de p l e t e gr o u n d w a t e r su p p l i e s or in t e r f e r e su b s t a n t i a l l y wi t h gr o u n d w a t e r re c h a r g e No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t HY D 3: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t s ma y cr e a t e or co n t r i b u t e ru n o f f wa t e r wh i c h wo u l d ex c e e d th e ca p a c i t y of ex i s t i n g or pl a n n e d st o r m w a t e r dr a i n a g e sy s t e m s MM HY D 3: Pr i o r to is s u a n c e of bu i l d i n g pe r m i t s fo r th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t th e Ci t y of Du b l i n sh a l l ve r i f y th a t th e ap p l i c a n t ha s pr e p a r e d a st o r m dr a i n a g e an d hy d r a u l i c st u d y in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h Ci t y re q u i re m e n t s Th e st o r m dr a i n a g e an d hy d r a u l i c st u d y sh a l l qu a n t i f y th e in c r e a s e in st o r m w a t e r ru n o f f pe a k fl o w ra t e s an d vo l u m e s re s u l t i n g fr o m th e pr o j e c t an d id e n t i f y th e po t e n t i a l to ex c e e d th e co n v e y a n c e an d st o r a g e ca p a c i t y of th e lo c a l st o r m dr a i n a g e sy s t e m Th e st u d y sh a l l in c o r p o r a t e th e st o r m w a t e r tr e a t m e n t co n tr o l s an d LI D me a s u r e s th a t wi l l be de s i g n e d to ca p t u r e an d tr e a t ru n o f f Th e an a l y s i s sh a l l ve r i f y wh e t h e r th e ex i s t i n g dr a i n a g e in f r a s t r u c t u r e is ad e q u a t e to re c e i v e an d co n v e y ru n o f f fr o m th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t If th e fi n d i n g s of th e an a l y s i s re v e a l th a t im p l e m e n t a t i o n of a pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d cr e a te ru n o f f be y o n d th e ca p a c i t y of th e ex i s t i n g st o r m w a t e r dr a i n a g e sy s t e m s th e pr o j e c t sh a l l be re q u i r e d to up g r a d e un d e r s i z e d co m p o n e n t s or ad o p t a di f f e r e n t fo r m of Le s s Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l st o r m w a t e r ru n o f f ma n a g e m e n t Pr i o r to ap p r o v a l of a pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t th e fi n a l de s ig n dr a i n a g e pl a n s sh a l l be re v ie w e d an d ap p r o v e d by th e Ci t y of Du b l in Pu b l ic Wo r k s De p a r t m e n t an d th e Al a m e d a Co u n t y Fl o o d Co n t r o l an d Wa t e r Co n s e r v a t i o n Di s t r i c t Im p a c t HY D 4: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t ma y lo c a t e st r u c t u r e s wi t h in a 10 0 ye a r fl o o d ha z a r d ar e a MM HY D 4: Pr io r to is s u a n c e of gr a d in g pe r m i t s fo r an y bu i ld i n g lo c a t e d wi t h in a 10 0 ye a r ha z a r d fl o o d zo n e th e ap p li c a n t sh a ll pr e p a r e an d su b m i t bu i ld i n g pl a n s to th e Ci t y of Du b li n th a t de m o n s t r a t e co m pl ia n c e wi t h fe d e r a l la w an d Du b l i n Mu n i c i p a l Co d e Ch a p t e r 7. 2 4 Th e st a n d a r d s in c l u d e bu t ar e no t li m i t e d to re q u i r e m e n t s fo r an c h o r i n g co n s t r u c t i o n ma t e r i a l s an d me t h o d s el e v a t i o n an d fl o o d p r o o f in g In ad d it i o n th e st a n d a r d s st a t e th a t no ne w co n s t r u c t i o n or re d e v e l o p m e n t sh a l l oc c u r in a FE M A de s i g n a t e d 10 0 ye a r fl o o d zo n e un l e s s ce r t i f i c a t i o n by a re g i s t e r ed pr o f e s s i o n a l en g i n e e r or ar c h i t e c t is pr o v i d e d th a t sh o w s th a t th e ac t iv it y wo u l d no t re s u l t in an in c r e a s e in fl o o d le v e l s du r i n g th e oc c u r r e n c e of th e ba s e fl o o d di s c h a r g e Le s s Im p a c t HY D 5: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d be ex p o s e d to fl o o d i n g as a re s u l t of le v e e or da m fa i l u r e No mi t ig a t io n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t HY D 6: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d be ex p o s e d to se i c h e s ts u n a m i s or mu d f l o w s No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Se c t i o n 3. 8 La n d Us e Im p a c t LU 1: Th e pr o j e c t wo u l d no t co n f l i c t wi t h th e Ci t y of Du b l i n Ge n e r a l Pl a n No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t LU 2: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d no t co n f l i c t wi t h th e Ea s t e r n Du b l i n Sp e c i f i c Pl a n No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t LU 3: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d no t co n f l i c t wi t h th e Li v e r m o r e Ex e c u t i v e Ai r p o r t La n d Us e Co m p a t i b i l i t y Pl a n No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l Im p a c t LU 4: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d no t co n f l i c t wi t h th e Ea s t e r n Al a m e d a Co n s e r v a t i o n St r a t e g y No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Se c t i o n 3. 9 No i s e Im p a c t NO I 1: Th e pr o j e c t wo u l d re s u l t in ex p o s u r e of pe r s o n s to or ge n e r a t i o n of no i s e le v e l s in ex c e s s of st a n d a r d s es t a b l i s h e d in th e lo c a l ge n e r a l pl a n or no i s e or d i n a n c e or ap p l i c a b l e st a n d a r d s of ot h e r ag e n c i e s MM NO I 1: To re d u c e po t e n t i a l co n s t r u c t i o n no i s e im p a c t s th e fo l l o w i n g mu l t i pa r t mi t i g a t i o n me a s u r e sh a l l be im pl e m e n t e d fo r th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t Th e co n s t r u c t i o n co n t r a c t o r sh a l l li m i t al l on si t e no i s e pr o d u c i n g co n s t r u c t i o n ac t i v i t i e s in c l u d i n g de l i v e r i e s an d wa r m i n g up of eq u i p m e n t to th e da y t i m e ho u r s of 7: 3 0 a. m to 5: 0 0 p. m Mo n d a y th r o u g h Fr i d a y e x c l u d i n g ho l i d a y s un l e s s ot h e r w i s e ap p r o v e d by th e Ci t y En g i n e e r Th e co ns t r u c t i o n co n t r a c t o r sh a l l en s u r e th a t al l in t e r n a l co m b u s t i o n en g i n e dr i v e n eq u i p m e n t is eq u i p p e d wi t h mu f f l e r s th a t ar e in go o d co n d i t i o n an d ap p r o p r i a t e fo r th e eq u i p m e n t Th e co n s t r u c t i o n co n t r a c t o r sh a l l lo c a t e st a t i o n a r y no i s e ge n e r a t i n g eq u i p m e n t as fa r as po s s i b l e fr o m se n s i t i v e re c e p t o r s wh e n se n s i t i v e re c e p t o r s ad j o i n or ar e ne a r a co n s t r uc t i o n pr o j e c t ar e a In ad d i t i o n th e pr o j e c t co n t r a c t o r sh a l l pl a c e su c h st a t i o n a r y co n s t r u c t i o n eq u i p m e n t so th a t em i t t e d no i s e is di r e c t e d aw a y fr o m se n s i t i v e re c e p t o r s ne a r e s t th e pr o j e c t si t e Th e co n s t r u c t i o n co n t r a c t o r sh a l l pr o h i b i t un n e c e s s a r y id l i n g of in t e r n a l co m b u s t i o n en g i n e s Th e co n s t r u c t i o n co n t r a c t o r sh a l l to th e ma x i m u m ex t e n t pr a c t i c a l lo c a t e on si t e eq u i p m e nt st a g i n g ar e a s so as to ma x i m i z e th e di s t a n c e be t w e e n co n s t r u c t i o n re l a t e d no i s e so u r c e s an d no i s e se n s i t i v e re c e p t o r s ne a r e s t th e pr o j e c t si t e du r i n g al l pr o j e c t co n s t r u c t i o n Th e co n s t r u c t i o n co n t r a c t o r sh a l l de s i g n a t e a no i s e di s t u r b a n c e co o r d i n a t o r wh o wo u l d be re s p o n s i b l e fo r re s p o n d i n g to an y lo c a l co m p l a i n t s ab o u t co n s t r u c t i o n no i s e Wh e n a co m p l a i n t is re c e i v e d th e di s t u r b a nc e co o r d i n a t o r sh a l l no t i f y th e Ci t y wi t h i n 24 ho u r s of th e co m p l a i n t an d de t e r m i n e th e ca u s e of th e no i s e co m p l a i n t s s t a r t i n g to o ea r l y ba d mu f f l e r et c an d in s t i t u t e re a s o n a b l e me a s u r e s wa r r a n t e d to co r r e c t th e pr o b l e m as de e m e d ac c e p t a b l e by th e Du b l i n Pl a n n i n g Le s s Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l De p a r t m e n t Th e co n s t r u c t i o n co n t r a c t o r sh a ll co n s p i c u o u s l y po s t th e co n t a c t na m e an d te l e p h o n e nu m b e r fo r th e no i s e di s t u r b a n c e co o r d i n a t o r at th e co n s t r u c t i o n si t e Im p a c t NO I 2: Th e pr o j e c t wo u l d no t re s u l t in ex p o s e pe r s o n s to or ge n e r a t i o n of ex c e s s i v e gr o u n d b o r n e vi b r a t i o n or gr o u n d b o r n e no i s e le v e l s No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t NO I 3: Th e pr o j e c t wo u l d no t re s u l t in a su b s t a n t i a l pe r m a n e n t in c r e a s e in am b i e n t no i s e le v e l s in th e pr o j e c t vi c i n i t y ab o v e le v e l s ex i s t i n g wi t h o u t th e pr o j e c t No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t NO I 4: Th e pr o j e c t ma y re s u l t in a su b s t a n t i a l te m p o r a r y or pe r i o d i c in c r e a s e in am b i e n t no i s e le v e l s in th e pr o j e c t vi c i n i t y ab o v e le v e l s ex i s t i n g wi t h o u t th e pr o j e c t Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e NO I 1. Le s s Im p a c t NO I 5: Th e pr o j e c t wo u l d no t ex p o s e pe o p l e re s i d i n g or wo r k i n g in th e pr o j e c t ar e a to ex c e s s i v e no i s e le v e l s du e to be i n g lo c a t e d wi t h i n an ai r p o r t la n d us e pl a n or wh e r e su c h a pl a n ha s no t be e n ad o p t e d wi t h i n tw o mi l e s of a pu b l i c ai r p o r t or pu b l i c us e ai r p o r t No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Se c t i o n 3. 1 0 Pu b l i c Se r v i c e s an d Ut i l i t i e s Im p a c t PS U 1: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d no t cr e a t e a ne e d fo r ne w or ex p a n d e d fi r e pr o t e c t i o n or em e r g e n c y me d i c a l se r v i c e s fa c i l i t i e s th a t ma y re s u l t in ph y s i c a l im p a c t s on th e en v i r o n m e n t No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t PS U 2: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d no t cr e a t e a ne e d fo r ne w or ex p a n d e d la w en f o r c e m e n t fa c i l i t i e s th a t ma y re s u l t in ph y s i c a l im p a c t s on th e en v i r o n m e n t No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l Im p a c t PS U 3: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d no t cr e a t e a ne e d fo r ne w or ex p a n d e d sc h o o l fa c i l i t i e s th a t ma y re s u l t in ph y s i c a l im p a c t s on th e en v i r o n m e n t No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t PS U 4: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d no t re q u i r e th e wa t e r pu r v e y o r to ob t a i n ad d i t i o n a l wa t e r su p p l i e s or co n s t r u c t ne w or ex p a n d e d wa t e r tr e a t m e n t fa c i l i t i e s No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t PS U 5: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d no t re q u i r e ex p a n s i o n of ex i s t i n g or co n s t r u c t i o n of ne w wa s t e w a t e r tr e a t m e n t fa c i l i t i e s No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t PS U 6: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t s ma y cr e a t e or co n t r i b u t e ru n o f f wa t e r wh i c h wo u l d ex c e e d th e ca p a c i t y of ex i s t i n g or pl a n n e d st o r m w a t e r dr a i n a g e sy s t e m s Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e HY D 3. Le s s Im p a c t PS U 7: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d no t ge n e r a t e su b s t a n t i a l am o u n t s of so l i d wa s t e th a t ma y re s u l t in in a d e q u a t e la n d f i l l ca p a c i t y or co n f l i c t wi t h st a t u t e s or re g u l a t i o n s co n c e r n i n g so l i d wa s t e No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t PS U 8: Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d no t re s u l t in th e ne e d to co n s t r u c t ne w or ex p a n d e d pa r k or ot h e r pu b l i c fa c i l i t i e s No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Se c t i o n 3. 1 1 Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n Im p a c t TR A N S 1: Do u g h e r t y Ro a d D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d MM TR A N S 1: Pr i o r to oc c u p a n c y of Ph a s e 1A th e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t sh a l l su b m i t a Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n De m a n d Ma n a g e m e n t T D M Pr o g r a m to th e Ci t y of Du b l i n fo r re v i e w an d ap p r o v a l Th e TD M pr o g r a m sh a l l be pr e p a r e d by a qu a l i f i e d tr a n s p o r t a t i o n co n s u l t a n t en g i n e e r an d id e n t i f y TD M me a s u r e s Th e TD M pr o g r am sh a l l co n t a i n th e fo l l o w i n g pr o v i s i o n s Th e TD M pr o g r a m sh a l l es t a b l i s h th e fo l l o w i n g tr i p bu d g e t s fo r ea c h pr o j e c t ph a s e Ph a s e s 1A an d 1B Th e nu m b e r of tr i p s ge n e r a t e d sh o u l d be no mo r e th a n ex p e c t e d ba s e d on th e Tr i p Ge n e r a t i o n Es t i m a t e to t a l AM an d Si g n i Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l PM pe a k ho u r tr ip s fo r Ph a s e s 1A an d 1B no t e d in Ta b le 3. 1 1 9 T r i p s By An a l y s i s Ph a s e Ph a s e 2: Im p l e m e n t a t i o n of th e TD M pr o g r a m sh a l l pr o d u c e a 5% re d u c t i o n fr o m th e Tr i p Ge n e r a t i o n Es t i m a t e to t a l AM an d PM pe a k ho u r tr i p s fo r Ph a s e s 1A 1B an d 2 co m b i n e d as no t e d in Ta b le 3. 11 9. Ph a s e 3: Im p l e m e n t a t i o n of th e TD M pr o g r a m sh a l l pr o d u c e a 10 re d u c t i o n fr o m th e Tr i p Ge n e r a t i o n Es t i m a t e to t a l AM an d PM pe a k ho u r tr i p s fo r th e to t a l pr o j e c t as sh o w n in Ta b l e 3. 1 1 9. Th e TD M pr o g r a m ma y in c l u d e bu t ma y no t be li m i t e d to th e fo l l o w i n g me a s u r e s Sh u t t l e se r v i c e be t w e e n th e pr o j e c t an d th e Du b l i n P l e a s a n t o n BA R T st a t i o n Pu b l i c tr a n s i t su b s i d i e s Em p l o y e r sp o n s o r e d ca r p o o l i n g an d ri d e ma t c h i n g pr o g r a m s Pr e f e r e n t i a l ca r p o o l pa r k i n g Gu a r a n t e e d ri d e ho m e On si t e ca r sh a r e pr o g r a m Sc h e d u l i n g pr a c t i c e s to av o i d pe a k ho u r tr a v e l f l e x ti m e st a g g e r e d sh i f t s co m p r e s s e d wo r k sc he d u l e s et c En d of tr i p fa c i l i t i e s su c h as lo c k e r s sh o w e r s or st o r a g e fa c i l i t i e s Pr o v i s i o n of ki o s k s we b s i t e s br o c h u r e s an d si m i l a r it e m s th a t pr o v i d e in f o r m a t i o n ab o u t th e TD M pr o g r a m Th e ef f e c t i v e n e s s of th e TD M pr o g r a m sh a l l be mo n i t o r e d 6 mo n t h s af t e r th e co m p l e t i o n of ea c h ph a s e Mo n i t o r i n g sh a l l co n s i s t of co n du c t i n g pe a k pe r i o d tr a f f i c co u n t s at th e pr o j e c t dr i v e w a y s ov e r a 3 da y pe r i o d Th e co s t of co n d u c t i n g th e tr a f f i c co u n t s sh a l l be pa i d by th e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t or pr o j e c t ow n e r Th e re s u l t i n g tr i p ra t e s sh o u l d be no r m a l i z e d by em p l o y e e pa t i e n t lo a d s an d o r sq u a r e fo o t a g e an d co m p a r e d th e tr i p ge n e r a t i o n pr e s e n t e d to de t e r m i n e if th e pe a k ho u r tr i p bu d g e t s ha v e be e n at t a i n e d If th e TD M pr o g r a m is no t ac h i e v i n g th e es t a b l i s h e d tr i p bu d g e t s sp e c i f i c ch a n g e s sh a l l be ma d e to th e TD M pr o g r a m to be re v i e w e d an d ap p r o v e d by th e Ci t y to en s u r e th a t th e re d u c t i o n s re q u i r e d in th e mi t ig a t io n me as u r e ar e me t Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l Su b s e q u e n t mo n i t o r i n g pe r i o d s sh a l l be on an an n u a l ba s is un t i l it is sh o w n th a t th e TD M me a s u r e s ar e ef f e c t i v e in re d u c i n g ve h i c le tr ip s to th e bu d g e t se t fo r t h fo r ea c h ph a s e A re p o r t sh a l l be pr o v i d e d to th e Ci t y ev e r y ye a r su m m a r i z i n g th e pr o g r a m s ef f e c t i v e n e s s an d id e n t i f y i n g ad d i t i o n a l st e p s to be ta k e n if ne c e s s a r y Im p a c t TR A N S 2: Ta s s a j a r a Ro a d D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d MM TR A N S 2: Pr i o r to oc c u p a n c y of Ph a s e 1A th e so u t h si d e of Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d sh a l l be wi d e n e d be t w e e n Ta s s a j a r a Ro a d an d Br a n n i g a n St r e e t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 80 0 fe e t to pr o v i d e a th i r d ea s t b o u n d th r o u g h la n e co n n e c t i n g to an ex i s t i n g th r e e la n e ea s t b o u n d cr o s s se c t i o n at Br a n n i g a n St r e e t Th is im p r o v e m e n t sh a l l be co n s t r u c t e d by th e ap p l i c a n t pr i o r to oc c u p a n c y of Ph a s e 1A if no t co n s t r u c t e d by th e Ci t y pr i o r to th a t da t e If th e Ci t y co n s t r u c t s th e im p r o v e m e n t in ad v a n c e of th e oc c u p a n c y of Ph a s e 1A th e ap p l i c a n t sh a l l me e t th i s ob l i g a t i o n th r o u g h th e pa y m e n t of th e Ea s t e r n Du b l i n TI F or th ro u g h th e pa y m e n t of a fa i r sh a r e co n t r i b u t i o n i f th e im p r o v e m e n t is no t id e n t i f i e d in th e ED T I F pr o g r a m Le s s Im p a c t TR A N S 3: Fa l l o n Ro a d D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d MM TR A N S 3: Pr i o r to oc c u p a n c y of Ph a s e 1A th e in t e r s e c t i o n of Fa l l o n Ro a d D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d sh a l l be im p r o v e d to pr o v i d e se c o n d le f t tu r n la n e s on bo t h th e no r t h b o u n d an d ea s t b o u n d ap p r o a c h e s In ad d i t i o n th e si g n a l op e r a t i o n sh a l l be re t i m e d to mi n i m i z e qu e u i n g Th i s im p r o v e m e n t sh a l l be co n s t r uc t e d by th e ap p l i c a n t pr i o r to oc c u p a n c y of Ph a s e 1A if no t co n s t r u c t e d by th e Ci t y pr i o r to th a t da t e If th e Ci t y co n s t r u c t s th e im p r o v e m e n t in ad v a n c e of th e oc c u p a n c y of Ph a s e 1A th e ap p l i c a n t sh a l l me e t th i s ob l i g a t i o n th r o u g h th e pa y m e n t of th e Ea s t e r n Du b l i n TI F or th r o u g h th e pa ym e n t of a fa i r sh a r e co n t r i b u t i o n i f th e im p r o v e m e n t is no t id e n t i f i e d in th e ED T I F pr o g r a m Le s s Im p a c t TR A N S 4: Fa l l o n Ro a d F a l l o n Ga t e w a y MM TR A N S 4: Pr i o r to oc c u p a n c y of Ph a s e 1A th e Ci t y of Du b l i n sh a l l re t i m e th e si g n a l op e r a t i o n at Fa l l o n Ro a d F a l l o n Ga t e w a y to be t t e r ac c o m m o d a t e th e ad d e d tr a f f i c as s o c i a t e d pr o j e c t bu i l d o u t Th e ap p l i c a n t sh a l l pa y to th e Ci t y of Du b l i n th e co s t of re t i m i n g Le s s Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l Im p a c t TR A N S 5: Fa l l o n Ro a d I 58 0 We s t b o u n d Ra m p s MM TR A N S 5: Pr i o r to oc c u p a n c y of Ph a s e 1A th e ap p l i c a n t an d th e Ci t y of Du b l i n sh a l l co o r d i n a t e wi t h Ca l t r a n s an d th e Ci t y of Pl e a s a n t o n to re t i m e th e si g n a l op e r a t i o n at th e in t e r s e c t i o n of Fa l l o n Ro a d I 58 0 We s t b o u n d Ra m p s to be t t e r ac c o m m o d a t e th e ad d e d tr a f f ic as s o c i a t e d pr o j e c t bu i l d o u t Th e ap p l i c a n t sh a l l pr o v i d e Ca l t r a n s or th e Ci t y of Pl e a s a n t o n wi t h it s fa i r sh a r e co s t of re t i m i n g Si g n i Im p a c t TR A N S 6a Do u g h e r t y Ro a d D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d MM TR A N S 6a Pr i o r to oc c u p a n c y of Ph a s e 1A th e Ci t y of Du b l i n sh a l l re t i m e th e si g n a l op e r a t i o n at Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d D o u g h e r t y Ro a d to be t t e r ac c o m m o d a t e th e ad d e d tr a f f i c as s o c i a t e d pr o j e c t bu i l d o u t Th e ap p l i c a n t sh a l l pa y to th e Ci t y of Du b l i n wi t h th e co s t of re t i m i n g Si g n i Im p a c t TR A N S 6b Fa l l o n Ro a d D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 3. Le s s Im p a c t TR A N S 7a Am a d o r Pl a z a Ro a d D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d MM TR A N S 7a Pr i o r to oc c u p a n c y of Ph a s e 1A th e Ci t y of Du b l i n sh a l l re t i m e th e si g n a l op e r a t i o n at Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d A m a d o r Pl a z a Ro a d to be t t e r ac c o m m o d a t e th e ad d e d tr a f f i c as s o c i a t e d pr o j e c t bu i l d o u t Th e ap p l i c a n t sh a l l pa y to th e Ci t y of Du b l i n th e co s t of re t i m i n g Le s s Im p a c t TR A N S 7b Do u g h e r t y Ro a d D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 6a Si g n i Im p a c t TR A N S 7c Ke e g a n St r e e t D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d MM TR A N S 7c Pr i o r to oc c u p a n c y of Ph a s e 1A th e ap p l i c a n t sh a l l co n s t r u c t a se c o n d mi n i m u m 25 0 fo o t we s t b o u n d le f t tu r n la n e on Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d at Ke e g a n St r e e t Th e ap p l i c a n t sh a l l be re s p o n s i b l e fo r th e fu l l co s t of th e im p r o v e m e n t Le s s Im p a c t TR A N S 7d Lo c k h a r t St r e e t D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d MM TR A N S 7d Pr i o r to oc c u p a n c y of Ph a s e 1A th e ap p l i c a n t sh a l l ex t e n d th e ex i s t i n g du a l we s t b o u n d le f t tu r n la n e s on Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d to Lo c k h a r t St r e e t to pr o v i d e an ad d i t i o n a l 10 0 fe e t of ve h i c l e st o r a g e fo r a to t a l of 35 0 fe e t Th e ap p l i c a n t sh a l l be re s p o n s i b l e fo r th e fu l l co s t of th e im p r o v e m e n t Th i s is a pro p o s e d pr o j e c t im p r o v e m e n t bu t it ha s be e n in c l u d e d as a mi t i g a t i o n me a s u r e to en s u r e im p l e m e n t a t i o n Le s s Im p a c t TR A N S 7e Fa l l o n Ro a d D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 3. Le s s Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l Im p a c t TR A N S 8: Am a d o r Pl a z a Ro a d D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d MM TR A N S 8: A so u t h b o u n d ri g h t tu r n on l y la n e sh a l l be co n s t r u c t e d at th i s in t e r s e c t i o n as id e n t if i e d by th e Do w n t o w n Du b li n Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n Im p a c t Fe e O c t o b e r 20 1 5 Th i s im p r o v e m e n t sh a l l be co n s t r u c t e d by th e ap p l i c a n t pr i o r to oc c u p a n c y of Ph a s e 2 if no t co n s t r u c t e d by th e Ci t y pr ior to th a t da t e If th e Ci t y co n s t r u c t s th e im p r o v e m e n t in ad v a n c e of th e oc c u p a n c y of Ph a s e 2, th e ap p l i c a n t sh a l l me e t th i s ob l i g a t i o n th r o u g h th e pa y m e n t of th e Ea s t e r n Du b l i n or Do w n t o w n TI F or th r o u g h th e pa y m e n t of a fa i r sh a r e co n t r i b u t i o n i f th e im p r o v e m e n t is no t id e n t i f i e d in th e ED or Do w n t o w n TI F pr o g r a m Wi t h th i s im p r o v e m e n t in t e r s e c t i o n op e r a t i o n s wo u l d im p r o v e to LO S D un d e r HC M 20 0 0 me t h o d s re d u c i n g th e im p a c t to a le s s th a n si g n i f i c a n t le v e l ba s e d on th e Ci t y of Du b l i n cr i t e r i a Le s s Im p a c t TR A N S 9: Vi l l a g e Pa r k w a y D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t TR A N S 10 Do u g h e r t y Ro a d D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 1 an d Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 6a Si g n i Im p a c t TR A N S 11 Ta s s a j a r a Ro a d D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 2. Si g n i C i t y Le e s T V T Im p a c t TR A N S 12 Sa n t a Ri t a Ro a d I 58 0 Ea s t b o u n d Ra m p s MM TR A N S 12 Pr i o r to oc c u p a n c y of Ph a s e 2, th e ap p l i c a n t an d th e Ci t y of Du b l i n sh a l l co o r d i n a t e wi t h Ca l t r a n s an d th e Ci t y of Pl e a s a n t o n to co n s t r u c t a se c o n d so u t h b o u n d le f t tu r n la n e in ad d i t i o n to re t i m i n g th e tr a f f i c si g n a l in t e r s e c t i o n of Sa n t a Ri t a Ro a d I 58 0 Ea s t b o u n d Ra m p s Th e ap p l i c a n t sh a l l pr o v i d e Ca l t r a n s or th e Ci t y of Pl e a s a n t o n wi t h it s fa i r sh a r e co s t of re t i m i n g Si g n i Im p a c t TR A N S 13 Br a n n i g a n St r e e t D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 2. Le s s Im p a c t TR A N S 14 Ke e g a n St r e e t D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Imp l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 7c Le s s Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l Im p a c t TR A N S 15 Lo c k h a r t St r e e t D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t MM TR A N S 7d an d MM TR A N S 15 Pr i o r to oc c u p a n c y of Ph a s e 3, th e ap p l i c a n t sh a l l co n s t r u c t a se c o n d no r t h b o u n d ri g h t tu r n la n e pr o v i d i n g a fo u r la n e no r t h b o u n d cr o s s se c t i o n on Lo c k h a r t St r e e t at Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Le s s Im p a c t TR A N S 16 Fa l l o n Ro a d D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d MM TR A N S 16 Pr i o r to th e is s u a n c e of th e fi r s t ce r t i f i c a t e of oc c u p a n c y fo r Ph a s e 2, a se c o n d no r t h b o u n d le f t tu r n la n e sh a l l be co n s t r u c t e d at Fa l l o n Ro a d Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Th i s im p r o v e m e n t sh a l l be co n s t r u c t e d by th e ap p l i c a n t pr i o r to oc c u p a n c y of Ph a s e 2 if no t co n s t r uc t e d by th e Ci t y pr i o r to th a t da t e If th e Ci t y co n s t r u c t s th e im p r o v e m e n t in ad v a n c e of th e oc c u p a n c y of Ph a s e 2, th e ap p l i c a n t sh a l l me e t th i s ob l i g a t i o n th r o u g h th e pa y m e n t of th e Ea s t e r n Du b l i n TI F or th r o u g h th e pa y m e n t of a fa i r sh a r e co n t r i b u t i o n i f th e im p r o v e m e n t is no t id e n t i f i e d in th e ED T I F pr o g r a m N o t e th a t co n s t r u c t i o n of th e se c o n d ea s t b o u n d le f t tu r n la n e wa s as s u m e d in th e ba c k g r o u n d ne a r te r m co n d i t i o n Le s s Im p a c t TR A N S 17 Fa l l o n Ro a d F a l l o n Ga t e w a y Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 4. Le s s Im p a c t TR A N S 18 Fa l l o n Ro a d I 58 0 We s t b o u n d Ra m p s MM TR A N S 18 Th e Fa l l o n Ro a d in t e r c h a n g e is pl a n n e d to be up g r a d e d to th e sa m e st a n d a r d s as th e Do u g h e r t y Ro a d an d Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e in t e r c h a n g e s e g th r e e th r o u g h la n e s in ea c h di r e c t i o n ac r o s s th e ov e r p a s s an d a pa r t i a l cl o v e r l e a f ra m p sy s t e m Th e pr o j e c t sh a l l pa y it s fa i r sh a r e to w a rd pl a n n e d in t e r c h a n g e im p r o v e m e n t s Si g n i Im p a c t TR A N S 19 Ve h i c l e Qu e u e s Th r o u g h Ph a s e 2 an d Ph a s e 3 Am a d o r Pl a z a Ro a d D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 1 an d Mi t i g a t io n Me a s u r e TR A N S 8. Vi l l a g e Pa r k w a y D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 1 an d MM TR A N S 19 b Vi l l a g e Pa r k w a y D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Th e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t sh a l l wo r k wi t h th e Ci t y of Du b l i n to ad j u s t si g n a l ti m i n g s su b s e q u e n t to th e co m p l e t i o n of th e Ph a s e 2 an d Ph a s e 3 pr o j e c t to mi n i m i z e th e ef f e c t s of ve h i c le qu e u e sp i l l b a c k Do u g h e r t y Ro a d D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 1 an d Am a Bo u l Le s s Vi l l a Bo u l Si g n i Do u g Bo u l Si g n i Ta s s Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l MM TR A N S 19 c Do u g h e r t y Ro a d D u b li n Bo u le v a r d Th e pr o je c t ap p lic a n t sh a l l pa y th e TI F w h i c h wo u l d sa t i s f y it s ob l i g a t i o n fo r th e Sc a r l e t t Dr i v e ex t e n s i o n an d wo r k wi t h th e Ci t y of Du b l i n to ad j u s t si g n a l ti m i n g s su b s e q u e n t to th e co m p l e t i o n of th e Ph a s e 2 an d Ph a s e 3 pr o j e c t to mi n i m i z e th e ef f e c t s of ve h i c l e qu e u e spi l l b a c k Th e ap p l i c a n t sh a l l pa y th e co s t s fo r th e ad j u s t m e n t of th e si g n a l ti m i n g Ta s s a j a r a Ro a d D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 11 an d MM TR A N S 19 d Ta s s a j a r a Ro a d D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Th e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t sh a l l al s o wo r k wi t h th e Ci t y of Du b l i n to ad j u s t si g n a l ti m i n g s su b s e q u e n t to th e co m p l e t i o n of th e Ph a s e 2 an d Ph a s e 3 pr o j e c t to mi n i m i z e th e ef f e c t s of ve h ic le qu e u e sp i llb a c k Th e app li c a n t sh a ll pa y th e co s t s fo r th e ad ju s t m e n t of th e si g n a l ti m in g Im p l e m e n t a t i o n of th i s me a s u r e wo u l d re d u c e ve h ic le qu e u e s to a le v e l th a t ca n be ac c o m m o d a t e d wi t h i n th e av a i l a b l e st o r a g e sp a c e re d u c i n g th e qu e u i n g im p a c t to a le s s th a n si g n i f i c a n t le v e l Ke e g a n St r e e t D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 7c Lo c k h a r t St r e e t D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 7d an d Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 15 Fa l l o n Ro a d D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 3. Le s s Ke e g Im p l TR A N Lo c k Le s s Fa l l o Le s s Im p a c t TR A N S 20 Am a d o r Pl a z a Ro a d D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t MM TR A N S 7a an d MM TR A N S 8. Le s s Im p a c t TR A N S 21 Vi l l a g e Pa r k w a y D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t TR A N S 22 Do u g h e r t y Ro a d D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 1. Si g n i Im p a c t TR A N S 23 Sc a r l e t t Dr i v e D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 1. Si g n i Im p a c t TR A N S 24 Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 1. Si g n i Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l Im p a c t TR A N S 25 Ta s s a jar a Ro a d D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 1. Si g n i Im p a c t TR A N S 26 Sa n t a Ri t a Ro a d I 58 0 Ea s t b o u n d Ra m p s Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 12 Si g n i Im p a c t TR A N S 27 Br a n n i g a n St r e e t D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 1. Si g n i Im p a c t TR A N S 28 Ke e g a n St r e e t D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 1 an d Mi t i g a t io n Me a s u r e TR A N S 7c Le s s T V T Si g n i C i t y Im p a c t TR A N S 29 Lo c k h a r t St r e e t D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 1 an d Mi t i g a t io n Me a s u r e TR A N S 7c Si g n i Im p a c t TR A N S 30 Fa l l o n Ro a d D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 1. Si g n i Im p a c t TR A N S 31 Ja c k Lo n d o n Bo u l e v a r d I s a b e l Av e n u e No fe a s i b l e mi t i g a t i o n is av a i l a b l e Ci t y Si g n i Im p a c t TR A N S 32 Ea s t e r n m o s t Pr o j e c t Dr i v e D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t TR A N S 33 Ve h i c l e Qu e u e s Wi t h Bu i l d o u t Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 1. Si g n i Im p a c t TR A N S 34 Si t e Ac c e s s Ve h i c l e Qu e u e s Wi t h Bu i l d o u t MM TR A N S 34 a Ca r n m o r e Pl a c e F u t u r e Pr o j e c t Dr i v e w a y D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Pr i o r to th e is s u a n c e of th e fi r s t bu i l d i n g pe r m i t fo r Ph a s e 1B th e no r t h b o u n d ap p r o a c h at Ca r n m o r e Pl a c e F u t u r e Pr o j e c t Dr i v e w a y D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d sh a l l pr o v i d e ad e q u a t e st o r a g e ca p a c i t y fo r no r t h b o u n d le f t tu r n s Th e pl a n s sh a l l be re v i e w e d an d ap p r o v e d by th e Ci t y an d in c o r p o r a t e d in t o th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t Ke e g a n St r e e t D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 7c Lo c k h a r t St r e e t D u b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 7d an d Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 15 Le s s Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l Im p a c t TR A N S 35 Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d ge n e r a t e ne w tr i p s th a t wo u l d co n t r i b u t e to un a c c e p t a b l e op e r a t i o n s on In t e r s t a t e 58 0 Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 1. Si g n i Im p a c t TR A N S 36 Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d ge n e r a t e ne w tr i p s th a t wo u l d co n t r i b u t e to un a c c e p t a b l e op e r a t i o n s on Co n g e s t i o n Ma n a g e m e n t Pl a n fa c i l i t i e s Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e TR A N S 1 an d MM TR A N S 36 Th e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t sh a l l co n t r i b u t e fu n d i n g to ro a d w a y im p r o v e m e n t s th r o u g h th e pa y m e n t of Ci t y of Du b l i n an d Tr i Va l l e y re g i o n a l tr a f f i c im p a c t fe e s Du b l Ke e g Si g n i Do u g an d Le s s im p l un d e TR A N Is a b e Bo u l Bo u l Si g n i Va l l e an d Le s s im p l pa y regional pr o v pl a n Va l l e la n e Du b l Pa r k 2 0 4 Si g n i Do u g an d Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l Si g n i Is a b e Bo u l Bo u l Si g n i Is a b e Bo u l Bo u l Si g n i Im p a c t TR A N S 37 Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t wo u l d no t al t e r ai r tr a f f i c pa t t e r n s as s o c i a t e d wi t h Li v e r m o r e Mu n i c i p a l Ai r p o r t No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t TR A N S 38 Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t ma y cr e a t e ro a d w a y sa f e t y ha z a r d s as s o c i a t e d wi t h de s i g n fe a t u r e s Im p l e m e n t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e s TR A N S 7c TR A N S 7d TR A N S 15 TR A N S 34 b an d MM TR A N S 38 a Pr i o r to is s u a n c e of bu i l d i n g pe r m i t s fo r Ph a s e 1A th e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t sh a l l pr e p a r e an d su b m i t pl a n s to th e Ci t y of Du b l i n th a t de p i c t th e in t e r n a l ro a d w a y ex t e n d i n g so u t h fr o m Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d L o c k h a r t St r e e t as a 1 la n e e a c h di r e c t i o n fa c i l i t y so u t h of th e no r t h e r n ea s t we s t ro a d w a y wi t h tu r n po c k e t s at pa r k i n g ar e a ac c e s s lo c a t i o n s Th e ap p r o v e d pl a n s sh a l l be in c o r p o r a t e d in t o th e pr o j e c t MM TR A N S 38 b Pr i o r to is s u a n c e of bu i l d i n g pe r m i t s fo r Ph a s e 2, th e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t sh a l l pr e p a r e an d su b m i t pl a n s to th e Ci t y of Du b l i n th a t li m i t or av o i d th e nu m b e r of sk e w e d in t e r s e c t i o n s in th e vi c i n i t y of th e dr o p of f ar e a an d th e pa r k i n g lo t to th e so u t h Th e ap p r o v e d pl a ns sh a l l be in c o r p o r a t e d in t o th e pr o j e c t MM TR A N S 38 c Pr i o r to is s u a n c e of bu i l d i n g pe r m i t s fo r Ph a s e 2, th e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t sh a l l pr e p a r e an d su b m i t pl a n s to th e Ci t y of Du b l i n th a t de m o n s t r a t e s th a t ad e q u a t e tr u c k ac c e s s ca n be pr o v i d e d to th e lo a d i n g ar e a Th e ap p r o v e d pl a n s sh a l l be in c o r p o r a t e d in t o th e pr o j e c t Le s s Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l Im p a c t TR A N S 39 Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t re q u i r e s ad e q u a t e em e r g e n c y ac c e s s No mi t i g a t i o n is ne c e s s a r y Le s s Im p a c t TR A N S 40 Th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t ma y co n f l i c t wi t h pl a n s an d po l i c i e s as s o c i a t e d wi t h pu b l i c tr a n s i t bi c y c l e s an d pe d e s t r i a n s MM TR A N S 40 a Pr i o r to co m p l e t i o n of Ph a s e s 1A 1B 2, an d 3, th e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t sh a l l co o r d i n a t e wi t h th e Ci t y of Du b l i n an d Li v e r m o r e Am a d o r Va l l e y Tr a n s i t Au t h o r i t y to re v i e w th e ad e q u a c y of bu s se r v i c e in th e pr o je c t vi c i n i t y an d in s i d e th e de v e l o p m e n t As pa r t of th i s re v i e w pr o c e s s se r v i c e ho u r s se r v i c e fr e q u e n c y bu s st o p lo c a t i o n an d am e n i t i e s an d re l a t e d is s u e s sh a l l be ev a l u a t e d wi t h th e ob j e c t iv e of en s u r in g th a t tr a n s i t se r v i c e is ac c e s s i b l e an d co n v e n i e n t fo r pr o j e c t em p l o y e e s pa t i e n t s cu s t o m e r s an d vi s i t o r s Se r v i c e an d fa c i l i t y im p r o v e m e n t s sh a l l be im p l e m e n t e d in co n ju n c t i o n wi t h th e op e n i n g of ea c h ph a s e as ap p r o v e d by th e Ci t y an d Li v e r m o r e Am a d o r Va l l e y Tr a n s i t Au t h o r i t y MM TR A N S 40 b Pr i o r to is s u a n c e of bu i l d i n g pe r m i t s fo r Ph a s e s 1A 1B 2, an d 3, th e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t sh a l l pr e p a r e an d su b m i t pl a n s to th e Ci t y of Du b l i n de p i c t i n g th e fo l l o w i n g bi c y c l e fa c i l i t i e s an d im p r o v e m e n t s No t e th a t th e it e m s li s t e d be lo w ar e in t e n d e d on ly fo r ne w fa c il it i e s de v e l o p e d wi t h i n th e pr o jec t si t e ex is t in g bi c y c le fa c il it i e s wo u l d no t ne e d to be re p l a c e d Th e ap p r o v e d pl a n s sh a ll be in c o r p o r a t e d in t o th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t Of f st r e e t pa t h s C l a s s I) or on st r e e t bi c y c l e la n e s on in t e r n a l ro a d w a y s C la s s II I I I wi t h in th e pr o j e c t si t e Sh o r t te r m b ik e ra c k s an d lo n g te r m bi c y c le l o c k e r s pa r ki n g fa c i li t i e s Bi c y c l e lo o p de t e c t o r s at th e mo d if ie d Du b l in Bo u l e v a r d K e e g a n St r e e t an d Du b l in Bo u l e v a r d L o c k h a r t St r e e t in t e r s e c t i o n s MM TR A N S 40 c Pr io r to is s u a n c e of bu i ld in g pe r m i t s fo r Ph a s e s 1A 1B 2, an d 3, th e pr o j e c t ap p li c a n t sh a ll pr e p a r e an d su b m it pl a n s to th e Ci t y of Du b l in de p i c t in g th e fo ll o w i n g pe d e s t r i a n fa c i li t ie s an d im p r o v e m e n t s Th e ap p r o v e d pl a n s sh a ll be in c o r p o r a t e d in t o th e pr o p o s e d pr o j e c t Pr o v id e pa s s iv e de t e c t i o n of pe d e s t r i a n s at al l si g n a l s se r v i n g th e de v e lo p m e n t ac c e s s po in t s Pe d e s t r i a n fa c il i t ie s sh a ll pr o v id e di r e c t li n k a g e s be t w e e n bu il d in g s pa r k i n g ar e a s pl a z a s an d ad j o i n in g la n d us e s Le s s Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R e d it wp 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 0 03 Ex e cu tive Su m m a ry d o cx Ta b l e ES 1 c o n t Ex e c u t i v e Su m m a r y Ma t r i x Im p a c t s Mi t ig a t io n Me a s u r e s Le v e l Pe d e s t r i a n fa c i l i t i e s sh a l l be ph y s i c a l l y se p a r a t e d fr o m ve h ic u la r ci r c u l a t i o n wh e r e po s s i b l e an d th e nu m b e r of ro a d w a y pe d e s t r i a n cr o s s i n g s sh a l l be mi n i m i z e d Ro a d w a y pe d e s t r i a n cr o s s i n g s sh a l l in c l u d e sa f e t y fe a t u r e s su c h as ma r k i n g s si g n a g e pa v e m e n t tr e a t m e n t s or wa r n in g de v ic e s as ap p r o p r i a t e Pe d e s t r i a n fa c i l i t i e s li n k i n g th e bu s st o p s on Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d wi t h pr o j e c t bu i l d i n g s sh a l l in cl u d e wa y f i n d i n g si g n a g e an d li g h t i n g THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Introduction FirstCarbon Solutions 1-1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 - Overview of the CEQA Process This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project (StateClearinghouse No. 2015012018). This document is prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.). This Draft EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for the public agency decision makers and the public regarding the proposed project. 1.1.1 - Overview The proposed project consists of the development of up to 1.2 million square feet of medical campus and commercial uses on the 58.7-acre project site. The proposed project would be developed over several phases between 2016 and 2040. Section 2, ProjectDescription provides a complete description of the project. 1.1.2 - Purpose and Authority This Draft EIR provides an evaluation of Phase 1A of the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project at a project-level, as this phase is expected to be developed first and sufficient detail is known to allow a more precise level of environmental review. Phases 1B, 2, and 3 would be evaluated at a program- level because they would be developed at a later date and the uses areconsidered more conceptual such that a less detailed level of environmental review would be appropriate. The environmental impacts of the proposed project are analyzed in the EIR to the degree of specificity appropriate, in accordance with CEQA GuidelinesSection 15146. This document addresses the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with the planning, construction, or operation of the project. It also identifies appropriate and feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to significantlyreduce or avoidtheseimpacts. CEQA requires that an EIR contain, at a minimum, certain specific elements. These elements are contained in this Draft EIR and include: Table of Contents Introduction Executive Summary ProjectDescription Environmental Setting, Significant EnvironmentalImpacts, and Mitigation Measures CumulativeImpacts SignificantUnavoidable Adverse Impacts Alternatives to the Proposed Project Growth-InducingImpacts Effects Found not to be Significant Areas of Known Controversy City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Introduction Draft EIR 1-2 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx 1.1.3 - Lead Agency Determination The City of Dublin is designated as the lead agency for the project. CEQA GuidelinesSection 15367 defines the lead agency as “. . . the public agency, which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.” Other public agencies may use this Draft EIR in the decision-making or permit process and consider the information in this Draft EIR along with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process. This Draft EIR was prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions, an environmentalconsultant. Prior to public review, it was extensively reviewed andevaluated by the City of Dublin. This Draft EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Dublin as required by CEQA. Lists of organizations and persons consulted and the report preparation personnel are provided in Section 8 of this Draft EIR. 1.2 - Scope of the EIR This Draft EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The City of Dublin issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project on January 12, 2015, which circulated between January 12, 2015 and February 13, 2015 for the statutory 30-day publicreview period. The scope of thisDraft EIR includes the potential environmental impacts identified in the NOP and issues raised by agencies and the public in response to the NOP. The NOP is contained in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. Eight commentletters were received in response to the NOP. They are listed in Table 1-1 and provided in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. Table 1-1: NOP CommentLetters Affiliation Signatory DateSummary of RelevantComments City of LivermoreAndy Ross, Assistant PlannerJanuary 30, 2015 Livermore BART extension right-of- way reservation Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 Elke Rank February 6, 2015 Stormwater; Drainage; Hydrology; Recycled water; Groundwater California Department of Transportation, District 4 Patricia Maurice, Acting District BranchChief, Local Development – Intergovernmental Review February 10, 2015 Transportation impact analysis scope and methodology; Traffic mitigation measures; Transportation Demand Management (TDM) mitigation measures; Right-of-way impacts City of Pleasanton Brian Dolan, Community Development Director February 11, 2015 Transportation impact analysis scope and methodology; Traffic impacts; Dublin Unified School District Kim McNeely, Senior Director, Facilities February 11, 2015 Educational opportunities for students City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Introduction FirstCarbon Solutions 1-3 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx Table 1 1 (cont.): NOP Comment Letters Affiliation Signatory DateSummary of RelevantComments AlamedaCounty Transportation Commission Tess Lengyel, Deputy Director of Planning and Policy February 13, 2015 Transportation impact analysis scope and methodology; Congestion Management Plan; traffic mitigation measures; TDM mitigation measures; Freeway noise San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Val Menotti, ChiefPlanning and Development Officer February 13, 2015 Livermore BART extension right-of- way reservation; TDM mitigation measures Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Robert Sarmiento, Planner IFebruary 13, 2015 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Action Plan; Transportation impact analysis scope and methodology Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 Elke Rank March 5, 2015 Geomorphic and flooding impacts; recycled water AlamedaCounty Transportation Commission Tess Lengyel, Deputy Director of Planning and Policy March 23, 2015 Livermore BART extension right-of- way reservation Source: City of Dublin, 2015. 1.2.1 - Scoping Meeting Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City of Dublin held a public scoping meeting for the proposed project on Thursday, January 22, 2015 at Dublin CityHall. Ten members of the publicattended the meeting, including a representative of the applicant team. 1.2.2 - Environmental Issues Determined not to be Significant The NOP identified topical areas that weredetermined not to be significant. An explanation of why eachareais determined not to be significant is provided in Section 7, Effects Found not to be Significant. These topical areas are as follows: Agricultural and Forestry Resources Mineral Resources Population and Housing Recreation In addition, certain subjects with various topical areas were determined not to be significant. Other potentially significant issues are analyzed in these topical areas; however, the following issues are analyzed in Section 7, Effects Found not to be Significant: City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Introduction Draft EIR 1-4 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx Septic or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems (Section 3.5, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity) Exposure of Schools to Hazardous Materials (Section 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials) Private Airstrips (Section 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials) Wildland Fires (Section 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials) Division of an Established Community (Section 3.8, Land Use) An explanation of why each issue is determined not to be significant is provided in Section 7, Effects Found not to be Significant. 1.2.3 - Potentially Significant Environmental Issues The NOP found thatthe following topical areas may contain potentially significant environmental issues that will require further analysis in the EIR. These sections are as follows: Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Noise Public Services and Utilities Transportation 1.3 - Organization of the EIR This Draft EIR isorganized into the following main sections: Section ES: Executive Summary. This section includes a summary of the proposed project and alternatives to be addressed in the Draft EIR. A brief description of the areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, and overview of theMitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, in addition to a table that summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation, are also included in this section. Section 1: Introduction. This sectionprovides an introduction and overview describing the purpose of thisDraft EIR, its scope and components, and its review and certification process. Section 2: Project Description. This section includes a detaileddescription of the proposed project, including its location, site, and project characteristics. A discussion of the project objectives, intended uses of the Draft EIR, responsible agencies, and approvals that are needed for the proposed project are also provided. Section 3: Environmental Impact Analysis. This section analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Impacts are organized into major topic areas. Each topic area City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Introduction FirstCarbon Solutions 1-5 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx includes a description of the environmentalsetting, methodology, significance criteria, impacts, mitigation measures, and significance after mitigation. The specific environmental topics that are addressed within Section 3 are as follows: Section 3.1 – Aesthetics, Light, and Glare: Addresses the potential visual impacts of development intensification and the overall increase in illumination produced by the project. Section 3.2 – Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Addresses the potentialairquality impacts associated with projectimplementation, as well as consistency with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Clean Air Plan. In addition, the section alsoevaluates project emissions of greenhouse gases. Section 3.3 – Biological Resources: Addresses the project’s potential impacts on habitat, vegetation, and wildlife; the potential degradation or elimination of important habitat; and impacts on listed, proposed, and candidate threatened and endangered species. Section 3.4 – Cultural Resources: Addresses potential impacts on historical resources, archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and burial sites. Section 3.5 – Geology, Soils, and Seismicity: Addresses the potential impacts the project may have on soils and assesses the effects of project development in relation to geologic and seismic conditions. Section 3.6 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Addresses the potential for the presence of hazardous materials or conditions on the project siteand in the project area that may have the potential to impact human health. Section 3.7 – Hydrology and Water Quality: Addresses the potential impacts of the project on local hydrological conditions, including drainage areas, and changes in the flow rates. Section 3.8 – Land Use: Addresses the potential land use impacts associated with division of an established community and consistency with the City of Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin SpecificPlan, and the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Section 3.9 – Noise: Addresses the potential noise impacts during construction and at project buildout from mobile and stationary sources. The section also addresses the impact of noise generation on neighboring uses. Section 3.10 – Public Services and Utilities: Addresses the potential impacts upon public services, including fire protection, law enforcement, schools, water supply, wastewater, storm drainage, solidwaste, and parks/other publicfacilities. Section 3.11– Transportation: Addresses the impacts on the localandregional roadway system, public transportation, bicycle, and pedestrian access. Section 4: Cumulative Effects. This section discusses the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project, including the impacts of past, present, and probable future projects. Section 5: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. This section compares the impacts of the proposed project with three land-use project alternatives: the NoProject Alternative, the Reduced Density Alternative, and the Corporate Office Campus Alternative. An environmentallysuperior alternative is identified. In addition, alternatives initially considered but rejected from further consideration are discussed. Section 6: Other CEQA Considerations. This sectionprovides a summary of significant environmental impacts, including unavoidable and growth-inducing impacts. This section City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Introduction Draft EIR 1-6 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx discusses the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project, including the impacts of past, present, and probable future projects. In addition, the proposed project’s energy demand is discussed. Section 7: Effects Found not to beSignificant. This section contains analysis of the topical sections not addressed in Section 3. Section 8: Persons and OrganizationsConsulted/List of Preparers. This section contains a full list of persons and organizations that were consulted during the preparation of this Draft EIR. This section also contains a full list of the authors who assisted in the preparation of the Draft EIR, by nameand affiliation. Section 9: References. This sectioncontains a full list of references that were used in the preparation of thisDraft EIR. Appendices. This section includes all noticesand other procedural documents pertinent to the Draft EIR, as well as all technical material prepared to support the analysis. 1.4 - Documents Incorporatedby Reference As permitted by CEQA GuidelinesSection 15150, this Draft EIR has referenced several technical studies, analyses, andpreviously certified environmental documentation. Information from the documents, which have been incorporated by reference, has been briefly summarized in the appropriate section(s). The relationshipbetween the incorporated part of the referenced document and the Draft EIR has also been described. The documentsand other sources that have been used in the preparation of this Draft EIR include but are not limited to: City of Dublin General Plan Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment EIR Dublin Municipal Code Dublin-San Ramon Services District 2010 Urban Water Management Plan These documents are specifically identified in Section 9, References, of this Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(b), the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Municipal Code, and the referenced documents and other sources used in the preparation of the Draft EIR are available for review at the City of Dublin Community Development Department at the address shown in Section 1.6 below. 1.5 - Documents Prepared for the Project The following technical studies and analyses were prepared for the proposed project: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis, prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions Analysis is wholly contained in Section 3.2, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions; supporting information is provided in Appendix B). City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Introduction FirstCarbon Solutions 1-7 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx Health Risk Assessment, prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions (Appendix B) Biological Resources Assessment, prepared by WRA (Appendix C). Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions (Appendix D). Preliminary Geologic and GeotechnicalFeasibility Study, prepared by Consolidated Engineering Laboratories (Appendix E). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by SECOR International (Appendix F). Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by SECOR International (Appendix F). Noise Analysis, prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions (Analysis is wholly contained in Section 3.9, Noise; supporting information is provided in Appendix G). Water Supply Assessment prepared by West Yost Associates (Appendix I) Transportation Assessment prepared by Fehr & Peers (Appendix J) 1.6 - Review of the Draft EIR Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City of Dublin filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period (Public Resources Code, Section 21161). Concurrent with the NOC, thisDraft EIR has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interestedparties, as well as all parties requesting a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b)(3). During the public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices, is available for review at the City of Dublin. The address for each location is provided below: City of Dublin CommunityDevelopment Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Hours: Monday–Friday: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Dublin Library 200 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Hours: Monday–Wednesday: 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. Thursday: 10 a.m. to 6p.m. Saturday: 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Sunday: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Agencies, organizations, and interested parties have the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period. Written comments on thisDraft EIR should be addressed to: Ms. Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Phone: (925) 556-4557 Fax: (925) 833-6628 Email: kristi.bascom@dublin.ca.gov City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Introduction Draft EIR 1-8 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx Submittal of electronic comments in Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF format isencouraged. Upon completion of the public review period, written responses to all significant environmental issues raised will be prepared andmade available for review by the commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to the public hearing before the Dublin City Council on the project, at which the certification of the Final EIR will be considered. Comments received and the responses to comments will be included as part of the record for consideration by decision makers for the project. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Project Description FirstCarbon Solutions 2-1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec02-00 ProjectDescription.docx SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzes the potential environmental effects of the proposed Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project in Dublin, California. 2.1 - Project Location and Setting 2.1.1 - Location The project site is located in the City of Dublin, AlamedaCounty, California (Exhibit 2-1). The approximately 58.7-acre site is located in the eastern portion of the City of Dublin and is bounded by undevelopedland and a water quality basin/park (west); Dublin Boulevard (north); the Fallon Gateway retail center (east); and Interstate 580 (I-580) (south) (Exhibit 2-2). The project site is located on the Livermore, California, United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map, Township 3 South, Range 1 East, Sections 3 and 4 (Latitude 37°42’10” North; Longitude121°51’30” West). 2.1.2 - Existing Land Use Activities The project site contains unimproved, undeveloped land. The project site was previously cleared and rough graded, and is regularly disked for weedabatement purposes. A chain link fence surrounds the project site. The project site is 353 feet abovemean sea level. Two storm drainage utility easements cross the project site in a north-south direction. The western easement extends into the project site along the Keegan Street alignment and contains a 96-inch-diameter underground storm drain line. The easterneasement extends into the project site along the Lockhart Street alignment and contains a 10-foot by 8-foot concrete box culvert. Both lines discharge into a double 10-foot by 9-foot concrete box culvert that parallels the north side of I-580 within the Caltrans right-of-way. Dublin Boulevard is located immediately north of the project site and consists of a three-lane divided roadway (two westbound lanes and one eastboundlane) with a landscaped median. The roadway is partially builtout to its full sectionalong the project frontage. Two existing signalized intersections are located on this segment of Dublin Boulevard (Keegan Streetand Lockhart Street). Exhibit 2-3 provides site photographs of the project site. 2.1.3 - Surrounding Land Uses West Undeveloped land contemplated for future residentialdevelopmentand a water quality basin/park form the westernboundary of the project site. Furtherwest is Grafton Street and the Grafton Plaza shopping center, which is anchoredby aLowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Project Description Draft EIR 2-2 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx North Dublin Boulevard, a multi-lane divided arterial roadway, forms the northern boundary of the project site. The roadway has alandscaped median andprovides two existing signalized intersections along the project frontage at Keegan Street and Lockhart Street. North of the roadway are developed multi-family, multi-story residential uses and under-construction residential uses (Irongate). East TheFallonGateway shopping center forms the eastern boundary of the project site. Fallon Gateway is modern retail center anchored by a Target and Dick’s Sporting Goods store. Further east is Fallon Road. South I-580, a 10-lane divided freeway, forms the southern boundary of the project site. The planned Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) extension from the Dublin/Pleasanton Station to Livermore would be located within the I-580 median along the project frontage. Furthersouth of I-580 is an under-construction residential development located in the City of Pleasanton. 2.1.4 - Land Use Designations The City of Dublin General Plan designates the project site “Campus Office” and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plandesignates the project site “Campus Office.” The project site is located within Land Use Compatibility Zone 7 of the Livermore Municipal Airport as established in the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. 2.2 - Project Background The project site has been through a previous round of entitlements and environmentalreview described as follows. 2.2.1 - Eastern Dublin Specific Plan In 1993, the Dublin CityCouncil adopted the Eastern Dublin SpecificPlan and certified the associated Final EIR. TheSpecific Plan serves to guide growth in an approximately 3,300 acre area located east of Camp Parks. The SpecificPlan designated the project site for “Campus Office” development. In 2005, the Specific Plan was amended to expand the boundarieseastward to encompass the Fallon Village development. Following the 2005 amendment, thebuildout potential of the SpecificPlan is 32,023residents, 13,913 dwelling units, and 29,424jobs. 2.3 - Project Characteristics 2.3.1 - Project Summary The project applicant (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals) is proposing to develop approximately1.2 million square feet of medical campus andcommercial uses on the 58-acre project site in multiple phases. I þ4 ·|}þ4 Alameda County Santa Clara County C o n t r a C o s t a C o u n t y A l a m e d a C o u n t y 580 þ92 þ84 680 880 þ24 680 þ237 101 280 C o n tr a C o s t a County San JoaquinRiver SanRamon Dublin Livermore Pleasanton CastroValley SanLorenzo SanLeandro Hayward Union City OakleyAntioch Fremont Newark Menlo Park EastPalo Alto Stanford PaloAlto MountainView Sunnyvale Milpitas East Foothills Pittsburg Sa n J o a q ui n C o u nt y Brentwood Discovery Bay Byron MountainHouse þ84 MountDiabloStatePark SanJoaquinRiverCarquinezStrait MiddleRiverBigBreak BrionesReservoir UpperSanLeandroReservoir LakeChabot LakeDelValleSanAntonioReservoir CalaverasReservoir CliftonCourtForebayLosVaquerosReservoir 37660004 • 01/2015 | 2-1_regional.mxd Exhibit2-1RegionalLocationMap Source: Census2000Data, TheCaSIL. 5 052.5 Miles Text ProjectSite CITYOFDUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTERPROJECT ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT ProjectSite THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660004 • 01/2015 | 2-2_local_aerial.mxd Exhibit2-2LocalVicinityMap AerialBase Source: GoogleEarthPro, 2014. CITYOFDUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTERPROJECT ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT 580 Central Pky Dublin Blvd Ta s s a ja ra R d S a n t a R i t a R d E l C h a r r o R d 580 F a ll o n R d Stoneridge Dr WJackLondonBlvd Gleason Dr PositanoPkw y K e e gan St L o ckhart S t FallonSportsPark FallonGatewayGraftonPlaza T a s s a j a r a Creek CampParks Legend ProjectSite 2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK View of project site from GraftonPlazalooking east View of centralportionofproject site fromDublin Boulevard View of easternportion of the project site fromDublinBoulevard.View of project site from Fallon Gatewaylooking west. Source: FirstCarbonSolutions, 2013. 37660004 • 01/2015 | 2-3_site_photos.cdr Exhibit 2-3 Site Photographs CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Project Description FirstCarbon Solutions 2-9 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec02-00 ProjectDescription.docx Phase 1A would be evaluated at a project-level, as this phase is expected to be developed first and sufficient detail is known to allow a more precise level of environmental review. Phases 1B, 2, and 3 would be evaluated at a program-level because they would be developed at a later date and the uses are considered more conceptual such that a less detailed level of environmental review would be appropriate. Table 2-1 provides a project summary. Exhibit 2-4a depicts the Phase 1A siteplan; Exhibit 2-4b depicts the Phase 2site Plan; and Exhibit 2-4c depicts the Phase 3site plan. Table 2-1: Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Summary Phase Building/Use Development Potential Target Dates CEQA Review Level 1A Medical Office Building 1/Cancer Center – Outpatient Services 220,000 square feet 2016–2020 Project-Level 1B Commercial 250,000 square feet 2016–2020 Program-Level 2 Medical Campus – High Acuity Medical Services Building 400,000 square feet 2025–2035 Program-Level Energy Center 50,000 square feet 2025–2035 Program-Level Phase 2 Subtotal 450,000 square feet 3 Medical Office Building 2 and parking garage 280,000 square feet 2035–2040 Program-Level Total — 1,200,000 square feet— — Source: Kaiser Medical Foundation, 2015. 2.3.2 - Kaiser Medical Campus The Kaiser Medical Campus consists of the phased development of approximately 950,000 square feet of medicaland supporting ancillary services on approximately 35 to 40 acres of the project site. The Kaiser Medical Campus would provide the wide range of health care services currently offered by Kaiser Permanente, as well as health care services to be offered in the future to Kaiser members at the project site, including, without limitation: A comprehensive range of outpatient primary and specialty care services Urgent care Radiation/oncology services Outpatient surgery Diagnostic services, including radiologyand telemedicine Women’s services Inpatient care, including diagnostic and treatment services Surgical services and emergency care Supportingancillary health care services such as optical, pharmacy, laboratory, education and training. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project ProjectDescription Draft EIR 2-10 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx Kaiser’s Energy Center (central utility plant), surface and structured parkingand green spaces would support the Kaiser Medical Campus. Details of each phase of the Kaiser Medical Campus are provided below. Phase 1A Phase 1A would consist of development of approximately 220,000 square feet of outpatient services on approximately 10 acres of the Kaiser Medical Campus. This will consist of advanced medical, urgent care clinics andmedical office buildingslocated alongside a radiation/oncology center, along with associated surface parking for approximately 860 to 1,075 vehicles, and other related improvements. Phase 1A construction is expected to be completed between 2016 and 2020 and would be evaluated at a project level under CEQA. Phase 2 Phase 2 would consist of development of approximately 450,000 square feet of high-acuity medical services providing outpatient and/or inpatient care. This phase may include a 50,000-square-foot Kaiser Energy Center (central utility plant) and associated surface parking for approximately 600 to 1,600 vehicles, and other related improvements. Phase 2 construction is expected to becompleted between 2025 and 2035 and would be evaluated at a programmatic level under CEQA. EnergyCenter The Energy Center would be located in the southeastern corner of the project site. The facility would employ equipment consisting of cooling towers, central chiller plant, central heating hot water plant, steam source, central compressed air and vacuum, air handling units, emergency power system, unit substations (transformers), high-voltage switchgear, and paralleling switchgear. Phase 3 Phase 3 would consist of development of approximately 280,000 square feet of care medical services providing outpatient care. This development could consist of a medical care component, along with associated surface and structured parking for approximately 1,140 to 1,425 vehicles, and other related improvements. Phase 3 construction is expected to becompleted between 2035 and 2040 and would be evaluated at a programmatic level under CEQA. Depending upon future demand, Phase 3 may be repurposed for other Kaiser Medical Campus health care functions, including regional laboratory, call center, or medical office functions. 2.3.3 - Commercial Uses Approximately 250,000 square feet of general commercial uses are proposed on approximately 13 to 20 acres of the westernmost portion of the project site. Types of potential uses on the Commercial Parcel may include hotel, restaurant, recreational and/or other retail uses (includingregional-serving retail), or office uses in the research anddevelopment fields with a possiblefocus in the biotechnology, medical device, health care, or pharmaceutical sectors. Other possibilities to be studied for potential Commercial Parcel development might include skillednursing, senior living, or licensed care facilities. The exact uses for the Commercial Parcel have not been determinedby Kaiser at this time. I 37660004 • 01/2016 | 2-4a_site_plan.cdr Exhibit 2-4a Phase 1A Site Plan CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT Source: Stantec 2015. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660004 • 01/2016 | 2-4b_site_plan.cdr Exhibit 2-4b Phase 2 Site Plan CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT Source: Stantec 2015. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660004 • 01/2016 | 2-4c_site_plan.cdr Exhibit 2-4c Phase 3 Site Plan CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT Source: Stantec 2015. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Project Description FirstCarbon Solutions 2-17 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec02-00 ProjectDescription.docx Phase1B Phase 1B would consist of development of approximately 250,000 square feet of uses on the approximately 13 to 20 acre commercial parcel, along with associated surface parking for approximately 700 to 1,100 vehicles, and other related improvements. The actual uses on and configuration of the Commercial Parcel will be dependentupon further study and evaluation. Phase 1B construction is expected to becompleted between 2016 and 2020 and would be evaluated at a programmatic level under CEQA. For the purposes of providing a conservative analysis in this EIR, Phase 1B will be evaluated as either 250,000 square feet of retail uses or office uses, whichever yields the highest impact scenario for a particular impact area. For example, office uses would yield the highest weekday morning (AM) peak-hour trip generation value, whileretail uses would yield the highest weekday afternoon (PM) peak-hour trip generation value; therefore, thetraffic analysis will use office uses for the AM peak hour and retail uses for the PM peak hour. This will allow flexibility as plans for the Commercial Parcel become more defined. 2.3.4 - Vehicular Access Points Vehicular access to the project site would be taken from four locations on Dublin Boulevard. The existing Keegan Street and Lockhart Street signalized intersections would be modified and a fourth southern leg would be added as a private driveway to each location to provide full access to the proposed project. An unsignalized right-in, right out private driveway access point would be provided in the western portion of the project site to serve the commercial uses. A right-in, right out private driveway access point and a left-in private driveway access point for emergency vehicles would beprovided in the eastern portion of the project site to serve the medical campus uses. 2.3.5 - PublicTransit, Bicycles, and Pedestrians PublicTransit A bus stop suitable for use byLivermore Amador ValleyTransit Authority (LAVTA) bus service would beprovided on the project frontage with Dublin Boulevardeast of the Keegan Street intersection. Bicycles and Pedestrians The project would install Class II bicycle lanes and sidewalks along the Dublin Boulevard frontage and extend a bicycle/pedestrian path from the southwestcorner of the site to the Dublin Boulevard frontage near the Fallon Gateway shopping center. Additionally, internal pedestrian facilities would connect the medical campus buildings to the Dublin Boulevard frontage. 2.3.6 - Utilities Water The project site is located within the boundaries of the Dublin-San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), which serves the City of Dublin with potable water and non-potable recycled water. The proposed projectwould connect to an existing underground potable and non-potable recycled DSRSD water City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project ProjectDescription Draft EIR 2-18 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx lines located within Dublin Boulevard. Multiple connections would be provided for the purposes of achieving a “looped system.” Potable waterwould be used for domestic use, while non-potable recycled water would be used for landscape irrigation and toilet flushing (to the extent consistent with legal requirements for medical facilities and patient safety). Wastewater The project site is located within the boundaries of DSRSD, which serves the City of Dublin with potable water. The proposed projectwould connect to anexisting underground DSRSD sewer line located within Dublin Boulevard. Multiple laterals would connect the project to the sewer line. Storm Drainage An on-site storm drainage system would be installed that would collect and convey runoff and ultimately discharge it to the City of Dublin’s municipal storm drainage system. Electricity and Natural Gas Pacific Gas and Electric Company would serve the project with electricity and natural gas. Additionally, the proposed project may include the use of solar power/photovoltaics. 2.3.7 - General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment Both the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are proposed to beamended to 1) create a new “Medical Campus” designation that would enable the multi-phased development of a new, state-of-the-art medical campus project with health care andcommercial development; and 2) re-designate the project site from “Campus Office” to “Medical Campus.” 2.4 - Project Objectives The objectives of the proposed project are to: 1. Enhance public safety and public health by providing for major medical care facilities within Dublin to serveexisting and future demand in the Tri-Valley region. 2. Provide high-quality health care in seismically safe new state-of-the-art advanced care medical center within the Eastern Dublin planning area that provides community vitality, economic growth and a wide range of employment opportunities in Dublin and the surrounding region. 3. Positively contribute to the localeconomy throughnew capital investment, the creation of new jobs, the provision of new services, and the expansion of the tax base. 4. Supplement and support existing Kaiser clinics and medical facilities in the Tri-Valley region and to provide additional medical services for local residents at facilities closer to their homes than currently exists. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Project Description FirstCarbon Solutions 2-19 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec02-00 ProjectDescription.docx 5. Increase accessibility to affordable andconvenient health care options in a dynamic, changing health care environment. 6. Facilitate the logical, orderly, and phased development of a high-visibility, infill site in order to achievea beneficial set of end uses at a site with goodfreeway access and proximity to public transportation. 7. Provide flexibility for the potential end uses of the Commercial Parcel area in order to be responsive to market demand while also achieving compatibility with surrounding existing and future uses including medical, commercial, hotel, and residentialneighborhoods. 8. Develop contemporary, visuallyappealing medical center andcommercial uses that are aesthetically compatible with surrounding development and preserve views of the surroundinghills from I-580. 9. Close a gap in the bicycle and pedestrian network within the communityby providing on- site pedestrianand bicycle facilities that link with existing facilities along Dublin Boulevard. 2.5 - Intended Uses of This Draft EIR This Draft EIR is being prepared by the City of Dublin to assess the potential environmental impacts that may arise in connection with actions related to implementation of the proposed project. Pursuant to CEQA GuidelinesSection 15367, the City of Dublin is the lead agency for the proposed project and has discretionary authority over the proposed project and project approvals. The Draft EIR is intended to address all publicinfrastructure improvements and all future development that are within the parameters of the proposed project. 2.5.1 - Discretionaryand Ministerial Actions Discretionary approvals and permits are required by the City of Dublin for implementation of the proposed project. The project application would require the following discretionary approvals and actions, including: EIR Certification General Plan Amendment Specific Plan Amendment Planned Development Rezone (Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans) Site Development Review Vesting Tentative Parcel Map or Lot Line Adjustment (Ministerial) Subsequent Permits including, butnot limited to, grading, sitework, and buildingpermits. In addition, Kaiser and the City of Dublin may negotiate and enter into a project-levelDevelopment Agreement. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project ProjectDescription Draft EIR 2-20 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx 2.5.2 - Responsible and Trustee Agencies A number of other agencies in addition to the City of Dublin will serve as Responsible and Trustee Agencies, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 and Section 15386, respectively. This Draft EIR will provideenvironmental information to these agencies and other public agencies, which may be required to grant approvals or coordinate with other agencies, as part of projectimplementation. Theseagencies may include but are not limited to the following: California Department of Transportation California Regional WaterQualityControl Board San Francisco Region County of Alameda Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission City of Livermore City of Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit District Dublin-San Ramon Services District Actions that are necessary to implement the project that must be taken by other agencies are: Issuance of EncroachmentPermits (Caltrans, County of Alameda, City of Livermore, and City of Pleasanton) Consistency Determination with Livermore Executive Airport LandUse Compatibility Plan – Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Draft EIR Environmental Impact Analysis FirstCarbonSolutions 3-1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-00 Env Imp Analysis.docx SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT ANALYSIS Organization of Issue Areas This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) provides analysis of impacts for those environmental topics where it was determined in the Notice of Preparation, or through subsequent analysis that the proposed project would result in “potentially significant impacts.” Sections 3.1 through 3.11 discuss the environmental impacts that may result with approval and implementation of the proposed project. Issues Addressed in this EIR The following environmental issues are addressed in Section 3: Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Noise Public Services and Utilities Transportation Level of Significance Determining the severity of project impacts is fundamental to achieving the objectives of CEQA. CEQA GuidelinesSection 15091requires that decision makers mitigate, as completely as is feasible, the significant impacts identified in the Final EIR. If the EIR identifies any significant unmitigated impacts, CEQA GuidelinesSection 15093 requires decision makers in approving a project to adopt a statement of overriding considerations that explains why the benefits of the projectoutweigh the adverse environmental consequences identified in the EIR. The level of significance for each impact examined in thisDraft EIR was determined by considering the predictedmagnitude of the impact against the applicable threshold. Thresholds were developed using criteria fromthe CEQA Guidelines and checklist; state, federal, and local regulatory schemes; local/regional plans and ordinances; accepted practice; consultation with recognized experts; and other professional opinions. City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Environmental Impact Analysis Draft EIR 3-2 FirstCarbonSolutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-00 Env Imp Analysis.docx Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measure Format The format adopted in this EIR to present the evaluation of impacts is described and illustratedbelow. Summary Heading of Impact Impact AES-1: An impact summary heading appears immediately preceding the impact description (Summary Heading of Impact in this example). The impact number identifies the section of the report (AES for Aesthetics, Light, and Glare in this example) and the sequential order of the impact (1 in this example) within that section. To the right of the impactnumber is the impact statement, which identifies the potential impact. Impact Analysis A narrative analysis follows the impactstatement. Level of Significance Before Mitigation This section identifies the level of significance of the impact before any mitigation is proposed. Mitigation Measures In some cases, following the impact discussion, reference is made to state and federal regulations and agency policies that would fully or partially mitigate the impact. In addition, policies and programs from applicable local land use plans that partially or fully mitigate the impact may be cited. Project-specific mitigation measures, beyond those contained in other documents, are set off with a summary heading and described using the format presented below: MM AES-1 Project-specific mitigation is identified that would reduce the impact to the lowest degreefeasible. The mitigation number links the particular mitigation to the impact it is associated with (AES-1 in this example); mitigation measures are numbered sequentially. Level of Significance After Mitigation This section identifies the resultinglevel of significance of the impact following mitigation. Abbreviations used in the mitigation measure numbering are: Code Environmental Issue Code Environmental Issue AES Aesthetics, Light, and Glare HYDHydrology and Water Quality AIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas EmissionsLULand Use BIO Biological Resources NOINoise CUL Cultural Resources PSUPublic Services and Utilities GEO Geology, Soils, and Seismicity TRANSTransportation HAZ Hazards and Hazardous Materials City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx 3.1 - Aesthetics, Light, and Glare 3.1.1 - Introduction This section describes the existing aesthetics, light, and glare setting and potential effects from project implementationon visual resources and the siteand its surroundings. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on site reconnaissance and review of the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 3.1.2 - Environmental Setting Visual Character Regional Setting Dublin, population 53,462, is located in easternAlameda County in the Tri-ValleyRegion. The City of Dublin is generally bounded by the East Bay Hills to the west, the Alameda-Contra Costa County line to the north, the City of LivermoreandCollier Canyon to the east, and Interstate 580 (I-580) to the south. Parks ReserveForces Training Area, known locally as Camp Parks, is a United States Army Reserve training facility that occupies approximately 1,200 acres within the north-central portion of Dublin. Commercial uses aregenerally located in the vicinity of I-580and I-680, with residential uses generally located around the western, northern, and eastern peripheries. The City of Dublin incorporated in 1982 and is characterized by contemporary development and modern amenities. Areas along the I-680 corridor were the first areas of Dublin to develop in the 1960s, while the areas located along the eastern I-580 corridor were morerecently developed in the 1990s and 2000s. Notable landmarks include the Dublin Civic Center, the Dublin Heritage Park and Museum, Camp Parks, Dublin Hills Regional Park, and the Dougherty Hills Open Space area. Project Site The project site contains unimproved, undeveloped land. The project site was previously cleared and rough graded, and is regularly disked for weedabatement purposes. A chain link fence surrounds the project site. The project site is 353 feet above mean sea level. Two storm drainage utility easements cross the project site in a north-south direction. The western easement extends into the project site along the Keegan Street alignment and contains a 96-inch- diameter underground storm drain line. The easterneasementextends into the project site along the Lockhart Street alignment and contains a 10-foot by 8-foot concrete box culvert. Both lines discharge into a double 10-foot by 9-foot concrete box culvert that parallels the north side of I-580 within the Caltrans right-of-way. Dublin Boulevard is located immediately north of the project site and consists of a three-lane divided roadway (two westbound lanes and one eastbound lane). The roadway is partially built out to its full section along the project frontage. Two existing signalized intersections are located on this segment of Dublin Boulevard (Keegan Streetand Lockhart Street). Exhibit 2-3 provides site photographs of the project site. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR 3.1-2 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx Surrounding Land Uses The following are descriptions of surrounding land uses. Photos of surrounding land uses are provided in Exhibit 3.1-1. West Undeveloped land contemplated for future residentialdevelopment and a waterquality basin/park form the westernboundary of the project site. Further west is Grafton Street and the Grafton Plaza shopping center, which is anchored by a Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse. Land uses to the west have mostlyunobstructed views of the project site. North Dublin Boulevard, a multi-lane divided arterial roadway, forms the northern boundary of the project site. The roadway has a landscaped median andprovides two existing signalized intersections along the project frontage at Keegan Street and Lockhart Street. North of the roadway are developed multi-family, multi-story residential uses and under-construction residential uses (Irongate). Land uses to thenorth have mostlyunobstructed views of the project site. East TheFallon Gateway shopping center forms the eastern boundary of the project site. FallonGateway isa modern retail center anchored by a Target and Dick’s Sport Goods store. Further east is Fallon Road. Land uses to the east have mostly unobstructed views of the project site. South I-580, a 10-lane divided freeway forms the southern boundary of the project site. The planned Bay Area RapidTransit District (BART) extension fromthe Dublin/Pleasanton Station to Livermore would be located within the I-580 median along the project frontage. Furthersouth of I-580 is an under- construction residentialdevelopment located in the City of Pleasanton. I-580 has mostly unobstructed views of the project site; however, land uses on the south side of the freeway have mostlyobstructed views. Scenic Routes I-580 was designated as a Scenic Route by the County of Alameda in 1966 (the City of Dublin was incorporated in 1982 and recognized this scenic route designation). The City of Dublin General Plan Circulationand Scenic Highways Element states that scenic routes “are the places from which people traveling through Dublin gain their impression of the City; therefore, it is important that the quality of views be protected.” View of GraftonPlazaand the undeveloped multi-familyparcel.View of multi-familyusesandKeeganStreet. View of under-construction residentialuses on northsideofDublin Boulevard.View of Fallon Gateway. Source: FirstCarbonSolutions, 2015. 37660004 • 03/2015 | 3.1-1_site_photos.cdr Exhibit 3.1-1 SurroundingLandUses CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-5 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx Light and Glare There are no existing sources of light and glare within the project site. Nearby sources of light and glare include streetlighting along Dublin Boulevard and exterior building andparking lot lighting associated with Grafton Plaza, the multi-family residential uses to the north, and Fallon Gateway. 3.1.3 - Regulatory Framework State California Scenic Highway Program The California Scenic HighwayProgram is intended to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscapecan 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. A scenic corridor is the land generally adjacent to andvisible from the highway and is identified usinga motorist’s line of vision. The corridorprotection program seeks to encourage quality development that does not degrade the scenic value of the corridor. Minimum requirements for scenic corridor protection include: Regulation of land use and density of development Detailed land and siteplanning Control of outdoor advertising (including a ban on billboards) Careful attention to and control of earthmoving and landscaping Careful attention to design and appearance of structures and equipment Local City of Dublin GeneralPlan The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following goals and policies associated with aesthetics, light, and glare that arerelevant to the proposed project: Goal 10.5.2: Promote aPositive Regional Identity of the City. Policy 10.5.3.A: Incorporate distinctive design features along regional corridors that reinforce a positive image of Dublin. Both within theright-of-way and on adjacent private development, utilize features such as gateway elements, street trees, median planting, special lighting, separated and ample sidewalks, crosswalks, seating, special signs, street names, landscape, decorative paving patterns, and public art. Consider undergrounding utilities along these roadways. Policy 10.5.3.B: Maintain views through development to distant vistas (i.e. foothills) and view corridors along regional corridors, wherever feasible. Policy 10.5.3.C: Incorporate visual screening techniques such as berms, dense and/or fast- growing landscaping, and appropriately designed fencing where feasible, to ensure that visually challenging features, such as parking lots, loading docks, storage areas, etc. are visually attractive as seen from regional corridors. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR 3.1-6 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx Policy 10.5.3.D: Provide landscaping and articulated design to soften the visual appearance of existing and new walls and fences that are adjacent to regional corridors, wherever feasible. Policy 10.5.3.E: Encourage attractive and high-quality landscaping along the edge of the freewaysand development surrounding on- and off-ramps to provide softer and more attractive views both to and from the freeways. Landscaping on private property should complement the buildingsand overall site design. Goal 10.7.2: Ensure quality and compatible Design of the Built Form. Policy 10.7.3.1.A: Encourage diverse, high quality, attractive, and architecturally appealing buildings that create distinctive visual reference points, enrich the appearance of functional gathering spaces, and convey an excellence in architecture, workmanship, quality, and durability in building materials. Policy 10.7.3.1.B: Encourage buildings with varied massing, heights, articulation techniques, andarchitectural and signage treatments to create visual interest and ensure compatibility with adjacent uses, in commercial, office, industrial, andmixed useareas. Policy 10.7.3.1.C: Ensure that buildingheight, scale and design are compatible with the character of the surrounding natural and built environment, and are varied in their massing, scale and articulation. Policy 10.7.3.1.D: Encourage a variety of site and building designs that are compatible and consistent with surrounding development, especially where larger scale development is adjacent to smaller scale and/or more sensitive land uses (i.e. residential, schools, and churches) to the greatest extent feasible. Policy 10.7.3.1.E: Avoid the use of long, continuous, straight (building) wallsalong roadways by designing appropriate articulation, massing, and architectural features. Policy 10.7.3.1.H: Orient buildings toward major thoroughfares, sidewalks, pedestrian pathways, andgathering spaces, and incorporate clear and identifiable entries where feasible, in campus office areas. Policy 10.7.3.1.I: Cluster andconnectbuildings through a series of pedestrian pathways designed to work with each other to form a unified design characterand create larger functional spaces, in campus office andcommercial areas. Policy 10.7.3.1.K: Minimize the visual impacts of service/loading areas, storage areas, trash enclosures, and ground mounted mechanical equipment. When feasible, these elements should be located behind or to the sides of buildingsand screened from views through a combination of walls/ fencing, and/or landscaping. Policy 10.7.3.1.L: Minimize the visual impacts of roof mounted mechanical equipment. When feasible, such elementsshould be consolidatedand housed in architecturally articulated enclosures. Policy 10.7.3.2.A: Utilize moreformal landscaping treatments in more densely developed urban) areas and utilizemore natural landscaping treatments in less dense (suburban) areas, as appropriate. Policy 10.7.3.2.C: Incorporate setbacks and landscaped buffers for development along collector and arterial roadways to minimize the impacts from roadway noise, where appropriate. Policy 10.7.3.2.D: Ensure that landscaping alongandadjacent to the public realm is well maintainedand retains a natural appearance. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-7 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx Policy 10.7.3.2.E: Encourage distinctive landscaping and signage that is aesthetically appealing fromthe public realm. Policy 10.7.3.2.I: Preserve views of creeks, hillsides, skylines, or other natural or man-made landmarks during site planning of new developments, whenever feasible. Policy 10.7.3.3.A: Encourage gathering spaces and amenities such as mini plazas, courtyards, benches, seating, shade, trash receptacles, and water fountains, in commercialand office areas. Policy 10.7.3.3.B: Design attractive gathering spaces with pedestrian amenities such as landscaping, benches, shade structures, fountains, public art, and attractive lighting. Policy 10.7.3.3.C: Encourage design treatments that enhance the attractiveness of the streetscape, public spaces, landscaped areas, and open space. Policy 10.7.3.5.A: Provide convenient butnot visually dominating parking that incorporates extensive landscaping to provide shade, promote wayfinding, visually soften views fromthe street and surrounding properties, and reduce the heat island effect (generally characterized with large expanses of paved and under landscaped surfaces). Policy 10.7.3.5.B: Buffer and screen large expanses of parking areas from the street, where practical. Policy 10.7.3.5.C: Encourage the use of integratedcirculation andparking facilities that are shared among surrounding properties. Goal 10.8.2: Establish Connections and Linkages throughout the City by promoting transportation efficiency, reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), enabling easier non-vehicular circulation, and promoting walkingand cycling. Policy 10.8.2.3.A: Provide safe, visually pleasing, and comfortable pedestrianand bicycle connections between destinations within a project area by providing wide multi-use paths, generous sidewalks, anddedicated bicycle lanes on Class I and II Collector and Arterial streets. Policy 10.8.2.3.B: Provideclear, identifiable, and ample pedestrianand bicyclepathways that connect sidewalks, parking areas, building entrances, trails and other site featuresby using wayfinding techniques such as signage, landscaping, hardscape, and prominent building entrances, where feasible. Policy 10.8.2.3.C: Provide a continuous and ample network of pedestrian and bicycle routes within a project area and logical connections to the exterior of the project area and thereby create safe routes of travel to transit facilities, public gathering spaces, trails, parks, community centers, schools, City villages, gateways and entries. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan indicates that the western portion of the project site is withinthe Tassajara Gateway Planning Sub Area and the central and eastern portions of the project siteare in the Fallon GatewayPlanning Sub Area. The SpecificPlan’s description of the land use concept for each Sub Area is described as follows: Tassajara Gateway Planning Sub Area As indicated by its name, this subarea represents the commercialcore for eastern Dublin. The area is intended to be a highdensity, pedestrian-oriented commercial, civic, and entertainment center for Dublin and the surrounding communities. The City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR 3.1-8 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx subarea consists of two distinct parts: the General Commercialarea and the Neighborhood Commercialarea. TheGeneral Commercial area, which extendsalong Tassajara Road, is intended to include uses with a broader market area and · a greater orientation to the motoring public, including a full range of regionaland community retail, service, office, and restaurant uses. Ideally, a major community shopping center, with supermarket, drug store, hardwarestore, liquor store, and other supporting retail and service uses would be located in this area. FallonGateway Planning Sub Area The land use concept for the Fallon Gateway encourages the development of General Commercial and Campus Office uses that will benefit from the visibility and easy access providedby their location near I-580, Dublin Boulevard, and Fallon Road. Given the subarea’s eastern location away from downtown Dublin and the Town Center in eastern Dublin, it is anticipated that the General Commercial areas will accommodate retail uses that are less suited for the commercialcore areas either because they require larger land areas, better freeway access, and/or different development standards. Uses in this category include that segment of the retail market that typically deals with high sales volumes and/or bulky or big-ticket items; has relatively low-overhead; draws from a regional market area; and is highly auto- oriented. Examples of such uses includediscount centers, promotional centers, outlet stores, home improvement centers, auto dealerships, nurseries, and similar uses. The subarea should not include uses that would directly compete with and/or decrease thevitality of the commercial areas in the Town Center or Downtown Dublin. TheEastern Dublin Specific Plan establishes the following goals and policies associated with aesthetics, light, and glare that arerelevant to the proposed project: Goal: To establish a visually distinctive community which preserves the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining views from major travel corridors and public spaces. Policy 6-28: Preserve the natural openbeauty of the hills and other important visual resources, such as creeks and major stands of vegetation. Policy 6-30: Structures built near designated scenic corridors shall be located so that views of the back- drop ridge (identifiedin Figure 6.3 as “Visually Sensitive Ridgelands - no development”) are generally maintained when viewed from the scenic corridors. Policy 6-31: High quality design and visual character will be required for all development visible from designated scenic corridors. Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards The Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document was adoptedby the City Council in 1996 as a means of implementing the requirements of the Eastern Dublin SpecificPlan. The Scenic Corridor policies establish standards for projects within the scenic corridor viewshed. Along City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-9 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx the I-580 corridor, the document identifiedthree criticalviewpoints of Dublin’s “Visually Sensitive Ridgelands,” including the Viewpoint 1 from I-580 looking north up Tassajara Creek, Viewpoint 2 looking northeast to the ridgelands from the Tassajara Road overpass, and Viewpoint 3looking north and northeast from the Fallon Road overpass. Standard 1.1 from the document states that from the three designated viewpoints, development shall maintain generally uninterrupted views to significant natural features. The viewpoint that is material to this analysis is Viewpoint 2, where the standard is to have structures that do not extend above the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands for more than 25percent of the total horizon line. The total horizon line is further defined as the limits of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands as seen from Viewpoint 2 (as shown in Figure 7 of the Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document). Standard 1.2 notes that structures adjacent to a scenic corridor, generally within 700 feet of the scenic corridor, should be allowed to obstruct views of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands from I-580 for not more than 50 percent of the developedfrontages. Views may bemaintained by balancing building heightsand setbacks so as to allow views over the buildings, byclusteringbuildings to allow views through, or by siting parking to preserveviews to the hills. 3.1.4 - Methodology FCS reviewed the City of Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to identifying relevant goals, policies, and other language relevant to aesthetics, light, and glare that areapplicable to the proposed project. FCS reviewed project plans and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to identify potential view corridors from I-580. Environmental Vision prepared “before” and “after ” visual simulations of the proposed project as viewed from I-580. “Before” images consist of photographs of the project site depicting existing conditions. “After” images consists of computer-generated images that incorporatecivil engineering plans. 3.1.5 - Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist of the CEQA Guidelines, aesthetics impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed projectwould be considered significant if the projectwould: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, butnot limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historicbuilding within a state scenic highway? c) Substantiallydegrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR 3.1-10 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx 3.1.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate. Scenic Vistas Impact AES-1: The proposed project would not adversely affect a scenic vista. Impact Analysis The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan sets forth a goal that calls for “protecting key visual elements and maintaining views from major travel corridors” and a policy that indicates that views of visually sensitiveridgelines in Specific Plan Figure 6.3 shall bemaintained bynew development. The project site is immediately adjacent to and within view of I-580. The visually sensitive ridgelines identifiedin Specific Plan Figure 6.3 arelocated north of the project site. Views of the visually sensitive ridgelands from Viewpoint 2 identified in the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridordocument are minimally impacted, as the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center site is approximately 2,800 feet east of the Tassajara Road overpass and is not within the “view cone” for Viewpoint 2 (Standard 1.1). Views of the visually sensitive ridgelands from along the I-580 corridor are minimally impacted by building height and setbacks, and at buildout of Phase 1A, 2, and 3 of the medical center, no more than 50 percent of the developed frontage will obstruct views of the ridgelands. Exhibit 3.1-2 andExhibit 3.1-3 provide “before” and “after” visual simulations of the proposed project as viewed from I-580. Exhibit 3.1-2 provides views from eastbound I-580 and shows that although views of the ridgelines northeast of the project site would beobstructed, views of the ridgelines to the north would still be available. Additionally, landscaping would be provided along the I-580 frontage. Exhibit 3.1-3 provides views from westboundI-580and shows that the landscaping andbuildings near the project frontage with the freeway that wouldobstruct views of the ridgelines to the north and northwest from this exact vantagepoint. However, based on the discussion above, nomore than 50 percent of the developed frontage will obstruct views of the ridgelands and the “view cone” for Viewpoint 2 is unobstructed. Collectively, these characteristics would ensure that the proposed project maintains views of the hills and from the designated vantage points identified by the SpecificPlan. Therefore, the proposed projectwould not adversely impact views from a scenic vista. Impacts would be less than significant. 37660004 • 08/2015 | 3.1-2_E_I580.cdr CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTERPROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT Exhibit 3.1-2 Visual Simulation - Eastbound I-580 Source: EnvironmentalVision, 2015 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 37660004 • 08/2015 | 3.1-3_W_I580.cdr CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTERPROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT Exhibit 3.1-3 Visual Simulation - Westbound I-580 Source: EnvironmentalVision, 2015 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-15 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Scenic Highways Impact AES-2: The proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a scenic highway. Impact Analysis The City of Dublin General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways Element designates I-580 as a Scenic Route.” The General Plan indicates that scenic routes “are the places from which people traveling through Dublin gain their impression of the City; therefore, it is important that the quality of views be protected.” The General Plan indicates that development within the boundaries of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that is adjacent to scenic routesmust comply with applicable goals and policies. The Specific Plan sets forth a goal that calls for “protecting key visual elements and maintaining views from major travel corridors” and a policy that indicates that views of visually sensitive ridgelines in Specific Plan Figure 6.3 shall be maintainedbynew development. Additionally, another policy states that new development along scenic routes shall employ high quality design and visual character. The project site is immediately adjacent to and within view of I-580. The visuallysensitive ridgelines identifiedin Specific Plan Figure 6.3 arelocated north of the project site. Views of the visually sensitive ridgelands from Viewpoint 2 identified in the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridordocument are minimally impacted, as the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center site is approximately 2,800 feet east of the Tassajara Road overpass and notwithin the “view cone” for Viewpoint 2 (Standard 1.1). Views of the visually sensitive ridgelands from along the I-580 corridor are minimally impacted bybuildingheight and setbacks, but at buildout of Phase 1A, 2, and 3 of the medical center, nomore than 50 percent of the developed frontage will obstruct views of the ridgelands. Exhibit 3.1-2 andExhibit 3.1-3 provide “before” and “after” visual simulations of the proposed project as viewed from I-580. Exhibit 3.1-2 provides views from eastbound I-580 and shows that although views of the ridgelines northeast of the project site would be obstructed, views of the ridgelines to the north would still be available. Additionally, landscaping would be provided along the I-580 frontage. Exhibit 3.1-3 provides views from westbound I-580and shows that the landscaping andbuildings near the project frontage with the freeway that wouldobstruct views of the ridgelines to the north City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR 3.1-16 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx and northwest from this exact vantagepoint. However, based on the discussion above, no more than 50 percent of the developed frontage will obstruct views of the ridgelands and the “view cone” for Viewpoint 2 is unobstructed.. Collectively, these characteristics would ensure that the proposed project maintains views of the hills and provides high-quality design and visual character from the I-580 scenic route. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Visual Character Impact AES-3: The proposed project may substantially degrade the existingvisual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Impact Analysis The proposed projectwould develop 1.2 million square feet of medical campus andcommercial uses on the project siteover several phases. Phase 1A would develop 220,000 square feet of medical uses in the center of the project site. Phase 1B would involve the development of 250,000 square feet of commercial uses on the western portion of the project site. Phase 2 would develop450,000 square feet of medical uses in the eastern portion of the project site. Phase 3 would develop 280,000 square feet of medical uses and a multi-level parking garage in the southern portion of the project site. The heights of the medical buildings would range from 40 feet to 90 feet above finished grade; the heights of the commercial buildings would range from 25 to 60 feet above finished grade. The proposed project incorporates several design features to soften the visual appearance of the project. All of the medicalbuildings areset back morethan 100 feet from Dublin Boulevard to lessen the massing effects; moreover, the tallestbuilding (90 feet above finished grade) is the furthest building from the roadway. Additionally, the energy center is located in the southeastern corner of the site and would be largely screened from view by the high acuity medical building and the Fallon Gateway commercial uses. Finally, landscaping consisting of shade trees would be planted along the project perimeter and within parking areas. The City of Dublin General Plan designates the project site “Campus Office” and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan zones the project site “Campus Office.” These land use designations date back more than 20 years and indicate that the City of Dublin has long contemplatedurbandevelopment on the project site. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-17 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx The projectvicinity includes developed urban uses immediately west, north, and east of the project site, as well as on the south side of I-580. Theseuses include two retail centers (Grafton Plaza and Fallon Gateway) and multi-family residential uses. The planned BART extension to Livermore would be located in the I-580 median south of the project site. Overall, this serves to indicate thatthe project site has been planned to supportedurban development. Exhibit 3.1-2 andExhibit 3.1-3 provide visual simulations of the proposed project’s buildings from I-580. As shown in the images, the project would employ a contemporary design and provide landscaping along the project frontage. Inthis sense, it would be similar to other developments along the I-580 corridor in Dublin, including the Dublin Corporate Center and the two BART stations and associated parking structures. At the time of this writing, no details are available about signage (including illuminated and non- illuminated pylon, monument, or wall signage) for eitherthe medical campus or commercial uses. Since both the medical campus andcommercial uses would be expected to employhighly visible signage, Mitigation Measure AES-2 requires that a Master Sign Program be developed that places limitations or prohibitions on various types of signage. (The mitigation measure allows for separate sign programs to be developed for the medical campus andcommercial uses.) Mitigation Measure AES-3 requires the Master Sign Program to place limitations on the size, location, and orientation of illuminated and non-illuminated pylon, monument, and wall signs; prohibit digital and non-digital freeway billboards, flashing, oscillating, animatedlights or other moving sign components; and require the use of dimmers or other devices intended to limit the intensity of illumination duringlate night and early morning hours. With the implementation of thismitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures MM AES-3 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for either the medical campus or commercial uses, a Master Sign Programshall be prepared and submitted to the City of Dublin for review andapproval that sets forth standards for illuminated signage. Separate Master Sign Programs may be pursued for the medical campus and commercial uses as appropriate). The Master Sign Program shall set forth performance standards for illuminated signage, including (1) limitations on the size, location, and orientation of illuminated and non-illuminatedpylon, monument, and wall signs; (2) a prohibition ondigital and non-digital freewaybillboards, flashing, oscillating, animated lights or other moving sign components; and (3) the use of dimmers or other devices intended to limit the intensity of illumination during late night and early morning hours. The approved Master Sign Programshall be incorporated into the proposed project. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR 3.1-18 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx Light and Glare Impact AES-4: The project may create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impact Analysis There are no existing sources of light and glare withinthe project site. Nearby sources of light and glare includeI-580 freeway lighting and vehicle traffic, street lighting along Dublin Boulevard and exterior building andparking lot lighting associated with Grafton Plaza, the multi-family residential uses to the north, and Fallon Gateway. The proposed projectwould develop 1.2 million square feet of medical campus andcommercial uses on the project site over several phases and, therefore, it would emit light and glare from indoor lighting, illuminated signage, vehicle headlamps and tail lamps, and related light sources. Additionally, exteriorlighting would be provided around all buildings and within parking areas would be illuminated duringlate night and early morning hours. Overall, these lighting sources would have the potential to expose nearby sensitive receptors to new sources of light and glare. In recognition of these potential impacts, Mitigation Measure AES-4 is proposed requiring that all exteriorlighting fixtures be either fully shielded or employ full cut-off fixtures to prevent adverse spillover effects onto nearby land uses. Additionally, Mitigation Measure AES-3 requires a Master Sign Program to be developed that places limits or prohibitions on various types of illuminated signage. (Specifically, digital and non-digital freewaybillboards, flashing, oscillating, animated lights, or other moving sign components are prohibited.) With the implementation of these mitigation measures, light and glare impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure AES-3 and: MM AES-4 Prior to issuance of the building permit for each project building, the project applicant shall prepare and submit building plans to the City of Dublin for review and approval that demonstrate that exterior lighting fixtures would not create adverse spillover effects on adjoining land uses. The plans shall demonstrate that allexterior lightingfixtures are either fully shielded or employ full cut-off fixtures. The approved plansshall beincorporated intothe proposed project. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx 3.2 - Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.2.1 - Introduction This section describes the existing airquality setting and potential effects from project implementationon the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on modeling performed by FirstCarbon Solutions. The most recent version of CalEEMod version2013.2.2) wasused to quantify project-related emissions. The air quality analysis, including model output, is provided in Appendix B. This analysis follows the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) recommendations for preparing an air quality and greenhouse gas analysis under CEQA. 3.2.2 - Environmental Setting Air Basin The project site is located in the City of Dublin in Alameda County and is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin). The Air Basin consists of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties; the western portion of Solano County; and the southern portion of Sonoma County. Air quality in the Air Basin is regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (ARB), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The regulatory responsibilities of these agencies are discussed in the Regulatory Framework section. Regional and local airquality is impacted by dominantairflows, topography, atmospheric inversions, location, season, and time of day. These characteristics are discussed in relation to the Air Basin. Local Climate A semi-permanent, high-pressurearea centered over the northeastern PacificOcean dominates the summer climate of the West Coast. Because this high-pressure cell is quite persistent, storms rarely affect the California coast during the summer. Thus, the conditions that persist along the coast of California during summer are a northwest airflow and negligible precipitation. A thermal low- pressurearea fromthe Sonoran-Mojave Desert also causes air to flow onshore over the San Francisco Bay Area much of the summer. The steady northwesterly flow around the eastern edge of the Pacific High (a high-pressure cell) exerts stress on the oceansurface along the west coast. This induces upwelling of cold water from below. Upwelling produces a band of cold water off San Francisco that is approximately 80 miles wide. During July, the surface waters off San Francisco are 3 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) cooler than those off Vancouver, British Columbia, more than 900 miles to the north. Air approaching the California coast, already cool and moisture-laden from its long trajectory over the Pacific, is further cooled as it flows across this cold bank of water near the coast, thus accentuating the temperature contrast across the coastline. This cooling is often sufficient to produce condensation—a high incidence of fog andstratus clouds along the Northern California coast in summer. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-2 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx In summer, the northwest winds to the west of the Pacific coastline are drawn into the interior through the gap in the western Coast Ranges, known as the Golden Gate, and over the lower portions of the San Francisco Peninsula. Immediately to the south of Mount Tamalpais, the northwesterly winds accelerate considerably and come more nearly fromthe west as they stream through the Golden Gate. This channeling of the flow through the Golden Gate produces a jet that sweeps eastward but widens downstream, producing southwestwinds at Berkeley and northwest winds at San Jose; abranch curves eastward through the Carquinez Straits and into the Central Valley. Wind speeds may be locally strong in regions where air is channeled through a narrow opening such as the Golden Gate, the Carquinez Strait, or San Bruno Gap. For example, the average wind speed at San Francisco International Airport from 3 a.m. to 4 p.m. in July is about 20 miles per hour (mph), compared with only about 8 mph at San Jose and less than7mph at the Farallon Islands. The sea breeze between the coast and the Central Valley commences near the surface along the coast in late morning or early afternoon; it may first be observed onlythrough the Golden Gate. Later in the day, the layer deepens and intensifies while spreading inland. As the breeze intensifies and deepens, it flowsover the lower hills farther south along the peninsula. This process frequently can beobserved as a bank of stratus clouds “rolling over” the coastal hills on the west side of the bay. The depth of the sea breeze depends in large part upon the height and strength of the inversion. The generally low elevation of this stablelayer of air prevents marine air from flowing over the coastal hills. It is unusual for the summer sea breeze to flow over terrain exceeding 2,000 feet in elevation. In winter, the Air Basin experiences periods of storminess, moderate-to-strongwinds, andperiods of stagnation with very light winds. Winter stagnation episodes are characterized by outflow from the Central Valley, nighttime drainage flows in coastal valleys, weak onshore flows in the afternoon, and otherwise light andvariable winds. A primary factor in airquality is the mixing depth (the vertical air column available for dilution of contaminant sources). Generally, the temperature of air decreases with height, creating a gradient from warmer air near the ground to cooler air at elevation. This is caused by most of the sun’s energy beingconverted to sensible heat at the ground, which in turn warms the air at the surface. The warmair rises in the atmosphere, where it expands and cools. Sometimes, however, the temperature of air actually increases with height. This condition is known as temperature inversion, because the temperature profile of the atmosphere is “inverted” from its usual state. Over the Air Basin, the frequent occurrence of temperature inversions limits mixing depth and, consequently, limits the availability of air for dilution. Local Air Quality Airquality isa function of both the rate and location of pollutant emissions under the influence of meteorologicalconditions and topographic features. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature inversions interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutant emissions and, consequently, their effecton air quality. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-3 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx The local air quality near the project area can be evaluated by reviewing relevant air pollution concentrations within the Basin. The BAAQMD operates several air monitoring stations withinthe Basin each measuring several differentair pollutants. The closest air monitoring station to the project site is located in the City of Livermore approximately4miles to the east of the project site. Table 3.2-1 summarizes 2012 through 2014 air monitoring data published by the ARB, which is the most recent time-period available. The Livermore monitoring station does not measure PM10 or carbon monoxide. The nearest PM10 andcarbon monoxide monitoring site is located in SanJose, approximately 24 miles southwest of the project site. The data show that during the past few years, the project area has exceeded the stateand/or federal ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 ambient air quality standards. Table 3.2-1: Air Quality Monitoring Summary Air Pollutant Location Averaging Time Item 2012 20132014 Ozone 1 HourMax 1 Hour (ppm)0.1020.096 0.093 Days > StateStandard 0.09 ppm) 2 3 0 8 HourMax 8 Hour (ppm)0.0900.077 0.080 Days > StateStandard 0.07 ppm) 4 2 7 Days > National Standard 0.075 ppm) 3 1 4 Carbon monoxide8 HourMax 8 Hour (ppm)1.86ID ID Max 1 Hour (ppm)2.66ID ID Days > StateStandard (9.0 ppm) 0 0 0 Days > National Standard 9 ppm) 0 0 0 Nitrogen dioxide AnnualAnnual Average (ppm) 0.0100.011 0.010 1 HourMax 1 Hour(ppm)0.0520.051 0.048 Days > StateStandard 0.18 ppm) 0 0 0 Inhalable coarse particles (PM10) Annual Annual Average (µg/m3)18.822.220.0 24 Hour 24 Hour (µg/m3)59.658.154.7 Days > State Standard (50 g/m3) 1 5 1 Days > National Standard 150 µg/m3) 0 0 0 City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-4 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-1 (cont.): Air Quality Monitoring Summary Air Pollutant Location Averaging Time Item 2012 20132014 Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Annual Annual Average (µg/m3) 9.111.88.4 24 Hour 24 Hour (µg/m3).384.577 .604 Days > National Standard 35 µg/m3) 2 4 2 Notes: exceed ppm = parts per million m3 = micrograms per cubic meter ID = insufficient data ND = no data max = maximum StateStandard = California Ambient Air Quality Standard National Standard = National Ambient Air Quality Standard Ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and PM2.5 data from Livermore-793 RinconAvenue Station. PM10 andcarbon monoxide data from San Jose-Jackson Street Station. Sources: California Air Resources Board 2014. Local Sources of Air Pollution Exhaust gas frommotor vehicles that travel along the nearby roadways constitute a major source of ambient air pollutants in the project area. Nearby sources of air pollution includeInterstate 580 I-580) immediately adjacent to the southernboundary of the project site. There are also several stationary sources located within and near the project site. The project site is also located near several local sources of air pollutants. Two permitted sources are located within 1,000 feet: Terraces Home Owner’s Association (Facility Identification No. 1135) and a City of Dublin generatorlocated at 4800 Fallon Road (Facility Identification No. 1589). Sensitive Receptors The BAAQMD definesreceptors to include residential dwellings, includingapartments, houses, and condominiums; schools, colleges, anduniversities; daycare centers and hospitals, andsenior-care facilities. The nearest sensitive receptorsare residences located within 130 feet to the north of the project site. In addition, because project is a medical facility, it would also be considered a sensitive receptor. Attainment Status The EPA and the ARB designate air basins whereambient air quality standards are exceeded as nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitiveattainment designation, they are considered “unclassified.” National nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards. Each standard has a different definition, or “form” of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the federal 8-hour CO standard is not to be exceeded morethan once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if nomore than one8-hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual PM2.5 standard is City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-5 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx met if the three-year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard. The currentattainment designations for the Basin are shown in Table 3.2-2. The Basin is designated as nonattainment for the state ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, standards, nonattainment for the national ozone and PM2.5 standards, and unclassified for the national PM10. Table 3.2-2: San FranciscoBay Area Air Basin Attainment Status Pollutant State Status National Status Ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon monoxide Attainment Attainment Nitrogen dioxide Attainment Attainment Sulfur dioxide Attainment Attainment PM10 Nonattainment Unclassified PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment Lead Attainment Attainment Sulfates Attainment No federal standards Hydrogen sulfide Unclassified Visibility-reducing particles Unclassified Source: Bay Area Air QualityManagement District, 2011. Greenhouse Gases Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as GHGs. The effect is analogous to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Common GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, ozone, and aerosols. Natural processes and humanactivities emit GHGs. The presence of GHGs in the atmosphere affects the earth’s temperature. It is believed that emissions from human activities, such as electricityproduction andvehicle use, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmospherebeyond the level of naturally occurringconcentrations. Climate change is driven by forcings and feedbacks. Radiative forcing is the difference between the incoming energy and outgoing energy in the climate system. Positive forcingtends to warm the surface while negative forcing tends to cool it. Radiative forcing values are typically expressed in wattsper square meter. A feedback is a climate process that can strengthen or weaken a forcing. For example, when ice or snow melts, it reveals darker landunderneath which absorbs more radiation and causes more warming. The global warming potential is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere. The global warming potential of a gas is essentially a measurement of the radiative forcing of a greenhouse gas compared with the reference gas, carbon dioxide. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-6 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Individual greenhouse gas compounds have varying global warming potential and atmospheric lifetimes. Carbon dioxide, the reference gas for global warming potential, has a global warming potential of one. The calculation of the carbon dioxide equivalent isa consistent methodology for comparing greenhouse gas emissions since it normalizes various greenhouse gas emissions to a consistent metric. Methane’s warming potential of 21indicates that methane has a 21 times greater warmingaffect than carbon dioxide on a molecule per molecule basis. A carbon dioxideequivalent is the mass emissions of an individual greenhouse gas multiplied by its global warming potential. GHGs as defined by Assembly Bill (AB) 32include the following gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. GHGs as definedby AB 32 are summarized in Table 3.2-3. Table 3.2-3: Greenhouse Gases Greenhouse Gas Descriptionand Physical Properties Sources Nitrous oxide Nitrous oxide is also known as laughing gas and is acolorlessgreenhouse gas. It has a lifetime of 114 years. Its global warming potential is 310. Microbial processes in soil and water, fuel combustion, and industrial processes. Methane Methane is a flammable gas and is the main component of natural gas. It has a lifetime of 12 years. Its global warming potential is 21. Methane is extracted from geological deposits (natural gas fields). Other sources are landfills, fermentation of manure, decay of organic matter, and cattle. Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless, colorless, natural greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide’s global warming potential is 1. The concentration in 2005 was 379 parts permillion (ppm), which is an increase of about 1.4 ppm per year since 1960. Natural sources includedecomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources are from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Chlorofluorocarbons These are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. They are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). Global warming potentials range from 3,800 to 8,100. Chlorofluorocarbons were synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaningsolvents. They destroy stratospheric ozone. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer prohibited their production in 1987. HydrofluorocarbonsHydrofluorocarbons are a group of GHGs containing carbon, chlorine, and at least one hydrogen atom. Global warming potentials range from 140 to 11,700. Hydrofluorocarbons are synthetic manmade chemicals used as a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons in applications such as automobile air conditioners and refrigerants. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-7 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-3 (cont.): Greenhouse Gases Greenhouse Gas Descriptionand Physical Properties Sources PerfluorocarbonsPerfluorocarbons have stable molecularstructures and only break down by ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers aboveEarth’s surface. Because of this, they have long lifetimes, between 10,000and 50,000 years. Global warmingpotentials range from 6,500 to 9,200. Two main sources of perfluorocarbons are primary aluminum production and semiconductormanufacturing. Sulfur hexafluoride Sulfur hexafluoride is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has a lifetime of 3,200 years. It has a high global warming potential, 23,900. This gas is manmade and used for insulation in electric power transmission equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas. Sources: United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. TheState has begun the process of addressing pollutants referred to as short-lived climate pollutants. Senate Bill 605, approved by the Governor on September14, 2014, requires the ARB to complete a comprehensivestrategy to reduce emissions of short-livedclimate pollutants by January 1, 2016. ARB will complete an emission inventory of these pollutants, identify researchneeds, identify existing and potential new control measures that offer co-benefits, and coordinate with other state agencies and districts to develop measures. The short-lived climate pollutants include three main components: black carbon, fluorinated gases, and methane. Fluorinated gases and methaneare already included in the California GHG inventory. Black carbon has not beenincluded in past GHG inventories; however, ARB will include it in its comprehensivestrategy. Ozone is anothershort-livedclimate pollutant that will be part of the strategy. Ozone affects evaporation rates, cloud formation, and precipitation levels. Ozone is not directly emitted so its precursor emissions volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) on a regional scale and CH4 on a hemispheric scale will be subject of the strategy. Black carbon isa component of fine particulate matter. Black carbon is formed by incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuels, and biomass. Sources of black carbon within a jurisdiction may include exhaust from diesel trucks, vehicles, and equipment, as well as smoke from biogenic combustion. Biogenic combustion sources of black carbon include the burning of biofuels used for transportation, the burning of biomass for electricity generation and heating, prescribed burning of agricultural residue, and natural and unnatural wildfires. Black carbon is not a gas but anaerosol— particles or liquid droplets suspended in air. Black carbon only remains in the atmosphere for days to weeks, unlike other GHGs that can remain in the atmosphere for years. Black carbon can be deposited on snow, where it absorbs sunlight, reduces sunlight reflectivity, and hastens snowmelt. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-8 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Direct effects include absorbing incoming and outgoing radiation; indirectly, black carbon can also affect cloud reflectivity, precipitation, and surface dimming (cooling). Global warmingpotentials for black carbon were not definedby the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Fourth Assessment Report. The ARB has identified a global warming potential of 3,200 usinga 20-year time horizon and 900 usinga 100-year time horizon from the IPCC Fifth Assessment. Sources of black carbon are already regulated by ARB, and air district criteria pollutant and toxic regulations that control fine particulate emissions from diesel engines and other combustion sources. Additional controls on the sources of black carbon specifically for their GHG impacts beyondthose required for toxic and fine particulates are not likely to be needed. Water vapor is also considered a GHG. Watervapor is an important component of the climate system and is not regulated. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into theair. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle. Water vapor feedback canalso amplify the warmingeffect of other greenhouse gases such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere. Although there couldbe health effects resulting from changes in the climate and the consequences that these changes can bringabout, inhalation of GHGs at levels currently in the atmosphere would not result in adverse health effects, with the exception of ozone and aerosols (particulate matter). The potential health effects of ozone and particulate matter are discussed in criteria pollutant analyses. At veryhigh indoor concentrations (not at levels existing outside), carbon dioxide, methane, sulfur hexafluoride, and some chlorofluorocarbons can cause suffocation, as the gases can displace oxygen. Climate Change Climate change is a change in the average weather of the earth that is measured by alterations in wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Thesechanges are assessed using historical records of temperature changes occurring in the past, such as during previous ice ages. Many of the concernsregarding climate change use this data to extrapolate a level of statistical significance specificallyfocusing ontemperature records from the last150 years (the Industrial Age) that differ from previous climate changes in rate and magnitude. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change constructed several emission trajectories of GHG needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that global mean temperature change from 1990 to 2100, given six scenarios, could range from 1.1 degrees Celsius (°C) to 6.4°C. Regardless of analytical methodology, global average temperatures and sea levels are expected to rise underall scenarios. In California, climate change may result in consequences such as the following (from CCCC 2006 and Moser et al. 2009). City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-9 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx A reduction in the quality and supply of water from the Sierra snowpack. If heat-trapping emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada springsnowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent. This can lead to challenges in securing adequate water supplies. It can also lead to a potential reduction in hydropower. Increased risk of large wildfires. If rain increases as temperatures rise, wildfires in the grasslands and chaparral ecosystems of southern Californiaare estimated to increase by approximately 30 percent toward the end of the 21st century because more winter rain will stimulate the growth of more plant “fuel” available to burn in the fall. In contrast, a hotter, drier climate could promote up to 90 percent more northern California fires by the end of the centuryby drying out and increasing the flammability of forest vegetation. Reductions in the quality and quantity of certainagricultural products. The crops and products likely to be adversely affected include wine grapes, fruit, nuts, and milk. Exacerbation of air quality problems. If temperatures rise to the mediumwarming range, there couldbe 75 to 85 percent more days with weather conducive to ozone formation in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, relative to today’s conditions. Thisis more thantwice the increase expected if rising temperatures remain in the lower warming range. A rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residences. During the past century, sea levels alongCalifornia’s coasthave risen about seven inches. If heat- trapping emissions continue unabated andtemperatures rise into the higheranticipated warming range, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. Damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment. An increase in infections, disease, asthma, and other health-related problems. A decrease in the health and productivity of California’s forests. 3.2.3 - Regulatory Framework Air pollutants are regulated at the national, state, and air basin level; each agency has a different level of regulatory responsibility. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates at the national level. ARB regulates at the state leveland BAAQMD regulates at the Air Basin level. Federal and State The EPA handles global, international, national, and interstate airpollution issues and policies. The EPA sets national vehicle and stationary source emission standards, oversees approval of all State Implementation Plans, provides research and guidance for air pollution programs, and sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards, also known as federal standards or national standards. There are national standards for six common air pollutants, called criteriaair pollutants, whichwere identified from provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1970. The criteria pollutants are: City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-10 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Ozone Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) Nitrogen dioxide Carbon monoxide (CO) Lead Sulfur dioxide The national standards were set to protect public health, including that of sensitive individuals; thus, the standards continue to change as more medical researchis available regarding the health effects of the criteria pollutants. Primary national standards are the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, as discussed in Ambient Air Quality Standards summary prepared by the ARB. A State Implementation Plan is a document preparedby each statedescribing existing air quality conditionsand measures that will be followed to attain and maintainnational standards. The State Implementation Plan for the State of California is administered by the ARB, which has overall responsibility for statewide air quality maintenance and air pollution prevention. The ARB also administersCalifornia Ambient Air Quality Standards for the 10 air pollutants designated in the California Clean Air Act. The 10 state air pollutants are the six national standards listed above as well as the following: visibility-reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and vinylchloride. The national andstate ambient airquality standards, the mostrelevant effects, the properties, and sources of the pollutants are summarized in Table 3.2-4. Air Pollutants Forreasons described below in the Regulatory Framework section, the criteria pollutants of greatest concern for the project area are ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. A brief description of adverse health impacts is provided below. Ozone Ozone is not emitted directly into the air but is formed by a photochemical reaction in the atmosphere. Ozone precursors, which includereactive organic compounds (ROC) and NOx, react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. Because photochemicalreaction rates depend on the intensity of ultravioletlight and air temperature, ozone is primarily a summer air pollution problem. Often, the effects of emitted ROC and NOx are felt a distance downwind of the emission sources. Ozone is subsequentlyconsidered a regional pollutant. Ground-level ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. Ozone can irritate lung airways and cause inflammation much like a sunburn. Other symptoms include wheezing, coughing, pain when taking a deep breath, and breathing difficulties during exercise or outdoor activities. People with respiratory problems are most vulnerable, but even healthy people who areactive outdoors can be affectedwhen ozone levels are high. Chronicozone exposure can induce morphological (tissue) changes throughout the respiratory tract, particularly at the junction of the conducting airways and the gas exchange zone in the deeplung. Anyone who spends time outdoors in the summer is at risk, particularlychildren and other people who are more active outdoors. Even at very low levels, ground-level ozone triggers a variety of health problems, City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-11 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx including aggravated asthma, reduced lung capacity, and increased susceptibility to such respiratory illnesses as pneumonia and bronchitis. Ozone also damages vegetation and ecosystems. It leads to reduced agricultural crop and commercial forest yields; reduced growth and survivability of tree seedlings; and increased susceptibility to diseases, pests, and other stresses such as harsh weather. In the United States alone, ozone is responsible for an estimated $500 million in reduced crop production each year. In addition, ozone causes damage to buildings, rubber, and some plastics. Ozone isa regional pollutant, as the reactions forming it take place over time, and it materializes downwind from the sources of the emissions. As a photochemical pollutant, ozone is formed only during daylight hours underappropriate conditions, but is destroyed throughout the day and night. Thus, ozone concentrations varydepending upon both the time of day and the location. Even in pristine areas, some ambient ozone forms from natural emissions that are not controllable. This is termed background ozone. The average background ozone concentrations near sea levelare in the range of 0.015 to 0.035 parts per million (ppm), with a maximum of about 0.04 ppm. Reactive Organic Gases Reactive organic gases (ROGs) are defined as any compound of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participate in atmosphericphotochemical reactions. ROG consist of nonmethane hydrocarbons and oxygenatedhydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are organiccompounds that contain only hydrogen and carbonatoms. Nonmethane hydrocarbons are hydrocarbons that do not contain the unreactive hydrocarbon methane. Oxygenated hydrocarbons are hydrocarbons with oxygenated functional groups attached. It should be noted that there are no state or national ambient air quality standards for ROC because they are not classified as criteria pollutants. They are regulated, however, because a reduction in ROG emissions reduces certain chemical reactions that contribute to the formulation of ozone. ROG also are transformed into organic aerosols in the atmosphere, which contribute to higher PM10 levels and lower visibility. Nitrogen Oxides During combustion of fossil fuels, oxygen reacts with nitrogen to produce nitrogen oxides or NOx. This occurs primarily in motor vehicle internal combustion engines and fossil fuel-fired electric utility facilities and industrial boilers. The pollutant NOx is a concern because it is anozone precursor, which means that it helps form ozone. When NOx and ROC are released in the atmosphere, they can chemically react with one another in the presence of sunlight and heat to form ozone. NOx canalso be a precursor to PM10 and PM2.5. Because NOx and ROC are ozone precursors, the health effects associated with ozone (as discussed above) are also indirect health effects associated with significant levels of NOx and ROC emissions. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-12 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) PM is particulate matter in the air that includes a mixture of solids and liquid droplets. Some particlesare emitted directly; others are formed in the atmosphere when other pollutants react. PM is so small that they can get into the lungs, potentially causing serious health problems. PM10 is 10 microns in diameter, smaller than the width of a human hair. PM2.5 is 2.5 microns in diameter and consists of “fine” particles. These fine particles are so small they can be detected only with an electron microscope. Sources of fine particles include all types of combustion, including motor vehicles, power plants, residential wood burning, forest fires, agricultural burning, and some industrial processes. These particles come in many sizes and shapes and can be made up of hundreds of different chemicals. Some particles, known as primary particles, are emitted directly from a source, such as construction sites, unpaved roads, fields, smokestacks, or fires. Others form in complicated reactions in the atmosphere from chemicalssuch as sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides that are emitted from power plants, industrial activity, and automobiles. These particles, known as secondary particles, make up most of the fine particle pollution in the United States. Particleexposure can lead to a variety of health effects. For example, numerous studies link particle levels to increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits—and even to death from heart or lung diseases. Bothlong- and short-term particle exposures have been linked to health problems. Long-term exposures, such as those experienced by people living for many years in areas with high particle levels, have been associated with problems such as reduced lung function, the development of chronic bronchitis, and even premature death. Short-term exposures to particles (hours or days) can aggravate lung disease, causing asthmaattacks andacute bronchitis, andmay increase susceptibility to respiratoryinfections. In people with heart disease, short-term exposures have been linked to heart attacks and arrhythmias. Healthy children andadults have not been reported to suffer serious effects from short-term exposures, although they may experience temporary minor irritation whenparticle levels areelevated. Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO)is of less concern in the Air Basin because it isclassified as an attainment area. CO is acolorless, odorless gas that is formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely. It isa component of motor vehicle exhaust, which contributes about 56 percent of all CO emissions nationwide. Othernon-road engines and vehicles (such as constructionequipment and boats) contribute about 22 percent of all CO emissions nationwide. Higher levels of CO generally occur in areas with heavy traffic congestion. In cities, 85 to 95 percent of all CO emissions maycome from motor vehicle exhaust. Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes (such as metals processing and chemical manufacturing), residential wood burning, and natural sourcessuch as forest fires. Woodstoves, gas stoves, cigarette smoke, and unvented gas and kerosene space heaters are sources of CO indoors. Motor vehicles are the dominant source of CO emissions in most areas. CO is described as having only a local influence because it dissipates quickly. High CO levels develop primarily during winter, when periods of light winds combine with the formation of ground-level temperature inversions typically fromthe evening through early morning). These conditions result in reduced dispersion of City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-13 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx vehicle emissions. Because CO is a product of incomplete combustion, motor vehicles exhibit increased CO emission rates at low air temperatures. High CO concentrations occur in areas of limited geographic size, sometimes referred to as hot spots. Since CO concentrations are strongly associated with motor vehicle emissions, high CO concentrations generally occur in the immediate vicinity of roadways with high traffic volumes and traffic congestion, activeparking lots, and in automobile tunnels. Areas adjacent to heavily traveled and congested intersections are particularly susceptible to high CO concentrations. CO is a publichealth concern because it combines readily with hemoglobin, reducing the amount of oxygen transported in the bloodstream. The health threat from relatively low levels of CO is most serious for those who suffer from such heart-related diseases as angina, clogged arteries, or congestive heart failure. For a person with heart disease, asingleexposure to CO at low levels may cause chest pain and reduce that person’s ability to exercise; repeated exposures may contribute to other cardiovascular effects. High levels of CO can affect even healthy people. People who breathe high levels of CO can develop vision problems, reduced ability to work or learn, reducedmanual dexterity, and difficulty performing complex tasks. At extremelyhigh levels, CO is poisonous and can cause death. Toxic Air Contaminants Inaddition to the criteria pollutants, discussed below, toxic air contaminants (TACs), also known as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), are another group of pollutants of concern. A TAC is defined as an airpollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs areusually present in minute quantities in the ambientair; however, their high toxicity or health risk may posea threat to public health even at low concentrations. In general, for those TACs that may cause cancer, there arethresholdsset by regulatory agencies below which adverse health impacts are not expected to occur. This contrasts with the criteria pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which the state andfederalgovernments have set ambient air quality standards. According to the California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality, the majority of the estimated health risk from TACs for the State of California can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important of which is diesel particulate matter (DPM) from diesel-fueled engines. Diesel Particulate Matter The ARB identified PM emissions from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC in August 1998 under California’s TAC program. TheState of California, after a 10-year research program, determined in 1998 that DPM from diesel-fueled engines is a human carcinogen and that chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure to DPM poses a chronic (long-term) health risk. According to ARB’s 2013 Almanac, on-road diesel-fueled vehicles contribute approximately 42 percent of the statewide total inventory, with an additional 55 percent attributed to other mobile sourcessuch as construction and miningequipment, agricultural equipment, and transport refrigerationunits. The remaining DPM inventory was generated by stationary point sources and aggregated stationary sources. Ci t y o f D u b lin K a is e r D u bl in M e d ic a l C e n t e r P r o je c t Dr a f t E I R Air Fi r st C a r b o n S o lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 D ra ft E IR 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 S e c0 3 0 2 A Q G H G d o cx Ta b l e 3 2 4 D e s c r i p t i o n o f A i r P o l l u t a n t s Ai r P o l l u t a n t Av e r a g i n g Ti m e Ca l i f o r n i a St a n d a r d Fe d e r a l St a n d a r d a Mo s t R e l e v a n t E f f e c t s f r o m P o llu t a n t Ex p o s u r e Pr o p e r t i e s Oz o n e 1 H o u r 0 0 9 p p m I r r i t a t e r e s p i r a t o r y s y s t e m r e d u c e l u n g fu n c t i o n b r e a t h i n g p a t t e r n c h a n g e s re d u c t i o n o f b r e a t h i n g c a p a c i t y i n f l a m e an d d a m a g e c e l l s t h a t l i n e t h e l u n g s ma k e l u n g s m o r e s u s c e p t i b l e t o i n f e c t i o n ag g r a v a t e a s t h m a a g g r a v a t e o t h e r ch r o n i c l u n g d i s e a s e s c a u s e p e r m a n e n t lu n g d a m a g e s o m e i m m u n o l o g i c a l ch a n g e s i n c r e a s e d m o r t a l i t y r i s k ve g e t a t i o n a n d p r o p e r t y d a m a g e Oz o n e i s a p h o t o c h e m i c a l po l l u t a n t a s i t i s n o t e m i t t e d di r e c t l y i n t o t h e a t m o s p h e r e bu t i s f o r m e d b y a c o m p l e x se r i e s o f c h e m i c a l r e a c t i o n s be t w e e n v o l a t i l e o r g a n i c co m p o u n d s V O C n i t r o u s ox i d e s N O x), a n d s u n l i g h t Oz o n e i s a r e g i o n a l p o l l u t a n t th a t i s g e n e r a t e d o v e r a l a r g e ar e a a n d i s t r a n s p o r t e d a n d sp r e a d b y t h e w i n d Oz o th u in t o at m so u V O so u ve h 8 H o u r 0 0 7 0 pp m 0. 0 7 5 p p m Ca r b o n mo n o x i d e C O 1 H o u r 2 0 p p m 3 5 p p m R a n g e s d e p e n d i n g o n e x p o s u r e s l i g h t he a d a c h e s n a u s e a a g g r a v a t i o n o f a n g i n a pe c t o r i s c h e s t p a i n a n d o t h e r a s p e c t s o f co r o n a r y h e a r t d i s e a s e d e c r e a s e d ex e r c i s e t o l e r a n c e i n p e r s o n s w i t h pe r i p h e r a l v a s c u l a r d i s e a s e a n d l u n g di s e a s e i m p a i r m e n t o f c e n t r a l n e r v o u s sy s t e m f u n c t i o n s p o s s i b l e i n c r e a s e d r i s k to f e t u s e s d e a t h CO i s a c o l o r l e s s o d o r l e s s t o x i c ga s C O i s s o m e w h a t s o l u b l e i n wa t e r t h e r e f o r e r a i n f a l l a n d fo g c a n s u p p r e s s C O c o n d i t i o n s CO e n t e r s t h e b o d y t h r o u g h t h e lu n g s d i s s o l v e s i n t h e b l o o d re p l a c e s o x y g e n a s a n at t a c h m e n t t o h e m o g l o b i n a n d re d u c e s a v a i l a b l e o x y g e n i n t h e bl o o d CO co m co n di e So u ex h m e ma wo so u 8 H o u r 9 0 p p m 9 p p m Ni t r o g e n di o x i d e b N O 2) 1 H o u r 0 1 8 p p m 0 1 0 0 p p m P o t e n t i a l t o a g g r a v a t e c h r o n i c r e s p i r a t o r y di s e a s e a n d r e s p i r a t o r y s y m p t o m s i n se n s i t i v e g r o u p s r i s k t o p u b l i c h e a l t h im p l i e d b y p u l m o n a r y a n d e x t r a pu l m o n a r y b i o c h e m i c a l a n d c e l l u l a r ch a n g e s a n d p u l m o n a r y s t r u c t u r a l ch a n g e s c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o a t m o s p h e r i c di s c o l o r a t i o n i n c r e a s e d v i s i t s t o h o s p i t a l fo r r e s p i r a t o r y i l l n e s s e s Du r i n g c o m b u s t i o n o f f o s s i l fu e l s o x y g e n r e a c t s w i t h ni t r o g e n t o p r o d u c e n i t r o g e n ox i d e s N O x ( N O N O 2, N O 3, N2O, N 2O3, N 2O4, a n d N 2O5). NO x i s a p r e c u r s o r t o o z o n e PM 10 a n d P M 2. 5 f o r m a t i o n N O x ca n r e a c t w i t h c o m p o u n d s t o fo r m n i t r i c a c i d a n d r e l a t e d sm a l l p a r t i c l e s a n d r e s u l t i n P M re l a t e d h e a l t h e f f e c t s NO ve h en g el e bo i qu i NO ro a hi g st a t An n u a l 0 0 3 0 pp m 0. 0 5 3 p p m Ci t y o f D u b lin K a is e r D u bl in M e d ic a l C e n t e r P r o je c t Dr a f t E I R Air Fi r st C a r b o n S o lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 D ra ft E IR 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 S e c0 3 0 2 A Q G H G d o cx Ta b l e 3 2 4 c o n t D e s c r i p t i o n o f A i r P o l l u t a n t s Ai r P o l lu t a n t Av e r a g i n g Ti m e Ca lif o r n i a St a n d a r d Fe d e r a l St a n d a rd a Mo s t R e le v a n t E f fe c t s f r o m P o llu t a n t Ex p o s u r e Pr o p e r t ie s Su l f u r di o x i d e c S O 2) 1 H o u r 0 2 5 p p m 0 0 7 5 p p m Br o n c h o c o n s t r i c t i o n a c c o m p a n i e d b y sy m p t o m s w h i c h m a y i n c l u d e w h e e z i n g sh o r t n e s s o f b r e a t h an d c h e s t t i g h t n e s s du r i n g e x e r c i s e o r p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y i n pe r s o n s w i t h a s t h m a S o m e p o p u l a t i o n ba s e d s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e m o r t a l i t y an d m o r b i d i t y e f f e c t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h f i n e pa r t i c l e s s h o w a s i m i l a r a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h am b i e n t s u l f u r d i o x i d e l e v e l s I t i s n o t cl e a r w h e t h e r t h e t w o p o l l u t a n t s a c t sy n e r g i s t i c a l l y o r o n e p o l l u t a n t a l o n e i s th e p r e d o m i n a n t f a c t o r Su l f u r d i o x i d e i s a c o l o r l e s s pu n g e n t g a s A t l e v e l s g r e a t e r th a n 0 5 p p m t h e g a s h a s a st r o n g o d o r s i m i l a r t o r o t t e n eg g s S u l f u r o x i d e s S O x) i n c l u d e su l f u r d i o x i d e a n d s u l f u r tr i o x i d e S u l f u r i c a c i d i s f o r m e d fr o m s u l f u r d i o x i d e w h i c h c a n le a d t o a c i d d e p o s i t i o n a n d c a n ha r m n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s a n d ma t e r i a l s A l t h o u g h s u l f u r di o x i d e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s h a v e be e n r e d u c e d t o l e v e l s w e l l be l o w s t a t e a n d f e d e r a l st a n d a r d s f u r t h e r r e d u c t i o n s ar e d e s i r a b l e b e c a u s e s u l f u r di o x i d e i s a p r e c u r s o r t o s u l f a t e an d P M 10 Hu m fo s s or e maem of s al s o di m su l f re m di s s re a an d le v e be l 3 H o u r 0 5 p p m 24 H o u r 0 0 4 p p m 0 1 4 f o r ce r t a i n ar e a s An n u a l 0 0 3 0 p p m f o r ce r t a i n ar e a s Pa r t i c u l a t e ma t t e r P M 10 24 h o u r 5 0 g m 3 15 0 g m 3 S h o r t t e r m e x p o s u r e h o u r s d a y s ir r i t a t i o n o f t h e e y e s n o s e t h r o a t co u g h i n g p h l e g m c h e s t t i g h t n e s s sh o r t n e s s o f b r e a t h a g g r a v a t e e x i s t i n g lu n g d i s e a s e c a u s i n g a s t h m a a t t a c k s an d a c u t e b r o n c h i t i s t h o s e w i t h h e a r t di s e a s e c a n s u f f e r h e a r t a t t a c k s a n d ar r h y t h m i a s L o n g t e r m e x p o s u r e r e d u c e d l u n g fu n c t i o n c h r o n i c b r o n ch i t i s c h a n g e s i n lu n g m o r p h o l o g y d e a t h Su s p e n d e d p a r t i c u l a t e m a t t e r i s a m i x t u r e o f s m a l l p a r t i c l e s t h a t co n s i s t o f d r y s o l i d f r a g m e n t s dr o p l e t s o f w a t e r o r s o l i d c o r e s wi t h l i q u i d c o a t i n g s T h e pa r t i c l e s v a r y i n s h a p e s i z e a n d co m p o s i t i o n P M 10 r e f e r s t o pa r t i c u l a t e m a t t e r t h a t i s be t w e e n 2 5 a n d 1 0 m i c r o n s i n di a m e t e r o n e m i c r o n i s o n e mi l l i o n t h o f a m e t e r P M 2. 5 re f e r s t o p a r t i c u l a t e m a t t e r t h a t is 2 5 m i c r o n s o r l e s s i n di a m e t e r a b o u t o n e t h i r t i e t h th e s i z e o f t h e a v e r a g e h u m a n ha i r St a or w el e sp a pr o de m an d pr o el e er o di s p or t so u ex h Se c re a Me a n 2 0 g m 3 — Pa r t i c u l a t e ma t t e r P M 2. 5 24 H o u r 3 5 g m 3 An n u a l 1 2 g m 3 1 2 0 g m 3 Vi s i b i l i t y re d u c i n g pa r t i c l e s 8 H o u r S e e n o t e b e l o w d Ci t y o f D u b lin K a is e r D u bl in M e d ic a l C e n t e r P r o je c t Dr a f t E I R Air Fi r st C a r b o n S o lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 D ra ft E IR 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 S e c0 3 0 2 A Q G H G d o cx Ta b l e 3 2 4 c o n t D e s c r i p t i o n o f A i r P o l l u t a n t s Ai r P o l lu t a n t Av e r a g i n g Ti m e Ca lif o r n i a St a n d a r d Fe d e r a l St a n d a rd a Mo s t R e le v a n t E f fe c t s f r o m P o llu t a n t Ex p o s u r e Pr o p e r t ie s Su l f a t e s 2 4 H o u r 2 5 g m 3 a D e c r e a s e i n v e n t i l a t o r y f u n c t i o n b a g g r a v a t i o n o f a s t h m a t i c s y m p t o m s c a g g r a v a t i o n o f c a r d i o p u l m o n a r y di s e a s e d v e g e t a t i o n d a m a g e e d e g r a d a t i o n o f v i s i b i l i t y f p r o p e r t y d a m a g e Th e s u l f a t e i o n i s a p o l y a t o m i c an i o n w i t h t h e e m p i r i c a l fo r m u l a S O 4 2 S u l f a t e s o c c u r in c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h m e t a l an d o r h y d r o g e n i o n s M a n y su l f a t e s a r e s o l u b l e i n w a t e r Su l f th r o ox i d Ca l su l f of g Le a d e 30 d a y 1 5 g m 3 L e a d a c c u m u l a t e s i n b o n e s s o f t t i s s u e an d b l o o d a n d c a n a f f e c t t h e k i d n e y s li v e r a n d n e r v o u s s y s t e m I t c a n c a u s e im p a i r m e n t o f b l o o d f o r m a t i o n a n d n e r v e co n d u c t i o n b e h a v i o r d i s o r d e r s m e n t a l re t a r d a t i o n n e u r o l o g i c a l i m p a i r m e n t le a r n i n g d e f i c i e n c i e s a n d l o w I Q s Le a d i s a s o l i d h e a v y m e t a l t h a t ca n e x i s t i n a i r p o l l u t i o n a s a n ae r o s o l p a r t i c l e c o m p o n e n t Le a d e d g a s o l i n e w a s u s e d i n mo t o r v e h i c l e s u n t i l a r o u n d 19 7 0 L e a d c o n c e n t r a t i o n s h a v e no t e x c e e d e d s t a t e o r f e d e r a l st a n d a r d s a t a n y m o n i t o r i n g st a t i o n s i n c e 1 9 8 2 Le a sm e ma la r g at m St a du s wi t wa s ph y Qu a r t e r 1 5 g m 3 Ro l l i n g 3 mo n t h av e r a g e 0 1 5 g m 3 Vi n y l ch l o r i d e e 24 H o u r 0 0 1 p p m S h o r t t e r m e x p o s u r e t o h i g h l e v e l s o f vi n y l c h l o r i d e i n t h e a i r c a u s e s c e n t r a l ne r v o u s s y s t e m e f f e c t s s u c h a s d i z z i n e s s dr o w s i n e s s a n d h e a d a c h e s Ep i d e m i o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s o f o c c u p a t i o n a l l y ex p o s e d w o r k e r s h a v e l i n k e d v i n y l ch l o r i d e e x p o s u r e t o d e v e l o p m e n t o f a ra r e c a n c e r l i v e r a n g i o s a r c o m a a n d h a v e su g g e s t e d a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n ex p o s u r e a n d l u n g a n d b r a i n c a n c e r s Vi n y l c h l o r i d e o r c h l o r o e t h e n e is a c h l o r i n a t e d h y d r o c a r b o n an d a c o l o r l e s s g a s w i t h a m i l d sw e e t o d o r I n 1 9 9 0 A R B id e n t i f i e d v i n y l c h l o r i d e a s a to x i c a i r c o n t a m i n a n t a n d es t i m a t e d a c a n c e r u n i t r i s k fa c t o r Moma an d pi p an d be co n le f t la n be e se w wa s Ci t y o f D u b lin K a is e r D u bl in M e d ic a l C e n t e r P r o je c t Dr a f t E I R Air Fi r st C a r b o n S o lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 D ra ft E IR 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 S e c0 3 0 2 A Q G H G d o cx Ta b l e 3 2 4 c o n t D e s c r i p t i o n o f A i r P o l l u t a n t s Ai r P o l lu t a n t Av e r a g i n g Ti m e Ca lif o r n i a St a n d a r d Fe d e r a l St a n d a rd a Mo s t R e le v a n t E f fe c t s f r o m P o llu t a n t Ex p o s u r e Pr o p e r t ie s Hy d r o g e n su l f i d e 1 H o u r 0 0 3 p p m H i g h l e v e l s o f h y d r o g e n s u l f i d e c a n c a u s e im m e d i a t e r e s p i r a t o r y a r r e s t I t c a n ir r i t a t e t h e e y e s a n d r e s p i r a t o r y t r a c t a n d ca u s e h e a d a c h e n a u s e a v o m i t i n g a n d co u g h L o n g e x p o s u r e c a n c a u s e pu l m o n a r y e d e m a Hy d r o g e n s u l f i d e H 2 S i s a fl a m m a b l e c o l o r l e s s p o i s o n o u s ga s t h a t s m e l l s l i k e r o t t e n e g g s Ma an a ap p so u An t th e co n Vo l a t i l e o r g a n i c co m p o u n d s V O C Th e r e a r e n o s t a t e o r fe d e r a l s t a n d a r d s f o r VO C s b e c a u s e t h e y a r e no t c l a s s i f i e d a s c r i t e r i a po l l u t a n t s Al t h o u g h h e a l t h b a s e d s t a n d a r d s h a v e no t b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d f o r V O C s h e a l t h ef f e c t s c a n o c c u r f r o m e x p o s u r e s t o h i g h co n c e n t r a t i o n s b e c a u s e o f i n t e r f e r e n c e wi t h o x y g e n u p t a k e I n g e n e r a l co n c e n t r a t i o n s o f V O C s a r e s u s p e c t e d t o ca u s e e y e n o s e a n d t h r o a t i r r i t a t i o n he a d a c h e s l o s s o f c o o r d i n a t i o n n a u s e a an d d a m a g e t o t h e l i v e r t h e k i d n e y s a n d th e c e n t r a l n e r v o u s s y s t e m M a n y V O C s ha v e b e e n c l a s s i f i e d a s t o x i c a i r co n t a m i n a n t s Re a c t i v e o r g a n i c g a s e s R O G s or V O C s a r e d e f i n e d a s a n y co m p o u n d o f c a r b o n ex c l u d i n g c a r b o n m o n o x i d e ca r b o n d i o x i d e c a r b o n i c a c i d me t a l l i c c a r b i d e s o r c a r b o n a t e s an d a m m o n i u m c a r b o n a t e th a t p a r t i c i p a t e s i n a t m o s p h e r i c ph o t o c h e m i c a l r e a c t i o n s Al t h o u g h t h e r e a r e s l i g h t di f f e r e n c e s i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f RO G s a n d V O C s t h e t w o t e r m s ar e o f t e n u s e d i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y PM Be n z e n e Th e r e a r e n o a m b i e n t ai r q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s f o r be n z e n e Sh o r t t e r m a c u t e e x p o s u r e o f h i g h d o s e s fr o m i n h a l a t i o n o f b e n z e n e m a y c a u s e di z z i n e s s d r o w s i n e s s h e a d a c h e s e y e ir r i t a t i o n s k i n i r r i t a t i o n a n d r e s p i r a t o r y tr a c t i r r i t a t i o n a n d a t h i g h e r l e v e l s l o s s of c o n s c i o u s n e s s c a n o c c u r L o n g t e r m c h r o n i c o c c u p a t i o n a l e x p o s u r e o f h i g h do s e s h a s c a u s e d b l o o d d i s o r d e r s le u k e m i a a n d l y m p h a t i c c a n c e r Be n z e n e i s a V O C I t i s a c l e a r o r co l o r l e s s l i g h t y e l l o w v o l a t i l e hi g h l y f l a m m a b l e l i q u i d w i t h a ga s o l i n e l i k e o d o r T h e E P A h a s cl a s s i f i e d b e n z e n e a s a G r o u p A” c a r c i n o g e n Be n fr o m ve h an d Be n pa i an d na t tw o pr i m ex p Ci t y o f D u b lin K a is e r D u bl in M e d ic a l C e n t e r P r o je c t Dr a f t E I R Air Fi r st C a r b o n S o lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 D ra ft E IR 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 S e c0 3 0 2 A Q G H G d o cx Ta b l e 3 2 4 c o n t D e s c r i p t i o n o f A i r P o l l u t a n t s Ai r P o l lu t a n t Av e r a g i n g Ti m e Ca lif o r n i a St a n d a r d Fe d e r a l St a n d a rd a Mo s t R e le v a n t E f fe c t s f r o m P o llu t a n t Ex p o s u r e Pr o p e r t ie s Di e s e l p a r t i c u l a t e m a t t e r D P M Th e r e a r e n o a m b i e n t ai r q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s f o r DP M So m e s h o r t t e r m a c u t e e f f e c t s o f D P M ex p o s u r e i n c l u d e e y e n o s e t h r o a t a n d lu n g i r r i t a t i o n c o u g h s h e a d a c h e s l i g h t he a d e d n e s s a n d n a u s e a S t u d i e s h a v e li n k e d e l e v a t e d p a r t i c l e l e v e l s i n t h e a i r t o in c r e a s e d h o s p i t a l a d m i s s i o n s e m e r g e n c y ro o m v i s i t s a s t h m a a t t a c k s a n d pr e m a t u r e d e a t h s a m o n g t h o s e s u f f e r i n g fr o m r e s p i r a t o r y p r o b l e m s H u m a n st u d i e s o n t h e c a r c i n o g e n i c i t y o f D P M de m o n s t r a t e a n i n c r e a s e d r i s k o f l u n g ca n c e r a l t h o u g h t h e i n c r e a s e d r i s k ca n n o t b e c l e a r l y a t t r i b u t e d t o d i e s e l ex h a u s t e x p o s u r e Di e s e l P M i s a s o u r c e o f P M 2. 5 di e s e l p a r t i c l e s a r e t y p i c a l l y 2 5 mi c r o n s a n d s m a l l e r D i e s e l ex h a u s t i s a c o m p l e x m i x t u r e o f th o u s a n d s o f p a r t i c l e s a n d g a s e s th a t i s p r o d u c e d w h e n a n en g i n e b u r n s d i e s e l f u e l Or g a n i c c o m p o u n d s a c c o u n t f o r 80 p e r c e n t o f t h e t o t a l pa r t i c u l a t e m a t t e r m a s s w h i c h co n s i s t s o f c o m p o u n d s s u c h a s hy d r o c a r b o n s a n d t h e i r de r i v a t i v e s a n d p o l y c y c l i c ar o m a t i c h y d r o c a r b o n s a n d th e i r d e r i v a t i v e s F i f t e e n po l y c y c l i c a r o m a t i c hy d r o c a r b o n s a r e c o n f i r m e d ca r c i n o g e n s a n u m b e r o f w h i c h ar e f o u n d i n d i e s e l e x h a u s t Di e of a po l en v ma co m di e en g su c co n el e va r co n No t e s pp m p a r t s p e r m i l l i o n c o n c e n t r a t i o n g m 3 = m i c r o g r a m s p e r c u b i c m e t e r A n n u a l A n n u a l A r i t h m e t i c Me a n 3 0 d a y 3 0 d a y a v e r a g e a F e d e r a l s t a n d a r d r e f e r s t o t h e p r i m a r y na t i o n a l a m b i e n t a i r q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d o r t h e l e v e l s o f a i r q u a l i t y n e c e s s a r y w i t h a n ad e q u a t e m a r g i n o f s a f e t y t o pr st a n d a r d s l i s t e d a r e p r i m a r y s t a n d a r d s e x c e p t f o r 3 H o u r S O 2, w h i c h i s a s e c o n d a r y s t a n d a r d A s e c o n d a r y s t a n d a r d i s t h e l e v e l o f a i r q u a l i t y n e c e s s a r y t o p an y k n o w n o r a n t i c i p a t e d a d v e r s e e f f e c t s o f a p o l l u t a n t b T o a t t a i n t h e 1 h o u r n i t r o g e n d i o x i d e n a t i o n a l s t a n d a r d t h e 3- y e a r a v e r a g e o f t h e a n n u a l 9 8 t h p e r c e n t i l e o f t h e 1 h o u r d a i l y ma x i m u m c o n c e n t r a t i o n s a t e pa r t s p e r b i l l i o n 0 1 0 0 p p m c O n J u n e 2 2 0 1 0 a n e w 1 h o u r S O 2 s t a n d a r d w a s e s t a b l i s h e d a n d t h e e x i s t i n g 2 4 h o u r a n d a n n u a l p r i m ar y s t a n d a r d s w e r e r e v o k e d T o a t t a i n t h e 1 h o u r n av e r a g e o f t h e a n n u a l 9 9 t h p e r c e n t i l e o f t h e 1 h o u r d a i l y m a x i m u m co n c e n t r a t i o n s a t e a c h s i t e m u s t n o t e x c e e d 7 5 p p b T h e 1 9 7 1 S O 2 n a t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s ef f e c t u n t i l o n e y e a r a f t e r a n a r e a i s d e s i g n a t e d f o r t h e 2 0 1 0 s t a n d a r d e x c e p t t h a t i n a r e a s d e s i g n a t e d n o n a t t a i n m e n t f o r t h e 1 9 7 1 s t a n d a r d s t h e 1 9 7 1 s t a im p l e m e n t a t i o n p l a n s t o a t t a i n o r m a i n t a i n t h e 2 0 1 0 s t a n d a r d s a r e a p p r o v e d d V i s i b i l i t y r e d u c i n g p a r t i c l e s In 1 9 8 9 A R B c o n v e r t e d b o t h t h e g e n e r a l s t a t e w i d e 10 m i l e v i s i b i l i t y s t a n d a r d a n d t h e L a k e T a h o e 3 0 m i l e v i s i b i l i t y s t a n d a r d t o ar e e x t i n c t i o n o f 0 2 3 p e r k i l o m e t e r a n d e x t i n c t i o n o f 0 0 7 p e r k il o m e t e r f o r t h e s t a t e w i d e a n d L a k e T a h o e A i r B a s i n s t a n d a rd s r e s p e c t i v e l y e A R B h a s i d e n t i f i e d l e a d a n d v i n y l c h l o r i d e a s t o x i c a i r c o n t a m i n a n t s w i t h n o t h r e sh o l d l e v e l o f e x p o s u r e f o r a d v e r s e h e a l t h ef f e c t s d e t e r m i n e d T h e s e a c t im p l e m e n t a t i o n o f c o n t r o l m e a s u r e s a t l e v e l s b e l o w t h e a m b i e n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s s p e c i f i e d f o r t h e s e p o ll u t a n t s So u r c e o f e f f e c t s p r o p e r t i e s a n d s o u r c e s S o u t h C o a s t A i r Q u a l i t y M a n a g e m e n t D i s t r i c t 2 0 0 7 C a l i f o r n i a E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i on A g e n c y 2 0 0 2 C a l i f o r n i a A i r R e s o En v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 a n d 2 0 1 2 N a t i o n a l T o x i c o l o g y P r o g r a m 2 0 1 1 S o u r c e o f s t a n d a r d s C a l i f or n i a A i r R e s o u r c e s B o a r d 2 0 1 3 City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-19 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx State of California ARB Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles. On July 26, 2007, the ARB adopted a regulation to reducediesel particulate matter and NOx emissions from in-use (existing) off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California. Such vehicles are used in construction, mining, and industrial operations. The regulation limits idling to no more than five consecutive minutes, requires reporting and labeling, andrequires disclosure of the regulationupon vehicle sale. The ARB is enforcing that part of the rule with fines up to $10,000 per day for each vehicle in violation. Performance requirements of the rule are based on a fleet’s average NOx emissions, which can be met by replacing older vehicles with newer, cleaner vehicles or by applying exhaust retrofits. The regulation was amended in 2010 to delay the original timeline of the performancerequirements making the first compliance deadline January 1, 2014 for large fleets (over 5,000 horsepower), 2017 for medium fleets (2,501-5,000 horsepower), and 2019 for small fleets (2,500 horsepower or less). Local Bay Area Air Quality Management District The agency for air pollution control for the Basin is the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources andmaintains air qualitymonitoring stations throughout the Basin. BAAQMD, in coordination with Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments, is also responsible for developing, updating, and implementing the Bay Area Clean Air Plan for the Basin. A clean air plan isa plan prepared and implemented by an airpollution district for a county or region designated as nonattainment of the national and/or CAAQS. The term non-attainment area is used to refer to an air basin where one or more ambient air quality standards are exceeded. The clean air plan, once submitted to and approved by the ARB, becomes an integral part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Inaddition, the BAAQMD updated its California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines Guidelines) in 2010 to assist local jurisdictions and lead agencies in complying with the requirements of CEQA regarding potentially adverse impacts to air quality. These CEQA Guidelines were updated in June 2010 to include reference to thresholds of significance (Thresholds) adopted by the BAAQMD Board on June 2, 2010. The Guidelines were further updated in May 2011. This assessment is based on BAAQMD’s 2010 CEQA thresholds. BAAQMD’s adoption of its 2010 thresholds have been challenged in the lawsuit of California Building Industry Association v. BAAQMD which is pendingbefore the California Supreme Court (Supreme Court Case No. S213478). The Supreme Courtgranted review on the issue of whether CEQA requires the analysis of the impacts of the environmenton the project. The Court of Appealdecision upheld BAAQMD’s adoption of the thresholds. The issue pending before the Supreme Court is not directly related to the scientific basis of BAAQMD’s analysis of what levels of pollutants should be deemedsignificant. The scientific and evidentiary basis supporting the BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds are set forthin the studies anddocuments in BAAQMD’s record for adoption of the thresholds, including, butnot limited to, the OptionsandJustification Report (dated October 2009) prepared by BAAQMD. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 (Thresholds of Significance), the City exercises its own discretion to use the significance thresholds in the BAAQMD’s 2011 CEQA thresholds based on substantial evidence contained in BAAQMD’s record for adoption of the thresholds (which is reliedon and City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-20 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx incorporatedherein). Accordingly, this assessment uses the 2010 thresholdsand methodologies from BAAQMD’s May 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to determine the potential impacts of the project on the existing environment. The significance thresholds used in this analysis are based on BAAQMD standards and as set forth in Table 3.2-5 below. Current Air Quality Plans A State Implementation Plan (SIP) is a federal requirement; each state prepares one to describe existing airquality conditions and measures that will be followed to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards. In addition in California, state ozonestandards have planning requirements. However, state PM10 standardshave no attainment planning requirements, but air districts must demonstrate that all measures feasible for the areahave been adopted. Ozone Plans Because the Air Basinis nonattainment for the federal and state ozonestandards, the District prepared an Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan to satisfy the federal 1-hour ozone planning requirement and a Clean Air Plan to satisfy the state 1-hour ozone planning requirement. The EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standardand adopted an 8-hour ozone standard. The District will address the new federal8-hour ozone planningrequirements once they are established. On September 15, 2010, the District adopted thefinal Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, and certified its Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The 2010 Clean Air Plan was preparedby the District in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments. The 2010 Clean Air Plan builds from and incorporates components of the District’s 2005 Ozone Strategy, and identifies how the Air Basin will achieve compliance with the state 1-hour air quality standard for ozone as expeditiously as practicableand how the region will reduce transport of ozone and ozone precursors to neighboring air basins. The 2010 Clean Air Plan serves to: Update the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act to implement “all feasible measures” to reduce ozone. Provide a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter (PM), air toxics, and greenhouse gases in asingle, integratedplan. Review progress in improving air quality in recent years. Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010 to 2012 timeframe. Particulate Matter Plans The Air Basin is designated nonattainment for the state PM10 and PM2.5 standards, but it is currently unclassified for the federal PM10 standardand nonattainment for federal PM2.5 standards. The EPA lowered the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3 in 2006, and designated the Air Basin as nonattainment for the new PM2.5 standard effective December14, 2009. On December 8, 2011, the ARB submitted a “clean data finding” request to the EPA on behalf of the Bay Area. If the clean data finding request is approved, then EPA guidelines provide that the region City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-21 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx can fulfill federal PM2.5 SIP requirements by preparing either a redesignation request and a PM2.5 maintenance plan, or a “clean data” SIP submittal. Because peak PM2.5 levels can vary from year to year based onnatural, short-term changes in weather conditions, the BAAQMD believes that it would be premature to submit a redesignation request and PM2.5 maintenance plan at this time. Therefore, the BAAQMD will prepare a “clean data” SIP to address the required elements, including: An emission inventory for primary PM2.5, as well as precursors to secondary PM formation Amendments to the BAAQMD’s New Source Review regulation to address PM2.5 Rules The BAAQMD establishes andadministers a program of rulesand regulations that are air plans, as describedabove, to attain and maintain state and national airquality standards. The rules and regulations that apply to these projectsinclude but are not limited to the following: Regulation8, Rule 3. Architectural Coatings. This rule governs the manufacture, distribution, and sale of architectural coatings and limits the reactive organic gases content in paints and paint solvents. Although thisrule does not directly apply to the project, it does dictate the ROG content of paint available for use during the construction. Regulation8, Rule 15. Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts. Although thisrule does not directly apply to the project, it does dictate the reactive organic gases content of asphalt available for use during the construction through regulating the sale and use of asphalt and limitsthe ROG content in asphalt. Greenhouse Gas Emissions International Climate change is a global issue; therefore, many countriesaround the world have made an effort to reduce greenhouse gases. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 1988, the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organizationestablished the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to assess the scientific, technicaland socio economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. United Nations. On March 21, 1994, the United States joined a number of countries around the world in signing the United NationsFrameworkConvention on Climate Change. Under the Convention, governmentsgather and share information on greenhouse gas emissions, national policies, and best practices; launch national strategies for addressing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financialand technological support to developing countries; andcooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change. KyotoProtocol. The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrializedcountries and the European community for reducing GHG City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-22 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx emissions at average of 5 per cent against 1990 levels over the 5-year period 2008–2012. The Convention (as discussed above) encouraged industrializedcountries to stabilize emissions; however, the Protocol commits them to do so. Developed countries have contributed more emissions over the last 150 years; therefore, the Protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” In 2001, President George W. Bush indicated that he would not submit the treaty to the United States Senate for ratification, which effectively ended American involvement in the Kyoto Protocol. In December2009, international leaders met in Copenhagen to address the future of international climate change commitments post-Kyoto. No binding agreement was reached in Copenhagen; however, the Committee identified the long-term goal of limitingthe maximum global average temperature increase to nomore than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, subject to a review in 2015. The United Nations Climate Change Committeeheld additional meetings in Durban, South Africa in November 2011; Doha, Qatar in November 2012; and Warsaw, Poland in November 2013. The meetings are gradually gaining consensus among participants on individual climate change issues. On September 23, 2014, more than 100 Heads of State and Government and leaders from the private sectorand civil society metat the Climate Summit in New York hosted by the United Nations. At the Summit, heads of government, business, and civil society announced actions in areas that would have the greatest impacton reducing emissions, includingclimate finance, energy, transport, industry, agriculture, cities, forests, and building resilience. Government leaders also committed to an ambitious and universal climate agreement for adoption at the December 2015 meetingheld in Paris. 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference. The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conferencewas held in Paris, France, from November 30 to December 12, 2015. It was the 21st yearly session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the 1992 United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 11th session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (Wikipedia 2015). The conference negotiated the Paris Agreement, a global agreement on the reduction of climate change, thetext of which represented a consensus of the representatives of the 196 parties attending it. The agreement will become legally binding if joined by at least 55 countries that together represent at least55 percent of global greenhouse emissions. Such parties will need to sign the agreement in New York between April 22, 2016 and April 21, 2017 and adopt it within their own legal systems (through ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession). Thekey result was an agreement to set a goal of limiting global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius (°C) compared with pre-industrial levels. The agreement calls for zero net anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to be reached during the second half of the 21st century. In the adopted version of the Paris Agreement, the parties will also "pursue efforts to" limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. The 1.5°C goal will require zeroemissions sometime between 2030 and 2050, according to some scientists. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-23 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx National Greenhouse Gas Endangerment. Massachusetts v. EPA (Supreme Court Case 05-1120) was argued before the United States Supreme Court on November 29, 2006, in which it was petitioned that the EPA regulate four greenhouse gases, includingcarbon dioxide, under Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. A decision was made on April 2, 2007, in which the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The Court held thatthe Administratormust determine whether emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to airpollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to makea reasoneddecision. OnDecember 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regardinggreenhouse gases under section202(a) of the Clean Air Act: Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds thatthe current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens publichealth and welfare. These findings do not impose requirements on industry or other entities. However, this wasa prerequisite for implementing GHG emissions standards for vehicles, as discussed in the section Clean Vehicles” below. After a lengthy legal challenge, the United States Supreme Courtdeclined to review an Appeals Court ruling that upheld the EPA Administrator findings. CleanVehicles. Congress first passed the Corporate Average FuelEconomy law in 1975 to increase the fuel economy of cars and light duty trucks. The law has become more stringent over time. On May 19, 2009, President Obama put in motion a new national policy to increase fuel economy for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States. On April 1, 2010, the EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration announced a joint final rule establishing a national program that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars andtruckssold in the United States. The first phase of the national program would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They require these vehicles to meet an estimatedcombined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon if the automobileindustry were to meet this carbondioxide level solely through fuel economy improvements. Together, these standards would cut carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 960 million metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2012-2016). The EPA and the National Highway Safety Administration issued final rules on a second-phase joint rulemaking establishing national standards for light-duty vehicles for model years 2017 through 2025 in August2012. The new standards for model years 2017 through 2025 apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles. The final standards are projected to result in an average industry City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-24 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx fleetwide level of 163 grams/mile of carbondioxide (CO2) in model year2025, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if achieved exclusively through fuel economy improvements. The EPA and the United States Department of Transportation issued final rules for thefirst national standards to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and buses on September 15, 2011, effectiveNovember 14, 2011. For combinationtractors, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards that begin in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 20- percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption by the 2018 model year. For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the agencies are proposing separategasoline and diesel truck standards, which phase in starting in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 10-percent reduction for gasolinevehicles and a 15-percent reduction for diesel vehicles by the 2018 model year (12 and 17 percent respectively if accounting for air conditioning leakage). Lastly, for vocational vehicles, the engine and vehicle standards would achieve up to a 10-percent reduction in fuel consumption and carbondioxide emissions from the 2014 to 2018 model years. Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, passed in December2007, requires the establishment of mandatory greenhouse gas reporting requirements. On September 22, 2009, the EPA issued the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. The rule requires reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from large sources and suppliers in the United States, and is intended to collect accurate and timely emissions data to inform future policy decisions. Under the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial greenhouse gases, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of greenhouse gas emissions are required to submit annual reports to the EPA. New Source Review. The EPA issued a final rule onMay 13, 2010 that establishes thresholds for greenhouse gases that define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programsare required for new and existing industrial facilities. This final rule “tailors” the requirements of these Clean Air Act permitting programs to limit which facilities will be required to obtain Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V permits. In the preamble to the revisions to the federal code of regulations, EPA states: This rulemaking is necessarybecause without it the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V requirements would apply, as of January 2, 2011, at the 100 or 250 tons per year levels provided under the Clean Air Act, greatly increasing the number of required permits, imposing undue costs on small sources, overwhelming the resources of permitting authorities, and severely impairing the functioning of the programs. EPA is relieving these resource burdens by phasing in the applicability of these programs to greenhouse gas sources, starting with the largestgreenhouse gas emitters. This rule establishes two initial steps of the phase- in. The rule also commits the agency to take certain actions on future steps addressing smaller sources, but excludes certain smaller sources from Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V permitting for greenhouse gas emissions until at least April 30, 2016. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-25 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx The EPA estimates that facilities responsible for nearly 70 percent of the national greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources will be subject to permitting requirements underthis rule. This includes the nation’s largestgreenhouse gas emitters—power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities. Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for NewStationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units. As required by a settlement agreement, the EPA proposed new performance standards for emissions of carbon dioxide for new, affected, fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating unitson March 27, 2012. New sources greater than 25 megawatt would be required to meet an output based standard of 1,000pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour, based on the performance of widely used natural gas combined cycle technology. Cap and Trade. Cap and trade refers to a policy tool where emissions are limited to a certain amount and can be traded, or provides flexibilityonhow the emitter can comply. Successful examples in the United States include the Acid Rain Program and the NOx Budget Trading Program and Clean Air Interstate Rule in the northeast. There is no federal GHG cap-and-trade program currently; however, some stateshave joined to create initiatives to provide a mechanism for cap and trade. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is an effort to reduce GHGs among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Each state caps carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, auctionscarbon dioxide emission allowances, and invests the proceeds in strategic energyprograms thatfurther reduce emissions, save consumers money, createjobs, and build a clean energy economy. The Initiative began in 2008. The Western Climate Initiative partner jurisdictions have developed a comprehensive initiative to reduce regional GHG emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. The partners were originally California, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. However, Manitoba and Ontario are not currentlyparticipating. California linked with Quebec’s cap and trade system on January 1, 2014, and joint offset auctions have taken place in 2015. California LegislativeActions to Reduce GHGs TheState of California legislature has enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation. Some legislation such as the landmark AB 32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions. Other legislation such as Title 24 and Title 20 energy standards were originallyadopted for other purposes such as energy and water conservation, but also provide GHG reductions. This section describes the major provisions of the legislation. AB 32. The California StateLegislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Greenhouse gases” as defined under AB 32 include carbon dioxide, methane, NOx, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. SinceAB 32 was enacted, a seventhchemical, nitrogen trifluoride, has also been added to the list of GHGs. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of GHGs. AB 32 states the following: City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-26 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of airquality problems, a reduction in the quality andsupply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the naturalenvironment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health- related problems. The ARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 MMTCO2e on December 6, 2007 (ARB 2007). Therefore, emissions generated in California in 2020 are required to be equal to or less than 427 MMTCO2e. Emissions in 2020 in a “business as usual”(BAU) scenario were estimated to be 596 MMTCO2e, whichdo not account for reductions from AB 32 regulations (ARB 2008). At that level, a 28 percent reduction was required to achieve the 427 million MTCO2e 1990 inventory. In October 2010, ARB prepared an updated 2020forecast to account for the recession and slower forecasted growth. The forecasted inventory without the benefits of adoptedregulation is now estimated at 545 million MTCO2e. Therefore, under the updated forecast, a 21.7 percent reduction from BAU is required to achieve 1990 levels (ARB 2010). Progress in Achieving AB 32 Targets and Remaining ReductionsRequired TheState has made steady progress in implementing AB 32 and achieving targets included in Executive Order S-3-05. The progress is shown in updated emission inventoriesprepared by ARB for 2000 through 2012 (ARB 2014a). TheState has achieved the Executive Order S-3-05 target for 2010 of reducing GHG emissions to 2000 levels. As shown below, the 2010emission inventory achieved this target. Also shown are the average reductions needed from all statewide sources (including all existing sources) to reduce GHG emissionsback to 1990 levels to achieve the AB 32 target. 1990: 427 million MTCO2e (AB 32 2020 target) 2000: 463 million MTCO2e (an average 8-percent reduction needed to achieve 1990 base) 2010: 450 million MTCO2e (an average 5-percent reduction needed to achieve 1990 base) 2020: 545 million MTCO2e BAU (an average 21.7-percent reduction from BAU needed to achieve 1990 base) ARB Scoping Plan. The ARB’s Climate Change ScopingPlan (ScopingPlan) contains measures designed to reduce the State’s emissions to 1990 levels by the year2020 to comply with AB 32 (ARB 2008). The Scoping Plan identifies recommended measures for multiple GHG emission sectors and the associated emission reductions needed to achieve the year2020 emissions target—each sector hasa different emission reductiontarget. Most of the measures target the transportation and electricity sectors. As stated in the ScopingPlan, the key elements of the strategy for achieving the 2020 GHG target include: Expanding andstrengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards; Achieving a statewide renewablesenergy mix of 33 percent; City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-27 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system; Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets; Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; and Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation. In addition, the Scoping Plan differentiatesbetween “capped” and “uncapped” strategies. Capped strategies are subject to the proposed cap-and-trade program. The Scoping Plan states that the inclusion of these emissions withinthe cap-and trade program will help ensure that the year2020 emission targets are met despite some degree of uncertainty in the emission reduction estimates for any individual measure. Implementation of the capped strategies is calculated to achievea sufficient amount of reductions by 2020 to achieve the emission target contained in AB 32. Uncapped strategies thatwill not be subject to the cap-and-trade emissions caps and requirements are provided as a margin of safety byaccounting for additional GHG emission reductions. The ARB approved the First Update to the ScopingPlan (Update) on May 22, 2014. The Update identifies the next steps for California’s climate change strategy. The Update shows how California continues onits path to meet the near-term 2020 GHG limit, but also sets a path toward long-term, deep GHG emission reductions. The report establishes a broad framework for continued emission reductions beyond 2020, on the path to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The Update identifies progress made to meet the near-term objectives of AB 32 and definesCalifornia’s climate change priorities and activities for the next severalyears. The Update does not set new targets for the State, but describes a path that would achieve the long term 2050 goal of Executive Order S-05-03 for emissions to decline to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 (ARB 2014). The ARB has no legislative mandate to set a target beyond the 2020 target from AB 32 or to adopt additional regulations to achieve a post-2020 target. The Update estimates that reductions averaging 5.2percent per year would be required after 2020 to achieve the 2050 goal. With no estimate of future reduction commitments fromthe State, identifying a feasiblestrategy including plans and measures to beadopted by local agencies is not currently possible. Cap and Trade Program. The Cap and Trade Programis akey element of the Scoping Plan. It sets a statewide limit on sources responsible for 85 percent of California’s greenhouse gas emissions, and establishes a price signal needed to drive long-term investment in cleaner fuelsand more efficient use of energy. The program is designed to provide covered entities the flexibility to seek out and implement the lowest cost options to reduce emissions. The program conducted its first auction in November 2012. Compliance obligations began for power plantsand large industrial sources in January 2013. Other significantmilestones include linkage to Quebec’s cap and trade system in City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-28 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx January 2014 and starting the compliance obligation for distributors of transportation fuels, natural gas, and other fuels in January 2015 (ARB 2015c). SB 375—the Sustainable Communities and Climate ProtectionAct of 2008. Passing the Senate on August30, 2008, Senate Bill (SB) 375 was signed by the Governor on September30, 2008. According to SB 375, the transportation sector is the largest contributor of GHG emissions, which emitsover 40 percent of thetotal GHG emissions in California. SB 375 states, “Without improved land use and transportation policy, California willnot be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” SB 375 does the following: it (1) requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community strategies intheir regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, (2) aligns planning for transportation and housing, and (3) creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies. Concerning CEQA, SB 375, as codified in Public Resources Code Section 21159.28 states that CEQA findings determinations for certainprojects are not required to reference, describe, or discuss (1) growth inducing impacts or (2) any project-specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light-duty truck trips generated by the project on global warming or the regional transportation network if the project: 1. Is in an area with an approved sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy that the ARB accepts as achieving the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. 2. Is consistent with that strategy (in designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies). 3. Incorporates the mitigation measures required by an applicable prior environmental document. AB 1493 Pavley Regulations and FuelEfficiency Standards. California AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required the ARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by automakers and by the EPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. On January 21, 2009, the ARB requested thatthe EPA reconsider its previous waiverdenial. On January 26, 2009, President Obama directed thatthe EPA assess whether the denial of the waiver was appropriate. On June 30, 2009, the EPA granted the waiverrequest. On September 8, 2009, the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Automobile Dealers Association sued the EPA to challenge its granting of the waiver to California for its standards. California assisted the EPA in defending the waiver decision. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied the Chamber’s petition on April 29, 2011. The EPA subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011. The standards phase in during the 2009 through 2016 model years. When fully phased in, the near- term (2009–2012) standards will result in about a 22-percent reduction compared with the 2002 fleet, and the mid-term (2013–2016) standards will result in about a 30-percent reduction. Several technologies stand out as providing significant reductions in emissions at favorable costs. These include discretevariable valve lift or camless valve actuation to optimize valve operation rather than relying on fixed valve timing and lift as has historically been done; turbocharging to boost power and City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-29 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx allow for enginedownsizing; improved multi-speed transmissions; and improved air conditioning systems that operate optimally, leak less, and/or use an alternativerefrigerant. Thesecondphase of the implementation for the Pavley bill was incorporated into Amendments to the Low-Emission Vehicle Program referred to as LEV III or the Advanced Clean Cars program. The Advanced Clean Car program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2025. The regulation will reduce GHGs from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025. The new rules will clean up gasoline and diesel-powered cars, and deliver increasing numbers of zero-emission technologies, such as full battery electric cars, newly emerging plug-in hybridelectric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell cars. The package will also ensure adequate fuelinginfrastructure is available for the increasing numbers of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles planned for deployment in California. SB 1368—Emission Performance Standards. In 2006, the StateLegislature adopted SB 1368, which was subsequently signed into law by the Governor. SB 1368 directs the California Public Utilities Commission to adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 seeks to limit carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than 5 years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant. Because of the carbon content of its fuel source, acoal-fired plant cannot meet this standard because such plants emit roughly twice as much carbon as natural gas, combined cycle plants. Accordingly, the new law will effectively prevent California’s utilitiesfrom investing in, otherwise financiallysupporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located inor out of the State. Thus, SB 1368 will lead to dramatically lower GHG emissionsassociated with California’s energy demand, as SB 1368 will effectively prohibit California utilitiesfrom purchasing power from out-of- state producers that cannot satisfy the performance standard for GHG emissions requiredby SB 1368. The California Public Utilities Commission adopted the regulations requiredby SB 1368 on August29, 2007. The regulations implementing SB 1368 establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under long-term contract to publicly owned utilities, of 1,100 lbs CO2 per megawatt-hour (MWh). SB 1078—Renewable Electricity Standards. On September 12, 2002, Governor Gray Davis signed SB 1078 requiring California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 1078 changed the duedate to 2010 instead of 2017. On November17, 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which established a Renewable Portfolio Standard target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Governor Schwarzenegger also directed the ARB (Executive Order S-21-09) to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the State’s load serving entities to meet a 33 percentrenewable energy target by 2020. The ARB Board approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010 by Resolution 10-23. SBX 7-7—The Water Conservation Act of 2009. The legislationdirects urban retail water suppliers to set individual 2020 per capita water use targetsandbegin implementing conservation measures to achieve those goals. Meetingthis statewide goal of 20percent decrease in demand will result in a City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-30 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx reduction of almost2 million acre-feet in urban water use in 2020 and related reduction in energy use for transporting and treating water. Executive OrdersRelated to GHG Emissions California’s ExecutiveBranch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs through the use of Executive Orders. Although not regulatory, they set the tone for the state andguide the actions of state agencies. Executive Order S-3-05. Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1, 2005, through Executive Order S 3-05, the following reduction targets for GHG emissions: By 2010, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels. By 2020, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. By 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80percent below 1990 levels. The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. Because this is an executive order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private sector. Executive Order S-01-07—Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The Governor signed Executive Order S 01-07 on January 18, 2007. The order mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least10 percent by 2020. In particular, the executive order established aLow Carbon Fuel Standard and directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission, the ARB, the University of California, and other agencies to developand propose protocols for measuring the “life-cycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. This analysis supportingdevelopment of the protocols was included in the State Implementation Plan for alternative fuels (State Alternative Fuels Plan adopted by California Energy Commission on December 24, 2007) and was submitted to ARB for consideration as an “early action” item under AB 32. The ARB adopted the Low CarbonFuel Standard onApril 23, 2009. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard was challenged in the United States District Court in Fresno in 2011. The court’s ruling issued on December 29, 2011 included a preliminary injunction against ARB’s implementation of the rule. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appealsstayed the injunction on April 23, 2012 pending final ruling on appeal, allowing the ARB to continue to implement andenforce the regulation. The Ninth Circuit’s decision filed September18, 2013, vacated the preliminary injunction. In essence, the court held that Low Carbon FuelStandards adopted by ARB were not in conflict with federal law. OnAugust 8, 2013, the Fifth District Court of Appeal (California) ruled ARB failed to comply with CEQA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when adopting regulations for Low Carbon Fuel Standards. In a partially published opinion, the Court of Appealreversed the trial court’s judgment and directed issuance of a writ of mandate setting aside Resolution 09-31 and two executiveorders of ARB approving Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) regulations promulgated to reduce GHG emissions. However, the court tailored its remedy to protect the public interest by allowing the LCFS regulations to remainoperative while ARB complies with the procedural requirements it failed to satisfy. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-31 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx To address the Court ruling, ARB was required to bring a new LCFS regulation to the Board for consideration in February 2015. The proposed LCFS regulation was required to contain revisions to the 2010 LCFS as well as new provisions designed to foster investments in the production of thelow- CI fuels, offer additional flexibility to regulated parties, update critical technical information, simplify and streamlineprogramoperations, and enhance enforcement. The public hearing for the new LCFS regulation was heldon February 19, 2015, and a second hearing is currently scheduled for September24, 2015. Executive Order S-13-08. Executive Order S-13-08 states that “climate change in California during the next century is expected to shift precipitation patterns, accelerate sea level rise and increase temperatures, thereby posing a serious threat to California’s economy, to the health and welfare of its population and to its natural resources.” Pursuant to the requirements in the order, the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy (California Natural Resources Agency 2009) was adopted, which is the “. . . first statewide, multi-sector, region-specific, and information-based climate change adaptation strategy in the United States.” Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying andexploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research. Executive Order B-30-15. On April 29, 2015, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued an executive order to establish a California greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The Governor's executive order aligns California's greenhouse gas reduction targets with those of leading international governments ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris late 2015. The executive order sets a new interim statewide greenhouse gas emission reductiontarget to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and directs the ARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMCO2e). The executive order also requires the state’s climateadaptation plan to be updated every three years and for the state to continue its climate change research program, among other provisions. As with Executive Order S-3-05, this executive order is not legally enforceable for local governmentsand the private sector. Legislation that would update AB 32 to make post-2020 targetsand requirements a mandate is in process in the State Legislature. California Regulations andBuilding Codes California has a long history of adopting regulations to improve energy efficiency in new and remodeled buildings. These regulations have kept California’s energy consumption relatively flat even with rapid population growth. Title 20. California Code of Regulations, Title 20: Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Sections 1601-1608: Appliance Efficiency Regulations regulates the sale of appliances in California. The Appliance EfficiencyRegulations include standards for both federallyregulated appliances and non-federally regulated appliances. Twenty-three categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. The standards within these regulations apply to appliances that are sold or offered for sale in California, except those sold wholesale in California for finalretail sale outside the stateand City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-32 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx those designed and sold exclusively for use in recreational vehicles or other mobile equipment (CEC 2012). Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards. California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologiesand methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The newest version of Title 24 was adopted by the California Energy Commission (CEC) on May 31, 2012 and became effective on July 1, 2014. Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code isa comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect January 1, 2011 and was most recentlyupdated in 2013 with provisions effective in 2013 and 2014. It does not prevent a local jurisdiction from adopting a more stringent code, as state law provides methods for local enhancements. The Code recognizes that many jurisdictions have developed existing construction and demolition ordinances, and defers to them as the ruling guidance, provided they provide a minimum 50-percent diversion requirement. The code also providesexemptions for areas not served by construction and demolition recycling infrastructure. State building code provides the minimum standard that buildings need to meet in order to be certified for occupancy. Enforcement is generally through the local building official. The California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11 code) requires: Short-term bicycle parking. If a commercial project is anticipated to generate visitor traffic, providepermanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitors’ entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5 percent of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one two-bikecapacity rack (5.106.4.1.1). Long-term bicycle parking. For buildings with over 10 tenant-occupants, provide secure bicycle parking for 5percent of tenant-occupied motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one space (5.106.4.1.2). Designated parking. Providedesignated parking in commercial projects for any combination of low-emitting, fuel-efficient andcarpool/van pool vehicles as shown in Table 5.106.5.2 (5.106.5.2). Recycling by Occupants. Provide readily accessibleareas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage and collection of nonhazardous materials for recycling. 5.410.1). Construction waste. A minimum 50-percent diversion of construction and demolition waste from landfills, increasing voluntarily to 65 and 80 percent for new homes and 80-percent for commercial projects. (5.408.1, A5.408.3.1 [nonresidential], A5.408.3.1 [residential]). All (100 percent) of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting from land clearing shall be reused or recycled (5.408.3). City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-33 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Wastewater reduction. Each building shall reduce the generation of wastewater byone of the following methods: The installation of water-conserving fixtures or Using nonpotable water systems (5.303.4). Water use savings. 20-percent mandatory reduction in indoor water use with voluntary goal standards for 30, 35 and 40-percentreductions (5.303.2, A5303.2.3 [nonresidential]). Water meters. Separate water meters for buildings in excess of 50,000 square feet or buildings projected to consume more than 1,000 gallons per day (5.303.1). Irrigation efficiency. Moisture-sensing irrigation systems for larger landscaped areas (5.304.3). Materials pollution control. Low-pollutantemitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet, vinyl flooring, and particleboard (5.404). Building commissioning. Mandatory inspections of energy systems (i.e., heat furnace, air conditioner, mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over10,000 square feet to ensure that all are working at their maximum capacityaccording to their designefficiencies 5.410.2). SB 97 and the CEQA Guidelines Update. Passed in August 2007, SB 97 added Section 21083.05 to the Public Resources Code. The code states “(a) On or before July 1, 2009, the Office of Planning and Research shall prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions as required by this division, including, butnot limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. (b) On or before January 1, 2010, the Resources Agency shall certify and adopt guidelines prepared anddeveloped by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to subdivision (a).” Section 21097 was also added to the Public Resources Code. It provided CEQA protection until January 1, 2010 for transportation projects funded by the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port SecurityBond Act of 2006 or projects funded by the Disaster Preparedness andFloodPrevention Bond Act of 2006, in stating that the failure to analyze adequately the effects of GHGs would not violate CEQA. On April 13, 2009, the Office of Planning and Research submitted to the Secretary for Natural Resources its recommended amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for addressing GHG emissions. On July 3, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency commenced the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process for certifying and adopting these amendmentspursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.05. Following a 55-day publiccomment period and two public hearings, the Natural Resources Agency proposed revisions to thetext of the proposed Guidelines amendments. The Natural Resources Agency transmitted the adopted amendments and the entire rulemaking file to the Office of Administrative Law on December 31, 2009. On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Amendments, and filedthem with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-34 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx The CEQA Amendments provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of the effects of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. The CEQA Amendments fit within the existing CEQA framework byamending existing CEQA Guidelines to reference climate change. A new section, CEQA GuidelinesSection 15064.4, was added to assist agencies in determining the significance of GHG emissions. The new sectionallows agencies the discretion to determine whether a quantitative or qualitative analysis is best for a particular project. However, little guidance is offered on the crucial next step in this assessment process—how to determine whether the project’s estimated GHG emissions are significant or cumulatively considerable. Also amended were CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.4 and 15130, which address mitigation measures and cumulative impacts respectively. GHG mitigation measures arereferenced in general terms, but no specific measures are championed. The revision to the cumulative impact discussion requirement (Section 15130) simplydirects agencies to analyze GHG emissions in an EIR when a project’s incremental contribution of emissions may becumulatively considerable, however it does not answer the question of when emissions arecumulatively considerable. Section 15183.5 permits programmatic GHG analysis and later project-specific tiering, as well as the preparation of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans. Compliance with such plans can support a determination that a project’s cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable, according to proposed Section 15183.5(b). In addition, the amendments revised Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, which focuses on Energy Conservation. The sample environmental checklist in Appendix G was amended to include GHG questions. Regional Bay Area Air Quality Management District The BAAQMD has established a Climate Action Program in 2005 to integrateclimate protection activities into existing BAAQMD programs. As part of this program, the BAAQMD developed the Climate Action Web Portal for local governments to access tools and resources for climate change activities, includingbest practices, case studies, and news and events from local governments. In addition, the BAAQMD prepared a greenhouse gas emissions inventory for the area under its jurisdiction, along with a county-levelbreakdown of greenhouse gas emissions in the basin. In 2008, the BAAQMD approved a fee on stationary airpollution sources in its jurisdiction to help defray the costs associated with the BAAQMD’s climate protection activities and programs, including environmental review, airpollution regulations, and emissions inventory development. Industrial facilities and businesses that are currently required to submit an airquality permit to operate will have a fee of 4.4 cents permetric ton of greenhouse gas emissions added to their permit bill. In addition, the BAAQMD updated its California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines in 2010 to include both numeric and qualitative greenhouse gas thresholdsandrecommended assessment methodologies for project- and plan-level analyses. However, as explained in Section 3.2.2, because of the AlamedaCounty Superior Court’s decision, the BAAQMD recommends that City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-35 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx lead agencies determine appropriate Greenhouse Gas thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. Local City of Dublin GeneralPlan The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following goals and policies that are relevant to air quality and GHG emissions: Air Quality PolicyA.1: Request that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District establish an air qualitymonitoring station in Dublin. Air Quality PolicyA.2: Require an airquality analysis for new development projects that could generate significant air emissions on a project and cumulative level. Airquality analyses shall include specificfeasible measures to reduce anticipated airquality emissions to a less-than- significant California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) level. Guiding Policy 13.3.2.A 1. Encourage the installation of alternative energy technology in new residential and commercial development. 2. Encourage designing for solar access. 3. Encourage energy efficient improvementsbe made on residential andcommercial properties. Implementing Policies 13.3.2.B 1. New development proposalsshall bereviewed to ensure lighting levels needed for a safe and secure environment are provided - utilizing the most energy-efficient fixtures (in most cases, LED lights) - while avoiding over-lighting of sites. Smart lighting technology (e.g. sensors and/or timers) shall also be employed in interior and exterior lighting applications whereappropriate. 2. Newdevelopmentprojects shall install LED streetlights in compliance with the City’s LED light standard. 3. In new commercialand residential parking lots, require the installation of conduit to serve electric vehicleparking spaces to enable the easier installation of future charging stations. 4. Encourage the installation of charging stations for commercial projectsover a certain size and any new residential project that has open parking (i.e. not individual, enclosed garages). 5. Encourage buildings (and more substantially, whole neighborhoods) to be designed along an east-west axis to maximizesolar exposure. Where feasible, require new development projects to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping and sun screens to reduce energy use; and to use regenerative energy heatingandcooling source alternatives to fossil fuels. 6. Continue to implement parking lot tree planting standards that would substantially cool parking areas and help cool the surrounding environment. Encourage landscaping conducive to solarpanels in areas whereappropriate. 7. Promote and encourage photovoltaicdemonstration projects in association with new development. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-36 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx 8. Consider creating a recognition program for commercial or residentialprojects that install large-scale solar or wind energy systems and to publicly commend and acknowledge businesses or individuals that construct or remodel buildings that save more energy than required by Title 24 or by the Cal Green Building Code. City of Dublin Climate Action Plan The City of Dublinprepared a 2010Climate Action Plan (CAP), which calculated 2010 baseline emissions inventory of GHGs for the City, as well as adopted anemission reduction goal of 20 percent below a business-as-usualscenario by 2020. The City’s efficiency measure for 2020 is projected to be4.22 MTCO2e per service populationper year, which is significantly below BAAQMD’s GHG efficiency based metric of 6.6 MT CO2e per service population per year. The 2010 CAP includes 34 reduction measures that provide a GHG reduction strategy for transportation/land use, energy, and solid waste and recycling. In 2013, the City of Dublin updated their CAP, which established a new reduction target of 15 percent below 2010 emissions by 2020. The City’s efficiency measure for 2020 under the CAP Update is projected to be 3.2 MTCO2e per service populationper year, which is significantly below BAAQMD’s GHG efficiency based metric of 6.6 MT CO2e per service population per year. The CAP also implemented an additional 11 new reduction measures. The City has determined that the reductiontarget should reduce the impacts from activities under the CAP to a less than significant level under CEQA. If a project were consistent with the applicable emissions reductiontarget, the projectwould be considered to havea less than significant impact due to GHG emissions and climate change consistent with Public Resources Code 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183.5, 15064 and15130. 3.2.4 - Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Environmental Checklist, to determine whether impacts to air quality aresignificant environmental effects, the following questionsare analyzed andevaluated. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstructimplementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to anexisting or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient airquality standard (including releasingemissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-37 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx The CEQA Guidelinesalso includes two checklistquestions pertaining to greenhouse gas emissions, listed below: Would the project: a) Generategreenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may havea significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? While the final determination of whether or not a project is significant is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the BAAQMD recommends that its quantitative and qualitative air pollution thresholds be used to determine the significance of project emissions. These thresholdsare discussed under each impact section below. BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance In June 2010, BAAQMD adopted thresholds of significance to assist in the review of projects under CEQA. These thresholds were designed to establish the level at which BAAQMD believed air pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA and were posted on BAAQMD’s website and included in the Air District’s updated CEQA Guidelines (updated May 2012). CEQA requires the analysis of potential adverse effects of a project on the environment. Potential effects of the environment on a project are legally not required to be analyzed or mitigatedunder CEQA. Table 3.2-5: BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Construction Thresholds Average Daily Emissions Operational Thresholds Average Daily Emissions Annual Average Emissions Criteria Air Pollutants ROG 54pounds/day54pounds/day 10 tons/year NOx 54pounds/day54pounds/day 10 tons/year PM10 82pounds/day82pounds/day 15 tons/year PM2.5 54pounds/day54pounds/day 10 tons/year CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) or 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) FugitiveDust Construction Dust Ordinance or other Best Management Practices Not Applicable City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-38 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-5 (cont.): BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Construction Thresholds Average Daily Emissions pounds/day) Operational Thresholds Average Daily Emissions pounds/day) Annual Average Emissions (tons/year) Greenhouse Gases GHGs – Projects other than Stationary Sources None Compliance with Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy OR 1,100 MT of CO2e/yr OR 4.6 MTCO2e/SP/yr (residents + employees) GHGs –Stationary Sources None 10,000 MT/yr Health Risks and Hazards for New Sources Excess Cancer Risk 10 per one million 10 per one million Chronic or Acute Hazard Index 1.0 1.0 Incremental annual average PM2.5 0.3 µg/m3 0.3 µg/m3 Health Risks and Hazards for Sensitive Receptors (Cumulative from All Sources within 1,000-Foot Zone of Influence) and Cumulative Thresholds for New Sources Excess Cancer Risk 100 per 1 million Chronic Hazard Index 10.0 Annual Average PM2.5 0.8 µg/m3 Accidental Release of Acutely Hazardous Air Pollutants Accidental Release of Acutely Hazardous Air Pollutants None Storage or use of acutely hazardous materials locatingnearreceptors or new receptors locating near stored or used acutely hazardous materials considered significant Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = course particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 µmor less, and PM2.5 = fine particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 µm or less. Source: BAAQMD 2010. 3.2.5 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-39 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Consistency with Air Quality Management Plan Impact AIR-1: The project may conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Impact Analysis The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently non-attainment for ozone (state and federal ambient standards) and particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) (state ambient standard). While an air quality plan exists for ozone, none currently exists for particulate matter. A projectwould be judged to conflict with or obstructimplementation of the regional air quality plan if it would result in substantial new regional emissions not foreseen in the airquality planning process. Regional emissions forecasts in the air quality plan are based on population and employment forecasts based on City and County General Plans. As discussed in Section 3.8, Land Use, the proposed project is generally consistent with land use designations andapplicable goals and policies of the City of Dublin General Plan and site zoning in terms of the volume of development that is permitted under the current “Campus Office” land use designation versus the proposed “Medical Campus” land use designation. As such, the proposed project would be considered planned growth. The proposed projectwould not result in a substantial unplanned increase in population, employment or regional growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled, so it would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the air quality plan. TheBAAQMD’s current CAP is the 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP). The 2010 CAP accounts for projections of population growth provided by Association of Bay Area Governments and vehiclemiles traveled provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and it identifies strategies to bring regional emissions into compliance with federal and state airquality standards. TheBAAQMD’s Guidance provides two criteria for determining if a plan-level project is consistent with the current AirQuality Plan (AQP) control measures. However, the BAAQMD does not provide a threshold of significance for project-level consistency analysis. Therefore, the followingcriteria will be used for determining a project’s consistency with the AQP: Criterion 1: Does the project support the primary goals of the AQP? Criterion 2: Does the project include applicable control measures from the AQP? Criterion 3: Does the projectdisrupt or hinder implementation of any AQP control measures? Criterion 1: Support Primary Goals of AQP The primary goals of the 2010 CAP, the current AQP to date, are to: Attainairquality standards; Reduce population exposure to unhealthy air and protecting public health in the Bay Area; and Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate. The project would comply with the City of Dublin General Plan, as amended, and would provide the project area with employment opportunities. As shown in Impacts AIR-2, the projectwould not City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-40 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx create alocalized violation of state or federal air quality standards for CO. As shown in Impact AIR-4, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As shown in Impact AIR-5, the project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people after incorporation of mitigation measures. However, as detailed in Impact AIR-3, operation of the projectwould exceed the BAAQMD’s regional thresholds of significance for the ozone precursors ROG and NOx after incorporation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1a and Mitigation Measures AIR-3a and AIR-3b. Therefore, the projectwould result in a significant and unavoidable impact relative to Criterion 1. Criterion 2: IncludeApplicable AQP Control Measures The 2010 Plan contains 55 control measures aimed at reducing air pollution in the Bay Area. Along with the traditional stationary, area, mobile source, and transportationcontrol measures, the 2010 Plan contains a number of newcontrol measures designed to protect the climate and promote mixed use, compact development to reduce vehicle emissions and exposure to pollutants from stationary and mobile sources. Equipment such as emergencygenerators, steam generators and boilers that may be a part of the Energy Center will be subject to BAAQMD permitting and the following stationary source control measures: Stationary Source Measure 15 – Greenhouse Gases in Permitting, Energy Stationary Source Measure 16 – New Source Review Addressing PM2.5 Stationary Source Measure 17 – New Source Review for Toxic Air Contaminants None of the 10 mobile source measures or six land use and local impact measures apply to the project. Of the transportationcontrol measures, TCM-C (Encourage Sustainable Travel Behavior), measures C-1 and C-3, and TCM-D (Support Focused Growth), measures D-1, D-2 and D-3, apply to the project. The project complies with these measures through its promotion of transportation demand management measures, inclusion of sidewalks, sufficient circulation within the project site, connection to existingroadways, and higherdensity. Relative to the energy and climate measures contained in the 2010 Plan, the projectwould be consistent with all applicable measures: Energy Efficiency: The Project applicant would be required to conform to the energy efficiency requirements of the California Building Standards Code, also known as Title 24. Specifically, the Project must implement the requirements of the most recent Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which is the current version of Title 24. The 2013 Building Efficiency Standards were adopted, in part, to meet an Executive order in the Green Building Initiative to improve the energy efficiency of buildings through aggressive standards. The 2013 Building Efficiency Standards are estimated to be 25 percent more energy efficient than the 2008 Building Efficiency Standards for residential development. When the project is built, it would be subject to the existingenergy efficiency in place at the time building permits are requested. For example, new efficiency standards will take effect in 2016, which will be even more City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-41 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx stringent than 2013 standards. When the project begins construction in 2016, it would be subject to the 2016 standards. Renewable Energy: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas service to the Project vicinity. PG&E facilities include nuclear, natural gas, and hydroelectricfacilities. PG&E’s 2012 power mix consisted of nucleargeneration (21.0 percent), large hydroelectricfacilities (11.0 percent), and renewable resources (19.0 percent), such as wind, geothermal, biomass, and small hydro. The remaining portion came from natural gas (27.0 percent), andunspecified sources (21.0percent). The Energy Center would use the electricity and natural gas from PG&E to provide power to the facilities. Urban HeatIsland Mitigation and Shade Tree Planting: The projectwould install landscaping, includingtrees, on-site as required the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. In summary, the project would comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the AQP. Criterion 3: Disrupt or Hinder Implementation of any AQP Control Measures The project would not preclude extension of a transit line or bike path, propose excessive parking beyond parking requirements, or otherwise createan impediment or disruption to implementation of any AQP control measures. Table 3.2-6 lists the relevant Clean Air Plan policies to the project and evaluates the project’s consistency with the policies. As shown below, the projectwould be consistent with applicable measures. Table 3.2-6: Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures Control Measure Project Consistency Transportation Control Measures TCM C-1: Support Voluntary Employer-Based Trip Reduction Program Consistent. The project will be required to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program prior to occupancy of Phase 1A that will work to reduce vehicle trips for that phase and subsequent phases of the project. TCM C-3: Promote Rideshare Services and Incentives Consistent. The TDMProgram implemented prior to occupancy of Phase 1A may include ridesharing and other incentives to encourage alternative transportation methods. TCM D-1: Improve Bicycle Access and Facilities Consistent. The project would provide bicycle parking in accordance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. TCM D-2: Improve Pedestrian Access and Facilities Consistent. The project will develop a pedestrian network through the project siteand connecting off-site in accordance with the zoning ordinance. TCM D-3: Support Local Land Use Strategies Consistent. The project will develop a mixture of uses that would serve localresidents and provide employment opportunities locally. This would serve to reduce vehiclemiles travelled. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-42 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-6 (cont.): Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures Control Measure Project Consistency Energy and Climate Control Measures ECM-1: Energy Efficiency Consistent. The project would be required to comply with City’s Green Building section of the Municipal Code (Section 7.94), Stateenergy efficiency standards, and the CALGreen building code. ECM-2: Renewable Energy Consistent. The project wouldobtain its energy from PG&E, which is increasing its share of renewable energy. ECM-3: Urban Heat Island Mitigation Consistent. The project would provide landscaping in accordance with the City’s zoning ordinance that would serve to reduce the urbanheat island effect. ECM-4: Shade Tree Planting Consistent. The project would provide landscaping in accordance with City standards that would include planting of shade trees. Stationary Source Measures SSM-15:Greenhouse Gases in Permitting, Energy Consistent. The Energy Center’s stationary equipment subject to BAAQMD permitting would be evaluated according to the District’s Permit Handbook. Certainenergy efficiency-related measures may be imposed as standard permit conditions to minimize the amount of GHGs emitted. SSM-16: New Source ReviewAddressing PM2.5 Consistent. The Energy Center’s stationary equipment subject to BAAQMD permitting would be evaluated for PM2.5 impacts andbest available control technology (BACT) maybe required to minimize PM2.5 emissions. SSM 17: New Source Review for Toxic Air Contaminants Consistent. The Energy Center’s stationary equipment subject to BAAQMD permitting would be evaluated for TAC impacts and toxic best available control technology (TBACT) may be required to minimize TAC emissions Conclusion Although the project would be consistent with Criteria 2 and 3, it would not be consistent with criterion 1 because of the exceedance of regional ozone precursor thresholds duringoperation. Mitigation Measure AIR-3a and AIR-3b helps to reduce ozone precursor emissions, butnot to a level of less than significant. Therefore, the project would conflict with the implementation of the AQP. The impact is significant andunavoidable. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-43 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measures AIR-3a, AIR-3b, and TRANS-1a. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significantunavoidable impact. Potential for Air Quality Standard Violation Impact AIR-2: The project may violate an airquality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected airqualityviolation. Impact Analysis This impact responds to localized criteria pollutant impacts, also known as “hotspots.” Potential localized impacts would be exceedances of state or federal standards foror carbon monoxide (CO). CO emissions are of concern during project operation because operational CO hotspots are related to increases in on-road vehicle congestion. Operational CO Hotspot Localized high levels of CO (CO hotspot) are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow moving vehicles. TheBAAQMD recommends a screening analysis to determine if a project has the potential to contribute to a CO hotspot. The screening criteria identify when site-specific CO dispersion modeling is not necessary. The projectwould result in a less than significant impact to air quality for local CO if the following screening criteria are met: The project is consistent with anapplicablecongestion managementprogram established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans; or The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affectedintersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; or The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontalmixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). The AlamedaCounty Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) serves as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Alameda County. As the CMA, the Alameda CTC must, under state law, prepare aCongestion Management Program (CMP) andupdate it every 2 years. The CMP is meant to outline the CCTA’s strategies for managing the performance of the regional transportation within the County. A CMP must contain several components: traffic level of servicestandards for State highways and principal arterials; multi-modal performance measures to evaluate current and future systems; a seven-year capitalprogram of proposed projects to maintain or improve the performance of the system or mitigate the regional impacts of land use proposed projects; a City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-44 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions; and a travel demand element that promotes transportation alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle. The Transportation Assessment prepared by Fehr & Peers identified peak-hour traffic volumes for 35 intersectionsaffected by the project. As identified in the Transportation Assessment, the maximum peak-hour intersectionvolume would occur at the Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection in the Cumulative (2040) Plus Project scenario during the PM peak hour. The estimatedcumulative traffic volume at the Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection is 10,330 PM peak-hour trips. This level of peak-hourtrips is substantially less than the BAAQMD’s second and third screening criteria of 44,000 vehicles per hour and 24,000 vehicles per hour respectively. The projectwould not result in an increase of traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour and would not increase traffic volumes at affectedintersections to more than 24,000 where vertical or horizontal mixing is substantially limited thus satisfying the last two criteria. However, as indicated in Section 3.11, Transportation, the project was found to be inconsistent with the congestion management plan, accordingly, the project is not consistent with first criteria. Therefore, a CO hotspot analysis was prepared for the project. CALINE4 is a dispersion model used to estimate the concentration of CO along roadways and intersections and is recommended by the BAAQMD for estimating potential CO hotspots. Using the CALINE4 model, potential hotspots at the intersection with the highest traffic volume in the 2040 cumulative scenario were analyzed. The CO analysis used the emission factors from the year 2017 from the ARB EMFAC 2014 database for the vehicular traffic in order to provide a conservative analysis. If the Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection would not violate the CO standard, then the other intersections would similarly not violate the CO standard. The roadway segments were not evaluated because if the intersection would not cause a CO violation, then the roadway segments, which experience greater dispersion and decreased CO concentration levels, would also not violate the CO standard. The results of the analysis show that the projectwould not cause a violation of the CO standard. The impact would be less than significant. Table 3.2-7: Carbon Monoxide Concentration at Tassajara Rd./Dublin Blvd. Intersection Scenario CO Concentrations ppm) 1-Hour Standard ppm) 8-Hour Standard ppm) Significant Impact?31Hour18Hour2StateFederal State and Federal Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Cumulative (2040) Plus Project Weekday PM) 7.4 5.2 2035 9 No Notes: 1 CALINE4 output (see Appendix B for model output) plus the highest 1-hour background concentration during the past 3 years of 2.66 ppm (Table 3.2-1). 2 The 8-hour Long Term With Project caused increment was calculated by multiplying the 1-hour CALINE4 output by0.7 persistence factor), then adding the highest 8-hour background concentration during the past 3 years of 1.86 ppm from Table 3.2-2). 3 Comparison of the 1-hour concentration to the state standard of 20 ppm and the 8-hour concentration to the state/national standard of 9ppm. Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, 2015. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-45 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx The project impact is below the state significance standard for CO concentrations, therefore; impacts would be less than significant impact. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Cumulative Criteria Pollutant Impacts Impact AIR-3: The project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project regionis nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient airquality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors). Impact Analysis This impact is related to regional air quality impacts. Non-attainment pollutants of concern for this impact are ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified regional significance thresholds, its emissions would becumulatively considerable and result in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Project construction and operational impacts are assessed separately below. Construction Emissions Construction is anticipated to begin in June 2016 and becompleted by 2035. The construction schedule utilized in the analysis represents a “worst-case” analysis scenario since emission factors for construction equipment decrease as the analysis year increases, due to improvements in technology and morestringentregulatory requirements. Therefore, construction emissions would decrease if the construction schedulemoves to later years. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represent areasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as require per CEQA guidelines. The construction emissions modeling parameters and assumptionsare provided in Appendix B. Construction activities associated with developmentactivitiescontemplated by the projectwould includesite preparation, grading, paving, buildingconstruction, and painting. Generally, the most substantial air pollutant emissions would be dust generated from site preparation and grading. If uncontrolled, these emissions could lead to both health and nuisance impacts. Construction activities would also temporarily create emissions of equipment exhaust and otherair contaminants. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-46 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Construction FugitiveDust PM10 is of concern duringconstruction because of the potential to emit fugitive dust during earth- disturbingactivities (construction fugitive dust). During construction (grading), fugitive dust (PM10) would be generated from site grading and other earth-moving activities. The majority of thisfugitive dust would remain localized and would be deposited near the project site. The BAAQMD does not have a quantitative significance threshold for fugitive dust. TheBAAQMD’s Air Quality Guidelines recommend that projects determine the significance for fugitive dustthrough application of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The project does not currently include any dust control measures, resulting in the potential for a significant impact. Therefore, it is recommended that the fugitive dust control measures identified in the BAAQMD’s Air Quality Guidelines be included to reduce localized dust impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure AIR-3a requires the application of BMPs for fugitive dust control. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3areduces the project’s construction-generated fugitive dust impact to less than significant. BAAQMD does not recommend a numerical threshold for fugitive, dust-related particulate matter emissions. Instead, BAAQMD bases the determination of significance for fugitive dust on a consideration of the control measures to be implemented. If all appropriate emissions control measures recommended by BAAQMD are implemented for a project, thenfugitive dust emissions duringconstruction are not considered significant. Therefore, without application of BMPs, this impact is potentially significant. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3a would reduce this impact to less than significant. Off-roadconstruction equipment is a large source of NOx and diesel particulate matterin the Bay Area. NOx is an ozone precursor pollutant that contributes to regional ozone formation. Diesel particulate matter contributes to elevated PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations and isa TAC. Table 3.2-8 summarizes the unmitigatedconstruction-generated emissions in annual tons. Table 3.2-9 through Table 3.2-15 provide the unmitigated average daily emissions rates per construction year for the project. Table 3.2-8: Unmitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions (Annual Tons) Component Year Air Pollutant Emissions (Total Tons) ROG NOx PM101 PM2.5 1 Phase 1A 2016 0.534.460.25 0.23 Phase 1A and Phase 1B 2017 1.735.110.28 0.26 Phase1B 2018 1.81 3.28 0.18 0.17 Phase 2 2025 0.35 2.72 0.11 0.10 2026 2.59 1.68 0.07 0.06 Phase 3 2035 0.27 1.27 0.03 0.03 2036 4.770.420.01 0.01 City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-47 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-8 (cont.): Unmitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Annual Tons) Component Year Air Pollutant Emissions (Total Tons) ROG NOx PM101 PM2.5 1 Maximum Year for Project 203620172017 2017 Notes: 1 Exhaust only ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015, Appendix B. Table 3.2-9: Unmitigated 2016 Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate) Parameter Air Pollutants ROG NOx PM101 PM2.5 1 Total Construction Emissions Total Emissions (tons)0.53 4.46 0.25 0.23 Total Emissions (pounds) 1,0608,911.8490.2 457.6 Average Daily Emissions pounds/day)2 6.93 58.25 3.20 2.99 Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Significance Threshold? No Yes No No Notes: 1 Exhaust only 2 Calculated by dividing the total pounds by 153 working days of construction for the year ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015, Appendix B. Table 3.2-10: Unmitigated 2017 Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate) Parameter Air Pollutants ROG NOx PM101 PM2.5 1 Total Construction Emissions Total Emissions (tons)1.73 5.11 0.28 0.26 Total Emissions (pounds) 3,45710,212.8561 523.6 City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-48 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-10 (cont.): Unmitigated 2017 Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate) Parameter Air Pollutants ROG NOx PM101 PM2.5 1 Average Daily Emissions pounds/day)2 16.31 48.17 2.65 2.47 Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Exhaust only 2 Calculated by dividing the total pounds by 212 working days of construction for the year. ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015, Appendix B. Table 3.2-11: Unmitigated 2018 Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate) Parameter Air Pollutants ROG NOx PM101 PM2.5 1 Total Construction Emissions Total Emissions (tons) 1.813.280.18 0.17 Total Emissions (pounds) 3,611.66,568.2359.8 337.6 Average Daily Emissions (pounds/day)2 23.3042.382.32 2.18 Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Exhaust only 2 Calculated by dividing the total pounds by 155 working days of construction for the year. ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015, Appendix B. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-49 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-12: Unmitigated 2025 Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate) Parameter Air Pollutants ROG NOx PM101 PM2.5 1 Total Construction Emissions Total Emissions (tons)0.35 2.72 0.11 0.10 Total Emissions (pounds) 697.25,435.8218.4 203.6 Average Daily Emissions pounds/day)2 2.68 20.91 0.84 0.78 Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Exhaust only 2 Calculated by dividing the total pounds by 260 working days of construction for the year. ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015, Appendix B. Table 3.2-13: Unmitigated 2026 Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate) Parameter Air Pollutants ROG NOx PM101 PM2.5 1 Total Construction Emissions Total Emissions (tons)2.59 1.68 0.07 0.06 Total Emissions (pounds) 5,178.63,350.8133.0 124.6 Average Daily Emissions pounds/day)2 23.54 15.23 0.60 0.57 Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Exhaust only 2 Calculated by dividing the total pounds by 220 working days of construction for the year. ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015, Appendix B. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-50 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-14: Unmitigated 2035 Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate) Parameter Air Pollutants ROG NOx PM101 PM2.5 1 Total Construction Emissions Total Emissions (tons) 0.27 1.27 0.03 0.03 Total Emissions (pounds) 530.22,537.653.0 50.2 Average Daily Emissions pounds/day)2 2.08 9.95 0.21 0.20 Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Exhaust only 2 Calculated by dividing the total pounds by 255 working days of construction for the year. ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015, Appendix B. Table 3.2-15: Unmitigated 2036 Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate) Parameter Air Pollutants ROG NOx PM101 PM2.5 1 Total Construction Emissions Total Emissions (tons) 4.77 0.42 0.01 0.01 Total Emissions (pounds) 9,532.4830.212.92 12.92 Average Daily Emissions pounds/day)2 42.37 3.69 0.06 0.06 Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Exhaust only 2 Calculated by dividing the total pounds by 225 working days of construction for the year ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015, Appendix B. The project would exceed the NOx threshold in 2016; therefore, mitigation requiring the use of cleaner construction equipment is incorporated into the project as Mitigation Measure AIR-3b. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-51 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Although the project would only exceed the NOx threshold in 2016, Mitigation Measure AIR-3b is also necessary to ensure health riskimpacts arereduced to a less than significantlevel. Table 3.2-16 summarizes the mitigated construction-generated emissions in annual tons. Table 3.2-17 through Table 3.2-23 provide the mitigated average daily emissions rates per construction year for the project. As shown in the tables, the mitigated construction emissions would not exceed any thresholds of significance. Table 3.2-16: Mitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions (Annual Tons) Component Year Air Pollutant Emissions (Total Tons) ROG NOx PM101 PM2.5 1 Phase 1A 2016 0.160.890.01 0.01 Phase 1A and Phase 1B 2017 1.311.020.02 0.02 Phase 1B 2018 1.540.850.01 0.01 Phase 2 20250.150.720.02 0.02 2026 2.470.530.01 0.01 Phase 3 20350.271.270.03 0.03 2036 4.770.420.01 0.01 Maximum Year for Project 203620352035 2035 Notes: 1 Exhaust only ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015, Appendix B. Table 3.2-17: 2016 Mitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate) Parameter Air Pollutants ROG NOx PM101 PM2.5 1 Total Construction Emissions Total Emissions (tons)0.16 0.89 0.01 0.01 Total Emissions (pounds) 319 1,770 29.6 28 Average Daily Emissions pounds/day)2 153 153 153 153 Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-52 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-17 (cont.): 2016 Mitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate) Parameter Air Pollutants ROG NOx PM101 PM2.5 1 Notes: 1 Exhaust only 2 Calculated by dividing the total pounds by 153 working days of construction for the year. ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015, Appendix B. Table 3.2-18: 2017 Mitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate) Parameter Air Pollutants ROG NOx PM101 PM2.5 1 Total Construction Emissions Total Emissions (tons) 1.31 1.02 0.02 0.02 Total Emissions (pounds) 2,611.42,046.633.92 32.24 Average Daily Emissions pounds/day)2 12.32 9.65 0.16 0.15 Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Exhaust only 2 Calculated by dividing the total pounds by 212 working days of construction for the year. ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015, Appendix B. Table 3.2-19: 2018 Mitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate) Parameter Air Pollutants ROG NOx PM101 PM2.5 1 Total Construction Emissions Total Emissions (tons) 1.54 0.85 0.01 0.01 Total Emissions (pounds) 3,0781,704.427.4 26 City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-53 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-19 (cont.): 2018 Mitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate) Parameter Air Pollutants ROG NOx PM101 PM2.5 1 Average Daily Emissions pounds/day)2 19.86 11.00 0.18 0.17 Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Exhaust only 2 Calculated by dividing the total pounds by 155 working days of construction for the year ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015, Appendix B. Table 3.2-20: 2025 Mitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate) Parameter Air Pollutants ROG NOx PM101 PM2.5 1 Total Construction Emissions Total Emissions (tons)0.15 0.72 0.02 0.02 Total Emissions (pounds) 303.61,449 32.4 31 Average Daily Emissions pounds/day)2 1.17 5.57 0.12 0.12 Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Exhaust only 2 Calculated by dividing the total pounds by 260 working days of construction for the year ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015, Appendix B. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-54 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-21: 2026 Mitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate) Parameter Air Pollutants ROG NOx PM101 PM2.5 1 Total Construction Emissions Total Emissions (tons) 2.47 0.53 0.01 0.01 Total Emissions (pounds) 4,947.81,054.422.8 21.6 Average Daily Emissions pounds/day)2 22.49 4.79 0.10 0.10 Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Exhaust only 2 Calculated by dividing the total pounds by 220 working days of construction for the year ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015, Appendix B. Table 3.2-22: 2035 Mitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate) Parameter Air Pollutants ROG NOx PM101 PM2.5 1 Total Construction Emissions Total Emissions (tons) 0.27 1.27 0.03 0.03 Total Emissions (pounds) 530.22,537.6 53 50.2 Average Daily Emissions pounds/day)2 2.08 9.95 0.21 0.20 Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Exhaust only 2 Calculated by dividing the total pounds by 255 working days of construction for the year. ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015, Appendix B. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-55 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-23: 2036 Mitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate) Parameter Air Pollutants ROG NOx PM101 PM2.5 1 Total Construction Emissions Total Emissions (tons)4.77 0.42 0.01 0.01 Total Emissions (lbs) 9,532.4830.212.92 12.92 Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)2 42.37 3.69 0.06 0.06 Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Exhaust only 2 Calculated by dividing the total lbs by 225 working days of construction for the year. lbs = pounds ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015, Appendix B. Operational Emissions Project operational emissions were estimated using CalEEMod version 2013.2.2. The trip generation rates are from the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the project by Fehr & Peers. Assumptions and parametersare provided in Appendix B. As shown in Table 3.2-24 through Table 3.2-35, the project would exceed both the annual and daily thresholds for NOx in 2017 and for ROG and NOx in all subsequent years. Table 3.2-24: Unmitigated Annual Operational Emissions – Phase 1A (2017) Source Annual Emissions (tons) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 0.98 < 0.01< 0.01 < 0.01 Energy 0.02 0.19 0.01 0.01 Mobile 3.84 10.15 0.13 0.12 Stationary Sources1 0.57 2.66 0.32 0.32 Total Emissions 5.41 13 0.46 0.45 Threshold of Significance 10 10 15 10 Significant Impact? No Yes No No City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-56 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-24 (cont.): Unmitigated Annual Operational Emissions – Phase 1A (2017) Source Annual Emissions (tons) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Notes ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 (CalEEMod Output for year 2017). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. Table 3.2-25: Unmitigated Daily Operational Emissions – Phase 1A (2017) (Summer) Source Daily Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 5.35 < 0.01< 0.01< 0.01 Energy 0.11 1.02 0.08 0.08 Mobile 27.86 68.34 0.91 0.83 Stationary Sources1 6.44 50.47 3.31 3.26 Total Emissions 39.76119.83 4.3 4.17 Threshold of Significance 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? No Yes No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 (CalEEMod Output for year 2017). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. Table 3.2-26: Unmitigated Daily Operational Emissions – Phase 1A (2017) (Winter) Source Daily Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 5.35 < 0.01< 0.01< 0.01 Energy 0.11 1.02 0.08 0.08 Mobile 29.68 74.78 0.91 0.84 Stationary Sources1 6.44 50.47 3.31 3.26 City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-57 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-26 (cont.): Unmitigated Daily Operational Emissions – Phase 1A (2017) Winter) Source Daily Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Total Emissions 41.58126.27 4.3 4.18 Threshold of Significance 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? No Yes No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 (CalEEMod Output for year 2017). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. Table 3.2-27: Unmitigated Annual Operational Emissions – Phase 1A and 1B (2018) Source Annual Emissions (tons) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 2.08 < 0.01< 0.01 < 0.01 Energy 0.02 0.22 0.02 0.02 Mobile 11.50 30.74 0.41 0.37 Stationary Sources1 0.57 2.66 0.32 0.32 Total Emissions 13.60 30.96 0.43 0.39 Threshold of Significance 10 10 15 10 Significant Impact? Yes Yes No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases. Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 (CalEEMod Output for year 2018). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-58 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-28: Unmitigated Daily Operational Emissions – Phase 1A and 1B (2018) Summer) Source Daily Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 11.43 < 0.01< 0.01< 0.01 Energy 0.13 1.18 0.09 0.09 Mobile 80.11198.44 2.76 2.54 Stationary Sources1 6.44 50.47 3.31 3.26 Total Emissions 98.11250.09 6.16 5.89 Threshold of Significance 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? Yes Yes No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 (CalEEMod Output for year 2018). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. Table 3.2-29: Unmitigated Daily Operational Emissions – Phase 1A and 1B (2018) (Winter) Source Daily Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 11.43 < 0.01< 0.01< 0.01 Energy 0.13 1.18 0.09 0.09 Mobile 84.95217.08 2.78 2.56 Stationary Sources1 6.44 50.47 3.31 3.26 Total Emissions 102.95268.73 6.18 5.91 Threshold of Significance 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? Yes Yes No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 (CalEEMod Output for year 2018). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-59 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-30: Unmitigated Annual Operational Emissions – Phase 1A, 1B, and 2(2026) Source Annual Emissions (tons) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 3.86 < 0.01< 0.01 < 0.01 Energy 0.26 2.38 0.18 0.18 Mobile 14.25 33.19 0.69 0.63 Stationary Sources1 0.57 2.66 0.32 0.32 Total Emissions 18.37 35.57 0.87 0.81 Threshold of Significance 10 10 15 10 Significant Impact? Yes Yes No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 (CalEEMod Output for year 2025 because CalEEMod does not have year 2026). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. Table 3.2-31: Unmitigated Daily Operational Emissions – Phase 1A, 1B, and 2 (2026) Summer) Source Daily Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 21.15 < 0.01< 0.01 < 0.01 Energy 1.44 13.05 0.99 0.99 Mobile 94.39200.02 4.36 4.02 Stationary Sources1 6.44 50.47 3.31 3.26 Total Emissions 123.42263.54 8.66 8.27 Threshold of Significance 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? Yes Yes No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 (CalEEMod Output for year 2025 because CalEEMod does not have year 2026). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-60 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-32: Unmitigated Daily Operational Emissions – Phase 1A, 1B, and 2 (2026) Winter) Source Daily Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 21.15 < 0.01< 0.01< 0.01 Energy 1.44 13.05 0.99 0.99 Mobile 97.42219.27 4.38 4.04 Stationary Sources1 6.44 50.47 3.31 3.26 Total Emissions 126.45282.79 8.68 8.29 Threshold of Significance 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? Yes Yes No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 ((CalEEMod Output for year 2025 because CalEEMod does not have year 2026). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. Table 3.2-33: Unmitigated Annual Operational Emissions – Buildout (2036) Source Annual Emissions (tons) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 7.62 < 0.01< 0.01< 0.01 Energy 0.29 2.62 0.20 0.20 Mobile 14.56 35.4 0.85 0.79 Stationary Sources1 0.57 2.66 0.32 0.32 Total Emissions 22.47 38.02 1.05 0.99 Threshold of Significance 10 10 15 10 Significant Impact? Yes Yes No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 (CalEEMod Output for year 2035 because CalEEMod does not have year 2036). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-61 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-34: Unmitigated Daily Operational Emissions – Buildout (2036) (Summer) Source Daily Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 41.78 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Energy 1.58 14.34 1.09 1.09 Mobile 97.73219.17 5.55 5.12 Stationary Sources1 6.44 50.47 3.31 3.26 Total Emissions 147.53283.99 9.95 9.47 Threshold of Significance 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? Yes Yes No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 (CalEEMod Output for year 2035 because CalEEMod does not have year 2036). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. Table 3.2-35: Unmitigated Daily Operational Emissions – Buildout (2036) (Winter) Source Daily Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 41.78 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Energy 1.58 14.34 1.09 1.09 Mobile 101.57237.61 5.58 5.14 Stationary Sources1 6.44 50.47 3.31 3.26 Total Emissions 151.37302.43 9.98 9.49 Threshold of Significance 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? Yes Yes No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 (CalEEMod Output for year 2035 because CalEEMod does not have year 2036). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. Because the project exceeds the ROG and NOx thresholds of significance, the TDM measures required by Mitigation Measure TRANS-1a would serve to reduce emissions. The TDM measures would impact Phases 1A, 2, and 3 more because they involve efforts to reduce trips associated with City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-62 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx employees from the medical facilities, however the locational measures and proximity to transit would help reducevehicle miles from Phase 1B, which is more commercial-oriented. Reductions from these measures arecalculated by CalEEMod and are based on the methodology presented in California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA’s) 2010 report, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. As shown in Table 3.2-36 through Table 3.2-47, the project would reduce its emissions of ROG and NOx, but not to a less than significant level. Table 3.2-36: Mitigated Annual Operational Emissions (2017) Source Annual Emissions (tons) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 0.98 < 0.01< 0.01< 0.01 Energy 0.02 0.19 0.01 0.01 Mobile 3.82 9.96 0.12 0.11 Stationary Sources1 0.57 2.66 0.32 0.32 Total Emissions 5.39 12.81 0.45 0.45 Threshold of Significance 10 10 15 10 Significant Impact? No Yes No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 (CalEEMod Output for year 2017). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. Table 3.2-37: Mitigated Daily Operational Emissions (2017) (Summer) Source Daily Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 5.35 < 0.01< 0.01< 0.01 Energy 0.11 1.02 0.08 0.08 Mobile 27.69 67.07 0.89 0.81 Stationary Sources1 6.44 50.47 3.31 3.26 Total Emissions 39.59118.56 4.27 4.15 Threshold of Significance 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? No Yes No No City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-63 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-37 (cont.): Mitigated Daily Operational Emissions (2017) (Summer) Source Daily Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 (CalEEMod Output for year 2017). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. Table 3.2-38: Mitigated Daily Operational Emissions (2017) (Winter) Source Daily Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 5.35 < 0.01< 0.01 < 0.01 Energy 0.11 1.02 0.08 0.08 Mobile 29.52 73.39 0.89 0.82 Stationary Sources1 6.44 50.47 3.31 3.26 Total Emissions 41.42124.88 4.28 4.16 Threshold of Significance 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? No Yes No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 (CalEEMod Output for year 2017). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. Table 3.2-39: Mitigated Annual Operational Emissions (2018) Source Annual Emissions (tons) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 2.08 < 0.01< 0.01 < 0.01 Energy 0.02 0.22 0.02 0.02 Mobile 11.43 30.17 0.40 0.37 Stationary Sources1 0.57 2.66 0.32 0.32 Total Emissions 14.1 33.05 0.74 0.71 City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-64 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-39 (cont.): Mitigated Annual Operational Emissions (2018) Source Annual Emissions (tons) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Threshold of Significance 10 10 15 10 Significant Impact? Yes Yes No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 (CalEEMod Output for year 2018). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. Table 3.2-40: Mitigated Daily Operational Emissions (2018) (Summer) Source Daily Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 11.43 < 0.01< 0.01< 0.01 Energy 0.13 1.18 0.09 0.09 Mobile 79.63194.77 2.7 2.49 Stationary Sources1 6.44 50.47 3.31 3.26 Total Emissions 97.63246.42 6.1 5.84 Threshold of Significance 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? Yes Yes No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 (CalEEMod Output for year 2018). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. Table 3.2-41: Mitigated Daily Operational Emissions (2018) (Winter) Source Daily Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 11.43 <0.01< 0.01< 0.01 Energy 0.13 1.18 0.09 0.09 Mobile 84.48213.04 2.72 2.51 City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-65 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-41 (cont.): Mitigated Daily Operational Emissions (2018) (Winter) Source Daily Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Stationary Sources1 6.44 50.47 3.31 3.26 Total Emissions 102.48264.69 6.12 5.86 Threshold of Significance 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? Yes Yes No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 (CalEEMod Output for year 2018). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. Table 3.2-42: Mitigated Annual Operational Emissions (2026) Source Annual Emissions (tons) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 3.86 < 0.01< 0.01 < 0.01 Energy 0.26 2.38 0.18 0.18 Mobile 14.15 32.6 0.67 0.62 Stationary Sources1 0.57 2.66 0.32 0.32 Total Emissions 18.84 37.64 1.17 1.12 Threshold of Significance 10 10 15 10 Significant Impact? Yes Yes No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 (CalEEMod Output for year 2025 because CalEEMod does not have year 2026). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-66 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-43: Mitigated Daily Operational Emissions (2026) (Summer) Source Daily Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 21.15 < 0.01< 0.01< 0.01 Energy 1.44 13.5 0.99 0.99 Mobile 93.78196.52 4.27 3.93 Stationary Sources1 6.44 50.47 3.31 3.26 Total Emissions 122.81260.04 8.57 8.18 Threshold of Significance 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? Yes Yes No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 (CalEEMod Output for year 2025 because CalEEMod does not have year 2026). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. Table 3.2-44: Mitigated Daily Operational Emissions (2026) (Winter) Source Daily Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 21.15 < 0.01< 0.01< 0.01 Energy 1.44 13.05 0.99 0.99 Mobile 96.82215.38 4.29 3.95 Stationary Sources1 6.44 50.47 3.31 3.26 Total Emissions 125.85278.9 8.59 8.2 Threshold of Significance 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? Yes Yes No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 (CalEEMod Output for year 2025 because CalEEMod does not have year 2026). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-67 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-45: Mitigated Annual Operational Emissions (2036) Source Annual Emissions (tons) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 7.62 < 0.01< 0.01 < 0.01 Energy 0.29 2.62 0.20 0.20 Mobile 14.09 32.63 0.77 0.71 Stationary Sources1 0.57 2.66 0.32 0.32 Total Emissions 22.57 37.91 1.29 1.23 Threshold of Significance 10 10 15 10 Significant Impact? Yes Yes No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 ((CalEEMod Output for year 2035 because CalEEMod does not have year 2036). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. Table 3.2-46: Mitigated Daily Operational Emissions (2036) (Summer) Source Daily Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 41.78 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Energy 1.58 14.34 1.09 1.09 Mobile 94.65202.23 5.00 4.61 Stationary Sources1 6.44 50.47 3.31 3.26 Total Emissions 144.45267.05 9.4 8.96 Threshold of Significance 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? Yes Yes No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 (CalEEMod Output for year 2035 because CalEEMod does not have year 2036). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-68 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-47: Mitigated Daily Operational Emissions (2036) (Winter) Source Daily Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5* Area 41.78 0.01 < 0.01< 0.01 Energy 1.58 14.34 1.09 1.09 Mobile 98.51218.96 5.03 4.63 Stationary Sources1 6.44 50.47 3.31 3.26 Total Emissions 148.31283.78 9.43 8.98 Threshold of Significance 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? Yes Yes No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10microns and less in diameter NOx = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes stationary sources from all phases Source: FirstCarbon Solutions2015 (CalEEMod Output for year 2035 because CalEEMod does not have year 2036). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2010. Conclusion With the incorporation of mitigation, the projectwould not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance during construction; however, the project would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for ROG and NOx duringoperation. The impact is significant and unavoidable. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-1a and: MM AIR-3a During construction, the followingair pollution control measures shall be implemented: Exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day, or more as needed. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roadsshall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. All vehicle speeds on unpavedroads and surfaces shall be limited to 15miles per hour. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks shall be paved as soon as possible. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-69 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Idlingtimes shall beminimized either byshuttingequipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All constructionequipment shall be maintained and properly tunedin accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in propercondition prior to operation. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number andperson to contact both at the City of Dublin and at the office of the General Contractor regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 2 business days of a complaint or issue notification. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. MM AIR-3b Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Dublin that demonstrate that all off-road diesel- powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 off-road emissions standards. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significantunavoidable impact. Sensitive Receptors Impact AIR-4: The project may have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impact Analysis This discussion addresses whether the project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of construction fugitive dust, operational CO, DPM, or other TACs of concern. Asensitive receptor is definedby the BAAQMD as the following: “Facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples include schools, hospitals and residential areas.” The project has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to TACs because it includes a new or modified source of TACs and would be located near an existing or proposed sensitive receptor. This section analyzes this potential impact of the project on the environment. Note that under the recent California Supreme Court case of CaliforniaBuildingIndustry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the court ruled thatthe existing environment’s impact of project users is not required to be analyzed under CEQA except in limited circumstances. The project site is located near an existing source of TAC emissions due to vehicle emissions on high-volume roadways located adjacent to the project site—I-580and Dublin Boulevard. The impact of this existing source of TACs City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-70 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx on the sensitive uses proposed by the project—hospital and convalescent homes—is not required to be analyzed under California BuildingIndustry Association v. Bay Area Air QualityManagement District because none of the exceptions identified in the case apply to the project. The project is not a type of use subject to any of the statutory provisions requiring such an analysis cited in the case. In addition, the projectwould not exacerbate existing conditions of TAC emissions from adjacent roadways and uses. As shown in the following TAC risk analysis to the off-site sensitive receptors, the TAC concentrations created from development of the proposed projectwould be nominal, when compared with the existing TAC emissions created from I-580 (see Table 3.2-72). Therefore, the projectwould not exacerbate the risks from existing conditions such that an analysis of the impact of the existing environmental on the project is required. The BAAQMD guidance identifies the area within 1,000 feet of the project site as the zone of influence for TACs. The project’s zone of influence was reviewed to identify locations of sensitive receptors. The following have been identified as the nearestsensitive receptors: Existing and proposed multi-family homes: 160 feet north of the project site Proposed multi-family homes: 50 feet west of the project site Existing single-familyhome: 350 feet south of the project site Construction FugitiveDust During construction (grading), fugitive dust (PM10) is generated. As detailed in Impact AIR-3, the projectwould result in a less than significant dust impact after incorporation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3a. Therefore, the project would not expose adjacent receptors to significantamounts of construction dust after incorporation of mitigation. Carbon Monoxide Emission Impacts As noted in the discussion of Impact AIR-2, the project is not expected to generate a CO hotspot. Therefore, the projectwould not expose receptors to substantial CO concentrations from operational activities. Estimation of Health Risks Associated with TAC Emissions A stand-alone health risk assessment (HRA) report was prepared for the project and is provided in Appendix B. The HRA provides detailedmethodology and modeling assumptions. The information from the HRA is summarized below. Construction Emissions Assumption The Age Sensitivity Factors (ASF) that are defined in the BAAQMD Guidance (BAAQMD, 2011; BAAQMD, 2012) and OEHHA Guidance (OEHHA 2015) have been utilized in this analysis. The ASF requirements, utilize separate emission factors over a person’s life segmented into three distinct periods with thefirst period starting at the third trimester of a pregnancy to 2 years of age, the second period is from 2 to 16 years, and the third is from 16 to 70 years old. The TAC emissions from both construction and operation of the proposed project have been calculated and segmented into each of theseperiods based on the worst-case assumption that a woman who is in her third trimester is living in one of the nearby homes and her baby will live inits parent’s home for 70 years. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-71 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Since the proposed projectwould be constructed in four distinct phases, which would result in periods where TAC emissions would becreated from both construction of one phase and from operational activities associated with other phases, the construction and operation of each phase has been analyzed separately and then added together based on the timeline matrix provided in Table 3.2-48. Construction of Phase 1A is anticipated to start mid-2016 and that is when the 70year analysis period was assumed to start. This results in the third trimester to 2 years of age period running for 2.25 years or 27 months from summer 2016 to fall 2018, the 2 to 16 years age period running for 14 years or 168 months from fall 2018 to fall 2032, and the 16 to 69.75 year age period running for 53.75 years of 645 months from fall 2032 to summer 2086. Table 3.2-48: Percent That Each Phase is Operational for Each Age Sensitivity TimePeriod Phase Construction Start/First Operational Year Percent of Time of Each Phase 3rd Trimester to 2 Years 27 months) 2 to 16 Years 168 months) 16 to 70 years 645 months) Phase 1A Construction 2016 48%0% 0% Phase 1A Operations 2017 52%100% 100% Phase 1B Construction 2017 41%0% 0% Phase 1B Operations 2018 0%100% 100% Phase 2 Construction 2025 0%13% 0% Phase 2 Operations 2026 0%87% 100% Phase 3 Construction 2035 0%0% 3% Phase 3 Operations 2036 0%0% 97% Source: First Carbon Solutions, 2015. TAC emissions from construction activities would be primarily from DPM emissionsassociated with the on-site operation of off-road diesel equipment and from the on-site and off-site operation of diesel trucks for hauling building supplies and equipment to the project site. Construction-Related On-site Off-Road Equipment EIR Section 3.2, Air Quality calculated the DPM emissions, which consists of the PM2.5 emissions created from equipment exhaust for eachphase of construction activities. Construction activities would also generate PM2.5 from fugitive dust emissions, however the BAAQMD’s Revised Draft JustificationReport on CEQA Thresholds of Significance recommends only applying quantitative thresholds to exhaust emissions and utilizing feasible fugitive dust control measures to address the fugitive dust emissions. Therefore, the PM2.5 emissions calculations were based on the same emissions rates used for the DPM calculations. A summary of the DPM calculations is shown in Table 3.2-49. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-72 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-49: Construction-Related On-site Off-Road Equipment DPM Emissions Construction Phase Construction Start (Year) Construction Duration Months/Work days) Off-Road Equipment PM2.5 Exhaust1 (Tons) Average Daily PM2.5 Exhaust pounds) Emission Rate2 grams per second) Phase 1A 2016 13/280 0.0229 0.16 3.814E-08 Phase 1B 2017 11/240 0.0202 0.17 3.803E-08 Phase 2 2025 22/480 0.0264 0.11 1.832E-08 Phase 3 2035 22/480 0.0315 0.13 5.984E-08 Notes: 1 The off-road equipment exhaust calculated by the CalEEMod model run detailed in Section 3.2 of the EIR. 2 The Emission rate is based on the average daily PM2.5 emissions converted to grams per second over a 9 hour workday and divided by the disturbed acreage for each phase (Phase 1A – 14.72 acres; Phase 1B – 15.31 acres; Phase 2 – 20.77 acres; Phase 3 – 7.59 acres) Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, 2015. The off-road equipment exhaust emissions weremodeled as an area source in the ISCST3 model with a release height of 13 feet, an initial vertical dimension of the plume of 36 feet, and the emission rates detailed above in Table 3.2-49 based on operating9 hours per day from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m.. Construction-Related TruckEmissions EIR Section 3.2, Air Quality utilized the default construction trip rates from the CalEEMod model to calculate the construction-related air emissions fromthe proposed project. Since the CalEEMod places the construction-related truck trips from all phases under buildingconstruction, the daily construction-related truck trip rates for eachphase were calculated by multiplying the daily truck trip rate by the number of building constructionworking days and then dividing the result by the total working days for each phase of construction. The calculated average daily construction truck trips for eachphase of construction is shown below in Table 3.2-50. Table 3.2-50: Construction-Related Average Daily Truck Trip Rates Construction Phase Building Construction Phase Total TruckTrips Total Working Days Average Daily Truck Trip RateDailyTruckRate1WorkingDays Phase 1A 98 20019,600 280 70 Phase 1B 113 16018,080 240 75 Phase 2 74 40029,600 480 62 Phase 3 148 41060,680 480 126 Note: 1 The daily truck rate is from the Building Construction phase dailyvendor trip rate from the CalEEMod model run utilized in EIR Section 3.2. Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, 2015. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-73 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx The construction-related truck emissionshave been analyzed separately for truck travel and truck idling emissions. Construction-Related Truck Travel Modeling for construction-related diesel truck travel wasbased on each truck traveling from Dublin Boulevard to the middle of the project site as well as the off-sitetravel from the project site to Interstate 580 (I-580) via Tassajara Road or Fallon Road. The Traffic Impact Analysis (Fehr and Peers, 2015) determined that 30percent of the vehicle trips would access I-580 from Tassajara Road and 70 percent of the vehicle trips would access I-580 from Fallon Road. Thesame trip distribution was utilized in this analysis for the construction truck travel. The emission factors used for the roadway line volume source were derived from the ARB EMFAC2014 mobile source emission model for AlamedaCounty for the year2016 for Phase 1A, year 2017 for Phase 1B, year 2025 for Phase 2, and year2035 for Phase 3. The vehicleemission factors are dependent on vehicle speed. A vehicle travel speed of 10 miles per hour was assumed for truck travel while traveling on the project site and a vehicle speed of 45miles per hour (mph) was assumed for the off-site truck travel to I-580. The construction trucks weremodeled in the EMFAC2014 model from the Truck category from the Truck-NonTruckVehicle Class, which consists of an average of all trucks. The EMFAC2014 model run printouts are provided in Appendix B, and a summary of the results are shown in Table 3.2-51. Table 3.2-51: EMFAC2014 Construction-Related TruckTravel Emission Factors Construction Phase Year EMFAC2014 PM2.5 Running Emission Rates (grams/mile) DPM1 at 10 mph DPM at 45 mph All PM2.5 2 at 10 mph All PM2.5 at 45 mph Phase 1A 2016 0.177 0.0625 0.219 0.105 Phase 1B 2017 0.119 0.0461 0.162 0.0883 Phase 2 2025 0.01330.00577 0.0558 0.0482 Phase 3 2035 0.009460.00459 0.0520 0.0471 Notes: 1 DPM consists of running PM2.5 emissions. 2 All PM2.5 consists of running PM2.5 emissions plus PM2.5 emissions from brake wear and tire wear. Source: EMFAC2014. Project-related truck travel emissions were modeled in the ISCST3 model by using line volume sources. The line volume sources weremodeled with a plumeheight of 6feet and plume width of 12 feet for the on-site roads and a plume width of 60 feet for the off-site roads. All roads were modeled with arelease height of 12 feet. The road sourceemissions rates entered into the ISCST3 model are shown in Table 3.2-52. The road sourceemissions were determined by calculating the time it takes for each truck to cross the length of the road and then multiplying that amount of time by the daily truck operations and dividing it by 24 hours in order to determine the percent of daily running time. The daily running time was then multiplied by the EMFAC2014 emissions rates that are detailed above and were converted to grams per second. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-74 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-52: Construction Truck Running Emissions Rates used in the ISCST3 Model Source ID Phase 1A (Year 2016) Phase 1B (Year 2017) Phase 2 (Year 2025) Phase 3 (Year 2035) Daily Truck Trips1 Emission Rate gr/sec) Daily Truck Trips Emission Rate gr/sec) Daily Truck Trips Emission Rate gr/sec) Daily Truck Trips Emission Rate gr/sec) DPM Emission Rates2 RDON 702.915E-05 754.74E-05624.42E-06126 6.88E-06 RDTAS 219.481E-06 222.98E-05183.56E-0637 5.80E-06 RDFAL 491.368E-05 536.53E-05435.62E-0689 9.17E-06 All PM2.5 Emission Rates3 RDON 708.09E-05 756.42E-05621.86E-05126 3.78E-05 RDTAS 217.32E-05 225.71E-05182.97E-0537 5.96E-05 RDFAL 491.16E-04 531.25E-04434.70E-0589 9.41E-05 Notes: 1 The daily truck trips represents one trip for a truck arriving atthe project site andone trip for a truck leaving the project site. 2 DPM consists of running PM2.5 emissions. 3 All PM2.5 consists of running PM2.5 emissions plus PM2.5 emissions from brake wear and tire wear. Source: EMFAC2014. Construction-Related Truck Idling Construction-related diesel truck idling was modeled as a point source located near the center of the project site. The analysis was based on each construction truck idling on the project site for 5 minutes after arrival and for 5 minutes prior to departure from the project site. The emissions factor used for the truck idling point sourcewas based on the EMFAC2014 Idling Emission Rates of: 0.0957 grams per hour for Phase 1A (year2016); 0.0729 grams per hour for Phase 1B (year2017); 0.0154 grams per hour for Phase 2 (year2025); and 0.0087 grams per hour for Phase 3 (year2035). The EMFAC2014 model runprintouts are provided in Appendix A of the Health Risk Assessment. The same emission rates were utilized for the DPM calculations and the PM2.5 calculations. The construction truck idling source emissions rates entered intothe ISCST3 model areshown in Table 3.2-53. The idling point source was modeled in the ISCST3 model with a 12-foot height, a 0.1-meter diameter, a velocity of 50 meters per second, and a temperature of 366 degreesKelvin (°K). Table 3.2-53: Construction Truck Idling Emissions Rates used in the ISCST3 Model Source ID Phase 1A (Year 2016) Phase 1B (Year 2017) Phase 2 (Year 2025) Phase 3 (Year 2035) Daily Truck Trips1 Emission Rate gr/sec) Daily Truck Trips Emission Rate gr/sec) Daily Truck Trips Emission Rate gr/sec) Daily Truck Trips Emission Rate gr/sec) IDCON 70 1.72E-05751.41E-05622.46E-06126 2.84E-06 Note: 1 The daily truck trips represents one trip for a truck arriving atthe project site andone trip for a truck leaving the project site. Source: EMFAC2014. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-75 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Operations-Related TAC and PM2.5 Emissions The proposed project would includedevelopment of approximately1.2 million square feet of medical campus andcommercial uses. The proposed projectwould generate TAC emissions from natural gas usage associated with the operation of the microturbines, hot water boilers, and steam boilers at the proposed Energy Center, and diesel emissionsassociated with the operation of backup dieselgenerators, diesel truck deliveries, and transport refrigeration units that may operate as part of the truck deliveries. Inaddition to the above sources the proposed projectwould also generate PM2.5 emissions from cooling towers at the Energy Center. Since eachphase of the proposed project would become operational on different years, the TAC emissions from eachphase has been analyzed separately and then added together based on the timeline matrix provided in Table 3.2-53. Operations-Related TruckEmissions The proposedmedical center is anticipated to generate up to 100 diesel-powered truck deliveries per day and the proposedcommercial retail center is anticipated to generate up to 40diesel- powered truck deliveries per day, which are based on truck delivery rates used for similar sized facilities. The truck delivers to the proposedmedical center have beensegmented bybuilding based on the ratio of the building square-footage to the total square footage of the project. For the proposedcommercial retail center, nopreliminary plans are available, so all delivery trucks to the commercial retail center were modeled as driving a loop around the Phase 1B area. The average daily truck deliveries to the proposed project are presented in Table 3.2-54. Table 3.2-54: Project Average Daily Truck Deliveries and Trips during Operations Phase Building Truck Deliveries per Day Truck Trips per day Phase 1A Medical Office Building 1 18 36 Cancer Center 6 12 Phase 1B Commercial Site 40 80 Phase 2 High-Acuity Medical Service Building 47 94 Energy Center 0 0 Phase 3 Medical Office Building 2 29 58 Parking Structure 0 0 Source: FirstCarbon Solutions and CalEEMod. Project-related truck emissions have been analyzed separately for truck travel, truck idling, and TRU emissions. Operations-Related TruckTravel The operations-related diesel truck travel was modeled based on each truck traveling from Dublin Boulevard to each of the buildings identified in Table 3.2-54 for the medical center portion of the proposed project and for Phase 1B the truck were modeled as driving to the center of the Phase 1B area, since no preliminary plans are available for Phase 1B. The off-site travel from the project site to Interstate 580 (I-580) via Tassajara Road or Fallon Road was also modeled. The Traffic Impact Analysis (Fehr and Peers, 2015) determined that 30percent of the vehicle trips would access I-580 City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-76 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx from Tassajara Road and 70 percent of the vehicle trips would access I-580 from Fallon Road. The same trip distribution was utilized in this analysis for the operational truck deliveries. The emission factors used for the roadway line volume source were derived from the ARB EMFAC2014 mobile source emission model for AlamedaCounty. The vehicle emission factors are dependent on vehicle speed. For example, a vehicle travel speed of 10 miles per hour wasassumed for truck travel while traveling on the project site and a vehicle speed of 45 mph was assumed for the off-site truck travel. The delivery trucks weremodeled in the EMFAC2014 model from the Truck category from the Truck-NonTruckVehicle Class, which consists of an average of all trucks. Since the cancer risk analysis is based on a 70-year analysis period segmented into three analysis, the PM2.5 emissions rates from 2017 to 2050 wereobtained from the EMFAC2014 model and the average from the three time periods is shown in Table 3.2-55. EMFAC2014 only provides data up to the year 2050, so all years after 2050are based on the 2050 emissions rates. The EMFAC2014 model run printouts are provided in Appendix A of the Health Risk Assessment. Table 3.2-55: EMFAC2014 Operational Running Trucks Emissions Rates Phase EMFAC2014 PM2.5 Running Emission Rates (grams/mile) 3rd Trimester to 2 Years 6/1/2016-9/1/2018) 2 to 16 Years 9/12018-9/1/2032) 16 to 70 years 9/1/2032-6/1/2086) 10 mph 45 mph 10 mph 45 mph 10 mph 45 mph DPM Emission Rates1 Phase 1A2 0.1042 0.04130.02580.01150.00857 0.00432 Phase 1B3 — —0.02580.01150.00857 0.00432 Phase 24 — —0.01130.00520.00857 0.00432 Phase 35 — ———0.00847 0.00429 PM2.5 Emission Rates6 Phase 1A 0.1464 0.08350.06820.05390.0510 0.0468 Phase 1B — —0.06820.05390.0510 0.0468 Phase 2 — —0.05380.04770.0510 0.0468 Phase 3 — ———0.0509 0.0467 Notes: 1 DPM consists of running PM2.5 emissions. 2 The 3rd Tri to 2 years based on average of years 2017 to 2018, 2 to 16 years based on average of years 2018 to 2032, and 16 to 70 years based on average of years 2032 to 2086. 3 2 to 16 years based on average of years 2018 to 2032and 16 to 70 yearsbased on average of years 2032 to 2086. 4 2 to 16 years based on average of years 2026 to 2032, and 16 to 70 years based on average of years 2032 to 2086. 5 16 to 70 years based on average of years 2036 to 2086. 6 All PM2.5 consists of running PM2.5 emissions plus PM2.5 emissions from brake wear and tire wear. Source: EMFAC2014. The operations-related truck travel emissions were modeled in the ISC model by using line volume sources. The line volume sources weremodeled with a plumeheight of 6feet and plume width of 12 feet for the on-site roads, and a plume width of 60 feet for the off-site roads. All roads were modeled with arelease height of 12 feet. The road sourceemissions rates entered intothe ISC City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-77 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx model are shown in Table 3.2-56. The road sourceemissions were determined by calculating the time it takes for each truck to cross the roadlength and then multiplying that amount of time by the daily truck operations and dividing it by 24 hours in order to determine the percent of daily running time. The daily running time was then multiplied by the EMFAC2014 emissions rates that are detailed above and were converted to grams per second. Table 3.2-56: TruckTravel Emissions Rates used in the ISCST3 Model Phase Source ID Description Daily Truck Trips 1 DPM Emission Rates (grams/second) 3rd Tri to 2 2 to 16 yrs 16 to 70 yrs DPM Emission Rates Phase 1A RDMOB1 On-site Trucks to Medical Office Building 1 36 1.28E-05 3.17E-061.056E-06 RDCAN On-site Trucks to Cancer Center127.99E-06 1.98E-06 6.57E-07 RDTAS Off-site Trucks to I-580 via Tassajara Rd141.98E-05 5.50E-06 2.07E-07 RDFAL Off-site trucks to I-580 via Fallon Rd343.13E-058.70E-06 3.27E-06 Phase1B RDPH1B On-site trucks to Commercial Center80—1.09E-05 3.61E-06 RDTAS Off-site Trucks to I-580 via Tassajara Rd 24 —7.88E-062.96E-06 RDFAL Off-site trucks to I-580 via Fallon Rd 56 —1.72E-056.49E-06 Phase 2 RDHAMS On-site trucks to High-AcuityMedical Service Building 47 —2.74E-062.92E-07 RDTAS Off-site Trucks to I-580 via Tassajara Rd 14 —2.43E-062.03E-06 RDFAL Off-site trucks to I-580 via Fallon Rd 33 —3.85E-063.20E-06 Phase 3 RDMOB2 On-sitetrucks to Medical Office Building 2 58 —— 3.58E-06 RDTAS Off-site Trucks to I-580 via Tassajara Rd 17 —— 2.13E-06 RDFAL Off-site trucks to I-580via Fallon Rd 41 —— 3.93E-06 PM2.5 Emission Rates Phase 1A RDMOB1 On-site Trucks to Medical Office Building 1 36 1.80E-05 8.38E-066.27E-06 RDCAN On-site Trucks to Cancer Center121.12E-05 5.23E-06 3.91E-06 RDTAS Off-site Trucks to I-580via Tassajara Rd144.01E-05 2.59E-05 2.25E-05 RDFAL Off-site trucks to I-580 via Fallon Rd346.33E-054.09E-05 3.55E-05 Phase1B RDPH1B On-site trucks to Commercial Center80—2.88E-05 2.15E-05 RDTAS Off-site Trucks to I-580 via Tassajara Rd24—3.70E-05 3.21E-05 RDFAL Off-site trucks to I-580via Fallon Rd56—8.10E-05 7.03E-05 Phase 2 RDHAMS On-site trucks to High-AcuityMedical Service Building 47 — 1.31E-05 1.24E-05 RDTAS Off-site Trucks to I-580 via Tassajara Rd14—2.24E-05 2.20E-05 RDFAL Off-site trucks to I-580via Fallon Rd33—3.54E-05 3.47E-05 City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-78 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-56 (cont.): TruckTravelEmissions Rates used in the ISCST3 Model Phase Source ID Description Daily Truck Trips1 DPM Emission Rates (grams/second) 3rd Tri to 2 2 to 16 yrs 16 to 70 yrs Phase 3 RDMOB2 On-site trucks to Medical Office Building 2 58 —— 2.15E-05 RDTAS Off-site Trucks to I-580via Tassajara Rd17—— 2.33E-05 RDFAL Off-site trucks to I-580via Fallon Rd41—— 4.28E-05 Note: 1 The daily truck trips represents one tripfor a truck arriving atthe project siteandone trip for a truck leaving the project site. Source: EMFAC2014. Operations-Related Truck Idling The operations-related diesel truck idling was modeled as point sources with a separate point source placed at each on-site truck loading location. Theanalysis wasbased on each truck delivery idling on the project site for 5 minutes after arriving at the loading area and 5 minutesbefore leaving the loading area. The 5-minute period is based on Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations that limits commercial truck idling to 5minutes at any location. The emissions factor used for the truck idling point source wasbased on the EMFAC2014 Idling Emission Rates that are shown in Table 3.2-57. The EMFAC2014 model runprintouts are provided in Appendix A of the Health Risk Assessment. Table 3.2-57: EMFAC2014 Idling Trucks Emissions Rates Phase EMFAC2014 PM2.5 Idling Emission Rates (grams/hour) 3rd Trimester to 2 Years 6/1/2016-9/1/2018) 2 to 16 Years 9/12018-9/1/2032) 16 to 70 years 9/1/2032-6/1/2086) Phase 1A1 0.0664 0.0232 0.00644 Phase 1B2 — 0.0232 0.00644 Phase 23 — 0.0122 0.00644 Phase 34 — —0.00621 Notes: 1 The 3rd Tri to 2 years based on average of years 2017 to 2018, 2 to 16 years based on average of years 2018 to 2032, and 16 to 70 years based on average of years 2032 to 2086. 2 2 to 16 years based on average of years 2018 to 2032and 16 to 70 yearsbased on average of years 2032 to 2086. 3 2 to 16 years based on average of years 2026 to 2032, and 16 to 70 years based on average of years 2032 to 2086. 4 16 to 70 years based on average of years 2036 to 2086. Source: EMFAC2014. The idling point sources weremodeled in the ISCST3 model with a 12-foot height, a 0.1-meter diameter, a velocity of 50 meters per second, and a temperature of 366°K. The idling point source emissions rates entered into the ISCST3 model are shown in Table 3.2-58. The idling source emissions were determined by multiplying 15 minutesby the daily truck operations and dividing it City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-79 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx by 24 hours in order to determine the percent of dailyrunning time. The daily running time was then multiplied by the EMFAC2014 emissions rates that are detailed above and were converted to grams per second. Table 3.2-58: Idling SourceEmissions Rates used in the ISCST3 Model Phase Source ID Description Daily Truck Trips 1 DPM Emission Rates (grams/second) 3rd Tri to 2 yrs 2 to 16 yrs 16 to 70 yrs Phase 1A IDMOB1 Truck idling at Medical Office Building 1 362.31E-068.04E-072.23E-07 IDCAN Truck idling at Cancer Center127.69E-072.68E-07 7.45E-08 Phase 1B IDPH1B Truck idling at Commercial Center 80 — 1.79E-06 4.97E-07 Phase 2 IDHAMS Truck idling at High-Acuity Medical Service Building 47 — 5.52E-07 2.92E-07 Phase 3 IDMOB2 Truck idling at Medical Office Building 2 58 — — 3.47E-07 Note: 1 The daily truck trips represents one tripfor a truck arriving at the project site andone trip for a truck leaving the project site. Source: EMFAC2014 Operations-Related Transport Refrigeration Units Emissions The proposedmedical facility and commercial center would both receive deliveries of perishable foods and other goods that would require the use of refrigerated trucks with diesel-powered transport refrigerationunits (TRU). This analysishas assumed that 20percent of all deliveries would have an operational TRU and that each TRU would operate for 15 minutes for each truck delivery. The emission factors for the TRUs were obtained from OFFROAD2011 Emission Summary, Attachment D (ARB 2011), which provides average TRU emission rates for years 2012 to 2040 in grams per horsepower-hour. The years 2041 to 2087 were based on the year2040 emission factors. The TRU emission rates were calculated based on a 34-horsepower TRU, a load factor of 0.53, and an on/off cycle factor of 0.5. The calculated OFFROAD2011 TRU emissions rates are shown in Table 3.2-59. Table 3.2-59: TRU Emissions Rates Phase Scenario OFFROAD2011 PM Emissions Rates (grams/horsepower-hour) TRU PM Emission Rates1 grams/hour) Phase 1AAverage Years 2017 to 2018 0.131 1.176 Average Years 2018 to 2032 0.090 0.814 Average Years 2032 to 2086 0.014 0.122 City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-80 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-59 (cont.): TRU Emissions Rates Phase Scenario OFFROAD2011 PM Emissions Rates (grams/horsepower-hour) TRU PM Emission Rates1 grams/hour) Phase1B Average Years 2018 to 2032 0.090 0.814 Average Years 2032 to 2086 0.014 0.122 Phase 2 Average Years 2026 to 2032 0.069 0.621 Average Years 2032 to 2086 0.014 0.122 Phase 3 Average Years 2036 to 2086 0.011 0.100 Note: 1 Calculated based on an average of 34 horsepower, a load factor of 0.53, and an on/off cycle factor of 0.5. Source: ARB, 2011. The TRU emissionshave been analyzed in the ISCST3 model as point sources located at the loading areas on the project site. The TRU point sources located at the loading areas on the project site were analyzedbased on a release height of 12 feet, a gas exit temperature of 501°K, a stack inside diameter of 0.04 meter, and an exit velocity of 50 meters per second (170 feetper second). The TRU emissions rates used in the ISC model areshown in Table 3.2-60. Table 3.2-60: TRU SourceEmissions Rates used in the ISC Model Phase Source ID Description Daily TRU Operations1 DPM Emission Rates (grams/second) 3rd Tri to 2 yrs 2 to 16 yrs 16 to 70 yrs Phase 1A TRUMOB1 TRUs at Medical Office Building 1 41.36E-059.42E-06 1.41E-06 TRUCAN TRUs at Cancer Center13.40E-062.36E-06 3.52E-07 Phase 1B TRUCOM TRUs at Commercial Center 8—1.88E-05 2.82E-06 Phase 2 TRUHAM TRUs at High-Acuity Medical Service Building 9—1.62E-05 3.17E-06 Phase 3 TRUMOB2 TRUs at Medical Office Building 2 6—— 1.73E-06 Note: 1 The daily TRU operations represent truck deliveries with operational TRUs. Source: EMFAC2014; ARB, 2011. Operations-Related Backup Diesel Generators The proposed project may include the installation of diesel-powered backupgenerators at Medical OfficeBuilding 1, High-Acuity Medical Service Building, and Medical OfficeBuilding 2. The size of the generators located at Medical Office Building 1andMedical OfficeBuilding 2 would be 750 kW and the generatorlocated at High-AcuityMedical Service Building would be1,500 kW. The project City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-81 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx applicant has stated that theywould only purchase new back-up dieselgenerators at the time of installation, which would limit the generators to the Tier 4 Finalemissions standards. According to the Nonroad Compression Ignition Engines – ExhaustEmissionStandards (EPA, 2015), the PM emission standard for 560 kW andlargerTier 4 Final generators is 0.04 grams per kW-hour. According to the project applicant the backup generators would run 30 minutes per week for maintenance. This results in emissionrates of 15 grams of PM2.5 per week or 2.48E-05 grams per second for the two 750 kW generators and 30 grams of PM2.5 per week or 4.96E-05 grams per second for the 1,500 kW generator. These emissionrates were utilized for all scenarios. The backup generators were modeled as point sources with a 10 foot height, a 0.04 meter diameter stack, a velocity of 49 meters per second, and a temperature of 501 K. Operations-Related Energy Center Emissions The proposed project may include development of an Energy Center as part of Phase 2. The Energy Center may include up to six PureComfort microturbines or a similar style microturbines that would generate up to 370 kilowatts (kW) of electricity and would burn up to 20.2 Million British Thermal Units (MBTU) per day of natural gas at full load. The Energy Centermay also include up to four hot water heater boilers that would burn up to 241.9 MBTU per day of natural gas at 40 percentload and 21 percent capacity. The Energy Center may also include up to four steam boilers that would burn up to 44.2 MBTU of natural gas at 30percent load and 21 percent capacity. This would result in the burning of up to 306.3 MBTU or 0.3003 million standardcubic feet (MSCF) of natural gas per day at the Energy Center. According to the BAAQMD Permit Handbook (BAAQMD, 2014), boilers, steamgenerators and process heaters that burn natural gas would emit the TAC pollutants of benzene, formaldehyde, and toluene. TheBAAQMD Permit Handbook provides emissionfactors for these TAC pollutants that are shown in Table 3.2-61. Table 3.2-61 also shows the calculated benzeneemissions rate in grams per second, based on a gas station with a throughput of 1,825,000 gallons per year that operates24- hours per day, 365 days a year. In order to simplify the analysis, the benzene emissions were converted to DPM equivalent emissions. The conversions were based on a ratio of the cancer inhalationpotency factors of 0.1 for benzene, 0.021 for formaldehyde, and 0.039 for toluene (since toluene does not have an inhalationfactor, the inhalationfactor for 2,4-toluene discocyanatewas utilized), to the cancer potency factor of DPM of 1.1 (OEHHA, 2015). Table 3.2-61: Proposed Energy Center TAC Emissions Toxic Air Contaminant TAC EmissionFactor pounds/MSCF) Project Emissions pounds/day) DPM Equivalent Emissions1 pounds/day) Benzene 2.10E-03 6.31E-04 5.73E-05 Formaldehyde 7.50E-02 2.25E-02 4.30E-04 Toluene 3.40E-03 1.02E-03 3.62E-05 Total DPM(pounds/day)5.23E-04 Total DPM (grams/second)2.75E-06 Note: 1 DPM equivalent emissions calculated based on theratio of the cancer inhalation potencyfactors of each TAC to DPM. Source: BAAQMD, 2014; OEHHA, 2015 City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-82 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx The Energy Center would also create PM2.5 emissions from the burning of natural gas and from the cooling towers. According to EPA AP-42 Section 3.1, the microturbines would emit 0.0066 pounds of PM2.5 per one million British thermal units MMBTU and according to EPA AP-42 Section 1.4, the hot waterboiler and steam generator would emit 0.0008 pound of PM2.5 per MMBTU. Table 3.2-62 provides the PM2.5 emissions. Table 3.2-62: Proposed Energy Center PM2.5 Emissions from Natural Gas Usage Source Natural Gas Usage MBTU/day) EmissionFactor pounds/MBTU) PM2.5 Emissions1 pounds/day) Micro turbines 20.2 0.0066 0.133 Hot water boilers 241.9 0.0008 0.194 Steam boilers 44.2 0.0008 0.035 Total PM2.5 (pounds/day)0.362 Total PM2.5 (grams/second)1.90E-03 Source: EPA, 1995 The natural gas emissions from the Energy Center were modeled in the ISCST3 model as a point source located at the center of the proposed Energy Center with a release height of 28 feet, a gas exit temperature of 450 °F, a stack inside diameter of 0.71 meter (28 inches) and a gas exit flow velocity of 10 meters per second. In addition to the natural gas emissions, the Energy Centermay also create PM2.5 emissions from the use of wet cooling towers. Cooling towers are heat exchangers and transfer heat to the air through evaporation of water. Particulate matter emissions are created when the water droplets evaporate and the impurities in the water are released into the air. The Energy Centermay utilize wet cooling towers with a capacity of up to 10,000 gallons per minute. According to the BAAQMD Handbook BAAQMD, 2015), PM10 emissions from wet cooling towers arecalculated by: PM10 Emissions = capacity (gallons/minute) x Total dissolved Solids (TDS) x drift loss x density of water x operating hours TheBAAQMD provides the followingdefault values of 800 ppm for TDS, 0.005 percent for drift loss, and 8.34 pounds per gallon for density of water. For a wet cooling tower with a capacity of 10,000 gallons per minute, this results in anemission rate of 6 pounds of PM10 per day. According to Wet CoolingTowerGuidance for Particulate Matter (Environment Canada, 2014), PM2.5 emissions account for approximately two percent of PM10 emissions fromwet cooling towers. Based on this ratio, the cooling towers would produce 0.12 pound of PM2.5 per day or 6.30E-04 grams per second. The cooling tower PM2.5 emissions were modeled in the ISCST3 model as a point source located at the proposed Energy Center with arelease height of 6 feet, a gas exit temperature of ambient, a stack inside diameter of 2 metersand a gas exit flow velocity of 0.02 meters per second. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-83 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Cumulative Emissions Modeling According to the BAAQMD Guidelines, existing TAC emission sources that are located within 1,000 feet of the project site shall be quantified for comparison to applicable thresholds of significance. The cumulative sources that are located within 1,000 feet of the proposed project include vehicle emissions from I-580and Dublin Boulevard, and a backup generator for Terraces Home Owner’s Association located at 3448 Finnian Way. The BAAQMD Guidelines provide look-up tables for each of the sources whereyoulookup the distance from each source to the most impacted sensitive receptor from the proposed project’s TAC emissions in order to calculate the cumulative cancer risk. The analysis of each cumulative source is detailed below. Cumulative Road Emissions According to the BAAQMD Guidelines, only the roadways that are located within 1,000 feet of the project site and have 10,000 or more vehicles per day should be analyzed. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis (Fehr & Peer, 2015) Dublin Boulevard would have as high as 36,600 vehicles per day in the vicinity of the project site for the existingplus project buildout conditions. The cumulative health impacts for I-580and Dublin Boulevard are detailed below. Interstate 580Cumulative Health Impacts For I-580, the BAAQMD website that is listed above has a link to the Highway ScreeningAnalysis Tool, which is an App in Google Earth that providesdata on the cancer and non-cancer risks of all freeways in the Bay Area. The App provides the risks at varying distances between 10 feet and 1,000 fromthe I-580 for thefirst floor (represented by 6-foot elevation) and second and thirdfloor represented by 20-foot elevation). A comparison of the risks for the 6-foot elevation and 20-foot elevation determined that the 6-foot elevation risks are higher; therefore, this analysis has utilized the 6-foot elevation data. The health risks for each analyzed receptor is shown in Table 3.2-63. Table 3.2-63: Cumulative I-580 Health Risks Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 Distance from I-580 feet) I-580Link599 Health Risks X Y CancerRisk PM2.5 g/m3) Chronic HI Acute HI 1 MFR west side 600,2744,173,52267041.40.52 0.07 0.011 2 MFR west side 600,2684,173,60595031.60.41 0.05 0.011 3 MFR northwest side600,2824,173,6921,25023.10.41 0.05 0.014 4 MFR north side 600,3694,173,6851,20024.50.41 0.050.019 5 MFR north side 600,4484,173,6841,20024.50.41 0.050.030 6 MFR north side 600,5734,173,6881,21024.20.41 0.050.043 7 MFR north side 600,6684,173,6911,22023.90.41 0.050.040 8 MFR north side 600,7644,173,6951,24023.30.41 0.050.034 9 MFR north side 600,8494,173,7091,36019.90.41 0.050.036 10 MFR northeast side 600,9104,173,7361,37019.60.41 0.05 0.032 City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-84 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-63 (cont.): Cumulative I-580 Health Risks Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 Distance from I-580 feet) I-580Link599 Health Risks X Y Cancer Risk PM2.5 g/m3) Chronic HI Acute HI 11 MFR south side 601,027 4,173,22710579.40.620.10 0.026 12 SFR south side 600,837 4,173,22114070.40.640.10 0.025 13 SFR south side 600,692 4,173,23410579.40.620.10 0.035 14 SFR south side 600,558 4,173,23610080.70.580.08 0.028 15 SFR south side 600,414 4,173,23610080.70.580.08 0.012 16 SFR southwest side600,246 4,173,23510080.70.580.08 0.006 Notes: 1 Receptor location based on World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84), Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). MFR = multi-family residential SFR = single-family residential Source: BAAQMD Dublin Boulevard Cumulative Health Impacts The health risks from Dublin Boulevard has been calculated through use of BAAQMD’s County Surface Street Screening Tables. The AlamedaCounty lookup tables for east-west directional roadways with 40,000 daily trips was utilized and the results are shown in Table 3.2-64. Table 3.2-64: Cumulative Dublin Boulevard Health Risks Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 Distance from Dublin Blvd feet) Dublin Boulevard Health Risks X Y CancerRisk PM2.5 g/m3) Chronic HI2 Acute HI3 1 MFR west side 600,274 4,173,5224102.80.30.04 0.02 2 MFR west side 600,268 4,173,6051505.47.61.06 0.54 3 MFR northwest side 600,282 4,173,692358.00.30.05 0.02 4 MFR north side 600,369 4,173,685358.00.30.05 0.02 5 MFR north side 600,448 4,173,684358.00.30.05 0.02 6 MFR north side 600,573 4,173,688358.00.30.05 0.02 7 MFR north side 600,668 4,173,691358.00.30.05 0.02 8 MFR north side 600,764 4,173,695358.00.30.05 0.02 9 MFR north side 600,849 4,173,709358.00.30.05 0.02 10 MFR northeast side600,910 4,173,736358.00.30.05 0.02 11 MFR south side 601,027 4,173,2271,5000.40.10.01 0.01 12 SFR south side 600,837 4,173,2211,4000.60.10.01 0.01 City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-85 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-64 (cont.): Cumulative Dublin Boulevard Health Risks Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 Distance from Dublin Blvd feet) Dublin Boulevard Health Risks X Y CancerRisk PM2.5 g/m3) Chronic HI2 Acute HI3 13 SFR south side 600,6924,173,2341,3500.60.10.01 0.01 14 SFR south side 600,5584,173,2361,3500.60.10.01 0.01 15 SFR south side 600,4144,173,2361,3500.60.10.01 0.01 16 SFR southwest side 600,2464,173,2351,3500.60.10.01 0.01 Notes: 1 Receptor location based on World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84), Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). 2 Chronic HI calculated by average ratio of Chronic HI to PM2.5 emissions from I-580 of 0.139. 3 Acute HI calculated by average Ratio of Acute HI to PM2.5 emissions from I-580 of 0.0704. MFR = multi-family residential SFR = single-family residential Source: BAAQMD, 2011. CumulativeStationary Source Emissions The BAAQMDhas mapped the locations of all permitted stationary sources located within the SFBAAB in Google Earth. When the project site wassearched in the Google Earth App, only one permitted stationary source was identified that included a generator at the Terraces Home Owner’s Association located at 3448Finnian Way, which is approximately 680 feet north of the project site. TheBAAQMD data for the generator shows the cancer risk is 0.00, the hazard risk is 0.00, and the PM2.5 emissions are 0.00. Therefore, no cumulative risk is anticipated from this generator and no further analysis of cumulativestationary sources is provided in this HRA. Health Risk Standards and Thresholds The BAAQMD Guidelines (BAAQMD 2011) provides quantitative thresholds for both project-only impacts andcumulative impacts, which are used in this analysis. Project Specific Significance Thresholds According to the BAAQMD 2011 Guidelinesany individual project that has the potential to expose the public to TACs in excess of the following thresholds would be considered to result in a significant impact: Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk: 10 in 1 million at the nearby residential units; A non-cancer acute and chronic risk of a Hazard Index of 1 or greater; PM2.5 concentration increase of greater than 0.3 µg/m3. Cumulative Impacts Significance Thresholds According to the BAAQMD 2011 Guidelines a cumulative impact would occur if the project impacts combined with all sources within 1,000 feet of the project site at the maximum likely exposed individual resident to TACs in excess of the following thresholds would be considered to result in a significant impact: City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-86 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk: 100 in 1 million at the nearby residential units; A non-cancer acute and chronic risk of a Hazard Index of 10 or greater; PM2.5 concentration increase of greater than 0.8 µg/m3. The health risks from TACs are twofold. First, TACs are classified as carcinogens by the State of California. Second, short-term acute and long-term chronic exposure to TACs can cause health effects to the respiratory system and other organs. Each of these health risks is discussed below. Cancer Risks to Nearby Sensitive Receptors According to BAAQMD methodology and OEHHA methodology (OEHHA 2015), health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usuallydescribed in terms of individual cancer risk, which is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of TACs over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standardrisk-assessment methodology. The cancer risk should be calculated using the followingformula: Dose-inh (mg/(Kg-day)] * [Oral Slope Factor (kg-day)/mg]*[1 x 106] * Age Sensitivity Factor * Fraction of Time at Home = Potential Cancer Risk Where: Oral Slope Factor = 1.1 Age Sensitivity Factor = 10 for 3rd trimester to 2 years; 3 for 2 to 16 years; and 1 for 16 to 69.75 years Fraction of Time at Home = 0.85 for 3rd trimester to 2 years; 0.72 for 2 to 16 years; and 0.73 for 16 to 70 years Dose-inh = (Cair * DBR * A * EF * ED * 106)/AT Where: Cair [Concentration in air (µg/m3)] = (Calculated by AERMOD Model) DBR [Daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight – day)] = 581 for children (less than 16 years) and 302 for 16 to 69.75 years. A [Inhalationabsorption factor] = 1 EF [Exposure frequency (days/year)] = 350 for residential uses ED [Exposure duration (years)] = 70 for residential uses 106 [Conversion to cancer risk per 1,000,000 persons] AT [Average time period over which exposureis averaged in days] = 25,550 The OEHHA and BAAQMD guidance recommends that Age Sensitivity Factors be utilized, which includesa10-fold multiplier to infants (3rd trimester to age 2), a three-fold increase in exposure for children (ages 2 to 16 years old), and an exposure factor of 1 for ages 16 and older. The OEHHA guidance also recommends utilizing the Fraction of Time at Home in the in the calculation, since exposure to TAC emissions from the proposed project is not occurring when not at home. The OEHHA developed these calculations from analyzing over 175,000 trips in a survey and determined that only 0.68 percent of these trips overlap with the EF (days per year when residentsare on vacation). Since the proposed projectwould consist of four distinct phases of development that are spread out over many years, eachphase has been analyzed separately and then the cancer risks from each City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-87 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx phase have been added together to detail the total cancer risk from the proposed project. Note that emissions that weremodeled represented the mitigated emissions as a result of implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3b requiring the use of Tier 4 construction equipment. Phase 1A Construction of Phase 1A has been analyzed as starting in mid-2016 and would occur over13 months. This analysishas assumed that operation of Phase 1A would start at the conclusion of construction activities in 2017 and the 70year analysis period would end in 2086. According to the above formula, the potential cancer risk for residential receptors equates to Cair * 5,215 for 3rd trimester to age 2, Cair * 1,326 for ages 2 to 16, and Cair * 232.5 for ages 16 to 69.75. Table 3.2-65provides a summary of the calculated diesel PM10 emission concentrations at the nearby sensitive receptors. Table 3.2-65: Phase 1A Annual DPM Concentrations and Cancer Risks Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 Annual DPM Concentration (µg/m3) Cancer Risk per Million People2XYConstruction2017–2018 2018–2032 2032–2086 1 MFR west side 600,274 4,173,5220.0025 0.00089 0.00068 0.00063 0.6 2 MFR west side 600,268 4,173,6050.0030 0.00107 0.00075 0.00068 0.7 3 MFR northwest side 600,282 4,173,6920.0039 0.00140 0.00086 0.00076 0.8 4 MFR north side 600,369 4,173,6850.0057 0.00204 0.00144 0.00131 1.3 5 MFR north side 600,448 4,173,6840.0098 0.00374 0.00269 0.00246 2.3 6 MFR north side 600,573 4,173,6880.0189 0.00403 0.00302 0.00276 3.2 7 MFR north side 600,668 4,173,6910.0186 0.00276 0.00183 0.00163 2.5 8 MFR north side 600,764 4,173,6950.0116 0.00230 0.00145 0.00127 1.7 9 MFR north side 600,849 4,173,7090.0076 0.00216 0.00126 0.00110 1.3 10 MFR northeast side 600,910 4,173,7360.0057 0.00188 0.00106 0.00090 1.1 11 MFR south side 601,027 4,173,2270.0020 0.00050 0.00037 0.00034 0.4 12 SFR south side 600,837 4,173,2210.0037 0.00071 0.00054 0.00050 0.6 13 SFR south side 600,692 4,173,2340.0053 0.00130 0.00108 0.00101 1.0 14 SFR south side 600,558 4,173,2360.0037 0.00129 0.00109 0.00103 0.9 15 SFR south side 600,414 4,173,2360.0020 0.00081 0.00067 0.00063 0.5 16 SFR southwest side 600,246 4,173,2350.0011 0.00044 0.00035 0.00033 0.3 BAAQMD Cancer Risk Threshold 10.0 Notes: 1 Receptor location based on World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84), Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). 2 Cancer risk based on a residential receptor cancer risk of: Cair (Construction) * 5,215 * 1.08 years + Cair (2017–2018) * 5,215 *1.17 years ([1.08+1.17=2.25] 3rdtrimester to age 2) + Cair (2018–2032) * 1,326 *14 years (ages 2 to 16) + Cair (2032–2086) * 232.5* 53.75 years (ages 16 to 69.75) divided by 70 years. MFR = multi-family residential SFR = single-family residential Source: ISC-AERMOD View Version 9.0.0. See AppendixB. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-88 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-65 indicates that construction and operation of Phase 1A would result in acancer risk increase of up to 3.2 per million persons at Receptor 6 that is located at a multi-family home on the east side of the project site. The calculated cancer risks from Phase 1A is below the 10.0-in-a-million cancer risk threshold. Therefore, no significantlong-term cancer risk is anticipated from TAC emissions created by Phase 1A of the proposed project. Phase 1B Construction of Phase 1B has been analyzed as starting in late 2017 and would occur over 11 months. This analysishas assumed that operation of Phase 1B would start at the conclusion of construction activities in 2018and the 70year analysis period would end in 2086. It should be noted that operation of the Phase 1Bis anticipated to occur at the start of the age 2 to age 16 time period and that none of the Phase 1B operations is anticipated to occur during the 3rd trimester to age 2 time period. According to the above formula, the potential cancer risk for residentialreceptors equates to Cair * 5,215 for 3rd trimester to age 2, Cair * 1,326 for ages 2 to 16, and Cair * 232.5 for ages 16 to 69.75. Table 3.2-66provides a summary of the calculated diesel PM10 emission concentrations at the nearby sensitive receptors. Table 3.2-66: Phase 1B Annual DPM Concentrations and Cancer Risks Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 Annual DPM Concentration (µg/m3) Cancer Risk per Million People2XYConstruction2017–20182018–2032 2032–2086 1 MFR west side 600,274 4,173,5220.0660 — 0.00052 0.00024 4.7 2 MFR west side 600,268 4,173,6050.0577 — 0.00058 0.00025 4.1 3 MFR northwest side 600,282 4,173,6920.0467 — 0.00067 0.00029 3.4 4 MFR north side 600,369 4,173,6850.0652 — 0.00082 0.00042 4.7 5 MFR north side 600,448 4,173,6840.0636 — 0.00090 0.00064 4.7 6 MFR north side 600,573 4,173,6880.0346 — 0.00078 0.00067 2.7 7 MFR north side 600,668 4,173,6910.0259 — 0.00075 0.00048 2.1 8 MFR north side 600,764 4,173,6950.0199 — 0.00064 0.00041 1.6 9 MFR north side 600,849 4,173,7090.0159 — 0.00065 0.00037 1.3 10 MFR northeast side 600,910 4,173,7360.0130 — 0.00058 0.00032 1.1 11 MFR south side 601,027 4,173,2270.0063 — 0.00012 0.00009 0.5 12 SFR south side 600,837 4,173,2210.0083 — 0.00014 0.00012 0.6 13 SFR south side 600,692 4,173,2340.0129 — 0.00018 0.00023 1.0 14 SFR south side 600,558 4,173,2360.0236 — 0.00028 0.00024 1.7 15 SFR south side 600,414 4,173,2360.0302 — 0.00034 0.00019 2.2 16 SFR southwest side 600,246 4,173,2350.0145 — 0.00018 0.00010 1.1 BAAQMD Cancer Risk Threshold 10.0 City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-89 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-66 (cont.): Phase1B Annual DPM Concentrations and Cancer Risks Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 Annual DPM Concentration (µg/m3) Cancer Risk per Million People2XYConstruction2017–20182018–2032 2032–2086 Notes: 1 Receptor location based on World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84), Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). 2 Cancer risk based on a residential receptor cancer risk of: Cair (Construction) * 5,215 * 0.92 years + Cair (2017–2018) * 5,215 *1.17 years ([1.08+1.17=2.25] 3rdtrimester to age 2) + Cair (2018–2032) * 1,326 *14 years (ages 2 to 16) + Cair (2032–2086) * 232.5* 53.75 years (ages 16 to 69.75) divided by 70 years. MFR = multi-family residential SFR = single-family residential Source: ISC-AERMOD View Version 8.9.0. See AppendixB. Table 3.2-66indicates that construction and operation of Phase 1B would result in acancer risk increase of up to 4.7 per million persons at Receptor 4 that is located at a multi-family uses on the north side of the project site. The calculated cancer risks from Phase 1Bis below the 10.0-in-a- million cancer risk threshold. Therefore, no significantlong-term cancer risk is anticipated from TAC emissions created by Phase 1B of the proposed project. Phase 2 Construction of Phase 2 has been analyzed as starting in 2025 and would occur over22 months. This analysis has assumed that operation of Phase 2 would start at the conclusion of construction activities in 2026 and the 70year analysis period would end in 2086. It should be noted that construction and operation of the Phase 2 is anticipated to start in the middle of the age 2 to age 16 time period and that none of the Phase 2 activities are anticipated to occur during the 3rd trimester to age 2 time period. According to the above formula, the potential cancer risk for residential receptors equates to Cair * 1,326 for ages 2 to 16, and Cair * 232.5 for ages 16 to 69.75. Table 3.2-67provides a summary of the calculated diesel PM10 emission concentrations at the nearby sensitive receptors. Table 3.2-67: Phase 2 Annual DPM Concentrations and Cancer Risks Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 Annual DPM Concentration (µg/m3) Cancer Risk per Million People2XYConstruction2017–2018 2026–2032 2032–2086 1 MFR west side 600,274 4,173,5220.0020 — 0.00009 0.00007 0.1 2 MFR west side 600,268 4,173,6050.0021 — 0.00012 0.00009 0.1 3 MFR northwest side 600,282 4,173,6920.0023 — 0.00016 0.00013 0.1 4 MFR north side 600,369 4,173,6850.0030 — 0.00017 0.00014 0.1 5 MFR north side 600,448 4,173,6840.0041 — 0.00021 0.00016 0.2 6 MFR north side 600,573 4,173,6880.0080 — 0.00034 0.00027 0.4 7 MFR north side 600,668 4,173,6910.0169 — 0.00058 0.00044 0.7 City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-90 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-67 (cont.): Phase 2 Annual DPM Concentrations and Cancer Risks Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 Annual DPM Concentration (µg/m3) Cancer Risk per Million People2XYConstruction2017–2018 2026–2032 2032–2086 8 MFR north side 600,764 4,173,6950.0373 — 0.00117 0.00089 1.6 9 MFR north side 600,849 4,173,7090.0436 — 0.00184 0.00149 2.0 10 MFR northeast side 600,910 4,173,7360.0380 — 0.00137 0.00116 1.7 11 MFR south side 601,027 4,173,2270.0127 — 0.00051 0.00041 0.6 12 SFR south side 600,837 4,173,2210.0136 — 0.00036 0.00028 0.6 13 SFR south side 600,692 4,173,2340.0075 — 0.00024 0.00020 0.3 14 SFR south side 600,558 4,173,2360.0040 — 0.00015 0.00012 0.2 15 SFR south side 600,414 4,173,2360.0023 — 0.00010 0.00008 0.1 16 SFR southwest side 600,246 4,173,2350.0014 — 0.00006 0.00005 0.1 BAAQMD Cancer Risk Threshold 10.0 Notes: 1 Receptor location based on World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84), Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). 2 Cancer risk based on a residential receptor cancer risk of: Cair (Construction) * 1326 * 1.83 years + Cair (2026–2032) * 1,326 *6 years ages 2 to 16) + Cair (2032–2086) * 232.5* 53.75 years (ages 16 to 69.75) divided by 70 years. MFR = multi-family residential SFR = single-family residential Source: ISC-AERMOD View Version 8.9.0. See AppendixB. Table 3.2-67 indicates that construction and operation of Phase 2 would result in acancer risk increase of up to 2.0 per million persons at Receptor 9 that is located at a multi-family home on the north side of the project site. The calculated cancer risks from Phase 2 is below the 10.0-in-a-million cancer risk threshold. Therefore, no significantlong-term cancer risk is anticipated from TAC emissions created by Phase 2 of the proposed project. Phase 3 Construction of Phase 3 has been analyzed as starting in 2035 and would occur over22 months. This analysis has assumed that operation of Phase 3 would start at the conclusion of construction activities in 2036 and the 70year analysis period would end in 2086. It should be noted that construction and operation of the Phase 3 is anticipated to start in the middle of the age 16 to age 70 time period and that none of the Phase 3activities are anticipated to occur during the 3rd trimester to age 2 time period or the age 2 to age 16 time period. According to the above formula, the potential cancer risk for residentialreceptors equates to Cair * 232.5 for ages 16 to 69.75. Table 3.2-68provides a summary of the calculateddiesel PM10 emission concentrations at the nearby sensitive receptors. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-91 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-68: Phase 3 Annual DPM Concentrations and Cancer Risks Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 Annual DPM Concentration (µg/m3) Cancer Risk per Million People2XYConstruction2017–2018 2018–2032 2032– 2086 1 MFR west side 600,274 4,173,5220.0072 — — 0.00014 0.1 2 MFR west side 600,268 4,173,6050.0068 — — 0.00015 0.1 3 MFR northwest side 600,282 4,173,6920.0070 — — 0.00019 0.1 4 MFR north side 600,369 4,173,6850.0113 — — 0.00026 0.1 5 MFR north side 600,448 4,173,6840.0181 — — 0.00041 0.2 6 MFR north side 600,573 4,173,6880.0256 — — 0.00054 0.2 7 MFR north side 600,668 4,173,6910.0219 — — 0.00040 0.2 8 MFR north side 600,764 4,173,6950.0144 — — 0.00030 0.1 9 MFR north side 600,849 4,173,7090.0105 — — 0.00026 0.1 10 MFR northeast side 600,910 4,173,7360.0083 — — 0.00022 0.1 11 MFR south side 601,027 4,173,2270.0089 — — 0.00015 0.1 12 SFR south side 600,837 4,173,2210.0147 — — 0.00018 0.1 13 SFR south side 600,692 4,173,2340.0319 — — 0.00042 0.3 14 SFR south side 600,558 4,173,2360.0283 — — 0.00036 0.2 15 SFR south side 600,414 4,173,2360.0110 — — 0.00017 0.1 16 SFR southwest side 600,246 4,173,2350.0043 — — 0.00008 0.0 BAAQMD Cancer Risk Threshold 10.0 Notes: 1 Receptor location based on World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84), Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). 2 Cancer risk based on a residential receptor cancer risk of: Cair (Construction) * 1326 * 1.83 years + Cair (2026–2032) * 1,326 *6 years ages 2 to 16) + Cair (2032–2086) * 232.5* 53.75 years (ages 16 to 69.75) divided by 70 years. MFR = multi-family residential SFR = single-family residential Source: ISC-AERMOD View Version 9.0.0. See AppendixB. Table 3.2-68indicates that construction and operation of Phase 2 would result in acancer risk increase of up to 2.0 per million persons at Receptor 9 that is located at a multi-family home on the north side of the project site. The calculated cancer risks from Phase 2 is below the 10.0-in-a-million cancer risk threshold. Therefore, no significantlong-term cancer risk is anticipated from TAC emissions created by Phase 3 of the proposed project. Total Project Cancer Risk Table 3.2-69provides a summary of the calculated diesel PM10 emission concentrations at the nearby sensitive receptors. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-92 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-69: Total Project Cancer Risks Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 Cancer Risk per Million People X Y Phase 1A Phase 1B Phase 2 Phase 3 Total 1 MFR west side 600,274 4,173,5220.64.70.10.15.5 2 MFR west side 600,268 4,173,6050.74.10.10.15.0 3 MFR northwest side 600,282 4,173,6920.83.40.10.14.4 4 MFR north side 600,369 4,173,6851.34.70.10.16.2 5 MFR north side 600,448 4,173,6842.34.70.20.27.4 6 MFR north side 600,573 4,173,6883.22.70.40.26.5 7 MFR north side 600,668 4,173,6912.52.10.70.25.5 8 MFR north side 600,764 4,173,6951.71.61.60.15.0 9 MFR north side 600,849 4,173,7091.31.320.14.7 10 MFR northeast side 600,910 4,173,7361.11.11.70.14.0 11 MFR south side 601,027 4,173,2270.40.50.60.11.6 12 SFR south side 600,837 4,173,2210.60.60.6 0.11.9 13 SFR south side 600,692 4,173,2341 10.30.32.6 14 SFR south side 600,558 4,173,2360.91.70.2 0.23.0 15 SFR south side 600,414 4,173,2360.52.20.1 0.12.9 16 SFR southwest side 600,246 4,173,2350.31.10.101.5 BAAQMD Cancer Risk Threshold 10.0 Notes: 1 Receptor location based on World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84), Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). MFR = multi-family residential SFR = single-family residential Source: ISC-AERMOD View Version 9.0.0. See AppendixB. Table 3.2-69 indicates that construction and operation of the total projectwould result in acancer risk increase of up to 7.40 per million persons at Receptor 5 that is located at a multi-familyhome on thenorth side of the project site. The calculated cancer risks from the total project 2 is below the 10.0-in-a-million cancer risk threshold. Therefore, no significantlong-term cancer risk is anticipated from TAC emissions created by all phases of the proposed project. Non-Cancer Risks In addition to the cancer risk from exposure to DPM, there is also the potential DPM exposuremay result in adverse health impacts from acute and chronic illnesses, which are detailed below. Acute andchronic illness may involve eye, skin, or lung irritation, neurological or reproductive disorders. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-93 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Chronic Health Impacts Chronic health effectsare characterized byprolonged or repeated exposure to a TAC over many days, months, or years. Symptoms from chronic health impacts may not beimmediately apparent and are often irreversible. The chronic hazard index is based on the mostimpacted sensitive receptor from the proposed project and is calculated from the annual average concentrations of DPM equivalent emissions. The relationship for non-cancer chronic health effects is given by the equation: HIDPM = CDPM/RELDPM Where: HIDPM = Hazard Index; an expression of the potential for non-cancer health effects CDPM = Annual average diesel particulate matter concentration in µg/m3 RELDPM = Reference Exposure Level (REL) for diesel particulate matter; the diesel particulate matter concentration at which no adverse health effects are anticipated The RELDPM is 5 µg/m3. The OEHHA, as protective for the respiratory system, has established this concentration. Table 3.2-70 shows the calculated Hazard Index for eachphase of the proposed project. Table 3.2-70: ProjectNon-Cancer Chronic Health Risks Phase Annual Average DPM (µg/m3) Hazard Index HIDPM) Construction 2017–2018 2018–20322032–2086 Maximum Time Period Phase 1A 0.0345 0.008510.005570.004630.0345 0.0069 Phase 1B 0.1049 —0.001490.001240.1049 0.0210 Phase 2 0.0704 —0.004690.003940.0704 0.0141 Phase 3 0.0946 ——0.000760.0946 0.0189 BAAQMD Non-Cancer Chronic Risk Threshold 1.0 Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, 2015. Table 3.2-70 shows that the greatest non-cancer chronic hazard index would occur during construction of Phase 1B with a hazard index of 0.0210. The criterion for significance is aChronic Hazard Index increase of 1.0 or greater. Therefore, the ongoing operations of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact due to the non-cancer chronic health risk from TAC emissions created by the proposed project. Even if construction phases occurred concurrently, the threshold would not be exceeded and the impact would remain less than significant. Acute Health Impacts Acute health effectsare characterized by suddenand severe exposure and rapid absorption of a TAC. Normally, a single largeexposure is involved. Acute health effects are often treatable andreversible. According to the OEHHA, no acute risk has been found to be directly created from DPM, so there is no City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-94 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx AREL assigned to DPM, and, therefore, it is not possible to utilize a DPM equivalent emission calculation to calculate the acute health impacts from the proposed project. The burning of natural gas at the proposed Energy Center wouldresult in emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, and toluene, whichdo have AREL assigned to them. However, the calculated TAC emissions from the Energy Center were in the 10-9 grams per second range, while the proposed project’s road and idling emissions were in the 10-6 grams per second range and the TRUs and backupgenerators are in the 10-5 grams per second range. Therefore, the TAC emissions from natural gas usage are between 1,000and 10,000 times lowerthan the other TAC emissions from the proposed project, and the acuteimpacts from natural gas usage are anticipated to result in a nominal impact to the nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, the proposed projectwould result in a less than significant impact, due to the non-cancer acute health risk from TAC emissions created by the proposed project. PM2.5 Concentrations Consistent with BAAQMD methodology, the maximum annual PM2.5 concentrations created from the proposed project have also been analyzed. Table 3.2-71 shows the maximum annual average PM2.5 concentrations from the years when construction would occur on the project site and would create the highest PM2.5 emissions and associated concentrations at the nearby sensitive receptors. Table 3.2-71 also includes the PM2.5 emissions from the portions of the project that would be operational for each year analyzed. The annual PM2.5 concentrations were based on separate ISCST3 model runs and are shown in Appendices B through M. Table 3.2-71: Proposed Project Annual PM2.5 Concentrations Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 Annual PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) X Y Year 20162 Year 20173 Year 20254 Year 20355 1 MFR west side 600,274 4,173,522 0.003 0.066 0.004 0.011 2 MFR west side 600,268 4,173,605 0.003 0.061 0.005 0.011 3 MFR northwest side 600,282 4,173,692 0.005 0.053 0.006 0.014 4 MFR north side 600,369 4,173,685 0.006 0.077 0.008 0.019 5 MFR north side 600,448 4,173,684 0.011 0.079 0.011 0.030 6 MFR north side 600,573 4,173,688 0.021 0.044 0.016 0.043 7 MFR north side 600,668 4,173,691 0.021 0.033 0.024 0.040 8 MFR north side 600,764 4,173,695 0.013 0.026 0.047 0.034 9 MFR north side 600,849 4,173,709 0.009 0.022 0.055 0.036 10 MFR northeast side 600,910 4,173,736 0.007 0.018 0.049 0.032 11 MFR south side 601,027 4,173,227 0.002 0.007 0.013 0.026 12 SFR south side 600,837 4,173,221 0.004 0.010 0.013 0.025 13 SFR south side 600,692 4,173,234 0.005 0.015 0.008 0.035 City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-95 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-71 (cont.): Proposed Project Annual PM2.5 Concentrations Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 Annual PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) X Y Year 20162 Year 20173 Year 20254 Year 20355 14 SFR south side 600,558 4,173,236 0.003 0.024 0.005 0.028 15 SFR south side 600,414 4,173,236 0.002 0.027 0.003 0.012 16 SFR southwest side 600,246 4,173,235 0.001 0.012 0.002 0.006 PMI6 Location varies — — 0.037 0.128 0.090 0.223 Notes: 1 Receptor location based on World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84), Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). 2 Year 2016 includes construction of Phase 1A. 3 Year 20217includes operation of Phase 1A and construction of Phase 1B. 4 Year 2025 includes operation of Phases 1A and 1B and construction of Phase 2. 5 Year 2035 includes operation of Phases 1A, 1B, and 2 and construction of Phase 3. 6 PMI = point of maximum impact and is on the property line and is located in either roadway or parking lot areas, whereno sensitive receptors are located. MFR = multi-family residential SFR = single-family residential Source: ISC-AERMOD View Version 9.0.0. See Appendix B. Table 3.2-71 shows that the maximum PM2.5 concentration of 0.223 µg/m3 would occur at the PMI in year2035 during the simultaneous construction of Phase 3 and operation of Phases 1A, 1B, and2. The annual PM2.5 concentration criterion for significanceis an increase of 0.3 µg/m3. Therefore, a less than significant impact from project-related PM2.5 concentrations is anticipated at the sensitive receptorslocated near the project site. Cumulative Health Risk Assessment Consistent with the methodologyprovided by the BAAQMD, this HRA has analyzed the cumulative cancer, noncancer chronicandacute health impacts, and PM2.5 concentrations to the most impacted off-site sensitive receptor from all sources of TAC emissions located within 1,000 feet of the project site. The cumulative health riskimpacts to the most impacted off-site sensitive receptor and most impacted proposed home have been analyzed separately below. Cumulative CancerRisk Impacts A summary of the cumulative cancer riskimpacts to the analyzed off-site sensitive receptors and possible on-site receptors is shown in Table 3.2-72. Table 3.2-72: Cumulative CancerRisk Impacts Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 CancerRisk Per Million Persons X Y I-580 Dublin Blvd Project Total Cumulative 1 MFR west side 600,2744,173,52241.42.85.5 49.7 2 MFR west side 600,2684,173,60531.65.45.0 42.0 City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-96 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-72 (cont.): Cumulative Cancer Risk Impacts Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 CancerRisk Per Million Persons X Y I-580 Dublin Blvd Project Total Cumulative 3 MFR northwest side600,2824,173,69223.18.04.435.5 4 MFR north side 600,3694,173,68524.58.06.238.7 5 MFR north side 600,448 4,173,68424.58.07.439.9 6 MFR north side 600,5734,173,68824.28.06.538.7 7 MFR north side 600,6684,173,69123.98.05.537.5 8 MFR north side 600,764 4,173,69523.38.05.036.4 9 MFR north side 600,8494,173,70919.98.04.732.7 10 MFR northeast side 600,9104,173,73619.68.04.031.7 11 MFR south side 601,027 4,173,22779.40.41.6 81.4 12 SFR south side 600,8374,173,22170.40.61.9 72.8 13 SFR south side600,6924,173,23479.40.62.6 82.6 14 SFR south side 600,558 4,173,23680.70.63.0 84.3 15 SFR south side600,4144,173,23680.70.62.9 84.2 16 SFR southwest side 600,2464,173,23580.70.61.582.8 BAAQMD Cumulative Cancer Risk Threshold 100 Notes: 1 Receptor location based on World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84), Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). MFR = multi-family residential SFR = single-family residential Source: BAAQMD, 2011; ISC-AERMOD View Version 9.0.0. Table 3.2-72 shows that the greatest cumulative cancer impact of 84.3per million persons would occur at Receiver 14. This would bebelow the BAAQMD cumulative cancer risk threshold of 100 per million persons. Impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative Noncancer Chronic Health Index Asummary of the cumulative noncancer chronic health index to the analyzed off-site sensitive receptorsand possible on-sitereceptors is shown in Table 3.2-73. Table 3.2-73: Cumulative NoncancerChronic Impacts Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 Chronic Health Index X Y I-580 Dublin Blvd Project2 Total Cumulative 1 MFR west side 600,2744,173,5220.0700.0380.019 0.126 2 MFR west side 600,2684,173,6050.0551.0590.019 1.132 City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-97 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-73 (cont.): Cumulative Noncancer Chronic Impacts Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 Chronic Health Index X Y I-580 Dublin Blvd Project2 Total Cumulative 3 MFR northwest side 600,2824,173,6920.0550.046 0.019 0.120 4 MFR north side 600,3694,173,6850.0550.046 0.019 0.120 5 MFR north side 600,4484,173,6840.0550.046 0.019 0.120 6 MFR north side 600,5734,173,6880.0550.046 0.019 0.120 7 MFR north side 600,6684,173,6910.0550.046 0.019 0.120 8 MFR north side 600,7644,173,6950.0550.046 0.019 0.120 9 MFR north side 600,8494,173,7090.0550.046 0.019 0.120 10 MFR northeast side 600,9104,173,7360.0550.046 0.019 0.120 11 MFR south side 601,0274,173,2270.0990.014 0.019 0.132 12 SFR south side 600,8374,173,2210.0990.014 0.019 0.132 13 SFR south side 600,6924,173,2340.0990.014 0.019 0.132 14 SFR south side 600,5584,173,2360.0750.014 0.019 0.108 15 SFR south side 600,4144,173,2360.0750.014 0.019 0.108 16 SFR southwest side 600,2464,173,2350.0750.014 0.019 0.108 BAAQMD Cumulative NoncancerChronicHealth IndexThreshold 10 Notes: 1 Receptor location based on World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84), Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). 2 Per BAAQMD methodology, health risk impacts from project to project are not required to be analyzed. MFR = multi-family residential SFR = single-family residential Source: BAAQMD, 2011; ISC-AERMOD View Version 9.0.0. Table 3.2-73 shows that the greatest cumulative chronic health index impact of 0.132 would occur at Receptors 11, 12, and 13. This would be below the BAAQMD cumulative noncancer chronic health index threshold of 10. Impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative Noncancer Acute Health Index A summary of the cumulative noncancer acute health index to the analyzed off-site sensitive receptorsand possible on-site receptors is shown in Table 3.2-74. Table 3.2-74: Cumulative Noncancer AcuteImpacts Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 Acute Health Index X Y I-580 Dublin Blvd Project2 Total Cumulative 1 MFR west side 600,2744,173,5220.0330.019 —2 0.052 2 MFR west side 600,2684,173,6050.0240.537 —2 0.561 City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-98 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-74 (cont.): Cumulative Noncancer Acute Impacts Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 Acute Health Index X Y I-580 Dublin Blvd Project2 Total Cumulative 3 MFR northwest side 600,2824,173,6920.0240.024—2 0.048 4 MFR north side 600,3694,173,6850.0240.024—2 0.048 5 MFR north side 600,4484,173,6840.0240.024—2 0.048 6 MFR north side 600,5734,173,6880.0240.024—2 0.048 7 MFR north side 600,6684,173,6910.0240.024—2 0.048 8 MFR north side 600,7644,173,6950.0240.024—2 0.048 9 MFR north side 600,8494,173,7090.0240.024—2 0.048 10 MFR northeast side 600,9104,173,7360.0240.024—2 0.048 11 MFR south side601,0274,173,2270.0590.007—2 0.066 12 SFR south side600,8374,173,2210.0590.007—2 0.066 13 SFR south side600,6924,173,2340.0590.007—2 0.066 14 SFR south side600,5584,173,2360.0460.007—2 0.053 15 SFR south side600,4144,173,2360.0460.007—2 0.053 16 SFR southwest side 600,2464,173,2350.0460.007—2 0.053 BAAQMD Cumulative NoncancerAcute Health IndexThreshold10 Notes: 1 Receptor location based on World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84), Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). 2 The project analysis determined that the noncancer acute hazard indeximpacts to be negligible. MFR = multi-family residential SFR = single-family residential Source: BAAQMD, 2011; ISC-AERMOD View Version 9.0.0. Table 3.2-74 shows that the greatest cumulative acute health index impact of 0.066 would occur at Receptors 11, 12, and 13. This would bebelow the BAAQMD cumulative noncancer acute health index threshold of 10. Impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative PM2.5 Concentrations Asummary of the cumulative PM2.5 concentrations to the analyzed off-site sensitive receptors and possible on-sitereceptors is shown in Table 3.2-75. Table 3.2-75: Cumulative PM2.5 Concentrations Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) X Y I-580 Dublin Blvd Project2 Total Cumulative 1 MFR west side 600,2744,173,5220.520.270.004 0.79 2 MFR west side 600,2684,173,6050.410.310.004 0.73 City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-99 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-75 (cont.): Cumulative PM2.5 Concentrations Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) X Y I-580 Dublin Blvd Project2 Total Cumulative 3 MFR northwest side 600,2824,173,6920.410.330.006 0.76 4 MFR north side 600,3694,173,6850.410.330.007 0.76 5 MFR north side 600,4484,173,6840.410.330.010 0.76 6 MFR north side 600,5734,173,6880.410.330.013 0.76 7 MFR north side 600,6684,173,6910.410.330.013 0.76 8 MFR north side 600,7644,173,6950.410.330.016 0.77 9 MFR north side 600,8494,173,7090.410.330.023 0.77 10 MFR northeast side 600,9104,173,7360.410.330.022 0.77 11 MFR south side 601,0274,173,2270.620.100.017 0.73 12 SFR south side 600,8374,173,2210.640.100.009 0.74 13 SFR south side 600,6924,173,2340.620.100.006 0.72 14 SFR south side 600,5584,173,2360.580.100.004 0.68 15 SFR south side 600,4144,173,2360.580.100.003 0.68 16 SFR southwest side 600,2464,173,2350.580.100.002 0.68 BAAQMD Cumulative PM2.5 ConcentrationThreshold 0.8 Notes: 1 Receptor location based on World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84), Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). 2 The project PM2.5 concentrations based on the worst-case project operational condition and does not include construction emissions. MFR = multi-family residential SFR = single-family residential Source: BAAQMD, 2011; ISC-AERMOD View Version 9.0.0. Table 3.2-75 shows that the greatest cumulative PM2.5 concentration of 0.79 µg/m3 would occur at Receptor 1. The project contribution of PM2.5 at Receptor 1 of 0.004 µg/m3 represents 0.5percent of the cumulativeconcentration at thislocation. This would be below the BAAQMD cumulative PM2.5 threshold of 0.8 µg/m3. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-100 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Objectionable Odors Impact AIR-5: The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Impact Analysis As stated in the BAAQMD 2010 Air Quality Guidelines, odors are generallyregarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard and the ability to detect odors varies considerably andoverall is subjective. The BAAQMD does not havea recommended odor threshold for construction activities. However, BAAQMD recommends operational screening criteria, as shown in Table 3.2-76, that are based on distance between types of sources known to generate odor and the receptor. Projects that would site an odor source or a receptor farther than the applicable screening distance, shown in Table 3.2-76, would not result in a significant odor impact. Table 3.2-76: Odor Screening Distances Land Use/Type of Operation Project Screening Distance WastewaterTreatment Plant 2 miles Wastewater Pumping Facilities 1 mile Sanitary Landfill 2 miles Transfer Station 1 mile CompostingFacility 1 mile Petroleum Refinery 2 miles Asphalt Batch Plant 2 miles Chemical Manufacturing 2 miles Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile Painting/Coating Operations 1 mile Rendering Plant 2 miles Coffee Roaster 1 mile Food Processing Facility 1 mile Confined Animal Facility/Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile Green Waste and Recycling Operations 1 mile Metal Smelting Plants 2 mile Source: BAAQMD, 2011. Project Construction Diesel exhaust and ROG would be emitted duringconstruction of the project, the odors of which are objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and, City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-101 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx therefore, would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, odor impacts would be less than significant during project construction. Project Operation Land uses typically considered associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste- disposal facilities, or agricultural operations. The project does not contain any of these land uses or other land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. The project site is not located within the recommended screening distances (as shown in Table 3.2-76) of any typical sources of objectionable odors, which typicallyincludeagricultural operations e.g., dairies, feedlots, etc.), landfills, wastewater treatment plants, refineries, and other types of industrial land uses. Therefore, odor impacts would be less than significant during project operations. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact AIR-6: Implementation of the project would generate direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment. Impact Analysis This analysis is restricted to greenhouse gases identified by AB 32, which include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The project would generate a variety of greenhouse gases duringconstruction and operation, including several defined by AB 32 such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The project may also emit greenhouse gases that are not defined by AB 32. For example, the project maygenerate aerosols. Aerosols are short-lived particles, as they remain in the atmosphere for about 1 week. Black carbon isa component of aerosol. Studieshave indicated that black carbon has a highglobal warming potential; however, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that it has a low level of scientific certainty. Water vapor could be emitted from evaporated water used for landscaping, but this is not a significant impact because water vaporconcentrations in the upper atmosphere are primarily due to climate feedbacks ratherthan emissions from project-related activities. The project would emit nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, which are ozone precursors. Ozone isa greenhouse gas; however, unlike theother greenhouse gases, ozone in the troposphere is relatively short-lived and can be reduced in the troposphere on a daily basis. Stratospheric ozone can be reduced through reactions with other pollutants. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-102 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Certain greenhouse gases definedby AB 32 would not be emitted by the project. Perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride are typically used in industrial applications, none of which would be used by the project. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project would emit perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride. Anupstream emission source (also known as life cycleemissions) refers to emissions that were generated during the manufacture of products to be used for construction of the project. Upstream emission sources for the project include but are not limited emissions fromthe manufacture of cement, emissions fromthe manufacture of steel, and/or emissions fromthe transportation of building materials to the seller. The upstream emissions were not estimated because they are notwithin the control of the project and to do so would be speculative. Additionally, the California AirPollution Control OfficersAssociation White Paper on CEQA and Climate Change supports this conclusion by stating, “The full life-cycle of GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from construction activities is not accounted for . . . and the information needed to characterize [life-cycle emissions] would be speculative at the CEQA analysis level.” Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15144 and 15145, upstream/life cycle emissions are speculative and no further discussion is necessary. BAAQMD provides multiple options in its 2010 Thresholds for project-level GHG generation from project operation. Prior to the 2010 Air Guidance document, BAAQMD did not have an adopted threshold of significance for GHG emissions. BAAQMD does not presently provide a construction- related greenhouse gas generation threshold, but recommends that construction-generated greenhouse gases be quantified and disclosed. BAAQMDalso recommends that lead agencies (in this case, City of Dublin) makea determination of the level of significance of construction-generated greenhouse gas emissions in relation to meeting AB 32 greenhouse gas reduction goals. The lead agency is alsoencouraged to incorporate BMPs to reduce GHG emissions during project construction, as feasible and applicable. BAAQMD’s project-level significance threshold for operational greenhouse gas generation was deemed appropriate to use whendetermining the project’s potential greenhouse gas impacts. The thresholds suggested by BAAQMD for project-level operational greenhouse gas generationare as follows: Compliance with a qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, or 1,100 MTCO2e/year, or 4.6 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per service population (employees plus residents). BAAQMD’s Air Quality Guidelines state that if annual emissions of GHG exceed the thresholds, the project would result in a cumulatively considerable significant impact to global climate change. Therefore, if the project is less than any one of the thresholds identified above, then the project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact to global climate change. The City of Dublin adopted its Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update in July 2013, which contains a greenhouse gas reductiontarget of 15 percent below 2010 levels by 2020. The CAP constitutes a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy. The project proposes multiple phases, some of which will not be developed until 2035–2040. This timeframe is well outside the 2020forecastyear analyzed in the City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-103 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx CAP. Inaddition, the employment from the proposed project is not fully considered in the employment projections for 2020 under the CAP. Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, the BAAQMD’s threshold of 4.6 MTCO2e/SP/yr will be used for determining the level of significance of the project’s greenhouse gas emissions. However, the analysis also will consider the project’s consistency with the greenhouse gas reduction measures under the CAP under the Plan consistency standard. Construction The project would emit greenhouse gas emissions duringconstruction from the off-road equipment, worker vehicles, and any hauling that may occur. As previously indicated, BAAQMD does not presentlyprovide a construction-related greenhouse gas generation threshold, but recommends that construction-generated greenhouse gases be quantified and disclosed. BAAQMD also recommends that lead agencies (in this case, the City of Dublin) makea determination of the level of significance of construction-generated greenhouse gas emissions in relation to meeting AB 32 greenhouse gas reduction goals. Greenhouse gas emissions from project construction equipment and worker vehicles are shown in Table 3.2-77. The emissions are from all phases of construction. Construction of the project is estimated to generate approximately 3,929 MTCO2e. The annual emissions from construction were added to the operational emissions to determine the total emissions of the project. These total project emissions were analyzed against the BAAQMD significance threshold standard. Table 3.2-77: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Year Emissions (MTCO2e) 2016 546 2017 673 2018 534 2025 714 2026 489 2035 815 2036 158 Total Construction Emissions 3,929 Annualized over 30 years 131 Notes: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbondioxide equivalents Source: see Appendix B CalEEMod output. Source: FirstCarbon Solutions 2015. Operation Long-term, operational greenhouse gas emissions would result from project generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, operation of anylandscaping equipment, off-site generation of electrical power over the life of the project, the energy required to convey water to City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-104 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx andwastewater from the project site, the emissions associated with the haulingand disposal of solid waste fromthe project site, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators. Operational emissions for the year2036 were modeled using CalEEMod. CalEEMod emission factors incorporate compliance with some, butnot all, applicable rules and regulations regarding energy efficiency and vehicle fuel efficiency, and other GHG reduction policies, as described in the CalEEMod User’s Guide (SCAQMD 2013). The reductions obtained from each regulation and the source of the reductionamount used in the analysis are described below. Emissions Accounting for Applicable Regulations The following regulations are incorporated into the CalEEMod emission factors: Pavley I motor vehicle emission standards Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) 2005 and 2008 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards The following regulations have not been incorporated into the CalEEMod emissionfactors and require alternative methods to account for emission reductions provided by the regulations: Pavley II (LEV III) Advanced Clean Cars Program 2013 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) Green Building Code Standards (indoor water use) California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Outdoor Water) Pavley II/LEV III standards have not been incorporated in the latest version of CalEEMod. Reductions from standards are calculated by adjusting the CalEEMod GHG passenger car and light truck emission factorsby ARB’s estimated three percent reduction expected from the vehicle categories subject to the regulation by 2020 (ARB 2010c). Title 24reductions for 2013are not accounted forin the current version of CalEEMod. The California Energy Commission (CEC) estimates that 2013 Title 24 standards would result in an increase in energy efficiency of 30 percent in non-residential buildingscompared to 2008 Title 24 (CEC 2014). The benefits of 2013 Title 24 are applied in the CalEEMod mitigation component to correctly allocate the reductions only to building components subject to the regulation. RPS is not accounted forin the current version of CalEEMod. Reductions from RPS are addressed by revising the electricity emission intensityfactor in CalEEMod to account for the utility complying with the 33percent renewablemandate by 2020 (ARB 2010 and CPUC 2011). Energy savings from water conservation resulting from the Green Building Code Standards for indoor water use and California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance for outdoor water use are not included in CalEEMod. The Water Conservation Act of 2009mandates a 20percent reduction in urban water use that is implemented with theseregulations (CDWR 2013). Benefits of the water conservation regulations are applied in the CalEEMod mitigation component. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-105 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx The project’s refrigeration systems are subject to the ARB Refrigerant Management Program. CalEEMod does not account for refrigerant emissions; therefore, the analysis uses spreadsheet calculations with ARB emission factorsand program reduction estimates. ARB estimates that the program will result in a reduction of approximately 50percent in refrigerant emissions from sources subject to the regulation (ARB 2009). Regulations applicable to project sources and the percent reduction anticipated from each source areshown in Table 3.2-78. The percentage reductions are only applied to the specific sources subject to the regulations. For example, the Pavley Low EmissionVehicleStandards apply only to light duty cars and trucks. Table 3.2-78: Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Regulations Regulation Project Applicability Reduction Source Percent Reduction in 2036 Pavley Low Emission Vehicle Standards Light duty cars and trucks accessing the site are subject to the regulation CalEEMod defaults Pavley I)I 25.11 Adjusted GHG emission factor (Pavley II/LEV III) in CalEEMod. 3%2 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Vehicles accessing the site will use fuel subject to the LCFS CalEEMod defaults10%1 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards Project buildings will be constructed to meet the latest version of Title 24 (currently 2013). Reduction applies only to energy consumption subject to the regulation. CalEEMod defaults (2008) and CalEEMod mitigation component (2013) 30%3 Green Building Code Standards The project will include water conservation features required by the standard CalEEMod mitigation component 20%4 Water Efficient Land Use Ordinance The project landscaping will comply with the regulation CalEEMod mitigation component 20%5 Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Electricity purchased for use at the project site is subject to the 33% RPS mandate CalEEMod adjusted energy intensity factors from PG&E 20.4%6 Notes: Regulations aredescribed in Section 2.3 Regulatory Environment. The source of the percentage reductions from each measure are from the following sources: 1 Pavley 1 + Low Carbon Fuel Standard Postprocessor Version 1.0 User’s Guide (ARB 2010c). 2 ARB Staff Report for LEV III Amendments (ARB 2013) 3 2013 Title 24Building Energy Efficiency Standards Adoption Hearing Presentation (CEC 2013) 4 2013California Green Building Standards Code Section 5.303.2 5 California Water Plan Update 2013 (CDWR 2013). 6 PG&E Emission Factor Local Government Operations Protocol (ARB 2010 and CPUC Large IOU RPS Procurement Data CPUC 2011) City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-106 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx The results of the operations emission analysis are presented in Table 3.2-79. The table lists the emissions from the project unmitigated scenario, the project with mitigation andregulations in 2036 scenario, the percentage reduction from unmitigated scenario for each source, and the overall greenhouse gas efficiency for the project. With a service population (SP) of 3,443, the project would generate approximately 13.48 MTCO2e/SP/yr. Therefore, the proposed projectwould exceed the BAAQMD’s threshold of significance resulting in a significantgeneration of greenhouse gases. Table 3.2-79: Project Operational Emissions (2036) Source Emissions (MTCO2e per Year) Unmitigated Mitigated With Regulations) Percent Area 0.12 0.12 0 Energy 8,896 7,323 17.7 Mobile 33,070 27,187 17.8 Waste 4,541 3,406 25 Water 348 271 22.1 Stationary Sources 8,069 8,069 0 TotalOperational Emissions 54,92446,25615.7 Annualized Construction Emissions 131 131 0 Total Project Emissions 55,055 46,387 15.7 Service Population 3,443 3,443 — Project Emission Generation 15.99 MTCO2e/SP/yr 13.47 MTCO2e/SP/yr 15.8 BAAQMDSignificance Threshold 4.60 MTCO2e/SP/yr4.60 MTCO2e/SP/yr — Are emissions significant? Yes Yes — The mitigated output from CalEEMod shows reductions from existing regulatory requirements and project design features that are termed “mitigation” within the model; however, those modeling components associated with locational measures and compliance with existing regulations are not considered mitigation under CEQA, but rather are treated as project design features. The project would incorporate design features and would obtain benefits from its location and infrastructure that would reduce project vehicle miles traveledcompared to default values. The analysis identified four measures in CalEEMod mitigation component that apply to the project that are described in Table 3.2-80. Additionally, the project would implement transportation mitigation measures that would construct pedestrianand bicycle infrastructure, improve bus service, and implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures. The reductions attributable to these measures in CalEEMod are derived from methodologiescompiled in the CAPCOA report Quantifying GHG Measures. Each measure was assessed to determineits consistency with CAPCOA criteria for the use of the measure. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-107 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx The percentage reduction from the unmitigated scenario for each measure using the CalEEMod mitigation component is provided. The total reduction fromthe unmitigated scenario is 15.8 percent. Table 3.2-80: Reductions from Project Land Use and Transportation Measures CAPCOA/CalEEMod Measure Project Applicability Percent Reduction from Unmitigated LUT-3 Increase Diversity Suburban) The measure requires at least three different land uses within 0.25 mile. There are single-family residential, multi-family residential, retail, and office land uses within this distance fromthe project. 0.08% LUT-4Improve Destination Accessibility The measure is based on distance to downtown or majorjob centers. The project is within 1 mile of an existing job center at Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard and would also be a major job center.. 0.18% LUT-5 Increase Transit Accessibility This measure requires the presence of a transit stop within walking distance of the project. CalEEMod calculates the reduction on distance to the stop. The project is located within 0.25 mile of a Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority LAVTA)Wheels Rapid TransitRoute. 0.16% SDT-1 Improve Pedestrian Access This measure provides pedestrian access linking the project to other areas to encourage walking. The measure requires both on-site and off-site pedestrian infrastructure (Mitigation Measure TRANS-8c). 2.0% TRT-1, TRT-2 Implement Trip Reduction Program The project wouldimplement a TDM program to reduce vehicle trips associated with employees. Note that the reduction applies only to those trips that are from employees (Mitigation Measure TRANS-1a). 5.40% TRT-4 Transit Subsidy The project wouldimplement a TDM program that may include a transit subsidy. (Mitigation Measure TRANS-1a) 3.40% TRT-3 Provide a Ride Sharing Program The project may include a ride sharing component as part of its TDM program. Note that the reduction applies only to those trips that are from employees (Mitigation Measure TRANS-1a). 10.0% TRT-7 Market Commute Trip Reduction Program The projectwouldimplement a TDM program that would include promoting alternative travel methods andreducing the use of single-occupancy vehicles (Mitigation Measure TRANS-1a). 0.04 Total from Land Use andTransportation Measures 21.18% Notes: LUT = Land Use Transportation measure category from CAPCOA report Quantifying GHG Measures. SDT = SiteDesign Transportation measure category from CAPCOA report Quantifying GHG Measures. TRT = Trip Reduction Transportation measurecategory from CAPCOA report Quantifying GHG Measures VMT reductions only apply to lightduty car and truck trips. Source: CAPCOA 2010and CalEEMod 2013.2.2Modeling Results. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-108 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Consistency with the CAP The City of Dublin requires project consistency with applicable CAP greenhouse gas reduction The project’s consistency with applicable CAP measures is provided in Table 3.2-81. Table 3.2-81: Project Consistency with Applicable CAP Measures CAP Measure Project Consistency A.1 Transportation and Land Use Measures A.1.4 BicycleParking Requirements Consistent. Bicycle parking requirements are implemented during the site development review process. Under the City’s Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations, parking lots with 20 or more spaces in nonresidential zoning districts are required to provide bicycle parking. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, one bicycle parking space in a bicyclerack is required for each 40 vehicularparking spaces. Bicycle lockers are also required to be provided. Mitigation Measure TRANS-8b requires the provision of bicyclestorage facilities within the proposed project. A.1.5 Streetscape Master Plan Consistent. The Zoning Ordinance has requirements for planting trees in parking lots (minimum of one tree for every four parking spaces). The project would comply with this requirement. A.1.8 General Plan Community Design and SustainabilityElement Consistent. The Community Design and SustainabilityElement established design principles, policies, and implementation measures to enhance the livability of Dublinand encourages a high level of quality design that supports sustainability. The Community Design and SustainabilityElement applies to new development and redevelopment throughout the City. The project incorporates a number of features that promote sustainabilityincluding energy efficiency design, water efficiency design, and accessibility to alternative modes of transportation. A.1.9 Work with Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) to Improve Transit Consistent. As part of the review process for proposed developmentprojects, the City and project proponents work with LAVTA on planning future bus stops locations and extending service routes. This directive has been incorporated into the project as Mitigation Measure AIR-8a. A.2 Energy Measures A.2.5 LED Streetlight Specification for New Projects Consistent. The City has developed a LED streetlight specification that requires all future development projects to install LED streetlights. The projectwould comply with this requirement. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-109 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.2-81 (cont.): Project Consistency with Applicable CAP Measures CAP Measure Project Consistency A.3 SolidWaste and Recycling Measures A.3.1 Constructionand Demolition Debris Ordinance Consistent. Since 2005, the City has implemented a Constructionand Demolition DebrisOrdinance, with which the proposed project would be required to comply. A.3.4 Commercial Recycling Program In 2005, the City began offering a free commercial recycling program that also includes freeindoor recycling containers for businesses. Indoor recycling containers encourageemployees to recycle by conveniently locating recycling containers near their work areas. The project would include recycling areas within the medical facilities. A.3.6Promote Commercial Recycling Consistent. In 2005, the City began promoting commercial recycling in the City. The City has developedcommercial recycling guides for businesses and the City’s franchise wastehauler conducts two business audits per business day to increase diversion effortsinthe commercialsector. The proposed project would install on-site recycling facilities and would be served within recycling collection services by a contract hauler. Source of Measures: City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update, July 2013 Source of Project Consistency: FirstCarbon Solutions Summary The projectwould exceed the BAAQMD GHG efficiency measure. Accordingly, this is a significant impact. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a, TRANS-8a, TRANS-8b, and, TRANS-8c. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significantunavoidable impact. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR 3.2-110 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-02 AQ-GHG.docx Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Consistency Impact AIR-7: Implementation of the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Impact Analysis To address thispotential impact, project consistency with the City of Dublin CAP is used for this analysis. City of Dublin CAP In addition to compliance with applicable CAP measures, the City of Dublin CAP requires a reduction of 15 percent below the 2010 inventory by 2020. As shown in Table 3.2-82, the project would meet the required reductions. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. Table 3.2-82: City of Dublin CAP Consistency Analysis Emission Source MTCO2e per year Percent Reduction2010BAUScenario 2020 Project Scenario Area 0.12 0.12 0% Energy 11,755 7,323 37.7% Mobile 38,793 28,2230 27.2% Waste 4,541 3,406 24.9% Water 439 271 38.2% Stationary Sources 8,069 8,069 0% Total Emissions 63,597 47,299 25.6% City of Dublin CAP Reduction Goal 15.0% Does the Project Meetthe Reduction Goal?Yes Notes: BAU = business as usual MTCO2e = metric tons of carbondioxide equivalent. Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix B). Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a, TRANS-8a, TRANS-8b, and, TRANS-8c. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-03 Biological Resources.docx 3.3 - Biological Resources This section describes the existing biological setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on the Biological Resources Assessment prepared by WRA, provided in Appendix C. 3.3.1 - Environmental Setting Overview The project site is located in East Dublin and consists of developedcommercial andresidential areas interspersed with undeveloped areas. The majority of the site is characterized by nonnative annual grassland with occasionalstands of non-native mustards andcoyotebrush (Baccharis pilularis). Elevations of the project site range from 345 to 455 feet above sea level. Minor topographic variation occurs as microdepressions within a larger, largely flat plain. Alarge, underground concrete stormwater maintenance accessway is located in the southern portion of the project site and leads to open, underground space. A drainage channel lies immediatelysouth of the project site, between the edge of the existing graveled access area and Interstate 580 (I-580). This area contains several maintained storm drain outfalls and connects to a flood control conveyance channel that extends under I-580. This area is identified as a flood control easement. The project site has historically beenundeveloped land, with the northeastcornerutilized to dry- farmwheat. Based on satellite imagery and existing vegetation, it appears that some parts of the project site have historically experienced prolonged inundation during part of the year and met some wetland criteria. However, based on aerial photographs, disturbance (tilling, earthmoving activities) occurred on-site and an extensive stormwater conveyancesystem was installed in 2004 with surface drainsplaced at intervals throughout the project site that effectivelydrain the site towards the constructed stormwater basin to the west. It appears that non-wetland shrubs and forbs such as coyote brush subsequently began to colonize the site in increasing densities, indicating dry conditions. Site disturbance has prevented the growth of larger trees; thus, no heritagetrees were observed within the project site. Soils in the project site were friable and tilled to a depth of approximately 12 inches. Throughout the majority of the site, no indicators of wetland hydrology such as evidence of ponding, oxidized rhizospheres along living roots, and other wetland indicators were observed. Some scattered microdepressions support facultative wetland vegetation, and although soils within the project site are mapped as hydricby the Natural Resources Conservation Service and consist of Rincon clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, and Clear lake clay, they are now effectively drained by the installed stormwater system. The only area with indicators meeting United States Army Corps of Engineers USACE) wetland parameters was the drainage ditch in the southern portion of the project site bordering I-580. The only area with a wetland indicator meeting the USACE wetland parameters was the drainage ditch in the southern portion of the project site, bordering I-580. However, this drainage ditch City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR 3.3-2 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-03 Biological Resources.docx lacked other wetland indicators such as hydric soils and an ordinary high water mark. Representative photographs of the project site can be found in Exhibit 2-3 andAppendix C. BiologicalCommunities Table 3.3-1 summarizes the area of each biological community type observed in the project site. There are no sensitive biological communities present within the project site. A description for each biological community is contained in the following sections. Biological communities within the project site are shown in Exhibit 3.3-1. Table 3.3-1: Biological Community Summary Community Type Acreage Non-native annual grassland 48.94 Developed land 0.77 Ruderal herbaceous stands 1.24 Drainage ditch 3.87 Total 54.82 Source: WRA, 2014. DevelopedLand Developed land within the project site consists of a graveled access road that extends parallel to the southern property boundary, encompassing an underground concrete stormwater maintenance accessway. On the southern property boundary, a very smallstand of cattails occurs within standing water within an underground concrete stormwater maintenance accessway that is connected underground to the adjacent waterquality basin to the west. The accessway was constructed in 2004. Non-Native Annual Grassland Non-native annual grassland typically occurs in open areas of valleys and foothillsthroughout California, usually on fine textured clay or loam soils that are somewhat poorly drained (Holland 1986). Non-native grassland is typicallydominatedby non-native annual grasses and forbs along with scattered native wildflowers. Non-native annual grassland comprises the majority of the project site and is a mix of grasses and other herbaceous species. Because of tilling early in the season, the site was largely devoid of living vegetation. Native plant cover is less than 10percent. Observed dominant grasses include slender oat (Avena barbata), soft chess (Bromushordeaceus), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis [Lolium multiflorum]), rattail fescue (Vulpia myuros) and Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica). Forbs observed withinthe non-native annual grassland include stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens), Italian thistle (Carduus pynchnocephalus), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), doveweed (Croton setiger), black mustard (Brassica nigra), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), seaside heliotrope (Heliotropum curavassicum) and yellow star thistle (Centaurea solsticialis). Study Area (54.82 acres) Communities Developed (0.77 acre) Non-native annual grassland (48. 94 acres) Ruderal/herbaceous (1.24 acres) Stormwater drainage ditch (3.87 acres) I 37660004 • 01/2015 | 3.3-1_veg.cdr Exhibit 3.3-1 BiologicalCommunities CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT Source: WRA, 2014. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-5 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-03 Biological Resources.docx Occurrences of facultative wetland species including curly dock (Rumex crispus, FAC) and Italian rye grass (FAC) were scattered throughout the site, with occurrences of perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium, FAC) and Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum, FAC) located in microdepressions. None of these occurrences were determined to represent a dominant plant community. Coyote brush, an upland species, is scattered throughout the project site. Wildlife species observed in this community in the project site included western fencelizard Sceloporus occidentalis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), black- tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), and California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi). Ruderal Herbaceous Stands Ruderal herbaceous stands are located in areas where there have been recent or repeated disturbance. These communities are dominatedby non-native herbaceous species adapted to growing in conditions of disturbance. Ruderal herbaceous stands dominatedby common upland plants such as black mustard, prickly lettuce, yellow star thistle, common tarweed (Centromadia pungens var. pungens), alkali mallow (Malvella leprosa), burr clover (Medicagopolymorpha), and bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides) occur along the north and west portions of the project site along the property boundaries, and along the partially graveled, compacted dirt access road along the southernboundary. Wildlife species observed in this community in the project site were black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) and California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi). DrainageDitch An approximately 4-acre drainage ditch extends along the entirety of the southern property boundary, between the edge of the existing graveled access area and I-580. This areacontains several maintained stormdrainoutfalls. No water was observed in the ditch at the time of site reconnaissance. This feature is identified as a flood control easement on surveys of the project site. The drainage is approximately20 feet wide and 10 feet deep. No ordinaryhigh water mark was observed. Vegetation within the ditch was composed largely of weedyupland species including wild oats, common tarweed, alkali mallow, black mustard, stinkwort, prickly lettuce, Italian thistle, ripgut brome, Harding grass, and soft chess. A stand of creeping wildrye (Elymus triticoides, FAC) was observed at the southeastern boundary of the ditch. Other facultative wetland indicator species including alkali sea heath (Frankenia salina, FACW), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata, FAC) curly dock, and Mediterranean barley were concentrated in the bottom of the ditch, which showedindications of ponding in several areas (footprints, sediment deposits). This ditch continues off-site south of the water quality basin. This feature connects to a flood control conveyance channel that extends under I-580. Ditches constructed on dry land and draining only uplandsare not considered jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act by regulation, which states: Ditches (including roadsideditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relativelypermanent flow of water generallyare not jurisdictional under the CWA because they are not tributaries or they do not havea significant nexus to TNWs [traditional navigable waters]. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR 3.3-6 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-03 Biological Resources.docx Because the subject drainage ditch only drains stormwater from the project site and does not contain continuously flowing water for 3 months or longer, it meets this definition of a roadside ditch. Sensitive Biological Communities Sensitive biological communitiesinclude habitats that fulfill special functions or havespecial values, such as wetlands, streams, or riparian habitat. These habitats are protectedunder federal regulations such as the Clean Water Act; stateregulations such as the Porter-Cologne Act, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Streambed Alteration Program, and CEQA; or local ordinances or policies such as city or county tree ordinances, Special Habitat Management Areas, and General Plan Elements. At thetime of the investigation, no sensitive biological communities such as wetlands, riparian areas, or streams were observed on the property. Special-Status Species Special-status species includethose plant and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are proposed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA). These acts afford protection to both listed andproposed species. In addition, CDFW (formerly the California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG]) Species of Special Concern, which are species that face extirpation in California if currentpopulation and habitat trendscontinue, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Birds of Conservation Concern, and CDFW special-status invertebrates are all considered special-status species. Bat species are also evaluated for conservation status by the Western Bat Working Group (WBWG), a non-governmental entity. Although CDFW Species of Special Concern and WBWG evaluatedbatsgenerally have no speciallegal status, they are given special consideration under the CEQA. In addition to regulations for special-status species, most native birds in the United States, including non-status species, are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). Under this legislation, destroyingactive nests, eggs, andyoung is illegal. Plant species on the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory Inventory) with California Rare Plant Ranks (Rank) of 1 and 2 are also considered special-status plant species and mustbe considered under CEQA. Rank 3 and Rank 4 species are afforded little or no protection under CEQA, but they are included in this analysis for completeness. The habitat mappingand field survey werereviewed for potential habitat for the special-status species identified from literature and database searches. A speciesis determined to have the potential to occur on the project site if its documented geographicalrange fromthe literature and database searches includes the vicinity of the project siteand if suitable habitat for the species was identified withinor near the project site. The methodology for database searchesis discussed more fully below. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-7 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-03 Biological Resources.docx Special-Status Plant Species Based upon a review of the resources and databases, 48 special-status plant species have been documented in the vicinity of the project site; refer to Exhibit 3.3-2. The project site has the potential to support two of these species. Biological Resources Assessment Appendix B summarizes the potential for occurrence for eachspecial-status plant species occurring in the vicinity of the project site. The remaining species documented to occur in the vicinity of the project site are unlikely or have no potential to occur. Saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum, FAC) was documented on-site in 2002 but was subsequently reported as possibly extirpated by development in 2005. Repeated site disturbance since 2004, including extensivedrainage structures installed throughout the siteand tilling, have altered siteconditions, rendering it unlikely for this species to occur. Special-status plant species that are most likely (moderate or high potential) to occur in the project site are discussed as follows. Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) CNPS Rank 1B.1; East AlamedaCounty Conservation Strategy (EACCS) Focal Species; High Potential. Congdon’s tarplant is an annual forb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae) that blooms from June to November. It occurs in terraces, swales, floodplains, grassland, and disturbed sites, sometimes alkaline, at elevations ranging from 0 to 990 feet. Congdon’s tarplant is known from 31 USGS 7.5- minute quadrangles in Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, SantaClara, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, and Solano counties. No occurrences of Congdon’s tarplant were observed during the September22, 2014 site visit, which occurred during the blooming period for this species. However, because of recent occurrences of this species documented in the vicinity of the project site and the presence of suitable habitat on- site, there is a high potential for this species to occur within the project site. San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joaquinana) Federal Listing Status: None; StateListing Status: None; EACCS Focal Species; CNPS List: 1B.2; ModeratePotential. San Joaquin spearscale is an annual herb in the goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae) that blooms from April to October. It is found in alkaline soils in chenopod scrublands, meadows, seeps, playas, and valley and foothill grasslands from 3 to 2,740 feet in elevation. This species was documented immediately north of the project site in 1999 and 2002. No occurrences of San Joaquin spearscale were observed during the September 2014 site visit. However, because of the presence of suitable alkaline soils, non-native grassland and potential disturbed mesicdepressions on the site, there is a moderate potential for this species to occur within the project site. Special-Status Wildlife Species Thirty-four special-status species of wildlife have been recorded in the vicinity of the project site; Exhibit 3.3-3. Appendix B summarizes the potential for each of these species to occur in the project site. No special-status wildlife species were observed in the project site during the September22 or November 24, 2014 site visits. The November 24, 2014 site visit was conductedby WRA bat biologist Rob Schell to determine the potential for special-status bats to roost in the underground City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR 3.3-8 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-03 Biological Resources.docx concrete stormwater maintenance accessway. It was determined that thermal conditions are significantly cooler than ambient temperatures and no crevices or hot air traps suitable for roosting batsare present. No bats or evidence of bats (guano, urine staining, or dead bats) was observed within 500 feet of the access opening. Thus, it is unlikely that any bat species would roost in this structure or any other portion of the project site. Three special-status wildlife species havea moderate potential to occur in the project site. Special- status wildlife species that have a moderate or high potential to occur in the project site are discussed below. In addition, Federal-listed species that are documented in the vicinity of the project site but are unlikely to occur are discussed at the end of this section. Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) CDFW Species of Special Concern; USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern; EACCS Focal Species; ModeratePotential. Burrowing owl typically favors flat, open grassland or gentle slopes and sparse shrub-land ecosystems. These owls prefer annual or perennial grasslands, typically with sparse or nonexistent tree or shrub canopies; however, they also colonize debris piles and old pipes. Burrowing owl exhibits high site fidelity and usually nests in abandoned burrows of ground squirrels or pocket gophers. Thisspecies typically preys upon insects and smallmammals butwill also opportunistically take frogs, birds, or other animals it may capture. The project site isdisced annually for weed and fire control and burrows aregenerallyabsent on the site, and are not present following weed management activities. However, burrows were observed within 650 feet (200 meters) of the project site, primarily across Dublin Boulevard to the north. The open grasslands of the project siteprovide some foraging habitat, but it is of lowerquality due to the discing of the site for fire and weed managementand is less likely to support insects and small mammals. Higher quality foraging habitat is available nearby to the west, east, and north of the project site. There are several recent occurrences of burrowing owl in the vicinity of the project site, the nearest of which is 0.5 mile west of the project site. Therefore, there isa moderate potential for this species to perhaps forage over this site; however, no occupancy or nesting activity is expected. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) CDFW Species of Special Concern; USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern; Moderate Potential. A common resident of lowlands and foothillsthroughout California, this species prefers open habitats with scattered trees, shrubs, posts, fences, utility lines, or other perches. Nests are usually built on a stable branch in a densely foliaged shrub or small tree. Thisspecies is found most often in open-canopiedvalley foothill hardwood, conifer, pinyon-juniper, or desert riparian habitats. While this species eats mostlyarthropods, it also takes amphibians, small reptiles, small mammals, or birds, and it isalso known to scavenge on carrion. Loggerhead shrike is known in the grasslands in the vicinity of the project site, and the thick shrubs that abut the project site outside its east and west boundaries provide marginalnesting habitat. Thus, this species is not expected to nest within the project site, but there isa moderate potential for this species to forage within the project site and nest immediately adjacent to it. Study Area 5 Mile Buffer from Study Area Congdon's tarplant Diablo helianthella Mt. Diablo buckwheat San Joaquinspearscale brittlescale caper-fruitedtropidocarpum hairless popcornflower heart scale prostrate vernal pool navarretia saline clover I 37660004 • 01/2015 | 3.3-2_cnddb_plants.cdr CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTERPROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT Exhibit 3.3-2 CNDDBSpecialStatusPlants within5 Miles of StudyArea Source: WRA, 2014 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Study Area 5 Mile Buffer from Study Area I 37660004 • 01/2015 | 3.3-3_cnddb_wildlife.cdr CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTERPROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT Exhibit 3.3-3 CNDDBSpecialStatusWildlife within5 Miles of StudyArea Source: WRA, 2014 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-13 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-03 Biological Resources.docx California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) Federal Threatened; CDFW Species of Special Concern; EACCS Focal Species; Moderate Potential. The current distribution of this species includes only isolatedlocalities in the Sierra Nevada, northern Coast, and Northern Traverse Ranges. It is still common in the San Francisco Bay Area andalong the central coast. Aquatic breeding habitat consists of low-gradientfresh water bodies, including natural andman-made (e.g., stock) ponds, backwaters within streams and creeks, and marshes. Upland habitats include areas within 200 feet of aquatic and riparian habitat and consist of grasslands, woodlands, and/or vegetation that provideshelter, forage, and predator avoidance. These upland features provide shelter, shade, moisture, cooler temperatures, a prey base, foraging opportunities, and areas for predator avoidance. Upland habitat can include structural features such as boulders, rocks, and organic debris (e.g., downed trees, logs), as well as small mammal burrows and moist leaf litter. Dispersal habitat includes accessible upland or riparian habitats between occupied locations within 0.7 mile of each other that allow for movementbetween these sites. Dispersal habitat includesvarious natural and altered habitats, such as agricultural fields, whichdo not necessarily contain barriers to dispersal. Moderate to high-density urban or industrial developments, large reservoirs, and heavily traveled roads without bridges or culverts areconsidered barriers to dispersal. The project site does not contain any aquaticfeatures that could support California red-legged frog breeding. However, directly west of the project site is the water quality basin, which contains perennial ponds and thick vegetation that is suitable breeding habitat for California red-legged frog. Thisspecies has been documented in the vicinity of the project site, and the nearestoccurrence is from 2003 in a pond 0.2 mile west of the project site. Since this occurrence, the pondwhere the California red-legged frog was observed and surrounding areas have been graded anddeveloped. The waterquality basin was constructed in 2007 (aerialphotography) and appears to have provided a perennial water source since its construction. Between 2003 and 2007, any California red-legged frog in the area may have persisted in pools that held water during the wet season on nearby properties. The waterquality basin stormwater pondsare the only remaining potential breeding habitat in the area; all other potential breeding sites are separated from the project site by busy multi-lane roads, likely precluding both outward dispersal of California red-legged frog towards other suitablebreeding locations across Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road, as well as inward colonization of California red-legged frogthrough the project site. Currently, there are no barriers to dispersal separating the project site from the water quality basin, and if California red-legged frog were present within the basin, they couldmove from the ponds on to the project site during dispersal after rain events. Additionally, the drainage ditch at the southern end of the site may provide aquatic non-breeding habitat for this species whenwater is present, and may also be used for dispersal. However, it does not likely pond water for a sufficientduration to support California red-legged frog breeding, and un-disced upland habitat within the project site is too far from the waterquality basin (greater than 300 feet) to beconsidered upland aestivation habitat. Thus, this specieshas a moderate potential to occur within the project site as dispersal habitat, and potential occurrences would most likely be California red-legged frog juveniles dispersing out fromthe water quality basin, if that feature is occupied. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR 3.3-14 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-03 Biological Resources.docx San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) Federal Endangered; State Threatened; EACCS Focal Species. San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) is found in the San Joaquin Valley and in surrounding foothills, from Alameda County east to Stanislaus County. It isa desert-adapted species that occurs mainly in arid, flat grasslands, scrublands, andalkali meadows where the vegetation structure is relatively short generally less than 1.5 feet tall). Thisspecies uses dens year-round and needs loose-textured soils suitable for burrowing (Grinnell et al. 1937). Kit foxprey consists primarily of kangaroo ratsand other small rodents, as well as large insects and occasionally rabbits. SJKF has been extirpated from much of its historic range and is now onlyfound in the southern and eastern portions of its historic range, and a study by Sproul and Flett (1993) indicates that the speciesis absent west of the Altamont Hills, where the project site is located. Although portions of the un-disced, ruderal habitat may be suitable for SJKF, there are no recent occurrences or observations in the area within the past25 years. In addition, no potential dens were observed during the September22, 2014 site visit. Furthermore, the project site is surrounded by development, and the project site does not lie on any logical dispersal corridor between potential habitat areas in the region. Therefore, this species is unlikely to be found withinthe project site. California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) Federal Threatened; State Threatened Species; EACCS Focal Species. California tiger salamander is a California endemic species that historically occurred in grassland habitats throughout much of the state. This species inhabits valley and foothill grasslands and the grassy understory of open woodlands, usually within 1 mile of water (Jennings and Hayes 1994). California tiger salamander require two primaryhabitat components: aquaticbreeding sites and upland terrestrial refuge sites. Adult California tiger salamanderspend most of theirtime underground in upland subterranean refugia. Underground retreats usually consist of ground squirrelburrows, but they may also occur under logs and piles of lumber. California tiger salamander emerge from underground to breed and lay eggs primarily in vernal poolsand other ephemeral water bodies. Adults migrate from upland habitats to aquatic breeding sites during the first major rainfall events, between Novemberand February, and return to upland habitats after breeding. Vehicular-related mortality is an importantthreat to California tiger salamander populations. California tiger salamander will readily attempt to cross roads duringmigration, and roads that sustain heavy vehicle traffic or barriers that impede seasonal migrations may have impacted California tiger salamander populations in some areas. Theseveral occurrences of California tiger salamander in the vicinity areconsidered extirpated following the extensivegrading and development in the area between 2003 and 2011 (aerial photography). Alldocumented occurrences of California tiger salamander in the vicinity after 2003 are east of the project site, across Fallon Road in more contiguous, higher quality habitats. The project site does not contain depressions that could support vernal pools or other ephemeral aquatic habitats California tiger salamander use for breeding, and the seasonal wetlandditch is unlikely to pond water for a sufficient duration (at least 12 weeks) to support breeding. Additionally, the water quality basin is a perennial aquatic basin which is likely too far (approximately1.3 miles) City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-15 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-03 Biological Resources.docx from the nearest extant occurrence of California tiger salamander to be considered suitablebreeding habitat. The nearest known breeding pond is approximately0.82 mile to the northeast, and the project site is surrounded by development. Although the project site contains a limited amount of suitable upland habitat, it is unlikely that California tiger salamander will successfully disperse intoor through the project site, due to the lack of connectivity to other breeding poolsand the presence of Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard—two major roadways between the breeding pool and the project site. In addition, 95 percent of non-dispersing California tiger salamander are found within 0.4 mile 630 meters) of breeding pools. Therefore, it is unlikely that California tiger salamander will occur within the project site. 3.3.2 - Regulatory Framework Federal Endangered Species Act The FESA protectsthreatened and endangered plants and animals and their critical habitat. Candidate species are those proposed for listing; these species are usually treated by resource agencies as if they were actually listedduring the environmentalreview process. Procedures for addressing impacts to federally listed species follow two principal pathways, both of which require consultation with the USFWS, which administers the Act for all terrestrial species. The first pathway, Section 10(a) incidental take permit, applies to situations where a non-federalgovernment entity must resolve potential adverse impacts to species protectedunder the Act. Thesecond pathway, Section 7consultation, applies to projects directly undertaken by a federal agency or private projects requiring a federal permit or approval. Clean Water Act Areas meeting the regulatory definition of “waters of the U.S.” (jurisdictional waters) are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under provisions of Section 404 of the 1972 Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act). These watersmay include all waters used, or potentially used, for interstate commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, allinterstate waters, all other waters (intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, playa lakes, natural ponds, etc.), all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as “waters of the U.S.,” tributaries of waters otherwise defined as “waters of the U. S.,” the territorial seas, and wetlands (termed Special Aquatic Sites) adjacent to “waters of the U.S.” (33 CFR, Part328, Section 328.3). Wetlands on non-agricultural lands are identified using the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (EnvironmentalLaboratory 1987). Areas typically not considered to be jurisdictional waters include non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land, artificially irrigated areas, artificial lakes or ponds used for irrigation or stock watering, small artificial water bodies such as swimming pools, and water-filled depressions 33 CFR, Part328). Construction activities within jurisdictional watersare regulatedby the USACE. The placement of fill into such waters must comply with permit requirements of the USACE. No USACE permit will be effective in the absence of state waterqualitycertification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. TheState Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is the state agency (together with the City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR 3.3-16 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-03 Biological Resources.docx Regional WaterQuality Control Boards [RWQCBs]) charged with implementing water quality certification in California. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The MBTA implements international treatiesbetween the United States and other nations devised to protect migratory birds, their parts, eggs, and nests from activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, andshipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit. The USFWS administers the MBTA. The State of California has incorporated the protection of birds of prey in Sections 3800, 3513, and 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code (FGC). All raptors and their nests are protected from take or disturbance under the MBTA (16 United States Code [USC], section703, et seq.) and California statute (FGC section 3503.5). The golden eagle and bald eagle are also afforded additional protection under the Eagle Protection Act, amended in 1973 16 USC, section669, et seq.). State California Endangered Species Act The CESA prohibits the take of any species that the California Fish and Game Commission determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species. The act defines a take as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” The CDFW enforces the act, which authorizestake of a plant or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatenedunder the federal and state acts pursuant to a federalincidental take permit issued in accordance with Section 10 of the FESA, provided that CDFW is notified and certifies that the incidental take statement or incidental take permit is consistent with the CESA (FGC Section 2080.1(a)). The CESA emphasizes early consultation to avoid potential impacts to rare, endangered, and threatened species and to develop appropriate mitigation planning to offsetproject-caused losses of listed species populations and their essential habitats. Sections 2050 through 2098 of the FGC Sections 2050 through 2098 of the FGC outline the protection provided to California’s rare, endangered, and threatened species. Section 2080 of the FGC prohibits the taking of plantsand animals listed under the CESA. Section 2081establishedan incidental take permit program for state- listed species. Inaddition, the Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (FGC Section 1900, et seq.) gives the CDFW authority to designate state endangered, threatened, and rareplants andprovides specific protection measures for designated populations. The CDFW has also identified many “Species of Special Concern.” Species with this status have limited distribution, or the extent of their habitats has been reducedsubstantially, such that their populations may be threatened. Thus, their populations are monitored, and they mayreceive special attention during environmental review. While they do not have statutory protection, they may be considered rare under CEQA and therebywarrant specific protection measures. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-17 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-03 Biological Resources.docx Sensitive species, which would qualify for listing but are not currently listed, are also afforded protection under CEQA. The CEQA GuidelinesSection 15065 (“Mandatory Findings of Significance”) identifies a substantial reduction in numbers of a rare or endangered species as a significant effect. CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 (“Rare or Endangered Species”) provides for assessment of unlisted species as rare or endangered under CEQA if the species can be shown to meet the criteria for listing. Unlisted plant species on the California Rare Plant Ranking (CRPR) system lists 1A, 1B, and 2 would typicallybe considered under CEQA. Non-Governmental Agency California Native Plant Society The CNPS is a non-governmental agency that classifies native plant species according to current population distribution and threat-level, relative to extinction. The following description of the CNPS classification system, CRPR, is relevant to identifying potential impacts to biological resources that are due to implementation of the project. The CNPS maintains a list of plant species native to California that have low numbers, limited distribution, or are otherwisethreatened with extinction. This CRPR list is published in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2015). Potential impacts to populations of listed plants receive consideration under CEQA review. The following identifies the definitions of the CRPR listings: CRPR 1A: Plants presumed to be extinct in California CRPR 1B: Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California andelsewhere CRPR 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere CRPR 2B: Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere Classifications for plants listed under “CRPR 3: Plants about whichwe need more information (a review list)” and/or “CRPR 4: Plants of limiteddistribution (a watch list),” as defined by the CRPR, are not discussed in this report since they are not considered special-status species. Western Bat Working Group Bat species are also evaluated for conservation status by the Western Bat Working Group (WBWG), a non-governmental entity. Although CDFW Species of Special Concern and WBWG evaluatedbats generally have no special legalstatus, they aregiven special consideration under the CEQA. Local City of Dublin GeneralPlan The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following guiding and implementing policies associated with biological resources that are relevant to the proposed project: Guiding Policy 2.6.4.A.1: Encourage the development of abalanced mixed use community in the Eastern Extended Planning Area that is well integrated with both natural and urban City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR 3.3-18 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-03 Biological Resources.docx systems and provides a safe, comfortable and attractiveenvironment for living and working. Any sites under WilliamsonAct contract are required to be maintained as open space for the term of the contract. Guiding Policy 7.3.1.A.1: Maintain natural hydrologic systems. Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.2: Review development proposals to insure site design that minimizes soilerosionand volume and velocity of surface runoff. Heritage Tree Ordinance The City of Dublin defines heritagetrees as any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye or sycamore tree having a trunkor main stem of twenty-four inches or more in diameter measured at four feet six inches above natural grade. Additionally, any tree preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, sitedevelopment review, or subdivision map is protected as a heritage tree as is any tree planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree. Heritage trees may not be removed unless a tree removal permit is granted or the removal is approved as part of other approved development permits. If a development site contains heritage trees that are to be preserved under an approved developmentplan, these trees must be protected during site development. A tree protection plan must be approved prior to commencement of work unless the Community Development Director of the City of Dublin has specifically waived this requirement (City of Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 5.60, inclusive). East Alameda CountyConservation Strategy The project site is located in Conservation Zone 2 of the EACCS. The EACCS is intended to provide guidance and an effective framework to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources in eastern Alameda County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts resulting from infrastructure anddevelopment studies. The City of Dublinadopted the EACCS as guidance for public infrastructure/capital improvement projects and uses the document to provide input on managing biological resources andconservation priorities during public project- levelplanningand environmental permitting. For privately sponsored development projects such as Kaiser Dublin Medical Center, proponents are encouraged to consult the EACCS for guidance, but compliance with the document is not mandatory. 3.3.3 - Methodology WRA prepared a Biological Resources Assessment, which is provided in Appendix C. The methodology of the Biological Resources Assessment is described below. Biological Resources Assessment OnSeptember 22, 2014, the project site was traversed on foot to determine (1) plant communities present withinthe project site, (2) if existing conditions provided suitable habitat for any special- status plant or wildlife species, and (3) if sensitive habitats are present. All plant and wildlife species encountered were recorded and are summarized in Biological Resources Assessment Appendix A. Plant nomenclature follows Baldwin et al. (2012) and subsequent revisions by the Jepson Flora Project (2014), except where noted. Because of recent changes in classification for many of the taxa treated by Baldwin et al. and the Jepson Flora Study, relevant synonyms are provided in brackets. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-19 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-03 Biological Resources.docx For cases in whichregulatory agencies, CNPS, or other entities base rarity onolder taxonomic treatments, precedence was given to the treatment used by those entities. Prior to the initial site visit, the Soil Survey of Alameda County, California [United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) web soil surveys], aerialimageryandprevious reports from the site were examined to determine if any aquatic features were present in the project site examined to determine if any unique soil types that could support sensitive plant communities and/or aquatic features were present in the project site. Biological communities present in the project sitewere classified based on existing plant community descriptions described in the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986). However, in some cases it is necessary to identify variants of community types or to describe non-vegetated areas that are not described in the literature. Biological communities were classified as sensitive or non-sensitive as defined by CEQA and other applicable laws andregulations. Peer Review A FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) biologist peer-reviewed the WRA Biological Resources Assessment in January 2015. In addition, the FCS biologistreviewed the project site plans and project description provided by the City; aerial photos and topographic maps; a USFWS species list for the Livermore, California 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle; the CDFW’s CNDDB; the CNPS’s Inventory of Rare and EndangeredPlants; the USFWS’s Critical Habitat Data Portal; and other technical databases and resource agency reports in order to assess the current distribution of special-status species and habitats in the vicinity of the proposed project site (streams, riparian habitat, ponds, etc.). After reviewing the aforementioned resources, the biologist conducted site reconnaissance in January 2015 to independently confirm the findings of the Biological Resources Assessment. The peer review found that the Biological Resources Assessment findings and recommendations were thorough in terms of approach, accuracy, and completeness. 3.3.4 - Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, biological resources impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed projectwould be considered significant if the project would: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or throughhabitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Havea substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, andregulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Refer to Section 7, Effects Found not to be Significant.) c) Havea substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, butnot limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR 3.3-20 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-03 Biological Resources.docx through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Refer to Section 7, Effects Found not to be Significant.) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any nativeresident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (Refer to Section 7, Effects Found not to be Significant.) e) Conflict with any localpolicies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adoptedHabitat Conservation Plan, NaturalCommunity Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Refer to Section 7, Effects Found not to be Significant.) 3.3.5 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides mitigation measures whereappropriate. Special-Status Species Impact BIO-1: The proposed project may have a substantial adverse effecton special-status plant and wildlife species. Impact Analysis Two special-status plant species and three special-status wildlife species have a moderate or high potential to occur within the project site. Special-Status Plant Species Of the 48 special-status plant species known to occur in the vicinity of the project site, Congdon’s tarplant, has a high potential to occur and San Joaquin spearscalehas a moderate potential to occur in the project site. Most of the species found in the review of background literature occur in high- quality vernal poolhabitat, in different plant communities, often at higher elevations, or in high- quality grassland habitat. Because of the history of disturbanceand change in hydrologic regime, the grassland and potential seasonal wetlands in the project site arelikely toolow in quality to support the majority of these other special-status plant species. For Congdon’s tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale, rare plant surveys will be required prior to the start of construction to confirm absence of these species. If foundon-site during future surveys, and if impacts cannotbe avoided, then mitigation will be required. Mitigation would involve the protection and enhancement of populations or suitable habitat elsewhere, as determined appropriateby the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Special-Status Wildlife Species Of the 34 special-status wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity of the project site, three were determined to have moderate potential to occur in the project site. Most of the species found in the City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-21 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-03 Biological Resources.docx review of background literature occur in habitats not found in the project site. Habitat suitability for many grassland-associated species in the project site has been reduced by repeated discing of the site, surrounding development, and major roads acting as dispersal barriers. These factors have also dramatically reduced or eliminated the potential for riparian andaquatic species to occur within the project site. Similarly, all seasonal wetland habitat suitable for vernal pool crustaceansappears to have been eliminated through repeated discing. Bats are also unlikely to roost within the project site, due to the lack of suitable thermal conditions and roost structures present. Specific impacts to special-status wildlife species are discussed as follows. Birds The loggerhead shrike may use the project site for foraging, and it may nest immediately adjacent to butnot within) the site. In addition, most commonly found native bird species are protected by the MBTA and FGC during the nesting season, and several common avian species have potential to nest within the project site. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure BIO-1b requires implementation of pre- construction breeding bird surveys and associated protection measures if nests areobserved. With the implementation of mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Burrowing owl The project site contains suitable habitat for the burrowing owl. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure BIO-1c requires implementation of pre-construction burrowing owl surveys and associated protection measures if nests areobserved. With the implementation of mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. California red-legged frog Although there is no aquaticbreeding or upland aestivation habitat for California red-legged frog within the project site, the adjacent water quality basin provides suitable habitat for this species. As such, Mitigation Measure BIO-1d requires the implementation of various avoidance and minimization measures around the waterquality basin. With the implementation of mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures MM BIO-1a Prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, focused surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence of special-status plant species with potential to occur in the project site. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009). These guidelines require rare plant surveys to be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both “evident” and identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with known blooming periods, and/or during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identifythe plant species of concern. If no special-status plant species are found, then the project will not haveany impacts to the species and noadditional mitigation measures are necessary. If any of the City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR 3.3-22 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-03 Biological Resources.docx species are found on-site and cannotbe avoided, the following measures shall be required: Where surveys determine that special-status plant species arepresent within or adjacent to the proposed project site, direct and indirect impacts of the project on the species (e.g., Congdon’s tarplant and/or San Joaquin spearscale) shall be avoided where feasible through the establishment of activity exclusion zones, where no ground-disturbingactivities shalltake place, including construction of new facilities, construction staging, or other temporary work areas. Activity exclusion zones for special-status plant species shall be established prior to construction activities around each occupied habitat site, the boundaries of which shall be clearlymarked with standard orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its equivalent. The establishment of activity exclusion zones shall not be required if no construction-related disturbances would occur within 250 feet of the occupied habitat site. The size of activity exclusion zones may be reduced through consultation with a qualified biologist and with concurrence from CDFW based on site-specific conditions. If exclusion zones and avoidance of impacts on a special-status plant species are not feasible, thenthe loss of individuals or occupied habitat of a special-status plant species shall be compensated for through the acquisition, protection, and subsequent management of other existing occurrences. Before the implementation of compensation measures, the project’s applicant shall provide detailed information to the CDFW and lead agency on the quality of preserved habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing the areas, the responsible parties involved, and theother pertinent information that demonstrates the feasibility of the compensation. A mitigation plan identifying appropriate mitigation ratios shall be developed in consultation with, andapproved by, the CDFW and the City prior to the commencement of any activities that would impact any special status plants. MM BIO-1b No more than 14 days prior to initial grounddisturbance and vegetationremoval during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to perform pre-construction breeding bird surveys. If any nests are found, they shall be flagged and protected with a suitable buffer. Buffer distance will vary based on species and conditions at the site, but is usually at least 50 feet, and up to 250 feet for raptors. Note that this mitigation measure does not apply to ground disturbanceand vegetation removal activities that occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 to January 31). MM BIO-1c Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities for Phase 1A, the project applicant shall implement the following measures that pertain to the burrowing owl, as applicable: 1. Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact Assessment. Prior to the first ground-disturbingactivities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct two pre-construction surveys for the burrowing owl for the entire site. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-23 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-03 Biological Resources.docx The first surveyshall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground- disturbing activities and the second surveyshall be conducted within 48 hours of initial grounddisturbance. Thesurveys shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the surveys determine owls are present, thenthe measures set forthin this mitigation shall be followed. 2. Implement Avoidance Measures. If direct impacts to owls can be avoided, prior to the first ground-disturbingactivities, the project applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures during all phases of construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls. Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from February 1 through 31 August. Avoid impactingburrows occupied during the non-breeding season by migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls. Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragginga heavy chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial, or agricultural development. Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on-site worker’s recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection. Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that equipment and other machinery do not collapse burrows. Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed with nesting owls, designated useareas). 3. Conduct Burrow Exclusion. If avoidance of burrowing owl ortheir burrows is not possible, prior to thefirst ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and following the CDFW 2012Staff Report. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall becarried out as per the California Department of Fish and Game 2012 Staff Report. 4. Prepare and Implement a Mitigation Plan. If avoidance of burrowing owl ortheir burrows is not possible and project activities may result in impacts to nesting, occupied, and satelliteburrows and/or burrowing owl habitat, the project applicant shall consult with the CDFW anddevelop a detailed mitigation plan that shall includereplacement of impacted habitat, number of burrows, and burrowing owl at a ratio approved by CDFW. The mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012StaffReport on BurrowingOwl Mitigation and the Plan shall be reviewed and accepted by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground-disturbingactivities. MM BIO-1d Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, a wildlife exclusion fenceshall be installed along the project site boundary with the water quality basin to the west. The fenceshall be designed and installed to prevent the California red-legged frog from entering the project site. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR 3.3-24 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-03 Biological Resources.docx MM BIO-1e Prior to ground disturbing activities for Phase 1A, the project applicant shall implement the following measures for the California red-legged frog (CRLF), as applicable: 1. The project applicant shall retain a qualified herpetologist to conduct habitat assessments for CRLF within the entireproject area and based on the results of the habitat assessments, determine in consultation with the USFWS if protocol- level CRLF surveys will be required within the entireproject area. The project applicant can forgo the habitat assessments and conduct protocol-level surveys. If required, the focused surveys shall followthe Revised Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog (USFWS 2005). A CRLF survey report prepared to meet the protocol guidelines shall be submitted to the USFWS. If no CRLF are found then no further mitigation is required. 2. If CRLF are foundon the project site thenthe project applicant shall provide information to support Section 7consultation with the USFWS and the project applicant shall ensure no net loss of habitat that shall be achieved through avoidance, preservation, creation and/or purchase of credits. The final selected measures may be part of the Section 7 permitting process. 3. The project applicant shall obtain a biological opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and comply with the conditions and mitigation requirements under the opinion to ensure that no net loss of habitat occurs. Mitigation may include, but would not be limited to, on-site and off-sitepreservation and creation of CRLF habitat, purchase of credits at mitigation banks, payment of in lieu fees approvedby the agencies, or other agency approvedand required mitigation measures. 4. Avoidance measures may include the following or equivalent protective measures: To minimize disturbance of breeding and dispersing CRLF, construction activity within CRLF upland habitat shall be conducted during the dry season between April 15 and October 15 or before the onset of the rainy season, whichever occurs first. If constructionactivities are necessary in CRLF upland habitat between October 15 and April 15, the project applicant would contact the USFWS for approval to extend the work period. To minimize disturbanceand mortality of adult and juvenile CRLF in aquatic habitat and underground burrows, the project applicantshouldminimize the extent of ground-disturbing activities within these habitats by requiring the contractor to limit the work area to the minimum necessary for construction. In addition, the project applicant should ensure that the contractor installs temporary exclusion fence between the construction work area and potential aquatic habitat for all construction within grasslands nearaquatic habitat. A minimum buffer zone of 150 feet shall bemaintained around CRLF aquatic habitat during construction. No staging, parking, material storage or ground disturbance shall be allowed in the buffer zone. The buffer zone will be clearly City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-25 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-03 Biological Resources.docx defined with construction fencing prior to the initiation of construction activities and shall bemaintained until completion of construction. The project applicantshould ensure that a qualified wildlife biologist monitors all construction activities within CRLF upland habitat to ensure no take of individual CRLF occurs during project construction. If a CRLF is found, then the monitor would immediately stop construction in that area and contact USFWS for development of a plan for how to proceed with construction. If preservation of upland habitat is required by USFWS, the habitat land shall be within a USFWS approved conservation area. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Sensitive Natural Communities/Riparian Habitat Impact BIO-2: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effecton sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat. Impact Analysis As indicated in Table 3.3-1, the project site contains mostly non-native annual grassland, with small areas of ruderal/herbaceous and stormwater drainage ditch habitat. None of thesebiological communities are considered sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. WetlandsandJurisdictional Features Impact BIO-3: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effecton wetlands or jurisdictional features. Impact Analysis The drainage ditch along the I-580 frontage is the only potential jurisdictional feature within the project site. The drainage ditch is approximately 20 feet wide and 10 feet deep, with no ordinary high water mark observed. Vegetation within the ditch was composedlargely of weedyupland species including wild oats, common tarweed, alkali mallow, black mustard, stinkwort, prickly lettuce, Italian thistle, ripgut brome, Harding grass, and soft chess. A stand of creeping wildrye was observed at the southeastern City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR 3.3-26 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-03 Biological Resources.docx boundary of the ditch. Other facultative wetland indicator species including alkali sea heath, saltgrass curly dock, and Mediterranean barley were concentrated in the bottom of the ditch, which showed indications of ponding in several areas. This feature connects to a flood control conveyance channel which extends under I-580. Ditches constructed on dry land and draining only uplandsare not considered jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The drainage ditch only drains stormwater from the project site and does not contain continuously flowing water for 3 months or longer. Therefore, the drainage ditch is considered non-jurisdictional. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Wildlife Movement Impact BIO-4: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on wildlife movement. Impact Analysis The project site is surrounded on four sides by urban development and infrastructure. In particular, the Grafton Plaza shopping center to the west, FallonGateway shopping center to the east, and I- 580 to the south all serve as formidable barriers to wildlife movement. There are no known or available wildlife corridors that use the project site. As such, development of the proposed project would not adversely affect wildlife movement. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-27 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-03 Biological Resources.docx Local Biological Ordinances and Policies Impact BIO-5: The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Impact Analysis This impact will address project consistency with the City of Dublin’s Heritage Tree Ordinance and the EACCS. Heritage Tree Ordinance The project site does not contain any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye or sycamore trees that are24 inches in diameter as measured 4.5feet above natural grade. Therefore, the proposed projectwould not be subject to the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance and no potential conflicts would occur. East Alameda CountyConservation Strategy The project site is located in Conservation Zone 2 of the EACCS. Conservation Zone 2 overlaps with 37,066 acres of mostly urbanized lands within the Livermore Valley. The EACCS is a guidance document that isused by the City for public projects, but compliance is not mandated for private development. Therefore, it is not an adopted or approved plan that requires aconsistency determination under CEQA. No conflicts would occur. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-04Cultural Resources.docx 3.4 - Cultural Resources 3.4.1 - Introduction This section describes the existing cultural resources setting and potential effects from project implementationon the site and its surrounding area that are based on a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions, provided in Appendix D. 3.4.2 - Environmental Setting Overview The term “cultural resources” encompasses historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, and burial sites. Below is a brief summary of each component: Historic Resources: Historic resources are associated with the recent past. In California, historic resources are typically associated with the Spanish, Mexican, and American periods in the State’s history. Archaeological Resources: Archaeologyis the study of prehistoric human activities and cultures. Archaeological resources aregenerally associated with indigenous cultures. Paleontological Resources: Paleontology is the study of plant and animal fossils. Burial Sites: Burial sites are formal or informal locations where human remains, usually associated with indigenous cultures, are interred. Cultural Setting Prehistory Early archaeological investigations in central California were conducted at sites located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region. The first published account documents investigations in the Lodi and Stockton area. The initial archaeological reports typically containeddescriptive narratives, with more systematic approaches sponsored by Sacramento Junior College in the 1930s. At the same time, University of California at Berkeley excavated several sites in the lower Sacramento Valley andDelta region, which resulted in recognizing archaeological site patterns based on variations of inter-site assemblages. Research during the 1930s identified temporal periods in central California prehistory and provided an initial chronological sequence. In 1939, aresearcher noted that each cultural periodleddirectly to the next and that influences spread from the Delta region to other regions in central California. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, another researcher documented similarities in artifacts among sites in the San Francisco Bay region and the Deltaand refined his findings into a cultural model that ultimately became known as the Central California Taxonomic System (CCTS). This system proposed a uniform, linear sequence of cultural succession. The CCTS systemwas challenged by a researcher, whose work looked at radiocarbon dating to show that Early and Middle Horizon sites were not subsequent developments but, at least partially, contemporaneous. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Cultural Resources Draft EIR 3.4-2 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-04Cultural Resources.docx To address some of the flaws in the CCTS system, it was revised to incorporate asystem of spatial and cultural integrative units. Cultural, temporal, andspatial unitswere separated from each other and assigned them to six chronologicalperiods: Paleo-Indian (10000 to 6000 B.C.); Lower, Middle and Upper Archaic (6000 B.C. to A.D. 500), and Upper and Lower Emergent (A.D. 500 to 1800). The suggested temporal ranges are similar to earlier horizons, which are broadcultural units that can be arranged in a temporal sequence. In addition, several patterns—a general way of life shared within a specific geographical region—were defined. These patterns include: Windmiller Pattern or Early Horizon (3000 to 1000 B.C.) Berkeley Pattern or Middle Horizon (1000 B.C. to A.D. 500) Augustine Pattern or Late Horizon (A.D. 500 to historic period) Brief descriptions of these temporal ranges and their unique characteristics follow. Windmiller Pattern or Early Horizon (3000 to 1000 B.C.) Characterized by the Windmiller Pattern, the Early Horizon was centered in the Cosumnes district of the Delta and emphasized hunting rather than gathering, as evidenced by the abundance of projectile points in relation to plant processing tools. Additionally, atlatl, dart, and spear technologies typicallyincluded stemmed projectile points of slate and chert but minimal obsidian. The large variety of projectile point typesand faunal remains suggests exploitation of numerous types of terrestrial and aquatic species (Bennyhoff 1950; Ragir 1972). Burials occurred in cemeteries and intra-village graves. These burials typicallywere ventrally extended, although somedorsal extensions are known with a westerly orientation and a high number of grave goods. Trade networks focused on acquisition of ornamental and ceremonialobjects in finished form ratherthan on raw material. The presence of artifacts made of exotic materials such as quartz, obsidian, and shellindicatesan extensive trade network that may represent the arrival of Utian populations into central California. Also indicative of this period are rectangularHaliotis andOlivella shell beads, and charmstones that usually were perforated. Berkeley Pattern or Middle Horizon (1000 B.C. to A.D. 500) The Middle Horizon is characterized by the Berkeley Pattern, which displays considerable changes from the Early Horizon. This period exhibited a strong milling technologyrepresentedby minimally shaped cobble mortars and pestles, although metates and manos were still used. Dart and atlatl technologies during this period were characterized by non-stemmed projectile points made primarily of obsidian. One researcher suggested that the Berkeley Pattern marked the eastward expansion of Miwok groups from the San Francisco Bay Area. Compared with the Early Horizon, there is a higher proportion of grinding implements at this time, implying an emphasis on plant resources rather than on hunting. Typical burials occurred within the village with flexed positions, variablecardinal orientation, and some cremations. The practice of spreading groundochre over the burial was common at this time. Grave goods during this period aregenerally sparse and typicallyinclude only utilitarian items and a few ornamental objects. However, objects such as charmstones, quartz crystals, and bone whistles occasionally were present, which suggest the religious or ceremonial significance of the individual. During this period, larger populations are suggested by the number and depth of sites compared with the Windmiller Pattern. The Berkeley Patternreflects gradual City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-3 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-04Cultural Resources.docx expansion or assimilation of different populations rather than sudden population replacement and a gradual shift in economic emphasis. Augustine Pattern or Late Horizon (A.D. 500 to Historic Period) The Late Horizon is characterized by the Augustine Pattern, which represents a shift in the general subsistence pattern. Changes include the introduction of bow and arrow technology; and most importantly, acorns became the predominant food resource. Trade systems expanded to include raw resources as well as finished products. There are more baked clay artifacts and extensive use of Haliotis ornaments of many elaborate shapes and forms. Burial patternsretained the use of flexed burials with variable orientation, but there wasa reduction in the use of ochreandwidespread evidence of cremation. Judging from the number andtypes of grave goodsassociated with the two types of burials, cremation seems to have been reserved for individuals of higher status, whereas other individuals were buried in flexed positions. It was suggested that the Augustine Pattern represents expansion of the Wintuan population from the north, which resulted in combining new traits with those established during the Berkeley Pattern. Central California research has expanded from an emphasis on defining chronological and cultural units to a more comprehensive look at settlement and subsistence systems. This shift is illustrated by the early use of burials to identify mortuary assemblages and more recent research using osteological data to determine the health of prehistoricpopulations. Although debate continues over asingle model or sequence for central California, the general framework consisting of three temporal/culturalunits is generallyaccepted, although the identification of regional and local variation is a major goal of current archaeological research. Native American Background At the time of European contact, the Dublin areawas occupied by various tribelets that were part of the Ohlone (previously Costanoan) tribe of California Native Americans. The Ohlone group designatesalanguage family consisting of eight branches of the Ohlone language that are considered too distinct to be dialects, with each being related to its geographically adjacent neighbors. These groups lived in approximately 50 separate and politically autonomous tribelet areas, each with one or more permanent villages, between the North San Francisco Bay and the lower Salinas River. The various Ohlone tribes subsisted as hunter-gatherers and relied on local terrestrial and marine flora and fauna for subsistence. The predominant plant food source was the acorn, but they also exploited a wide range of other plants, including various seeds, buckeye, berries, and roots. Protein sources included grizzly bear, elk, sea lions, antelope, and black-tailed deer as well as smaller mammals such as raccoon, brush rabbit, ground squirrels, and wood rats. Waterfowl, including Canadian geese, mallards, green-winged teal, andAmerican widgeon, were captured in nets using decoys to attractthem. Fish also played an important role in the Ohlone diet and included steelhead, salmon, andsturgeon. The Ohlone constructed watercraft from tule reeds and possessed bow and arrow technology. They fashioned blankets from sea otter pelts, fabricated basketry fromtwined reeds of various types, and assembleda variety of stoneand bone tools intheir assemblages. Ohlone villages typically consisted City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Cultural Resources Draft EIR 3.4-4 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-04Cultural Resources.docx of domed dwellingstructures, communal sweathouses, dance enclosures, and assembly houses constructed from thatched tule reeds and a combination of wild grasses, wild alfalfa, and ferns. The Ohlone were politically organized into autonomous tribelets that had distinctcultural territories. Individual tribelets containedone or more villages with a number of seasonal camps for resource procurement within the tribelet territory. The tribelet chiefcouldbe either male or female, and the position was inherited patrilineally, but approval of the community was required. The tribelet chief andcouncil were essentially advisors to the community and were responsible for feeding visitors, directing hunting and fishingexpeditions, ceremonial activities, and warfare on neighboring tribelets. The Gold Rush brought disease to the nativeinhabitants, andby the 1850s, nearly all of the Ohlone hadadapted in some way or another to economies based on cash income. Hunting andgathering activitiescontinued to declineand were rapidly replaced with economies based on ranching and farming. Historic Background The history of the Dublin area can be divided into several periods of influence; pertinent historic periods are briefly summarized below. Spanish and MexicanCalifornia The most dramatic and permanent change to the Native American lifestyle in Central California was the establishment of the Spanish Mission system. The first European contact with the Ohlone is believed to have occurred in 1772 when the Fages-Crespi Expedition entered the San Ramon Valley. Under FatherJunipero Serra’s leadership, the Franciscan monks erected seven missions within 27 years, and forced most of the Ohlone tribal members into the missions to live and work. The nearest missions were the Mission San Carlos Borroméode Carmelo (1770), Mission San Francisco de Asís 1776), Mission SantaClara de Asís (1777), Mission Santa Cruz (1791), Mission Nuestra Señora de la Soledad (1791), Mission San Juan Bautista (1797), andMission SanJose (1797). The San Ramon Valley Native Americans were known as the Tatcans and the Seunens, with the Seunens living in the Dublin-Livermore area. These tribelet titles were probably Spanish names given to tribal members of certain villages in the area. The Fages-Crespi Expedition of 1772 was the first to enter the San RamonValley and notedthree villages with a very largemarsh (currently the I-580/680 Interchange) located at the base of the Amador Valley. Milliken notes that when Mission San Jose was consecrated (1801), there were Seunens at the mission and also at Mission Dolores. The MexicanPeriod, 1821 to 1848, was marked by secularization of the missions and division of their lands among the Californios as land grants termed ranchos. Withthe declaration of Mexican independence in 1821, Spanish control of Alta California ended, although little change in the lifestyles of the local populationsactually occurred. Mission secularization is hypothesized to have removed the social protection and support on which Native Americans hadcome to rely. It exposed them to further exploitation by outside interests, often forcing them into a marginal existence as laborers for large ranchos. Following secularization, the Mexican population grew as the native population continued to decline. Anglo-American settlers began to arrive in Alta California during City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-5 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-04Cultural Resources.docx this period and often married into Mexican families, becomingMexican citizens, which made them eligible to receive land grants. In 1846, on the eve of the United States-Mexican War (1846 to 1848), the estimated population of Alta California was 8,000 non-natives and 10,000 Native Americans. However, these estimates have been debated. It was estimated that the Native American population was 100,000 in 1850; the U.S. Census of 1880 reports the NativeAmerican population was 20,385. In 1833 and 1834, former Mission San Jose lands in the San Ramon and Amador valleys under Mexican authority were granted to Jose Maria Amador. In 1834, Amador built a two-story adobe house on a spotfound at the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road, his headquarters for Rancho San Ramon. At its height, it covered22,000 acres and encompassed Dublin, San Ramon, and most of Dougherty Valley. Expansion and Settlement Jedediah Smith was thefirst American to explore the Central Valley in 1828, but other expeditions soon followed. In 1848, as a result of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, California became a United States territory. Also in 1848, John Marshall found gold at Sutter’s Mill, which marked the start of the Gold Rush. The influx of minersand entrepreneurs increased the population of California, not includingNative Californians, from 14,000 to 224,000 in just four years. When the Gold Rush was over, manyminers settled in the San Ramon Valley and established farms, ranches, and lumbermills. In 1846, Michael Murray and Jeremiah Fallon came to California to make their fortunes and then moved to the El Dorado foothills to seek their fortunes with theother Gold Rush miners. In 1852, they returned to the San Ramon area and bought 1,000 acres from José Amador near what is now Dublin. In 1853, James Dougherty bought 10,000 acres from Amador and raised a family in the Amador adobe for years afterward. In 1862, Dougherty built an inn that was namedDougherty Stationand was located on the north side of Dublin Boulevard slightlywest of Amador’s adobe site. Owing to the large number of Irish immigrants that moved to the area, Dougherty Station eventually became known as Dublin. The immigrant populations of southwestern Contra Costa County and north-central Alameda County increased rapidly after the completion of Western Pacific Railroad between Stockton and Niles Junction in 1869 and the Santa Fe Railroad between Stockton and Richmond in 1896. The great rancheros of the Spanish periodwere divided andsold for agricultural uses, and intensively irrigated farming was made possible in some areas by the development of canals. Other areas, such as nearbyLivermore Valley, used the more limited water available from local creeks and wells. Orchards dominated where abundant water was available, while seasonally dry areas were used for dry farming and cattle ranching. Walnuts were an especially attractive orchard crop, and farmers used thin-shelled English walnut branches grafted to hardy and disease-resistant American walnut rootstock. The Southern Pacific Railroad arrived in the San Ramon Valley in the 1890s. Dubbed the San Ramon Branch Line, the single-track lineoriginally extended from a junction with the Oakland-Stockton main line near Martinez south to San Ramon, a distance of approximately 20 miles. In 1909, the southern terminus of the San RamonBranchLine was extended south just east of Dublin to a City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Cultural Resources Draft EIR 3.4-6 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-04Cultural Resources.docx junction with the Lathrop-Niles Junction main line near Pleasanton. By the mid-1970s, traffic on the railroad line had dwindled to 125 carloads annuallyand the line was formally abandoned in 1978. City of Dublin In 1853, AlamedaCounty was created from parts of Contra Costa and SantaClara counties and began to grow as an agricultural area, due to suitable climate, arable land, and good water supplies. By 1877, the first schoolhouse in the Amador-Livermore Valley was established, and soon afterward, a church, two hotels, and various small farming- and cattle-related businesses were constructed in the region. The original Murray Schoolhouse, John Green’s Store, St. Raymond’s Church, and the old cemetery have beenpreserved and are now located on Donlan Way in western Dublin. Mail was delivered to the Dougherty Station Hotel, and around 1878, the generalarea became known as Dougherty. Growth in the area was drivenby the cattleindustry, dairies, and fruit tree crops. Settlers bought property, drained the sloughs, and channelized the small creeks that laced the area for irrigation. Dublin evolved as a farming town serving the interests of the dairy and cattle industries for many decades while the eastern portion of Alameda County was still lightly populated. In 1930, Dublin was consideredan unincorporated community in AlamedaCounty. In 1942, Camp Shoemakerwas built east of the community of Dublinandcontained a Navy personnel distribution centerand a 3,000-bed hospital. In 1943, the Navy opened Camp Parks adjacent to Camp Shoemaker as a construction battalion training base with a third camp, which caused the area to become known as FleetCity.” The FleetCity facilities put pressure on the quiet farmland in the Tri-Valley area after World War II ended because they were not decommissioned and off-base housing was needed for contractors and the families of military personnel; the only area with residential housing at thattime was the City of Livermore. In the late 1950s, executivesBob McLain and Kenneth Volk formed a developmental business known as Volk-McLain Communities. Although their organization was short-lived andthese men passed into obscurity, they were able to acquire title to approximately4,300 acres of prime farmland in the upper San Ramon Valley, north of Dublin, straddling the Contra Costa and Alameda county lines. The development, which planned for but was not yet served by the I-680 freeway, was the largest bi- county development in the East Bay and quickly transformedDublin from a sleepy farm town to a bustling Oakland suburb. In 1958, there was very little development in the Dublin area, but by 1966, hundreds of homes and the new freeway were built between San Ramon and the remnant farms south of Dublin. Volk-McLainserved as the sales agents for the houses after 1965 ratherthan as builders, and the homes after that date were built by others. By the early 1980s, the housing boom establishedalong the I-680 corridor had expanded for miles to the east and west of the freeway. The City of Dublin was incorporated in 1982 as more housingbecame available and the local population grew. As of 2015, Dublin’s population stands at more than 53,000 and is expected to grow further, based on planned andapproved projects in the eastern portion of the city limits. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-7 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-04Cultural Resources.docx 3.4.3 - Regulatory Framework Federal National Historic Preservation Act The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), which containsan inventory of the nation’s significant prehistoric and historicproperties. Under 36 CFR 60, a property is recommended for possible inclusion on the NRHP if it is at least50 years old, has integrity, and meets one of the following criteria: It is associated with significant events in history, or broad patterns of events. It is associated with significant people in the past. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type, period, or method of construction; or it is the work of a master or possesses high artistic value; or it represents a significantand distinguishable entity whosecomponents may lack individual distinction. It has yielded, or may yield, information important in history or prehistory. Certain types of properties areusually excluded from consideration for listing in the NRHP, but they can be considered if they meet special requirements in addition to meeting the criteria listed above. Such properties includereligious sites, relocated properties, graves andcemeteries, reconstructed properties, commemorative properties, and properties that haveachievedsignificance within the past50 years. State California Register of Historical Resources As definedby Section 15064.5(a)(3)(A-D) of the CEQA Guidelines, a resourceshall be considered historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CR). The California Register of Historical Resources andmany local preservation ordinances have employed the criteria for eligibility to the NRHP as a model, since the NHPA provides the highest standard for evaluating the significance of historic resources. Aresource that meets the NRHP criteria is clearlysignificant. Inaddition, a resource that does not meet the NRHP standards may still be considered historically significant at a local or state level. California Environmental Quality Act The CEQA Guidelines state that a resource need not be listed on any register to be found historically significant. The CEQA guidelines direct lead agencies to evaluate archaeological sites to determine if they meet the criteria for listing in the California Register. If an archaeological site is a historical resource, in that it is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register, potential adverse impacts to it must beconsidered. If an archaeological site is considered not to be an historical resource but meets the definition of a “unique archeologicalresource” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, then it would be treated in accordance with the provisions of that section. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Cultural Resources Draft EIR 3.4-8 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-04Cultural Resources.docx Public Resources Code Section Public Resources Code Section 5097.94 defines the responsibilities of the Native AmericanHeritage Commission as it relates to the disposition of human remains and burial sites encountered during developmentactivities. Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 requires lead agencies to work with the appropriate Native American representatives in the event that human remainsare encountered or likely to be encountered during projectimplementation. In cases where human remainsare encountered during earthwork activities, all excavation anddisturbance muststop and the CountyCoroner must be notified to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. Following this determination, the Native AmericanHeritage Commission mustbe notified and this agency is required to identify the most likelydecedent, who has the ability to make recommendations to the property owner regarding the treatment of the remains. California Health and Safety Code California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 establishes procedures that must be followed in the event of the inadvertent discovery of human remains or burial sites. In cases where human remainsare encountered during earthwork activities, all excavation and disturbance must stop and the County Coroner must be notified to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. Following this determination, the Native AmericanHeritage Commission must be notified and this agency is required to identifythe most likelydecedent, who has the ability to make recommendations to the propertyowner regarding the treatment of the remains. Local City of Dublin GeneralPlan The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following guiding policy associated with cultural resources that is relevant to the proposed project: Guiding Policy 7.7.1.A.2: Follow State regulations as set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 regardingdiscovery of archaeological sites, and Historical Resources, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code. 3.4.4 - Methodology FCS prepared a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the project site. The methods used in the preparation of the assessment aredescribed as follows. The complete Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment is provided in Appendix D. Record Searches Information Center Search OnDecember 19, 2014, FCS Professional Archaeologist, Dana DePietro, PhD conducted the cultural resource record search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) located in Rohnert Park, California. To identify any historicproperties on orwithin a 0.5-mile radius of the project site, City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-9 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-04Cultural Resources.docx current inventories of the National Register of Historic Places (NR), the CaliforniaHistorical Landmarks (CHL), and the California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) were examined. The California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) for AlamedaCounty was also reviewed to determine any local resources that have been previouslyevaluated for historic significance. The results of the records search indicated that oneprehistoric andone historic/prehistoric resource have beenrecorded within the 0.50-mile search radius; see Table 3.4-1. In addition, 27 reports are on file with the NWIC for the 0.50-mile radius. Two of the reports included the project site, indicating that the project site has been previously surveyed for cultural resources; refer to Table 3.4-2. Table 3.4-1: KnownCultural Resources within 0.50-mile Radius of the Project Site Site Number Resource Description P-01-000124 CA-ALA-000394: Pleasanton MeadowsPrehistoric Site consisting of burials, hearths/pits, and habitation debris, located 2,600 feet south-southwest of the currentproject site P-01-002114 CA-ALA-000508: 4J Ranch Historic Site consisting of an historic ranch site with a prehistoric component (seedprocessing artifacts), located 2,025 feet northeast of the current project site Source: FCS, 2015. Table 3.4-2: Cultural Resources Reports within a0.50-mile Radius of the Project Site No. Report No. Author/Date 1 S-000781 Parkman, E. Breck; 1977: locatedoutside of current project site 2 S-000898 Love, Edward, Miley P. Holman, and David Chavez; 1976: located outside of current project site 3 S-007375 Holman, Miley Paul; 1985: locatedoutside of current project site 4 S-008893 Holman, Miley Paul; 1985: locatedoutside of current project site 5 S-010456 Holman, Miley Paul; 1988: located outside of current project site 6 S-019785 Hill, Ward; 1994: located outside of current project site 7 S-019786 Clark, Matthew R.; 1993: located outside of current project site 8 S-021806 Wilberg, Randy S.; 1999: located outside of current project site 9 S-023085 Busby, Colin I.; 1999: located outside of currentproject site 10 S-023378 Busby, Colin I. andStuart A. Guedon; 2000: located outside of current project site 11 S-023379 Busby, Colin I. andStuart A. Guedon; 2000: located outside of current project site 12 S-024417 Busby, Colin I.; 2001: located outside of currentproject site 13 S-024986 BasinResearch Associates, Inc.; 2000: a cultural resource assessment for a PG&E power capacity increase project conducted within the current project site, with negativeresults City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Cultural Resources Draft EIR 3.4-10 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-04Cultural Resources.docx Table 3.4-2 (cont.): Cultural Resources Reports within a 0.50-mile Radius of the Project Site No. Report No. Author/Date 14 S-030588 Basin Research Associates, Inc.; 2004: locatedoutside of current project site 15 S-031701 Parsons, JeffreyRosenthal, Brian F. Byrd, and Toni Webb; 2006: located outside of current project site 16 S-033555 Rosenthal, Jeffrey and Brian F. Byrd; 2006: located outside of currentproject site 17 S-033598 Parkman, E. Breck; 2007: located outside of currentproject site 18 S-034483Pastron, Allen G.; 2004: locatedoutside of currentproject site 19 S-034997 Holman, Miley Paul; 2008: a cultural resources investigation and Native American consultation for a 25.3 acre development project conducted within the current project site, with negative results 20 S-035826 Byrd, Brian F.; 2008: located outside of current project site 21 S-036350 Basin Research Associates, Inc.; 2001: locatedoutside of current project site 22 S-039062 Busby, Colin I.; 2009: located outside of current project site 23 S-039330 Pastron, Allen and Michelle Touton; 2011: locatedoutside of current project site 24 S-039331 Pastron, Allen and Michelle Touton; 2011: located outside of current project site 25 S-041181 Pastron, Allen and Michelle Touton; 2013: located outside of current project site 26 S-042468Green, Kirsten; 2011: locatedoutside of current project site 27 S-042756 Kubal, Kathleen; 2011: located outside of current project site Source: FCS, 2015. Native American Heritage Commission RecordSearch OnDecember 16, 2014, FCS sent a letter to the Native AmericanHeritage Commission (NAHC) in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites are listed onits SacredLands File for the project site. Theresponse from the NAHC was received on January 9, 2015 stating that the record search of the Sacred Lands File failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project site. A list of 10 Native American tribal members who may have additional knowledge of the project site was included with the results. These tribal members were sent letters on January 13, 2015 asking for any additional information they might have concerning the project site. As of this date, no response has been received from any of the 10 tribal members. If responses are received, they will be incorporated as an Appendix to this EIR when it is finalized. Pedestrian Survey FCS Professional Archaeologist Carrie D. Wills, M.A., RPA surveyed the project site on February 10 and 13, 2015. The project site is flat and was covered with weeds and grassy vegetation with sporadic stands of water from recent rains. Near the southern border at about themid-point on the City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-11 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-04Cultural Resources.docx east/westtransect, is a stormwater structure extending underground. There wasagate across the entrance preventing access. The majority of the central portion of the project site was unsurveyable, as the mud was quite deep and watery, and walking through it was not possible. Appendix D: Photograph 4 shows the lack of ground visibility. In the southern central portion of the project site wasa stormwater drain. The grassy vegetation and small stands of water limited visibility throughout the site. North of the project site is the Terraces at Dublin Ranch residential development, and Fallon Gateway Shopping Center is situated to the east. Photographs depicting the project site at the time of the pedestrian survey are provided in Appendix D. Although there was minimal visible ground surface to determine the presence/absence of prehistoric resources, the project site is considered to havea low sensitivity for prehistoric resources since it is not near a water source or in resource rich environmental area. No prehistoric resources werefound during the course of the survey. No historic resources were discovered during the course of the survey, and review of historic aerial maps dating back to 1949 indicate that no structures have beenpresent within the project site since that time. 3.4.5 - Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, cultural resources impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed projectwould be considered significant if the project would: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeologicalresource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, includingthose interred outside of formal cemeteries? 3.4.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides mitigation measures whereappropriate. Historic Resources Impact CUL-1: Subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project may damage or destroy previously undiscovered historic resources. Impact Analysis The Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment found that there are no recorded historic resources within the project site. Nonetheless, there is always the possibility that previously unknownhistoric resources exist below the ground surface within the project site. Therefore, implementation of City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Cultural Resources Draft EIR 3.4-12 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-04Cultural Resources.docx standard cultural resource construction mitigation (Mitigation Measure CUL-1) would reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1 In the event that buriedhistoric or archaeological resources are discovered during construction, operations shall stop within 50 feet of thefind and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to evaluate the resource in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15064.5. The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every constructioncontract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the resource does not qualify as a significant resource, then no further protection or study is necessary. If the resource does qualify as a significant resource thenthe impacts shall beavoided by project activities. If the resource cannotbe avoided, adverse impacts to the resourceshall be addressed. The archaeologistshall make recommendations concerning appropriate mitigation measures that shall be implemented to protect the resources, including butnot limited to excavation and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Any previously undiscovered resources found duringconstruction withinthe project area should be recorded on appropriateDepartment of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Archaeological Resources Impact CUL-2: Subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project may damage or destroy previously undiscovered archaeological resources. Impact Analysis The Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment found that there are no recorded archaeological resources withinthe project site. Nonetheless, there is the possibility that earthwork activities may encounter previously undiscovered archaeological resources withinthe project site. The implementation of standard cultural resource construction mitigation (Mitigation Measure CUL-1) would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-13 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-04Cultural Resources.docx Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Paleontological Resources Impact CUL-3: Subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project may damage or destroy previously undiscovered paleontological resources. Impact Analysis The proposed project areais not located in an area that is considered likely to have paleontological resources present. Fossils of plants, animals, or other organisms of paleontological significancehave not been discovered at the project site, nor has the site been identified to be within an area where such discoveries arelikely. The type of depositional environment at the project area typically does not present favorable conditions for the discovery of paleontological resources. In this context, the projectwould not result in impacts to paleontological resources or unique geologic features. However, if significantpaleontological resources are discovered, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3 will reduceimpacts to a level of less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures MM CUL-3 In the event a fossil is discovered during construction for the proposed project, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every constructioncontract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, they shall beavoided 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 investigationprepared 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 preparedand submitted to the Director of Community Development. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Cultural Resources Draft EIR 3.4-14 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-04Cultural Resources.docx Burial Sites/Human Remains Impact CUL-4: Subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project may damage or destroy previously undiscovered human burial sites. Impact Analysis The Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment found that no human remainsare known to exist within the project area. However, there is always the possibility that subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project, such as trenchingand grading, could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. Accordingly, this isa potentially significant impact. However, if human remains are discovered, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would reduceimpacts to a level of less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures MM CUL-4 In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5; Health and Safety Code § 7050.5; Public Resources Code § 5097.94and § 5097.98 must be followed. If during the course of project development there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken: 1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the Alameda County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are NativeAmerican and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” MLD) of the deceased NativeAmerican. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the personresponsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. 2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the NativeAmerican human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendant or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance: The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to makea recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission. The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-15 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-04Cultural Resources.docx The landowner or his authorizedrepresentativerejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediationby the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-05 Geology Soils and Seismicity.docx 3.5 - Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 3.5.1 - Introduction This section describes the existing geology, soils, and seismicity setting and potential effects from project implementationon the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on the Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Feasibility Study prepared by Consolidated Engineering Laboratories and included in this EIR as Appendix E. Additional information was provided by the City of Dublin General Plan, the United States Geological Survey, and United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. 3.5.2 - Environmental Setting Regional and Local Geology Dublin is located in the Coast Ranges geomorphicprovince, which is characterized as nearparallel, northwest-to-southeast trendingmountain ranges and valleys. The projectvicinity is mapped as being underlainby Holocene-aged (recent) alluvium comprised of alluvial fan deposits. Seismicity The term seismicity describes the effects of seismic waves that are radiated from an earthquake as it ruptures. While most of the energy released during an earthquake results in the permanent displacement of the ground, as much as 10 percent of the energy may dissipate immediately in the form of seismic waves. The probability of one or more earthquakes of magnitude 6.7 (Richter scale) or higher occurring in the project area has beenevaluated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Based on the results of the USGS evaluation, there is a 63-percentlikelihood that such an earthquake event will occur in the Bay Area between 2007 and 2036. The faults with the greater probability of movement with a magnitude of 6.7 or higher earthquake are the Hayward Fault at 27 percent, the San Andreas Fault at 21 percent, and the Calaveras Fault at 11 percent. To understand the implications of seismic events, a discussion of faulting and seismic hazards follows. Faulting Faults form in rocks when stresses overcome the internal strength of the rock, resulting in a fracture. Large faults develop in response to large, regional stresses operatingover a long time, such as those stresses caused by the relative displacement betweentectonic plates. According to the elastic rebound theory, these stressescause strain to build up in the earth’s crust until enough strain has built up to exceed the strength along a fault and cause a brittle failure. The slip between the two stuck plates or coherent blocksgeneratesan earthquake. Following an earthquake, strain will build once again until the occurrence of another earthquake. The magnitude of slip is related to the maximumallowable strain that can be built up along a particular fault segment. The greatest buildup in strain that is due to the largest relative motion between tectonic plates or fault blocks over the longest period of time will generally produce the largestearthquakes. The distribution of these earthquakes isa study of much interest for both hazard prediction and the study of active deformation of the earth’s crust. Deformation is a complex process, and strain caused by tectonic City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Draft EIR 3.5-2 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-05 Geology Soils and Seismicity.docx forces is not only accommodated through faulting but also byfolding, uplift, and subsidence, which can be gradual or in direct response to earthquakes. Faults are mapped to determine earthquake hazards, since they occur where earthquakes tend to recur. A historic plane of weakness is more likely to fail under stress and strain than a previously unbroken block of crust. Faults are, therefore, a prime indicator of past seismic activity, and faults with recent activity are presumed to be the best candidates for future earthquakes. However, since slip is not always accommodated by faults that intersect the surface along traces, and since the orientation of stresses and strain in the crust can shift, predicting the location of future earthquakes is complicated. Earthquakes sometimesoccur in areas with previously undetectedfaults or along faults previously thought inactive. The six faults closest to Dublin and their characteristics are summarized in Table 3.5-1. Table 3.5-1: FaultSummary Fault Distance From Project Site miles) Fault Type Maximum Credible Earthquake (magnitude) Pleasanton 0.2 —— Calaveras 2.3 Right-LateralStrike-Slip 7.50 Mt. DiabloThrust 2.7 BlindThrust 6.70 Greenville 7.8 Right-Lateral Strike-Slip 7.25 Concord 16.6 Right-Lateral Strike-Slip 6.50 Hayward 28.8 Right-LateralStrike-Slip 7.50 Sources: Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, 2005. Pleasanton Fault Of the six faults listed in Table 3.5-1, the Pleasanton Fault is of most concern given its proximity to the project site. The Pleasanton Fault is located approximately0.2 mile west of the project site and isa Holocene-aged fault. This fault is mapped as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone; however, the fault zonedoes not overlap with any portion of the project site. Seismic Hazards Seismicitydescribes the effects of seismicwaves that are radiated from an earthquake as it ruptures. While most of the energy released during an earthquakeresults in the permanent displacement of the ground, as much as 10 percent of the energymay dissipate immediately in theform of seismic waves. To understand the implications of seismic events, a discussion of faulting and seismic hazards is provided below. Seismic hazards posea substantial danger to property and human safetyand arepresent because of the risk of naturally occurring geologic events and processes impacting human development. Therefore, the hazard is influenced as much by the conditions of human development as by the frequency and distribution of major geologic events. Seismic hazards present in California include City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-3 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-05 Geology Soils and Seismicity.docx ground rupture along faults, strong seismicshaking, liquefaction, ground failure, landsliding, and slope failure. Fault Rupture Fault rupture is aseismichazard that affects structures sited above an active fault. The hazard from fault rupture is the movement of the ground surface along a fault during an earthquake. Typically, this movement takes place during the short time of an earthquake, but it alsocan occur slowlyover many years in a process known as creep. Most structures and underground utilities cannot accommodate the surface displacements of several inches to several feet commonly associated with fault rupture or creep. Ground Shaking The severity of ground shaking depends on several variables such as earthquake magnitude, epicenter distance, local geology, thickness, seismic wave-propagation properties of unconsolidated materials, groundwaterconditions, and topographic setting. Ground shaking hazards are most pronounced in areas near faults or with unconsolidated alluvium. Based on observations of damage from recent earthquakes in California (e.g., San Fernando 1971, Whittier-Narrows1987, Landers 1992, Northridge 1994), ground shaking is responsible for 70 to 100 percent of all earthquake damage. The most common type of damage from ground shaking is structural damage to buildings, which can range from cosmetic stucco cracks to total collapse. The overall level of structural damage from a nearby large earthquake would likelybemoderate to heavy, depending on the characteristics of the earthquake, the type of ground, and the condition of the building. Besides damage to buildings, strongground shaking can cause severedamage from falling objects or broken utility lines. Fire and explosions are also hazards associated with strongground shaking. GroundFailure Ground failure includes liquefaction and the liquefaction-induced phenomena of lateral spreading, and lurching. Liquefaction is a process by which sediments below the water table temporarily lose strength during an earthquakeand behave as a viscous liquid ratherthan a solid. Liquefaction is restricted to certain geologic andhydrologic environments, primarily recently deposited sand and silt in areas with high groundwater levels. The process of liquefaction involves seismic waves passing through saturated granular layers, distorting the granular structure, and causing the particles to collapse. This causes the granularlayer to behave temporarily as a viscous liquid, resulting in liquefaction. Liquefaction can cause the soil beneath a structure to lose strength, which may result in the loss of foundation-bearing capacity. This loss of strengthcommonly causes the structure to settle or tip. Loss of bearing strength canalso cause light buildings with basements, buried tanks, and foundation piles to rise buoyantly through the liquefied soil. Lateral spreading is lateral ground movement, with some vertical component, caused by liquefaction. Ineffect, the soilrides on top of the liquefied layer. Lateral spreading can occur on City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Draft EIR 3.5-4 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-05 Geology Soils and Seismicity.docx relatively flat sites with slopes less than 2percent, under certain circumstances, and can cause ground cracking and settlement. Lurching is the movement of the ground surface toward an open face when the soil liquefies. An open face could be a graded slope, stream bank, canal face, gully, or other similar feature. Landslides and Slope Failure Landslides and other forms of slope failure form in response to the long-term geologic cycle ofuplift, mass wasting, and disturbance of slopes. Mass wasting refers to a variety of erosional processes from gradual downhill soil creep to mudslides, debris flows, landslides and rock fall—processes that are commonlytriggered by intense precipitation, which varies according to climactic shifts. Often, various forms of mass wasting are grouped together as landslides, which aregenerally used to describe the downhill movement of rock andsoil. Geologists classify landslides into several different types that reflect differences in the type of material and type of movement. The four most common types of landslides are translational, rotational, earth flow, and rock fall. Debris flows are another common type of landslide similar to earth flows, except that the soiland rockparticlesare coarser. Mudslide is a term that appears in non-technical literature to describe a variety of shallow, rapidly moving earth flows. Subsurface Profile Consolidated Engineer Laboratoriescharacterized the project site’s subsurface profile as 6 to 9 feet of artificial fill underlain by alluvial soils. The artificial fill consists of grayish-brown, dry to moist, stiff to hard, lean to fat clay with variable amounts of sand and gravel. Native Soils Soil mapping by the United States Department of AgricultureNatural Resources Conservation Service indicates that the project site contains native soils consisting mostly of Rincon Clay Loam and Clear LakeClay, with small areas of Pescadero clay and Sunnyvale clay loam. The characteristics of the four native soils aresummarized in Table 3.5-2. The two mostprevalent soils (Rincon Clay Loam and Clear Lake Clay) are classified as highly plastic soils with high shrink/swell potential. Table 3.5-2: Native Soils Summary Soil Parent Material Landform Drainage Class Clear Lake Clay, 0-3 percent slopes Basin alluviumderived from metamorphic andsedimentaryrock Basin floors, drainage ways Poorly drained Rincon Clay Loam, 0-3 percent slopes Alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Valley floors, fansWell drained Pescadero Clay Alluvium derived from sandstone and shale RimsSomewhat poorly drained Sunnyvale Clay Loam Over Clay Alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Valley floorsPoorly drained Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2015. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-5 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-05 Geology Soils and Seismicity.docx Soil Properties Consolidated Engineering Laboratories conducted soil borings and laboratory testing to identifythe soil properties (see Appendix E). The tests indicated that the project site’s soils are highly corrosive and moderately to highly expansive. 3.5.3 - Regulatory Framework Federal National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program was established by the U.S. Congress when it passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, Public Law 95–124. In establishing the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, Congress recognized that earthquake-related losses could be reduced through improved design and construction methods and practices, land use controls and redevelopment, prediction techniques and earlywarning systems, coordinated emergency preparedness plans, and public education and involvement programs. The four basic goals remain unchanged: Develop effective practices and policies for earthquake loss reduction and accelerate their implementation. Improve techniques for reducingearthquake vulnerabilities of facilities and systems. Improve earthquake hazards identification and risk assessment methods, and their use. Improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects. Several key federal agencies contribute to earthquake mitigation efforts. There are four primary National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program agencies: National Institute of Standards and Technology of the Department of Commerce National Science Foundation United States Geological Survey (USGS) of the Department of theInterior FederalEmergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security Implementation of National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program priorities is accomplished primarily through original research, publications, and recommendations to assist andguide state, regional, and local agencies in the development of plans and policies to promote safety and emergency planning. State California Building Code The 2012 International Building Codeis publishedby the International Conference of Building Officials, and is the widely adopted model building code in the United States. The 2013California Building Code is another name for the body of regulations known as the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, which is a portion of the California Building Standards Code. The City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Draft EIR 3.5-6 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-05 Geology Soils and Seismicity.docx CaliforniaBuilding Code incorporates by reference the International Building Code requirements with necessary California amendments. Title 24 is assigned to the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. Understate law, all building standards must becentralized in Title 24 or they are not enforceable. Compliance with the 2013California Building Code requires that (with very limited exceptions) structures for human occupancy be designed and constructed to resist the effects of earthquake motions. The Seismic Design Category for a structure is determined in accordance with either California Building Code Section 1613 - Earthquake Loads, or American Society of Civil Engineers Standard No. 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. In brief, based on the engineering properties andsoil-type of soils at a proposed site, the site is assigned a Site Class ranging from A to F. TheSite Class is then combined with Spectral Response (ground acceleration inducedbyearthquake) information for the location to arrive at a Seismic Design Category ranging from A to D, of which D represents the most severe conditions. The classification of a specific site and related calculations must be determined by a qualified person and are site-specific. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act In response to the severe fault rupture damage of structures by the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, the State of California enacted the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in 1972. This act required the State Geologist to delineate EarthquakeFault Zones along known active faults that have a relativelyhigh potential for ground rupture. Faults that are zoned under the Alquist-Priolo Act must meet the strict definition of being “sufficiently active” and “well-defined” for inclusion as an EarthquakeFault Zone. The EarthquakeFault Zones are revised periodically, and they extend200 to 500 feet on either side of identified fault traces. No structures for human occupancy may be built across an identified active fault trace. An area of 50 feet on either side of an active fault trace is assumed to be underlain by the fault, unless proven otherwise. Proposed construction in an EarthquakeFault Zone is permitted only following the completion of a fault location report prepared by a California Registered Geologist. Seismic Hazards Mapping Act In 1990, following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the California Legislature enacted the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides and other seismic hazards. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act established a statewide mappingprogram to identify areas subject to violent shaking and ground failure; the program is intended to assist cities and counties in protectingpublic health and safety. The Seismic Hazards MappingAct requires the State Geologist to delineate various seismichazard zones and requires cities, counties, and other local permitting agencies to regulate certain development projects within these zones. As a result, the California Geological Survey is mapping Seismic Hazards MappingAct Zones and has completed seismichazard mapping for the portions of California most susceptible to liquefaction, ground shaking, and landslides, primarily the San Francisco Bay area and Los Angeles basin. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-7 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-05 Geology Soils and Seismicity.docx Local City of Dublin GeneralPlan The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following guidingand implementing policies associated with geology, soils, andseismicity that arerelevant to the proposed project: Guiding Policy 7.2.I: Regulate grading and development on steep slopes, with special concern for potential problems of erosionand siltation. Implementing Policy 7.2.J: Require erosion control plans for proposed development. Erosion control plans shall includerecommendations for preventing erosionand scour of drainage ways, consistent with biological and visual values. Guiding Policy 7.3.1.A.1: Maintain natural hydrologic systems. Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.1: Enforce the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit for stormwater issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional WaterQuality Control Board or any subsequent permit as well as Chapter 7 (Public Works) and Chapter 9 (Subdivisions) of the Dublin Municipal Code for maintenance of waterquality and protection of stream courses. Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.2: Review development proposals to insure site design that minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff. Guiding Policy 8.2.1.A.1: Geologic hazards shall be mitigated or development shall be located away from geologic hazards in order to preserve life, protect property, and reasonably limit the financial risks to the City of Dublinand other public agencies that would result from damage to poorly located public facilities. Implementing Policy 8.2.1.B.1: Structural and Grading Requirements a. All structures shall be designed to the standards delineated in the DublinBuilding Code and Dublin’s Grading Ordinance. A “design earthquake” shall be established by an engineering geologist for each structure for which ground shaking isa significant design factor. b. Structures intended for human occupancy shall be at least 50 feet from any active fault trace; freestanding garages and storage structures may be as close as 25 feet. These distances may be reduced based on adequate exploration to accurately locate the fault trace. c. Generally, facilities should not be built astride potential rupture zones, althoughcertain low-risk facilities may be considered. Critical facilities that must cross a fault, such as oil, gas, and water lines, shall be designed to accommodate the maximum expected offset fromfaultrupture. Site specific evaluations shall determine the maximumcredible offset. d. A preliminary geologic hazards report mustbe 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 havesuch 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. e. Detailed geologicstudies will be required at the tentative subdivision map stage for all projects withinthe Landslide Hazard Area Boundary on the Geologic Hazards and Constraints map, and for other proposed projects if the preliminary investigation City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Draft EIR 3.5-8 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-05 Geology Soils and Seismicity.docx indicates a potential geologic hazard. Proposals for mitigation should beincluded at this stage. The detailed analysis for projects in the Landslide Hazard Area Boundary must consider: 1. 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 maximumcredible 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. Wherepublished 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 stabilitymust be evaluatedby a soils engineer. f. If the preliminary report indicates liquefaction potential, an engineering analysis and design, if necessary, to mitigateliquefaction hazards, shall be required for all structures planned for human occupancy. g. 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 streetsand utilities, in order to reduce future public repair costs. h. A surface fault rupture evaluation, as outlined by the State of California for Special Studies Zones (Alquist-PrioloAct), 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 situatedoutside of this zone butwithin the Preliminary Zones (Slossen, 1973) shall beevaluated if proposed for multifamily dwellings orfor public or recreationalfacilities. i. 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 thoseconditions. Inaddition, any conditions discovered during excavation or grading that significantly depart from the previously described geologic and soils setting shall be evaluated. Implementing Policy 8.2.1.B.3J: Post-earthquake or damage reconstruction of existing structures shall be permitted only if mitigating factorsare incorporated. Implementing Policy 8.2.1.B.4: DataReview andCollection k. All requiredreports anddata shall be reviewed by the AlamedaCountyGeologist or a consultingengineering geologist. This individual shall participate in the review process fromthe earliest proposal stage to completion of the project. l. A file of all geologic and soils reports and grading plansshall bemaintained as reference material for future planning and design on each site as well as on adjacent sites. m. City and developer shall endeavor to fully disclose hazards to present and future occupants and property owners. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-9 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-05 Geology Soils and Seismicity.docx Municipal Code Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 7.32 adopts the 2013CaliforniaBuilding Code; as such, all new construction within the city limits is required to adhere to its seismic safety standards. The City of Dublin Community Development Department is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Building Code. 3.5.4 - Methodology FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) reliedupon the information contained in the Preliminary Geologic and GeotechnicalFeasibility Study prepared by Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, which is provided in Appendix E, as the basis for assessing geologic, soil, andseismicityimpacts. The methodology of the Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Feasibility Studyis summarized as follows. Consolidated Engineering Laboratories reviewed pertinent geologic and geotechnical literature prior to conducting field work to identify relevant information about the project site. On November 10, 2005, asubsurface exploration of the project site was conducted in which six borings were drilled using a truck-mounted drill rig. Soil samples were visually classifiedusing the Unified Soil Classification System. Laboratory tests were conducted on selected samples to determine physical andengineering properties. The following tests were performed: dry density and moisture content, particle size analysis, Atterberg limits, consolidation/swell, unconfined compressive strength, R-value, soilcorrosivity, redox, pH, resistivity, chloride, and sulfate. The findings were summarized in the Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Feasibility Study, which is provided in itsentiretyin Appendix E. FCS obtained additional information from sources including the City of Dublin General Plan, the United States Geological Survey “Shake Map” webpage, and the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey. 3.5.5 - Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, geology, soils, and seismicity impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed projectwould beconsidered significant if the project would: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantialsoilerosion or the loss of topsoil? City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Draft EIR 3.5-10 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-05 Geology Soils and Seismicity.docx c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creatingsubstantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Refer to Section 7, Effects Found not to be Significant.) 3.5.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides mitigation measures whereappropriate. Seismic Hazards Impact GEO-1: The proposed project may expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic hazards. Impact Analysis This impact evaluates potential exposure to seismic hazards, including fault rupture, strong ground shaking, ground failure and liquefaction, and landslides. Each issue is discussed separately. Fault Rupture ThePleasantonFault, which is mapped as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake FaultZone, is located approximately 0.2 mile west of the project site. Neither the faultnor the fault zone overlaps with any portions of the project site. Therefore, this condition precludes the possibility of fault rupture occurring on-site. Impacts would be less than significant. StrongGround Shaking The project site is located within proximity of several major faults that have the potential to expose the proposed project’s structures to strongground shaking during a seismic event. At the time of this writing, a design-level geotechnical report for the proposed project was not available. Such a report would provide recommendations on the appropriate level of soil engineeringand building design necessary to minimize ground-shaking hazards. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is proposed, requiring the applicant to submit such a study to the City of Dublin for review andapproval. The implementation of thismitigation measure would ensure that the proposed project is not exposed to strongground shaking hazards. Impacts would be less than significant. Ground Failure and Liquefaction The Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Feasibility Study indicated that there is no chance for liquefaction or liquefaction-related phenomena to occur on the project site because of subsurface soil characteristics. Impacts would be less than significant. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-11 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-05 Geology Soils and Seismicity.docx Landsliding The project site and immediately adjacent areas contain flat relief. Therefore, the proposed project would not be susceptible to landsliding during a seismic event. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures MM GEO-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each structure, the project applicant shall submit a design-level Geotechnical Investigation to the City of Dublin for review and approval. The investigation shall be prepared by a qualified engineerand identify necessary grading and building practices necessary to achieve compliance with the latestadopted edition of the California Building Standards Code geologic, soils, and seismic requirements. The measures identified in the approved report shall be incorporated into the project plans. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Erosion and Sedimentation Impact GEO-2: The proposed project may result in substantialsoil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Impact Analysis The proposed projectwould involve grading, building construction, andpaving activities that could result in erosion and sedimentation. Leftunabated, the accumulation of sediment in downstream waterways could result in the blockage of flows, potentially causing increasedlocalized ponding or flooding. As such, Mitigation Measure HYD-1a in Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality is proposed, requiring the implementation of stormwater qualitycontrol measures duringconstruction activities to prevent pollutants from entering downstream waterways. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure HYD-1a. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Draft EIR 3.5-12 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-05 Geology Soils and Seismicity.docx Unstable Geologic Units or Soils Impact GEO-3: The proposed project would not be located on an unstable geologic unit or soil. Impact Analysis The Preliminary Geologic and GeotechnicalFeasibility Study indicated that the project site’s subsurface profile consists of 6 to 9 feet of artificial fill underlain by alluvial soils. The Preliminary Geologic and GeotechnicalFeasibilityStudy concluded that the underlyingalluvialfan depositsare a stable geologic unit and suitable for urban development. These characteristics indicate that the proposed projectwould not be susceptible to ground failure, liquefaction, or liquefaction-related phenomena. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Expansive Soils Impact GEO-4: The proposed project may create substantial risks to life or property as a result of expansive soil conditions on the project site. Impact Analysis The native soils that underlie the project site mostly consist of Rincon Clay Loam and Clear Lake Clay, which exhibits substantial shrink-swell potential and, therefore, are characteristic of expansive soils. Laboratory testing of soilboringsconducted as part of the Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Feasibility Study confirmed thatthe project site’s soils are moderately to highly expansive. Left unabated, such soils could expose persons andstructures to hazards associated with expansivesoils. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires the preparation of a design-level geotechnical study that complies with the applicable requirements of the latestadopted edition of the California Building Standards Code. A design-level geotechnical study would identify grading andsoilengineering practices that would ensure that expansive soil conditions are abated. As such, after implementation of mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx 3.6 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.6.1 - Introduction This section describes the existing hazards and hazardous materials setting and potential effects from projectimplementationon the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) prepared by SECOR International and the Phase II Environmental SiteAssessment (Phase II ESA) prepared by SECOR International. Both reports are included in this EIR as Appendix F. 3.6.2 - Environmental Setting Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials, as defined by the California Code of Regulations, are substances with certain physical properties that could posea substantial present or future hazard to human health or the environmentwhen handled, disposed, or otherwise managed improperly. Hazardous materials are grouped intothe following four categories, based on their properties: Toxic – causes human health effects Ignitable – has the ability to burn Corrosive – causes severe burns or damage to materials Reactive – causes explosions or generates toxic gases A hazardous waste is any hazardous material that is discarded, abandoned, or slated to be recycled. The criteria that define a material as hazardous also define a waste as hazardous. If handled, disposed, or otherwise handled improperly, hazardous materials and hazardous waste can result in public health hazards if released intothe soil or groundwater or throughairborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. Soil and groundwater having concentrations of hazardous constituentshigher than specific regulatory levels mustbe handled and disposed of as hazardous waste when excavated or pumped from an aquifer. The California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66261.20-24contain technicaldescriptions of toxic characteristics that could cause soil or groundwater to be classified as hazardous waste. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment A Phase I ESA was preparedby SECOR International in September2005 to determine the presence or absence of hazardous materials on the project site. No activity that has the potential to introduce hazardous materials has taken place on the project site since 2005. The site has not beensubject to use since 2005 and has remained an open, undeveloped field. Although noadditional environmental site assessments have been completed, technicalexperts have been on-site for a variety of other site studies including cultural resource andbiological resource analyses. Both of these studies observed siteconditions where no uses had been introduced to the site. Since the site conditions described in 2005are similar—if not identical—to those observed at the time of this writing, the conclusions of the Phase I ESA remainvalid. The findings are summarized as follows. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR 3.6-2 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx ExistingConditions The Phase I ESA characterized the project site as undeveloped land located at approximately 350 feet above mean sea level. SECOR indicated that vegetation consisted of weeds and shrubs. Two underground storm drain lines crossed the project site in a north-south direction. A natural drainage was present along the eastern and southern boundaries of the project site. Two 55-gallon drums were observed on the project site. Records Search At the request of SECOR, Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) performed a search of federal, state, and local databases listing contaminated sites, Brownfield sites (a developmentsite having the presence or potential presence of hazardoussubstance, pollutant, or contaminate), underground storage tank sites, waste storagesites, toxic chemical sites, contaminated well sites, clandestine drug lab sites, and other sites containing hazardous materials. The project site andadjacent sites were not listed on anydatabases. Aerial Photographs and Topographic Maps SECOR obtained aerial photographs of the project site dating to 1935. In each of the aerial photographsand topographic maps, the project site was vacant and undeveloped. Portions of the project site appear to have been used for grazing or feed crop (oats, hay, etc.) production. Land disturbance such as piles of fill material was observedalong the southern project siteboundary. No structureswere identified on the project site in any of the aerial photographs or topographic maps reviewed. The land to the north and northeast of the project site showed disturbance such as off-road vehicle tracks as early as 1939. By 1950, the tracks had disappeared. What were likely farm complexes farmhouses and barns, etc.), were observed to the south of the project site (across a two-lane highway) as early as 1950. Single-family homes were constructed to the south of the project site in Pleasanton between 1965 and 1982. The development of the adjacent land to the westand northwest did not commence until late 2004 and early 2005. Potentially Hazardous Materials or Petroleum Products 55-Gallon Drums SECOR observed two-55-gallon drums on the property. The drums were unlabeled and closed. No indications of spills or leaks were observed in the vicinity of the drums. Aboveground Storage Tanks No physical or documented evidence of aboveground storagetanks at the project site was identified. Underground Storage Tanks No evidence of underground storage tanks was observed (e.g., no vent pipes, pavementpatch work, pump islands, or fill ports) at the project site during the site visit or by the review of the available documentation. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-3 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx Unusual or Noxious Odors No unusual or noxious odors were observed at the Property during the site visit or reported to SECOR. Sumps, Pits, FloorDrains, or Pools of Liquid No sumps, pits, lagoons, or pools of liquid were observed at the project site, outside the project site, or adjacent to the project site during the site visit or reported to SECOR. Transformers or Polychlorinated Biphenyls Containing Equipment Electrical transformers, hydraulic equipment, capacitors, and similar equipment may contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in hydraulic or dielectric insulating fluids withinthe units. The federal Toxic Substances ControlAct generally prohibited the domestic manufacture of PCBs after 1979; therefore, there isa potential for the dielectric fluid in electrical and hydraulic equipment manufactured prior to that date to contain PCBs. Hazardous Building Materials Asbestos Asbestos is the name given to a number of naturally occurring, fibrous silicate minerals mined for their useful properties, such as thermal insulation, chemical and thermal stability, and hightensile strength. Asbestos is commonly used as an acoustic insulator, thermal insulation, fireproofing, and in other building materials. Asbestos is made up of microscopic bundles of fibers that may become airbornewhen asbestos-containing materials are damaged or disturbed. When these fibersget into the air, they may be inhaled into the lungs, where they can cause significant health problems. The CaliforniaOccupational Health and Safety Administration (CalOSHA) defines asbestos-containing construction materials as any material that contains more than 0.1percent asbestos by weight. SECOR concluded that asbestos-containingmaterials were not a concern because of the absence of buildings on the project site. Additionally, SECOR noted that the project site is not within anarea of known naturally occurring asbestos. Lead Lead is a highly toxic metal that wasused until the late 1970s in a number of products, most notably in paint. Lead may cause a range of health effects, from behavioralproblemsand learning disabilities to seizures and death. Primary sources of lead exposure are deteriorating lead-based paint, lead-contaminated dust, and lead-contaminated soil. Both the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Department of Health Services define lead paint as containing a minimum of 0.5 percentby weight. Lead-containing waste materials with a concentration greater than 0.1 percent areconsidered hazardous wasteby California law. Both the federal OSHA and CalOSHA maintain regulations regarding the disturbance of paints that contain any amount of lead. SECOR concluded that lead-based paint was not a concern because of the absence of buildings on the project site. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR 3.6-4 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx Phase II Environmental Site Assessment A Phase II ESA was prepared by SECOR International in December 2005 to evaluate the subsurface conditions of the project site. No activity that has the potential to introduce hazardous materials has taken place on the project site since 2005. The site has not beensubject to use since 2005 and has remained an open, undeveloped field. Although noadditional environmental site assessments have been completed, technicalexperts have been on-site for a variety of other site studies including cultural resource and biological resource analyses. Both of these studies observed siteconditions where no uses had been introduced to the site. Because the siteconditions described in 2005 are similar—if not identical—to those observed at thetime of this writing, the conclusions of the Phase II ESA remain valid. The findings of the Phase II ESA are described as follows. Subsurface Investigation and Analytical Testing SECOR conducted 10 soil borings at the project site using a direct-push drill rig. The soil samples obtained fromthe borings were examined to identify characteristics and laboratory tested for the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds. Table 3.6-1 summarizes the findings of the analytical testing. As indicated in the table, the Phase II ESA did not yield any conclusions that required further action. Table 3.6-1: SoilSample Analytical Testing Results Substance Findings Conclusions Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH/g) and motor oil (TPH/mo) Gasoline and motor oil range hydrocarbons were not detected above the laboratoryreporting limit in any of the 19 soil samples analyzed No environmental threat; No further action necessary. TotalPetroleum Hydrocarbons as diesel TPH/d) Diesel-range petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in three samples at concentrations up to 46 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). This concentration is below the residential environmental screening level. No environmental threat; No further action necessary. Volatile Organic Compounds Acetone was detected in soil samples at 0.82 mg/kg and 0.068 mg/kg. Methyl ethyl ketone was detected in sample at 0.13mg/kg. No other VOCs were detected at concentrations at or above their respective laboratory reporting levels. Although the first reading exceeds the residential Environmental Screening Level, it is not considered statistically significant when considered in context with the balance of the concentrations. The second reading is below the residentialEnvironmental Screening Level. No environmental threat; No further action necessary. Source: SECOR International, 2005 Radon Radon is acarcinogenic, radioactive gas resulting fromthe natural breakdown of uranium in soil, rock, and water. Radon gas enters a building through cracks in foundations and walls. Once inside the building, radon decay products may become attached to dust particles and inhaled, orthe City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-5 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx decayed radioactive particles alone maybe inhaled and cause damage to lung tissue. The EPA has established a safe radon exposure threshold of 4 picocuries per liter of air (pCi/L). Table 3.6-2 summarizes the results of indoor radontesting conductedby the California Department of Health Services within the project site’s zip code and three surrounding zip codes. As shown in the table, when the indoor radon tests are aggregated, 2.0percent exceeded 4.0 pCi/L. The California Department of Health Services classifiesareas with 0 to 7percent of samplesexceeding 4.0 pCi/L to be areas of low radon potential. Table 3.6-2: Indoor Radon Testing Summary Zip Code (Area) Total Indoor Radon Samples No. Exceeding 4.0 pCi/l Percent Exceeding 4.0 pCi/l 94551 (North Livermore) 7 0 0.0% 94566 (Pleasanton) 27 2 7.4% 94568 (Dublin) 17 0 0.0% 94582 (San Ramon/Tassajara Valley) 51 0 0.0% Total 102 2 2.0% Note: Project site is within the 94568 zip code. Source: California Department of Health Services, 2010. Livermore Municipal Airport The Livermore Municipal Airport is located in the western portion of Livermore, immediatelysouth of I-580, and approximately 1.5 miles from the project site. The airport is owned and operated by the City of Livermoreandfeatures two parallel runways: 7L/25R (5,255 feet in length) and 7R/25L 2,699 feet in length). The Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan indicates that 600 aircraft were based at the airport in 2008, with that number projected to increase to 900by 2030. The airport averaged 394 operations1 per day in 2014 (143,810 operations annually). The project site is located within Land Use Compatibility Zone 7 as established in the Livermore Executive Airport LandUse Compatibility Plan. 3.6.3 - Regulatory Framework Federal Hazardous Materials Laws The EPA is the lead agency responsible for enforcingfederal laws and regulations governing hazardous materials that affectpublic health or the environment. The major federal laws and 1 The Federal Aviation Administration defines an “operation” as one take-offor landing. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR 3.6-6 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx regulationsenforcedby the EPA include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, and the Superfund AmendmentsandReauthorization Act. In 1976, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act was enacted to provide a general framework for the EPA to regulate hazardous waste from the time it is generated until its ultimate disposal. In accordance with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste are required to ensure that the wastes are properly managed from cradle to grave.” In 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act was enacted to provide the EPA authority to regulate the production, importation, use, and disposal of chemicals that posea risk of adversely impacting public health and the environment, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos-containing materials, and lead-based paint. The Toxic Substances ControlAct also gives the EPA authority to regulate the cleanup of sites contaminated with specific chemicals, such as PCBs. In 1980, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, commonly known as the Superfund, was enacted to ensure that a source of funds was available for the EPA to remediate uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous materials releasesites that posea risk of adversely impactingpublic health and the environment. Prohibitions and requirements regarding closed or abandoned hazardous waste sites and liability standards for responsible parties were also established by Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. In 1986, the Superfund Amendmentsand Reauthorization Act amended Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation andLiabilityAct to increase the Superfund budget, modify contaminated site cleanup criteria and schedules, and revise settlement procedures. Other relevant federal laws include the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act regarding hazardous wastemanagement, the Toxic Substances Control Act, pertaining to the tracking and screening of industrial chemicals, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which controls pesticide distribution, sale and use. Applicable federal regulationsand guidelines are contained primarily in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Titles10, 29, 40, and 49. State Hazardous Materials In California, the EPA has granted most enforcement authority overfederal hazardous materials regulations to the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). The mission of Cal/EPA is to restore, protect, and enhance the environment to ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality. Under the authority of Cal/EPA, the Department of Toxic Substances Control DTSC) and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) are responsible for overseeing the cleanup of contaminated soil and groundwater sites in the Plan area. RWQCB regulations applicable to hazardous materials are contained in Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Additional stateregulations applicable to hazardous materials are contained in CCR Title 22. CCR Title 26 is a compilation of those sections or titles of the CCR that areapplicable to hazardous materials. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-7 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx Local City of Dublin GeneralPlan The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following guidingand implementing policies associated with hazards and hazardous materials that are relevant to the proposed project: Guiding Policy 8.3.4.A.1: Maintain and enhance the ability to regulate the use, transport, and storage of hazardous materials and to quickly identify substances and take appropriate action during emergencies. Guiding Policy 8.3.4.A.2: Minimize the risk of exposure to hazardous materials from contaminated sites. Implementing Policy 8.3.4.B.4: Require site-specific hazardous materials studies for new development projects where there isa 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. Guiding Policy 8.4.1.A.1: All proposed land uses within theAirport Influence Area (AIA) shall be reviewed for consistency with the safety compatibility policies and airspace protection policies of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the Livermore Municipal Airport. Implementing Policy 8.4.1.B.1: Adopt an Airport OverlayZoning District to ensure that all proposed development within theAirport Influence Area (AIA) is reviewed for consistency with all applicable Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) policies. County of Alameda Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan governs land use around Livermore Municipal Airport. The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan was adopted by the Alameda County Airport LandUse Commission in 2012. The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan establishes that the following “specificcharacteristics” are to be avoided: (1) glare or distracting lights that could be mistaken for airport lights; (2) sources dust, heat, steam, or smoke that may impair pilot vision; (3) sources of steam or other emissions that may cause thermal plumes or other forms of unstable air that generate turbulence within the flight path; 4) sources of electrical interferences with aircraft communications or navigation; or (5) features that create an increased attraction for wildlife including landfills or agricultural and recreational uses that attract largeflocks of birds. 3.6.4 - Methodology FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) reliedupon the information contained in the Phase I/II ESAs prepared by SECOR International to evaluate the potential presence of hazards and hazardous materials on the project site. Both reports are provided intheir entiretyin Appendix F. The methodology of the Phase I ESA and the Phase II ESA is summarized as follows: City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR 3.6-8 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx SECOR International prepared the Phase I ESA in September 2005. The Phase I ESA was performed in accordance with the American Society for Testing andMaterials (ASTM) Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, designated E 1527- 00 (ASTM E 1527). The purpose of the Phase I ESA was to identify, to the extent feasible, pursuant to the processes described herein, recognized environmentalconditions in connection with the project site. As defined in ASTM E 1527, recognized environmentalconditions means the presence, or likely presence, of hazardous substances or petroleum products on the project site under conditions that indicate anexisting release, past release, or a material threat of a release of hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the project site orintothe ground, groundwater, or surface water of the project site that generally present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally may be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. This Phase I ESA consisted of five primary components: (1) historical information review; (2) regulatory agency records review; (3) site reconnaissance; (4) interviews; and (5) preparation of the report. SECOR International prepared the Phase II ESA in December 2005. The purpose of the Phase II ESA was to conduct asubsurface investigation of the project site. On November 17–18, 2005, 10 soil borings were advanced using a direct-push drill rig. Boreholes were advanced to a maximum depth of 28 feet below ground surface for the first two boringsand to a maximum depth of 16 feet below ground surface for the last eight borings. Subsurface materials were logged by a SECOR geologist in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, andsoil classifications and related observations were recorded on soil boring logs. Soil samples were labeledand transported to Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. Soil samples were analyzed for the following constituents: TPH/g, TPH/d, TPH/mo, (pursuant to EPA Method 8015M) and volatile organic compounds (pursuant to EPA Method 8260). Finally, FCS reviewed the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for information regarding safety hazards. Refer to Section 3.8, Land Use for detailed discussion of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. 3.6.5 - Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, hazards and hazardous materials impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed projectwould be considered significant if the project would: a) Create a significant hazard to the public orthe environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upsetand accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardousemissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quartermile of anexisting or proposed school? (Refer to Section 7, Effects Found not to be Significant.) City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-9 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) Fora project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Refer to Section 7, Effects Found not to be Significant.) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergencyresponse plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 3.6.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides mitigation measures whereappropriate. Routine Transport, Use or Disposal of Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-1: The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environmentthrough the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impact Analysis This impact assesses the potential for the proposed project to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposedmedical campus uses contemplate a comprehensive range of outpatient primary and specialty care services, urgent care, radiation/oncology services, outpatient surgery, diagnostic services including radiologyand telemedicine, women’s services, inpatient care, including diagnostic and treatment services, surgical services and emergency care, and supporting ancillary health care servicessuch as optical, pharmacy, laboratory, education and training. Additionally, a Central Energy Plant would be part of the proposed project. The proposed project would involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials for the medical center portion of the project. Materials associated with the medical uses would include a variety of chemicals, radioactive materials, andmaintenance products. Patient care activities involve relatively small quantities of hazardous materials, primarily in clinical offices, cleaning and sterilizing processes, nuclear medicine, and pharmacies. Types of hazardous materials found in medical facilitiesincludechemotherapy reagents and other pharmaceuticals; chemicals used to sterilize equipment; formaldehyde for specimen preservation; and solvents, oxidizers, City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR 3.6-10 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx corrosives, and stains used in clinical laboratories. Facilities maintenanceand utility plant operation would require various common hazardous materials, including cleaners (which may include solvents and corrosives, in addition to soaps and detergents); paints; pesticides andherbicides; fuels (e.g., diesel); andoilsand lubricants. Biohazardous materials and medical wastes, along with chemical and radioactive waste, wouldpotentially be generated. Radioactive materialsare primarily used to treat certain types of cancer. Radioactive materials generally contain radioactiveatoms; however, x- ray equipment (which does not involve any radioactive substances) is also regulated as radioactive material. There would be potential for spill and release of hazardous substances during operation of the medical center. Federal, state, and local regulations are in place to protect the publicand the environment from adverse impacts related to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Most hazardous materials would generally be stored in small, individual containers of about 5 gallons or less except for the few products that could bestored in large quantities, such as liquid oxygen or nitrogen. Should accidental releases occur, the consequences of such accidents would not be severe due to the typically small quantities of materialshandled at any particular time. The project-related effects of hazardous materials handling and storage would generally be limited to the immediate areas where the materials would be located, because this is where exposure would bemost likely. For this reason, individuals most at risk would behospital employees, patients, visitors, or others in the immediate vicinity of the hazardous materials. While the use andhandling of hazardous materials would increase on the project site, existing regulationsminimize the risk of public exposure to hazardous materials. As part of its standardprocedures, Kaiser would implement Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) programs like those already in use atother Kaiser hospitals. EHS programs are designed for compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and accreditation standards, for the safety of patients, staff, and visitors, and to protect the environment. As with the existing facilities, the Environment of Care Manual would continue to direct how hazardous materials (including wastes) are managed at the new facilities developed as part of the proposed project. The health and safety procedures that protect workersand other individuals in the immediate vicinity of hazardous materials would also protect the adjacent community and environment. In addition, disposal of hazardous materials would be under the regulatory oversight of SLESD. Kaiser maintains an emergency response plan for their existing facilities to ensure that staff can respond to possible hazardous materials emergencies. In general, spills of less than0.5 to 1.0 liter about 2 to 4quarts) are cleaned up by hospital staff. For some materials (e.g., formaldehyde), spills larger than 0.5 liter are required to be cleaned up by an outside hazardous materials team. The Alameda County Fire Department provides “first response” capabilities to identify and secure access to hazardous materialsincidents. Theincrease in hazardous materials use would not substantially affect the demand for hazardous materials emergency response services in the City of Dublin and the County of Alameda and would not substantially affect the availability or response times of emergencyresponders. The likelihood of emergency incidents is more a function of the types of materials used as opposed to the quantities of materials used. Because the types of materials used would be similar in the future as those used City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-11 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx city- and countywide, current emergency response plans would still be effective at responding to anticipated incidents associated with hazardous materials. Hazardous materials would be transported via truck to and from the project site. Trucks would be expected to travel to Dublin via Interstate 580 and exit at either Tassajara Road or Fallon Road, and then turn onto Dublin Boulevard to reach the project site. These roadways are designated truck routes and, therefore, suitable for travel by trucks. All truck drivers would be required to possess a valid commercial driver license with requisite hazardous materials endorsements. Additionally, truck drivers would be subject to federal and state requirements that govern the safe operation of such vehicles (such as hours of service limits). Moreover, the truck units would be required to undergo regularinspection, with documentationkept on filefor verificationby law enforcement or regulatory agencies. These requirements reduce the potential for hazardous materials releases to occur in the unlikely event of an accidentinvolving transportation of hazardous material to or from the project. In summary, operation of the medical center would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or through reasonably foreseeable upset andaccident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. All non-medical activities discussed above would not require the use of hazardous materials to the extentwhich would create a significant impact. All medical activities discussed above would be regulated by federal, state, and local laws that are incorporated into Kaiser Hospital’s Environment of Care Manual. The Kaiser Medical Center would be surveyed for hospital-based services every three years by CDHS (Licensing & Certification) to ensure compliance with CCR, Title 22 (Hospital Licensing and Certification) regulations, which include hazardous materials management provisions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Risk of Upset Impact HAZ-2: The proposed projects may create a significant hazard to the public or the environmentthrough reasonablyforeseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impact Analysis This impact assesses the potential for the proposed project to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR 3.6-12 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx The project site is currently undeveloped and has not supported urban development in the past. The Phase I/II ESAs concluded that there were no potential environmental threats that existed on- site. Accordingly, the development of the proposed project on the project site would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonablyforeseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials intothe environment. As discussed in Impact HAZ-1, the proposed project’s medical campus uses would routinely involve the use of hazardous materials, including radioactive and biohazardous materials and wastes. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of these materials is extensively regulated by federal, state, and local agencies. Compliance with these laws would reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Government Code Section 65962.5 Sites Impact HAZ-3: The proposed project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiledpursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Impact Analysis The project site is not listed on any hazardous materials databases compiledpursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Additionally, there are no sites immediately adjacent to the project sitelisted on any hazardous materials databases compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Additionally, the Phase I/II ESAs did not find any evidence of hazardous materials contamination on the project site. Therefore, developmentand operation of the proposed project would not expose persons to residual hazardous materials from past uses of the project site. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-13 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx Aviation Safety Impact HAZ-4: The proposed project would not create aviation hazards for persons residing or working in the project area. Impact Analysis The project site is located 1.5 miles from Livermore Municipal Airport. The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan establishes that the following “specificcharacteristics” are to beavoided: (1) glare or distractinglights that couldbe mistaken for airport lights; (2) sources dust, heat, steam, or smoke that may impair pilot vision; (3) sources of steam or other emissions that may cause thermal plumes or other forms of unstable air that generate turbulence within the flight path; (4) sources of electrical interferences with aircraft communications or navigation; or (5) features that create an increased attraction for wildlife including landfills or agricultural and recreational uses that attract large flocks of birds. The proposed project’s does not (1) propose any exterior lights that couldbe mistaken for airport lights; (2) propose any uses or activities that emit substantial amounts of dust, heat, steam, or smoke; (3) propose any uses or activities that would generate electricalinterference; or (4) havea features that could attract largeflocks of birds (e.g., a pond). As such, the proposed projectwould be compatible with theflight hazards policies of theAirport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Emergency Response and Evacuation Impact HAZ-5: The project would not impair or interfere with emergency access or evacuation. Impact Analysis The proposed projectwould implement frontage improvements along Dublin Boulevard (curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, etc.). These improvements would not have the potential to impair emergency access or evacuation on this roadway. As indicated in Exhibit 2-4, the proposed project would be served by four access points from Dublin Boulevard: two full signalized access points (aligned with Keegan Streetand Lockhart Street) and two right-in, right-out access points. Internal driveways would connect the full access points with parking areas. Reciprocal access would beprovided between the medical campus and the commercial area. The California Fire Code requiresbuildings that are 30 feet or higher to be served with points of emergency access. Four access points would beprovided and, therefore, would City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR 3.6-14 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx exceed minimum Fire Code requirements for emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Hydrology andWater Quality FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7 1 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 07 Hydrology.docx 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.7.1 Introduction This section describes the existing hydrologyand waterquality setting and potential effects from projectimplementationon the site and its surrounding area.Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on review of the City of Dublin General Plan,the California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118,the Dublin San Ramon Services District DSRSD)2010 Urban Water Management Plan,and project utility plans. 3.7.2 Environmental Setting Climate and Meteorology Dublin is characterized by a Mediterranean climate,with mild winters and warm summers. Temperaturesrange from an average low of 36.7 degrees Fahrenheit F)in January to an average high of 89.0°F in July.Average rainfall is 14.18 inches.Table 3.7 1 summarizes local meteorology,as measured at Livermore Municipal Airport,located 1.5 miles from the project site. Table 3.71:DublinMeteorological Summary Month Average Temperature F) Precipitation Inches)Low High January 36.7 56.8 2.97 February 39.4 61.2 2.47 March 41.3 65.2 2.15 April 43.6 70.5 1.00 May 47.6 76.4 0.44 June 51.7 83.1 0.11 July 54.2 89.0 0.02 August 54.0 88.2 0.04 September 52.5 86.0 0.22 October 47.7 77.7 0.67 November 41.1 66.3 1.54 December 37.0 57.5 2.56 Annual Average 45.6 73.2 14.18 Note: Measurements taken at the Livermore Municipal Airport between January 1,1903and December 31,2014. Source:Western Regional ClimateCenter,2015. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Hydrology andWater Quality Draft EIR 3.7 2 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 07 Hydrology.docx Watershed The project site is located within the Tassajara Creek watershed,which drains the eastern portion of Dublin.North of Interstate 580 I 580),Tassajara Creek is located within a natural watercourse.South of the freeway,it is located in an earthen lined channel and flows south to Arroyo Mocho in Pleasanton.Arroyo Mocho,an earthen lined flood channel,empties into South San Ramon Creek near I 680,which continues south to Arroyo De La Laguna.This drainage reverts to a natural watercourse and is tributary to Alameda Creek in Sunol,which ultimatelyoutlets to San Francisco Bay in Fremont. Storm Drainage The City of Dublin provides municipal storm drainage within the Dublin city limits.In the project vicinity,storm drainage facilities consist of inlets and undergroundpiping that convey runoff to the stormwater basin located west of the project site.Runoff that occurs on the project site either ponds on site or sheet flows to existing storm drainage infrastructure located around the perimeter of the site Dublin Boulevard,I 580,etc.). The City requires stormwater discharges to comply with San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board RWQCB)permit requirements and establishes non point source pollution control measures as required byfederalandstate law.Stormwater pollution prevention measures for new development projects,such as swales,retention ponds,erosion,and sedimentation control,are incorporated in the planning,design,construction,and operation of projects with the potential to create pollutants in stormwater runoff. Alameda Countyprovides guidance to cities with respect to establishing programs to implement the Clean Water Actrequirements.The main goal of the program is to reduce the amount of pollution in stormwater runoff.New development planning guidelines are intended to designmechanisms that prevent pollutants such as soil,petroleum products,pesticides,litter,and construction materials from entering the storm drain system.New,more stringentrequirementswereincorporated into the City’s permit from the RWQCB.These new requirements are imposed on commercial,industrial, and residential developments that create one acre or more of impervious surfaces. Groundwater The City of Dublin overlies the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin.The following is a summary of the groundwater basin as provided in the California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118. Basin Boundaries and Hydrology The Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin extends from the Pleasanton Ridge east to the Altamont Hills about 14 miles and fromthe LivermoreUpland north to the OrindaUpland about 3 miles. Surface drainage features include Arroyo Valle,Arroyo Mocho,andArroyo 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.Some geologic structures restrict the lateralmovement of groundwater,but the general groundwater gradient is to the west,then south towardsArroyode 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 Arroyode la Laguna flows into Sunol Groundwater Basin. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Hydrology andWater Quality FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7 3 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 07 Hydrology.docx Water BearingFormations The entire floor of Livermore Valley and portions of the upland areas on all sides of the valley overlie groundwater bearing materials.The materialsare continental deposits from alluvial fans,outwash plains,and lakes.They include valley fill materials,the Livermore Formation,and the Tassajara Formation.Under most conditions,the valley fill and Livermore sediments yield adequate to large quantities of groundwater to all types of wells.The quality of water produced from these rocks ranges from poor to excellent,with most waters in the good to excellent range. Groundwater Storage Total storage capacity of the basin is estimated atabout 500,000 acre feet.Groundwater storage was estimated at 219,000 acre feet in 1999. Groundwater Budget Alameda CountyFlood Control and Water Conservation District,Zone 7 has maintained anannual hydrologic inventory of supplyand demand since 1974.The inventory describes the balance betweengroundwater supply and demand.Under average hydrologic conditions,the groundwater budget is essentially in balance.Groundwaterbudget inflow components include natural recharge of 10,000 acre feet,artificial recharge of 10,900 acre feet,applied water recharge of 1,740 acre feet, and subsurface inflow of 1,000 acre feet.Groundwater budget outflow components includeurban extraction of 10,290 acre feet,agricultural extraction of 190 acre feet,other extraction and evaporation associated with gravel mining operations of 12,620 acre feet,and subsurface outflow of 540 acre feet. Project Site Groundwater Soil boringsconductedby ConsolidatedEngineering Laboratories as part of the Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Feasibility Study indicated that groundwater occurs at depths of 37 feet below ground surface. Flood HazardAreas As shown in Exhibit 3.71,the southern portion of the project site is located in Flood Hazard Area ZoneAH,a 100 year flood hazard area defined as FloodDepths 13 feet usually sheet flow)”. 3.7.3 Regulatory Framework Federal and State Clean Water Act and Porter Cologne Water Quality ControlAct Under the Clean WaterAct of 1972,the United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA)is authorized to regulate the discharge of pollutants in the waters of the United States and to regulate water quality standards for surface waters.The EPA has delegated authority for implementing water quality regulations to the California State Water Resources Control Board State Water Board),which has nine Regional Water QualityControl Boards.The State Water Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards were established by the Porter Cologne Water QualityControl Act.Livermore is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water QualityControl Board RWQCB), City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Hydrology andWater Quality Draft EIR 3.7 4 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 07 Hydrology.docx which is responsible for implementation of state andfederal water qualityprotection statutes, regulations,and policies. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA and the Porter Cologne WaterQuality ControlAct,municipal stormwater discharges in the City of Dublin are regulated under the San FranciscoBayRegion Municipal Regional Stormwater NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDES)Permit,Order No.R2 20090074,NPDES Permit No.CAS612008,adopted October 14,2009 and revised November 28,2011.The Municipal Regional Permit is overseen by the RWQCB.The City of Dublin is a member agency of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program,which assists municipalities and other agencies in AlamedaCounty with implementation of the Municipal Regional Permit.Provision C.3 addresses postconstruction stormwater management requirements for new development and redevelopment projects that addand/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious area. Provision C.3 requires the incorporation of site design,source control,and stormwater treatment measures into development projects in order to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and nonstormwater discharges,and to prevent increases in runoff flows.Low Impact Development methods are to be the primary mechanism for implementing such controls. Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3.g pertains to hydromodification management.This Municipal Regional Permitprovision requires that stormwater discharges not cause an increase in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the existing condition.Increases in runoff flow andvolumemust be managed so that the post project runoff does not exceed estimated pre project rates and durations,where such increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause increased potential for erosion of creekbeds and banks,silt pollutant generation,or other adverse impacts on beneficial uses due to increased erosive force.The Hydromodification Management Susceptibility Map developed by the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program indicates that the Dublin area drains primarily to earthen channels;therefore,projects that create or replace 1 acre or more of impervious surface and increase impervious surface over pre project conditions are subject to hydromodification management requirements. In addition,projectsdisturbing more than 1 acre of land during construction are required to comply with the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities,OrderNo.20090009 DWQ,NPDES No.CAS000002 Construction General Permit).Construction General Permitactivities are regulated at a locallevel by the RWQCB. To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit,a project applicant must provide a Notice of Intent,a StormwaterPollution Prevention Plan SWPPP),and other documents required by Attachment B of the Construction General Permit.Activities subject to the Construction General Permit include clearing,grading,and disturbances to the ground,such as grubbing or excavation. The permit also covers linear underground and overhead projects such as pipeline installations. The Construction General Permit uses a risk based permitting approach and mandates certain requirements based on the project risk level Level 1,Level 2,or Level 3).The project risk level is based on the risk of sediment discharge and the receiving water risk.The sediment discharge risk depends on project location and timing such as wet seasonversus dry season activities).The receiving water City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Hydrology andWater Quality FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7 5 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 07 Hydrology.docx risk depends on whether the project would discharge to a sediment sensitivereceiving water.The determination of the project risklevel would be madeby project applicants when the Notice of Intent is filed and more details of the timing of the construction activity are known). The performance standard in the Construction General Permit is that dischargers minimize or prevent pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized nonstormwater discharges through the use of controls,structures,and bestmanagement practices BMPs).A SWPPP must be prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer that meets the certification requirements in the Construction General Permit.The purpose of the SWPPP is 1)to help identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that could affect the quality of stormwater discharges,and 2)to describe and ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater as well as nonstormwater discharges resulting from construction activity.Operation of BMPs must be overseen by a qualified SWPPP practitionerwho meets the requirements outlined in the permit. Section 303(d)and Total Maximum Daily Loads Section 303(d)of the Clean Water Act CWA)requires each state to identify water bodies that are impaired,and which consequently require further action to support their beneficial uses.Once a water body is identified as impaired,the state is required to establish a Total Maximum Daily Load TMDL)for each pollutant that is a source of impairment.ATMDL isa calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards,which will ensure the protection of beneficial uses.The BasinPlan establishes TMDLs and the attainment strategies that need to be implemented in order to meet the standards.TMDL attainment strategies are implemented by the RWQCB through NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDES) permits.Table 3.72 summarizes impaired water bodies within the watershed of the project site. Table 3.72:Impaired Water Body Summary Downstream Water Body Pollutant/Stressor Source Arroyo De La Laguna Diazinon UrbanRunoff/Sewers Alameda Creek Diazinon UrbanRunoff/Sewers Source:State Water Resources Control Board,2012. Local City of Dublin General Plan The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following guidingand implementing policies associated with hydrologyand waterquality that arerelevant to the proposed project: Guiding Policy 7.3.1.A.1:Maintain natural hydrologic systems. Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.1:Enforce the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit for stormwater issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board or any subsequent permit as well as Chapter 7 Public Works)and Chapter 9 Subdivisions)of the Dublin Municipal Code for maintenance of water quality and protection of stream courses. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Hydrology andWater Quality Draft EIR 3.7 6 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 07 Hydrology.docx Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.2:Review development proposals to ensure site design that minimizes soil erosionand volumeandvelocity of surface runoff. Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.1:Protect the quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater resources that serve the community. Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.2:Protect waterquality by minimizing stormwater runoff and providing adequate stormwater facilities. Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.3:To minimize flooding in existing and future development,design stormwater facilities to handle design year flows based on buildout of the General Plan. Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.1:Support Zone 7’s efforts to completeplannedregional storm drainage improvements. Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.2:With the goal of minimizing impervious surfacearea, encourage design and construction of new streets to have the minimum vehicular travel lane width possible while still meetingcirculation,flow,and safety requirements for all modes of transportation. Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.3:Discourage additional parking over and above the required minimum parking standards for any land use unless the developer can demonstrate a need for additional parking. Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.5:Review design guidelines and standard details to ensure that developers can incorporate clean water runoff requirements into their projects. Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.6:Maximize the runoff directed to permeable areas or to stormwater storage by appropriate site design and grading,using appropriate detention and/or retention structures,and orienting runoff toward permeable surfaces designed to manage water flow. Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.7:Review development plans to minimizeimpervious surfaces and generally maximize infiltration of rainwater in soils,where appropriate.Strive to maximize permeable areas to allow more percolation of runoffinto the ground through such means as bioretention areas,green strips,planter strips,decomposed granite,porous pavers, swales,and other water permeable surfaces.Require planter strips between the street and the sidewalk within the community,wherever practical and feasible. Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.8:Continue conducting construction site field inspections to ensure proper erosion control and materials/wastemanagement implementation to effectively prohibit non stormwater discharges. Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ACFCWC) The ACFCWC is responsible for protecting county citizens from flooding by maintaining flood channels and natural creeks within AlamedaCounty.As a condition of receiving adrainage permit, drainage plans for development projects must bereviewed by the ACFCWC to ensure that they are consistent with its policies and regulations pertaining to runoff,stormwater management and detention,flooding,anderosion.In addition,developmentprojects that involve work within the ACFCWC right of way orthat involve construction,modification,or connection to ACFCWC facilities are required to obtain a FloodEncroachment Permit and must comply with ACFCWC standards and specifications. I 37660004 • 03/2015 | 3.7-1_fema.mxd Exhibit3.7-1FloodHazardAreas Source: FEMA, 2009 CITYOFDUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTERPROJECT ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT 580 Central Pky Dublin Blvd E l C h a r r o R d F a ll o n R d StoneridgeDr PositanoPkwy K e e g a n St L o c k h art St AE AH AH AE AE AH AO AE AH AH AH AE AE AO AH AE AEAO AE Legend ProjectSite 100-Year Flood ZoneAH - Flooddepths1-3feet (usuallysheetflow) ZoneAO - Flooddepths1-3feet (usuallyareasofponding) ZoneAE - Basefloodelevationsdetermined Outside 100-Year Flood ZoneX - Areain0.2% annualchancefloodzone ZoneX - Areasdeterminedtobeoutside0.2% floodzone 2,000 01,000 Feet THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Hydrology andWater Quality FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7 9 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 07 Hydrology.docx 3.7.4 Methodology FirstCarbon Solutionsevaluated hydrology and waterquality impacts through review of the City of Dublin General Plan,the California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118,the DSRSD 2010 UrbanWaterManagement Plan,and project utility plans. 3.7.5 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G,Environmental Checklist,of the CEQA Guidelines,hydrologyand water quality impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant if the projectwould: a) Violate any waterquality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwatertable 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 beengranted? c) Substantially alter the existingdrainage pattern of area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? d) Substantially alter the existingdrainage 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? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or otherflood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures,whichwould impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or deathinvolving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundationby seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? 3.7.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of theproject and provides mitigation measures where appropriate. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Hydrology andWater Quality Draft EIR 3.7 10 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 07 Hydrology.docx Water Quality Impact HYD 1:Construction and operationactivities associated with the proposed projects may have the potential to degrade surface water quality in downstream water bodies. Impact Analysis This impact assesses the potential forthe proposed project to degrade surface water quality in downstream water bodieschecklist questions a,c,and f). The proposed projectwould involve the development of 1.2 million square feet of medical campus and commercial uses on the project site.Grading activities could result in erosionand sedimentation.The accumulation of sediment could result in the blockage of flows,potentially causing increasedlocalized ponding or flooding. Construction activities would 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 grease,automatic transmission fluid,paints,solvents, glues,and other substances could be used during construction.An accidental release of any of these substances could degrade the quality of the surface water runoff and adversely affect receiving waters.As such,Mitigation Measure HYD 1a is proposed,requiring the implementation of stormwater qualitycontrol measures during construction activities to prevent pollutants from entering downstream waterways.Impacts would be less than significant. Operational activities would involve vehicle use,landscape maintenance,and routine maintenance of structures.Leaks of fuel or lubricants,tire wear,brake dust,and fallout from exhaust contribute petroleum hydrocarbons,heavy metals,and sediment to the pollutant load in runoff being transported to receiving waters.Runoff from landscaped areas may contain residual pesticides and nutrients.Consequently,the long term degradation of runoff waterquality in downstream waterways could result from the implementation of the project.As such,Mitigation Measure HYD 1b is proposed,requiring the implementation of stormwater qualitycontrol measures during operationalactivities to prevent pollutants from entering downstream waterways.Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentiallysignificant impact. Mitigation Measures MM HYD 1a Prior to issuance of grading permits forthe proposed project,the City of Dublin shall verify that the applicant has prepared a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWPPP)in accordance with the requirements of the statewide Construction General Permit.The SWPPP shall be designed to address the following objectives:1)all pollutants and their sources,including sources of sediment associated with construction,construction site erosion,and all other activities associated with construction activity are controlled;2)where not otherwise required to be under a Regional WaterQuality Control Board permit,allnonstormwater discharges are City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Hydrology andWater Quality FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7 11 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 07 Hydrology.docx identified and either eliminated,controlled,or treated;3)site Best Management Practices BMPs)are effective and result in the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non stormwater discharges from construction activity;and 4)stabilization BMPs installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction are completed.The SWPPP shall be prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer.The SWPPP shall include the minimum BMPs required forthe identified Risk Level.BMP implementation shall be consistent with the BMP requirements in the mostrecent version of the California StormwaterQuality Association Stormwater Best Management Handbook Construction or the Caltrans Stormwater Quality Handbook Construction Site BMPs Manual. MM HYD 1b Prior to issuance of building permits forthe proposed project,the City of Dublin shall verify that the project applicant has prepared operational stormwater quality control measures that comply with the requirements of the currentMunicipal Regional Permit.Responsibilities include but are not limited to designing BMPs into project features and operations to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality and to manage changes in the timing and quantity of runoff i.e.,hydromodification) associated with operation of the project.These features shall beincluded in the design level drainage plan and final development drawings.Specifically,the final design shall include measures designed to mitigate potential water quality degradation and hydromodification of runofffrom all portions of completed developments.The proposed project shall incorporate site design and BMPs described in the current version of Alameda County Clean Water Program,C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance manual.Low Impact Development features, includingminimizing disturbed areas andimpervious cover and then infiltrating, storing,detaining,evapotranspiring,or biotreating stormwater runoff close to its source,shall be used at each development covered by the Municipal Regional Permit.Funding for long term maintenance of all BMPs must be specified.For each development project,the project sponsorshallestablish a self perpetuating Operation and Maintenance of Stormwater Treatment Systems plan Municipal Regional Permitprovision C.3.h).This plan shall specify a regularinspection schedule of stormwater treatment facilities in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit.Reports documenting inspections and any remedial action conducted shall be submitted regularly to the City for review andapproval. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Hydrology andWater Quality Draft EIR 3.7 12 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 07 Hydrology.docx Groundwater Impact HYD 2:The proposed projects would not depletegroundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Impact Analysis This impact assesses the potential forthe proposed project to depletegroundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. There are no existing on sitegroundwater wells within the project site.The proposed projectwould be served with potable water service provided by DSRSD;noon site groundwater wells would be drilled.Additionally,the Preliminary Geologic and GeotechnicalFeasibility Study found that groundwater occurs at depths of 37 feet below ground surface,and thus,project related construction activities would be unlikely to encountergroundwater. The proposed projectwould demand 110.6 acre feet of potable water annually;refer to Section 3.10,Public Services and Utilities for further discussion.DSRSD obtains all of its water supply from Zone 7,which obtains only 3 to 6percent of its water supply from local groundwater sources.The DSRSD 2010 Urban WaterManagement Plan indicates that Zone 7’s policy is to only pump groundwater it artificially recharges using its imported surface water or locally stored runofffrom Arroyodel Valle,with the objective of maintaininggroundwater levels above historic lows in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin.As practical matter,this results in no net loss of groundwater in the basin.For these reasons,the proposed projectwould not result in a net increase in groundwater pumpage from the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. Finally,the project site does not contain recharge basins or groundwater recharge facilities.Thus, the development of the proposed project would not interfere with groundwater recharge efforts. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Hydrology andWater Quality FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7 13 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 07 Hydrology.docx Drainage Impact HYD 3:The proposed projects may create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Impact Analysis This impact assesses the potential forthe proposed project to create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems checklist questions d and e). Runoff that occurs on the project site either ponds on site or sheet flows to existing storm drainage infrastructure located around the perimeter of the site along Dublin Boulevard. The western two thirds of the project site is located within the Dublin Ranch drainage area and would be served by the stormwater basin located adjacent to the southwestern portion of the project site.Discharges into this basin have been previously authorized by a Clean WaterAct Section 401 certification and would not require any further treatment.The eastern third of the project site is outside the Dublin Ranch drainagearea and would be discharged into the municipal storm drainage system.These flowswould require treatment prior to off site discharge. The stormwater management plan for the Kaiser campus focuses on three strategies: 1. Surfaceswales priority)andunderground stormdrain piping as necessary)to convey runoff from the western portion of the site to the existing Dublin Ranch Water Quality Control Basin. 2. Water quality treatment by means of infiltration to meet C3 regulationsand the LEED V2009 SS6.2 Water Quality Credit for the eastern portion of the site,outside the Basin’s watershed. 3. Erosion andSedimentation Control,utilizing optimal pre and post construction Best Management Practices BMPs)focused on long term waterquality treatment and pollution prevention. The proposed on site storm drainage system would consist of a network of street gutters,inlets, basins,and underground piping that would ultimately convey runoff to the municipal storm drainage system.In accordance with C.3requirements,peak runoff flows would be detainedduring peak storm events and released at a rate no greater than the pre development peak runoff flows. The campus will also incorporate site design and source control treatment measures,such as disconnecting and reducing impervious areas,creatingself retaining areas in larger landscape spaces,use landscaping as drainage features,stenciling storm draininlets,and covering trash storage areas. To ensure thatthe proposed project’s storm drainage system does not create downstream flooding problems,Mitigation Measure HYD 3 is proposed requiring that all storm drainage infrastructure comply with the City of Dublin’s engineeringand design standards.The implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Hydrology andWater Quality Draft EIR 3.7 14 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 07 Hydrology.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentiallysignificant impact. Mitigation Measures MM HYD 3 Prior to issuance of building permits forthe proposed project,the City of Dublin shall verify that the applicant has prepared a storm drainage and hydraulicstudy in accordance with City requirements.The storm drainage and hydraulicstudy shall quantify the increase in stormwater runoff peak flow rates and volumes resulting fromthe project,and identify the potential to exceed the conveyance and storage capacity of the local storm drainage system.The study shall incorporate the stormwater treatment controls and LID measures that will be designed to capture and treat runoff.The analysis shall verify whether the existing drainage infrastructure is adequate to receive and convey runofffrom the proposed project. If the findings of the analysis reveal that implementation of a proposed project would create runoff beyond the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage systems,the project shall be required to upgrade undersized components or adopt a different form of stormwater runoff management.Prior to approval of a proposed project,the final design drainageplansshall be reviewedand approved by the City of Dublin Public Works Department and the Alameda CountyFlood Control and Water Conservation District. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. 100 Year Flood Hazard Areas Impact HYD 4:The proposed project may locatestructures within a 100 year flood hazard area. Impact Analysis This impact addresses the potential for the project to place structures or housing within a 100 year flood hazard area checklistquestions g and h). As shown in Exhibit 3.71,the southern portion of the project site is located in Flood Hazard Area ZoneAH,which is a 100 year flood hazard area,which is defined as Flood Depths 13 feet usually sheet flow).” In accordance with federal law,all project buildings in a flood zone would need to have the finished floor a minimum of 1 foot above the 100 year flood elevation.This requirement is reflected in Mitigation Measure HYD 4 and would reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentiallysignificant impact. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Hydrology andWater Quality FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7 15 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 07 Hydrology.docx Mitigation Measures MM HYD 4 Prior to issuance of grading permits for any building located within a 100 year hazard flood zone,the applicant shall prepare and submitbuilding plans to the City of Dublin that demonstrate compliance with federal law and Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.24.The standards include but are not limited to requirements for anchoring,construction materials and methods,elevation,and floodproofing.In addition,the standards state that no newconstruction or redevelopment shall occur in a FEMA designated 100 year flood zone unless certification by a registered professional engineer or architect is provided that shows that the activitywould not result in an increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Levee or DamFailure Impact HYD 5:The proposed project would be exposed to flooding as a result of levee or dam failure. Impact Analysis As indicated in AlamedaCounty General Plan Safety Element Figure S 9,the project site is notwithin the dam failureinundation area of anydams.Additionally,the project site is not protected by any levees.This condition precludes the possibility of the project site being inundated as a result of levee or dam failure.Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Seiches,Tsunamis,or Mudflows Impact HYD 6:The proposed project would be exposed to seiches,tsunamis,or mudflows. Impact Analysis The project site is not near a large inland body of water,and therefore,is not susceptible to inundation by seiche.The project site is morethan 20 miles from the Pacific Ocean,a condition that precludes inundation by tsunami.The project site is surrounded by urban developmentand infrastructure,a condition that precludes inundation by mudflow.Impacts would be less than significant. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Hydrology andWater Quality Draft EIR 3.7 16 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 07 Hydrology.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Land Use FirstCarbon Solutions 3.8-1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx 3.8 - Land Use 3.8.1 - Introduction This section describes the existing land use and potential effects from projectimplementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on site reconnaissance andreview of the City of Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin SpecificPlan, and the Livermore Executive Airport LandUse Compatibility Plan. 3.8.2 - Environmental Setting Land Use Project Site The project site contains unimproved, undeveloped land. The project site was previously cleared and rough graded, and is regularly disked for weedabatement purposes. A chain-link fence surrounds the project site. The project site is 353 feet above mean sea level. Two storm drainage utility easements cross the project site in a north-south direction. The western easement extends into the project site along the Keegan Street alignment and contains a 96-inch diameter underground storm drain line. The easterneasementextends into the project site along the LockhartStreet alignment and contains a 10-foot by 8-foot concrete box culvert. Both lines discharge into a double 10-foot by 9-foot concrete box culvert that parallels the north side of I-580 within the Caltrans right-of-way. Dublin Boulevard is located immediately north of the project site and consists of a three-lane divided roadway (two westbound lanes and one eastbound lane). The roadway is partially built out to its full section along the project frontage. Two existing signalized intersections are located on this segment of Dublin Boulevard (Keegan Streetand Lockhart Street). Exhibit 2-3 provides site photographs of the project site. SurroundingArea West Undeveloped landcontemplated for future residential andcommercial development and a water quality basin/park form the western boundary of the project site. Further west is Grafton Street and the Grafton Plaza shopping center, which is anchored by a Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse. North Dublin Boulevard, a multi-lane divided arterial roadway, forms the northern boundary of the project site. The roadway has alandscaped median andprovides two existing signalized intersections along the project frontage at Keegan Street and Lockhart Street. North of the roadway are developed multi-family, multi-story residential uses and under-construction residential uses (Irongate). City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Land Use Draft EIR 3.8-2 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx East TheFallon Gateway shopping center forms the eastern boundary of the project site. FallonGateway is modern retail center anchoredby a Target and Dick’s Sport Goods store. Further east is Fallon Road. South Interstate 580 (I-580), a 10-lane divided freeway, forms the southernboundary of the project site. The planned Bay Area RapidTransit District (BART) extension from the Dublin/Pleasanton Station to Livermore would belocated withinthe I-580 median along the project frontage. Further south of I-580 is an under-construction residential development located in the City of Pleasanton. Land Use Designations Project Site The City of Dublin General Plan designates the project site “Campus Office” and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan zones the project site “Campus Office.” The project site is located within theAirport Influence Area of Livermore Municipal Airport as established by the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, but is located outside of the various land use compatibility zones. Surrounding Land Uses Table 3.8-1 summarizes surrounding General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations. Table 3.8-1: Surrounding Land Use Designations Land Use Relationship to Project Site Land Use Designation General Plan SpecificPlan Water Quality Basin/Park West Mixed Use 2/Campus OfficeMixed Use 2/Campus Office Grafton Plaza Residential Planned) West Mixed Use 2/Campus OfficeMixed Use 2/Campus Office Grafton Plaza Shopping Center West General CommercialGeneral Commercial Multi-Family Residential (West of Keegan Street) North High-Density ResidentialHigh-Density Residential Multi-FamilyResidential (East of Keegan Street; West of Lockhart Street) NorthMedium/High-Density Residential Medium/High-Density Residential Residential (East of Lockhart Street) NorthMedium-Density Residential Medium-Density Residential Fallon Gateway East General CommercialGeneral Commercial I-580 South [No Designation][No Designation] Source: City of Dublin, 2014. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Land Use FirstCarbon Solutions 3.8-3 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Livermore Municipal Airport The Livermore Municipal Airport1 is located in the western portion of Livermore, immediately south of I-580, and approximately 1.5 miles fromthe project site. The airport is owned and operated by the City of Livermoreand features two parallel runways: 7L /25R and 7R/25L, 5,255 feet in length and2,699 feetin length, respectively. The Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan indicates that 600 aircraft were based at the airport in 2008, with that numberprojected to increase to 900by 2030. The airport averaged 394 operations2 per day in 2014 (143,810 operations annually). The project site is located within Land Use Compatibility Zone 7 as established in the Livermore Executive Airport LandUse Compatibility Plan. 3.8.3 - Regulatory Framework State StateAeronautics Act TheState Aeronautics Act requires each county with an airport to establish an Airport LandUse Commission to regulate land use around airports, in order to protect public safety and ensure that land uses near airportsdo not interfere with aviation operations. The Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan regulates land use around Livermore Municipal Airport by requiring compliance with the applicablepolicies. In certain circumstances, local governments have the ability to override the decisions of theAirport LandUse Commission by a two-thirdsvote. Local City of Dublin GeneralPlan The City of Dublin General Plan serves as a guide for the day-to-day physical development decisions that shape the social, economic, and environmental character of the City’s Planning Area. The General Plan’s policiesare legally binding for new developmentand land use activities that occur within the Dublin city limits, which currently total 14.62 square miles. The City of Dublin General Plan is organized as follows: Land Use andCirculation Section: TheLand Use and Circulation section includes the Land Use Element; Parks and Open Space Element; Schools, Public Lands, and Utilities Element; and, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element. The Schools, Public Lands, and Utilities Element is an optional Element. HousingSection: The Housing section includes the Housing Element, which is a separately bound document. 1 Note that the City of Livermore refers to theairport as “Livermore Municipal Airport” while the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission refers to it as “Livermore Executive Airport.” This EIR will refer to it as “Livermore Municipal Airport” in deference to the name used byits owner/operator except in instances where the “Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Plan” is discussed. 2 The Federal Aviation Administration defines an “operation” as one take-offor landing. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Land Use Draft EIR 3.8-4 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Environmental Resources Management Section: The Environmental Resources Management section includes the Conservation Element; Seismic Safety and Safety Element; Noise Element; Water Resources Element; and Energy Conservation Element. The Water Resources and Energy Conservation Elements are optional Elements. Community Design and Sustainability Section: The Community Design and Sustainability section includes the Community Design and SustainabilityElement, which is an optional Element. Economic Development Section: The Economic Development section includes the Economic Development Element, which is an optional Element Campus Office LandUse Designation The General Plan designates the project site “Campus Office.” The General Plan establishes a Floor Area Ratiorange of 0.25 to 0.80 and an employment density range of 220 to 490 square feet per employee. This designation is intended to provide an attractive, campus-like setting for office and other non-retail commercial uses that do not generate nuisances related to emissions, noise, odors, or glare. Allowed uses include but are not limited to professional and administrative offices, administrative headquarters, research and development, business andcommercial services, limited light manufacturing, and assembly and distribution activities. Ancillary uses that provide services to businesses and employees in the Campus Office area are permitted. These uses include restaurants, gas stations, convenience shopping, copying services, branch banks, and other suchservices. Under specialcircumstances (for example, where a mixed-use development would decrease potential peak- hour traffic generation, meet a specifichousing need, encourage pedestrian access to employment and shopping, or createan attractive, socially interactive neighborhood environment), residential uses may be permitted as part of a master planned mixed-use development. In such developments, the residentialcomponent would not be permitted to occupy more than 50 percent of the developed area. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan The Eastern Dublin Specific Planserves as the zoning ordinance for the eastern portion of the City of Dublin. The SpecificPlan was adopted in 1995 and has been amended several times, most recently in 2014. The Specific Plan is organized into 10 chapters that set forth policyrecommendations, design concepts, and implementation measures. The first three chapters are primarily descriptive, summarizing the Plan, the planning context, and the existing setting. The policies, standards, guidelines, and implementation measures that regulate future development are presented in subsequent chapters. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan indicates that the western portion of the project site is withinthe Tassajara GatewayPlanning Sub Area, and the central and eastern portions of the project site are in the Fallon GatewayPlanning Sub Area. The SpecificPlan’s description of the land use concept for each Sub Area is described as follows: City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Land Use FirstCarbon Solutions 3.8-5 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Tassajara Gateway Planning Sub Area As indicated by its name, this subarea represents the commercialcore for eastern Dublin. The area is intended to be a highdensity, pedestrian-oriented commercial, civic, and entertainment center for Dublin and the surrounding communities. The subarea consists of two distinct parts: the General Commercialarea and the Neighborhood Commercialarea. The General Commercial area, which extends along Tassajara Road, is intended to include uses with a broadermarket area and a greater orientation to the motoring public, including a full range of regional and community retail, service, office, and restaurant uses. Ideally, a major community shopping center, with supermarket, drug store, hardware store, liquor store, and other supporting retail and service uses would be located in this area. FallonGateway Planning Sub Area The land use concept for the Fallon Gateway encourages the development of General Commercial and Campus Office uses that will benefit from the visibility and easy access providedby their location near I-580, Dublin Boulevard, and Fallon Road. Given the subarea’s eastern location away from downtown Dublin and the Town Center in eastern Dublin, it is anticipated thatthe General Commercial areas will accommodate retail uses that are less suited for the commercialcore areas either because they require larger land areas, better freeway access, and/or different development standards. Uses in this category include that segment of the retail market that typically deals with high sales volumes and/or bulky or big-ticket items; has relatively low-overhead; draws from a regional market area; and is highly auto- oriented. Examples of such uses includediscount centers, promotional centers, outlet stores, home improvement centers, auto dealerships, nurseries, and similar uses. The subarea should not include uses that would directly compete with and/or decrease thevitality of the commercial areas in the Town Center or Downtown Dublin. TheEastern Dublin Specific Plan designates the project site “Campus Office,” which is described as follows: Campus Office LandUse Designation The Specific Plan establishes a Floor AreaRatio range of 0.25 to 0.80 for this land use designation. The Specific Plan contemplates an attractive, campus-like setting for office and other non-retail commercial uses that do not generate nuisances related to emissions, noise, odors, or outdoor storage and operations. Ancillary uses which provide support services to businesses and employees are permitted. Under special circumstances (e.g., where a mixed-use development would decrease potential traffic generationand/or contribute to greater social interaction and more vital live/work environment), residential uses may be permitted as part of a master plannedmixed use development. In such developments, the residential component would not be permitted to occupy more than 50% of the developed area. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Land Use Draft EIR 3.8-6 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx County of Alameda Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan governs land use around Livermore Municipal Airport. The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan was adopted by the Alameda County Airport LandUse Commission in 2012. Noise Table 3-1 of theAirport Land Use Compatibility Plan identifies acceptable aviation noise levels by land use as follows: For uses including shopping centers, office buildings, medical clinics, andclinical laboratories, aviation noise levels of up to 65 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) are listed as Permitted” and noise levels greater than 65 dBA CNEL are listed as “Conditional.” For uses including multi-family residential, retirement homes, hospitals, nursing homes, and intermediate care facilities, aviation noise levels of up to 65 dBA CNEL are listed as Permitted” and noise levels greater than 65 dBA CNEL are listed as “Incompatible.” Safety The project site is located within Zone 7 (Area between Zone 6and Airport Influence Area Boundary) of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. There are no maximumsite-wide average intensity limits i.e., persons per acre) or open land recommendations for Zone 7. Table 3.8-2 summarizes the land use safety standards for Zone 7 that are set forthin the Airport Land Use Compatibility. Table 3.8-2: Zone 7 Land Use SafetyStandards Land Use Activity Status Offices, SmallEateries/Drinking Establishments, Retail Permitted Multi-FamilyResidential Permitted Hospitals, Outpatient Facilities, Dentists Offices, Clinics, Congregate Care Facilities (Ambulatory and Non-Ambulatory) Permitted High Capacity Indoor Assembly Room (1,000 or more persons), Medium to Large Indoor Assembly Room (300 or 999 persons) Conditional Low Capacity Indoor Assembly Room (Less than 300 persons)Permitted Large Outdoor Assembly Area (1,000 or more persons)Conditional Medium Outdoor Assembly Area (300 or 999 persons), Small Outdoor Assembly Area (Less than 300 persons) Permitted Open Parking Garages Permitted Power Plants Conditional Source: Alameda County Airport Land Use Compatibility Commission, 2012. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Land Use FirstCarbon Solutions 3.8-7 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Airspace Protection Airport Land Use Compatibility PlanFigure 3-3 sets forth airspace protection zones based on distance from the airport. The project site overlaps with airspace protection zones that extend 547 feet to 747 feet above mean sea level. Buildings that extend abovethese air protection zones are subject to Federal Aviation Administration Part 77 surface review. Other Flight Hazards The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan establishes that the following “specificcharacteristics” are to be avoided: (1) glare or distractinglights that could be mistaken for airport lights; (2) sources of dust, heat, steam, or smoke that may impair pilot vision; (3) sources of steam or other emissions that may cause thermal plumes or other forms of unstable air that generate turbulence within theflight path; (4) sources of electrical interferences with aircraft communications or navigation; or (5) features that create an increased attraction for wildlife including landfills or agricultural and recreational uses that attract largeflocks of birds. East Alameda CountyConservation Strategy The project site is located in Conservation Zone 2 of the East Alameda CountyConservation Strategy EACCS). The EACCS is intended to provide guidance and an effective framework to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources in eastern AlamedaCounty, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts resulting from infrastructure and development studies. The City of Dublin adopted the EACCS as guidance for public infrastructure/ capital improvement projects and uses the document to provide input on managing biological resources and conservation priorities during public project-levelplanning and environmental permitting. For privately-sponsored developmentprojects such as Kaiser Dublin Medical Center, proponents are encouraged to consult the EACCS for guidance, but compliance with the document is not mandatory. Refer to Section 3.3, Biological Resources forfurther discussion. 3.8.4 - Methodology FCS evaluated land use impacts through site reconnaissance; review of the City of Dublin General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the EACCS, and the review of project plans. Sitereconnaissance occurred on January 6, 2015 and was documented with photographsandnotes. 3.8.5 - Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Environmental Checklist, to determine whether land use and planning impacts are significant environmental effects, the following questionsare analyzed and evaluated. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Refer to Section 7, Effects Found not to be Significant) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Land Use Draft EIR 3.8-8 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmentaleffect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or naturalcommunities conservation plan? 3.8.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the proposed project andprovides mitigation measures where necessary. General Plan Consistency Impact LU-1: The project would not conflict with the City of Dublin General Plan. Impact Analysis The City of Dublin General Plan designates the project site “Campus Office.” The proposed project’s end uses (medical center andcommercial) are not expressly “permitted” or “ancillary” uses within the Campus Office” and, therefore, the ProjectProponent is seeking the approval of aGeneral Plan Amendment to create a land use designation that will specifically note thatthe medical uses of a Kaiser facility are allowedand the project will clearly be conformance with the General Plan. Additionally, the “Campus Medical” land use designation will allow a portion of the site to be utilized for commercial uses. Accordingly, the project applicant is proposing aGeneral Plan Amendment to (1) create a new Campus Medical” designation that would enable the multi-phased development of a new, state-of- the-art medical campus project with health care andcommercial development; and (2) re-designate the project site from “Campus Office” to “Campus Medical.” The CEQA standard for analysis of Plan inconsistency is whetherthere is a conflict with a plan, policy or designation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The new land use designation of Campus Medical is not significantly different than the existing Campus Office designation except that it expressly allowsmedical uses and also allowscommercial uses on a portion of the site. In addition, the land use designation itself is not a “policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmentaleffect” under CEQA. The amendment to the General Plan designation isa legislative policy decision by the City and does not mitigate environmental effects. Table 3.8-3 summarizes the proposed project’s consistency with all applicable policies of the General Plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As shown in the table, the proposed project is consistent with all applicablepolicies. Impacts would be less than significant. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Land Use FirstCarbon Solutions 3.8-9 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-3: General Plan Consistency Element Policy No. Text Consistency Determination Land Use Guiding Policy 2.6.4.A.1 Encourage the development of a balanced mixed use community in the Eastern Extended Planning Area, that is well integrated with both natural and urban systems, and provides a safe, comfortable and attractive environment for living and working. Any sites under Williamson Act contract are required to bemaintained as open space for the term of the contract. Consistent: The proposed project consists of the phased development of medical center and commercial uses on a 58-acre infill site. The medical center would provide services not currentlyoffered in Dublin, and this is consistent with the objective of developing a balanced, mixed-use community. Guiding Policy 2.6.4.A.2 All proposed land uses within the Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Influence Area (AIA) shall be reviewed for consistency with the compatibility policies of the Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ALUCP). Consistent: The proposed project’s uses andcharacteristics are compatible with the Livermore Municipal Airport. Refer to Impact LU-3 for further discussion. Guiding Policy 2.7.4.A.1 Encourage thedevelopmentof a full range of commercial and employment-generating uses in the Eastern Extended PlanningArea that will meet the needs of the City and the surrounding Tri-Valley area. Consistent: The proposed project consists of the phased development of medical center and commercial uses on a 58-acre infill site. The proposed project would create new jobs. This is consistent with the policy of encouraging the development of commercial and employment-generating uses in Eastern Dublin. Implementing Policy 2.7.4.B.1 Require developers to remain within the amount and distribution of commercial and employment- generating land uses depicted inthe General PlanLand Use Map (see Figure 1-1) in order to maintain a reasonable balance between jobs and housing opportunities. Consistent: The proposed project involves aGeneral Plan Amendment that wouldre- designate the project site from Campus Office” to “Campus Medical.” The re-designation in land useis expected to result in a limited net change in the amount and distribution of commercialand employment-generating land uses in Dublin. Implementing Policy 2.7.4.B.2 Allnon-residentialdevelopment must beconsistent with the policies and guidelines set forth in applicable Specific Plans. Consistent: This EIR evaluates project consistency with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and concludes that the project would be consistent with all applicable provisions. Refer to Impact LU-2 for further discussion. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Land Use Draft EIR 3.8-10 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-3 (cont.): General Plan Consistency Element Policy No. Text Consistency Determination Schools, Public Lands, and Utilities Guiding Policy 4.4.1.A.1 Ensure that adequatesolid waste disposal capacity is available, to avoidconstraining development, consistent with the Dublin General Plan. Consistent:This EIR evaluates project impacts on solid waste and concludes that adequate landfill capacity is available. Refer to Section 3.10, Public Services and Utilities for further discussion. Implementing Policy 4.4.1.B.3 Prior to project approval, the applicant shall demonstrate that capacity will exist in solid waste disposal facilities for their project prior to the issuance of building permits. Consistent:This EIR evaluates project impacts on solidwaste and concludes that adequate landfill capacity is available. Refer to Section 3.10, Public Services and Utilities for further discussion. Guiding Policy 4.5.1.A.1 Expand sewage treatment and disposal capacity to avoid constraining development consistent with the Dublin General Plan. Consistent:Adequate sewage treatment and disposal is available to serve the proposed project. Refer to Section 3.10, Public Services and Utilities for further discussion. Implementing Policy 4.5.1.B.1 Prior to project approval, developers shall demonstrate that adequate capacity will exist in sewage treatment and disposal facilities for their projects prior to the issuance of buildingpermits. Consistent:Adequate sewage treatment and disposal is available to serve the proposed project. Refer to Section 3.10, Public Services and Utilities for further discussion. Guiding Policy 4.6.1.A.1 Base General Plan proposals on the assumption that water supplies will be sufficient and that localwells couldbe used to supplement importedwater if necessary. Consistent:A Water Supply Assessment was prepared for the proposed project and demonstrates that adequate water is available to serve the proposed project (refer to Appendix I). Refer to Section 3.10, Public Services and Utilities for further discussion. Circulation and Scenic Highways Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.1 Design streets to (1) include sufficient capacity for projected traffic, (2) minimize congested conditions during peak hours of operation at intersections, (3) serve a variety of transportation modes including vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, and variety of users includingpeople with disabilities, children, and seniors, (4) provide continuity with existing streets, and (5) allow convenient access to plannedland uses. Consistent:This EIR evaluates project impacts on the local roadway network and identifies improvements achieve acceptable levels of service where feasible, while also allowing safe access for bicycles, pedestrians, and public transit. This is consistent with the objective of designing streets for a multitude of functions. Refer to Section 3.12, Transportation for further discussion. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Land Use FirstCarbon Solutions 3.8-11 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-3 (cont.): General Plan Consistency Element Policy No. Text Consistency Determination Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.3 Thegoals, policies, and implementation measures for street design in Section 10.8 of the Community Design and Sustainability Element should be consulted whennew streets are being designed and/or existing streetsare being modified. Consistent: Allmodifications to streetsare consistent with the implementation measures for street design in Section 10.8 of the Community Design and Sustainability Element. Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.4 Reserve right-of-way and construct improvements necessary to allow streets to accommodate projected vehicular traffic with the least friction. Consistent: The proposed project would dedicate right-of-way along Dublin Boulevard to facilitate the completion of half-width improvements along the project frontage. Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.6 The City shall strive to phase development and roadway improvements so that the operating Level of Service (LOS) for intersections in Dublin does not exceed LOS D. However, intersections within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area (including the intersections of Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road and Village Parkway/Interstate 680 on- ramp) are excluded from this requirement and may operate at LOS E or worse as long as the safety for pedestrians and bicyclists is maintained and impacts to transit travel speeds are minimized. Consistent: The appropriate LOS standards specified in this policy were used as the basis for assessing intersection operations impacts for those facilitieslocated within the City of Dublin. Refer to Section 3.12, Transportation for further discussion. Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.7 The City will comply with all provisions of the Alameda County Congestion Management Program and will review proposed development projects to ensure compliance with this Program. Consistent: This EIR assesses the impacts on facilities under the jurisdiction of the Alameda County Congestion Management Program. Refer to Section 3.12, Transportation for further discussion. Implementing Policy 5.2.2.B.1 Design streets according to the forecasteddemand and maximum design speeds listed above, and to the detailed standards set forth in the City of Dublin’s Street Design Standards and Standard Plans which are maintained by the Public Works Department, as well as the listed Additional Policies. Consistent: All improvements to Dublin Boulevard would be consistent with the City of Dublin’s Street Design Standards and Standard Plans. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Land Use Draft EIR 3.8-12 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-3 (cont.): General Plan Consistency Element Policy No. Text Consistency Determination Implementing Policy 5.2.2.B.2 Design and constructall roads inthe City’s circulation network as defined in Figure 5-1 as well as bicycleand pedestrian networks as defined in the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Consistent:The project would install Class II bicycle lanes and sidewalks along the Dublin Boulevard frontage and pedestrian facilities from the medical center to the Dublin Boulevard frontage. This is consistent with the policy of completing the bicycleand pedestrian networks as defined in the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Guiding Policy 5.2.3.A.1 Provide an integrated multi-modal circulation system that provides efficient vehicular circulation while providing adesign that allows safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, seniors, children, youth, and families; and encourages pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and other non-automobile transportation alternatives. Consistent:The project would install Class II bicycle lanes and sidewalks along the Dublin Boulevard frontage and pedestrianfacilities from the medical center to the Dublin Boulevard frontage. Additionally, a bus stop would belocated along the Dublin Boulevard frontage to facilitate access to public transit. Collectively, these project features areconsistent with the objective of providing an integrated multi-modal circulation system. Implementing Policy 5.2.3.B.1 Provide continuity with existing streets, include sufficient capacity for projected traffic, and allow convenient access to plannedland uses. Consistent:This EIR evaluates project impacts on the local roadway network and identifies improvements necessary to achieve acceptable levels of service. This is consistent with the policy of including sufficient capacity for projected traffic and allowing convenient access to plannedland uses. Refer to Section 3.12, Transportation for further discussion. Guiding Policy 5.3.1.A.1 Support improved local transit as essential to a quality urban environment, particularly for residents who do not drive. Consistent:A bus stop would be located along the Dublin Boulevard frontage to facilitate access to public transit. This is consistent with the policy of supporting improvements to local transit. Guiding Policy 5.3.1.A.2 Support the development of a community that facilitates and encourages the use of localand regional transit systems. Consistent:A bus stop would be located along the Dublin Boulevard frontage to facilitate access to public transit. Buses would serve City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Land Use FirstCarbon Solutions 3.8-13 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-3 (cont.): General Plan Consistency Element Policy No. Text Consistency Determination the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, enabling access to regional transit systems. Guiding Policy 5.3.1.A.3 Encourage improvements in the Enhanced Pedestrian Areas to improve the walkability of these areas. Consistent: The project would install sidewalks along the Dublin Boulevard frontage and pedestrian facilities from the medical center to the Dublin Boulevard frontage. Guiding Policy 5.3.1.A.4 Maintain enhanced signal coordination and limit intersection delays on major and RAPID transit routes to minimize delays to transit service. Consistent: The project site is located along a RAPID bus route, with an existing bus stop located at Dublin Boulevard/Keegan Street. The existing bus stop would be upgraded as part of the proposed project. The existing signals on Dublin Boulevard arecoordinated, and would continue to be coordinated after the addition of the driveway approaches at the signalized intersections at Dublin/ Keegan and Dublin/Lockhart. Implementing Policy 5.3.1.B.2 Require dedication of land and the construction of improvements to support the use of public transit in the community. Improvements could consist of bus turnouts, shelters, benches, realtime arrival information, and other facilities that may be appropriate. Consistent: A bus stop suitable for use by LAVTA would beprovided along the project frontage with Dublin Boulevard. Amenities would beexpected to include turnouts, shelters, benches and other appropriate facilities. Implementing Policy 5.3.1.B.4 Capitalize onopportunities to connect into and enhance ridership on regional transit systems including BART, LAVTA and any future light rail systems. Consistent: A bus stop suitable for use by Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) would be provided along the project frontage with Dublin Boulevard. Guiding Policy 5.4.3.A.1 Plan for all users by creating and maintaining Complete Streets that provide safe, comfortable, and convenient travel along and across streets (including streets, roads, highways, bridges, and other portions of the transportation system) through a comprehensive, integrated transportation network that meets the requirements of currently adopted transportation plans and serves all categories of users. Consistent: The project would install Class II bicycle lanes and sidewalks along the Dublin Boulevard frontage andpedestrian facilities from the medical center to the Dublin Boulevard frontage. The provision of these facilities are consistent with Complete Streets principles. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Land Use Draft EIR 3.8-14 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-3 (cont.): General Plan Consistency Element Policy No. Text Consistency Determination Guiding Policy 5.4.3.A.2 Be context aware by maintaining sensitivity to local conditions and needs in both residential and business districts as well as urban, suburban, and rural areas, and will work with residents, merchants, and other stakeholders to ensure that a strong sense of place ensues. Consistent:The proposed project’s transportation improvements (i.e., intersection improvements, frontage improvements, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, landscaping, and transit stops) would be similar in appearance to, and visually compatible with, other existing infrastructure and amenities in the project vicinity. This is consistent with the policy of promotingcontext sensitivity to local conditions. Guiding Policy 5.4.3.A.6 Encourage developers to implement Complete Streets in private transportationinfrastructure by providing guidance during the development approval process. Consistent:Internal project roadways wouldprovide associated pedestrian facilities and would be accessible to bicycles, consistent with Complete Streets principles. Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.1 Provide safe, continuous, comfortable and convenient bikeways throughout the City. Consistent:The project would install Class II bicycle lanes along the Dublin Boulevard frontage. Additionally, the project would provide pedestrian facilities that link the medical center to the Dublin Boulevard frontage. Overall, these characteristics are consistent with the policy of providing safe, continuous, comfortable, and convenient bikeways throughout the City. Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.2 Improve and maintain bikeways and pedestrian facilities and support facilities in conformance with the recommendations in the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Consistent:The project would install Class II bicycle lanes and sidewalks along the Dublin Boulevard frontage andpedestrian facilities from the medical center to the Dublin Boulevard frontage. The provision of these facilities are consistent with the recommendations in the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.3 Enhance the multi-modal circulation network to better accommodate alternative transportation choices including BART, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation. Consistent:The project would install Class II bicycle lanes and sidewalks along the Dublin Boulevard frontage pedestrian facilities from the medical center to the Dublin Boulevard frontage, and City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Land Use FirstCarbon Solutions 3.8-15 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-3 (cont.): General Plan Consistency Element Policy No. Text Consistency Determination be accessible to existing busservice on Dublin Boulevard. These characteristics areconsistent with the policy of enhancing the multi- modal circulation network to better accommodate alternative transportation choices. Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.4 Provide comfortable, safe, and convenientwalking routes throughout the City and, in particular, to key destinations such as Downtown Dublin, the BART Stations, schools, parks, and commercialcenters. Consistent: The projectwould install sidewalks along the Dublin Boulevard frontage and pedestrian facilities from the medical center to the Dublin Boulevard frontage. The provision of these facilities are consistent with the policy of providing comfortable, safe, and convenientwalking routes throughout the City. Implementing Policy 5.5.1.B.2 Improve bikeways, bicycle support facilities, and pedestrian facilities in accordance with the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan in conjunction with development proposals. Consistent: The project would install Class II bicycle lanes and sidewalks along the Dublin Boulevard frontage andpedestrian facilities from the medical center to the Dublin Boulevard frontage. Additionally, bicyclestorage facilities would beprovided on-site. The provision of these facilities are consistent with the policy of improving bicycle and pedestrian facilities in accordance with the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Implementing Policy 5.5.1.B.3 Ensure on-going maintenance of bikeways, bicycle support facilities and pedestrian facilities that are intended for public use and located onprivate property in conjunction with development proposals. Consistent: All internal bicycle and pedestrian facilities intended for public use would be owned and maintainedby the property owner. Guiding Policy 5.7.1.A.1 Incorporate County-designated scenic routes, and the Fallon Road extension, inthe General Plan as adopted City-designated scenic routes, and work to enhancea positive image of Dublin as seen by through travelers. Consistent: The project site is adjacent to I-580, a County- designated scenic route. This EIR evaluates project impacts on scenic views from I-580and concluded that the proposed project would continue to facilitate these views. Refer to Section 3.1, Aesthetics, Light, and Glare for further discussion. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Land Use Draft EIR 3.8-16 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-3 (cont.): General Plan Consistency Element Policy No. Text Consistency Determination Implementing Policy 5.7.1.B.1 Exercise design review of all projects visible from a designated scenic route. Consistent:Design review is a required discretionary approval for all project uses. Implementing Policy 5.7.1.B.2 Implement the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridors Policies and Standards for projects within the Eastern ExtendedPlanning Area. Consistent:Applicable Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridors Policies and Standards are addressed in this EIR, and the proposed project was found to be consistent will all relevant policies. Refer to Section 3.1, Aesthetics, Light, and Glare for further discussion. Guiding Policy 5.9.1.A.1 Continue the city’s program of requiring developers to contribute fees and/or improvements to help fund off-site improvements related to their projects. Consistent:The project applicant will be required to install traffic improvements or provide the City of Dublin with fees for the installation of traffic improvements and other public improvements. Refer to Section 3.11, Transportation for further discussion. ConservationGuiding Policy 7.3.1.A.1 Maintain natural hydrologic systems. Consistent:There are no creeks or other natural drainages withinthe project site. Additionally, the proposed project does not propose any alterations to any off-site natural drainage features. Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.1 Enforce the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit for stormwater issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water QualityControl Board or any subsequent permit as well as Chapter 7 (Public Works) and Chapter 9 (Subdivisions) of the Dublin Municipal Code for maintenance of water quality and protection of stream courses. Consistent:The proposed project will be required to comply with all applicable stormwaterquality protection requirementsduring construction and operations. Refer to Section 3.7, Hydrologyand Water Quality. Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.2 Review development proposals to insure site design that minimizessoil erosionand volume and velocity of surface runoff. Consistent:The proposed project will be required to comply with all applicable stormwaterquality protection requirements, including those pertaining to erosion, volume, and velocity, during construction andoperations. Refer to Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Land Use FirstCarbon Solutions 3.8-17 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-3 (cont.): General Plan Consistency Element Policy No. Text Consistency Determination Implementing Policy 7.5.1.A.2 Require an air quality analysis for new developmentprojects that could generate significant air emissions on a project and cumulativelevel. Air quality analyses shall include specific feasible measures to reduce anticipated air quality emissions to a less-than- significant California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) level. Consistent: This EIR includes an air quality analysis for both construction and operational emissions. Where necessary, mitigation measures are identified to reduce emissions. Refer to Section 3.2, Air Quality/ Greenhouse Gas Emissions for further discussion. Guiding Policy 7.7.1.A.2 Follow State regulations as set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 regardingdiscovery of archaeological sites, and Historical Resources, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code. Consistent: This EIR sets forth mitigation for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources in accordance with Public Resources Code Section21083.2. Refer to Section 3.4, Cultural Resources for further discussion. Guiding Policy 8.2.1.A.1 Geologic hazards shall be mitigated or development shall belocated away from geologic hazards in order to preserve life, protect property, and reasonably limit the financial risks to the City of Dublin and other public agencies that would result from damage to poorly located publicfacilities. Consistent: This EIR sets forth mitigation for geological hazards in order to preserve life and protect property. Refer to Section 3.5, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity for further discussion. Implementing Policy 8.2.1.B.1 Structural and Grading Requirements a. All structures shall be designed to the standards delineated in the Dublin Building Code and Dublin’s Grading Ordinance. A design earthquake” shall be established by anengineering geologist for each structure for which ground shaking is a significant design factor. b. Structures intended for human occupancy shall be at least 50 feetfrom any active fault trace; freestanding garages andstorage structures may be as close as 25 feet. These distances may be reduced based on adequate exploration to accurately locate thefault trace. c. Generally, facilities should not be Consistent: This EIR sets forth mitigation requiring project structures comply with the latest adopted edition of the California Building Standards Code. Refer to Section 3.5, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity for further discussion. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Land Use Draft EIR 3.8-18 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-3 (cont.): General Plan Consistency Element Policy No. Text Consistency Determination built astride potential rupture zones, although certain low-risk facilities may be considered. Critical facilities that must cross a fault, such as oil, gas, and water lines, shall be designed to accommodate the maximum expected offset from fault rupture. Site specific evaluations shall determine the maximum credible offset. Implementing Policy 8.2.1.B.4 Data Review andCollection k. All requiredreports and data shall be reviewed by the Alameda County Geologist or a consulting engineering geologist. This individual shall participate in the review process from the earliest proposal stage to completion of the project. l. A file of all geologicand soils reports and grading plansshall be maintained as reference material for future planningand design on each site as well as on adjacent sites. m. City and developer shall endeavor to fully disclose hazards to present and future occupantsand property owners. Consistent:This EIR is supported by a Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Feasibility Study prepared by Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, a consulting engineeringgeologist. The findings of the Preliminary Geologic andGeotechnical Feasibility Study are summarized in the EIR and, where necessary, mitigation is set forth. Refer to Section 3.5, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity for further discussion. Guiding Policy 8.3.4.A.1 Maintain and enhance the ability to regulate the use, transport, and storage of hazardous materials and to quickly identify substances and takeappropriateaction during emergencies. Consistent:This EIR evaluates project-related handlingand use of hazardous materials (e.g., medical wastes) and concluded that such activities would not expose human health or the environment to undue risks. This is consistent with the objective of enhancing the City’s ability to regulate the use, transport, andstorage of hazardous materials and to quickly identify substances and take appropriate action during emergencies. Refer to Section 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials for further discussion. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Land Use FirstCarbon Solutions 3.8-19 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-3 (cont.): General Plan Consistency Element Policy No. Text Consistency Determination Guiding Policy 8.3.4.A.2 Minimize the risk of exposure to hazardous materials from contaminated sites. Consistent: Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments were prepared for the project site and concluded that there were no recognized environmental constraints that require remediation. This is consistent with the objective of minimizing the risk of exposure to hazardous materials from contaminated sites. Refer to Section 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials for further discussion. Guiding Policy 8.4.1.A.1 All proposed land uses within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) shall be reviewed for consistency with the safety compatibility policiesand airspace protection policies of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ALUCP) for the Livermore Municipal Airport. Consistent: The proposed project’s uses andcharacteristics are consistent with the safety and airspace protection policies of the Livermore Municipal Airport. Refer to Impact LU-3 for further discussion. Implementing Policy 8.4.1.B.1 Adopt an Airport Overlay Zoning District to ensure that all proposed development within theAirport Influence Area (AIA) is reviewed for consistency with all applicable Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) policies. Consistent: This EIR evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with the applicable ALUCP policies; refer to Impact LU-3 for further discussion. Noise Guiding Policy 9.2.1.A.1 Where feasible, mitigate traffic noise to levels indicated by Table 9.1: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments. Consistent: The noise levels used in Table 9.1 were used as the basis as assessing the significance of traffic noise impacts in this EIR. Refer to Section 3.9, Noise for further discussion. Implementing Policy 9.2.1.B.4 Noise impacts related to all new development shall be analyzed by a certified acoustic consultant. Consistent: A comprehensive noise analysis was prepared by a certified acoustic consultant and the findings are summarized in Section 3.9, Noise of the EIR. Implementing Policy 9.2.1.B.7 Review allnon-residential development proposals within the projected CNEL 65 dBA contour for compliance with exterior noise transmission standards as required by the California Green Building Standards Code. Consistent: A portion of the project site overlaps with a CNEL 65 dBA roadway noise contour from I-580. All project buildings would be required to comply with the applicable noise transmission standards as required by the California Green Building Standards Code. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Land Use Draft EIR 3.8-20 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-3 (cont.): General Plan Consistency Element Policy No. Text Consistency Determination Guiding Policy 9.3.1.A.1 All proposed land uses within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) shall be reviewed for consistency with the noise compatibility policies and overflight policies of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the Livermore Municipal Airport. Consistent:The proposed project’s uses are consistent with the noise compatibility and overflight policies of the Livermore Municipal Airport. Refer to Impact LU-3 for further discussion. Implementing Policy 9.3.1.B.1 Adopt an Airport Overlay Zoning District to ensure that all proposed development within theAirport Influence Area (AIA) is reviewed for consistency with all applicable Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) policies. Consistent:This EIR evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with the applicable ALUCP policies; refer to Impact LU-3 for further discussion. Community Design & Sustainability Goal 10.5.2Promote a Positive Regional Identity of the City Consistent:The proposed project would develop 1.2 million square feet of medical campus and commercial uses on 58.7 acres along I-580 at the eastern end to Dublin. The project would employ a contemporary, modern appearance and feature landscaping and setbacks along the I-580 frontage. Collectively, these features would contribute to promoting a positive identify of Dublin. Policy 10.5.3.A Incorporatedistinctive design features along regional corridors that reinforce a positive image of Dublin. Both within theright-of-way and on adjacent private development, utilize features such as gateway elements, street trees, median planting, special lighting, separated and ample sidewalks, crosswalks, seating, special signs, street names, landscape, decorative paving patterns, and public art. Consider undergrounding utilities along these roadways. Consistent:The proposed project would employ landscaped setbacks along I-580 and Dublin Boulevard, street trees along public roadways and internal streets, and outdoor seating areas and pedestrian facilities nearbuildings. All utilities would be located underground. Collectively, these attributes would contribute to reinforcing a positive image of Dublin. Policy 10.5.3.B Maintain views through development to distant vistas (i.e. foothills) and viewcorridors along regional corridors, wherever feasible. Consistent:East-west views of the foothills along I-580and Dublin Boulevard would bepreserved via the use of landscaped setback. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Land Use FirstCarbon Solutions 3.8-21 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-3 (cont.): General Plan Consistency Element Policy No. Text Consistency Determination Policy 10.5.3.C Incorporate visualscreening techniques such as berms, dense and/or fast-growing landscaping, and appropriately designed fencing where feasible, to ensure that visuallychallenging features, such as parking lots, loading docks, storage areas, etc. are visually attractive as seen from regional corridors. Consistent: Landscaping would be provided along the I-580 frontage that would serve to partially or fully screen views of parking facilities, loading docks, and similar areas. Policy 10.5.3.D Provide landscaping and articulated design to soften the visual appearance of existing and new walls and fences that are adjacent to regional corridors, wherever feasible. Consistent: Landscaping would be provided along the I-580 frontage that would serve to partially or fully screen views of walls and fences. Policy 10.5.3.E Encourage attractive andhigh- quality landscaping along the edge of the freeways and development surrounding on- and off-ramps to provide softer and more attractive views both to and from the freeways. Landscaping on private property should complement the buildingsand overall site design. Consistent: Landscaping would be provided along the I-580 frontage. Goal 10.7.2 Ensure quality and compatible Design of the Built Form. Consistent: The proposed project would develop 1.2 million square feet of modern medical campus and commercial uses on the 58.7-acre project site. Projectbuildings would similar to and compatible with other buildings inthe project vicinity in terms of visual character. Policy 10.7.3.1.A Encourage diverse, high quality, attractive, and architecturally appealing buildings that create distinctive visual reference points, enrich the appearance of functional gathering spaces, and convey an excellence in architecture, workmanship, quality, and durability in building materials. Consistent: The proposed project would employ contemporary, high- quality architectural design that would be consistent with the policy of encouraging architecturally appealing buildings that create distinctive visual reference points. Policy 10.7.3.1.C Ensure that building height, scale and design are compatible with the character of the surrounding natural and built environment, and are varied in their massing, scale and articulation. Consistent: Projectbuildings would range from 40 to 90 feet in height, which is similar in scale to other buildings along the Dublin Boulevard corridor, consistent with the intent of the policy. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Land Use Draft EIR 3.8-22 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-3 (cont.): General Plan Consistency Element Policy No. Text Consistency Determination Policy 10.7.3.1.E Avoid the use of long, continuous, straight (building) wallsalong roadways by designing appropriate articulation, massing, and architectural features. Consistent:Projectbuildings would belocated throughout the project site and setback at various distances from I-580and Dublin Boulevard, thereby preventing the use of long, continuous, straight building) wallsalongroadways. Policy 10.7.3.1.H Orient buildings toward major thoroughfares, sidewalks, pedestrian pathways, and gathering spaces, and incorporate clear and identifiable entries where feasible, in campus office areas. Consistent:The main medical campus buildings would be oriented towards Dublin Boulevard and would provide pedestrian pathwaysand outdoor gathering spaces between buildings. Policy 10.7.3.1.I Cluster and connect buildings through a series of pedestrian pathways designed to work with each other to form a unified design characterand createlarger functional spaces, in campus office andcommercial areas. Consistent:The medical campus buildings would provide pedestrian pathwaysand outdoor gathering spaces between buildings. Policy 10.7.3.1.K Minimize the visual impacts of service/loading areas, storage areas, trash enclosures, and ground mounted mechanical equipment. When feasible, these elements shouldbe located behind or to the sides of buildingsand screened from views through a combination of walls/ fencing, and/or landscaping. Consistent:Loadingareas, storage areas, trash enclosures, and ground-mounted mechanical equipment would screened from viewby walls and landscaping. Policy 10.7.3.1.L Minimize the visual impacts of roof mounted mechanical equipment. When feasible, such elements shouldbeconsolidated and housed in architecturallyarticulated enclosures. Consistent:Rooftop-mounted mechanical equipment would be screened from view by a combination of parapets or architecturally articulated enclosures. Policy 10.7.3.2.C Incorporate setbacks and landscaped buffers for development along collector and arterial roadways to minimize the impacts from roadway noise, where appropriate. Consistent: The medical campus buildings would be set back more than 150 feet from Dublin Boulevard, with landscaping and parking facilitieslocated within the setback area. Policy 10.7.3.2.D Ensure that landscaping along and adjacent to the public realm is well maintained and retains a natural appearance. Consistent: Landscaping would be provided throughout the project site, with particular attention paid to the project perimeters along public rights of way. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Land Use FirstCarbon Solutions 3.8-23 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-3 (cont.): General Plan Consistency Element Policy No. Text Consistency Determination Policy 10.7.3.2.E Encourage distinctive landscaping and signage that is aesthetically appealing from the public realm. Consistent: Landscaping would be provided throughout the project site, including in highly visible areas. Additionally, a Master Sign Program will bedeveloped for the proposed project to ensure that signage is appropriate in appearance, intensity, and scale with surrounding land uses. Refer to Section 3.1, Aesthetics, Light, and Glare for further discussion. Policy 10.7.3.2.I Preserve views of creeks, hillsides, skylines, or other natural or man- made landmarks during site planning of new developments, whenever feasible. Consistent: View corridors of the hills to the north from I-580 would be maintained through the location and orientation of the medical campus buildings. Policy 10.7.3.3.A Encourage gathering spaces and amenities such as mini plazas, courtyards, benches, seating, shade, trash receptacles, and water fountains, in commercial and office areas. Consistent: The medical campus would feature outdoor gathering spaces that would provide pedestrian facilities, benches, seating, shade, trash receptacles, and similar amenities. Policy 10.7.3.3.B Design attractive gathering spaces with pedestrianamenities such as landscaping, benches, shade structures, fountains, public art, and attractive lighting. Consistent: The medical campus would feature outdoor gathering spaces that would provide pedestrian facilities, benches, seating, shade, trash receptacles, and similar amenities. Policy 10.7.3.5.A Provide convenient butnot visually dominating parking that incorporates extensive landscaping to provide shade, promote wayfinding, visually soften views from the street and surrounding properties, andreduce the heat island effect (generallycharacterized with large expanses of paved and under landscapedsurfaces). Consistent: Parking would be provided in a six-level structure and in surface lots. The parking structure would serve to minimize the dominance of parking areas by consolidating morethan 1,200 spaces in a multi-level facility, thereby allowing landscaping, pedestrian facilities, and outdoor gathering areas to be provided elsewhere. Policy 10.7.3.5.B Buffer and screen large expanses of parking areas from the street, where practical. Consistent: Landscaping would be provided along the I-580andDublin Boulevard that would serve to partially or fully screen views of parking facilities. Policy 10.7.3.5.C Encourage the use of integrated circulation and parking facilities that are shared among surrounding properties. Consistent: The medical campus and commercial uses would provide reciprocalvehicular access between each use, consistent with the policy City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Land Use Draft EIR 3.8-24 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-3 (cont.): General Plan Consistency Element Policy No. Text Consistency Determination of encouraging integrated circulationfacilities among adjoining properties. Goal 10.8.2 Establish Connections and Linkages throughout the City by promoting transportation efficiency, reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), enabling easier non-vehicular circulation, and promoting walking and cycling Consistent:The project would install Class II bicycle facilities and sidewalks along the Dublin Boulevard frontage and pedestrian facilities from the medical center to the Dublin Boulevard frontage. The provision of these facilities is consistent with the goal of promoting transportation efficiency, reducing VMT, enabling easier non-vehicular circulation, and promoting walking and cycling. Policy 10.8.2.3.A Provide safe, visually pleasing, and comfortable pedestrian andbicycle connections between destinations within a project area byproviding wide multi-use paths, generous sidewalks, anddedicated bicycle lanes on Class I and II Collectorand Arterial streets. Consistent:The project would install Class II bicycle facilities and sidewalks along the Dublin Boulevard frontage andpedestrian facilities from the medical center to the Dublin Boulevard frontage. The provision of these facilities is consistent with the policy of providing safe, visually pleasing, and comfortable pedestrian and bicycleconnections. Policy 10.8.2.3.C Provide a continuous and ample network of pedestrian andbicycle routes within a project area and logicalconnections to the exterior of the project area and thereby create safe routes of travel to transit facilities, public gathering spaces, trails, parks, community centers, schools, City villages, gateways and entries. Consistent:The project would install Class II bicycle facilities and sidewalks along the Dublin Boulevard frontage and pedestrian facilities from the medical center to the Dublin Boulevard frontage. The provision of these facilities is consistent with the policy of providing a continuous and ample network of pedestrian and bicycle routes within a project area. Water Resources Guiding Policy 12.3.1.A.1 Work with Zone 7 and DSRSD to secure anadequate water supply for, and provide water delivery to, existing and future customers in Dublin. Consistent:This EIR evaluates project-related impacts on water supply and found that adequate supplies would exist. This is consistent with the objective of securing an adequate water supply and delivery mechanisms to existing and future customers in Dublin. Refer to Section 3.10, Public Services and Utilities for further discussion. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Land Use FirstCarbon Solutions 3.8-25 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-3 (cont.): General Plan Consistency Element Policy No. Text Consistency Determination Implementing Policy 12.3.1.B.1 In anticipation of planned future growth, continue working with DSRSD and Zone 7 to plan and provide for sufficient future water supplies. Consistent: This EIR evaluates project-related impacts on water supply and found that adequate supplies would exist. This is consistent with the objective of working with water providers to provide for sufficient future water supplies. Refer to Section 3.10, Public Services and Utilities for further discussion. Guiding Policy 12.3.2.A.1 Increase water conservation efforts and strive to maximize water use efficiency in existing residential, commercial, and industrial buildings and grounds. Consistent: The proposed project would comply with California Building Standards Code requirements for water efficient fixtures and Water Efficient Landscape Regulations for water- efficient irrigation systems and devices. Compliance with these regulations wouldpromotewater conservation and water use efficiency. Guiding Policy 12.3.2.A.2 Support DSRSD in extending recycled water service to established areas of Dublin. Consistent: The proposed project would connect to DSRSD’s recycled water system, consistent with the objective of extending recycled water service to established areas of Dublin. Refer to Section 3.10, Public Services and Utilities for further discussion. Guiding Policy 12.3.3.A.1 Promote the conservation of water resources in new development Consistent: The proposed project would comply with California Building Standards Code requirements for waterefficient fixtures and Water Efficient Landscape Regulations for water- efficient irrigation systems and devices. Compliance with these regulations wouldpromote the conservation of water resources in new development. Implementing Policy 12.3.3.B.1 Continue implementation of the Water Efficient Landscape Regulations, which requires groupingplants with the same water requirements together hydrozoning), the installation of Consistent: The proposed project’s landscaping would be required to comply with the Water Efficient Landscape Regulations, including those that pertain to hydrozoning, water-efficientirrigation systems City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Land Use Draft EIR 3.8-26 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-3 (cont.): General Plan Consistency Element Policy No. Text Consistency Determination water-efficientirrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture- based irrigation controls, and the minimal use of turf. and devices, soil moisture-based irrigation controls, and minimal use of turf. Implementing Policy 12.3.3.B.2 Support DSRSD’s ongoing efforts to extend recycled water infrastructure purple pipe”) to new locations. Consistent:The proposed project would connect to DSRSD’s recycled water system. Refer to Section 3.10, Public Services and Utilities for further discussion. Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.1 Protect the quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater resources that serve the community. Consistent:The proposed project wouldimplementstormwater pollution prevention measures to protect water quality. Refer to Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality for further discussion. Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.2 Protect water quality by minimizing stormwater runoff and providing adequate stormwater facilities. Consistent:The proposed project would install storm drainage infrastructure and implement stormwater pollution prevention measures. This is consistent with the objective of protecting water quality by minimizing stormwater runoff. Refer to Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality for further discussion. Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.3 To minimize flooding in existingand future development, design stormwater facilities to handle design-year flows based on buildout of the General Plan. Consistent:The proposed project’s storm drainage infrastructure would be sized to accommodate full buildout of the proposed project, which would occur over a period of 20 or more years. Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.6 Maximize therunoff directed to permeable areas or to stormwater storage byappropriate site design and grading, using appropriate detention and/or retention structures, and orienting runoff toward permeable surfaces designed to manage water flow. Consistent:The proposed project wouldimplementstormwater quality measures such as, but not limited to, bioretention areas, green strips, planter strips, decomposed granite, porous pavers, swales, and other water- permeable surfaces. This would be consistent with the objective of maximizing runoff directed to permeable areas. Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.7 Review development plans to minimizeimpervious surfaces and generally maximize infiltration of Consistent:The proposed project wouldimplementstormwater quality measures such as, but not City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Land Use FirstCarbon Solutions 3.8-27 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-3 (cont.): General Plan Consistency Element Policy No. Text Consistency Determination rainwater in soils, where appropriate. Strive to maximize permeable areas to allow more percolation of runoff into the ground through such means as bioretention areas, green strips, planter strips, decomposed granite, porous pavers, swales, and other water-permeable surfaces. Require planter strips between the street and the sidewalk within the community, wherever practical and feasible. limited to, bioretention areas, green strips, planter strips, decomposed granite, porous pavers, swales, and other water- permeable surfaces. This would be consistent with the objective of minimizing impervious surfaces. Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.8 Continue conducting construction site field inspections to ensure proper erosion control and materials/wastemanagement implementation to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges. Consistent: The project applicant will be required to implement stormwater pollution prevent measures during construction and operations. The City of Dublin would monitor implementation of these measures via the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Energy Conservation Guiding Policy 13.3.2.A.1 Encourage the installation of alternative energy technology in new residential and commercial development. Consistent: The proposed project’s uses would comply with the latest adopted edition of the Title 24 energy efficiency standards. These standards include provisions for making buildings “solar ready.” Guiding Policy 13.3.2.A.2 Encourage designing for solar access. Consistent: In accordance with the latest adopted edition of the California Green Building Standards Code, all buildings would be provided with conduits and space for futurerooftop solar installation. Guiding Policy 13.3.2.A.3 Encourage energy efficient improvements be made on residential and commercial properties. Consistent: The proposed project’s uses would comply with the latest adopted edition of the Title 24 energy efficiency standards, which are widely regarded as the preeminent energy efficiency standards. Implementing Policy 13.3.2.B.1 New development proposalsshall be reviewed to ensure lighting levels needed for a safe and secure environment are provided—utilizing the most energy-efficient fixtures (in most cases, LED lights)—while avoiding over-lighting of sites. Consistent: This EIR evaluates project-related light andglare impacts, and the project will be required to use fully shielded or full cut-off lighting exterior fixtures in order to prevent spillage onto adjoining properties. Refer to City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Land Use Draft EIR 3.8-28 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-3 (cont.): General Plan Consistency Element Policy No. Text Consistency Determination Smart lighting technology (e.g. sensors and/or timers) shall also be employed in interior and exterior lighting applications where appropriate. Section 3.1, Aesthetics, Light, and Glare. Implementing Policy 13.3.2.B.2 New developmentprojects shall install LED streetlights in compliance with the City’s LED light standard. Consistent:The proposed project would install LED street lights along its frontage with Dublin Boulevard/ Keegan Streetand Dublin Boulevard. Implementing Policy 13.3.2.B.3 In new commercialand residential parking lots, require the installation of conduit to serve electric vehicle parking spaces to enable the easier installation of future charging stations. Consistent:Electric vehicle parking spaces and charging stations will be installed where practical. Implementing Policy 13.3.2.B.4 Encourage the installation of charging stations for commercial projectsover a certain size and any new residential project that has open parking (i.e. not individual, enclosed garages). Consistent:Electric vehicle parking spaces and charging stations will be installed where practical. Implementing Policy 13.3.2.B.6 Continue to implement parking lot tree planting standards that would substantially cool parking areas and help cool the surrounding environment. Encourage landscaping conducive to solar panels in areas where appropriate. Consistent:Shade trees will be planted within parking areas. Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, 2015. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Land Use FirstCarbon Solutions 3.8-29 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Specific Plan Consistency Impact LU-2: The proposed project would not conflict with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Impact Analysis The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designates the project site “Campus Office.” The proposed project’s end uses (medical center and commercial) are not expressly noted as “permitted” or “ancillary” uses within the Campus Office,” and, therefore, a Specific Plan Amendment is being sought by the Project Applicant in order to bring the project into full and complete conformance with the Specific Plan. Accordingly, the project applicant is proposing a SpecificPlan Amendment to (1) create a new Campus Medical” designation that would enable the multi-phased development of a new, state-of- the-art medical campus project with health care andcommercial development; and (2) re-designate the project site from “Campus Office” to “Campus Medical.” The Specific Plan contains the following goal, policy, and accompanying text that lend support to the proposed change: Goal: To create a well-defined hierarchy of neighborhood, community, and regional commercial areas, that serves the shopping, entertainment and serviceneeds of Dublin and the surrounding area. Policy 4-12: Concentrate regionally-oriented commercial uses south of Dublin Boulevard and nearfreeway interchanges where convenientvehicular access will limit traffic impacts on the rest of eastern Dublin. Note: There are several areas indicated on the land use map that could develop as either general commercial or campus office uses. This flexibility has been provided in these key areas to respond to changing market conditions that mayoccur in the future. The shift from either campus office or general commercial (the underlyingland use designation) to general commercial or campus office wouldonly be permitted if the established traffic levels of service are not exceeded. Appropriate traffic studiesmay need to beconducted in order for the City to make the properdetermination regarding traffic levels of service. The preceding language indicates that the Specific Plan acknowledges that flexibility is intended within the “Campus Office” land use designation, and therefore, the proposed change to “Campus Medical” (including the General Commercial component) is consistent with the Specific Plan’s vision for the area. Table 3.8-4 evaluates project consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the SpecificPlan. As shown in the table, the proposed project is consistent with all applicable goals and policies. Impacts would be less than significant. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Land Use Draft EIR 3.8-30 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-4: Specific PlanConsistency Element Goal/Policy No. Text Consistency Determination Land Use Goal 4.5 To create a well-defined hierarchy of neighborhood, community, and regional commercial areas, that serves the shopping, entertainment and serviceneeds of Dublinand the surrounding area. Consistent:The proposed project would develop 1.2 million square feet of medical campus and commercial uses on a site designated for urban development by the Specific Plan. As such, it furthers the goal of creating commercial areas that serve the shopping, entertainment and serviceneeds of Dublin and the surrounding area. Policy 4-12Concentrate regionally-oriented commercial uses south of Dublin Boulevardand near freeway interchanges where convenient vehicular access will limit traffic impacts on the rest of eastern Dublin. Consistent:The project site is locatedsouth of Dublin Boulevard between the Tassajara Road and Fallon Road interchanges with I- 580. Thus, the project is consistent with this policy. Policy 4-17 Avoid dispersion of commercial uses along major collectors and arterials in a linear (i.e., “strip”) development pattern that is oriented solely to vehicular traffic. Consistent:The 250,000 square feet of commercial uses would be developed within a center that is accessible to automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit. This is consistent with the policy of avoidance of strip development. Goal 4.6 To provide a stable and economically sound employment base for the City of Dublin, which is diverse in character and responsive to the needs of the community. Consistent:The proposed project would develop 1.2 million square feet of medical campus and commercial uses, which are employment generating uses. Policy 4-20 Encourage employment-generating uses, whichprovide a broad range of job types and wage/salary scales. Consistent:The proposed project’s medical campus andcommercial uses would include a range of new employment opportunities that vary from entry-level to highly- skilled positions. Policy 4-22 Encourage high-intensity office and other employment-generating uses near the future BART station, and at freeway interchanges where the development can take advantage of convenient access, and the high visibility will make a distinctive, high qualitystatement at these important entry points into eastern Dublin. Consistent:The project site is locatedsouth of Dublin Boulevard between the TassajaraRoad and Fallon Road interchanges with I 580. Additionally, the project site is within 1-mile of the Dublin/ Pleasanton BART station. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Land Use FirstCarbon Solutions 3.8-31 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-4 (cont.): SpecificPlan Consistency Element Goal/Policy No. Text Consistency Determination Policy 4-24 Require allemployment-related development to provide convenient and attractive pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-related facilities to encourage alternate modes of commuting to and from work. Consistent: An existing bus stop is located along the project frontage with Dublin Boulevard and would be maintained by the project. The proposed projectwould also provide a network of internal pedestrian facilities and bicycle storage facilities. Policy 4-26 Provide support services adjacent to or near employment centers, including food service, limitedretail services, child care facilities, and open space/recreation amenities. Consistent: The 250,000 square feet of commercial uses may include retail, restaurant, and service uses. Additionally, the proposed project would include a network of internal pedestrian facilities that could be used for recreation purposes. Policy 4-28 Discourage amendments to the SpecificPlan that would increase the employment generating potential withinthe planning area, without balancing it with an equivalent increase in housing potential. Consistent: The proposed project is seeking approval of a SpecificPlan Amendment to re-designate the project site from “Campus Office” to “Campus Medical.” This re- designation would not have a significant effect on the employment generating potential of the planning area, as the site would remain designated for a campus-like employment center. Traffic and Circulation Goal 5.1 To provide a circulation system for eastern Dublin that is convenient and efficient, and encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation as a means of improving community character and reducing environmental impacts. Consistent: An existing bus stop is located along the projectfrontage with Dublin Boulevard and would be maintained by the project. The proposed project would also provide a network of internal pedestrian facilities andbicycle storage facilities. Policy 5-1 Encourage higher intensity development near transit corridors. Consistent: The proposed project would develop 1.2 million square feet of medical campus and commercial uses on Dublin Boulevard, which is a transit corridor. Policy 5-2 Require all development to provide a balanced orientation toward pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile circulation. Consistent: The proposed project internal circulation would be designed to serve automobiles, trucks, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The circulation system is design to prevent conflicts between users. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Land Use Draft EIR 3.8-32 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Table 3.8-4 (cont.): SpecificPlan Consistency Element Goal/Policy No. Text Consistency Determination Anexistingbus stop is locatedalong the project frontage with Dublin Boulevard and would be maintainedby the project. The proposed project would also provide a network of internal pedestrian facilities andbicycle storage facilities. Goal 5.4 To provide a safe and convenient pedestrian circulation system in eastern Dublin, designed for functional and recreational needs Consistent:The proposed project would provide a network of internal pedestrian facilities. Goal 5.7 To minimize the transportation- related impacts of development in eastern Dublin Consistent:The proposed project wouldimplement a Transportation Demand Management Plan intended to reduce peak hour vehicle trips, which would be consistent with the goal of minimizing transportation-related impacts. Policy 5-21 Require allnon-residential projects with 50 or more employees to participate in a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program. Consistent:The proposed project wouldimplement a Transportation Demand Management Plan intended to reduce peak hour vehicle trips. This plan would be equivalent to a TSM plan. Source: City of Dublin, 2015. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Land Use FirstCarbon Solutions 3.8-33 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Consistency Impact LU-3: The proposed project would not conflict with the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Impact Analysis The project site is located within the Airport Influence Area established by the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Noise As indicated in Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Figure 3-2, the project site is notwithin the 55 CNEL, 60 CNEL, or 65 CNEL aviation noise contours for Livermore Municipal Airport. As such, all of the potential project end uses would becompatible with the noisestandards set forth in theAirport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Safety As shown in Airport Land Use Compatibility PlanFigure 3-3, the proposed project is located within Zone 7 (Area between Zone 6 and Airport Influence Area Boundary). Zone 7 is the least restrictive of the various land use compatibility zones, and does not establish any intensity limits or open space recommendations. Most of the uses contemplated by the project areconsidered “Permitted.” These uses specifically include offices, small eateries/drinking establishments, retail, multi-family residential, hospitals, outpatient facilities, dentist offices, clinics, congregate care facilities (ambulatory and non- ambulatory), and open parking garages. As such, these uses are considered compatible with the safety standards for Zone 7. Certain uses may be classified as “Conditional” depending on their characteristics. Examples include indoor assemblyareas (auditoriums, conference rooms, and cafeterias), outdoor assemblyareas plazas and outdoor seating areas), and power plants (the Energy Center). If such uses are deemed Conditional,” they are subject to shall be reviewed for consistency with the Livermore Municipal Airport ALUCP and Chapter 8.35 (Airport Overlay Zoning District) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Airspace Protection Airport Land Use Compatibility PlanFigure 3-3 sets forth airspace protection zones based on distance from the airport. The project site overlaps with airspace protection zones that extend 547 feet to 747 feet above mean sea level. Buildings that extend abovethese air protection zones are subject to Federal Aviation Administration Part 77 surface review. The project site is 353 feet above mean sea level; as such, project buildings would be permitted to extend up 194 feet above sea level before triggering Part 77 surface review. The tallest project building would stand 90 feet above finished grade and, therefore, would not trigger Part 77 surface review. Thus, the proposed projectwould be consistent with the airspace protection policies of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Land Use Draft EIR 3.8-34 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03-08 Land Use.docx Other Flight Hazards The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan establishes that the following “specificcharacteristics” are to be avoided: (1) glare or distractinglights that could be mistaken for airport lights; (2) sources of dust, heat, steam, or smoke that may impair pilot vision; (3) sources of steam or other emissions that may cause thermal plumes or other forms of unstable air that generate turbulence within theflight path; (4) sources of electrical interferences with aircraft communications or navigation; or (5) features that create an increased attraction for wildlife including landfills or agricultural and recreational uses that attract largeflocks of birds. The proposed project does not (1) propose any exterior lights that couldbe mistaken for airport lights; (2) propose any uses or activities that emit substantial amounts of dust, heat, steam, or smoke; (3) propose any uses or activities that would generate electricalinterference; or (4) have features that could attract largeflocks of birds (e.g., a pond). As such, the proposed projectwould be compatible with theflight hazards policies of theAirport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Conservation PlanConsistency Impact LU-4: The proposed project would not conflict with the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Impact Analysis The project site is located withinthe boundaries of the Eastern AlamedaCountyConservation Strategy (EACCS). The EACCS is aguidance document that is used by the City for public projects, but compliance is not mandated for private development. Therefore, it is not an adopted or approved plan that requires a consistency determination under CEQA. No conflicts would occur. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.9 1 C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx 3.9Noise This section describes the existing noise setting including relevant acoustic fundamentals,ambient noise conditions andsummary of regulations applicable to the proposed project.Thresholds of significance are presented and an analysis of potential effects associated with implementation of the proposed project.Descriptions and analyses presented within this section are based on noise modeling performed by FirstCarbon Solutions.The noise modeling outputs are included in this EIR as Appendix G. 3.9.1 Environmental Setting Characteristics of Noise Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound.Noise consists of anysound that may produce physiological or psychological damage or interfere with communication,work,rest,recreation,and sleep. Several noise measurement scales exist which are used to describenoise in a particular location. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel dB).The 0 point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy,unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 dB or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments.Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dB or more,as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the humanear in outdoor environments.While a change of 5 dBA is considered to be the minimum readilyperceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments. Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis.An increase of 10 dB represents a 10 fold increase in acoustic energy,while 20 dB is 100 times more intense,30 dB is 1,000 times more intense.Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness. Sound intensity is normally measured through the A weighted soundlevel dBA).Thisscale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive.Table 3.91 shows some representative noise sources and their corresponding noise levels in dBA. Table 3.9 1:Typical A Weighted Noise Levels Indoor Noise Source Noise LeveldBA)Outdoor Noise Sources Threshold of Hearing in Laboratory)0 — Library 30 Quiet Rural Nighttime Refrigerator Humming 40 Quiet Suburban Nighttime Quiet Office 50 Quiet UrbanDaytime Normal Conversation at 3 feet 60 Normal Conversation at 3 feet Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet 70 Gas Lawn Mower at 100 feet Hair Dryer at 1 foot 80 Freight Train at 50 feet Food Blender at 3 feet 90 Heavy duty Truck at 50 feet City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Noise Draft EIR 3.9 2 FirstCarbon Solutions C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx Table 3.91 cont.):Typical A Weighted Noise Levels Indoor Noise Source Noise LeveldBA)Outdoor Noise Sources Inside Subway Train New York)100 Jet Takeoff at 2,000 feet Smoke Detector Alarm at 3 feet 110 UnmuffledMotorcycle Rock Band near stage 120 Chainsaw at 3 feet 130 Military Jet Takeoff at 50 feet 140 (Threshold of Pain) Source:FCS,2014. As noise spreads from asource,it loses energy so thatthe farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source,the lower the perceived noise level would be.Geometric spreading causes the sound level to attenuate or be reduced,resulting in a 6 dB reduction in the noise level for each doubling of distance from asingle point source of noise to the noisesensitive receptor of concern. Transportation noise sources such as roadways are typically analyzed as line sources,since at any given moment the receiver may be impacted by multiple vehicles at various locations along the roadway.Because of the geometry of a line source,the noise drop off rate associated with the geometric spreading of a line source is 3 dBA per doubling of distance. There aremany ways to rate noise for various time periods,but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans alsoaccounts forthe annoying effects of sound,including during sensitive times of the day and night.The predominant rating scales in the State of Californiaare the Leq,the community noise equivalent level CNEL),and the day night average level Ldn)based on A weighted decibels dBA).The equivalentcontinuous soundlevel Leq)is the total sound energy of time varying noise over a sample period.CNEL is the time varying noise over a 24 hour period,with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m.to 10:00 p.m.defined as relaxationhours)and 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m.defined as sleeping hours).Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale,but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening relaxationhours.CNEL and Ldn are within one dBA of each other and are normally exchangeable.These additions are made to the sound levels at these times because there is a decrease in the ambient noise levels during the evening and nighttime hours, which creates an increased sensitivity to sounds.For this reason,sound is perceived to be louder in the evening and nighttime hours as compared with daytime hours,and is weighted accordingly. Many cities rely on the CNEL noise standard to assess transportation related impacts on noise sensitive land uses. Other noise rating scales of importance when assessing the annoyance factor include the maximum noise level Lmax),which is the highestexponential time averaged sound level that occurs during a stated time period.The noise environments discussed in this analysis arespecified in terms of maximum levels denotedby Lmax for short term noise impacts.Lmax reflects peak operating conditions and addresses the annoying aspects of intermittent noise. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.9 3 C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx Noise standards in terms of percentile exceedance levels,Ln,are often used together with the Lmax for noise enforcement purposes.When specified,the percentile exceedance levels are not to be exceeded by an offending sound over a stated time period.For example,the L10 noise level represents the level exceeded 10 percent of the time during a stated period.The L50 noise level represents the median noiselevel which means that the noise level exceeds the L50 noise level half of the time,and is less thanthis level half of the time).The L90 noiselevelrepresents the noiselevel exceeded 90 percent of the time and is considered the lowest noise levelexperienced during a monitoringperiod.The L90 noiselevel is normallyreferred to as the backgroundnoise level.For a relatively steady noise,the measured Leq and L50 are approximately the same. Construction NoiseFundamentals Construction is performed in discrete steps or phases,each of which has itsown mix of equipment and,consequently,its own noise characteristics.Typical phases of construction include demolition, excavation,grading,and buildingconstruction.These various sequential phases would change the character of the noisegenerated on each construction site and,therefore,would change the noise levels as construction progresses.Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment,similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.Construction period noise levels are higher than background ambient noise levels,but eventually cease once construction is complete.The Federal Highway Administration FHWA)has compiled noise measurementdata regarding the noise generating characteristics of various types of construction equipment.Table 3.92 provides a summary of these typical noise levels of constructionequipment as measured at adistance of 50 feet from the operating equipment. Table 3.9 2:Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels,Lmax Type of Equipment Impact Device?Yes/No) Specification Maximum Sound Levels for Analysis dBA at 50 feet) Pickup Truck No 55 Pumps No 77 Air Compressors No 80 Backhoe No 80 Front End Loaders No 80 Portable Generators No 82 Dump Truck No 84 Tractors No 84 Auger Drill Rig No 85 Concrete Mixer Truck No 85 Cranes No 85 Dozers No 85 City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Noise Draft EIR 3.9 4 FirstCarbon Solutions C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx Table 3.92 cont.):Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels,Lmax Type of Equipment Impact Device?Yes/No) Specification Maximum Sound Levels for Analysis dBA at 50 feet) Excavators No 85 Graders No 85 Jackhammers Yes 85 Man Lift No 85 Paver No 85 Pneumatic Tools No 85 Rollers No 85 Scrapers No 85 Concrete/Industrial Saws No 90 Impact Pile Driver Yes 95 Vibratory Pile Driver No 95 Source:FHWA,2006. Groundborne Vibration Fundamentals Groundbornevibrations consist of rapidly fluctuatingmotions within the ground that have an average motion of zero.Vibrating objects in contact with the ground radiate vibration waves through various soiland rock strata to the foundations of nearbybuildings. Althoughgroundborne vibration can be felt outdoors,it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking of a building can be notable.When assessing annoyance from groundborne vibration,vibration is typically expressed as root mean square rms) velocity in units of decibels of 1 micro inch per second.To distinguishthese vibration levels from noise levels,the unit is written as VdB.” In extreme cases,excessive groundborne vibration has the potential to cause structural damage to buildings.Common sources of groundborne vibration include constructionactivities such as blasting,pile driving and operating heavy earthmoving equipment.However,construction vibration impacts on building structures aregenerally assessed in terms of peak particle velocity PPV).For purposes of this analysis,project related impacts are expressed in terms of PPV.Typical vibration sourcelevels from construction equipment are shown in Table 3.9 3. The vibration level at a distance from a source can be calculated using the following propagation formula this formula is based on point sources with normal propagation conditions)FTA 2006): City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.9 5 C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx PPVequipPPVref x 25/D) n Where: PPV equip)is the peak particle velocity in inches per second of the equipment adjusted for distance; PPV ref)is the reference vibration level inin/sec at 25 feet from Table 3.93; Dis the distance from the equipment to the receiver;and n is the vibrationattenuation rate through ground. According to Chapter 12 of the Federal Transit Administration FTA)Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment manual 2006),an n”value of 1.5 is recommended to calculate vibration propagation through typical soil conditions. Because vibration propagates in waves through the soil,multiple pieces of equipment operating simultaneously would each produce vibration waves in different phases that typically would not increase the magnitude of the vibration;instead,multiple pieces of equipmentwould just lengthen the duration of the vibration impact. Table 3.93:Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment ConstructionEquipment PPV at 25 Feet inches/second) RMS Velocity in Decibels VdB)at 25 Feet Water Trucks 0.001 57 Scraper 0.002 58 Bulldozer small 0.003 58 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Concrete Mixer 0.046 81 Concrete Pump 0.046 81 Paver 0.046 81 Pickup Truck 0.046 81 Auger Drill Rig 0.051 82 Backhoe 0.051 82 Crane Mobile)0.051 82 Excavator 0.051 82 Grader 0.051 82 Loader 0.051 82 Loaded Trucks 0.076 86 Bulldozer Large 0.089 87 Caisson drilling 0.089 87 City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Noise Draft EIR 3.9 6 FirstCarbon Solutions C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx Table 3.93 cont.):Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment ConstructionEquipment PPV at 25 Feet inches/second) RMS Velocity in Decibels VdB)at 25 Feet Vibratory Roller small)0.101 88 Compactor 0.138 90 Clam shovel drop 0.202 94 Vibratory Roller large)0.210 94 Pile Driver impact typical)0.644 104 Pile Driver impact upper range)1.518 112 Source:Compilation of scientificand academic literature,generated by FTA and FHWA. Existing Conditions Existing Noise Sources The project site is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area,and is generally bound by commercial land uses to the east;multi family residences to the north;vacant land zoned for commercial)and a park to the west;and Interstate 580 I 580)to the south. Traffic noise along I 580 is the dominant noise sources in the projectvicinity.Other noise sources in the projectvicinity include stationary noise sources such as parking lot noise people conversing,car doors slamming)and delivery noise loading/unloading activities)at commercial,multi family residential,and recreationalland uses in the project vicinity.These existingnoise sources are described below. Noise Monitoring Results Ambient noisemeasurements were taken adjacent to the project site to document the existing noise environment and capture the noise levels associated with operations or activities in the project area. The short and long term noise measurement resultsaredescribed below. Short Term Noise Measurements Short term noise measurements were taken during midday peaknoise hours,between 12:00 p.m.and 3:30 p.m.,on Wednesday,January 21,2015.The noise measurements were taken during the midday hours as the midday hours typically have the highest daytime noise levels in urban environments.The sound level meter and microphonewere mounted on a tripod 5 feet above the ground and were equipped with a windscreen duringall measurements.The noise measurements were taken both on the project siteand at nearby sensitive receptors in the projectvicinity.The measurement resultsare summarized in Table 3.9 4.The noise measurement locations are shown on Exhibit 3.91.The noise measurementdata sheets andphotos are provided in Appendix G of this EIR. I 37660004 • 08/2015 | 3.9-1_noise_monitoring_loc.mxd Exhibit3.9-1NoiseMonitoringLocations Source: GoogleEarthPro, 2014. CITYOFDUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTERPROJECT ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT 580 Kirkcaldy St Ballantyne Dr Dublin Blvd Central Pky ST-4 ST-2 ST-3 ST-5 ST-1 LT-1 ST-6 Legend ProjectSite NoiseMonitoringLocations 520 0520260 Feet THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.9 9 C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx Table 3.94:Noise Monitoring Results Summary Site Location Location Description Primary Noise Sources Leq Lmax ST 1 Northeast border of project site Traffic onI 580,delivery truck activity 51.8 57.6 ST 2 Poolside of Terraces at Dublin Ranch Traffic on Dublin Boulevard 56.0 76.8 ST 3 Entrance of Terraces at Dublin Ranch,adjacent to Dublin Boulevard Traffic on Dublin Boulevard 65.0 80.7 ST 4 Grafton Street at western entrance to Basin Park Traffic onI 580 56.6 64.3 ST 5 Entrance to 3061 Maguire Way, north of project site Traffic on Maguire Way53.9 59.7 ST 6 Southwestern corner of Terraces at Dublin Ranch Traffic on Dublin Boulevard 61.1 71.2 Source:FirstCarbon Solutions,2015. The temperature at the time of the noisemeasurements averaged 61 degrees Fahrenheit with average wind speeds of 6 miles per hour.Maximum and minimum noise levels were recorded as well as the equivalent continuous noise level measure Leq.The noise measurement results show that daytime ambient noise levelsranged from 51.8 dBA to 61.1 dBA Leq in the projectvicinity.Measured maximum noise levels on the project site and in the project vicinity ranged from 57.6 dBA to 76.8 dBA Lmax. Long Term Noise Measurement A long term ambient noise measurement was also conducted from 3:50 p.m.on Wednesday, January 21,2015 to 9:50 a.m.,on Friday,January 23,2015.The long term measurement was taken near the eastern projectpropertyline,approximately 760 feet south of Dublin Boulevard and 550 feet north ofI 580.The noise measurement location is shown in Exhibit 3.91;and the long term noise measurementdata resultsare provided in Appendix G of this EIR.The results show that weekday 24 hour average day/night noise level at thislocation is 60.9 dBA CNEL.When the long term noise measurement was started,the sky was clear,the temperature was 61 degrees Fahrenheit F),with average wind speeds of 6 miles per hour. Reference Noise Measurements Several short term noise measurements were taken atthe Kaiser Medical Center in Antioch,in order to establish reference operational noise levels for the central utility plant and the rooftop mechanical ventilation systems.These noise measurements were taken on April 1,2015 during operation of the emergency backup generators and during operation of the rooftop mechanical ventilation equipment. The noise sources and resulting noise levels are described in Table 3.95below. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Noise Draft EIR 3.9 10 FirstCarbon Solutions C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx Table 3.95:Noise Monitoring Results Summary Site Location Location Description Primary Noise Sources Leq Lmax RM 1 Inside CUP between generators10 feetfrom source Emergency Generators110.1 111.1 RM 2West of CUP 45 feetfrom source Emergency Generators 89.6 90.2 RM 3West of CUP 100 feet from source Emergency Generators 82.9 84.2 RM 4 North of CUP 150 feetfrom source Emergency Generators 60.7 61.5 RM 5 Rooftop 20 feet from source Rooftop mechanical equipment 68.875.4 RM 6 Rooftop 20 feet from source Rooftop mechanical equipment 70.872.1 Notes: CUP Central Utility Plant RM Reference Measurement Source:FirstCarbon Solutions,2015. In order to determine if the noisemeasurements are adequatelyrepresenting the noise sources as point sources,two measurements were taken on the west side of the Central Utility Plant,RM 2 and RM 3,at distances of 45 and 100 feet from the ventilatedwall housing the generators.As noise spreads from a source,it loses energy so that the farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source,the lower the perceived noise level.Geometric spreading causes the sound level to attenuate or bereduced,resulting in a 6 dB reduction in the noise level for each doubling of distance from asingle point source of noise to the noisesensitive receptor of concern.Therefore,standard geometric spreading from a point source would be expected to result in an approximate 7 dBA reduction at 100 feet compared with the noise level at 45 feet.Based on the results of the noise measurements,the noise level at RM 3 is 6.7 dBA lowerthan at RM 2.Therefore,these noise measurements can safely be assumed to adequately represent the operational noise level of the emergency generators as a point source. These referencenoise levels are used in this analysis to calibrate the SoundPLAN model for similar mechanical equipment operations forthe proposed project. Existing Traffic Noise Noise levels related to vehicular traffic were modeled using SoundPLAN’s road noise algorithms which are based on the FHWA Traffic Noise Model FHWA TNM2.5).Site specific information is entered,such as roadway traffic volumes,roadway active widths,travel speed,receiver heights,and the percentages of automobiles,medium trucks,and heavy trucks that thetraffic is made up of throughout the day,amongst other variables.The daily traffic volumes wereobtained from the project specific traffic study Fehr Peers 2015).The modelinputs and outputs for each modeled scenario are provided in Appendix G of this report.The 60 dBA,65 dBA,and 70 dBA CNEL noise contours for existing traffic conditions on roadway segments in the projectvicinity are shown in Exhibit 3.9 2. I 37660004 • 08/2015 | 3.9-2_noise_receptor_loc.mxd Exhibit3.9-2ConstructionNoiseModelingReceptorLocations Source: GoogleEarthPro, 2014. CITYOFDUBLIN • KAISER DUBLINMEDICALCENTERPROJECT ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT 580 Kirkcaldy St Ballantyne Dr Dublin Blvd Central Pky R5 R3 R2 R4 R1 Legend ProjectSite ConstructionNoiseModelingReceptorLocations 500 0500250 Feet THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.9 13 C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx Existing Stationary Noise Land uses surrounding the project siteinclude commercial land uses to the east;multi family residences to the north;vacant land zoned for commercial)and a park to the west;and I 580 to the south.Commercial,residential,and recreational land uses in the projectvicinity generate noise from truck deliveries,loading/unloading activities,typical parking lot activities,and landscaping and maintenance equipment activities.These activities are point sources of noise that affect the existing noise environment.Delivery truck loading/unloading activities in the projectvicinity typically result in maximum noise levels from 75 dBA to 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet.Parking activities,such as engines starting or doors slamming,typically generate approximately 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Basin Park west of the project site,is not currently open to the public.However,noise activities associated with future use of the parkfacilities would consist primarily of people conversing as they walk through the garden paths.Representative noise levels of people conversing inoutdoor environments typically range from 60 dBA to 65 dBA Lmax at 3 feet. Existing Vibration The existing vibration environment,similar to that of the noise environment,is dominated by transportation related vibration from roadways in the Project area.Heavy truck traffic can generate groundborne vibration,which varies considerably depending on vehicle type,weight,andpavement conditions.However,groundborne vibration levels generated from vehicular traffic are not typically perceptibleoutside of theright of way. 3.9.2 RegulatorySetting Federal Regulations United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA) In 1972,Congress enacted the Noise Control Act.This actauthorized the EPA to publishdescriptive data on the effects of noise and establish levels of sound requisite to protect the publicwelfare with an adequate margin of safety.”These levels are separated into health hearing loss levels)and welfare annoyancelevels)categories,as shown in Table 3.96.The EPA cautions that these identified levels are not standards because they do not take into account the cost or feasibility of achieving the levels. Table 3.96:Summary of EPA Recommended Noise Levels to Protect Public Welfare Effect Level Area Hearing loss Leq(24)70 dB All areas. Outdoor activity interference and annoyance Ldn 55 dB Outdoors in residential areas andfarms and other outdoor areas where people spend widely varying amounts of time and other places in which quiet is a basis for use. Leq(24)55 dB Outdoor areas where people spend limited amounts of time,such as schoolyards, playgrounds,etc. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Noise Draft EIR 3.9 14 FirstCarbon Solutions C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx Table 3.9 6cont.):Summary of EPA Recommended Noise Levels to Protect Public Welfare Effect Level Area Indoor activity interference and annoyance Leq 45 dB Indoor residential areas. Leq(24)45 dB Other indoor areas with human activities such as schools,etc. Source:EPA,1974. For protection against hearing loss,96 percent of the population would be protected if sound levels are less than or equal to an Leq(24)of 70 dBA.The 24)”signifies an Leq duration of 24 hours.The EPA activity and interference guidelines are designed to ensure reliable speech communication from a distance of approximately5 feet in theoutdoor environment.For outdoor and indoor environments,interference with activity and annoyance should not occur if levels are below 55 dBA and 45 dBA,respectively. Federal Transit Administration FTA) The proposed project is not subject to the regulation requirements of the FTA;however,the FTA’s vibration impact criteria are accepted industry wide as the best vibration impact guidelines when a localgoverning agency does not have vibration standards of their own. The FTA’s vibrationimpact criteria and impact assessment guidelinesare published in its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment document.The FTA guidelines include thresholds for construction vibration impacts for various structural categories as shown in Table 3.9 7. Table 3.97:FTA’s Construction Vibration Damage Criteria Structure and Condition Maximum Peak Particle Velocity inches/second) Reinforced concrete,steel or timber structures i.e.,industrial buildings) 0.5 Engineered concrete andmasonry 0.3 Non engineered timber and masonry buildings i.e.,residential) 0.2 Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage i.e.,historic or very old buildings) 0.12 Source:FTA,2006. For assessing annoyance from groundborne noise,the FTA guidelines also include criteria for acceptable groundborne vibration expressed in terms of rms velocity levels in decibels VdB) City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.9 15 C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx according to specified land use categories and the frequency of vibration events,as shown in Table 3.98. Table 3.98:FTA’s Vibration Impact Criteria Land Use Category Vibration Impact LevelsVdB) Frequent Events1 Occasional Events2 Infrequent Events3 Category 1:buildings where vibrationwould interfere with interior operations 65 65 65 Category 2:residences andbuildings where people normally sleep 72 75 80 Category 3:Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use 75 78 83 Notes: 1 Frequent Events”is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day.Most rapid transit projects all into this category. 2 Occasional Events”is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day.Most commuter trunk lines have this manyoperations. 3 Infrequent Events”is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kindper day.This categoryincludes mostcommuter rail lines. Source:FTA,2006. StateRegulations The State of California has established regulations that helpprevent adverse impacts to occupants of buildings located near noise sources.Referred to as the State Noise Insulation Standard,”it requiresbuildings to meet performance standards through design and/or building materials that would offset any noisesource in the vicinity of the receptor.State regulations include requirements for the construction of new hotels,motels,apartment houses,anddwellings other than detached single family dwellings that are intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces.The State also includes noise requirements in the California Code of Regulations,Title 24 known as the Building Standards Administrative Code),Part 11 known as the California Green Building Standards Code).The noise insulation standards require that the wall and roof ceiling assemblies of new non residentialdevelopments that are exposed to exterior noise in excess of 65 dBA CNEL shall meet a composite Standard Transmission Class STC)rating of at least 50,with exterior windows of a minimum STC rating of 40.In addition,the standards requirepreparation of an acoustical analysis demonstrating the manner in which dwelling units have been designed to meet this standard,where such development is proposed in an area with exterior noise levels greater than 65 dBA CNEL. Government Code Section 65302mandates that the legislative body of each county and city in California adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan.The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines publishedby the State Department of Health Services.The guidelines ranknoise and land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable, City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Noise Draft EIR 3.9 16 FirstCarbon Solutions C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx conditionally acceptable,normally unacceptable,and clearly unacceptable.The City of Dublin has adopted the State’s land use compatibility guidelines,as discussed below and shown in Table 3.9 8. Caltrans has issued the Transportationand Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual in 2004 as a practical guidance to Caltrans engineers,planners,and consultants who must address vibration issues associated with the construction,operation,andmaintenance of Caltrans projects. However,this manual is alsoused as a reference point bymany lead agencies and CEQA practitioners throughout California,as it provides numeric thresholds for vibration impacts.Thresholds are established for continuous construction related)and transient transportation related)sources of vibration,whichfound that the human response becomes distinctly perceptible at 0.04inch per second PPV for continuous sources and 0.25inch per second PPV for transient sources. Local Regulations The project site is located within the City of Dublin.The City of Dublin addresses noise in the Noise Element of the General Plan,in the Municipal Code,and in the policies of the City’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 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 noisemeasured at the propertyline 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 3.99 shows the City of Dublin’s Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments standards for specific land uses.As indicated,the normally acceptable exterior noise level is 70 dBA CNEL or less for office,retail,andcommercial land uses the types of land uses proposed for development with implementation of the project).Noiselevels over 75 dBA CNEL are considered normally unacceptable for new development of thesetypes of land uses. The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to project related potential noise impacts: Guiding Policy 1:Where feasible,mitigate traffic noise to levels indicated by Table 3.9 9]:City of Dublin Land Use Compatibility for Community NoiseEnvironments. Implementing Policy 4:Noise impacts related to all new development shall be analyzed by a certified acoustic consultant. Implementing Policy 7:Review all non residential development proposals within the projected CNEL 65 dBA contour for compliance with exterior noise transmission standards as required by the California Green Building Standards Code. The noise element specifies that project designers may use one or more of four availablecategories of mitigation measures:siteplanning,architecturallayout bedrooms away from noise source,for example),noise barriers,or constructionmodifications. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.9 17 C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx Table 3.9 9:City of Dublin LandUse Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Community Noise Exposure dB) Land Use Category Normally Acceptable Conditionally Acceptable Normally Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Residential 60 or less 61–7071–75 Over 75 Motels,hotels 60 or less 61–7071–80 Over 80 Schools,churches,nursing homes 60 or less 61–7071–80 Over 80 Neighborhood parks 60 or less 61–6566–70 Over 70 Offices:retail commercial 70 or less 71–7576–80 Over 80 Industrial 70 or less 71–75 Over 75 Note: Conditionally acceptable exposure requires noise insulation features in building design.Conventional construction,but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Source:City of Dublin,2014.Dublin General Plan,Table 9.1. City of Dublin Municipal Code The City’s Municipal Code includesstandards pertaining to noise control within the City.Municipal Code Section 5.28.020 prohibits any person within the City to makeany 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)state that for lots less than 5,000 square feet,mechanical equipment that generates noise such as swimming pool,spa,and air conditioning equipment)on the property shall be enclosed as necessary to reducenoise 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 required setback as allowed by this subsection,and within 10 feet of an existing or potential residence,or an existingpaved 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. 3.9.3 Methodology for Analysis Noise Monitoring Methodology To ascertain the existing noise at and adjacent to the project site,field monitoring was conducted on Wednesday,January 21,2015 through Friday,January 23,2015.The purpose of this noise monitoring was to document the existing noise environment and capture the noise levelsassociated with operations or activities in the project area.The field survey noted that noise withinthe project study area is generallycharacterized by vehicle traffic on the local roadways. The short and long term noisemeasurements were taken using Larson Davis Model LxT2 Type 2 precisionsound level metersprogrammed in slow”mode to record noise levels in A ”weighted form.The soundlevel meter was calibrated beforeand after the monitoring usinga Larson Davis calibrator,Model CAL 150.The accuracy of the calibrator is maintained through a program established through the manufacturer and is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards.All City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Noise Draft EIR 3.9 18 FirstCarbon Solutions C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx noise levelmeasurement equipment meets American National Standards Institute specifications for sound level meters S1.4 1983 identified in Chapter 19.68.020.AA). For the short term noisemeasurements the sound level meter and microphonewere mounted on a tripod 5 feet above the ground and wereequipped with a windscreen during all measurements.For the long term measurement the soundlevel meter was placed in a Pelican lock box with the microphone mounted on a tripod 5 feet above the ground which was equipped with a windscreen forthe duration of the measurement.All short term noisemeasurements were measured according to the standards stated in Section N 3320 of the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement,which specifies that the measurements be a duration of at least 10 minutes and shall be continued past 10 minutes until the fluctuations in the displayed Leq are less than 0.5 dBA. The noise measurementlocations were selected in order to document the existing ambient noise environment of the project site and of surrounding noise sensitive land uses.The noise measurementlocations areshown in Exhibit 3.9 1.The noise measurement data sheets are provided in Appendix G of this EIR. Inaddition to the ambient noise measurementstaken in the projectvicinity,noise measurements were also conducted in order to determine reference noise levels for operation of the proposed mechanical equipment,including backup generators and rooftop mechanical ventilation systems.To obtain these reference noise levels,noisemeasurements were taken of existingmechanical equipment associated with the Kaiser facility in Antioch on Wednesday,April 1,2015. These referencenoisemeasurements were taken using Larson Davis Model LxT2 Type 2 precision sound level metersprogrammed in slow”mode to record noise levels in A”weighted form.For all noise measurements the soundlevel meter and microphonewere mountedon a tripod 5 feet above the ground and were equipped with a windscreen.The sound level meter was calibrated before and after the monitoring usinga LarsonDavis calibrator,Model CAL 150.The accuracy of the calibrator is maintained through a program established through the manufacturer and is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards.All noise levelmeasurement equipment meets American National Standards Institute specifications for sound levelmeters S1.4 1983 identified in Chapter 19.68.020.AA). Construction Noise ModelingMethodology The FHWA has developed the Roadway Construction Noise Model RCNM),which has become the industry accepted standard model for calculating construction noise levels at specific receptor locations.Model inputs include the type and number of pieces of heavy construction equipment, their usage factors,distance to receptor,and estimated shielding reduction if any).The modeling for thisproject has analyzed construction noise impacts according to various building phases,as types of equipment used generally change according to various phases of construction.This analysis modeled the worst case construction noise impacts forthe site preparation phase,the building construction phase,and the paving phase of construction.Construction equipment assumptions are based on the default construction equipment list from the air quality impact analysis for this project. A worst case scenario was modeled assuming each piece of modeled equipment would operate City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.9 19 C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx simultaneously at the nearest reasonable locations to each modeledreceptor for each construction phase of the project.The modeled receptor locationsrepresent the closest existing receiving land uses to the east,north,west,and south of the project site.The construction noise modeling assumptions and outputs are provided in Appendix G of this EIR. Operational Noise Modeling Methodology Implementation of the proposed project will result in new noise sources in the project vicinity, including project related traffic as well as on sitestationary noise sources such as mechanical equipment,parking lot and delivery truck activities.SoundPLAN Version 7.4 was utilized to assess these operational noise impacts.Operational noise contours were calculated for theproject area.In addition,single point receptor locations were modeled for existing land uses in the projectvicinity. These receptors were located at the façades of the multi family and the commercial land uses located north,east,and west of the project site;and at the outdoor active useareasbackyards)of the single family residentialland uses located south of the project site.Receptors weremodeled for each floor of the multi family residentialland uses located north of the project site.The operational noise levels were calculated for a total of 357 single point receptors.The modeling input assumptions and all calculated noise levels results are included in Appendix G of thisdocument. Specific assumptionsregarding how traffic and stationary noise sources were modeled and analyzed aredescribed in more detail as follows. Traffic Noise Modeling Methodology Since noise in the projectvicinity is created by multiple roadways,parking lots,and stationary sources,the SoundPLAN Version 7.4 noise modeling software wasused.SoundPLAN’s road noise algorithms are based on the FHWA Traffic Noise Model FHWA TNM2.5).The SoundPLAN Model requires the input of roadways and the locations of the noise measurement receivers.Existing sound barriers,terrain contour lines,building placement,and specific ground coverage zones were incorporated as well.The siteplan andaerial photoswere used to determine the placement of the roadways,parking lots,andstationary sources as well as to establish the terrain in the project vicinity.The default temperature of 20°Celsius 68°F)and defaulthumidity of 50 percent,which can vary the propagation of noise,were used in the analysis and represent reasonableassumptions, since they arenear the averages experienced in the project vicinity.The model analyzed the noise impacts fromthe nearby roadways ontothe projectvicinity,which consists of the area that has the potential of being impacted fromthe on site noise sources as well as the project generated traffic on the nearby roadways. The level of traffic noise depends on the threeprimary factors:1)the volume of the traffic,2)the speed of the traffic,and 3)the number of trucks in the flow of traffic.Generally,the loudness of traffic noise isincreased by heavier traffic volumes,higher speeds,and greater number of trucks. Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine,exhaust,and tires.Because of the logarithmicnature of traffic noise levels,a doubling of the traffic volume assuming that the speed and truck mix do not change)results in a noiselevel increase of 3 dBA.Based on the FHWA community noise assessment criteria,this change is barely perceptible”;for reference a doubling of perceived noise levels would require an increase of approximately 10 dBA.The truck mix on a given City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Noise Draft EIR 3.9 20 FirstCarbon Solutions C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx roadway also has an effect oncommunity noise levels.As the number of heavy trucks increases and becomesa larger percentage of the vehicle mix,adjacent noise levels increase. Existing RoadwayAssumptions The model analyzed the noise impacts from the nearby roadways onto the projectvicinity,which consists of the area that has the potential of being impacted from the on site noise sources as well as the project generated trafficon the nearby roadways.The roadway traffic volume and speed parameters used for the SoundPLAN modeling are presented in Table 3.9 10.The roadway speed is based on the posted speed limits and vehicle speeds observed duringsite visits. Table 3.910:SoundPLAN Model Roadway Parameters Roadway Direction)Segment Vehicle Speed miles per hour) Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks Fallon Road NB)I 580 EB Off Ramps to I 580 WB Off Ramps 4545 40 Fallon Road NB)to I 580 WB Off Ramps to Fallon Gateway 4545 40 Fallon Road NB)Fallon Gateway to Dublin Boulevard 4545 40 Fallon Road NB)North of Dublin Boulevard 4545 40 Fallon Road SB)North of Dublin Boulevard 4545 40 Fallon Road SB)Dublin Boulevard to FallonGateway 4545 40 Fallon Road SB)Fallon Gateway to I 580 WB Off Ramps 4545 40 Fallon Road SB)I 580 WB Off Ramps to I 580 EB Off Ramps 4545 40 Dublin Boulevard WB)Fallon Road to FallonGateway 4545 40 Dublin Boulevard WB)Fallon Gateway to Proposed ProjectDriveway 4545 40 Dublin Boulevard WB)Proposed Project Driveway to Lockhart Street 4545 40 Dublin Boulevard WB)Lockhart Street to Keegan Street 4545 40 Dublin Boulevard WB)Keegan Street to Cammore Place 4545 40 Dublin Boulevard WB)West of Cammore Place 4545 40 Dublin Boulevard EB)West of Cammore Place 4545 40 Dublin Boulevard EB)Cammore Place to Keegan Street 4545 40 Dublin Boulevard EB)Keegan Street to Lockhart Street 4545 40 Dublin Boulevard EB)Lockhart Street to Proposed Project Driveway 4545 40 Dublin Boulevard EB)Proposed Project Driveway to FallonGateway 4545 40 Dublin Boulevard EB)Fallon Gateway to Fallon Road 4545 40 I 580 WB)Fallon Road to Tassajara Road 6565 55 I 580 EB)Tassajara Road to Fallon Road 6565 55 City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.9 21 C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx Inorder to determine the off site project generated traffic noise impacts,the PM peak hour traffic volumes on the study area roadways were obtained fromthe Traffic Impact Analysis.The peak hour volumes were provided forthe existing year without and with project full buildout,and cumulative year 2040)without and with project full buildout scenarios.The ADT volumes were calculated by multiplying the PM peak hour turning movement volumes by 10.The calculated ADT volumes are shown in Table 3.911 forthe existing and cumulativeconditions without and with the project. Table 3.911:Average Daily Traffic Volumes Roadway Segment Weekday Average Daily Traffic Existing Cumulative Year 2040) No Project With Project Full Buildout No Project With Project Full Buildout Fallon Road NB)I 580 EB Off Ramps to I 580 WB Off Ramps 7,880 10,030 20,200 22,250 Fallon Road NB)to I 580 WB Off Ramps to Fallon Gateway 10,280 15,140 18,100 22,450 Fallon Road NB)Fallon Gateway to Dublin Boulevard 8,400 13,260 16,100 20,450 Fallon Road NB)North of Dublin Boulevard 8,700 11,190 21,600 24,090 Fallon Road SB)North of Dublin Boulevard 6,3607,370 12,300 13,310 Fallon Road SB)Dublin Boulevard to Fallon Gateway 9,640 22,380 20,900 32,650 Fallon Road SB)Fallon Gateway to I 580 WB Off Ramps 11,030 23,770 21,900 33,650 Fallon Road SB)I 580 WB Off Ramps to I 580 EB Off Ramps 9,660 17,110 18,900 25,570 Dublin Boulevard WB)Fallon Road to Fallon Gateway 2,160 8,030 14,200 20,050 Dublin Boulevard WB)FallonGateway to Proposed Project Driveway 2,740 8,610 14,800 20,660 Dublin Boulevard WB)Proposed Project Driveway to Lockhart Street 2,740 8,610 14,800 20,660 Dublin Boulevard WB)Lockhart Street to Keegan Street 2,690 8,410 14,100 19,880 Dublin Boulevard WB)Keegan Street to Cammore Place 3,590 15,320 14,800 26,060 Dublin Boulevard WB)West of Cammore Place 3,630 15,360 14,800 26,060 Dublin Boulevard EB)West of Cammore Place 9,960 16,500 28,700 35,270 Dublin Boulevard EB)Cammore Place to Keegan Street 8,820 15,050 27,100 33,210 Dublin Boulevard EB)Keegan Street to Lockhart Street 6,710 13,810 25,000 32,200 Dublin Boulevard EB)Lockhart Street to Proposed Project Driveway 6,530 14,220 25,000 33,390 City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Noise Draft EIR 3.9 22 FirstCarbon Solutions C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx Table 3.911 cont.):Average Daily Traffic Volumes Roadway Segment Weekday Average Daily Traffic Existing Cumulative Year 2040) No Project With Project Full Buildout No Project With Project Full Buildout Dublin Boulevard EB)Proposed Project Driveway to Fallon Gateway 6,530 21,760 25,000 40,260 Dublin Boulevard EB)FallonGateway to Fallon Road 5,740 20,970 23,900 39,160 I 580 WB)Fallon Road to Tassajara Road 183,000 188,290282,914 288,204 I 580 EB)Tassajara Road to Fallon Road 197,000197,000304,558 304,558 Source:Fehr Peers,2015;Caltrans,2015. Stationary Noise Modeling Methodology The proposed project will introduce new stationary noise sources,such as delivery truck loading and unloading activities,parking lot activities,and mechanical equipment such as rooftop ventilation HVAC)systems and the energy center backup generators.The SoundPLAN model was utilized to determine the potential noise levels created bythese stationary noise sources as measured at the nearest off site receptors.Model default values were used for delivery andparking lot activity noise levels.Model default octave band sound power level values were used forthe energy center emergency back up generators and the rooftop air handling unitsoperational noise levels.These noise levels were compared with the referencenoisemeasurements takenadjacent to similar equipment at the Antioch Kaiser facility.The referencemeasurement results show the operational noise level of the energy center emergency back up generators at 45 feet from the equipment was 89.6 dBA Leq and 90.2 dBA Lmax.Therefore the modeled used a octave band sound pressure level of 92.0 dBA Lw.The energy center emergency back up generators weremodeled as a line source placed on the southern wall of the energy center where the vents would be located. The measured operational noise levels of the rooftop air handling units at 20 feet from the equipment ranged from 68.8 dBA to 70.8 dBA Leq and 72.1 dBA to 75.4 dBALmax.These sources were modeled in SoundPLAN with a center frequency of 500 Hz and a referencesound pressure level of 72.0 dBA Lw.Each rooftop mechanical equipment unit was modeled as a point source placed 1 meter above the level of the roofs on which they are located. 3.9.4 Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines’Appendix G Environmental Checklist,agency and professional standards,a projectimpactwould be considered significant if the projectwould: City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.9 23 C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx a)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; b)Expose persons to,or generate,excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; c)Substantially permanently increase ambient noise levels in the projectvicinity above levels existing without the project; d)Substantially temporarily or periodically increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,withintwo miles of a public airport or public use airport,expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels;and f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; Significance of changes in noise levels In community noiseconsiderations,audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dBA or more,as this level has been found to bebarely perceptible to the humanear in outdoor environments.A change of 5 dBAis considered to be the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear inoutdoor environments. Therefore,for purposes of this analysis,the proposed projectwould result in a significant noise impactwhen a permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 3 dB occurs upon project implementation and the resulting noise level exceeds the conditionally acceptable exterior standard at a noise sensitive use.Upon projectimplementation,if the resulting noise level do not exceed the applicable exterior noisestandard at a noise sensitive use,then an increase of 5 dBA would be considered significant. 3.9.5 Project Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary. Noise Levels in Excess of Standards Impact NOI 1:The project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies. Impact Analysis Short Term Construction Noise Impacts to Off Site Receptors Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed projectwould be a function of the noisegenerated by construction equipment,equipmentlocation,sensitivity of nearby land uses,and the timing and duration of the constructionactivities. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Noise Draft EIR 3.9 24 FirstCarbon Solutions C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx Two types of short term noise impacts would occur during site preparation and project construction. The first typewould result fromthe increase in traffic flow on localstreets,associated with the transport of workers,equipment,and materials to and from the project site.The transport of workers and construction equipment and materials to the project site would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site.Because workers and construction equipment would use existing routes,noise from passing trucks would besimilar to existing vehiclegeneratednoise on these local roadways.For this reason,short term intermittent noise from trucks would be minor when averaged over a longer time period and would not be expected to exceed existingpeak noise levels in the projectvicinity.Therefore,short term constructionrelated noise associated with worker and equipment transport to the proposed project site would result in a less than significant impacton receptors along the access routes leading to site. The second type of short term noise impact is related to noisegenerated during site preparation, grading,and construction on site.Construction is performed in discrete steps,each of which has its own mix of equipment and,consequently,itsown noise characteristics.These various sequential phases would change the character of the noisegenerated on site.Therefore,the noise levels vary as construction progresses.Despite the variety in the typesand sizes of constructionequipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow constructionrelated noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.Table 3.92 lists the maximum noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments for typicalconstruction equipment based on adistance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor.Because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment,the site preparation phase is expected to be the loudest phase of construction.The site preparationconstruction phase is expected to require the use of front end loaders,compactors,hydraulic backhoes,and haul trucks.Typical operating cycles for thesetypes of constructionequipment may involve 1 or 2minutes of full power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.Impact equipment such as pile drivers is not expected to be used during construction of thisproject. As is noted in the methodology discussion of this section,the FHWA’s construction noise model, RCNM,was used to calculate the worst case construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors surrounding the project siteduring eachphase of construction.The modeled receptor locations represent the closest existing receiving land uses to the east,north,west,and south of the project site.The modeled receptor locationsare shown in Exhibit 3.9 3.The modeled construction phases included the site preparation and grading phase,the buildingconstruction phase,and the paving of the internal roadways phase.A worst case scenario was modeled assuming each piece of modeled equipment would operate simultaneously at the nearest reasonable locations to each modeled receptor for each construction phase of the project.Overall average daily project construction noise levels would bemuch lower than this worst case scenario as all equipment would not always operate simultaneously and would also be lower as the equipment operates toward the center of the project site further from off site receptors.A summary of the modeling results areshown in Ta ble 3.912.The construction noise modeling assumptions and outputs are provided in Appendix G of this report. 580 Dublin Blvd Fa l l o n R d I 37660004 • 09/2015 | 3.9-3_existing.cdr Exhibit 3.9-3 ExistingNoiseContours CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT Source: Soundplan, 2015. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.9 27 C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx The site preparation and grading phase of the project is expected to require the use of rubber tired dozers,tractors,front end loaders,backhoes,excavators,and graders.The building construction phase is expected to require the use of cranes,forklifts,portable generators,tractors,front end loaders,and backhoes.The paving phase of construction is expected to require the use of pavers, rollers,concrete mixer trucks,tractors,front end loaders,and backhoes. Table 3.912:Construction Noise Model Results Summary dBA) Receptor Location Site Preparation/Grading Phase Building Construction Phase Paving Phase Lmax Leq Lmax LeqLmax Leq R1 Commercial land use east of project site 80.181.666.4 66.068.968.5 R2 Multi family residential 73.274.869.4 69.0 72.271.7 R3 Multi family residential 72.073.468.768.4 67.967.5 R4 Multi family residential 62.764.058.3 58.0 62.061.6 R5 Commercial land use west of project site 58.459.457.4 56.3 57.557.1 R6 Single family residential south of I 580 56.958.465.7 65.3 66.966.3 Note: Lmax is the loudest value of anysingle piece of equipment as measured at the modeledreceptor location. Source:FCS,2015. The City of Dublin’s Municipal Code Section 5.28.020 prohibits any person within the City from making any loud,or disturbing,or unnecessary,or unusual or habitual noise or anynoise 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.Although therewould be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential causing intermittent noise nuisance,the effect on longer term hourly or daily)ambient noise levels would be small,but could result in annoyance or evensleep disturbance of nearby sensitive receptors.Therefore,implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI 1 requiring compliance with best managementpractice construction noise reduction measures and restrictions on permissible hours of construction would ensure that construction noise would not result in annoyance or disturbance or injury or endangerment of the health,repose,peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity residing in the projectvicinity. Traffic Noise Impacts to On SiteReceptors A significant impact would occur if the project would be exposed to traffic noise levels in excess of the City’s normally acceptable”standard of 60 dBA CNEL for the proposed hospitalland uses,and in excess of the normally acceptable”standard of 70 dBA CNEL forthe proposedcommercial land uses.The project site is locatedadjacent to I 580and Dublin Boulevard.As shown in Exhibit 3.92, the southern portion of the project site is exposed to existing traffic noise levels up to 85 dBA CNEL, and the entire project site is exposed to traffic noise levels in excess of 65 dBA CNEL.According to the City’s land use compatibility standards for community noise environments,the normally City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Noise Draft EIR 3.9 28 FirstCarbon Solutions C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx acceptable exterior noise level is 70 dBA CNEL or less for the types of land uses proposed for development with implementation of the project.Noise levels over75 dBA CNEL are considered normally unacceptable for new development of thesetypes of land uses.In addition,according to Implementing Policy 7,of the Noise Element of the General Plan,non residential development proposed within areas with traffic noise levels in excess of 65 dBA CNEL should be designed to meet the exterior to interior noisetransmission standards as required by the California Green Building StandardsCode.Therefore,as the project is exposed to excessive traffic noise levels,mitigation must be incorporated into the project design to reduce the traffic noise impacts to meet the minimumwall and roof ceiling assembly requirements of the California Green Building Standards Code for the proposed land use development.The noise insulation standards require that the wall and roof ceiling assemblies of new non residentialdevelopments that are exposed to exterior noise in excess of 65 dBA CNEL shall meet a composite STC rating of at least 50,with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40.Inaddition,the standards requirepreparation of an acoustical analysis demonstrating the manner in which dwelling units have been designed to meetthis standard,where such development is proposed in an area with exterior noise levels greater than 65 dBA CNEL.This would effectively reduce the highest exterior traffic noise levels to which the projectwould be exposed to below an interior level of 45 dBA CNEL with an adequate margin of safety i.e.,85 dBA 50 dBA 35 dBA).Therefore,compliance with the adopted standards would serve to reduce traffic noise impacts on the proposed project to a level of less than significant. Stationary Noise Source Impacts to Off SiteReceptors The proposed projectwould include new stationary noise sourcessuch as parking lot activities, delivery truck loading andunloading activities,rooftop mechanical ventilation system equipment, and emergencybackupgenerators.A significant impact would occur if these noise sources result in noise levels at off site receptors that would exceed the operational noise performance standards of the City’s Municipal Code. The City of Dublin’s Municipal Code Section 8.36.060(C)(3)state that for lots 5,000 square feet or larger,mechanical equipment that generates noise when located within a required setback as allowed by this subsection,and within 10 feet of an existing or potential residence,or an existing paved patio area on an adjoining property,shall be enclosed as necessary to reducenoise at the propertyline to a maximum of 50 dBA at any time. The proposed projectwould not include any mechanical equipment that generates noise that would be located within the required setback.Nor would the project include any on sitestationary noise sources that would be located within 10 feet of an existing or potential residence,or an existing paved patio area on anadjoining property.Therefore,the projectwould meet the requirements of the Municipal Code Section 8.36.060(C)(3),and no mitigation would be necessary. The City of Dublin’s Municipal Code Section 5.28.020 prohibits any person within the City from making 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 anyreasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area.”This noise performance standard does not specify noise levels or define what increases in noise levels would be considered significant.Therefore,for purposes of this analysis,a significant impact would occur if the projectwould result in a significant City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.9 29 C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx increase in ambient noise levels at any off site receptor compared with noise levels that would exist without the project.Typically,project generatednoise level increases of 3 dBA CNEL or greater would be considered significant where exterior noise levels would exceed the establishedacceptable noise level standard for the receiving land uses.A change of 3 dB is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the human ear inoutdoor environments,while a change of 5 dBAis considered the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments.Therefore,for purposes of this analysis,the proposed project wouldresult in a significant noise impactwhen a permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 3 dB occurs upon projectimplementation and the resulting noise level exceeds the conditionally acceptable exterior standard at a noise sensitive use. Upon project implementation,if the resulting noise level do not exceed the applicable exterior noise standard at a noise sensitive use,then an increase of 5 dBA would be considered significant.A detailed discussion of the potential permanent significant increases in ambient noise levels due to implementation of the project is included under Impact NOI 3. As is shown in the Impact NOI 3 discussion,no modeled receptor location in the project vicinity would experience a significant increase in ambient noise levels with implementation of the project compared with noise levels that would exist without the project.The modeling analysis included not only the project’s stationary noise sources,but also all project related traffic noise sources as well. Thus,since the project’s combined operational noise levels would not result in a significant increase, then the stationary noisesource portion of the project’s contribution to the surrounding noise environment would also not result in a significant increase compared with conditions existing without the project.Therefore,it can reasonably beconcluded that the projectwould not result in noise levels from stationary noise sources that would be considered loud,or disturbing,or unnecessary,or unusual,or which annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health,repose, peace,or safety of anyreasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area.Project related stationary noise sources would result in a less than significant impact on off site receptors and no mitigationwould be necessary. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures MM NOI 1 To reduce potential construction noise impacts,the following multi part mitigation measure shall be implemented forthe proposed project: The constructioncontractor shall limit all on site noise producing construction activities,including deliveriesand warming up of equipment,to the daytime hours of 7:30 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday excluding holidays) unless otherwise approvedby the City Engineer. The constructioncontractor shallensure that allinternal combustion engine driven equipment is equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. The constructioncontractor shall locate stationary noise generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Noise Draft EIR 3.9 30 FirstCarbon Solutions C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx near a construction project area.In addition,the project contractor shallplace such stationary constructionequipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. The constructioncontractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. The constructioncontractor shall,to the maximum extent practical,locate on site equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance between construction related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the project siteduring all project construction. The constructioncontractor shalldesignate a noise disturbance coordinator who would 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 complaints starting too early,bad muffler,etc.)and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem,as deemed acceptable by the Dublin Planning Department.The constructioncontractor shallconspicuously post the contact nameand telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator at the construction site. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Excessive Groundborne Vibration Impact NOI 2:The project would not result in expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Impact Analysis Short Term Construction Vibration Impacts to Off Site Receptors Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration,depending on the equipment used on the site.Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance.Buildings in the vicinity of a construction site respond to these vibrations with varyingresults ranging from no perceptible effects at the low levels to slight damage at the highest levels.Table 3.93 gives approximate vibration levels for particular construction activities.The data in Table 3.9 3 provides a reasonable estimate for a wide range of soilconditions. Of the variety of equipment used during construction,the vibratory rollers that would be used in the site preparation phase of construction would produce the greatest groundborne vibration levels. Large vibratory rollers produce groundborne vibration levels ranging up to 0.21inch per second in/sec)peak particle velocity PPV)at 25 feet from the operating equipment.Because vibration propagates in waves through the soil,multiple pieces of equipment operating simultaneously would each produce vibration waves in different phases that typically would not increase the magnitude of the vibration;instead,multiple pieces of equipment wouldjust lengthen the duration of the vibrationimpact. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.9 31 C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx At the nearest off site receptor,the commercial structures located approximately60 feet east of the nearest project construction boundaries,operation of a large vibratory roller could result in groundborne vibration levels ranging up to 0.056 PPV.Groundborne vibration levels from operation of alarge vibratory roller as measured at the nearest off site structureslocated north,west,and south of the project sitecould range up to approximately 0.014 PPV,0.0007 PPV,and 0.004 PPV respectively.These levels are all well below the industry standard vibration damage criteria of 0.2 PPV for these types of structures see Table 3.97)and would not exceed the 0.04 PPV threshold for continuousevent vibration sources.Therefore,constructionrelated groundborne vibration impacts would be considered less than significant. Operational Vibration Impacts to Off SiteReceptors Implementation of the project would not include any permanent sources that would expose persons in the project vicinity to groundborne vibration levels that could be perceptible without instruments at any existing sensitive land use in the projectvicinity.Loaded deliverytrucks typically produce vibration levels of up to 0.076 PPV at 25 fe et.This vibration level would not exceed the 0.25 PPV transient source threshold.Inaddition,there are no existing,significant,permanent sources of groundborne vibration in the projectvicinity to which the proposed projectwould be exposed.Therefore,project operational groundborne vibration impacts would be considered less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Impact NOI 3:The project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity abovelevels existing without the project. Impact Analysis Significantnoise impacts to off site receptors would occur if the projectwould result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels compared with noise levels existing without the project.A change of 3 dB is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the humanear inoutdoor environments, while a change of 5 dBAis considered the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments.Therefore,for purposes of this analysis,the proposed projectwould result in a significant noise impactwhen a permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 3 dB occurs upon project implementation and the resulting noise level exceeds the conditionally acceptable exterior standard at a noise sensitive use.Upon projectimplementation,if the resulting noise level do not exceed the applicable exterior noisestandard at a noise sensitive use,then an increase of 5 dBA would be considered significant. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Noise Draft EIR 3.9 32 FirstCarbon Solutions C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx The SoundPLAN model was utilized to calculate the total operational noise levels at a total of 357 single point receptor locations in the projectvicinity.The total operational noise levels include the traffic noise levels with the project as well as allon sitestationary noise sources such as parking lot activities,delivery truck operations,rooftop mechanical ventilation system operations,and the monthly testing operation of the emergencybackup generators within the energy center.The single point receptors weremodeled to represent the façades of multi family residential andcommercial land uses in the projectvicinity,as well as the outdoor active useareasbackyards)of the nearest single family residentialland uses.The results of this analysis and all calculated operational noise levels at each of the 357 modeled receptor locations are included in Appendix G of this document. The modeling results show that with implementation of the project,the operational noise levels including traffic andstationary noise sources)under existingplus project full buildout conditions would result in decreased noise levels,by as much as 3.5 dBA,at 144 of the modeled receptor locations compared with noise levels under existing conditions without the project;refer to Exhibit 3.94.While a total of 200 of the modeled receptor locations would experience increases in ambient noise levels by as much as 3.3 dBA under existingplus project full buildout conditions compared with noise levels under existing conditions without the project;while 13 of the modeled receptor locations would experience no change.The decrease in ambient noise levels at the modeled receptor locations is due to the additional shielding thatthe project structures would provide for the multi family residential uses north of the project site from traffic noise on I 580.Those receptors that would experience increases are primarily located close to the modeled roadways,and thus the increases aredue to the project related increases in traffic volumes.The receptors that would experience a 3 dBA or greater increase would not result in noise levels that are in excess of the conditionally acceptable land use compatibility standard for that land use.Therefore,project related increases under existingplus project full buildout conditions would be less than significant. Undercumulative year 2040)plus project full buildout conditions,a total of 176 of the modeled receptor locations would experience decreases in ambient noise levels by as much as 3.8 dBA compared with noise levels under existing conditions without the project;refer to Exhibit 3.9 5 and Exhibit 3.9 6.A total of 149 of the modeled receptor locations would experience increases in ambient noise levels by up to 1.4 dBA compared with noise levels under cumulative year2040) conditions without the project,while 32 of the modeled receptor locations would experience no change.Again,the decreases in ambient noise levels at the modeled receptor locations are due to the additional shielding that the project structures would provide for modeled receptor locations from traffic noise on I 580.Receptors that would experience increases are primarily located close to the modeled roadways,and thus the increases are due to the project related increases in traffic volumes.Since no receptor would experience a significant increase of 3 dBA or greater under cumulative plus project full buildout conditions compared with conditions that would exist without the project,project related increases would be considered less than significant under cumulative plus project conditions. 580 Dublin Blvd Fa l l o n R d I 37660004 • 09/2015 | 3.9-4_existingplus_noise.cdr Exhibit 3.9-4 Existing Plus Project Full-BuildoutNoiseContours CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT Source: Soundplan, 2015. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 580 Dublin Blvd Fa l l o n R d I 37660004 • 09/2015 | 3.9-5_cumulative_noise.cdr Exhibit 3.9-5 Cumulative No ProjectNoiseContours CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT Source: Soundplan, 2015. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 580 Dublin Blvd Fa l l o n R d I 37660004 • 09/2015 | 3.9-6_cumulative_plusproject_noise.cdr Exhibit 3.9-6 Cumulative Plus Project Full-BuildoutNoiseContours CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT Source: Soundplan, 2015. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.9 39 C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx Therefore,as the project full buildout conditions which includes both project traffic and stationary noise sources)would not result in a substantial permanent increase 5 dBA or greater)in ambient noise levels in the projectvicinity above levels existing without the project at any of the modeled receptor locations in the projectvicinity,project related noise increases wouldresult in a less than significant impact on off site receptorsand no mitigationwould be necessary. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Impact NOI 4:The project may result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity abovelevels existing without the project. Impact Analysis Construction noise impacts were previously analyzed in the Impact NOI 1 discussion.As shown in this discussion,the closest off site residentialstructures are locatedapproximately 50 feet fromthe project property line.This closest off siteresidential unit could be exposed to construction noise levels of up to approximately 80 dBA Lmax intermittently during the loudest phase of construction when individual pieces of heavy construction equipment operate simultaneously at the nearest construction boundaries. Although there would be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential causing intermittent noise nuisance,the effect on longer term hourly or daily)ambient noise levels would be small.The project would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code requirementsincluding the permissible hours of construction.Therefore,compliance with the City’s permissiblehours of construction,as well as implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI 1,outlining standard construction noise reduction measures would ensure that construction noise would not result in substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels and would be considered a less than significant impact. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure NOI 1. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Noise Draft EIR 3.9 40 FirstCarbon Solutions C:\Users\ELivingston\Desktop\FCS Projects Folder\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 09 Noise.docx Aviation Noise Impact NOI 5:The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels due to beinglocated 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. Impact Analysis The nearest public airport to the project site is Livermore Municipal Airport,which is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the site.As indicated in Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Figure 32,the project site is not within the 55 CNEL,60 CNEL,or 65 CNEL aviation noise contours for Livermore Municipal Airport.As such,all of the potential project end uses would be compatible with the noise standards set forth in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.Therefore,impacts from aircraft noise would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities FirstCarbon Solutions 3.10 1 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx 3.10Public Services and Utilities 3.10.1 Introduction This section describes the existing public services and utilities and potential effects from project implementationon the site and its surrounding area.Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information provided in the Water Supply Assessment prepared by West Yost Associates, as well as by Alameda County Fire Department,the AlamedaCounty Sheriff’s Office,Dublin San Ramon Services District DSRSD),and the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.The Water Supply Assessment is provided in Appendix I. 3.10.2 Environmental Setting Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services The AlamedaCounty Fire Department provides fire protection,emergency medical services,and public assistance to the City of Dublin.The Fire Department also serves the Cities of Emeryville, Newark,San Leandro,andUnion City,the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,and unincorporated areas of Alameda County.TheFire Department’s service areais 508 square miles and has aservice population of 394,000 persons. Fire Stations The Fire Department has four stations in the City of Dublin,three of which are staffedand the other used for reservepurposes.The three staffedstations are summarized in Table 3.101. Table 3.10 1:Fire Station Summary Station No.Address Distance to Project Site Staffing 16 7494 DonohueDrive 4.2 miles One engine company three person AdvancedLife Support company) 17 6200 MadiganDrive 1.8 miles One engineand truck company(three person Advanced Life Support company) 18 4800 Fallon Road 1.1 miles One engine company (three person AdvancedLife Support company) Source:Alameda County Fire Department,2015. Organization and Staffing The Fire Department is organized into four battalions consisting of 26engine companies,seven ladder truck companies,and one heavyrescue vehicle.The Fire Department has 486 authorized positions and100 reserve firefighters.The Fire Department alsostaffs specialized response teams for hazardous materials,urban search and Rescue,and water rescue. As shown in Table 3.10 1,the three fire stations in Dublinare each staffed by one enginecompany consisting of three members. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR 3.10 2 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx Calls for Service In Fiscal Year 2013–2014,the Fire Department responded to a total of 2,839 calls in the City of Dublin. Response Time The Fire Department’s average response time is specified in its contract with the City of Dublin. Aid Agreements The Fire Department also participates in the Alameda County Mutual Aidplan with all other fire agencies within Alameda County.The Fire Department also participates in the California Master Mutual Aid Plan that allows source requests to be filledfrom an agency outside AlamedaCounty. Law Enforcement The AlamedaCounty Sheriff’s Office provides lawenforcement to the City of Dublin on a contract basis known locally as Dublin Police”).Criminalinvestigations,crime prevention,and some business office functions are performed at the Dublin Civic Center 100 Civic Center),while dispatch and some data processing functions are handled at Sheriff's Office facilities in Oakland and San Leandro. Organization and Staffing The Dublin Police have 51 swornoffices and four Sheriff’s technicians assigned to the duty station at the Dublin Civic Center.ThreeCity of Dublin civilian employees who provide support services to the Dublin Police. Calls for Service The Dublin Police responded to 34,473 calls for service in 2014. Response Times The Dublin Police’s average response time to priority callsis just over 5 minutes.This response time standardmeets the AlamedaCounty’s Sheriff’s Office standards and the industry average of 5 minutes. Schools Dublin Unified School District DUSD)provides K 12 educational services to the City of Dublin.As of Academic Year 20132014,DUSD had a total enrollment of 8,270 students.DUSD operates 10 schools,consisting of six elementary K 5),two middle 68),one high school 9 12),and one continuation school10 12).The nearestschool to the project site is Kolb Elementary School, located 0.45 mile to thenorth. Water Dublin San Ramon Services District DSRSD)provides potable water and non potable recycled water service to the City of Dublin and the Dougherty Valley portion of the City of San Ramon.DSRSD’s water service population is approximately70,000. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities FirstCarbon Solutions 3.10 3 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx Water Supply DSRSD obtains its water supply from Alameda County Flood Control andWater Conservation District, Zone 7 Zone 7),a multi purpose agency that oversees water related issues in the Livermore Amador Valley.Zone 7 is a State Water Project contractor that wholesales treated water to four retail water agencies in the Tr i Valley area DSRSD,City of Livermore,City of Pleasanton,and California Water Service Company Livermore District),retails non potable water supplies for irrigatedagricultural use, retails treated water to several direct customers,provides and maintains flood control facilities,and manages groundwater and surface water supplies in its servicearea.DSRSD has a groundwater pumping quota GPQ)of 645 acre feet/year in the Livermore Valley Main Groundwater Basin Main Basin),which Zone 7 pumps on DSRSD’s behalf as part of its water contract. DSRSD’s water supply is augmented with recycled water from its Recycled Water Treatment Facilities. DSRSD ownsand operates a wastewater treatment plant that treats wastewater from Dublin,South San Ramon,and Pleasanton.The wastewater treatmentplant includes conventional secondary treatment facilities,as well as tertiary and advanced recycled water treatment facilities.The DSRSD East Bay Municipal Utility Recycled Water Authority DERWA)operates the San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program,a multi phased project that distributes recycled water from the Recycled WaterTreatment Facilities to portions of DSRSD’s and East Bay Municipal Utility EBMUD)District service areas. Zone 7 Zone 7 uses a combination of water supplies and water storage facilities to meet the municipal and industrial demands of its four retailers DSRSD,City of Pleasanton,City of Livermore,and California Water Service Company).These include the following: Imported surface water from the State WaterProject; Imported surface water transferred from the ByronBethany Irrigation District; Local surface water runoff captured in Del Valle Reservoir; Local groundwater extracted from the Livermore Valley Groundwater Main Basin; Local storage in the Chain of Lakes;and Non local groundwater storage in the Semitropic Water Storage District and Cawelo Water District. State Water Project SWP) In November 1961,Zone 7 entered into a 75 year agreement with the DWR to receive water from the State WaterProject SWP).The SWP is the nation’s largest publicly built water storage and conveyance system and currently serves over 25 million people throughout California.SWP water originates within the Feather River watershed,is captured in and released from Lake Oroville,and flows through the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta before it is conveyed by the South Bay Aqueduct to Zone 7 or by the California Aqueduct to other south of Delta SWP contractors. The SBA also delivers water to other water suppliers,namely SantaClara Valley Water District and Alameda County Water District.Lake Del Valle is part of the South Bay Aqueduct system and is used for storage of SWP water,as well as local runoff.At Zone 7,SWP water isused to meettreated water City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR 3.10 4 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx demands from municipal and industrial customers both wholesaleand retail)and untreated water demands from agricultural customers.It is alsoused to artificially recharge the local groundwater basin or to fill non local storage. Table A Allocation The primary allocation agreement between DWR and its SWP contractors is recorded in Articles 12(a)and 18(a)of the agreements and is based on each contractor’s annual water delivery request. Each contractor is limited to an annual contractual amount as specified in Article 6(c)and Table A. Zone 7’s current agreement or contract with DWR is for the delivery of up to 80,619 acre feet annually af/yr).This contract expires in 2036 with an option to renew for 75 years.In practice,the actual amount of SWP water available to Zone 7 under the Table A allocation processvaries from year to year,due to hydrologic conditions,water demands of other contractors,SWP facility capacity,and environmental/regulatoryrequirements.In December2014,DWR issued the Final State Water Project DeliveryReliability Report2013,which estimates a long term average yield of 60 percent of Table A amounts,equivalent to 48,400 af/yr for Zone 7. As an SWP contractor,Zone 7 has theoption to carry over unused Table A water from one year to the next when there is availablestorage in San Luis Reservoir.This carryover”water isalso called Article 12e and 56c water.Article 12e water must be taken by March 31 of the following year,but Article 56c water may be carried over as long as San Luis Reservoir storage is available.Zone 7’s total SWP carryover from 2014 to 2015 was 9,000 acre feet,and expects to carryover approximately7,800 acre feet from 2015 into 2016.Zone 7 typically carries over about 10,000 acre feet from year to year. Article 21 Water Interruptible or Surplus Water) Under Article 21 of Zone 7’s contract with DWR,Zone 7 also has access to excess water supply from the SWP that isavailable only if 1)it does not interfere with SWP operations or Table A allocations; 2)excess water is available in the Delta;and 3)it will not bestored in the SWP system.According to the FinalState WaterProject Delivery Reliability Report2013 and the Draft State WaterProject Delivery CapabilityReport2015,the projected yield from Article 21 is very low and does not represent a significant water supply for Zone 7. Article 56d Water SWP Multi Year Pool) Article 56d is a contractprovision that allows SWP contractors with unused Table A water to sell their water to contractors that have water needs that exceed their allocation for the year.This water was previously referred to as the TurnbackPool”but is now referred to as the SWP Multi Ye ar Pool.” Historically,only a few SWP contractors have been in a position to make such water available for purchase,particularly in normal or dry years.Zone 7 currently does not anticipate a significant amount of water supply to be available underArticle 56d until there isa resolution to the current Delta crisis. Yuba Accord In 2008,Zone 7entered into a contract with DWR to purchase additional water under the Lower Yuba River Accord Yuba Accord).The contract expires in 2025.There are four different types Components”)of water available;Zone 7 has the option to purchase Components 2 and 3 water City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities FirstCarbon Solutions 3.10 5 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx during drought conditions,andComponent 4 waterwhen the Yuba County Water Agencyhas determined that it has water supply available to sell. The annual amount of water supply available to Zone 7 during dry years under the Yuba Accordis relatively small:the projected yield in 2015 and 2016 is 200 af/yr9.Zone 7 estimates a long term average yield of supplies under the Yuba Accord to be 500 af/yr. Byron Bethany Irrigation District The ByronBethany Irrigation Districtdiverts water from the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta pursuant to a Notice of Appropriation of Water”dated May 18,1914.Zone 7 entered into a 15 year contract with Byron Bethany Irrigation District,renewable every 5 years,for a minimum yield of 2,000 af/yr and up to 5,000 af/yr of water supply under this appropriation.Water purchased from Byron Bethany IrrigationDistrict is delivered to Zone 7 via the South Bay Aqueduct.The current contract was extended through 2030,with an option to extend through 2039.However,Byron Bethany IrrigationDistrict’s supplies have recently been subject to a curtailment order from the SWRCB due to currentdrought conditions,so Zone 7 is not anticipating availability of supplies from Byron Bethany Irrigation District. LocalSurface Water Runoff Zone 7,along with Alameda County Water District,has water right permits to divert flows from Arroyodel Valle.Runoff fromthe Arroyo del Valle watershed above Lake Del Valle is stored in the lake,which is managed by DWR.As noted above,Lake Del Valle is also used to store imported surface water deliveries from the SWP.In late summer/early fall,DWR typically lowers lakelevels in anticipation of runoff from winter storm events,and to provide flood control capacity.Water supply in Lake Del Valle is made available to Zone 7 via the SBA through operating agreements with DWR. Inflows to Lake Del Valle,after accounting for permit conditions,are equally dividedbetween AlamedaCounty Water District and Zone 7.A review of historic runoff from Arroyo del Valle from 1913 to 2008indicates that the long term median inflow available to Zone 7 is approximately 7,300 af/yr. Local Storage Zone 7 has three options for local storage:storage in Lake Del Valle,storage in the local groundwater basin,and,in the future,surface storage in the Chain of Lakes.Each of these is described as follows. Lake Del Valle Lake Del Valle isused to store runoff from the Arroyo del Valle watershed above the lake and to store imported surface water deliveries from the SWP. Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin Zone 7 overlies the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin Main Basin).The Main Basin is theportion of the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin that contains highyielding aquifers and good quality groundwater.It has an estimated storage capacity of about 254,000 af.DWR has not identified the Main Basin DWR Basin No.210)as either a basin in overdraft or a basin expected to be in overdraft.Detailed descriptions of the Main Basin are available in Zone 7’s Groundwater Management Plan,the Zone 7 2010UWMP,and the DSRSD 2010 UWMP. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR 3.10 6 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx It shouldbe noted that for Zone 7,the Basin is considered astorage facility and not a long term water supply,becauseZone 7 does not have a groundwater pumping quota and only pumps groundwater it has previously artificially rechargedusing its surface water supplies. Zone 7 administersoversight of the Main Basin as part of its GroundwaterManagement Program.As part of its conjunctive use program,Zone 7’s policy is to maintain groundwater levels above historic lows in theMain Basin through artificial recharge of SWP water or locally stored runoff from Arroyo del Valle.Currently,this is accomplished by releasing water to the arroyos for subsequent percolation and replenishment of the aquifers.Zone 7 established historic lows based on the lowest measured groundwater elevations in various wells in the Main Basin;historic lows correspond to a groundwater storage volume of about 128,000 af.In general,the difference between water surface elevations when the Main Basin is full and water surface elevations when the Main Basin is at historic lows defines Zone 7’s operational storage.Operational storage is about 126,000 af based on Zone 7’s experience operating the Main Basin. Chain of Lakes Lake I and CopeLake TheChain of Lakes refers to a series of 10 mined out or active gravel quarry pits that have been or will betransferred to Zone 7 for water resources applications.These might include surface storage of stormwater or other local runoff,surfacestorage of water from the SWP,and/or use as groundwater recharge basins once mining has been completed.The ten quarry pits or lakes are named Cope Lake and Lakes A through I.Although the Chain of Lakes will ultimately cover approximately 2,000 acres and storeapproximately 100,000 af of water,Zone 7 currently owns only Cope Lake and Lake I.Zone 7 expects to take ownership of Lake H sometime within the next 5 years, while the remaining lakes will betransferred to Zone 7over the next 20 years. The Chain of Lakes will be used to store water supplies in wet years for later use during droughts, recharge the groundwater basin,capture additional flow from Arroyodel Valle,andhelp control flooding along the Arroyo Mocho and Arroyo Las Positas. Since November 2013,Zone 7 has been capturing groundwater discharges by gravel mining companies in Cope Lake,which prevents percolation of that water intothe local groundwater basin due to its clay like bottom.However,in May 2014,Zone 7 completed a pipeline that transfers that water into Lake I,which has the ability to percolate mining discharges back into the groundwater basin.Zone 7 has captured 7,449 acre feet since 2013,and transferred 2,220 acre feet to Lake I. Non LocalStorage In addition to local storage,Zone 7 also participates in two non local also called out of basin”) groundwater banking programs located in Kern County.Note that while these bankingprograms provide a water source duringdrought years,they represent water previously stored from Zone 7’s surface water supplies during wet years.Therefore,they do not have a net contribution to Zone 7’s water supply over the long term and in fact result in some operational losses as described below. Furthermore,this banked water supply is only available when the SBA is operational. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities FirstCarbon Solutions 3.10 7 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx Semitropic Water Storage District Zone 7 originally acquired astorage capacity of 65,000 af in the Semitropic Water Storage District Semitropic)groundwater banking program in 1998.Subsequently,Zone 7 agreed to participate in Semitropic’s Stored Water Recovery Unit,which increased pumpback capacity and allowed Zone 7 to contractually store an additional 13,000 af.Zone 7 currently has a total of 78,000 af of groundwater banking storage available to augment water supplies during drought conditions.During non drought periods,Zone 7 can store up to 5,883 af/yr into the Semitropic groundwater bank.Note that a 10 percent loss is associated with water put into Semitropic.During a drought year,Zone 7 has the ability to request up to 9,100 af of pumpbackand any amountbetween 0 to 8,645 af of exchange water;the availability of exchange water depends on projected SWP allocation.Pumpback is water that is pumped out of the Semitropic aquifer and into the SWP system.Exchange water is water that is transferred between Zone 7 andSemitropicby adjusting the amounts of Table A water allocated between Zone 7 andSemitropic.The agreement is in effect through December31,2035. Cawelo Water District Similar to the arrangements with Semitropic,Zone 7 has 120,000 af of groundwater banking storage available with the Cawelo Water District,as executed in an agreement in 2006.During non drought periods,Zone 7 can store up to 5,000 af/yr in the bank.During droughts,Zone 7 has the ability to request up to 10,000 af/yr of pumpback or exchange water)from Cawelo.The agreement is in effect through December 31,2035. Groundwater Supply DSRSD Groundwater Pumping Quota DSRSD,the California Water Service Company Livermore,and the cities of Livermoreand Pleasanton,through agreements with Zone 7,have mutually agreed to limit their extraction from the Main Basin to a combined quantity of approximately7,200 af/yr,about 54 percent of the long term sustainable yield of the Main Basin.This agreementalong with Zone 7’s other groundwater management activities keeps the groundwater budget essentially in balance under average hydrologic conditions.Each of these retailers has a groundwaterpumping quota known as their GPQ).DSRSD’s GPQ is 645 af/yr.In accordance with its agreement with Zone 7,DSRSD may obtain groundwater in excess of its GPQ if it pays arecharge fee per acre foot of groundwater extracted above the GPQ)to Zone 7. DSRSD does not itself extract groundwater as a water supply.In accordance with their water supply agreement with Zone 7,Zone 7 pumps DSRSD’s groundwater supply from a Zone 7installed well in the Mocho wellfield Mocho No.4),and this groundwater supply is then blended with water from Zone 7’s other water supply sources and delivered to DSRSD.This well was constructed on DSRSD property previously Camp Parks property)under a 2002 agreement between DSRSD and Zone 7 whereby DSRSD provided Zone 7 with access;Zone 7 paid all of the costs forthe well,pump,and building;and DSRSD has the annual option of requesting that Zone 7 pump andprovide DSRSD’s GPQ at acost of only power,chemical,and some other incidental charges. In addition to groundwater from the Main Basin,DSRSD may extract water above the 645 af/yr Main Basin GPQ from areas outside the Main Basin the Fringe Basin).Water can be pumped from the Fringe Basin as long as this groundwater extraction does not have adverse effects on the Main Basin. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR 3.10 8 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx In the past,DSRSD pumped water from the Fringe Basin when it owned wells along Dublin Boulevard.However,pumping from the Fringe Basin was abandoned in 1980 because of water quality issues and pumping costs. Historical and ProjectedFuturePumpage The volume of groundwaterpumped by Zone 7 for DSRSD from 2010 to 2014 is shown in Table 3.102. Table 3.10 2:Groundwater Pumped by Zone 7 on DSRSD’s Behalf Basin Name Acre Feet/Year 2010 20112012 2013 2014 Main Basin,Livermore Valley 645645645645 645 Source:West Yost Associates,2015. The volume of groundwater projected to bepumped by Zone 7 for future DSRSD water supply is shown in Table 3.10 3.Historically,DSRSD’s groundwater supply demand has been constant,and equal to the GPQ. Table 3.10 3:Groundwater Projected To Be Pumped by Zone 7 on DSRSD’s Behalf Basin Name Acre Feet/Year 2015 20202025 2030 2035 Main Basin,Livermore Valley 645645645645 645 Source:West Yost Associates,2015. Current Sustainable Yield and Groundwater Pumping Quotas Long term natural sustainable yield is contractually defined as the average amount of groundwater annuallyreplenished by natural recharge in the Main Basin through percolation of rainfall,natural stream flow,and irrigation waters,and inflow of subsurface waters)and which can therefore be pumped without lowering the long term average groundwater volume in storage.Incontrast, artificial recharge”is the aquiferreplenishment that occurs from artificially induced or enhanced stream flow,as described in the previoussection.With artificial recharge,more groundwater can be sustainably extracted from the Main Basin eachyear. The natural sustainable yield of the Main Basin has been determined to be about 13,400 af/yr,which is 10 to 11 percent of the total estimated useable groundwater storage.This long term natural sustainable yield is based on over a century of hydrologic records and projections of future recharge conditions.Based on this sustainable yield value,California Water Service Company,Livermore District Cal Water);DSRSD;the City of Livermore Livermore);and the City of Pleasanton Pleasanton)—collectively referred to as the Retailers—are permitted to pump 7,245 af/yr.Each retailer has an established Groundwater Pumping Quota”GPQ),formerly referred to as the City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities FirstCarbon Solutions 3.10 9 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx IndependentQuota”in the originalMunicipal and Industrial water supply contract between Zone 7 and each retailer.Pleasanton and Cal Water pump their own GPQ;they are also permitted to pump groundwater in excess of their GPQ under arecharge fee paid to Zone 7.This fee covers the cost of importing and recharging additional water into the Main Basin.Zone 7 pumps DSRSD’s GPQ.The City of Livermore has not had any groundwaterpumping capability for the last 5 to 6 years,and has therefore not pumped their GPQ over this time period. Zone 7's groundwater extraction for its treatedwater system does not use the natural sustainable yield fromthe Main Basin;instead,Zone 7 pumps only water that has been previously recharged as part of its artificial recharge program using its surface water supplies.Duringhigh demands, groundwater is used to supplement surface water supply delivered via the South Bay Aqueduct and treated at one of the Zone 7’s two surface water treatment facilities.Groundwater is alsoused when the aqueduct is outof service because of maintenanceand improvements or when Zone 7’s surface water treatment plants are operating under reduced capacity caused by construction,repairs,etc. Finally,Zone 7 uses its stored groundwater both localand non local)under emergency or drought conditions,when there may be insufficient surface water supply available.Zone 7 also pumps groundwater out of the Main Basin duringnormal water years to help reduce the 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 af/yr on average,which means that Zone 7 can pump an equivalent 9,200 af/yr on average from the Main Basin. New Wells Zone 7completed Chain of Lakes Well 5 in October 2014.This well provides 2.1 million gallons per day mgd)of additional pumping capacity,and access to additional groundwater storage for use during the drought.The well is located near the northwest corner of Lake H. Zone 7 is currently designing Busch Va lleyWell No.1.The first phase includes a connection forthe new well to Zone 7’s system.In the near term,this connection can be used in conjunction with a temporarybooster pumpstation to move well water east during periods of limited surface water availability.The connectionshould be in place in the summer of 2015. Reliability Intertie with East Bay Municipal Utility District Zone 7 is currentlyworking with EBMUD to design and construct a new intertie that would connect Zone 7’s water system to EBMUD’s water system.Once completed,the intertie willnot only provide a lifeline for Zone 7 during catastrophic events e.g.,record drought,earthquake in the Delta,or loss of the South Bay Aqueduct),but it also will allow Zone 7 to participate in regional water supply exchanges or access to another source of supply during planned outages. Recycled Water DSRSD currently treats and distributes recycled water to water customers in its servicearea. Recycled water is produced from DSRSD’s regionalwastewater treatment facilities.DSRSD began its recycled water program in the early 1990s by adopting Resolution No.429 in August 1992.The resolution set priorities and policies forthe use and promotion of recycled water service within and outside DSRSD’s water servicearea.The policies were intended to assist DSRSD achieve the following objectives: City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR 3.1010 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx Promote,produce,sell anddeliver recycled water to retail andwholesale customers; Manage the San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program SRVRWP)on an equitable andself supporting basis; Work with others to develop ordinances and guidelines to encourage the use of recycled water; Develop local regulationsand standards to ensure the safe and beneficial use of recycled water;and Conduct public information and customer service programs to ensure that the public has an appropriate understanding of recycled water,including the benefits of using recycled water. DSRSD then adopted the Water Recycling Business Plan Framework”in 1993,to establish the DSRSD Recycled Water Enterprise.Since that time,recycled water has been an integral part of water planning at DSRSD.In that same year,the City of Dublin certified an environmental impact report EIR)for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.The DSRSD service plan for eastern Dublin is predicated upon the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation as summarized in the EIR and subsequent annexation documentation.Potable water supply requests to Zone 7 by DSRSD for Eastern Dublin under the Contract between Zone 7 and DSRSD for a Municipal Industrial Water Supply,”are thenet of the eastern Dublin total water demands less the recycled water to beprovided by DSRSD. DSRSD and EBMUD formed a Joint Powers Authority,DERWA,in 1995.DERWA’s mission is to provide a safe,reliable,and consistent supply of recycled water,and to maximize the amount of recycled water delivered for non potable use.DERWA operates the SRVRWP,a multi phased project to supply recycled water from DSRSD’s Recycled Water Treatment Facilities to portions of DSRSD’s and EBMUD’s service areas. In 1995,DSRSD also committed to providing water to Dougherty Valley.The DSRSD service plan for Dougherty Valley is also predicated upon the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation.The amount of potable water purchased for Dougherty Valley is the net of the Dougherty Valley total water demands less the recycled water to beprovided by DSRSD. In April 1998,DSRSD adopted Ordinance No.280,which established a Recycled Water Use Zone within DSRSD’s service areaconsisting of all areas then receiving potable water services and those additional areas designated for such service.In April 2004,this ordinance was repealedand replaced by Ordinance No.301,which formally established the rules andregulations governing the use of recycled water within DSRSD’s service area.In November 2010,when DSRSD recodified its code,DSRSD incorporated Ordinance No.301 intothe DSRSD Code and added DSRSD Code Section 3.20.110,Duty to Connect—Recycled Water,which requires that new development in DSRSD’s water service area connect to recycled water for appropriate irrigation uses. In 2005,DSRSD adopted a Water Master Plan that establishedBoard policy as to the quantity of recycled water the District was looking to develop and deliver to customers within the District’s water service area.The total quantity of recycled water that DSRSD planned to deliver through City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1011 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx buildout was then estimated to be approximately 3,700 af/yr 3.3 mgd).The projected recycled water demand in the DSRSD 2010UWMP was 4,600 af/yr. Because of the permanent conversion of existing irrigated landscapes from potable water to recycled water,projected future recycled water demand within the DSRSD servicearea is likely to be higher than what was projected in the 2010 UWMP.DSRSD is currently conducting a recycled water study in coordination with DERWA to evaluate future recycled water needs and opportunities within DSRSD’s servicearea and within the Tri Valley area in coordination with the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore. The current capacity of the DSRSD treatment facilities limits the currentproduction of recycled water.Current recycled waterproduction and delivery to both DSRSD and EBMUDis limited to 12.7 mgd,the combined capacity of the Recycled Water Treatment Facilities’Sand FiltrationUltraviolet treatment 9.7 mgd)and Microfiltration Filtration Ultraviolet treatment 3.0 mgd)facilities.In November 2014,DWR announcedan award of a 4 million grant to expand the SRVRWP.The expansion of recycled water treatment and distribution facilities,which is in progress,will bring recycled water for landscape irrigation to the Santa Rita Jail and Federal Correctional Institutionin central Dublin areas and west of Interstate 680 in Dublin.Also in January 2014,an agreement was entered into between DERWA and the City of Pleasanton which became effective in September 2014 upon City of Pleasanton’s completion of their CEQA review)to allow its treated wastewater to be used to produce recycled water.This agreement paves the way for arecycled water program in the City of Pleasanton and expansion of the SRVRWP water recycling plant to meet future needs within DSRSD and throughout the Tri Valley area. In addition,DSRSD has a Memorandum of Understanding dated April 20,2004)with the Zone 7 Water Agency to provide seasonal storage for up to 1,200 acre feet of wastewater effluent storage for the DSRSD recycled water program.Zone 7 is proceeding with planning of its Chain of Lakes program that includes the agreed upon storage.A copy of the April 20,2004 Memorandum of Understanding is provided as Attachment A of the Water Supply Assessment WSA)Appendix I). Summary of Current and ProjectedFuture Water Supplies Table 3.10 4 provides a summary of DSRSD’s current and projected future water supplies as presented in the DSRSD 2010UWMP.As noted above,DSRSD’s future potable water demand will likely be lower than projected in the 2010UWMP,and thus potable supplies required from Zone 7 will also likely be lower.DSRSD’s future recycled water demand will likely be higher than projected in the 2010UWMP;however,recycled water supplies are anticipated to increase with the recent agreement with the City of Pleasanton. Table 3.10 4:DSRSD Current and Projected Future Water Supplies Water Source Acre Feet/Year 2010 Actual)2015 2020202520302035 Water Purchased from Zone 7 Water Agency 8,619 12,25515,33516,855 17,655 17,855 Groundwater Pumped by Zone 7 on DSRSD’s Behalf 645645645645645 645 City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR 3.1012 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx Table 3.10 4cont.):DSRSD CurrentandProjectedFuture Water Supplies Water Source Acre Feet/Year 2010 Actual)2015 2020202520302035 DSRSD Recycled Water 1,7292,5003,8004,4004,500 4,600 Total 11,029 15,400 19,800 21,900 22,800 23,100 Source:West Yost Associates,2015. Wastewater DSRSD provides wastewater collection and treatment service to the City of Dublin as well as to the southern portion of the City of San Ramon.DSRSD’s wastewater service population is approximately 143,000. Collection System DSRSD’s collection system consists of 187miles of 6inch to 42 inch diameter pipe.The collection system includes two inverted siphons,two creek crossings that are within the open channel,and one lift station. In the project vicinity,a sewer line is located within Dublin Boulevard. TreatmentFacility DSRSD owns and operates the Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility in Pleasanton,whichtreats wastewater from Dublin,South San Ramon,and Pleasanton.The wastewater treatment facility treats Pleasanton influent on a contractual basis.)The wastewater treatment facility includes conventional secondary treatment facilities,as well as tertiary and advanced recycled water treatment facilities. Conventional secondary wastewater treatment facilities include primary sedimentation,activated sludge secondary treatment,secondary sedimentation,chlorine disinfection,and effluent pumping. The Regional WastewaterTreatment Facility has a treatment capacity of 17.0 million gallons per day mgd).The facility currentlytreats an average of 10.5 mgd during dry weather and 10.9 mgd during wet weather. The Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agencydisposes of treated wastewater for DSRSD and the cities of Pleasanton andLivermore.Theagency’s pipelinetransports treated wastewater from the DSRSD andLivermore treatment plants16 miles to San Lorenzo,where it is discharged into a deep water outfall in San Francisco Bay. Storm Drainage The City of Dublin Public Works Department oversees municipal storm drainage within the Dublin city limits.The municipal storm drainage system consists of ditches,inlets,basins,and underground City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1013 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx piping that ultimately discharge flows into tributaries of Arroyo Las Positas and South San Ramon Creek.Runoff that occurs on the project site either ponds on site or sheet flows to existing storm drainage infrastructure located around the perimeter of the site Dublin Boulevard,I 580,etc.), Solid Waste Amador Valley Industriesprovidessolid waste and recycling collection services on a contractual basis to commercialand residential customers in the City of Dublin. Landfills Solid waste from the City of Dublin is landfilled at the two facilities summarized in Table 3.10 5.As shown in the table,the three landfills have 71.9 million cubic yards of remaining capacityavailable. Table 3.10 5:Landfill Summary Facility Location Permitted Daily Throughput Tons) Cubic Yards Permitted Capacity Remaining Capacity Altamont Landfill and Resources Recovery Facility Livermore 11,500 62.0 million 45.7 million VascoRoad Sanitary LandfillLivermore 2,250 32.9 million 7.9 million Newby Island Sanitary Landfill SanJose 4,000 50.8 million 18.3 million Source:California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery,2015. 3.10.3 Regulatory Framework Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA and the Porter Cologne Water QualityControl Act,municipal stormwater discharges in the City of Dublin are regulated under the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional StormwaterNationalPollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDES)Permit, Order No.R2 20090074,NPDES PermitNo.CAS612008,adopted October 14,2009 and revised November 28,2011.The Municipal Regional Permit is overseen by the Regional Water Board.The City of Fremont is a member agency of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program,which assists municipalities and other agencies in AlamedaCounty with implementation of the Municipal Regional Permit.Provision C.3 addresses post construction stormwater management requirements for new development and redevelopment projects that add and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious area.Provision C.3 requires the incorporation of site design,source control,and stormwater treatment measures into development projects in order to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and nonstormwater discharges and to prevent increases in runoff flows.Low Impact Development LID)methods are to be the primary mechanism for implementing such controls. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR 3.1014 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3.g pertains to hydromodification management.This Municipal Regional Permit provision requires that stormwater discharges not cause an increase in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the existing condition.Increases in runoff flow and volumemust be managed so that the post project runoff does not exceed estimated pre project rates and durations,where such increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause increased potential for erosion of creek beds and banks,siltpollutant generation,or other adverse impacts on beneficial uses due to increased erosive force.The Hydromodification Management Susceptibility Map, developedby the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program,indicates that the Community Plan areadrains primarily to earthen channels and therefore projects implemented under the Community Plan that create and/or replace 1 acre or more of impervious surface and increase impervious surface over pre project conditions are subject to hydromodification management requirements. State CaliforniaUrbanWater Management Planning Act The UrbanWaterManagement Planning Act California Water CodeSections 1061010656)requires that allurban water suppliers prepare urban water management plans and update them every 5 years. California Integrated Waste Management Act To minimize the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of bytransformation and land disposal,the State Legislature passed Assembly Bill AB)939,the California Integrated Waste ManagementAct of 1989,effective January 1990.The legislation required each local jurisdiction in the State to setdiversion requirements of 25percent by 1995 and 50percent by 2000;established a comprehensive statewide system of permitting,inspections,enforcement,and maintenance for solid waste facilities;and authorized local jurisdictions to impose fees based on the types or amounts of solid waste generated.In 2007,Senate Bill SB)1016,Wiggins,Chapter343,Statutes of 2008, introduced a new per capita disposal and goal measurement system which moves the emphasis from an estimated diversionmeasurement number to using an actual disposal measurement number as a per capitadisposal rate factor.As such,the new disposal based indicator pounds per person per year)uses only two factors:a jurisdiction’s population orin some cases employment)and its disposal as reported by disposal facilities. Local City of Dublin GeneralPlan The City of Dublin General Planestablishes the following guidingand implementing policies associated with public services and utilities that are relevant to the proposed project: Guiding Policy 4.4.1.A.1:Ensure that adequate solid waste disposal capacity isavailable,to avoid constraining development,consistent with the Dublin General Plan. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1015 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx Implementing Policy 4.4.1.B.3:Prior to project approval,the applicant shall demonstrate that capacity will exist in solid waste disposal facilities for their project prior to the issuance of building permits. Implementing Policy 4.4.1.B.4:Large scale projects should be required to submit a plan that demonstrates how they will contributetoward the City’s State mandated diversion requirement. Guiding Policy 4.5.1.A.1:Expand sewage treatment and disposal capacity to avoid constraining development consistent with the Dublin General Plan. Implementing Policy 4.5.1.B.1:Prior to project approval,developersshall demonstrate that adequate capacity will exist in sewage treatment and disposal facilities for their projects prior to the issuance of building permits. Guiding Policy 4.6.1.A.1:Base General Plan proposals on the assumption that water supplies will be sufficient and that localwells could be used to supplement imported water if necessary. Guiding Policy 7.3.1.A.1:Maintain natural hydrologic systems. Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.1:Enforce the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit for stormwater issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water QualityControl Board or any subsequent permit as well as Chapter 7 Public Works)and Chapter 9 Subdivisions)of the Dublin Municipal Code for maintenance of water quality and protection of stream courses. Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.2:Review development proposals to insure site design that minimizes soil erosionand volumeand velocity of surface runoff. Guiding Policy 12.3.1.A.1:Work with Zone 7 and DSRSD to secure an adequate water supply for,and provide water delivery to,existing and future customers in Dublin. Implementing Policy 12.3.1.B.1:In anticipation of planned future growth,continue working with DSRSD and Zone 7 to plan and provide for sufficient future water supplies. Guiding Policy 12.3.2.A.1:Increase water conservation efforts and strive to maximize water use efficiency in existing residential,commercial,and industrial buildingsand grounds. Guiding Policy 12.3.2.A.2:Support DSRSD in extending recycled water service to established areas of Dublin. Guiding Policy 12.3.3.A.1:Promote the conservation of water resources in new development Implementing Policy 12.3.3.B.1:Continue implementation of the Water Efficient Landscape Regulations,which requiresgrouping plants with the same water requirements together hydrozoning),the installation of waterefficientirrigation systems and devices,such as soil moisture based irrigation controls,and the minimal use of turf. Implementing Policy 12.3.3.B.2:Support DSRSD’s ongoing efforts to extend recycled water infrastructurepurple pipe”)to new locations. Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.1:Protect the quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater resources that serve the community. Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.2:Protect water quality by minimizing stormwater runoff and providing adequate stormwater facilities. Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.3:To minimize flooding in existing and future development,design stormwater facilities to handle design year flows based on buildout of the General Plan. Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.1:Support Zone 7’s efforts to complete plannedregional storm drainage improvements. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR 3.1016 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.2:With the goal of minimizing impervious surfacearea, encourage design and construction of new streets to have the minimum vehicular travel lane width possible while still meetingcirculation,flow,and safety requirements for all modes of transportation. Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.3:Discourage additional parking over and above the required minimum parking standards for any land use unless the developer can demonstrate a need for additional parking. Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.5:Review design guidelines and standard details to ensure that developers can incorporate clean water runoff requirements into their projects. Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.6:Maximize therunoff directed to permeable areas or to stormwater storage by appropriatesite design and grading,using appropriate detention and/or retention structures,and orienting runoff toward permeable surfaces designed to manage water flow. Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.7:Review development plans to minimize impervious surfaces and generally maximize infiltration of rainwater in soils,where appropriate.Strive to maximize permeable areas to allow more percolation of runoff into the ground through such means as bioretention areas,green strips,planter strips,decomposed granite,porous pavers, swales,and other waterpermeable surfaces.Require planter strips between the street and the sidewalk within the community,wherever practical and feasible. Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.8:Continue conducting construction site field inspections to ensure proper erosion control and materials/wastemanagement implementation to effectively prohibit non stormwater discharges. 3.10.4 Methodology FirstCarbon Solutions FCS)evaluated impacts on public service providers through review of agency websites and City of Dublin General Plan,and consultation with service providers.FCS evaluated utility system impacts using information from DSRSD’s 2010 UrbanWater Management Plan,City of Dublin General Plan,and the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.Agency websites were reviewed for relevant information about facilitiesand services provided. FCS reliedupon the information contained in the Water Supply Assessment prepared by West Yost Associates,which is provided in Appendix I,as the basis for assessing potable water impacts.The Water Supply Assessment was preparedpursuant to California Water Code sections 10910 through 10915 and evaluates the adequacy of DSRSD’s total projected water supplies to meet the DSRSD’s existing and projected future water demands,includingthose water demands associated with the proposed project,under all hydrologic conditions Normal Years,Single Dry Years,and Multiple Dry Years). 3.10.5 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G,Environmental Checklist,of the CEQA Guidelines,public services and utilities impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant if the projectwould: City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1017 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx result in substantial adversephysical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmentalfacilities,need for new or physically altered governmentalfacilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a)Fire Protection? b)Police Protection? c)Schools? d)Parks?Refer to Section 7,Effects Found not to be Significant.) e)Otherpublic facilities?Refer to Section 7,Effects Found not to be Significant.) To determine whether impacts to utilities and services are significant environmental effects,the following questionsare analyzed and evaluated.Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider,which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid wastedisposal needs? Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 3.10.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services Impact PSU 1:The proposed project would not create aneed for new or expanded fire protection or emergency medical services facilities that may result in physical impacts on the environment. Impact Analysis The AlamedaCounty Fire Department would serve the proposed project with fire protection and emergency medical services.The nearest fire station Station No.18;4800 Fallon Road)is located 1.1 miles fromthe project site.Using an average travel speed of 25 miles per hour,a fire engine City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR 3.1018 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx dispatched from Station No.18 would be able to reach the proposed project in 2minutes,39 seconds. The Fire Department indicated that based on the information project currently available it would be expected to serve the proposed project with existing stationsandpersonnel.The Fire Department stated that if major traffic changes were to occur or changes to the proposed project i.e.,inclusion of a high rise building,changes in occupancies,or changes in number of buildings)were to occur,this may affect itsability to serve the project existing stationsandpersonnel. Finally,the proposed projectwould be served with four points of vehicular access two signalized, two right in,right out)and,thus,would meet California Fire Code requirements for emergency access.For these reasons,the proposed project would not create a need to construct new or expand existing fire protection or emergency medical services facilities.Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Law Enforcement Impact PSU 2:The proposed project would not create aneed for new or expanded law enforcement facilities that may result in physical impacts on the environment. Impact Analysis The AlamedaCounty Sheriff’s Office indicated that the proposed projectwould be expected to generate 12 calls for service annually.This figure wasbased on the number of calls for service generated by the existing Palo Alto Medical Center facility located at 4050 Dublin Boulevard in 2014. The Sheriff’s Office indicated that calls for service associated with the Palo Alto Medical Center facility included arguments,parking disputes,and psychiatricevaluations.The Sheriff’s Officestated that the proposed project’s call volume should not affect current staffing for the Dublin Police. The Sheriff’s Office indicated that site security duringconstruction activities and traffic safety as two issues of concern.For the former issue,the Sheriff’s Office stated that contact information for a construction project manager or someone else with decision making ability)should be available to the Dublin Police in the event that something shouldhappen on the job site after hours.The City of Dublin will require this as a Condition of Approval.On the latter issue,the Sheriff’s Officestated that ingress/egress on Dublin Boulevard should be carefully designed to ensure that traffic safety problems are not created.Two of thefour access points would be signalized,while theother two points would be right in,right out.There would be no unprotected left turns intoor outof project driveways,thereby,greatlyreducing the potential for traffic collisions. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1019 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx For these reasons,the proposed project would not create a need to construct new or expand existing law enforcementfacilities.Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Schools Impact PSU 3:The proposed project would not create aneed for new or expandedschool facilities that may result in physical impacts on the environment. Impact Analysis The proposed projectwould develop 1.2 million square feet of medical campus and commercial uses on the project site.These uses are non residential in nature and would not have the potential to directly result in increased enrollment in DUSD;therefore,they would not create a need for new or expanded school facilities. Pursuant to SB 50 and Government Code Section 65995,DUSD currently charges development fees on a per square foot basis for commercialand 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 established uses would help fund necessary school service and facilitiesimprovements to accommodate anticipated population and school enrollment growth within the DUSD servicearea,and would allow the DUSD to allocate thesefunds as it deems necessary.Under SB 50,payment of the adopted school fees is considered to be full and complete mitigation of school facilities impacts for CEQA purposes.SB 50 limits the amount of fees a school district may legally impose on new development.DUSD has adopted fees that are imposed on new development.Therefore,pursuant to SB 50 and Government Code Section 65995,the payment of school impact fees by the project will fully mitigate the impacts of the projecton the DUSD,will result in a less than significant impactunder CEQA,and no further mitigation is required or permitted. DUSD submitted a Notice of Preparation comment letter,dated February 17,2015,to the City of Dublin,noting that it has established a Health Sciences and Medical Technology Academy model at Dublin High School and expressing its interest in partnering with Kaiser to provide academic and professional opportunities for students in this program.DUSD requested that a medical magnet programbe studied as part of the environmental evaluation for the proposed project. Medical education and training—whether for high school students,undergraduatestudents, graduate students,or professionals—would fall within the end uses of the medical campus described City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR 3.1020 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx in Section 2,ProjectDescription.Thus,the environmental impacts associated with such activities areaccounted for in this EIR,and any future partnership DUSD and Kaiser may enter into would be covered by the environmental analysis in this EIR.Impacts of the project on DUSD would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Water Impact PSU 4:The proposed project would not require the water purveyor to obtain additional water supplies or construct new or expanded water treatment facilities. Impact Analysis DSRSD would serve the proposed project with potable water and recycled water service.The proposed project would connect to existing potable and recycled water lines located within Dublin Boulevard;no off site infrastructure improvements would be required.Because the proposed project exceeds 500,000 square feet,West Yost Associates prepared a Water Supply Assessment to evaluate water supply impacts pursuant to state law.The findings of the Water Supply Assessment are summarized as follows.The full analysis of the project’s impact on water supply is set forth in the Water Supply Assessment,included as Appendix I to this EIR. Projected Water Demand Water Demand Assumptions Calculations of projected water demands forthe proposed project were based on the following overall water use assumptions: All interior water demands will be met using potable water supplies from DSRSD;and Exterior landscape irrigationwater demands will be met usingrecycled water supplies from DSRSD. According to information provided by the project applicant,recycled water may also be used for non potable indoor uses when compatible with health and safety needs and regulations,but this has not yet been decided.Therefore,to provide conservative estimates of potable water use,all interior water use for the proposed project is assumed to be from potable water supplies. Water Use Factor DSRSD has adopted standard unit water use factors for use in projectingpotable and recycled water demands at a planning level based on proposed land uses for future development projects. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1021 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx However,because of the unique nature of the proposed project development and availability of specific planning information onbuilding square footages,specific water use factors obtained from similar types of facilities have been used to estimate the water demand for the proposed project. The unit potable water demand factors assumed forthe proposed project range from 20 to 45 gallons per square foot per year equivalent to about 0.5 to 0.12 gallon per day per square foot gpd/sf))based on information providedby the project applicant.As a comparison,DSRSD’s current unit potable water demand factors for commercial/industrial land uses range from 0.6 gpd/sf for BusinessPark land uses to 0.14 gpd/sf for Commercial Retail land uses. Recycled water will be used for allexterior landscape irrigation,assuming 20 percent of the overall parcel acreage will be landscaped and irrigated.A unit recycled water use factor of 2.5 acre feetper acre per year af/ac/yr)has been assumed forthe proposed project,based on planned landscaping and plant types.As a comparison,DSRSD’s current unit recycled water demand factor for general landscape irrigation is 3.0 af/ac/yr. Calculation of Water Demand Table 3.10 6 provides a calculation of potable and recycled water demand.Potable water demand would be 112 af/yr and recycled water demand 29 af/yr. Table 3.10 6:Proposed project Potable and Recycled Water Demand Phase Building Area, acres Building Floor Area,sf PotableWater Use Recycled Water Use Water Use Factor, gallons/year/sf(a) Annual Potable Water Use,af/yr Water Use Factor, af/ac/yr(a) Annual Recycled Water Use, af/yr(b) 1A Medical Office Building 1 10 175,000 25 13.4 2.55.0 Cancer Center 45,000 44 6.1 1B Commercial 16 250,000 20 15.3 2.57.9 2 High Acuity Medical Services Building 22 400,000 45 55.2 2.5 11.0 Energy Center 50,000 0 0 3 Medical Office Building 2 11 280,000 25 21.5 2.55.5 Totals 59 1,200,000 111.5 29.4 Notes: a)Based on water use factors assumed by Balance Hydrologics for the proposed project. b)Assumes 20 percent of the parcel acreage will be irrigated using recycled water. Area acreages rounded to nearest integer Source:West Yost Associates,2015. Urban Water Management Plan Projections DSRSD’s 2010 UWMP was adopted by the DSRSD Board of Directors in June 2011.The DSRSD 2010 UWMP included existing and projected water demands for existing and projected future land uses within DSRSD’s service area. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR 3.1022 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx DSRSD’s 2010 UWMP assumed a future mixed use development for the project site,including commercial,industrial,and residentialland uses.Table 3.10 7 provides a summary of the potable and recycled water demand included in the DSRSD 2010UWMP forthe project site. Table 3.10 7:Project Site Potable and Recycled Water Demand Projections Contained in UrbanWaterManagement Plan(a) Land Use Designation Square Footage/Dwelling Units PotableWater Use Recycled Water Use Potable Water Use Factor Annual Potable Water Use, af/yr Water Use Factor,af/ac/yr Annual Recycled Water Use, af/yr(b) Commercial Office)455,0002sf 0.1 gpd/sf51 —0 Industrial Business Park)55,000 sf 0.1 gpd/sf 6 —0 Residential High Density)286 DU 115 gpd/DU 37 (b)6 Totals 94 —6 Notes: a)Potable Demand Spreadsheet providedby DSRSD Potable Demand 2013B with Corrected Camp Parks Water Demand Entries,March 2013). b)Based on Estimated Irrigation Area 25%)Irrigated with Recycled Water 80%)x Unit Demand48 in/yr)x PlantFactor 0.9). DU dwelling unit. Source:West Yost Associates,2015. Table 3.10 8 provides a summary of the currently projectedpotable and recycled water demands for the proposed project compared with those included in the DSRSD 2010UWMP. Table 3.10 8:Summary of Projected Potable and Recycled Water Demand for proposed project Source Document Land Use Assumptions Potable Water Demand, af/yr Recycled Water Demand, af/yr DSRSD 2010 UWMP June 2011)Based on Mixed Use Industrial,Commercial and Residential Development see Table 3.10 7) 94 6 Water Demand Estimates for the Kaiser DublinDevelopment Plan prepared by Balance Hydrologics 2015) Based on Mixed Use Commercial andMedical Office Development see Table 3.10 6) 112 29 Increase or Decrease from DSRSD 2010UWMP 18 23 Source:West Yost Associates,2015. In summary,the potable water demand calculated forthe proposed project 112 af/yr)is 18 af/yr higher than the potable water demandincluded in the DSRSD 2010 UWMP 94 af/yr)for the City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1023 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx proposed project site,and the recycled water demand calculated for the proposed project 29 af/yr) is 23 af/yr higher that the recycled water demand included in the DSRSD 2010UWMP 6 af/yr)for the proposed project site. However,as described later in this impact analysis,sufficient potable and recycled water supplies will be available to meet the projected water demands forthe proposed project and existing and planned development in the City because of changes in land uses and planned development within the City of Dublin that have occurred since 2007,and the implementation of recycled water projects in established parts of DSRSD’s servicearea,which results in a reduction of DSRSD’s ultimate potable water demand. Water Supply Reliability Water supply reliability is discussed in the following sections.Maximizing water supply resources and minimizing dependence on imported water are important strategic goals.DSRSD’s potable water supply comes solely from Zone 7,which depends on imported surface water for over 80 percent of its supply.To minimize demand for this imported water,DSRSD has implemented an extensive water conservation program and plans to maintain its efforts,including continuing to expand the use of recycled water within its servicearea. DSRSD water demandandsupply quantities discussed in this section are based on those presented in the DSRSD 2010UWMP.As described previously,future potable and recycled water demands are anticipated to be somewhat different than presented in the 2010UWMP.However,these differences do not impact the reliability of the potable and recycled water supplies available to DSRSD. Potable Water Supply Reliability Zone 7 Reliability Policy for Municipal Industrial Water Supplies In August 2004,Zone 7 adopted a reliability policy for its water retailers,including DSRSD,which guided the management of Zone 7’s municipal and industrial water supplies as well as its capital improvement program.Under that policy,Zone 7’s goal was to: Meet 100 percent of the water retailers’demands over the next 20 years through average, single dry,and multiple dry years;and Meet 75 percent of maximum dailymunicipal and industrial demand should any one of Zone 7’s major supply,production or transmission facilities experience an extended unplanned outage. During the preparation of the Zone 7 2010UWMP,Zone 7 was also preparing its Water Supply Evaluation which was completed in July 2011).As part ofthat effort,Zone 7 reviewed the applicability of its reliability policy and worked with its water retailers,including DSRSD,to develop revised level of service goals to provide Zone 7 with the flexibility to manage uncertainty in the Delta,to reasonably respond to prolonged facility outages,and to be consistent with industry standards. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR 3.1024 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx The revised reliability policy,supported by the water retailers,was adopted by the Zone 7 Board of Directors on October 17,2012,and includes the following level of service goals: Meet 85 percent of municipal and industrial water demands 99 percent of the time; Meet 100 percent of municipal and industrial water demands 90 percent of the time;and Meet at least 80percent of the maximum month demand during an extendedunplanned outage. This revised reliability policy does not change the amount of water supply available to the Zone 7 retailers underNormal,Single Dry,or Multiple Dry years.Rather,it provides Zone 7 with the additional flexibility and time necessary to evaluate,develop,and implement cost effective solutions necessary to allow Zone 7 to continue to provide a reliable,high qualitywater supply to its customers in the face of an uncertain water supply future.Changing the third goal to reflect a prolonged outage on the maximum month instead of the maximum day should allow Zone 7 to develop more cost effective solutions to major,prolonged outages,while also allowing time to communicate with and obtain aresponse from the retailers. Zone 7 Water Supply Reliability As part of its 2010UWMP,Zone 7 performed additional rigorous analysis,using a more conservative approach to evaluatesupply reliability.Zone 7staff developed a new risk assessment model that incorporates potential variations from the historical sequence of events.The new dynamic model, which uses Monte Carlo methods for incorporating uncertainty,yields more conservative results, indicating larger shortages by 2030,the time limit of Zone 7’s analysis. Zone 7staff compared projected water supplies during Normal,Single Dry,and Multiple Dry water years with its customers’demand scenarios,both without potential water conservation high water demand”)and with potential water conservation low water demand”)associated with the Water Conservation Act of 2009. Under Normal water years,Zone 7 does not anticipate any difficulty in meetingprojected water demands,with or without additional conservation measures,assuming Zone 7 can successfully implement planned programs and projects.Note that a portion of the water demand during a normal water year includes the storage of water supply for use during dry years.The maximum potential shortage—based on the high water demand scenario—couldbe as high as 10,500 af between 2020 and 2030 if Zone 7 cannot implement planned programs and projects. Under Single Dry years,Zone 7 does not expect shortages through 2030 with the implementation of planned programs and projects.The maximum potential shortage—based on the high water demand scenario—couldbe as high as 8,700 af between 2020 and 2030 if Zone 7 cannot implement planned programs and projects.The maximum potential shortage during Single Dry years is lower than that for normal water years because Zone 7 makesuse of its stored waterdistributed between the local groundwater basin and the bankingprograms in Kern County. Under Multiple Dry years,planned programs and projects have similarly been designed to prevent anyshortages.Zone 7’s analysis indicates that,without such programs and projects,shortages of up City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1025 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx to 36,000 af can be expected under a Multiple Dryyear scenario ending in 2030,based on the high water demand scenario. It should also be noted that even during the current drought conditions,which have caused severe water shortages throughout the State,Zone 7’s water supplies remain reliable.According to Zone 7’s April 2015 Annual Review of Sustainable Water Supply,Zone 7 can deliver 100 percent of requested water demands in 2015,and even assuming drought conditions are more severe next year,Zone 7 can deliver96percent of projected 2016 water demands. Zone 7 staff is in the process of amending its 2011 Water Supply Evaluation.The amendment is expected to becompleted in the summer of 2015.Zone 7 will also be preparing a 2015UWMP in late 2015/early 2016. DSRSD Water Supply Reliability Zone 7 is DSRSD’s sole potable water supplier.Although their current water supply contract term ends in 2024,the two agencies expect to renew the contract with substantially similar provisions. Zone 7 anticipates that its retailers will conform to the requirements of the Water Conservation Act of 2009.However,Zone 7 conducted itsreliability analysis using high water demand no conservation)and low water demand valley wide 20percent reduction by 2020)to develop arange for anticipated water shortage and plan forthe worst case scenario.Zone 7’s conservativeapproach indicates that it may have water shortages beginning as early as 2023 for a Multiple Dry year event. As discussed in the above section,Zone 7 is aggressively planning for water supply programs and projects to meet the water demands of its customers through buildout of adopted general plans. DSRSD plans to continue to reduce its potable water demands through conservation efforts and implementation of its recycled water program. In analyzing the reliability of DSRSD’s potable water supply,DSRSD calculated the percentage of possible water shortage if Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are implemented,and if they are not implemented.Without implementation,Zone 7’s customers will experience water supply shortages.All of Zone 7’s customers,including the water retailers in the Livermore Amador Valley, are assumed to proportionally share the impacts of the shortages.DSRSD’s potable water supply reliability for Normal,Single Dry,and Multiple Dry years areshown on Table 3.10 9,Table 3.10 10, and Table 3.10 11. In Ta ble 3.10 9,DSRSD’s potable water demand is compared with Zone 7’s water supply during a Normal year.If Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are implemented,DSRSD anticipates sufficient water supply for approved plannedprojects inits servicearea.However,as described in DSRSD’s 2010UWMP,if Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are not implemented,DSRSD anticipates shortage of approximately 3 percentstarting 2030.A slight increase in shortage is expected by 2035;however,the water shortage remains under 4 percent. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR 3.1026 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx Table 3.10 9:Water Supply and Demand Comparison Normal Year Category Acre Feet/Year 2015202020252030 2035 Potable Water Zone 7 PlannedProjects Programs Implemented Zone 7 Water Supply Totals(a)12,900 16,000 17,500 18,300 18,500 DSRSD DemandTotals 12,90016,00017,500 18,300 18,500 Difference 0000 0 Difference as of Supply 0%0%0%0%0% Difference as of Demand 0%0%0%0%0% Zone 7 PlannedProjects Programs NOT Implemented Zone 7 Water Supply Totals(a,b)12,900 16,000 17,500 17,711 17,857 DSRSD DemandTotals 12,90016,00017,500 18,300 18,500 Difference 000 589643 Difference as of Supply 0%0%0%3.32%3.60% Difference as of Demand 0%0%0%3.22%3.48% Recycled Water DSRSD Supply Totals(c)2,500 3,800 4,400 4,500 4,600 DSRSD DemandTotals 2,5003,8004,4004,500 4,600 Difference 0000 0 Difference as of Supply 0%0%0%0%0% Difference as of Demand 0%0%0%0%0% Notes: a)Includes DSRSD’s 645 af/yr GPQ pumped by Zone 7 and blended with Zone 7’s other water supply sources.Rounded up to nearest 100 af. b)Assumes that water supplyshortage is shared equally amongst water retailers supplied by Zone 7. c)Recycled water from DSRSD’s RWTF. Source:West Yost Associates,2015. In Table 3.10 10,DSRSD’s potablewater demand is compared with Zone 7’s water supply during a Single Dry year.In a Single Dry year,Zone 7 makes use of its stored waterdistributed between the local groundwater basin and the bankingprograms in Kern County.Overall Zone 7 water demands are lower for the year because water demand that is normally for groundwater storage banking is not included in the water demands in a Single Dry year.If Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are implemented,DSRSD anticipates sufficient water supply for approved planned projects in its service area.However,as described in DSRSD’s 2010UWMP,if Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are not implemented,DSRSD anticipates a shortage of approximatelyone percent starting 2035. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1027 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx Table 3.1010:Water Supply and Demand Comparison Single Dry Year Category Acre Feet/Year 20152020 2025 20302035 Potable Water Zone 7 PlannedProjects Programs Implemented Zone 7 Water Supply Totals(a)12,900 16,000 17,500 18,300 18,500 DSRSD DemandTotals 12,90016,00017,500 18,300 18,500 Difference 0000 0 Difference as of Supply 0%0%0%0%0% Difference as of Demand 0%0%0%0%0% Zone 7 PlannedProjects Programs NOT Implemented Zone 7 Water Supply Totals(a,b)12,900 16,000 17,500 18,128 18,326 DSRSD DemandTotals 12,90016,00017,500 18,300 18,500 Difference 000 172174 Difference as of Supply 0%0%0%1%0.95% Difference as of Demand 0%0%0%1%0.94% Recycled Water DSRSD Supply Totals(c)2,500 3,800 4,400 4,500 4,600 DSRSD DemandTotals 2,5003,8004,400 4,500 4,600 Difference 0000 0 Difference as of Supply 0%0%0%0%0% Difference as of Demand 0%0%0%0%0% Notes: a)Includes DSRSD’s 645 af/yr GPQ pumped by Zone 7 and blended with Zone 7’s other water supply sources.Rounded up to nearest 100 af. b)Assumes that water supplyshortage is shared equally amongst water retailers supplied by Zone 7. c)Recycled water from DSRSD’s RWTF. Source:West Yost Associates,2015. In Table 3.10 11,DSRSD’s potablewater demands are compared with Zone 7’s water supply during Multiple Dry year events.If Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are implemented,DSRSD anticipates sufficient water supply for approved planned projects in its servicearea.However,as described in DSRSD’s 2010UWMP,if Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are not implemented, water shortages may occur as follows: For a Multiple Dry year event that starts in 2025,DSRSD will receive 100 percent of its total potable demand in the first year,100 percent of its total potable demand in the second year,and 72 percent of its total potable water demand 28 percent water shortage)in the third year; City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR 3.1028 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx For a Multiple Dry year event that starts in 2030,DSRSD will receive 98percent of its total potable water demand 2 percent water shortage)in the first year,100 percent of its total potable demand in the second year,and 69 percent of its total potable water demand 31 percent water shortage)in the third year; For a Multiple Dry year event that starts in 2035,DSRSD will receive 98percent of its total potable water demand 2 percent water shortage)in the first year,100 percent of its total potable demand in the second year,and 69 percent of its total potable water demand 31 percent water shortage)in the third year. For the Multiple Dry year events shown above,the higher water supply availability during the second year of each multiple dry year scenario is primarily due to the occurrence of a wet year in the midst of the dry year sequence that was used in Zone 7’s water supply model.Zone 7 plans to implement programs andprojects to meet its customers’demands.However,if Zone 7 is unable to implement those programs and projects,DSRSD may have to implement its Water Shortage Contingency and Drought Plan,as described in its 2010UWMP. Table 3.1011:Water Supply and Demand Comparison Multiple Dry Year Category Acre Feet/Year 20152020202520302035 Potable Water Zone 7 PlannedProjects Programs Implemented Multiple Dry Year First Year Supply Zone 7 Water Supply Totals(a)12,900 16,000 17,500 18,300 18,500 DSRSD Demand Totals 12,90016,00017,50018,300 18,500 Difference 0000 0 Difference as of Supply 0%0%0%0%0% Difference as of Demand 0%0%0%0%0% Multiple Dry Year Second Year Supply Zone 7 Water Supply Totals(a)13,500 16,300 17,700 18,300 18,500 DSRSD Demand Totals 13,50016,30017,70018,300 18,500 Difference 0000 0 Difference as of Supply 0%0%0%0%0% Difference as of Demand 0%0%0%0%0% Multiple Dry Year Third Year Supply Zone 7 Water Supply Totals(a)14,800 16,900 18,000 18,400 18,500 DSRSD Demand Totals 14,80016,90018,00018,400 18,500 Difference 0000 0 Difference as of Supply 0%0%0%0%0% Difference as of Demand 0%0%0%0%0% City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1029 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx Table 3.1011 cont.):Water Supply and Demand Comparison Multiple Dry Year Category Acre Feet/Year 20152020202520302035 Zone 7 PlannedProjects Programs NOT Implemented Multiple Dry Year First Year Supply Zone 7 Water Supply Totals(a,b)12,900 16,000 17,500 17,994 18,133 DSRSD Demand Totals 12,90016,00017,500 18,300 18,500 Difference 000 306 367 Difference as of Supply 0%0%0%2%2% Difference as of Demand 0%0%0%2%2% Multiple Dry Year Second Year Supply Zone 7 Water Supply Totals(a,b)13,500 16,300 17,700 18,300 18,500 DSRSD Demand Totals 13,50016,30017,700 18,300 18,500 Difference 000 00 Difference as of Supply 0%0%0%0%0% Difference as of Demand 0%0%0%0%0% Multiple Dry Year Third Year Supply Zone 7 Water Supply Totals(a,b)14,800 16,900 12,800 12,620 12,676 DSRSD Demand Totals 14,80016,90018,000 18,400 18,500 Difference 00 5,120 5,780 5,824 Difference as of Supply 0%0%40%46%46% Difference as of Demand 0%0%28%31%31% Recycled Water Multiple Dry Year First Year Supply DSRSD Supply Totals(c)2,500 3,800 4,400 4,500 4,600 DSRSD Demand Totals 2,5003,8004,400 4,500 4,600 Difference 000 00 Difference as of Supply 0%0%0%0%0% Difference as of Demand 0%0%0%0%0% Multiple Dry Year Second Year Supply DSRSD Supply Totals(c)2,800 3,900 4,400 4,500 4,600 DSRSD Demand Totals 2,8003,9004,400 4,500 4,600 Difference 000 00 Difference as of Supply 0%0%0%0%0% Difference as of Demand 0%0%0%0%0% Multiple Dry Year Third Year Supply DSRSD Supply Totals(c)3,300 4,200 4,500 4,600 4,600 DSRSD Demand Totals 3,3004,2004,500 4,600 4,600 Difference 000 00 Difference as of Supply 0%0%0%0%0% Difference as of Demand 0%0%0%0%0% City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR 3.1030 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx Table 3.1011 cont.):Water Supply and Demand Comparison Multiple Dry Year Category Acre Feet/Year 20152020202520302035 Notes: a)Includes DSRSD’s 645 af/yr GPQ pumped by Zone 7 and blended with Zone 7’s other water supply sources.Rounded up to nearest 100 af. b)Assumes that water supplyshortage is shared equally amongst water retailers supplied by Zone 7. c)Recycled water from DSRSD’s RWTF. Source:West Yost Associates,2015. Recycled Water Supply Reliability Reliability of DSRSD’s recycled water supply in Normal,Single Dry and Multiple Dry years isalso shown on Table 3.109,Table 3.10 10,and Table 3.10 11.DSRSD does not anticipate significant challenges in itsability to provide recycled water to its existing and future customers. Water Shortage Contingency and Drought Plan DSRSD’s 2010UWMP includes a Water Shortage Contingency and Drought Plan that identifies actions the agency will undertake during a natural disaster,emergency event,or drought.Upon the declaration of a water shortage emergency by the DSRSD Board of Directors,the agency would implement regulations andrestrictions on the delivery and consumption of water,andpenalties for ordinance violations during a declared water shortage. Findings As described previously,the projected potablewater demands for development of the project site are included in DSRSD’s 2010UWMP although the potable water demand calculated forthe proposed project 112 af/yr)is 18af/yr higher than the potable water demand included in the DSRSD 2010UWMP(94 af/yr)for the proposed project site,and the recycled water demand calculated for the proposed project 29 af/yr)is 23 af/yr higher thatthe recycled water demand included in the DSRSD 2010UWMP 6 af/yr)forthe project site. However,sufficientpotable and recycled water supplies will be available to meet the projected water demands for the proposed project and existing and planned development in the City because of changes in land uses and planned development within the City of Dublin that have occurred since 2010,and the implementation of recycled water projects in established parts of DSRSD’s service area,which have resulted in a reduction of DSRSD’s ultimate potable water demand. Potable Water SupplySufficiency Zone 7 is DSRSD’s sole potable water supplierand Zone 7 is aggressively planning for water supply programs andprojects to meet the water demands of its customers through buildout of adopted General Plans.With Zone 7’s planned programs and projects implemented,DSRSD anticipates sufficient water supply for approved planned projects in its service area.However,as described in the WSA and in DSRSD’s 2010 UWMP15,if Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are not implemented,DSRSD anticipates: City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1031 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx Approximately 3 percent water supplyshortage starting 2030 during Normal years; Approximately 1 percent water supply shortage starting 2035 during a Single Dry year; For a Multiple Dry year event that starts in 2025,DSRSD will receive 100 percent of its total potable demand in thefirst year,100 percent of its total potable demand in the second year, and 72 percent of its total potable water demand28 percent water shortage)in the third year; For a Multiple Dry year event that starts in 2030,DSRSD will receive 98percent of its total potable water demand 2 percent water shortage)in the first year,100 percent of its total potable demand in the second year,and 69 percent of its total potable water demand 31 percent water shortage)in the third year; For a Multiple Dry year event that starts in 2035,DSRSD will receive 98percent of its total potable water demand 2 percent water shortage)in the first year,100 percent of its total potable demand in the second year,and 69 percent of its total potable water demand 31 percent water shortage)in the third year. For the Multiple Dry year events shown above,the higher water supply availability during the second year of each multiple dry year scenario is primarily due to the occurrence of a wet year in the midst of the dry year sequence that was used in Zone 7’s water supply model. Projected future potable water demand within DSRSD’s service areais projected to be less than what was projected in the 2010 UWMP because of changes in land uses andplanned development within the City of Dublin that have occurred since 2010,and the implementation of recycled water projects in established parts of DSRSD’s service area,which results in a reduction of DSRSD’s ultimate potable water demand.The DSRSD 2015 Water System Master Plan Update,currently being prepared, provides updated potable water demand projections for the DSRSD servicearea as follows: For 2020,the potable water demand is projected to be 13,690 af/yr 2,310 af/yr less than projected in the 2010UWMP);and For 2035,the potable water demand is now projected to be15,840 af/yr 2,660 af/yr less than projected in the 2010UWMP). A major reason for this reduced future potable water demand is the permanent conversion of existing potable water irrigating landscapes to recycled water and the planned expansion of the recycled water system both treatment and distribution facilities)to provide for additional recycled water use within DSRSD’s servicearea in thefuture. DSRSD plans to continue to manage and further reduce its potable water demands through additional conservation efforts andcontinued implemented of its recycled water program.The District’s 2010UWMP and the WSA are intended to be long term planning documents evaluating the future availability of water supplies to meet projected water demands under various hydrologic conditions.However,if supply shortages occur,DSRSD may have to invoke its Water Shortage Contingency and Drought Plan,described in its 2010 UWMP,as it has in response to thecurrent City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR 3.1032 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx drought conditions the District is currently in Stage 2 of its Water Shortage Contingency and Drought Plan). An example of suchmeasures occurred in 2015 in response to the ongoing drought conditions and Governor Edmund G.Brown’s April 2015 Executive Order B 2915,which among other actions directed the SWRCB to impose various restrictions to achievea statewide25 percent reduction in potableurban water use.In May 2015,the DSRSD Board of Directors adopted drought regulations to curtail system wide water usage by 16 percent compared with the same period in 2013 as originally directed by the SWRCB.It should be noted that DSRSD’s conservation tier was subsequently revised to 12percent.)The goal of DSRSD’s drought regulations is to reduce indoor water use by 5 percentand outdoor water use by 33 percent.DSRSD’s customers have responded to the water use restrictions.The District’s water customers have responded to the call for water conservation.In June 2015,DSRSD’s customers reduced water demands by 43.5 percent compared with June 2013. Therefore,pursuant to Water Code section 10910(c)(4),and based on the technical analyses described previouslyand the DSRSD 2010UWMP,DSRSD finds that the projectedpotable water demands for the proposed project can be met by DSRSD duringNormal,Single Dry,and Multiple Dry water years for a 20year projection with sufficient water supply for approved planned projects in its servicearea if Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are implemented.If Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are not implemented,the proposed project would be subject to the same water conservation measures and water use restrictions as DSRSD’s other existing potable water customers,as included in DSRSD’s Water Shortage Contingency and Drought Plan and water use regulations in DSRSD’s Code of Ordinances.With the implementation of the Plan and regulations, there is a reasonable likelihood that sufficient water supply will be available to meet the water demand of project and existing and planned development in the near and long term. Recycled Water SupplySufficiency Although the projected recycled water demand for the proposed project is slightly more than amounts included for the proposed project site in the DSRSD 2010UWMP,sufficient recycled water supplies are anticipated to be available to meet the projected water demands for the proposed project.Furthermore,DSRSD’s recycled water supply is reliable under Normal,Single Dry,and Multiple Dry water years. Because of the increased use of recycled water,which is permanently reducing potable water demand within DSRSD’s service area,projected future recycled water demand within the DSRSD service area is likely to behigher than was projected in the 2010UWMP.DSRSD is currently conducting arecycled water study in coordination with DERWA to evaluate future recycled water needs and opportunities within DSRSD’s service area and withinthe Tri Valley area in coordination with the cities of Pleasanton andLivermore. The current capacity of the DSRSD treatment facilities limits the current production of recycled water.In November 2014,DWR announcedan award of a 4 million grant to expand the San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program.The expansion of recycled water treatment and distribution facilities,which is in progress,will bring recycled water for landscape irrigation to the Santa Rita Jail and the Federal Correctional Institutionin central Dublin areas and west of Interstate 680 in Dublin. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1033 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx Also in 2014,the City of Pleasanton signed an agreement with DERWA that allows its treated wastewater to be used to produce recycled water.The agreement paves the way for a recycled water program in the City of Pleasanton and expansion of the Recycled Water Program water recycling plant to meet future needs within DSRSD and throughout the Tri Valley area. Therefore,pursuant to Water Code section 10910(c)(4),and based on the technical analyses described in the WSA and the DSRSD 2010UWMP,DSRSD finds thatthe projected recycled water demands for the proposed project can be met by DSRSD duringNormal,Single Dry,and Multiple Dry water years for a 20year projection. Conclusion The WSA concluded that DSRSD has adequate potable and recycled water supplies to serve the proposed project,as well as other existing and future users.Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Wastewater Impact PSU 5:The proposed project would not require expansion of existing or construction of new wastewater treatment facilities. Impact Analysis DSRSD would serve the proposed project with wastewater collection and treatment service. Table 3.10 12 summarizes the proposed project’s estimatedwastewater generation.As shown in the table,the proposed project is estimated to generate 89,988 gallons of effluent per day 0.09 million gallons per day mgd])and 32.85 mgd per year.This estimate is based on a standard industry assumption that wastewater represents 90percent of potable water use. Table 3.1012:WastewaterGeneration Estimate PotableWater Use Wastewater as a Percent of Potable Water Use WastewaterGeneration Daily Annual 36,495,312 gallons/year 112 acre feet/year) 90% 89,988 gallons 0.09 mgd) 32,845,780 gallons 32.85mgd) Notes: Potable water use obtained from Table 3.10 6 1 acre foot 325,851 gallons Source:FCS,2015. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR 3.1034 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx Project effluent would be conveyed to the Regional WastewaterTreatment Facility in Pleasanton, which has a treatment capacity of 17.0 mgdand currently treats an average of 10.5 mgd during dry weather and 10.9 mgd during wet weather.Thus,6.1 mgd to 6.5 mgd of treatment capacity are available for new development. The proposed project’s 0.09 mgd of daily effluent would represent 1.4 to 1.5percent of the available treatment capacity at the Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility.As such,the Regional WastewaterTreatment Facility would be expected to accept the proposed project’s increase in effluent without needing to expandexisting or construct new facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Storm Drainage Impact PSU 6:The proposed projects may create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Impact Analysis Runoff that occurs on the project site either ponds on site or sheet flows to existing storm drainage infrastructure located around the perimeter of the site for example,along Dublin Boulevard). Runoff that occurs on the project site either ponds on site or sheet flows to existing storm drainage infrastructure locatedaround the perimeter of the site along Dublin Boulevard. The western two thirds of the project site is located within the Dublin Ranch drainage area and would be served by the stormwater basin locatedadjacent to the southwestern portion of the project site.Discharges into this basin have been previously authorized by a Clean WaterAct Section 401 certification and would not require any further treatment.The eastern third of the project site is outside the Dublin Ranch drainagearea and would be discharged into the municipal storm drainage system.These flows would require treatment prior to off site discharge. The stormwater management plan for the Kaiser campus focuses on three strategies: 1. Surfaceswales priority)and underground stormdrainpiping as necessary)to convey runoff from the western portion of the site to the existing Dublin Ranch Water Quality Control Basin. 2. Water quality treatment by means of infiltration to meet C3 regulationsand the LEED V2009 SS6.2 Water Quality Credit for the eastern portion of the site,outside the Basin’s watershed. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1035 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx 3. Erosion andSedimentation Control utilizing optimal pre and postconstruction Best Management Practices BMPs)focused on long term waterquality treatment and pollution prevention. The proposed on site storm drainage system would consist of a network of street gutters,inlets, basins,and underground piping that would ultimately convey runoff to the municipal storm drainage system.In accordance with C.3requirements,peak runoff flows would bedetained during peak storm events and released at a rate no greater than the pre development peak runoff flows. The campus will also incorporatesite design and source control treatment measures,such as disconnecting and reducing impervious areas,creatingself retaining areas in larger landscape spaces,use landscaping as drainage features,stenciling storm draininlets,and covering trash storage areas. To ensure thatthe proposed project’s storm drainage system does not create downstream flooding problems,Mitigation Measure HYD 3 in Section 3.7,Hydrology and Water Quality is proposed requiring that all storm drainage infrastructure comply with the City of Dublin’s engineering and design standards.The implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure HYD 3. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Solid Waste Impact PSU 7:The proposed project would not generate substantialamounts of solid waste that may result in inadequate landfill capacity or conflict with statutes or regulations concerning solid waste. Impact Analysis This impact assesses the potential forthe proposed project to generatesubstantial amounts of solid waste that result in inadequate landfill capacity or conflict with statutes or regulations concerning solid waste. Construction Waste The proposed projectwould result in the construction of up to 1.2million square feet of medical centerand commercial.Using a non residential construction waste generationratepublished by the United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA),an estimate of the total construction debris generated by the proposed project is provided in Ta ble 3.10 13. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR 3.1036 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx Table 3.10 13:Construction Solid Waste Generation Activity Square Feet Waste Generation Rate Waste Generation tons cubic feet Non Residential Construction 1,200,000 3.89pounds/square foot 2,334 3,268 Notes: 1 ton=2,000pounds 1 ton 1.4 cubic yards Source:U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,1998;FCS,2015. Development of the proposed projectwould generate an estimated3,268cubic yards of construction debris.This waste volume represents less than 0.01 percent of the available capacity at the three landfills that serve Dublin.Therefore,short term construction impacts on landfill capacity would be less than significant. Operational Waste Table 3.10 14 summarizes the proposed project’s operational waste generation based on rates provided by Cal Recycle.As shown in the table,the proposed projectwould generate 4,704 cubic yards of solid waste on an annual basis. Table 3.1014:Annual Operational Waste Generation Activity Square Feet Waste Generation Rate Waste Generation Rate tons cubic yards Operational 1,200,000 4.8 pounds/square feet/year 2,880 4,032 Notes: 1 ton=2,000pounds 1 ton 1.4 cubic yards Source:California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery;FCS,2015. The proposed projectwould generate an estimated 4,032 cubic yards of operational solid waste on anannual basis.This waste volume represents less than 0.01 percent of the availablecapacity at the three landfills that serve Dublin.Moreover,the values shown in the tableadjustoperational solid waste generation to account for recycling and waste reduction activities that would serve to divert waste from the landfill.Therefore,long term operational impacts on landfill capacity would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1037 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\2 Screencheck DEIR\37660004 Sec03 10 PSU.docx Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Parks and Other Public Facilities Impact PSU 8:The proposed project would not result in the need to construct new or expanded park or other publicfacilities. Impact Analysis The proposed projectwould develop 1.2 million square feet of medical campus and commercial uses on the project site.The proposed projectwouldattract visitors,shoppers and employees to the site that may use local park facilities.However,the Kaiser Medical Campus site plan incorporates a generous amount of open space and passive recreational amenities for use by employees and visitors.Because the medical campus and future commercial uses are non residential in nature,they would not create a permanent populationon site or the need for additional parks or recreational facilitiesbeyond that which already exists or is planned for)in the community.Furthermore,at the time of Final Map and/or Building Permit issuance,the payment of Public Facility Impact Fees will contribute to funding future park and recreation facility improvements,therefore ensuring that the impact from the project remains less than significant. Maintenance of public facilities would continue to beprovided by the City of Dublin with less than significant impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project.In accordance with the City’s Impact Fee Program,the Project Developer will be required to pay Public Facility Impact Fees to fund new facilities,as necessary,and all new public facilities will be required to be designed to meet City of Dublin standards. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.11 1 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx 3.11 Transportation This section describes the existing transportation setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area.Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information contained in the Transportation Assessment,prepared by Fehr Peers and included in this EIR as Appendix J. 3.11.1 Environmental Setting Roadway Network The project area is located north of Interstate 580 I 580)between the Fallon Road and Tassajara Road interchanges.Access to the campus would be provided from Dublin Boulevard,connecting to both Fallon Road and Tassajara Road.Roadways in the study area are described as follows and shown on Exhibit 3.111. Interstate 580 I 580 is part of the interstate freeway system and extends in an east/west direction,from San Rafael in the west to Tracy in the east.In the vicinity of Dublin,I 580 forms the southern city boundary with four to five lanes in each direction.A high occupancy vehicle HOV)lane exists in the eastbound direction from Hacienda Drive to the base of the Altamont Pass to the east of Livermore. I 580 is most directly accessible to the project via the Fallon Road and Tassajara Road interchanges. I 580 isa designated route of regional significance in the Tri Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. Express lanes are scheduled to open on I 580 in early 2016.In the westbound direction,one express lane will be provided between Greenville Road to west of the I 580/I 680 interchange.In the eastbound direction,two express lanes will be provided between Hacienda Drive and Greenville Road.Carpools are allowed to use the lanes for free,while solo driversareable to use by paying a toll via a FasTrak toll tag. Interstate 680 I 680 is a north/south designated scenic highway that is part of the interstate freeway system connecting SanJose to I 80 near Fairfield.This facility traverses the City of Dublin with an interchange at I 580 in western Dublin,as well as on and off ramps nearDublin Boulevard.South of I 580 it is a six lane freeway and north of I 580,it generallyprovides eight lanes,including HOV lanes.I 680 is a designated route of regional significance in the Tri Valley Action Plan. Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard is an east west designated principal arterial roadway that extends from west of San Ramon Road to its current terminus at Fallon Road.It is generally a four to six lane facility with a landscaped median.No onstreet parking is permitted on this facility.Dublin Boulevard is a designated route of regional significance.Bicycle lanes and sidewalks are provided on portions of Dublin Boulevard. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.11 2 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Amador PlazaRoad Amador Plaza Road is a north south major collector street located in Downtown Dublin,west ofI 680,connecting Dublin Boulevard with southbound I 680.It generally provides onetravel lane in each direction with additional capacity at intersections to accommodate turning movements.On street parking is allowed on portions of this roadway.Bicycle lanes are not provided on this roadway;sidewalks are provided along Amador Plaza Road. Village Parkway Village Parkway is a north south minor arterial located in Downtown Dublin,east ofI 680,providing access to an I 680 northbound on ramp south of Dublin Boulevard.It provides one travel lane in each direction south of Dublin Boulevard and two lanes in each direction north of Dublin Boulevard with a landscaped median.On street parking is allowed on portions of this roadway.Bicycle lanes are provided on Village Parkway north of Amador Valley Boulevard;sidewalks are provided along Village Parkway. Dougherty Road Dougherty Road is a north south principal arterial roadway and a designated route of regional significance.The roadway continues south of I 580 into Pleasanton as Hopyard Road and connects to Crow Canyon Road in San Ramon to thenorth.Dougherty Road is generally a four to six lane facility,with additional capacity at intersections to accommodate high volumes of turning vehicles to/from I 580.On street parking is not generally provided along Dougherty Road.A Class I bicycle path that runs fromthe Iron Horse Regional Trail at the intersection of Scarlett Drive north to Old Ranch Drive in San Ramon parallels Dougherty Road.Sidewalks are provided along portions of the roadway. Scarlett Drive Scarlett Drive is a northwest southeast majororiented collector thatwill ultimately connect Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard.Currently Scarlett Drive is discontinuous between Dublin Boulevard and Houston Place.It isa designated residential collector roadway with onstreet parking generally permitted.ScarlettDrive parallels the Iron Horse Trail regional trail and also provides bicycle lanes along a portion of the roadway in addition to somesidewalk facilities. Hacienda Drive Hacienda Drive is a north south roadway that extends from W.Las Positas Boulevard in Pleasanton to Gleason Drive in Dublin,with a full interchange at I 580.From West Las Positas Road to Dublin Boulevard,Hacienda Drive is a designated principal arterial roadway that generally provides three travel lanes in each direction with additional capacity at intersections to accommodate high volumes of turning vehicles.North of Dublin Boulevard,it is a designated minor arterial withtwo to four travel lanes in each direction,with alandscaped median.On street parking is typically not allowed. Sidewalks are provided along Hacienda Drivealong with bicycle lanes from north of the I 580 interchange to Gleason Drive. Source: Fehr and Peers, 2015. 37660004 • 09/2015 | 3.11-1_site_vicinity.cdr Exhibit 3.11-1 ProjectSite Vicinity CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.11 5 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Tassajara Road Tassajara Road is a north south principal arterial roadway that extends northfrom I 580 into San Ramon.South ofI 580,Tassajara Road continues as Santa Rita Road,a four to six lane arterialin Pleasanton that connects I 580 with Downtown Pleasanton.Tassajara Road is a four to six lane facility through Dublin with added capacity at intersections.Bicycle lanes are provided from Dublin Boulevard to north of N.Dublin Ranch Drive,where the roadway transitions to provide two travel lanes.Sidewalks are provided adjacent to the developed areas along Tassajara Road.On street parking is not permitted.Both Tassajara Road and Santa Rita Road are routes of regional significance. Fallon Road Fallon Road isa north south minor arterial roadway that connects I 580 to Tassajara Road.It currently provides two travel lanes in each direction between I 580and Central Parkway;this segment is ultimately planned to provide three lanes in each direction.This roadway is being upgraded as development occurs on parcels fronting the roadway,and will ultimately provide sidewalks and bicycle facilities along its length.Fallon Road is a designated route of regional significance. Gleason Drive Gleason Drive is an east west minor arterial roadway approximately half a mile north of Dublin Boulevard that connects Arnold Road in the west to Fallon Road in the east.It generally provides two travel lanes in each direction with alandscaped median,bicycle lanes and sidewalks along portions of the roadway that have fronting development. CentralParkway Central Parkway is an east west minor arterial between Gleason Drive and Dublin Boulevard.West of Hacienda Drive,it isa local street.It generally provides onetravel lane in each direction with a landscaped median,bicycle lanes and sidewalks along portions of the roadway that have fronting development.On street parking is allowed on some portions of the roadway. Brannigan Street Brannigan Street is a north south two lane major collector roadway that provides access to the neighborhood northwest of the project site.Along the developed sides of the street,onstreet parking and sidewalks are provided. Keegan Street Keegan Street is a north south major collector roadway that provides access to the neighborhood north of the project site.Along the developed sides of the street,on street parking and sidewalks are provided.A southern extension of this roadway would provide access to the project site. Lockhart Street Lockhart Street isa north south major collector roadway that provides access to the neighborhood north of the project site.Along the developed sides of the street,on street parking and sidewalks are provided.A southern extension of this roadway would provide access to the project site. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.11 6 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx El Charro Road El Charro Road is a four lane minor arterial roadway in Pleasanton between Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard toI 580,where it continues northinto Dublin as Fallon Road.South of Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard,El Charro Road continues south as two lane unimproved no curb, gutter or sidewalk)roadway providing access to existing industrial and quarry uses.As part of the development of the East Pleasanton Specific Plan area,El Charro Road would beupgraded and extended connecting I 580and Stanley Boulevard as a four lane facility two lanes in each direction) with pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Stoneridge Drive Stoneridge Drive is generally a four to six lane minor arterial in Pleasanton that extends from Foothill Road,west ofI 680,to El Charro Road.An extension of this roadway was completed in November 2013,connecting Pleasanton to Livermore at El Charro Road,and continuing into Livermore as West Jack London Boulevard.The roadway is temporarily narrowed across the Arroyo Mocho to provideonetravel lane in each direction.Bicycle lanes and sidewalks are provided on Stoneridge Drive.Parking is prohibited along the roadway.Stoneridge Drive is a route of regional significance. West Jack London Boulevard West Jack LondonBoulevard is the continuation of Stoneridge Drive into Livermore,extending to Isabel Avenue and terminating at Murrieta Boulevard.West Jack London Boulevard isa designated minor arterial roadway through Livermoreand isa route of regional significance.It provides one to two travel lanes in each direction with turn pockets at intersections.Bicycle lanes and sidewalks are provided along portions of the roadway. Isabel Avenue Isabel Avenue StateRoute 84)is a north southprincipal arterial that provides a connection between I 580and I 680.Isabel Avenueis a route of regional significance.In the study area,it provides three travel lanes in each direction with additional capacity at intersections.Limited bicycle and pedestrian facilities are provided along this roadway. StudyFacilities Projectimpacts on the study area roadwayfacilities were identified by measuring the effect project traffic would have on intersections in the site vicinity during the morning7:00 to 9:00 a.m.)and evening 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.)peak periods when commute traffic is typically the highestand the project is expected to generate the most vehicular traffic.The studyintersections were selected in consultation with respective jurisdiction staff based on a review of the project location,the amount of traffic that could be added to the intersections in the site vicinity,and considered comments received on the Notice of Preparation NOP)for the environmentaldocument.These intersections are shown on Exhibit3.11 1 and listed below,with the responsible jurisdiction shown in parentheses: 1. Amador Plaza Road/Dublin BoulevardCity of Dublin) 2. Village Parkway/Dublin BoulevardCity of Dublin) 3. Amador Plaza Road/I 680Southbound Ramps City of Dublin/Caltrans) 4. Village Parkway/I 680 Northbound On Ramp City of Dublin/Caltrans) City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.11 7 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx 5. Dougherty Road/Dublin BoulevardCity of Dublin) 6. Scarlett Drive/Dublin BoulevardCity of Dublin) 7. Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin) 8. Hacienda Drive/I 580Westbound Ramps City of Pleasanton/Caltrans) 9. Hacienda Drive/I 580 Eastbound Ramps City of Pleasanton/Caltrans) 10. Tassajara Road/Fallon Road City of Dublin) 11. Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive City of Dublin) 12. Tassajara Road/Central Parkway City of Dublin) 13. Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin) 14. Tassajara Road and Santa Rita Road/I 580 Westbound Ramps City of Pleasanton/Caltrans) 15. Santa Rita Road/I 580 Eastbound Ramps City of Pleasanton/Caltrans) 16. Brannigan Street/Dublin BoulevardCity of Dublin) 17. Future Project Driveway/Dublin BoulevardCity of Dublin) 18. Keegan Street/Dublin BoulevardCity of Dublin) 19. Lockhart Street/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin) 20. Future Project Driveway/Dublin BoulevardCity of Dublin) 21. Fallon Road/Central Parkway City of Dublin) 22. Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin) 23. Fallon Road/Fallon Gateway City of Dublin) 24. El Charro Road/I 580 Westbound Ramps City of Pleasanton/Caltrans) 25. El Charro Road/I 580 Eastbound Ramps City of Pleasanton/Caltrans) 26. El Charro Road/Stoneridge Drive City of Pleasanton) 27. Airway Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway City of Livermore) 28. Airway Boulevard/I 580 Westbound Ramps City of Livermore/Caltrans) 29. Airway Boulevard/I 580 Eastbound Off Ramp Kitty Hawk Road City of Livermore/Caltrans) 30. Isabel Avenue/I 580 Westbound Ramps City of Livermore/Caltrans) 31. Isabel Avenue/I 580 Eastbound Ramps City of Livermore/Caltrans) 32. Isabel Avenue/Jack London Boulevard City of Livermore/Caltrans) 33. Stanley Boulevard/E.Stanley BoulevardCity of Livermore) 34. Isabel Avenue/Stanley BoulevardCity of Livermore/Caltrans) 35. Dublin Boulevard/Eastern Project Driveway with project conditions only)City of Dublin) Freeway mainline and ramp/merge diverge operations were also assessed at the following locations: I 580 from Hacienda Drive to Dougherty Road I 580 from Tassajara Road to Hacienda Drive I 580 from Fallon Road to Tassajara Road I 580 from Airway Boulevard to Fallon Road Roadway segment analysis of the AlamedaCounty Transportation Commission Alameda CTC) Metropolitan Transportation SystemMTS)designated facilities was also conducted. Level of Service The operations of roadway facilitiesare described with the term level of service”LOS).LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on factors such as speed,travel time,delay,and freedom City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.11 8 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx to maneuver.Six LOS are defined ranging from LOS A free flow conditions)to LOS F over capacity conditions).LOSE corresponds to operations at capacity”When volumes exceed capacity,stop and go conditionsresult and operations are designated as LOS F.The City of Dublin generally strives to maintain LOS D or better for peak hour intersection operations.However,the Citymay permit LOSE or F for vehicles if improvements to accommodate vehicle travel are contrary to other goals and policies of the City,such as the Complete Streets policy.Different methods are used to assess signalized and unsignalized stop controlled)intersections. Signalized Intersections Operations of signalized intersections were evaluated using the method from Chapter 16 of the Transportation Research Board’s 2000 Highway Capacity Manualand Chapter 18 of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual HCM),which uses various intersection characteristics such as traffic volumes,lane geometry,and signal phasing)to estimate the average control delayexperienced by motorists traveling through an intersection.Control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration,acceleration,stopping,and moving up in the queue.Table 3.111 summarizes the relationship between average delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized intersections.This method evaluates each intersection in isolation and the effects of vehicle queue spillback are not considered in the analysis results. Table 3.11 1:Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria Level of Service Description Delay in Seconds A Progressionis extremely favorable and most vehicles arriveduring the green phase.Most vehicles do not stop at all.Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. 10.0 B Progressionis good,cycle lengthsare short,orboth.More vehicles stop than with LOS A,causing higher levels of average delay. 10.0 to 20.0 C Higher congestionmay result from fair progression,longer cycle lengths,or both.Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level,though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. 20.0 to 35.0 D The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable.Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression,long cycle lengths, or high volume to capacity V/C)ratios.Many vehicles stop,and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines.Individual cycle failures are noticeable. 35.0 to 55.0 E This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression,long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.Individual cycle failuresare frequent occurrences. 55.0 to 80.0 F This level is consideredunacceptable with oversaturation,which is when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection.This levelmay also occur at high V/C ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures.Poorprogression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to such delay levels. 80.0 Source:Fehr Peers,2015. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.11 9 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Unsignalized Intersections Operations at unsignalized intersections were evaluated using the method from 2000 HCM and Chapters 19 and 20 of the 2010 HCM.With this method,operations are defined by the average control delay per vehiclemeasured in seconds)for each movement that mustyield the right of way. At two way or side street controlled intersections,the control delay and LOS)is calculated for each controlled movement,the leftturn movement from the major street,and the entire intersection. For controlled approaches composed of asingle lane,the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane.The delays forthe entire intersection and forthe movement or approach with the highest delay are reported.Table 3.11 2 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. Table 3.11 2:Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria Level of Service Description Delay in Seconds A Little or no delays <10.0 B Short traffic delays >10.0 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays >15.0 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays >25.0 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays >35.0 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded 50.0 Source:Fehr Peers,2015. Freeway Mainline Analysis For the freeway mainline segments,LOS was calculated using the method described in Chapter 11 of the 2010 HCM.This method takes into consideration peak hour traffic volumes,free flow speeds, percentage of heavy vehicles,and number of travel lanes.These factorsare used to determine the vehicle density,measured in passenger cars per mileper lane.Table 3.11 3 summarizes the relationship between vehicle density and LOS for mainline freeway segments. Table 3.11 3:Freeway Mainline Level of Service Criteria Level of Service Description Density Range pc/mi/ln)1 A Free flow operations in which vehicles arerelatively unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within thetraffic stream.Effects of incidents are easily absorbed. 0 to 11 B Relative free flow operations in which vehicle maneuvers within thetraffic stream are slightly restricted.Effects of minor incidents are easily absorbed. 11 to 18 C Travel is stillat relative free flow speeds,but freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is noticeably restricted.Minor incidentsmay be absorbed,but local deterioration in service will besubstantial.Queues begin to form behind significant blockages. 18 to 26 City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1110 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Table 3.11 3 cont.):Freeway Mainline Level of Service Criteria Level of Service Description Density Range pc/mi/ln)1 D Speeds begin to decline slightly and flows anddensities begin to increase more quickly.Freedom to maneuver is noticeably limited.Minor incidents can be expected to createqueuing as thetraffic stream has little space to absorb disruptions. 26 to 35 E Operation at capacity.Vehicles are closely spaced with little room to maneuver.Any disruption in thetraffic stream can establish a disruption wave that propagates throughout the upstream traffic flow.Any incident can be expected to produce aserious disruption in traffic flow andextensive queuing. 35 to 45 F Breakdown in vehicle flow.45 Note: 1.pc/mi/ln passenger cars per mile per lane,Source:Highway Capacity Manual Transportation Research Board,2000). Source:Fehr Peers,2015. Freeway Interchange Merge/Diverge Freeway ramp merging and diverging operations were analyzed using the methods described in Chapter 13 of the 2010 HCM.This method correlates the LOS ratings to projectedcomputed) vehicle densities passenger cars per mile per lane).Table 3.114 summarizes the relationship between vehicular density and LOS for freeway ramps. Table 3.11 4:FreewayRamp Merge/Diverge Level of Service Criteria LOS Density1 A 10 B 10.1 to 20.0 C 20.1 to 28.0 D 28.1 to 35.0 E 35.1 F Demand Exceeds Capacity Note: 1 Density is presented in passenger cars permileper lanepc/mi/ln). Source:Fehr Peers,2015. Existing Traffic Conditions Traffic Counts Weekday morning 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.)and evening 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.)peak period intersection turning movement counts were conducted at the study intersections on Exhibit 3.11 1 in January and February 2015,including separate counts of trucks,pedestrians and bicyclists.For the study City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1111 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx intersections,the single hour with the highest traffic volumes during the count periods was identified.The AM peak hour in the study areais generally from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m.and the PM peak hour is generally from 4:45 to 5:45 p.m.The peak hour volumesare presented on Exhibit 3.11 2 along with the existing lane configuration and traffic control.Existing peak hour bicycle and pedestrian activity is shown on Exhibit 3.113. Intersection Level of Service Existing operationswere evaluated using the method described in Chapter 1 of the HCM forthe weekday AM andPM peak hours at the study intersections,based on the volumesand lane configurationsshown on Exhibit 3.112.The results are summarized in Table 3.115.Observed peak hour factors were used at all intersections for the existing analysis.Truck,pedestrian and bicycle activity was factored into the analysis. As shown,study intersections generally operate at overall acceptable service levels in accordance with benchmarks set by the City of Dublin andadjacent communities during both the morning and eveningpeak hours.Thereis periodic vehicle queue spillback and delays greater than shown in Table 3.11 5 for some movements.Additionally,operations of the intersections along Dublin Boulevard are worse than shown when non recurring congestion occurs on I 580and some traveler divert from the freeway system to the arterial roadway network.The delay and associated LOS presented in Table 3.115 are based on the HCM 2000 method. Table 3.11 5:Existing Conditions Peak HourIntersection Levels of Service No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Existing Conditions Delay2,3 LOS3 1 Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 39 49 D D 2 VillageParkway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 31 40 C D 3 Amador Plaza Road/I 680 Southbound Ramps Signal AM PM 9 11 A B 4 VillageParkway/I 680 Northbound On Ramp Unsignalized AM PM 15) 13) A A) A A) 5 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 40 46 D D 6 Scarlett Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 8 9 A A 7 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 41 41 D D 8 Hacienda Drive/I 580 Westbound Ramps Signal AM PM 6 6 A A 9 Hacienda Drive/I 580 Eastbound Ramps Signal AM PM 11 11 B B City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1112 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Table 3.11 5 cont.):Existing Conditions Peak HourIntersection Levels of Service No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Existing Conditions Delay2,3 LOS3 10 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Signal AM PM 21 22 C C 11 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal AM PM 28 23 C C 12 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal AM PM 28 18 C B 13 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 39 42 D D 14 Tassajara Road and Santa Rita Road/I 580 Westbound Ramps Signal AM PM 7 8 A A 15 Santa Rita Road/I 580 Eastbound Ramps Signal AM PM 30 35 C C 16 Brannigan Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 14 13 B B 17 Carnmore Place/Future Project Driveway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 4 3 A A 18 Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 11 9 B A 19 Lockhart Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 9 7 A A 20 Fallon Gateway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 4 9 A A 21 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal AM PM 13 11 B B 22 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 19 14 B B 23 Fallon Road/Fallon Gateway Signal AM PM 5 11 A B 24 El Charro Road/I 580 Westbound Ramps Signal AM PM 9 89 A A 25 El Charro Road/I 580 Eastbound Ramps Signal AM PM 8 8 A A 26 El Charro Road/StoneridgeDrive Signal AM PM 46 40 D D 27 Airway Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway Signal AM PM 13 14 B B City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1113 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Table 3.11 5 cont.):Existing Conditions Peak HourIntersection Levels of Service No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Existing Conditions Delay2,3 LOS3 28 Airway Boulevard/I 580 Westbound Ramps Signal AM PM 4 5 A A 29 Airway Boulevard/I 580 Eastbound Off Ramp Kitty Hawk Road Signal AM PM 29 25 C C 30 Isabel Avenue/I 580 Westbound Ramps Signal AM PM 9 7 A A 31 Isabel Avenue/I 580 Eastbound Ramps Signal AM PM 11 9 B A 32 Isabel Avenue/Jack London Boulevard Signal AM PM 49 36 D D 33 Stanley Boulevard/E.Stanley Boulevard Signal AM PM 16 17 B B 34 Isabel Avenue/Stanley Boulevard Signal AM PM 13 10 B B Notes: 1 SSSC side street stop controlled intersection;Signal signalized intersection 2 Average intersection delaycalculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. 3 For SSSC intersections,average delay or LOS is listed first,followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses. Source:Fehr Peers,2015. Results of the intersection operations analysis based on the HCM 2010 method are presented in Table 3.11 6 for the intersections on designated routes of regional significance as defined in the Tri Valley Action Plan.Detailed LOS output provided in Appendix C.Based on the HCM 2010 method, all TVTC studyintersections operate at LOS E or better in both peak hours. Table 3.11 6:TVTC Designated Intersections Existing Conditions Peak HourIntersection Levels of Service No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Existing Conditions Delay2,3 LOS3 1 Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 38 44 D D 2 Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 52 36 D D 5 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 42 50 D D 6 ScarlettDrive/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 21 26 C C City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1114 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Table 3.11 6 cont.):TVTC Designated Intersections Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Existing Conditions Delay2,3 LOS3 7 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 40 37 D D 10 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Signal AM PM 18 18 B B 11 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal AM PM 26 20 C B 12 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal AM PM 25 16 C B 13 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 40 44 D D 14 Tassajara Road and Santa Rita Road/I 580 Westbound Ramps Signal AM PM 8 9 A A 15 Santa Rita Road/I 580 Eastbound Ramps Signal AM PM 13 23 B C 16 Brannigan Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 9 10 A A 17 Carnmore Place/Future Project Driveway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 4 3 A A 18 Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 11 8 B A 19 Lockhart Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 8 5 A A 20 Fallon Gateway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 4 7 A A 21 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal AM PM 10 8 A A 22 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 21 12 C B 23 Fallon Road/Fallon Gateway Signal AM PM 4 10 A A 24 El Charro Road/I 580 Westbound Ramps Signal AM PM 12 11 B B 25 El Charro Road/I 580 Eastbound Ramps Signal AM PM 8 9 A A 26 El Charro Road/Stoneridge Drive Signal AM PM 52 52 D D City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1115 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Table 3.11 6 cont.):TVTC Designated Intersections Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Existing Conditions Delay2,3 LOS3 30 Isabel Avenue/I 580 Westbound Ramps Signal AM PM 10 9 A A 31 Isabel Avenue/I 580 Eastbound Ramps Signal AM PM 16 16 A B 32 Isabel Avenue/Jack London Boulevard Signal AM PM 50 36 D D 33 Stanley Boulevard/E.Stanley Boulevard Signal AM PM 14 13 B B 34 Isabel Avenue/Stanley Boulevard Signal AM PM 10 8 A A Notes: 1 SSSC side street stop controlled intersection;Signal signalized intersection 2 Average intersection delaycalculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. 3 For SSSC intersections,average delay or LOS is listed first,followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses. Source:Fehr Peers,2015. Vehicle Queuing Field observations confirmed the calculated LOS along with the extent of existingvehiclequeues. Vehicle queues aregenerally contained withinthe existing vehicle storage.Vehicle queues are generally contained within the existing vehicle storage;a summary of the existing 95th percentile vehicle queue results at the study intersections is provided in Appendix J.Intersections where left turn vehicle queues may periodically exceed the availablestorage include: Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Santa Rita Road/I 580 Eastbound Ramps Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal Warrants Peak hour traffic signal warrants were reviewed at the unsignalized study intersection of Village Parkway/I 680 northbound on ramp.Peak hour warrants1 are not satisfied based on existing traffic volumes. 1 Unsignalized intersection warrant analysis is intended to examine the general correlationbetween existing conditions and the need to install new traffic signals.Existing peak hour volumes are compared against a subset of the standard traffic signal warrants City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1116 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Public Transit Transit service in the areais provided by Wheels,The County Connection,Bay Area Rapid Transit BART),and Altamont Commuter Express ACE).Transit routes that serve the project site are shown on Exhibit 3.114. Wheels The Livermore Amador ValleyTransit Authority LAVTA)operates Wheels,”a fixed route and paratransit service in the cities of Dublin,Pleasanton,andLivermore,andnearby parts of unincorporated Alameda County.Wheels buses connect major destinations within the cities of Dublin,Pleasanton,and Livermore,including Downtown areas,employment centers,and transit hubs,including BART and ACE stations.Wheels busschedules are also coordinated with ACE and BART trains during peak commute hours.East Dublin is currently served directly by Routes 12 and 30 R).Bus stops are provided along Dublin Boulevard at Keegan Street.Transit amenities are provided at the Keegan Streeteastboundand westbound stops,including shelters,seating,and real time arrival displays.The buses used on the routes below havea seating capacity of approximately 40 passengers,with standing room available for an additional 20 passengers. Route 12 connects the Downtown Livermore ACE station to the east Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station via Las Positas College andDublin Boulevard,with service every 30 minutes during peak periods and hourly service at other times.It operates seven daysa week.During fiscal year 2014,average weekday boardings on the route were approximately 500,with many trips starting and ending at Las Positas College. Route 30 or R)service connects the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station,as well as the Downtown Livermore Transit Center and Lawrence Livermore Labs.It has a designated stop on Dublin Boulevard at Keegan Street.Service is provided on 15 minute headways on weekdays between 5:00 a.m.and 8:00 p.m.No weekendservice is provided on this route.It providesskipstop somebusstops that are served by other lines are not served by this route in order to keep up speed).During fiscal year 2014,the route averaged about 1,450 passengers a day. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority CentralContra Costa Transit Authority operates the County Connection”bus service that connects destinations in Contra Costa County to the Tri Valley area,including service from the Dublin/ Pleasanton BART station to the San Ramon Transit Center and Bishop Ranch Business Park.Thereis also a route that connects the Walnut Creek BART station to the Downtown Pleasanton ACE station. recommended in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices MUTCD)and associated state guidelines.This analysis should not serve as the only basis for deciding whether and when to install a signal.To reach such a decision,the full set of warrants should be investigated based on field measured traffic data and a thorough study of traffic and roadway conditions by an experienced engineer.Furthermore,the decision to install a signal should not be based solely on the warrants because the installation of signals can lead to certain types of collisions.The responsible state or local agency shouldundertake regular monitoring of actual traffic conditions andaccident data and conduct a timely re evaluation of the full set of warrants in order to prioritize andprogram intersections for signalization. Source: Fehr and Peers, 2015. 37660004 • 09/2015 | 3.11-2_existing_conditions.cdr Exhibit 3.11-2 PeakHour TrafficVolumes, IntersectionControls and LaneConfigurations - Existing (2015) Conditions CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Source: Fehr and Peers, 2015. 37660004 • 09/2015 | 3.11-3_existing_bike.cdr Exhibit 3.11-3 ExistingPeakHour Bicycle andPedestrian Volumes CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Source: Fehr and Peers, 2015. 37660004 • 09/2015 | 3.11-4_existing_transit.cdr Exhibit 3.11-4 Existing Transit Facilities CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1123 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Bay Area RapidTransit The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District BART)providesregional transportation connections to much of the Bay Area and the Dublin/Pleasanton line provides direct access to San Francisco,with several stops in Oakland and San Leandro where connections may be made to other lines.The closest BART station is the Dublin/Pleasanton Station located approximately2 miles west of the project site.The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station isalso locatedapproximately 4 miles from the project site.BART train frequency ranges between 15 and 20 minutes from approximately 5:00 a.m.to 12:00 a.m.Based on 2013 data from BART,approximately 6,800 passengers per day enter and exit the BART system at the Dublin/Pleasanton station,and approximately 3,200 passengers enter and exit the BART system at the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. BART is in the process of preparing a project levelEnvironmental Impact Report for a proposed 4.8 mile extension of BART line from the Dublin/Pleasanton Station within the I 580 freewaymedian to a newstation in the vicinity of the I 580/IsabelAvenue interchange.As part of the extension project, increased bus transit connections would be provided in addition to a potential new parking facilityat between Vasco Road and Greenville Road.For the purposes of developing future forecasts,it was assumed that the BART extension to Livermore would be completed by 2040. Altamont Commuter Express The Altamont Commuter Express ACE)operates weekday train service between Stockton and San Jose with Tri Valley stops in Pleasanton andLivermore.During the morningcommute period,only westbound service from San Joaquin County to SanJose is provided,whileonly eastbound service is provided in the afternoon/evening commute period.There are four morning trains through Pleasanton between 5:33 a.m.and 8:18 a.m.,and four evening trains between 4:28 p.m.and 7:31 p.m.Travel timefrom Stockton to Pleasanton is approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes,while travel timefrom the Tri Valley to SanJose is approximately 1 hour.Wheels provides shuttle services between the ACE stations and major employment/residential areas in Pleasanton andLivermore. ACE trainscarryapproximately 4,000 passengers on a typical weekday,with approximately 600 passengers boarding the ACE system at the Pleasanton Station on a typical weekday. Bicycles Bicycle facilities in Dublin include the following general types.Within the City of Dublin,these standards provide a framework for future implementation,but depending on the circumstances and where feasible,the City of Dublin has chosen to go above andbeyond American Association of State Highway andTransportation Officials standards. Class I:Shared Use PathThese facilities provide a completely separate right of way and are designated forthe exclusiveuse of bicycles and pedestrians with vehicle cross flow minimized. Class II A:Bicycle Lane Bicycle lanes provide a restricted right of way and are designated for the use of bicycles for one way travel with a striped lane on a street or highway.Bicycle lanes are generally a minimum of five feet wide.Vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian cross flow are permitted. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1124 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Class II B:Buffered Bicycle Lane Buffered bicycle lanes are conventional bicycle lanes that provide a restricted right of way with an added buffer space separating the bike lane from the adjacent vehicle lane and/or parking lane.The buffered area provides greater distance between bicyclists,andparked cars and/or moving traffic andallows for bicyclists to pass one another within the bicycle lane without entering the vehiclelane.Buffered bicycle lanes are generally made up of a six foot wide bicycle lane and a two foot wide buffer.The buffer is striped withtwo solid white lines with diagonal hatching or chevron markings withinthe buffer zone. Class III A:Bicycle Route with Sharrows These bikeways provide right of way designated by signs or pavement markings for shared use with motor vehicles.These include sharrows or shared lane markings”to highlight the presence of bicyclists. There are currently Class II A bicycle lanes along Dublin Boulevard throughout the projectvicinity. Existing and planned bicycle facilities in the study area are shown on Exhibit 3.115. Pedestrians Pedestrian facilitiesinclude sidewalks,pathways,crosswalks,and pedestrian signals.Sidewalks are provided along most roadways in Dublin where land uses have been developed adjacent to the roadway.Sidewalks are not provided on Dublin Boulevard along the project frontage. 3.11.2 Regulatory Framework State California Department of Transportation Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on State Highway facilities Caltrans 2002);however,Caltrans recognizes that achieving LOS C/LOS D may not always be feasible.A standard of LOS E or better on a peak hour basis was used as the planning objective forthe evaluation of potential impacts of this development on Caltrans facilities,as that is the standard set for Caltrans facilities in the study area by the Alameda CTC.The followingcriteria were used to evaluate potential impacts to Caltrans facilities: If a Caltrans facility mainline/ramp merge/ramp diverge)is projected to operate at LOS E or better without project and the project is expected to cause the facility to operate at LOS F,the impact may be considered significant. If aCaltrans facility is projected to operate at LOS F without project and the project is expected to increase density,the impact may be considered significant. Regional Alameda County Transportation Commission The Alameda CTC does not have adopted thresholds of significance for Congestion Management Plan CMP)land use analysis purposes.Past analyses within the City of Dublin have used the following criteria to assess roadwaysegment impacts: City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1125 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx For a roadwaysegment of the Alameda CTC Congestion Management Program CMP) Network,the projectwould cause a)the LOS to degrade from LOS E or better to LOS F or b) the V/C ratio to increase 0.02 or more for a roadwaysegment that would operate at LOS F without the project. Tri Valley Transportation Council Impacts to intersections on Routes of Regional Significance as definedby the Tri Valley Transportation Council TVTC)would be considered significant if: If a signalized intersection is projected to operate within delay ranges associated with less than capacity conditions based on the HCM 2010 method i.e.,LOS E or better with an average control delay of equal to or less than 80 seconds per vehicle)without the project and the project is expected to cause the facility to operate at a F; If the intersection is already unacceptable operations i.e.,LOS F)underno project conditions, there is no established threshold. Intersections in downtown areas and/or specifically exempted by local jurisdictions are exempt from this TVTC standard.This applies to intersections 1 through 4 Local City of Dublin Standards of Significance In accordance with CEQA,the effects of a project areevaluated to determine whether they will result in a significant adverse impacton the environment.Inthis analysis,an impact is considered significant if the proposed projectwould have effects described below.The Eastern Dublin EIR did not identify specific standards for queuing,Routes of Regional Significance,public transit,pedestrian circulation,bicycle facilities,and Complete Street Policy.Significance standards have been added for those impacts below. City of Dublin Intersections.Project impact is considered to be significant if: The project traffic causes the intersection operations to degrade from an acceptable LOS D or better under no project conditions to LOS E or worse under project conditions unless within the boundaries of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area);or If the intersection is already operating below an acceptable threshold i.e.,at LOSE or LOS F) under no project conditions and the project adds 50 or more peak hourtrips to the intersection. Queuing.Project impact would be considered significant if: For the studyintersections operating at unacceptable level of service,or at the upper portion of the LOS D delay range average intersection delay of 45 to 55 seconds): theproject traffic causes the 95th percentile queue in a left turn pocket to extendbeyond the turn pocket by 25 feet or more i.e.,the length of one vehicle)into adjacent traffic lanes that operate i.e.,move)separately from the left turn lane;or City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1126 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx If the 95th percentile queue already exceeds that turn pocket lengthunder noproject conditions,the project traffic lengthens the queue by 25 feet or more. MTS Arterial and Freeway Segments.Project impactwould be considered significant if: The project traffic cause a MTS network segment to fall from an acceptable LOS E roadway segment,freeway segment,or freeway ramp v/c ratio of 0.99 or less)under no project conditions to anunacceptable LOS F v/c of 1.00 or more);or, If a segment is already operating at LOS F in the NoProject case,the v/c ratio increases by more than 0.02 for example,from 1.03 to 1.06). Routes of RegionalSignificance.Project impact would be significant if: The project traffic causes an arterial segment to degrade below LOS D based on HCM 2000 Methodology during a peak hour;or If an arterial were already at LOS E or worse,the project would cause the volume/capacity ratio to increase by 0.02 or more. Public Transit.Project impactwould be significant if: The demand for public transit service increases above that which local transit operators or agencies could accommodate;or The project conflicts with adopted policies,plans or programs supporting alternative transportation;or The project disrupts existing transit service or does not provide amenities necessary to accommodate transit demand. Bicycle Facilities.Project impact would be significant if: The project disrupts existing bicycle facilities or interferes with planned bicycle facilities,which includes failure to dedicate right of way for planned on and off street bicycle facilities included in anadopted Bicycle Master Plan or to contributetoward construction of planned bicycle facilities along the project’s frontages;or The project conflicts or creates inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans,guidelines, policies,or standards;or,a project fails to provide on site parking for bicycles as requiredby the City’s municipal codes. Pedestrian Circulation.Project impactwould be significant if: The project conflicts with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting pedestrians. Complete StreetsPolicy.Project impact would be significant if: The project conflicts with the City of Dublin’s Complete Streets Policy,including public transit andpedestrianand bicycle circulation accommodations. Source: Fehr and Peers, 2015. 37660004 • 09/2015 | 3.11-5_bike.cdr Exhibit 3.11-5 Existing and ProposedBicycleFacilities CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1129 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Traffic Safety.Project impact would be significant if: The project includes a project design feature,such as a sharp curve or potentially hazardous intersection that would not be consistent with City of Dublin engineering design standards or standards published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE)or Caltrans. GeneralPlan The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following guidingand implementing policies associated with transportation that are relevant to the proposed project: Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.1:Design streets to 1)include sufficient capacity for projected traffic, 2)minimize congested conditions during peak hours of operation at intersections,3)servea variety of transportation modes including vehicles,bicycles,pedestrians and transit,and variety of users including people with disabilities,children,and seniors,4)provide continuity with existing streets,and 5)allow convenient access to planned land uses. Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.3:The goals,policies,and implementation measures for street design in Section 10.8 of the Community Design and SustainabilityElement should be consulted when new streets are being designed and/or existing streetsare being modified. Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.4:Reserve right of way and constructimprovements necessary to allow streets to accommodate projected vehicular traffic with the least friction. Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.6:The Cityshall strive to phase development and roadway improvements so that the operating Level of Service LOS)for intersections in Dublin does not exceed LOS D.However,intersections within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area including the intersections of Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road and Village Parkway/ Interstate 680 on ramp)are excluded from this requirement andmay operate at LOSE or worse as long as the safety for pedestrians and bicyclists is maintainedand impacts to transit travel speeds are minimized. Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.7:The City will comply with all provisions of the Alameda County Congestion Management Program and will review proposed development projects to ensure compliance with this Program. Implementing Policy 5.2.2.B.1:Design streets according to the forecasted demandand maximum design speeds listed above,and to the detailed standards set forthin the City of Dublin’s Street Design Standards and Standard Plans which are maintained by the Public Works Department,as well as the listed Additional Policies. Implementing Policy 5.2.2.B.2:Design andconstruct all roads in the City’s circulation network as defined in Figure 51 as well as bicycle and pedestrian networks as defined in the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Guiding Policy 5.2.3.A.1:Provide an integrated multi modal circulation system that provides efficient vehicular circulation while providing adesign that allows safe andconvenient travel along and across streets for all users,including pedestrians,bicyclists,persons with disabilities,seniors,children,youth,and families;and encourages pedestrian,bicycle,transit, and other non automobiletransportation alternatives. Implementing Policy 5.2.3.B.1:Provide continuity with existing streets,include sufficient capacity for projected traffic,and allow convenient access to planned land uses. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1130 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Guiding Policy 5.3.1.A.1:Support improved local transit as essential to a quality urban environment,particularly for residents who do not drive. Guiding Policy 5.3.1.A.2:Support the development of a community that facilitatesand encourages the use of local and regional transit systems. Guiding Policy 5.3.1.A.3:Encourage improvements in the Enhanced Pedestrian Areas to improve the walkability of these areas. Guiding Policy 5.3.1.A.4:Maintain enhanced signal coordination and limit intersection delays on major and RAPID transit routes to minimize delays to transit service. Implementing Policy 5.3.1.B.2:Require dedication of land and the construction of improvements to support the use of public transit in the community.Improvements could consist of bus turnouts,shelters,benches,realtime arrival information,and other facilities that may be appropriate. Implementing Policy 5.3.1.B.4:Capitalize on opportunities to connect into and enhance ridership on regional transit systems including BART,LAVTA and any future light rail systems. Guiding Policy 5.4.3.A.1:Plan for all users by creating and maintaining Complete Streets that provide safe,comfortable,andconvenient travel alongand across streets including streets, roads,highways,bridges,and other portions of the transportation system)through a comprehensive,integrated transportation network that meets the requirements of currently adopted transportation plans and serves all categories of users. Guiding Policy 5.4.3.A.2:Be context aware by maintainingsensitivity to local conditions and needs in both residentialand business districts as well as urban,suburban,and rural areas, and will work with residents,merchants,and other stakeholders to ensure that a strong sense of place ensues. Guiding Policy 5.4.3.A.6:Encourage developers to implement Complete Streets in private transportation infrastructure by providing guidance during the development approval process. Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.1:Provide safe,continuous,comfortable andconvenient bikeways throughout the City. Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.2:Improve and maintain bikeways andpedestrian facilities and support facilities in conformance with the recommendations in the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.3:Enhance the multi modalcirculation network to better accommodate alternative transportation choices including BART,bus,bicycle,and pedestrian transportation. Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.4:Provide comfortable,safe,and convenient walkingroutes throughout the City and,in particular,to key destinations such as Downtown Dublin,the BART Stations,schools,parks,andcommercial centers. Implementing Policy 5.5.1.B.2:Improve bikeways,bicycle support facilities,and pedestrian facilities in accordance with the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan in conjunction with development proposals. Implementing Policy 5.5.1.B.3:Ensure on going maintenance of bikeways,bicycle support facilities and pedestrian facilities that are intended for public use and located on private property in conjunction with development proposals. Guiding Policy 5.9.1.A.1:Continue the city’s program of requiring developers to contribute fees and/or improvements to help fund off siteimprovements related to their projects. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1131 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx City of Livermore Impacts to City of Livermoreintersections could be considered if the project would results in any of the following: For signalized intersectionslocated in Livermore,an impact would be assessed if the addition of project traffic results in the deterioration of a signalized intersection from LOS D or better) to LOSE or LOS F except for Isabel Avenue at Jack London Boulevard or freeway interchanges where the LOS may exceed the established standard City of Livermore General Plan Policy CIR 41,p.4).Impacts were assessed based on HCM 2000 method. City of Pleasanton Impacts to City of Pleasanton intersections could be considered if the projectwould results in any of the following: Forsignalized intersectionslocated in Pleasanton,an impact would be assessed if the addition of project traffic results in the deterioration of a signalized intersection from LOS D or better) to LOSE or LOS F.Impacts were assessed based on HCM 2000 method. For signalized intersectionslocated in Pleasanton,an impact would be assessed at an intersection projected to operate at LOS E or F prior to the addition of project traffic,if the project adds 10 or more trips. County of Alameda Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan governs land use around Livermore Municipal Airport.2 The Airport Land Use Compatibility Planwas adopted by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission in 2012. Airport Land Use Compatibility PlanFigure 3 3 sets forth airspace protection zones based on distance from the airport.The project site overlaps with airspace protection zones that extend 547 feet to 747 fe et above mean sea level.Buildings that extend above these air protection zones are subject to Federal Aviation Administration Part 77 surface review. The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan establishes that the following specificcharacteristics”are to be avoided:1)glare or distractinglights that could be mistaken for airport lights;2)sources dust, heat,steam,or smoke that may impair pilot vision;3)sources of steam or other emissions that may cause thermal plumes or other forms of unstable air that generate turbulence within the flight path; 4)sources of electrical interferences with aircraft communications or navigation;or 5)features that create an increased attraction for wildlife including landfills or agriculturalandrecreational uses that attract large flocks of birds. 2 Note that the City of Livermore refers to the airport as Livermore Municipal Airport”while the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission refers to it as Livermore Executive Airport.”This EIR will refer to it as Livermore Municipal Airport”in deference to the name used by its owner/operator except in instances where the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Plan”is discussed. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1132 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx 3.11.3 Methodology Fehr Peers prepared a Transportation Assessment that evaluated impacts on transportation.The complete assessment is provided in Appendix J.Key aspects of the Transportation Assessment are summarized as follows. Trip Generation For thisproject,several sources oftrip generation data were reviewed,including Fehr Peers trip generation surveys at several Kaiser medical facilities in the San FranciscoBay area,including Hayward,San Leandro,Oakland and Walnut Creek,collected between 2000 and 2006.The surveyed sites included a mixture of medical office,hospital,andclinic uses.These data were compared with trip generation rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE)Trip Generation Manual,9th Edition).As the surveyed data contains a mixture of medical office and hospital uses, and the proposed project is only medical office uses,ITE trip generation rates were used in this analysis since they are based on a greater number of data observations,isolated to reflect medical office uses similar to the proposed project. Trip generation estimatesare shown in Table 3.11 7 forthe medicalcomponents of the project, which show that the Kaiser Medical Center is expected to generate approximately 32,520 weekday daily trips,including about 2,150 morning peak hour and 3,210 eveningpeak hour trips with completion of all medical uses.The Phase 1A project is expected to generate approximately 7,950 daily trips,including 530 morning peak hour and 796 evening peak hour trips. Table 3.11 7:Medical Use Trip Generation Estimates Project Phase Use Size Weekday Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour InOut Total InOut Total 1A Medical Office1 220,000 square feet 7,950 416110 526220 565 785 2 Medical Office1&2 400,000 square feet 14,450 755201 956400 1,028 1,428 3 Medical Office1 280,000 square feet 10,120 529140 669280 720 1,000 Total Project Trips 32,520 1,700 451 2,151900 2,313 3,213 Notes: 1 ITE land use category720 Medical DentalOffice Building Adj Streets,7 9A,4 6P): Daily:T)36.13(X) AM Peak Hour:T 2.39(X);Enter 79%;Exit 21% PM Peak Hour:T 3.57(X);Enter 28%;Exit 72% 2 Employees who are responsible for the energy center maintenance serve the entire campus andare included inthe vehicle trip Source:Fehr Peers,2015. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1133 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx For the Phase 2 project,the square footage of the energy center was not included in medical office square footage forthe purposes of the vehicle trip generation calculations as there are no dedicated employees in this area and it does not serve any medical function.Employees who areresponsible forthe energy center maintenance serve the entire campus and are included in the vehicle trip generation estimates for the Medical Office uses. For the commercialparcel,the vehicle trip generation of potential future uses that could be constructed on the site was calculated,as presented in Table 3.118,including: 250,000 square feet of regional retail 250,000 square feet of office 250,000 square feet of research and development 250 roomhotel 250 unit assisted livingfacility As shown in Table 3.11 8,a regional retail center is expected to generate the most trafficon a daily and weekday PM peak hour basis,with approximately 12,320 weekday daily trips and 1,100 evening peak hourtrips.However,an office use would generate more total morning peak hour traffic than retail uses but slightly less outbound traffic than a retail use.To prepare the most conservative assessment,Fehr Peers analyzed the trip generation levels shown in bold in Table 3.11 8 to assess the worst case scenario of commercial development on the site to allow for the greatest flexibility for future sitedevelopment. At retail establishments that could be developed as part of the commercial parcel,driveway traffic comprises 1)new traffic generated by the project,2)traffic that wouldotherwise alreadybe on the adjacent roadways but the driver decides to stop at the sitee.g.,to purchase an itemon their way home from work),and 3)trafficon other nearby roadways,butthe driver decides to take a short detour to stop at the site.The trips in Item 2are referred to as pass by”trips and the trips in Item3 are referred to as diverted link”trips. Information contained in the ITE Trip GenerationHandbookand surveys of similar uses was used to estimate pass byand diverted link trips.For shopping centers,the average pass by rate is 34 percent,and the average diverted linked trip rate is 16percent.In other words,at a typical shopping center,approximately,50 percent of the traffic entering and exiting the site is already on the surrounding roadway system.For this assessment,it was assumed that pass by/diverted trips for the general retail portion of the projectwould comprise 30percent of the trip generation. Table 3.11 8:Comparison of Commercial Parcel Trip Generation Estimates Use Size Weekday Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour InOut Total In Out Total Retail1 250,000 square feet 12,320169104 273531576 1,107 City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1134 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Table 3.11 8 cont.):Comparison of Commercial Parcel Trip Generation Estimates Use Size Weekday Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour InOut Total In Out Total Less Pass By 3,700 159 173 332 Net Retail Trips 8,620 169104 273372403 775 Office2 250,000 square feet 2,760 343 47 390 63 309 372 Research Development3 250,000 square feet 2,150 239 49 288 42 240 282 Hotel4 250 rooms 2,040 7854 132 7774 151 AssistedLiving Facility5 250 units 860 17 33 50 342963 Notes: 1 ITE land use category820 Shopping Center Adj Streets,7 9A,4 6P).The analysis reflects a 30 percent pass by reduction for the weekdayPM peak hour for the retail use.No AM peak hour pass byreduction was taken for the retail component. Daily:Ln(T)0.65Ln(X)5.83;R2 for fitted curve is 0.79,fitted curveproduces slightlyhigher trip estimates than the average rate for this size project,which would be expected from a regional retail center. AM Peak Hour:Ln(T)0.61Ln(X)2.24;Enter 62%;Exit 38%;R2 for fitted curve is 0.56,fitted curveproduces slightly higher trip estimates than the average rate for this size project,which would be expected from a regional retail center. PM Peak Hour:Ln(T)0.67Ln(X)3.31;Enter 48%;Exit 52%;R2 forfitted curve is 0.81,fitted curveproduces slightly higher trip estimates than the average rate for this size project,which would be expected from a regional retail center. 2 ITE TripGeneration 9th Edition)land use category710 General OfficeBuilding Adj Streets,7 9A,4 6P): Daily:T 11.03*(X) AM Peak Hour:T 1.56*(X)88%in,12%out) PM Peak Hour:T 1.49*(X)17%in,83%out) 3 ITE land use category760 Research and Development Center Pk Hr AM PM): Daily:LN(T)0.83*LN(X)+3.09:R2 value is 0.73;fitted curveand average rate producesimilar estimates for this size project. AM Peak Hour:LN(T)0.87*LN(X)+0.8683%in,17%out),R2 value is 0.76;fitted curveand average rate producesimilar estimates for this size project. PM Peak Hour:LN(T)0.83*LN(X)+1.06 15%in,85%out),R2 value is 0.76;fitted curve and average rate producesimilar estimates for this size project. 4 ITE land use category310 Hotel Adj Streets,7 9A,4 6P): Daily:T 8.17*(X) AM Peak Hour:T 0.53*(X)59%in,41%out) PM Peak Hour:T 0.60*(X)51%in,49%out) 5 ITE land use category252 Senior Adult Housing Attached Adj Streets,7 9A,4 6P): Daily:T 3.44*(X) AM Peak Hour:T 0.20*(X)34%in,66%out) PM Peak Hour:T 0.25*(X)54%in,46%out) Source:Fehr Peers,2015. Table 3.11 9 summarizes trip generationby phase. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1135 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Table 3.11 9:Trips By Analysis Phase Project Phase Use Size Daily Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total 1AA)Medical Office 220,000 square feet 7,950416110526220565785 1B B)Commercial Use 250,000 square feet 8,620343 Office) 104 Retail) 447 hybrid) 372403775 New Trips through Phase 1 A)B)]16,570759214973592968 1,560 2 C)Medical Office 400,000 square feet 14,450755201956400 1,028 1,428 New Trips through Phase 2 A)B)C)]31,020 1,514415 1,929992 1,996 2,988 3 D)Medical Office 280,000 square feet 10,120529140669280720 1,000 New Trips with Buildout A)B)C)D)]41,140 2,043555 2,598 1,272 2,716 3,988 Note: See Tables 3.11 7 and 3.11 8 for details. Source:Fehr Peers,2015. Phase 1 of development,which includes medical office and potential development on the commercial site,could generate approximately 16,570 daily trips,including 973 morning peak hour and 1,560 eveningpeak hour trips.Phase 2 would add an additional 14,450 daily trips including956 morning peak hour and 1,428eveningpeak hour trips.Phase 3 would add an additional 10,120 daily trips including 669 morning peak hour and 1,000 eveningpeak hour trips.At buildout of the Kaiser Campus and commercial site,approximately41,140daily trips could be generated with 2,424 morning peak hour and3,988 eveningpeak hour trips.This level of trip generation does not include reductions to account forthe implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan or reductions that could occur for trips between the commercial elements of the project and the medical uses.Depending on the type of commercial development that occurs on the western parcel,a proportion of daily and peak hour trips could come from medical campus employees, patients or visitors. Expected vehicle trip generation for Saturdaywas estimated and compared with the projected weekday peak hour trip generation,as presented in Table 3.1110.For the commercial site,trip generation for retail uses is shown as it has the highest trip generating potential of the potential commercial site uses.For the medical office,Kaiser has indicated that the based on the proposed activities within each of the building,Phase 1A Saturday activities would beapproximately 20 percent of weekday activities.Phase 2 and 3 Saturday activities would be approximately 80 percent of weekday activities.Based on the expected use of the Phase 3 building,it would not be operational on weekends. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1136 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Although the retail uses would generate more traffic on a Saturday that the weekday,it would be off set by decreased trip generation for the medical office component,resulting in less overall trip generation on a dailyand peak hour basis.Therefore,no additional Saturday analysis was conducted. Table 3.11 10:Saturday Trip Generation Project Phase Use Size Daily Saturday Peak Hour Percent of Weekday In Out Total Daily Peak Hour 1A Medical Office 220,000 square feet 1,590 7978 157 20%20% 1B Retail 250,000 square feet 16,460825761 1,586 Less Pass By 4,940)(248)228)476) Net Retail Trips 11,520577533 1,110134%143% 2 Medical Office 400,000 square feet 11,560571571 1,142 80%80% 3Medical Office 280,000 square feet 0 0000%0% Total Project Trips 24,670 1,227 1,182 2,409 60%60% Note: See Tables 3.11 7 and 3.11 8 for details. Source:Fehr Peers,2015. Trip Distribution and Assignment Based on the location of the project area,existing traffic patterns,location of complementaryland uses,including the projectedmember area for the Kaiser Membership and residential locations from where employeesmaycome from/depart to,and a select zone analysis using the City of Dublin traveldemand model,trip distribution percentages were developed as depicted on Exhibit 3.116. Project trips were assigned to the roadway network based on the general directions of approach and departure shown on Exhibit 3.11 6,but the route that people take to the site could vary by their destination within area.For example,a driver originating in the west on I 580could access the site fromthe Tassajara Road interchange,or could travel further east on I 580and access the site from the Fallon Road interchange.The resulting project trip assignment and project related intersection volumes areshown on Exhibit 3.117 for Phase 1 medical use only),Exhibit 3.118 for the Commercial use only,Exhibit 3.119 for the Phase 1 and 2 medical andExhibit 3.11 10 atproject buildoutin the near term condition and on Exhibit 3.11 11 for the cumulative condition reflecting planned roadwayconnections in the area. Source: Fehr and Peers, 2015. 37660004 • 09/2015 | 3.11-6_study_locations.cdr Exhibit 3.11-6 StudyLocationsandPreliminaryProject Trip Distribution CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Source: Fehr and Peers, 2015. 37660004 • 09/2015 | 3.11-7_peak_volumes_phase1.cdr Exhibit 3.11-7 PeakHour TrafficVolumes, IntersectionControls and LaneConfigurations - ProjectPhase 1 Added Trips CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Source: Fehrand Peers, 2015. 37660004 • 09/2015 | 3.11-8_peak_volumes_phase1b.cdr Exhibit 3.11-8 PeakHour TrafficVolumes, IntersectionControls andLaneConfigurations - ProjectPhase 1B (Commercial) Added Trips CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Source: Fehrand Peers, 2015. 37660004 • 09/2015 | 3.11-9_peak_volumes_phase1a&2.cdr Exhibit 3.11-9 PeakHour TrafficVolumes, IntersectionControls and LaneConfigurations - ProjectPhase 1A + Phase 2 Added Trips CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Source: Fehrand Peers, 2015. 37660004 • 09/2015 | 3.11-10_peak_volumes_buildout.cdr Exhibit 3.11-10 PeakHour TrafficVolumes, IntersectionControls and LaneConfigurations - ProjectFull-BuildoutAdded Trips CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Source: Fehrand Peers, 2015. 37660004 • 09/2015 | 3.11-11_peak_volumes_buildout_2040.cdr Exhibit 3.11-11 PeakHour Traffic Volumes, IntersectionControls Project Full-Buildout Added Trips Cumulative (2040) Conditions and LaneConfigurations - CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1149 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx 3.11.4 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G,Environmental Checklist,of the CEQA Guidelines,transportation impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant if the project would: a) Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness forthe performance of the circulation system,taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system,including but not limited to intersections,streets,highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,including,butnot limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures,or other standardsestablished by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change inair traffic patterns,including either an increase intraffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to adesign feature e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses e.g.,farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programsregarding public transit,bicycle,or pedestrian facilities,or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 3.11.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of theproject and provides mitigation measures whereappropriate. Existing Plus Project Traffic The proposed projectwould generate new trips that would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations under Existing Plus Project Conditions. Impact Analysis The Phase 1A and Phase 1B Project only traffic volumesExhibit 3.11 7 andExhibit 3.118)and at build out Exhibit 3.11 8 andExhibit 3.11 10)were added to the existing peak hourtraffic volumes Exhibit 3.114)to estimate the Existing with Project peak hour intersection turning movement volumes,as shown on Exhibit 3.11 12 with Phase 1A and Phase 1B andExhibit 3.11 13 at buildout. The construction of a third eastbound through lane,plus sidewalk and landscape buffer on Dublin Boulevard along the project frontage was included in the assessment of with project conditions,in addition to the roadway connections to Dublin Boulevard at Keegan and Lockhart Streets,as these improvements are proposed as part of the project.A new right in/right out driveway on Dublin Boulevard serving the commercial parcel opposite Carnmore Place was also assumed.Eastbound right turn only lanes would be constructed on Dublin Boulevard at Carnmore Place,Keegan Street and Lockhart Streets. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1150 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Traffic signal timings,peak hour factors,heavy vehicle percentages,and pedestrian and bicycle activity at the study intersections were left unchanged from existing conditions except at the drivewayconnections to Dublin Boulevard. Intersection Operations Existing with Project Phase 1 and Build out conditionswere evaluated and the results are presented in Table 3.11 11,based on the traffic volumes andlane configurationspresented on Exhibit 3.11 12 andExhibit 3.11 13.Table 3.11 11 also includes the operations results for the Existing without Project conditions for comparison purposes. Table 3.11 11:Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Operations No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Existing No Project Conditions Existing with Project Phase 1 Existing with Project Buildout Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 1 Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 39 49 D D 39 49 D D 39 50 D D 2 Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 31 40 C D 32 42 C D 32 43 C D 3 Amador Plaza Road/I 680 SB RampsSignal AM PM 9 11 A B 9 11 A B 9 11 A B 4 Village Parkway/I 680 NB On Ramp SSSC AM PM 0.65.1) 0.53.3) A(A) A(A) 1 5) 1 3) A(A) A(A) 1 5) 1 3) A(A) A(A) 5 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 40 46 D D 40 50 D D 42 62 D E 6 Scarlett Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 8 9 A A 8 9 A A 10 9 A A 7 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 41 41 D D 40 41 D D 40 41 D D 8 Hacienda Drive/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 6 6 A A 6 6 A A 7 6 A A 9 Hacienda Drive/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 11 11 B B 11 11 B B 11 12 B B 10 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Signal AM PM 21 22 C C 21 23 C C 21 27 C C 11 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal AM PM 28 23 C C 29 23 C C 30 23 C C 12 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal AM PM 28 18 C B 29 18 C B 31 20 C B 13 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 39 42 D D 42 46 D D 46 70 D E 14 Tassajara Road and Santa Rita Road/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 7 8 A A 7 8 A A 7 9 A A 15 Santa Rita Road/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 30 35 C C 30 38 C C 31 42 C C City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1151 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Table 3.1111 cont.):Existing Plus Project Peak HourIntersection Operations No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Existing No Project Conditions Existing with Project Phase 1 Existing with Project Buildout Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 16 Brannigan Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 14 13 B B 13 14 B B 13 19 B B 17 Carnmore Place/Future Project Driveway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 4 3 A A 6 5 A A 4 8 A A 18 Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 11 9 B A 18 24 C C 28 46 C D 19 Lockhart Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 9 7 A A 24 17 C B 38 23 C C 20 Fallon Gateway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 4 9 A A 4 7 A A 5 11 A A 21 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal AM PM 13 11 B B 15 13 B B 16 14 B B 22 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 19 14 B B 45 19 D B 120 65 F E 23 Fallon Road/FallonGateway Signal AM PM 5 10 A B 5 13 A B 6 89 A F 24 El Charro Road/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 9 9 A A 13 11 B B 67 17 E B 25 El Charro Road/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 8 8 A A 9 8 A A 11 9 B A 26 El Charro Road/StoneridgeDrive Signal AM PM 46 43 D D 46 43 D D 46 43 D D 27 Airway Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway Signal AM PM 13 14 B B 12 14 B B 12 14 B B 28 Airway Boulevard/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 4 5 A A 4 5 A A 4 5 A A 29 Airway Boulevard/I 580 Eastbound Off Ramp Kitty Hawk Road Signal AM PM 29 25 C C 29 24 C C 29 24 C C 30 Isabel Avenue/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 9 7 A A 8 7 A A 8 7 A A 31 Isabel Avenue/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 11 9 B A 11 9 B A 11 10 B A 32 Isabel Avenue/Jack London Boulevard Signal AM PM 49 36 D D 53 57 D D 53 38 D D 33 Stanley Boulevard/E.Stanley Boulevard Signal AM PM 16 17 B B 17 18 B B 17 19 B B 34 Isabel Avenue/Stanley Boulevard Signal AM PM 13 11 B B 13 11 B B 14 11 B B City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1152 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Table 3.1111 cont.):Existing Plus Project Peak HourIntersection Operations No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Existing No Project Conditions Existing with Project Phase 1 Existing with Project Buildout Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 35 Dublin Boulevard/New Project Driveway SSSC AM PM N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 10) 3 25) A A) A C) Notes: 1 SSSC side street stop controlled intersection;Signal signalized intersection. 2 Average intersection delaycalculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. 3 For SSSC intersections,average delay or LOS is listed first,followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses. Source:Fehr Peers,2015. The addition of project traffic with Phase 1A and Phase 1B is expected to increase delay at study intersections,but all intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better with the addition of traffic from Phase 1A and 1B of the project,based on HCM 2000 method results. Considering the potential trip generation with full campus buildout,the following intersections are projected to degrade to an overall LOS E or F using the HCM 2000 method: Dougherty Road at Dublin Boulevard LOS E,PM peak hour) Tassajara Road at Dublin Boulevard LOS E,PM peak hour) Fallon Road at Dublin Boulevard LOS F,AM peak hour and LOS E,PM peak hour) Fallon Road at Fallon Gateway LOS F,PM peak hour) El Charro Road at I 580Westbound Ramps LOS E,AM peak hour) All other study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better under the HCM 2000 method. Designated TVTC intersections were also evaluated using the HCM 2010 method,with the results presented in Table 3.11 12.All TVTV intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or better with the addition of project traffic through Phase 1.With project buildout,operations of the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection are projected to degrade to LOS F during both peak hours. Operations of the side street movement fromthe project driveway to Dublin Boulevard are also projected to degrade to LOS F,although the intersection would operate at anoverall acceptable service level. All remaining TVTC designated intersections would operate at LOS E or better during both peak hours with project buildout. Source: Fehrand Peers, 2015. 37660004 • 01/2016 | 3.11-12_peak_volumes_phase1.cdr Exhibit 3.11-12 PeakHour Traffic Volumes, IntersectionControls and LaneConfigurations - ExistingwithProjectPhase 1 Conditions CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Source: Fehrand Peers, 2015. 37660004 • 01/2016 | 3.11-13_peak_volumes_buildout.cdr Exhibit 3.11-13 PeakHour Traffic Volumes, IntersectionControls and LaneConfigurations - Existing with ProjectFull - BuildoutConditions CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1157 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Table 3.1112:TVTC Designated Intersections Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Operations No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Existing No Project Conditions Existing With Project Phase 1 Existing With Project Buildout Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 1 Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 38 44 D D 38 44 D D 39 45 D D 2 Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 52 36 D C 56 32 E C 62 33 E C 5 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 42 50 D D 43 53 D D 47 61 D E 6 Scarlett Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 21 26 C C 21 26 C C 22 28 C C 7 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 40 37 D D 40 38 D D 40 39 D D 10 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Signal AM PM 18 18 B B 18 20 B B 18 26 B C 11 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal AM PM 26 20 C B 26 21 C C 27 21 C C 12 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal AM PM 25 16 C B 25 17 C B 27 19 C B 13 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 40 44 D C 43 48 D D 48 70 D E 14 Tassajara Road and Santa Rita Road/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 8 9 A A 8 9 A A 8 10 A A 15 Santa Rita Road/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 13 23 B C 14 25 B C 17 29 B C 16 Brannigan Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 9 10 A A 8 10 A A 8 12 A B 17 Carnmore Place/Future Project Driveway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 4 3 A A 6 5 A A 4 8 A A 18 Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 11 8 B A 13 19 B B 63 38 E D 19 Lockhart Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 8 5 A A 11 18 B B 23 42 C D 20 Fallon Gateway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 4 7 A A 4 6 A A 4 9 A A 21 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal AM PM 11 8 A A 11 8 B A 11 8 B A 22 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 21 12 C B 68 23 E C 120 96 F F 23 Fallon Road/FallonGateway Signal AM PM 4 10 A A 4 12 A B 5 60 A E City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1158 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Table 3.1112 cont.):TVTC Designated Intersections Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Operations No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Existing No Project Conditions Existing With Project Phase 1 Existing With Project Buildout Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 24 El Charro Road/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 12 11 B B 19 15 B B 19 36 B D 25 El Charro Road/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 8 9 A A 9 9 A A 78 10 E A 26 El Charro Road/StoneridgeDrive Signal AM PM 52 52 D D 53 52 D D 53 52 D D 30 Isabel Avenue/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 10 9 A A 10 10 A A 10 9 A A 31 Isabel Avenue/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 16 16 B B 20 11 B B 23 42 C D 32 Isabel Avenue/Jack London Boulevard Signal AM PM 50 36 D D 52 37 D D 58 38 E D 33 Stanley Boulevard/E.Stanley Boulevard Signal AM PM 14 13 B B 14 13 B B 15 15 B B 34 Isabel Avenue/Stanley Boulevard Signal AM PM 10 8 A A 11 8 B A 11 8 B A 35 Dublin Boulevard/New Project Driveway SSSC AM PM N/A N/A N/A N/A 1(11) 26 80) A B) D F) Notes: 1 SSSC side street stop controlled intersection;Signal signalized intersection. 2 Average intersection delaycalculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. 3 For SSSC intersections,average delay or LOS is listed first,followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses. Source:Fehr Peers,2015. VehicleQueues The addition of project traffic is expected to increase left turn vehicle queues at some study intersections.Based on detailed information provided in Appendix D of the traffic study,the addition of project traffic in Phase 1A and 1B wouldpotentially result in vehicle queues exceeding the available storage,or would increase vehiclequeues by more than 25 feet 1 vehicle)for movements where the queue already exceeds the available storage forthe following movements: Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard southbound left turnin both morning and evening peak hour Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard northbound left turn in morning and evening peak hours, eastbound leftturnwith buildoutin eveningpeak hour City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1159 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx The addition of project traffic with full buildout would exacerbate vehiclequeues at the intersections noted above and result in vehicle queues exceeding the availablestorage,or would increase vehicle queues by more than 25 feet 1 vehicle)for movements where the queue already exceed the availablestorage for the following movements: Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard westbound left turn,eveningpeak hour Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard westbound left turn,morning and eveningpeak hours Impactsand Mitigation Measures The following section evaluates the intersection LOS results presented in Table 3.11 11 and Table 3.11 12,and compares the results with the criteria for significant impacts,and presents the effectiveness of mitigation measures in Table 3.1113.Vehicle queueimpacts are also assessed.As a condition of approval,the City of Dublin will collect applicable local and regional traffic transportation impact fees TIF)in addition to fair share contributions for other improvements needed to mitigate significant impacts.This is consistent with the City’s policy to collect fees from projects that havea significant impact on local and regional facilities.Local fees include the Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Eastern Dublin TIF)and the Downtown Dublin TIF. Intersection level of service impacts with traffic from Phase 1a and Phase 1b of the project were less than significant in the existing condition under both City of Dublin and TVTC criteria and no project specific mitigation is required based on the intersection level of service significance criteria. Table 3.1113:Mitigated Existing Plus Project Peak HourIntersection Operations No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Existing With Project Buildout Existing Project Phase 1 With Mitigation Existing With Project Buildout With Mitigation Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 13 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 46 70 D E No impact; mitigation not required 40 52 D D 20 Fallon Gateway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 120 65 F E No impact; mitigation not required 28 25 C C 23 Fallon Road/Fallon Gateway Signal AM PM 6 89 A F No impact; mitigation not required 6 24 A C 24 El Charro Road/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 67 17 E B No impact; mitigation not required 39 17 D B Source:Fehr Peers,2015. Impact TRANS 1:Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard:The addition of project generated vehicle trips with campus buildout in the existing conditionwould worsen LOS D conditions,resulting in LOS E operations during the weekday City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1160 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx PM peak hour.Based on the City of Dublin LOS standard for this intersection,this is considered a significant impact. TVTC Standard:The addition of project generated vehicle trips with campus buildout in the existing condition would worsen LOS D conditions,resulting in LOS E operations during the weekday PM peak hour.LOS E is consideredacceptable based on guidance provided in the Tri Valley Action Plan, resulting in a less than significant impact based on the LOS standard. This intersection has been built outwithin itsultimate right of way and no further intersection widening to provide additional vehicle capacity is planned.Modifications that could improve operations of the intersection include installation of a westbound right turn overlap phase,which would require prohibition of the southbound U turn movement,or conversion of a westbound through lane to a through right shared lane.Neither of these modifications is consideredfeasible as it would result in secondary impacts to transit along the corridor.These vehicle capacity improvements would also becontrary to other city policies,such as the Complete Streets Policy, As an alternative mitigation measure,a transportation demand management program shall be developed as part of the project.Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the severity of the impact at thisintersection but would not result in LOS D operations.The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure TRANS 1. The project applicant would berequired to pay local and regional transportation fees that would fund capacityenhancing improvements on other routes,potentially shifting trafficfrom this intersection,and the project applicant would be required to implement a transportation demand management program see Chapter 10 of Appendix J)that couldreduce the severity of the project impact at this intersection.However,the impact is considered significant and unavoidable based on City of Dublin standards. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure MM TRANS 1 Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A,the project applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management TDM)Program to the City of Dublin for review andapproval.The TDM program shall be prepared by a qualified transportation consultant/engineer and identify TDM measures.The TDM program shall contain the following provisions: The TDM program shall establish the following trip budgets for each project phase: Phases 1A and 1B:The number of trips generated should be no more than expected based on the Trip Generation Estimate total AM and PM peak hour trips for Phases 1A and 1B noted in Table 3.119 Trips By Analysis Phase). City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1161 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Phase 2:Implementation of the TDM program shall produce a 5%reduction fromthe Trip Generation Estimate total AM and PM peak hour trips for Phases 1A,1B,and 2 combined as noted in Table 3.119. Phase 3:Implementation of the TDM program shall produce a 10%reduction from the Trip Generation Estimate total AM and PM peak hourtrips forthe total project,as shown in Table 3.119. The TDM program may include but may not be limited to the following measures: Shuttle service between the project and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station Public transit subsidies Employersponsored carpooling and ride matching programs. Preferential carpool parking Guaranteed ride home On site car share program Scheduling practices to avoid peak hour travel flex time,staggered shifts, compressed work schedules,etc.) End of trip facilities such as lockers,showers,or storage facilities. Provision of kiosks,website(s),brochures,and similaritems that provide information about the TDM program. The effectiveness of the TDM program shall be monitored 6months after the completion of eachphase.Monitoring shall consist of conducting peak period traffic counts at the project driveways over a 3 day period.The cost of conducting the traffic countsshall bepaid by the project applicant or project owner.The resulting trip rates should be normalized byemployee,patient loads and/or square footage and compared the trip generationpresented to determine if the peak hour trip budgets have been attained. If the TDM program is not achieving the established trip budgets,specific changes shall be made to the TDM program to be reviewed andapproved by the City to ensure that the reductions required in the mitigation measure are met. Subsequent monitoring periods shall be on an annual basis until it is shown that the TDM measures are effective in reducing vehicle trips to the budget set forth for each phase.A report shall be provided to the City everyyear summarizing the program’s effectiveness and identifyingadditional steps to be taken if necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact. Impact TRANS 2:Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard:The addition of project generated vehicle trips with campus buildout in the existing conditionwould worsen LOS D conditions,resulting in LOS E operations during the weekday PM peak hour.Based on the City of Dublin LOS standard for thisintersection,this is considered a significant impact. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1162 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx TVTC Standard:The addition of project generated vehicle trips with campus buildout in the existing conditionwould worsen LOS D conditions,resulting in LOS E operations during the weekday PM peak hour.LOSE is considered acceptable based on guidance provided in the Tri Valley Action Plan, resulting in a less than significant impact based on the LOS standard. To mitigate this impact,the south side of Dublin Boulevard should be widened by 12 feet between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street approximately 800 feet)to provide a third eastbound through lane,connecting to an existing three lane eastbound cross section at Brannigan Street.This improvement is included in the Eastern Dublin TIF;as such,this improvement could be constructed by the applicant either with a Transportation Impact Fee TIF)credit or through payment of the Eastern Dublin TIF.With construction of this improvement,intersection operations would improve to LOS D as shown in Ta ble 3.11 13.The recommended improvements are reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS 2. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure MM TRANS 2 Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A,the south side of Dublin Boulevardshall be widened between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street approximately 800 feet) to provide a third eastbound through lane,connecting to an existing three lane eastbound cross section at Brannigan Street.This improvement shall be constructed by the applicant prior to occupancy of Phase 1A if not constructed by the City prior to that date.If the City constructs the improvement in advance of the occupancy of Phase 1A,the applicant shall meet this obligation through the payment of the Eastern Dublin TIF or through the payment of a fair share contribution if the improvement is not identified in the EDTIF program). Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Impact TRANS 3:Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard:The addition of project generated vehicle trips with campus buildout in the existing condition would worsen acceptable operations to LOS F during the morning and evening peak hours.Based on the City of Dublin LOS standard for this intersection,this is considered a significant impact. TVTC Standard:The addition of project generated vehicle trips with campus buildout in the existing conditionwould worsen acceptable operations to LOS F during the morning peak hour and LOS E during the weekday PM peak hour.LOS E is consideredacceptable based on guidance provided in the Tri Valley Action Plan,resulting in a significant impact based on the LOS standard. To mitigate this impact,second leftturn lanes should be constructed on both the northbound and eastbound approaches.A second eastbound leftturn lane is part of an already planned roadway City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1163 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx improvement project in the near term condition.These improvements would improve intersection operations to LOS D as shown in Table 3.11 13.This recommendation is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS 3. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentiallysignificant impact. Mitigation Measure MM TRANS 3 Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A,the intersection of Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard shall be improved to provide second left turn lanes on boththe northbound and eastbound approaches.In addition,the signal operation shall be retimed to minimizequeuing.This improvement shall be constructed by the applicant prior to occupancy of Phase 1A if not constructed by the City prior tothat date.If the City constructs the improvement in advance of the occupancy of Phase 1A,the applicant shall meet this obligation through the payment of the Eastern Dublin TIF or through the payment of a fair share contribution if the improvement is not identified in the EDTIF program). Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Impact TRANS 4:Fallon Road/FallonGateway City of Dublin Standard:The addition of project generated vehicle trips with campus buildout in the existing condition would worsen acceptable operations to LOS F during the eveningpeak hour. Based on the City of Dublin LOS standard for this intersection,this is considered a significant impact. TVTC Standard:Based on the HCM 2010 results,the addition of project generatedvehicle trips with campus builtout in the existing condition wouldresult in LOSE operations during the weekday PM peak hour.LOS E is considered acceptable based on guidance provided in the Tri Valley Action Plan, resulting in a less than significant impact based on the level of service standard. To mitigate thisimpact,the traffic signal operation should be retimed to better accommodate the added traffic associated project buildout,resulting in an acceptable level of service as shown in Table 3.11 13.This recommendation is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS 4. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentiallysignificant impact. Mitigation Measure MM TRANS 4 Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A,the City of Dublin shall retime the signal operation at Fallon Road/FallonGateway to better accommodate the added traffic associated project buildout.The applicant shall pay to the City of Dublin the cost of retiming. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1164 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Impact TRANS 5:Fallon Road/I 580 Westbound Ramps City of PleasantonStandard:The addition of project generated vehicle trips with project buildout during the AM peak hour would worsen intersection operations from LOS B to LOS E,which is below the LOS standard forthe City of Pleasanton.However,thisintersection isa designated Gateway Intersection and may beexempt from the City of Pleasanton’s Level of Service Standard if vehicular capacity improvements would be contrary to other City Goals.The project’s contribution of traffic to this intersection is considered a significant impact. Caltrans Standard:Based on the HCM 2010 results,this intersection would operate at LOS E with the addition of project traffic from buildout in the existing condition.For this study,LOS E is considered acceptable for Caltrans facilities in the study area based on guidance providedby the Alameda CTC, resulting in a less than significant impact based on the level of service standard. TVTC Standard:Based on the HCM 2010 results,this intersection would operate at LOS E with the addition of project trafficfrom buildout in the existing condition.LOS E is considered acceptable based on guidance provided in the Tri Valley Action Plan,resulting in a less than significant impact based on the level of service standard. To mitigate the impact,the traffic signal operation should be retimed to better accommodate the added traffic associated project buildout,resulting in an acceptable level of service as shown in Table 3.11 13.This recommendation is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS 5. Because implementation of thismitigation measure is not within the control of the City of Dublin,its implementation cannot be assured.Therefore,the impact will be considered significant and unavoidable forthe purposes of this EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure MM TRANS 5 Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A,the applicant and the City of Dublin shall coordinate with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to retime the signal operation at the intersection of Fallon Road/I 580 Westbound Ramps to better accommodate the added traffic associated project buildout.The applicant shall provide Caltrans or the City of Pleasanton with its fair share cost of retiming. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1165 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Vehicle Queuing With Phase 1A and Phase1B The addition of Phase 1A and Phase 1B project traffic would potentially result in vehicle queues exceeding the available storage,or would increase left turn vehicle queues by more than 25 feet 1 vehicle)for movements where the queue already exceeds the available storage for the following movements: Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard southbound left turnin morning and eveningpeak hour Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard northbound left turn in morning and evening peak hours Based on the City of Dublin significance criteria,this is considered a significant impact. Impact TRANS 6a:Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard As previously discussed,no additional capacityenhancing improvements have been identified atthis intersection.Additionally,extending the southbound leftturn lane to provide additional storage capacity is not consideredfeasible due to theshort block size. Construction of the Scarlett Driveextension would shift some southbound left turn vehicle movements to the Scarlett Drive intersection with Dougherty Road.Payment of the required TIF wouldconstitute a fair share payment to thisimprovement. The project applicant should work with the City of Dublin to adjust signal timings subsequent to the completion of the Phase 1A and 1B projects to minimize the effects of vehicle queue spillback. However,implementation of this measure would not reduce the 95th percentile vehicle southbound vehicle queue to a level that can be accommodated within the available storage;therefore,the vehicle queue impact at thisintersection would remain significant and unavoidable.This recommendation is reflected inMitigation Measure TRANS 6a. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure MM TRANS 6a Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A,the City of Dublin shall retime the signal operation at Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road to better accommodate the added traffic associated project buildout.The applicant shall pay to the City of Dublin with the cost of retiming. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact. Impact TRANS 6b:Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Queuing impact to northbound left turnin morning and evening peak hours. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1166 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentiallysignificant impact. Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 3. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Vehicle Queues with Project Buildout The addition of project traffic with buildout wouldpotentially result in vehicle queues exceeding the availablestorage,or would increase vehicle queues by more than 25 feet 1 vehicle)for movements where the queue already exceeds the available storage forthe several movements,as noted in Impacts 7a to 7e. Based on the City of Dublin significance criteria,Impacts 7a through 7eare considered significant impacts. Impact TRANS 7a:Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard Queuing impact to westbound left turn during eveningpeak hour. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. MM TRANS 7a Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A,the City of Dublin shall retime the signal operation at Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road to better accommodate the added traffic associated project buildout.The applicant shall pay to the City of Dublin the cost of retiming. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Impact TRANS 7b:Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Queuing impact to southbound leftturn during both morning and eveningpeak hour same as with Phase 1A and 1B). Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 6a. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1167 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact. Impact TRANS 7c:Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard Queuing impact to westbound left turn during morning and eveningpeak hours. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentiallysignificant impact. MM TRANS 7c Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A,the applicant shall construct a second minimum 250 foot westbound left turn lane on Dublin Boulevard at Keegan Street.The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Impact TRANS 7d:LockhartStreet/Dublin Boulevard Queuing impact to westbound left turn during morning peak hour. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. MM TRANS 7d Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A,the applicant shall extend the existing dual westbound left turn lanes on Dublin Boulevard to Lockhart Street to provide an additional 100 feet of vehicle storage,for a total of 350 feet.The applicant shall beresponsible for the full cost of the improvement.This is a proposed project improvement,but it has been included as a mitigation measure to ensure implementation. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Impact TRANS 7e:Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Queuing impacts to northbound left turn duringmorning and eveningpeak hours with Phase 1A and 1B and,eastbound left turn with buildout in eveningpeak hour. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 3. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1168 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Near Term Traffic The proposed projectwould generate new trips that would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations under Near Term Conditions. Impact Analysis Traffic volumes for the Near term condition were developed through the use of the updated City of Dublin Travel demand model.Model documentation is provided in Appendix F of the Transportation Assessment,which is Appendix J to this EIR.Theforecasts representlikely traffic conditions in the area over the next 10 years.Near Term without Project traffic volumes areshown on Exhibit 3.11 14.The project traffic volumes from Exhibit 3.118and Exhibit 3.11 9were added to the Near term without Project traffic volumes to estimate the Near term with Project traffic volumes,as shown on Figure 16 of the Transportation Assessment through Phase 2.Medical trips through Phase 3were added to estimate near term buildout conditions as shown on Exhibit 3.11 16. Roadway connections to the project site are the same as detailed in Chapter 4 of the Traffic Study. The following additional improvementswere alsoassumed: Fallon Road east/west)at Tassajara Road north/south)intersection widening to provide: 2 northbound left turn lanes,1 through lane,1 right turn only lane 1 southbound left turn lane,1 through lane,1 right turn only lane 1 eastbound left turn lane,2 through lanes,2 right turn only lanes 1westbound left turn lane,2 through lanes,1 right turn only lane This improvement is partially included in the Eastern Dublin TIF,with a portion of the improvement conditioned on adjacent development. Dublin Boulevard between Fallon Road and Lockhart Street construction of a third westbound through lane,consistent with ultimate improvements identified in the Eastern Dublin TIF. Fallon Road at Dublin Boulevard construction of a second eastbound left turn lane, consistent with ultimate improvements identified in the Eastern Dublin TIF. Completion of the I 580 express lanes project as this project is scheduled for completion in early 2016. Heavy vehicle percentages,and pedestrian and bicycle activity at the study intersections were left unchanged from existing conditions except at the driveway connections to Dublin Boulevard.Peak hour factors were adjusted reflecting that as traffic volumes increase,peak hour factors tend to increase and traffic starts to arrivemore uniformlythroughout the peak hour.Existing peak hour factors that are less than 0.92were increased to 0.92;peak hour factors greater than 0.92 were unchanged.Traffic signal timingswereoptimized at some intersections to reflect shifts in travel City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1169 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx patterns as the City of Dublin routinely adjusts traffic signal timings to ensure optimal travel flow through the City. Intersection Operations LOS calculations were conducted to evaluate intersection operations under Near term conditions and the LOS results aresummarized in Table 3.11 14.Near Term without project peak hourtraffic volumes areshown in Exhibit 3.1114.Near Term with project through Phase 2 peak hour traffic volumes areshown in Exhibit 3.1115.Near Te rm with project buildout peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit 3.11 16. Table 3.1114:Near Term Conditions Peak HourIntersection Level of Service No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Near without Project Near Term with Project Phase 1+2 Near Term with Buildout Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 1 Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 40 64 D E 40 70 D E 40 71 D E 2 Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 30 76 C E 31 106 C F 31 107 C F 3 Amador Plaza Road/I 680 SB RampsSignal AM PM 13 12 B B 13 12 B B 13 12 B B 4 Village Parkway/I 680 NB On Ramp SSSC AM PM 1(5) 14) A(A) A(A) 15) 14) A(A) A(A) 15) 14) A(A) A(A) 5 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 42 109 D F 51 120 D F 55 120 D F 6 Scarlett Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 6 8 A A 7 10 A A 7 11 A B 7 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 44 40 D D 43 41 D D 43 42 D D 8 Hacienda Drive/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 7 17 A B 7 18 A A 8 18 A B 9 Hacienda Drive/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 15 27 B C 15 29 B C 16 29 B C 10 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Signal AM PM 19 18 B B 21 21 C C 19 21 C E 11 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal AM PM 30 26 C C 31 26 C C 32 26 C C 12 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal AM PM 28 21 C C 29 24 C C 30 25 C C 13 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 33 97 C F 46 120 D F 67 120 E F 14 Tassajara Road and Santa Rita Road/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 8 24 A C 9 37 A D 11 44 B D 15 Santa Rita Road/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 32 73 C E 33 85 C F 34 91 C F City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1170 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Table 3.1114 cont.):Near Term Conditions Peak HourIntersection Level of Service No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Near without Project Near Term with Project Phase 1+2 Near Term with Buildout Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 16 Brannigan Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 15 21 B C 14 49 B D 14 68 C E 17 Carnmore Place/Future Project Driveway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 5 4 A A 4 7 A A 4 10 A A 18 Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 10 9 B A 22 30 C C 29 62 C E 19 Lockhart Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 8 6 A A 34 48 C D 37 83 D F 20 Fallon Gateway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 6 9 A A 5 22 A C 5 52 A D 21 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal AM PM 14 18 B B 16 19 B B 16 20 B B 22 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 11 15 B B 56 88 E F 86 120 F F 23 Fallon Road/Fallon Gateway Signal AM PM 7 13 A B 7 110 A F 7 120 A F 24 El Charro Road/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 9 64 A E 23 120 C F 32 120 C F 25 El Charro Road/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 10 11 A B 11 13 B B 12 13 B B 26 El Charro Road/StoneridgeDrive Signal AM PM 46 50 D D 45 50 D D 45 49 D D 27 Airway Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway Signal AM PM 15 14 B B 14 14 B B 14 14 B B 28 Airway Boulevard/I 580 WB RampsSignal AM PM 4 5 A A 4 5 A A 4 5 A A 29 Airway Boulevard/I 580 Eastbound Off Ramp Kitty Hawk Road Signal AM PM 28 31 C C 29 31 C C 29 31 C C 30 Isabel Avenue/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 9 9 A A 9 9 A A 9 8 A A 31 Isabel Avenue/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 10 11 A B 10 12 A B 11 12 A B 32 Isabel Avenue/Jack London Boulevard Signal AM PM 46 37 D D 52 38 D D 53 39 D D 33 Stanley Boulevard/E.Stanley Boulevard Signal AM PM 17 20 B B 18 22 B C 18 23 B C 34 Isabel Avenue/Stanley Boulevard Signal AM PM 14 17 B B 15 18 B B 16 19 B B 35 Dublin Boulevard/New Project Driveway SSSC AM PM N/A N/A 1 9) 20) AA) A C) 19) 7 93) A A) A F) City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1171 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Table 3.1114 cont.):Near Term Conditions Peak HourIntersection Level of Service No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Near without Project Near Term with Project Phase 1+2 Near Term with Buildout Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 Notes: 1 SSSC side street stop controlled intersection;Signal signalized intersection. 2 Average intersection delaycalculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. 3 For SSSC intersections,average delay or LOS is listed first,followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses. Source:Fehr Peers,2015. The results of the HCM 2000 LOS calculations indicate that with planned development in Dublin and adjacent jurisdictions in the near term condition,the following intersections would degrade to LOS E or F operations prior to the addition of project traffic: Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard LOS E,PM peak) Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard LOS E,PM peak) Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard LOS F,PM peak) Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard LOS F,PM peak) Santa Rita Road/I 580 Eastbound Ramps LOS E,PM peak) El Charro Road/I 580Westbound Ramps LOS E,PM peak) The addition of project traffic through Phase 2 is expected to worsen the operation of the above intersectionsand result in operations degrading below LOS D at the following intersections: Fallon Road at Dublin Boulevard LOS E,AM peak and LOS F,PM peak) Fallon Road at Fallon Gateway LOS F,PM peak) The addition of traffic with project buildout would worsen the operation of the above intersections, and would result in operations degrading below LOS D at the following intersections: Brannigan Street at Dublin Boulevard LOS E,PM peak) Keegan Street at Dublin Boulevard LOS F,PM peak) LockhartStreet at Dublin Boulevard LOS F,PM peak) Easternmost Project Drive at Dublin Boulevard LOS F,PM peak hour) All other study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better under the HCM 2000 method. Designated TVTC intersections were also evaluated using the HCM 2010 method,with the results presented in Table 3.11 15. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1172 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Table 3.1115:TVTC Designated Intersections Near Term Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Near Term Without Project Near Term With Project Phase 1+2 Near Term With Buildout Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 1 Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 38 38 D D 39 53 D D 39 55 D D 2 Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 59 38 E D 71 43 E D 74 44 E D 5 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 42 101 D F 52 120 D F 56 120 E F 6 Scarlett Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 21 27 C C 22 42 C D 22 52 C D 7 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 50 36 D D 48 38 D D 48 40 D D 10 Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Signal AM PM 18 18 B B 18 20 B B 19 21 B C 11 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal AM PM 27 23 C C 28 23 C C 28 24 C C 12 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal AM PM 24 20 C B 25 22 C C 26 24 C C 13 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 34 101 C F 45 141 D F 62 170 E F 14 Tassajara Road and Santa Rita Road/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 10 24 A C 11 40 B D 12 48 B D 15 Santa Rita Road/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 16 35 B C 20 45 B D 23 51 C D 16 Brannigan Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 9 13 A B 8 28 A C 9 41 A D 17 Carnmore Place/Future Project Driveway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 5 4 A A 6 5 A A 4 8 A A 18 Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 11 8 B A 23 37 C D 68 73 E E 19 Lockhart Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 8 5 A A 19 48 B D 21 98 C F 20 Fallon Gateway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 6 7 A A 4 17 A B 4 44 A D 21 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal AM PM 11 11 B B 11 12 B B 11 13 B B 22 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 11 25 B C 73 120 E F 108 120 F F 23 Fallon Road/FallonGateway Signal AM PM 6 12 A B 6 82 A F 6 115 A F 24 El Charro Road/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 9 17 A B 22 40 C D 30 51 C D City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1173 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Table 3.1115 cont.):TVTC Designated Intersections Near Term Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Near Term Without Project Near Term With Project Phase 1+2 Near Term With Buildout Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 25 El Charro Road/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 23 11 C B 26 12 C B 28 12 C B 26 El Charro Road/StoneridgeDrive Signal AM PM 45 40 D D 41 40 D D 41 40 D D 30 Isabel Avenue/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 11 10 B A 11 10 B A 11 10 B A 31 Isabel Avenue/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 18 14 B B 21 14 C B 23 14 B B 32 Isabel Avenue/Jack London Boulevard Signal AM PM 48 37 D D 53 39 D D 56 39 E D 33 Stanley Boulevard/E.Stanley Boulevard Signal AM PM 16 17 B B 16 19 B B 17 20 B B 34 Isabel Avenue/Stanley Boulevard Signal AM PM 11 15 B B 12 16 B B 13 17 B B 35 Dublin Boulevard/New Project Driveway SSSC AM PM N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 11) 5380) A B) FF) Notes: 1 SSSC side street stop controlled intersection;Signal signalized intersection. 2 Average intersection delaycalculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. 3 For SSSC intersections,average delay or LOS is listed first,followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses. Source:Fehr Peers,2015. Based on the HCM 2010 method,the following intersections are projected to operate at LOS F in the near term condition prior to the addition of project traffic: Dougherty Road at Dublin Boulevard LOS F,PM peak) Tassajara Road at Dublin Boulevard LOS F,PM peak) The addition of project traffic through Phase 2 would worsen the operation of the above intersectionsand result in LOS F conditions at the following intersections: Santa Rita Road at I 580 Eastbound Ramps El Charro Road at I 580 Westbound Ramps The addition of project traffic through Phase 2 is expected to worsen the operation of the above intersectionsand result in operations degrading below LOS D at the following intersections: Fallon Road at Dublin Boulevard Fallon Road at Fallon Gateway City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1174 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx The addition of traffic with project buildout would worsen the operation of the above intersections, and would result in operations degrading below LOSE at the following intersections: Lockhart Street at Dublin Boulevard LOS F,PM peak) Allremaining TVTC designated intersections would operate at LOS E or better during both peak hours with project buildout. VehicleQueues The addition of project traffic is expected to increase vehiclequeues for some movements at the study intersections.Based on detailed information provided in Appendix D,the addition of project traffic would potentially result in vehicle queues exceeding the availablestorage,or would increase vehiclequeues by more than 1 vehicle25 feet)for movements where the left turn queue already exceed the available storage forthe following movements: Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard westbound left turn with Phase 2 and buildout. Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard southbound left turn,and westbound left turn with Phase 2 and buildout. Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard southbound left turn with Phase 2 and buildout. Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard westbound left and northbound left with Phase 2 and buildout. Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard westbound left turn with Phase 2 and buildout,and northbound leftturnwith buildout. Lockhart Street/Dublin Boulevard westbound leftturn with Phase 2 and buildout,and northbound leftturn with buildout. Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard northbound leftturn andeastbound right turn with Phase 2, eastbound left turn with buildout Impacts and Mitigation This section evaluates the intersection LOS results presented in Table 3.1114,compares the results with the criteria for significant impacts,and presents mitigation measures for identified impacts with updated LOS results presented in Table 3.11 16.As a condition of approval,the City of Dublin will collect applicablelocal andregional traffic impact fees in addition to fair share contributions for other improvements needed to mitigate significant impacts.This is consistent with the City’s policy of collecting fees from projects that have a significant impact on local and regional facilities. Source: Fehrand Peers, 2015. 37660004 • 01/2016 | 3.11-14_peak_volumes_2025.cdr Exhibit 3.11-14 PeakHour Traffic Volumes, IntersectionControls and LaneConfigurations - Near-Term (2025) Conditions CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Source: Fehrand Peers, 2015. 37660004 • 01/2016 | 3.11-15_peak_volumes_2025_Phase1&2.cdr Exhibit 3.11-15 PeakHour Traffic Volumes, IntersectionControls and LaneConfigurations - Near-Term (2025) ConditionswithProjectPhase 1 & 2 Conditions CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Source: Fehrand Peers, 2015. 37660004 • 01/2016 | 3.11-16_peak_volumes_2025_buildout.cdr Exhibit 3.11-16 PeakHour Traffic Volumes, IntersectionControls and LaneConfigurations - Near-Term (2025) ConditionswithProject Full-BuildoutConditions CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1181 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Table 3.1116:Mitigated Near Term Conditions Peak HourIntersection Level of Service No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Near Term with Project Buildout Near Term with Project thru Phase 2 with Mitigation Near Term with Project Buildout with Mitigation Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 40 71 D E 38 53 D D 38 55 D D 13 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 67 120 E F 37 67 D E 47 71 D E 15 Santa Rita Road/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 34 91 C F 32 43 C D 33 50 C D 16 Brannigan Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 14 68 B E No impact; mitigation not required 14 20 B C 18 Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 29 62 C E No impact; mitigation not required 23 43 C D 22 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 86 120 F F 21 32 C C 24 55 C D 23 Fallon Road/FallonGateway Signal AM PM 7 120 A F 5 29 A C 6 37 A D 24 El Charro Road/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 32 120 C F 10 23 A C 11 30 B C Source:Fehr Peers,2015. Impact TRANS 8:Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOSE during the PM peak hour in the near term condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The projectwould add more than 50 peak hourtrips with development through Phase 2 and with project buildout.Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin,thisimpact is considered significant.As this intersection is in Downtown Dublin,it is potentially exempt fromthe LOS standard for vehicles if vehiclecapacity improvements degrade mobilityfor bicyclists and pedestrians. TVTC Standard:Based on the HCM 2010 results,this intersection is projected to operate at LOSE or better prior to the addition of project traffic during both peak hours,and its operations would remain at LOS E or better with the addition of project traffic.Therefore,this impact is considered less than significant under TVTC significance criteria. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentiallysignificant impact. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1182 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Mitigation Measure MM TRANS 8 A southbound right turn only lane shall be constructed at this intersection as identified by the Downtown Dublin Transportation Impact Fee October 2015). This improvement shall be constructedby the applicant prior to occupancy of Phase 2 if not constructed by the City prior to that date.If the City constructs the improvement in advance of the occupancy of Phase 2,the applicant shall meet this obligation through the payment of the Eastern Dublin or Downtown TIF or through the payment of a fair share contribution if the improvement is not identified in the ED or Downtown TIF program).With this improvement, intersection operations would improve to LOS D under HCM 2000 methods, reducing the impact to a less than significant level based on the City of Dublin criteria. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Impact TRANS 9:VillageParkway/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOSE during the PM peak hour in the near term condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The projectwould add more than 50 peak hourtrips and result in LOS F operations with development through Phase 2,further degrading LOS F operations with project buildout.Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin,this impact is considered significant.As this intersection is in Downtown Dublin,it is potentially exempt from the LOS standard for vehicles if vehiclecapacity improvements degrade mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians. TVTC Standard:Based on the HCM 2010 results,thisintersection is projected to operate at LOSE or better prior to the addition of project traffic during both peak hours,and its operations would remain at LOS E or better with the addition of project traffic.Therefore,this impact is considered less than significant under TVTC significance criteria. No vehiclecapacityincreasing improvements areplanned at thisintersection.The draft Dublin Downtown Transportation Impact Fee DTIF)identifies improvements at this intersection to better serve pedestrian and bicycle travel through the intersection.In addition,vehicle capacityenhancing improvements would be contrary to City policies such as the Complete Streets Policy and Section 5.2.5 of the General Plan,which states that all intersections within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area are exempt from maintaining LOS D or betterfor intersections in the City.Therefore,this intersection is exempt from the City’s level of service policy and the impact is considered less than significant based on City of Dublin standards. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure No mitigation is necessary. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1183 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Impact TRANS 10:Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour in the near term condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The projectwould add more than 50 peak hourtrips with development through Phase 2 and atproject buildout,further degrading LOS F operations.Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin,this impact is considered significant. TVTC Standard:Based on the HCM 2010 results,this intersection is projected to operate at LOS F prior to the addition of project traffic during the PM peak hour.The addition of project generated vehicle trips would worsen LOS F conditions with Phase 2,further worsening with project buildout. This is considered a significant impact based on guidance provided in the Tri Valley Action Plan. This intersection has been built outwithin itsultimate right of way and no further intersection widening to provide additional vehicle capacity is planned.Other improvements that could be constructed in the existing right of way would result in secondary transit impacts.Therefore,the impact would remain significant and unavoidable under both City of Dublinand TVTC criteria. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 1 and Mitigation Measure TRANS 6a. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact. Impact TRANS 11:Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour in the near term condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The projectwould add more than 50 peak hourtrips with development through Phase 2 and atproject buildout,further degrading LOS F operations.The addition of project traffic would also result in LOSE operations during the morning peak hour with project buildout.Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin,thisimpact is considered significant. TVTC Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F prior to the addition of project traffic during the PM peak hour.The addition of project generatedvehicle trips would worsen LOS F conditions with Phase 2,further worsening with project buildout.Thisis considered a significant impact based on guidance provided in the Tri Valley Action Plan. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1184 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx The implementation of the mitigation measure would not reduce impacts to less than significant under City of Dublin Standards.Additional vehicle capacity improvements than identified in the mitigation measure would be contrary to other city policies,such as the Complete Streets Policy.The project applicant would be required to pay local andregional transportation fees that would fund capacityenhancing improvementson other routes,potentially shifting trafficfrom this intersection,and the project is required to implement a Transportation Demand Managementprogram Mitigation Measure TRANS 1)that could reduce the severity of the project impact at this intersection.However, even with the implementation of these measures,the impact isconsidered significantand unavoidable based on City of Dublin standards. Withthe implementation of the mitigation,the intersection would improve to LOS D during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour with Phase 2 and buildout,reducing the impact to a less than significant level under TVTC criteria. The City of Dublin also plans to construct two additional northbound through lanes for a total of four),and convert one of the two eastbound right turn only lanes to a fourth eastbound through lane with a corresponding receiving lane on the east side of the intersection.This improvement shall be constructed by the applicant prior to occupancy of Phase 2 if not constructed by the City prior to that date.If the City constructs the improvement in advance of the occupancy of Phase 2,the applicant shall meet this obligation through the payment of the Eastern Dublin TIF or through the payment of a fair share contribution if the improvement is not identified in the EDTIF program). Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 2. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact City of Dublin) Lees than significant impact TVTC). Impact TRANS 12:Santa Rita Road/I 580 Eastbound Ramps City of PleasantonStandard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour in the near term condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The project would add more than 10 peak hourtrips and result in LOS F conditions with development through Phase 2.Project buildout would further degrade LOS F conditions.Based on the significance criteria of the City of Pleasanton this impact is potentially significant.However,this intersection is also a designated Gateway Intersectionand exempt for the City of Pleasanton’s Level of Service Standard if vehicular capacity improvements would be contrary to othercity goals. TVTC Standard:Based on the HCM 2010 results,thisintersection is projected to operate at LOSE or better prior to the addition of project traffic during both peak hours,and its operations would City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1185 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx remain at LOS E or better with the addition of project traffic.Therefore,thisimpact is considered less than significant under TVTC significance criteria. Caltrans Standard:Based on the HCM 2010 results,this intersection is projected to operate at LOSE or better prior to the addition of project traffic during both peak hours,and its operations would remain at LOS E or better with the addition of project traffic.For this study,LOS E is considered acceptable for Caltrans facilities in the study area.Therefore,this impact is considered less than significant under Caltrans criteria. Modifying the southbound approach to construct a second southbound left turn lane inaddition to retiming the traffic signal would result in LOS D operations during the weekday PM peak hour, reducing the project impact to a less than less than significant level based on City of Pleasanton criteria.However,this improvement may not be feasible to construct andcould becontrary to other goals,such as improving bicycle andpedestrian access across the interchange.Should the City of Pleasanton in consultation with the City of Dublin,TVTC,and Caltrans identifying feasible improvements at the interchange,the project applicant should pay their fair share.Otherwise,the impact would remain significant and unavoidable under City of Pleasanton criteria.This recommendation is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS 12. Because implementation of this mitigation measure is not withinthe control of the City of Dublin and may be infeasible,its implementation cannotbe assured.Therefore,the impact will be considered significantand unavoidable for the purposes of this EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure MM TRANS 12 Prior to occupancy of Phase 2,the applicant and the City of Dublin shall coordinate with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to construct a second southbound left turn lane in addition to retiming the traffic signal intersection of Santa Rita Road/I 580 Eastbound Ramps.The applicant shall provide Caltrans or the City of Pleasanton with its fair share cost of retiming. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact. Impact TRANS 13:Brannigan Street/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS C during the PM peak hour in the near term condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The projectwould result in LOSE conditions with buildout.Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin,this impact is potentially significant. TVTC Standard:Based on the HCM 2010 results,thisintersection is projected to operate at LOSE or better prior to the addition of project traffic during both peak hours,and its operations would City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1186 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx remain at LOS E or better with the addition of project traffic.Therefore,thisimpact is considered less than significant under TVTC significance criteria. With construction of this improvement,intersection operations would improve to LOS D or better as shown in Table 3.11 16,reducing the project impact at buildout to a less than significantlevel under City of Dublin standards. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 2. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Impact TRANS 14:Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS A during the PM peak hour in the near term condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The projectwould result in LOS F conditions with buildout.Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin,this impact is significant. TVTC Standard:Based on the HCM 2010 results,thisintersection is projected to operate at LOSE or better prior to the addition of project traffic during both peak hours,and its operations would remain at LOS E or better with the addition of project traffic.Therefore,this impact is considered less than significant under TVTC significance criteria. Construction of this improvement would result in LOS D or better operations,reducing the project impact to a less than significantlevel under City of Dublin standards. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentiallysignificant impact. Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 7c. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Impact TRANS 15:LockhartStreet/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS A during the PM peak hour in the near term condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The projectwould result in LOS F City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1187 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx conditions with buildout.Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin,thisimpact is significant. TVTC Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS A during the PM peak hour in the near term condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The project wouldresult in LOS F conditions with project buildout.This is considered significant based on guidance provided in the Tri Valley Action Plan. Construction of this improvement would result in LOS D or better operations,reducing the project impact to a less than significant level under both City of Dublin and TVTC criteria. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Implement MM TRANS 7d and: MM TRANS 15 Prior to occupancy of Phase 3,the applicant shall construct a second northbound right turn lane,providing a four lane northbound cross section on Lockhart Street at Dublin Boulevard. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Impact TRANS 16:Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS B during boththe morning and eveningpeak hour in the near term condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The project would result in LOS E conditions during the morning peak hour and LOS F conditionsduring the evening peak hour through Phase 2.With project buildout,morning peak hour operations would degrade to LOS F and evening peak hour LOS F conditions would further degrade.Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin,this impact is potentially significant. TVTC Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS B during both the morning and evening peak hour in the near term condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The project wouldresult in LOSE conditions during the morning peak hour and LOS F conditions during the eveningpeak hour through Phase 2.With project buildout,morning peak hour operations would degrade to LOS F and eveningpeak hour LOS F conditions would further degrade.This is considered significant based on guidance provided in the Tri Valley Action Plan. The implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS 16 would result in LOS D or better conditions throughproject Phase 2 during both peak hours,reducing the Phase 2 impact to a less than significant level under both City of Dublin and TVTC standards of significance. With theaddition of project trips from development of Phase 3,the intersection would degrade to LOSE during the weekday PM peak hour considering implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1188 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx 3.The impact would be less than significantlevel under TVTC standards of significance,but additional mitigationwould be required to mitigate the impactunder City of Dublin criteria. Implementation of the TDM plan Mitigation Measure TRANS 1),which would reduce overall vehicle trip generation of the Medical Center componentsby 5percent assumed 10percent reduction in employee trips and minor reduction in patient/visitor trips at Phase 3 for a combined overall reduction of 5 percent from the medical center trip generation shown in Table 3.11 16),would result in LOS D operations at the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection with project buildout in the near term condition,reducing the project impact to a less than significant level under both City of Dublin and TVTC standards of significance. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentiallysignificant impact. Mitigation Measure MM TRANS 16 Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for Phase 2,a second northbound left turn lane shall beconstructed at Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard. This improvement shall be constructed by the applicant prior to occupancy of Phase 2 if not constructedby the City prior to that date.If the City constructs the improvement in advance of the occupancy of Phase 2,the applicant shall meet this obligation through the payment of the Eastern Dublin TIF or through the payment of a fair share contribution if the improvement is not identified in the EDTIF program).Note that construction of the second eastbound leftturn lane was assumed in the background near term condition.) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Impact TRANS 17:Fallon Road/FallonGateway City of Dublin Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS B during the eveningpeak hour in the near term condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The projectwould result in LOS F conditionsduring the eveningpeak hour with Phase 2,which would further worsen with project buildout.Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin,this impact is potentially significant. TVTC Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS B during the eveningpeak hour in the near term condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The projectwould result in LOS F conditions during the eveningpeak hour with Phase 2,which would further worsen with project buildout.This is considered significant based on guidance provided in the Tri Valley Action Plan. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS 4 would result in LOS D conditions reducing the project impact to a less than significant level under both City of Dublin and TVTC standards of significance. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1189 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentiallysignificant impact. Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 4. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Impact TRANS 18:Fallon Road/I 580 Westbound Ramps City of PleasantonStandard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour in the near term condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The project would add more than 10 peak hourtrips and result in LOS F conditions with development through Phase 2.Project buildout would further degrade LOS F conditions.Based on the significance criteria of the City of Pleasanton this impact is potentially significant.However,this intersection is alsoa designated Gateway Intersectionand exempt for the City of Pleasanton’s Level of Service Standard if vehicular capacity improvements would be contrary to othercity goals. TVTC Standard:Based on the HCM 2010 results,thisintersection is projected to operate at LOSE or better prior to the addition of project traffic during both peak hours,and its operations would remain at LOS E or better with the addition of project traffic.Therefore,this impact is considered less than significant under TVTC significance criteria. Caltrans Standard:Based on the HCM 2010 results,this intersection is projected to operate at LOS E or better prior to the addition of project traffic during both peak hours,and its operations would remain at LOS E or better with the addition of project traffic.For this study,LOS E is considered acceptable for Caltrans facilities in the study area.Therefore,thisimpact is considered less than significant under Caltrans criteria. Construction of the Phase 2 Fallon Road interchange improvements would reduce the impact of the project build outto a less than significantlevel.However,because implementation of this mitigation measureis not wholly within the control of the City of Dublin,its implementation cannotbe assured. Therefore,the impact will be considered significantand unavoidable for the purposes of this EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure MM TRANS 18 The Fallon Road interchange is planned to be upgraded to the same standards as the Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive interchanges e.g.,three through lanes in each direction across the overpass and a partial cloverleaf ramp system).The project shall pay itsfair share toward planned interchange improvements. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1190 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact. Impact TRANS 19:Vehicle Queues Through Phase 2 and Phase 3 The addition of Phase 2 and Phase 3 project traffic wouldpotentially result in left turn vehicle queues exceeding the available storage,or would increase vehicle queues by more than 25 feet 1 vehicle)for movements where the queue already exceeds the available storage for the following movements: Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard westbound left turn with Phase 2 and buildout. Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard southbound left turn and westbound left turn with Phase 2 and buildout. Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard southbound left turn with Phase 2 and buildout. Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard westbound left and northbound left with Phase 2 and buildout. Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard westbound left turn with Phase 2 and buildout,and northbound leftturnwith buildout. LockhartStreet/Dublin Boulevard westbound left turn with Phase 2 and buildout,and northbound leftturn with buildout. Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard northbound left turn with Phase 2,eastbound left turn with buildout All of the intersections noted in Impact TRANS 20 experience a potentially significant impact with the construction of Phase 2 and 3 before mitigation.Improvements have been identified at all affected locations;however,in some cases they are not feasible because of 1)right of way constraints and2)conflicts with General Plan policies that promote transit.Additionally,several of the affected facilities are under the jurisdiction of another agency either Caltrans or the City of Pleasanton),and,therefore,the City of Dublincannot ensure that they would be implemented as contemplated.As such,the residual significance of several of theseimpacts are significant and unavoidable.Each mitigation measure and the level of significance after mitigation are notedbelow. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentiallysignificant impact. Amador PlazaRoad/Dublin Boulevard As set forthin Mitigation Measure TRANS 8,the project applicant shall work with the City of Dublin to adjust signal timings prior to the occupancy of Phase 2 to minimize the effects of vehicle queue spillback.Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS 8 would improve the intersection to LOS D. Implementation of aTDM program Mitigation Measure TRANS 1)would also reduce the severity of this impact.With the implementation of these measures,the queuing impact at this intersection would be reduced to a less than significantlevel. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1191 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 1 and Mitigation Measure TRANS 8. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard The project applicant shall work with the City of Dublin to adjust signal timings subsequent to the completion of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 project to minimize the effects of vehicle queue spillback. Implementation of this measure would not improve the intersection level of service and is not expected to reduce the extent of potential vehicle queue spillback.Implementation of a TDM program Mitigation Measure TRANS 1)would reduce the severity of this impact,but would not reduce it to a less than significantlevel.There are no plannedimprovements at this intersection that would increase vehicle capacity and it is not feasible to extend the length of the turn pockets. Therefore,the queuing impact atthis intersection is expected to remain significant andunavoidable. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 1 and: MM TRANS 19b Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard.The project applicant shall work with the City of Dublin to adjust signal timings subsequent to the completion of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 project to minimize the effects of vehicle queue spillback. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact. Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Construction of the Scarlett Driveextension would shift some southbound left turn vehicle movements to the Scarlett Drive intersection with Dougherty Road.Payment of the TIF would constitute a fair share payment to this improvement.The project applicant should work with the City of Dublin to adjust signal timings subsequent to the completion of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 project to minimize the effects of vehicle queue spillback.The applicant shall pay the costs forthe adjustment of the signal timing.Implementation of this measure would not improve the intersection level of service and is not expected to reduce the extent of potential queue spillback. Implementation of a TDM Program Mitigation Measure TRANS 1)could reduce the severity of this impact,but it would not reduce it to a less than significantlevel.No additional capacityenhancing improvements have been identified atthis intersection.Additionally,extending the southbound left turn lane to provide additional storage capacity is not consideredfeasible because of the short block size.Therefore,the queuing impact atthis intersection is expected to remain significantand unavoidable. Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 1 and: City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1192 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx MM TRANS 19c Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard.The project applicant shall pay the TIF which would satisfy its obligation forthe Scarlett Drive extension)and work with the City of Dublin to adjust signal timings subsequent to the completion of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 project to minimize the effects of vehicle queue spillback.The applicant shall pay the costs forthe adjustment of the signal timing. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact. Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 11 and: MM TRANS 19d Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard.The project applicant shall also work with the City of Dublin to adjust signal timings subsequent to the completion of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 project to minimize the effects of vehicle queue spillback.The applicant shall pay the costs forthe adjustment of the signal timing. Implementation of this measure would reduce vehicle queues to a level that can be accommodated within the availablestorage space,reducing the queuing impact to a less than significantlevel. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 7c,which involves constructing a second 250 foot westbound left turn lane on Dublin Boulevard at Keegan Street.Implementation of this measure would reduce the queuing impact to aless than significantlevel. Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 7c. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Lockhart Street/Dublin Boulevard Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 7d and Mitigation Measure TRANS 15,which requires extending the existing dual westbound left turn lanes on Dublin Boulevard to Lockhart Street to provide an additional 100 feet of vehicle storage,for a total of 350 feet.Implementation of this measure would reduce the queuing impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 7d and Mitigation Measure TRANS 15. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1193 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 3,which would construct a second northbound left turn lane, in conjunction with signal timing modifications.Implementation of this measure would reduce the vehicle queue impact atthis intersection to a less than significantlevel. Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 3. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Cumulative Traffic Impacts The proposed projectwould generate new trips that would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations under Cumulative Conditions. Impact Analysis Cumulative forecasts were developed using the updated City of Dublintraveldemand model see Appendix F for modeldocumentation),representing existing traffic,plus traffic from approvedand pendingdevelopments,as well as development that couldoccur under the current General Plan. The traffic forecasts also reflect traffic shifts that couldoccur with construction of new regional roadway facilities,including the El Charro Road extension from Stoneridge Drive to Stanley Boulevard and the extension of Dublin Boulevard east to North Canyons Parkway.Other regionalroadway improvementsinclude the planned widening of Stanley Boulevard to provide three lanes in each direction from east of IsabelAvenue. Improvements at intersectionsalong Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road were assumed to have been constructed,as development on parcels adjacent to intersections that have not yet beenconstructed to their ultimate configuration is reflected in the forecasts.The Scarlett Driveextension was also assumed to have beenconstructed,providing an alternate connection between Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road.In the With Project scenario,the connections to Dublin Boulevard at Keegan and Lockhart Streets that would be constructed with the project as well as the widening of Dublin Boulevard along the project frontagewere assumed.Intersectionimprovements were assumed at the following intersections: Amador Plaza/Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive/Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Brannigan Street/Dublin Boulevard FallonGateway/Dublin Boulevard Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1194 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Fallon Road/Fallon Gateway Fallon Road/I 580 Westbound Ramps Fallon Road/I 580 Eastbound Ramps El Charro Road/Jack London Boulevard Airway Boulevard/North Canyons Boulevard Stanley Boulevard/Isabel Connector Ramp The resulting forecasts and intersection laneconfigurations are presented on Exhibit 3.11 17 forthe without projectcondition.For the with Project condition,improvementswere assumed at the project sit access intersections.The project traffic volumes reflecting buildout conditions were added to the Cumulative without Project traffic volumes to estimate the Cumulative with Project traffic volumes,as shown on Exhibit 3.1118. Heavy vehicle percentages,and pedestrian and bicycle activity at the study intersections were left unchanged from existing conditions except at the driveway connections to Dublin Boulevard.Peak hour factors were adjusted to reflect that as traffic volumes increase,peak hour factors tend to increase and traffic arrives more uniformlythroughout the peak hour.Existing peak hour factors that are less than 0.92 were increased to 0.92;peak hour factors greater than 0.92were unchanged. Traffic signal timingswere optimized at some intersections to reflect shifts in travel patterns since the City of Dublin routinely adjusts traffic signal timings to ensure optimal flow through the City. Intersection Operations LOS calculations using HCM 2000 methodswere conducted to evaluate intersection operations under Cumulative conditions and the LOS results aresummarized in Table 3.1117. Table 3.1117:CumulativeConditions Intersection Levels of Service No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Cumulative without Project Cumulative with Project Buildout Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 1 Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 37 101 D F 38 108 D F 2 Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 40 120 D F 43 120 D F 3 Amador Plaza Road/I 680 SB Ramps Signal AM PM 26 22 C C 25 22 C C 4 Village Parkway/I 680 NB On Ramp SSSC AM PM 16) 1 4) A A) A A) 16) 14) AA) AA) 5 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 53 72 D E 55 87 D F 6 Scarlett Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 38 43 D D 51 69 D E 7 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 36 62 D E 38 90 D F City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1195 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Table 3.1117 cont.):CumulativeConditions Intersection Levels of Service No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Cumulative without Project Cumulative with Project Buildout Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 8 Hacienda Drive/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 8 37 A D 8 40 A D 9 Hacienda Drive/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 18 44 B D 18 46 B D 10 TassajaraRoad/Fallon Road Signal AM PM 19 21 B C 20 25 C C 11 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal AM PM 31 27 C C 32 27 C C 12 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal AM PM 30 23 C C 35 23 C C 13 TassajaraRoad/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 44 120 D F 113 120 F F 14 TassajaraRoad and Santa Rita Road/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 11 21 B C 16 36 B D 15 Santa Rita Road/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 36 71 D E 59 91 E F 16 Brannigan Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 23 30 C C 23 76 C E 17 Carnmore Place/Future Project Driveway/ Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 4 5 A A 4 11 A B 18 Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 11 12 B B 46 108 D F 19 Lockhart Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 7 7 A A 27 120 C F 20 Fallon Gateway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 5 11 A B 5 44 A D 21 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal AM PM 19 21 B C 21 22 C C 22 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 36 107 D F 49 120 D F 23 Fallon Road/FallonGateway Signal AM PM 6 12 A B 6 27 A C 24 El Charro Road/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 8 17 A B 28 36 C D 25 El Charro Road/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 11 10 B A 12 11 B B 26 El Charro Road/StoneridgeDrive Signal AM PM 44 52 D D 53 55 D D 27 Airway Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway Signal AM PM 36 50 D D 36 55 D D 28 Airway Boulevard/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 7 11 A B 7 11 A B City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.1196 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Table 3.1117 cont.):CumulativeConditions Intersection Levels of Service No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Cumulative without Project Cumulative with Project Buildout Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 29 Airway Boulevard/I 580 Eastbound Off Ramp Kitty Hawk Road Signal AM PM 21 32 C C 21 32 C C 30 IsabelAvenue/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 8 9 A A 8 10 A A 31 IsabelAvenue/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 12 11 B B 12 12 B B 32 Isabel Avenue/Jack London Boulevard Signal AM PM 60 47 E D 67 52 E D 33 Stanley Boulevard/E.Stanley Boulevard Signal AM PM 18 38 B D 18 43 B D 34 IsabelAvenue/Stanley Boulevard Signal AM PM 35 18 C B 41 20 D B 35 Dublin Boulevard/New ProjectDriveway SSSC AM PM N/A N/A 1 10) 2 38) A A) A E) Notes: 1 SSSC side street stop controlled intersection;Signal signalized intersection. 2 Average intersection delaycalculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. 3 For SSSC intersections,average delay or LOS is listed first,followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses. Source:Fehr Peers,2015. The results of the LOS calculations indicate that with planned development in Dublin andadjacent jurisdictions in the cumulative condition,the following intersection would degrade to LOS E or F operations: Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard LOS F,PM peak hour) Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard LOS F,PM peak hour) Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard LOS E,PM peak hour) Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard LOS E,PM peak hour) Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard LOS F,PM peak hour) Santa Rita Road/I 580 Eastbound Ramps LOS E,PM peak hour) Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard LOS F,PM peak hour) Isabel Avenue/Jack London Boulevard LOS E,PM peak hour) The addition of traffic with project buildout would worsen the operation of the above intersections, and would result in operations degrading below LOS D at the following intersections: Scarlett Drive/Dougherty Boulevard LOS E,PM peak hour) Brannigan Street at Dublin Boulevard LOS E,PM peak hour) Keegan Street at Dublin Boulevard LOS F,PM peak hour) Source: Fehrand Peers, 2015. 37660004 • 01/2016 | 3.11-17_peak_volumes_2040.cdr Exhibit 3.11-17 PeakHour TrafficVolumes, IntersectionControls andLaneConfigurations - Cumulative (2040) Conditions CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Source: Fehrand Peers, 2015. 37660004 • 01/2016 | 3.11-18_peak_volumes_2040_buildout.cdr Exhibit 3.11-18 PeakHour Traffic Volumes, IntersectionControls and LaneConfigurations - Cumulative (2040) ConditionswithProject Full-BuildoutConditions CITYOF DUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTER PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.11101 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx LockhartStreet at Dublin Boulevard LOS F,PM peak hour) Easternmost Project Drive at Dublin Boulevard LOS E,PM peak hour) All other studyintersections would continue to operate at acceptable servicelevelsusing HCM 2000 based on the City of Dublin standard. Designated TVTC intersections were also evaluated using the HCM 2010 method,with the results presented in Table 3.11 18. Table 3.1118:TVTC Designated Intersection CumulativeConditions Intersection Levels of Service No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Cumulative Without Project Cumulative With Project Buildout Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 1 Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 50 90 D F 51 98 D F 2 Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 61 120 E F 72 120 E F 5 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 55 75 D E 56 88 E F 6 Scarlett Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 60 102 D F 80 120 E F 7 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 55 50 D D 55 65 D E 10 TassajaraRoad/Fallon Road Signal AM PM 19 21 B C 20 23 B C 11 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal AM PM 31 25 C C 32 26 C C 12 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal AM PM 27 18 C B 33 20 C B 13 TassajaraRoad/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 46 120 D F 72 120 E F 14 TassajaraRoad and Santa Rita Road/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 13 25 B C 21 46 C D 15 Santa Rita Road/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 26 49 C D 46 61 D E 16 Brannigan Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 10 22 A C 18 49 B D 17 Carnmore Place/Future Project Driveway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 4 5 A A 4 11 A B 18 Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 12 11 B B 66 120 C F City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.11 102 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Table 3.1118 cont.):TVTC Designated Intersection CumulativeConditions Intersection Levels of Service No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Cumulative Without Project Cumulative With Project Buildout Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 19 Lockhart Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 6 5 A A 31 120 C F 20 FallonGateway/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 5 8 A A 5 27 A C 21 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal AM PM 15 14 B B 25 14 C B 22 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 39 84 D F 49 120 D F 23 Fallon Road/FallonGateway Signal AM PM 7 13 A B 8 26 A C 24 El Charro Road/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 7 14 A B 26 29 C C 25 El Charro Road/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 29 11 C B 31 14 C B 26 El Charro Road/StoneridgeDrive Signal AM PM 45 63 D E 48 64 D E 30 IsabelAvenue/I 580 WB Ramps Signal AM PM 9 11 A B 12 11 B B 31 IsabelAvenue/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 15 15 B B 16 17 B B 32 Isabel Avenue/Jack London Boulevard Signal AM PM 58 46 E D 70 52 E D 33 Stanley Boulevard/E.Stanley Boulevard Signal AM PM 16 33 B C 19 38 B D 34 IsabelAvenue/Stanley Boulevard Signal AM PM 35 17 C B 46 19 D B 35 Dublin Boulevard/New ProjectDriveway SSSC AM PM N/A N/A 5050) 50 50) FF) FF) Notes: 1 SSSC side street stop controlled intersection;Signal signalized intersection. 2 Average intersection delaycalculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. 3 For SSSC intersections,average delay or LOS is listed first,followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses. Source:Fehr Peers,2015. Based on the HCM 2010 method,the following intersections are projected to operate at LOS F in the cumulative condition prior to the addition of project traffic: Amador Plaza Road at Dublin Boulevard Village Parkway at Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.11103 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Scarlett Drive at Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road at Dublin Boulevard Fallon Road at Dublin Boulevard The addition of project traffic would worsen the operation of the above intersections and result in LOS F conditions at the following intersections: Dougherty Road at Dublin Boulevard Keegan Street at Dublin Boulevard Lockhart Street at Dublin Boulevard Easternmost Project Drive at Dublin Boulevard Allremaining TVTC designated intersections would operate at LOS E or better during both peak hours with project buildout. VehicleQueues The addition of project traffic is expected to increase vehiclequeues for some movements at the study intersections.Based on detailed information provided in Appendix D,the addition of project traffic would potentially result in left turn vehiclequeues exceeding the available storage,or would increase left turn vehiclequeues by more than 1 vehicle for movements where the queue already exceed the available storage for at least one left turn movement at this following intersections: Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive/Dublin Boulevard Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road and Santa Rita Road/I 580 Westbound Ramps Santa Rita Road/I 580 Eastbound Ramps Brannigan Street/Dublin Boulevard Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Isabel Avenue/Jack London Boulevard Isabel Avenue/Stanley Boulevard The addition of project traffic could also result in vehiclequeues exceeding the available storage at the following site access intersections: Carnmore Place/Future Project Driveway/Dublin Boulevard Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard Lockhart Street/Dublin Boulevard Impactsand Mitigation This section evaluates the intersection LOS results presented in Table 3.1117 and compares the results with the criteria for significant impacts,and presents mitigation measures for identified impacts with updated LOS results presented in Table 3.11 19.As a condition of approval,the City of Dublin will collect applicablelocal and regional traffic impact fees in addition to fair share contributions and directproject related improvements that may include other improvements City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.11 104 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx needed to mitigate significantimpacts.This is consistent with the City’s policy of collecting fees from projects that havea significant impact on local and regional facilities. Table 3.1119:Mitigated CumulativeConditions Intersection Levels of Service No.Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Cumulative with Project Buildout Cumulative with Project Buildout with Mitigation Delay LOS Delay LOS 15 Santa Rita Road/I 580 EB Ramps Signal AM PM 59 91 E F 46 63 D E 18 Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 46 108 C F 34 75 C E 19 Lockhart Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM 27 120 C F N/A 57 N/A E Source:Fehr Peers,2015. Impact TRANS 20:Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour in the cumulative condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The projectwould add more than 50 peak hourtrips at buildout.Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin,this impact is considered significant.As this intersection is in Downtown Dublin,it is potentially exempt fromthe LOS standard for vehicles if vehicle capacity improvements degrade mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians. TVTC Standard:Based on the HCM 2010 results,this intersection is projected to operate at LOS F prior to the addition of project traffic during the PM peak hour.The addition of project generated vehicle trips would worsen LOS F conditions.This is considered a significant impact based on guidance provided in the Tri Valley Action Plan. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TRANS 7a and TRANS 8 would decrease delay slightly,but the intersection would continue to operate at LOS F in the cumulative condition with project buildout.Novehicle capacity increasing improvements areplanned atthis intersection.The draft Dublin Downtown Transportation Impact Fee DTIF)identifies improvements atthis intersection to better serve pedestrian and bicycle travel through the intersection.In addition,vehiclecapacity enhancing improvements would be contrary to City policies such as the Complete Streets Policy and Section 5.2.5 of the General Plan,which states that all intersections within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area are exempt from maintaining LOS D or better for intersections in the City. Therefore,thisintersection is exempt fromthe City’s level of service policy and the impact is considered less than significant based on City of Dublin standards.For intersections in downtown areas,or specifically exemptedby local jurisdictions,the TVTC standards do not apply.Therefore, this impact is less than significant based on TVTC standards. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.11105 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentiallysignificant impact. Mitigation Measure Implement MM TRANS 7a and MM TRANS 8. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Impact TRANS 21:Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour in the cumulative condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The projectwould add more than 50 peak hourtrips at buildout.Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin,this impact is considered significant.As this intersection is in Downtown Dublin,it is potentially exempt from the LOS standard for vehicles if vehiclecapacity improvements degrade mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians. TVTC Standard:Based on the HCM 2010 results,this intersection is projected to operate at LOS F prior to the addition of project traffic during the PM peak hour.The addition of project generated vehicle trips would worsen LOS F conditions.This is considered a significant impact based on guidance provided in the Tri Valley Action Plan. No vehicle capacityincreasing improvementsare planned atthis intersection because those would becontrary to City policies such as the Complete Streets Policy.Additionally,Section 5.2.5 of the General Plan states that all intersections within the Downtown Dublin SpecificPlan area are exempt from maintaining LOS D or betterfor intersections in the City.Therefore,this intersection is exempt from the City’s level of service policy and the impact is considered less than significant based on City of Dublin standards.For intersections in downtown areas,or specifically exemptedby local jurisdictions,the TVTC standards do not apply.Therefore,this impact is less than significant based on TVTC standards. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Impact TRANS 22:Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOSE during the PM peak hour in the cumulative condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The projectwould result in LOS F City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.11 106 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx conditions.Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin,this impact is considered significant. TVTC Standard:Based on the HCM 2010 results,thisintersection is projected to operate at LOSE prior to the addition of project traffic during the PM peak hour.The addition of project generated vehicle trips would result in LOS F conditions.This is considered a significant impact based on guidance provided in the Tri Valley Action Plan. The project applicant is required to pay local and regional transportation fees including Eastern Dublin TIF)that would fund capacityenhancing improvements on other routes,potentially shifting traffic from thisintersection.The project applicant is also required to implement a transportation demandmanagement program Mitigation Measure TRANS 1).Although these measures would reduce the severity of the projectimpact at this intersection,even with the implementation of these measures,the impact would remain significantand unavoidable based on City of Dublin standards and under TVTC criteria. No additional vehicle capacity enhancing improvements beyond those proposed in the Eastern Dublin TIF are proposed at this intersection,as it would further degradebicycle and pedestrian travel and would be contrary to other city policies,such as the Complete Streets Policy.Additionally, further intersectionwidening would increase the minimum crossing time required for pedestrians to cross the street,worsening vehicle delay during off peak periods. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentiallysignificant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 1. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact. Impact TRANS 23:Scarlett Drive/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour in the cumulative condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The projectwould result in LOSE conditions.Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin,this impact is considered significant. TVTC Standard:Based on the HCM 2010 results,thisintersection is projected to operate at LOSE prior to the addition of project traffic during the PM peak hour.The addition of project generated vehicle trips would result in LOS F conditions during the PM peak hour.This is considered a significant impact based on guidance provided in the Tri Valley Action Plan. The project applicant is required to pay local andregional transportation fees including Eastern Dublin TIF)that would fund capacityenhancing improvements on other routes,potentially shifting City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.11107 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx trafficfrom this intersection.The project applicant is also required to implement a Transportation Demand Managementprogram Mitigation Measure TRANS 1)that couldreduce the severity of the projectimpact atthis intersection.However,even with the implementation of these measures,the impactwould remain significant and unavoidable based on City of Dublin standards and under TVTC criteria. No additional vehicle capacityenhancing improvements beyond those proposed in the Eastern Dublin TIF are proposed at this intersection,as it would further degradebicycle and pedestrian travel and would be contrary to other city policies,such as the Complete Streets Policy.Additionally, further intersection widening would increase the minimum crossing time required for pedestrians to cross the street,worsening vehicledelay during off peak periods. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 1. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact. Impact TRANS 24:Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOSE during the PM peak hour in the cumulative condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The projectwould result in LOS F conditions.Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin,this impact is considered significant. TVTC Standard:Based on the HCM 2010 results,thisintersection is projected to operate at LOSE or better prior to the addition of project traffic during both peak hours,and its operations would remain at LOS E or better with the addition of project traffic.Therefore,this impact is considered less than significant under TVTC significance criteria. The project applicant is required to pay local and regional transportation fees including Eastern Dublin TIF)that would fund capacity enhancing improvements on other routes,potentially shifting traffic from this intersection.The project applicant is also required to implement a Transportation Demand Management program Mitigation Measure TRANS 1)that couldreduce the severity of the projectimpact atthis intersection.However,even with the implementation of these measures,the impact would remain significant and unavoidable based on City of Dublin standards. No additional vehicle capacityenhancing improvements beyond those proposed in the Eastern Dublin TIF are proposed at this intersection,as it would further degradebicycle and pedestrian travel and would becontrary to other city policies,such as the Complete StreetsPolicy.Additionally, further intersection widening would increase the minimum crossing time required for pedestrians to cross the street,worsening vehicle delay during off peak periods. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.11 108 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentiallysignificant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 1. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact. Impact TRANS 25:Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour in the cumulative condition prior to the addition of project traffic and the projectwould add more than 50 peak hour trips.The addition of project traffic would also result in LOS F conditions during the morning peak hour.Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin,this impact is considered significant. TVTC Standard:Based on the HCM 2010 results,this intersection is projected to operate at LOS F prior to the addition of project traffic during the PM peak hour.The addition of project generated vehicle trips would worsen LOS F conditions during the PM peak hour.Thisis considered a significant impact based on guidance provided in the Tri Valley Action Plan. The project applicant is required to pay local and regional transportation fees including Eastern Dublin TIF)that would fund capacity enhancing improvements on other routes,potentially shifting traffic from thisintersection.The project applicant also is required to implement a Transportation Demand Management program Mitigation Measure TRANS 1)that could reduce the severity of the projectimpact at this intersection.However,even with the implementation of these measures,the impactwould remain significant and unavoidable based on City of Dublin standards and under TVTC criteria. No additional vehicle capacityenhancing improvements beyond those proposed in the Eastern Dublin TIF are proposed at this intersection,as it would further degradebicycle and pedestrian travel and would be contrary to other city policies,such as the Complete Streets Policy.Additionally, further intersection widening would increase the minimum crossing time required for pedestrians to cross the street,worsening vehicle delay during off peak periods. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentiallysignificant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 1. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.11109 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Impact TRANS 26:Santa Rita Road/I 580 Eastbound Ramps City of Pleasanton Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour in the near term condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The project would add more than 10 peak hourtrips and result in LOS F conditions with project buildout.The addition of project traffic would also result in LOS E conditions during the morning peak hour.Based on the significance criteria of the City of Pleasanton thisimpact is potentially significant.However,this intersection is also a designated Gateway Intersection andexempt for the City of Pleasanton’s Level of Service Standard if vehicular capacity improvements would becontrary to other city goals. TVTC Standard:Based on the HCM 2010 results,thisintersection is projected to operate at LOSE or better prior to the addition of project traffic during both peak hours,and its operations would remain at LOS E or better with the addition of project traffic.Therefore,thisimpact is considered less than significant under TVTC significance criteria. Caltrans Standard:Based on the HCM 2010results,this intersection is projected to operate at LOS E or better prior to the addition of project traffic during both peak hours,and its operations would remain at LOS E or better with the addition of project traffic.For this study,LOS E is considered acceptable for Caltrans facilities in the study area based on guidance providedby the Alameda CTC. Therefore,thisimpact is considered less than significant under TVTC significance criteria. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS 12,which would involve modifying the southbound approach to construct a second southbound left turn lane in addition to retiming the traffic signal, would improve operations to LOS E during the weekday PM peak hour.Further improvements would berequired to provide LOS D operations.This improvement may not be feasible to constructand couldbe contrary to other goals,such as improving bicycle and pedestrian access across the interchange.Should the City of Pleasanton,in consultation with the City of Dublin,TVTC,and Caltrans,identify feasible improvements at the interchange,the project applicant should pay their fair share.in addition,the implementation of this improvement is not under the control of the City of Dublin,and,therefore,its completion cannotbe assured.Therefore,the impact would remain significantandunavoidable under City of Pleasanton criteria. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentiallysignificant impact. Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 12. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact. Impact TRANS 27:Brannigan Street/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOSC during the PM peak hour in the near term condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The project result in LOS E conditions City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.11 110 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx with project buildout.Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin,this impact is considered significant. TVTC Standard:Based on the HCM 2010results,thisintersection is projected to operate at LOSE or better prior to the addition of project traffic during both peak hours,and its operations would remain at LOS E or better with the addition of project traffic.Therefore,this impact is considered less than significant under TVTC significance criteria. The project applicant is required to pay local andregional transportation fees including the eastern Dublin TIF)that would fund capacityenhancing improvements on other routes,potentially shifting traffic from thisintersection.The project applicant also is required to implement a Transportation Demand Management program Mitigation Measure TRANS 1)that couldreduce the severity of the projectimpact at this intersection.However,even with the implementation of these measures,the impactwould remain significant and unavoidable based on City of Dublin standards. No additional vehicle capacity enhancing improvementsbeyond those proposed in the Eastern Dublin TIF are proposed at this intersection,as it would further degrade bicycle and pedestrian travel and would becontrary to other city policies,such as the Complete Streets Policy.Additionally, further intersectionwidening would increase the minimum crossing time required for pedestrians to cross the street,worsening vehicledelay during off peak periods. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentiallysignificant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 1. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact. Impact TRANS 28:Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS B during the PM peak hour in the near term condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The project result in LOS F conditions with project buildout.Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin,this impact is considered significant. TVTC Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS B prior to the addition of project traffic during the PM peak hour.The addition of project generatedvehicle trips wouldresult in LOS F conditions with project buildout.This is considered significant based on guidance provided in the Tr i Valley Action Plan. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.11111 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx With implementation of this measure,the intersection would operate at LOS E,reducing the impact to a less than significantlevel based on TVTC criteria. The implementation of the mitigation measure would reduce the severity of the project impact at thisintersection.However,the impact would remain significant and unavoidable based on City of Dublin standards.Further widening to improve vehicle operations is not recommended,as it would further degrade pedestrian accessibility through the intersection and be contrary to City Complete Streets Policy. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentiallysignificant impact. Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 1 and Mitigation Measure TRANS 7c. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact TVTC). Significant unavoidable impact City of Dublin) Impact TRANS 29:LockhartStreet/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS A during the PM peak hour in the near term condition prior to the addition of project traffic.The project result in LOS F conditions with project buildout.Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin,thisimpact is considered significant. TVTC Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS a prior to the addition of project traffic during the PM peak hour.The addition of project generatedvehicle trips wouldresult in LOS F conditions with project buildout.This is considered significant based on guidance provided in the Tr i Valley Action Plan. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS 7d,which requires a second northbound right turn lane to be constructed at thisintersection,and implementation of the TDM program Mitigation Measure TRANS 1),which results in a 10percent vehicle trip generation reduction at Phase 3,would improve operations.When pedestriansare not crossing Dublin Boulevard,the intersection operations for vehicles improve to LOSE;when pedestrians are crossing Dublin Boulevard,the LOS for vehicles would be F.Although the project applicant would be required to pay local andregional transportation fees that would fund capacityenhancing improvements on other routes,potentially shifting traffic from this intersection,and the project applicant is required to implement a TDM program MM TRANS 1)that could reduce the severity of the project impact at this intersection,the impact would remainsignificant andunavoidable based on City of Dublin standards and under TVTC criteria. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.11 112 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentiallysignificant impact. Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 1 and Mitigation Measure TRANS 7c. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact. Impact TRANS 30:Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour in the cumulative condition prior to the addition of project traffic and the projectwould add more than 50 peak hour trips.Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin,thisimpact is considered significant. TVTC Standard:Based on the HCM 2010 results,thisintersection is projected to operate at LOS F prior to the addition of project traffic during the PM peak hour.The addition of project generated vehicle trips would worsen LOS F conditions.This is considered a significant impact based on guidance provided in the Tri Valley Action Plan. The project applicant is required to pay local and regional transportation fees including Eastern Dublin TIF)that would fund capacityenhancing improvements on other routes,potentially shifting traffic from this intersection.The project applicant is required to implement a Transportation Demand Management program Mitigation Measure TRANS 1)that couldreduce the severity of the project impact atthis intersection.However,even with the implementation of these measures,the impactwould remain significant and unavoidable based on City of Dublin standards and under TVTC criteria. No additional vehicle capacity enhancing improvements beyond those proposed in the Eastern Dublin TIF are proposed at this intersection,as it would further degradebicycle and pedestriantravel and would becontrary to other city policies,such as the Complete Streets Policy.Additionally, further intersection widening would increase the minimum crossing time required for pedestrians to cross the street,worsening vehicledelay during off peak periods. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 1. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.11113 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Impact TRANS 31:Jack LondonBoulevard/Isabel Avenue City of Livermore Standard:The addition of project generated vehicle trips with project buildout during the AM peak hour would worsen intersection operations from LOS D to LOS E,which is below the LOS standard for the City of Livermore.As noted in the City of Livermore General Plan,this intersection is potentially exempt from the City of Livermore LOS D standard as it carries a high proportion of regional cut through traffic and further widening above planned levels may not be feasible or desirable City of Livermore General PlanPolicy CIR 41,p.4).Therefore,this impact may be considered less than significant. Caltrans Standard:The addition of project generatedvehicle trips with project buildout during the AM peak hour would worsen intersection operations from LOS B to LOSE.For this study,LOSE is consideredacceptable for Caltrans facilities in the study area based on guidance provided by the Alameda CTC,resulting in a less than significant impact based on the LOS standard. TVTC Standard:The addition of project generated vehicle trips with campus buildout in the existing condition would worsen LOS D operations to LOS E during the weekday AM peak hour 2010 HCM Results).LOSE is consideredacceptable based on guidance provided in the Tri Valley Action Plan, resulting in a less than significant impact based on the LOS standard. No feasible mitigation is available under City of Livermore standards.As noted in the City of Livermore General Plan,this intersection is potentially exempt fromthe City of Livermore LOS D standard,as it carries a high proportion of regional cut through traffic and further widening above planned levels may not be feasible or desirableCity of Livermore General Plan Policy CIR 4.1,p.4). The City of Dublincannot make the determination of whether the exemption under the City of Livermore General Plan applies.That decision is in the control of the City of Livermore,which is a separate agency from the City.Since the determination is in the control of another agency,the impact is significant and unavoidable. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact Caltrans and TVTC). Potentially significant impact City of Livermore) Mitigation Measures No feasible mitigation is available. Level of Significance After Mitigation City of Livermore Standards.Significant unavoidable impact. Impact TRANS 32:Easternmost Project Drive/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard:This intersection is projected to operate at an overall LOS A during both peak hours.With the addition of projecttraffic with Phase 3,delay for the side street movement is City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.11 114 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx projected to degrade to LOS E conditions.There would be no delay for vehicles traveling on Dublin Boulevard.Peak hour traffic signal warrants would not be satisfied and there are other controlled locations where vehicles can exit the site.Therefore,this is considered a less than significant impact and no improvements are recommended. TVTC Standard:Through movements on Dublin Boulevard are projected to operate at an overall LOS A during both peak hours.Although the side streetmovement may experience LOS F conditions, vehicles traveling on Dublin Boulevard would not beimpeded.Therefore,this is considered a less than significant impact based on guidance provided in the Tri Valley Action Plan. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Impact TRANS 33:Vehicle Queues With Buildout Project buildout wouldpotentially result in vehicle queues exceeding the available storage,or would increase vehiclequeues by more than 25 feet 1 vehicle)for at least one movementwhere the queue is projected to already exceed the available storage at the following intersections: Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard Amador Plaza Road/I 680Southbound Ramps Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard ScarlettDrive/Dublin Boulevard Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Hacienda Drive/I 580 Westbound Ramps Hacienda Drive/I 580 Eastbound Ramps Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road and Santa Rita Road/I 580 Westbound Ramps Santa Rita Road/I 580 Eastbound Ramps Brannigan Street/Dublin Boulevard Fallon Road/Central Parkway Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Fallon Road/FallonGateway Airway Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway Isabel Avenue/Jack London Boulevard Isabel Avenue/Stanley Boulevard This is considered a significant impact based on the City of Dublin significance criteria. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.11115 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx The project applicant is required to pay local and regional transportation fees including the Eastern Dublin TIF)that would fund capacityenhancing improvements on other routes,potentially shifting traffic from these intersections.The project applicant also is required to implement previous mitigation measures that reduce queuing impacts as well as TDM program Mitigation Measure TRANS 1)that could reduce the severity of queuing impacts in the cumulative condition.However, even with the implementation of these measures,the impact would remain significant and unavoidable based on City of Dublin standards. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentiallysignificant impact. Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 1. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact. Impact TRANS 34:Site Access Vehicle Queues With Buildout The addition of project traffic is also expected to result in vehicle queues exceeding the available storage at the following site access intersections for some movements into and outof the site: Carnmore Place/FutureProject Driveway/Dublin Boulevard Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard Lockhart Street/Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard/Eastern Project Driveway Impacts at the intersections noted aboveexcept for Dublin Boulevard/Eastern Project Driveway)are considered significant based on the City of Dublin significance criteria.At the Dublin Boulevard/ Eastern Project Driveway intersection,the northbound vehicle queues could extend into the site during the weekday PM peak hour;however,the extent of vehicle queues are not expected to impede internal circulation.This impact is considered less than significantand no mitigation is required. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure MM TRANS 34a Carnmore Place/FutureProject Driveway/Dublin Boulevard.Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Phase 1B,the northbound approach at Carnmore Place/FutureProject Driveway/Dublin Boulevardshall provide adequate storage capacity for northbound left turns.The plans shall bereviewed andapproved by the City and incorporated into the proposed project. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.11 116 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard The northbound vehiclequeues could extend into the site during the weekday PM peak hour, potentially impeding turning movements at thefirst internal intersection on Keegan Street and resulting in southbound vehicles experience difficulty accessing the site andspilling back to Dublin Boulevard.Prior to the issuance of thefirst certificate of occupancy for Phase 3,a southbound left turn pocket on Keegan Street to the northern project roadway shall be constructedand the northernmost access on Keegan Street to the commercialparcelshall be restricted to right in only. The plansshall be reviewed andapprovedby the City and incorporated intothe proposed project. Implementation of these improvements and the restrictionwould reduce the potential for vehicle queues to spill out to Dublin Boulevard from the project site,reducing the queuing impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 7c. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Lockhart Street/Dublin Boulevard The northbound vehicle queues could extend into the site during the weekday PM peak hour, potentially impeding turning movements at thefirst internal intersection on LockhartStreetand resulting in southbound vehicles experience difficulty accessing the site andspilling back to Dublin Boulevard.Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 7d and Mitigation Measure TRANS 15 and construct a southbound left turn pocket on Lockhart Street to the northern project roadway prior to the issuance of thefirst certificate of occupancy for Phase 3.Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the potential for vehicle queues to spill out to Dublin Boulevard from the project site,reducing the queuing impact to a less than significantlevel. Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 7d and Mitigation Measure TRANS 15. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Congestion Management Plan Roadways Impact Analysis This section addresses Congestion Management Plan facilities,including freeways and arterial segments.The firstportion of this impact will address freewayoperations on I 580and the second portion will address facilities under the jurisdiction of the Alameda CTC. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.11117 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Impact TRANS 35:The proposed project would generate new trips that wouldcontribute to unacceptable operations on Interstate 580. Freeway Operations Freeway Forecasts and Freeway System Improvements Existing freeway volumes were obtained from mainline traffic countsconductedby a traffic counting firm on I 580 between Hopyard Road and Hacienda Drive and between El Charro Road and Airway Road.Separate counts of the eastbound high occupancy vehicle lane and general purpose lanes were conducted.The count volumes were compared to Caltrans data as available through the Freeway Performance Measurement System PeMS).Field measuredvolumes wereslightly higher but similar to data available through the PeMS system.Ramp volumes were used to determine existing volumes for the other segments ofI 580.Project traffic was then added to the existing freeway volumes to develop the forecasts for the existing with Phase 1A/1band buildout conditions. The City of Dublin Travel Demand Model was used to forecast near term and cumulative freeway volumes.Nofreewayimprovements were assumed in the analysis of existing conditions,but completion of the express lanes project on I 580 was assumed to have occurred for the analysis of near term and cumulativeconditions. Freeway Operations Freeway segment LOS was calculated based on existing,near term and cumulative scenarios for the same scenarios as the intersection analysis using the analysis methods outlined in Chapter 1 of the HCM for freewaymainline,merge/diverge and weave segments. Results are presented in Table 3.1120,Table 3.1121,and Table 3.11 22 forthe eastbound direction of travel forthe existing,near term and cumulative scenarios.The analysis segments operate at LOS D or better the weekday morning and eveningpeak hours.Although the addition of project traffic would increase vehicle density and delay,the eastbound segments are projected to operate at LOS D or better with the addition of buildout project traffic in the existing condition. In the near term and cumulative conditions,vehicle densityand delay increases with local and regional growth,but the segments are expected to continueoperate at LOS D or better.The addition of project traffic in the near term would result in LOS E for somesegments,but LOSE is consideredacceptable based on the significance criteria. Results are presented in Table 3.1123,Table 3.1124,and Table 3.1125 forthe westbound direction of travel for the existing,near term and cumulative scenarios.Theanalysis segments operate at LOS D or better the weekday morning and eveningpeak hours.Although the addition of project traffic would increase vehicle density and delay,the eastbound segments are projected to operate at LOS D or better with the addition of buildout project traffic in the existing condition. In the near term and cumulative conditions,vehicle densityand delay increases with local and regional growth,but the segments are expected to continueoperate at LOS D or better.The addition of project traffic in the near term would result in LOS F for some segments,resulting in a significant impact to westbound freeway operations between Hopyard Road and Airway Boulevard. Ci ty of Du b lin Ka ise r Du b lin Me d ica l Ce n te r Pr o je ct Dr a ft EI R Fi rstC a rb o n So lu tio n s H: Client PN JN 3766 37660004 3 Dr aft EIR 37660004 Se c03 11 Tr ansportation docx Ta b l e 3. 1 1 20 Ex is t in g Co n d it io n s I 58 0 Ea s t b o u n d Ma in lin e Le v e ls of Se r v ic e No Ma in lin e Lo c a t io n Se g m e n t Ty p e Pe a k Ho u r Ex is t in g wi th o u t Pr o je c t Ex istin g wi th Pr o je c t Ph a se 1A 1 b Existing V/ C De n s it y LO S V/ C De n s ity LO S V/ C Pe rc e n t In c re a s e V/ C 1 I 58 0 EB SB Ho p y a rd Rd Lo o p On ra m p Ba s ic AM 0. 5 0 17 3 B 0. 5 2 17 8 B 3% 0. 5 4 PM 0. 5 9 20 4 C 0. 6 0 20 9 C 2% 0. 6 2 2 I 58 0 EB NB Ho p y a r d Rd Lo o p On ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 4 4 17 3 B 0. 4 5 17 8 B 3% 0. 4 6 PM 0. 5 3 20 3 C 0. 5 4 20 7 C 2% 0. 5 5 3 I 58 0 EB Ha c ie n d a Dr Of f ra m p Ba s ic AM 0. 5 2 17 7 B 0. 5 3 18 2 C 3% 0. 5 6 PM 0. 6 1 21 3 C 0. 6 3 21 8 C 2% 0. 6 4 4 I 58 0 EB Ha c ie n d a Dr Of f ra m p to SB Ha c ie n d a On r a m p Ba s ic AM 0. 5 9 20 4 C 0. 6 1 21 2 C 4% 0. 6 5 PM 0. 7 5 27 5 D 0. 7 7 28 4 D 2% 0. 7 9 5 I 58 0 EB SB Ha c ie n d a On r a m p Me r g e AM 0. 4 2 17 2 B 0. 4 3 17 7 B 3% 0. 4 5 PM 0. 5 5 21 8 C 0. 5 5 21 8 C 0% 0. 5 6 6 I 58 0 EB NB Ha c ie n d a On ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 4 3 17 6 B 0. 4 4 18 1 B 4% 0. 4 5 PM 0. 6 0 23 7 C 0. 6 2 24 2 C 2% 0. 6 3 7 I 58 0 EB Sa n t a Ri ta Of f ra m p to SB Sa n ta Ri t a On r a m p Ba s ic AM 0. 5 1 17 4 B 0. 5 3 18 1 C 4% 0. 5 5 PM 0. 6 9 24 3 C 0. 7 0 25 1 C 3% 0. 7 2 8 I 58 0 EB Sa n t a Ri ta Of f ra m p to SB Sa n ta Ri t a On Ra m p Ba s ic AM 0. 5 2 18 0 B 0. 5 4 18 5 C 3% 0. 5 5 PM 0. 7 5 27 3 D 0. 7 6 27 8 D 1% 0. 7 7 9 I 58 0 EB NB Sa n t a Ri t a On Ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 4 7 19 4 B 0. 4 9 19 8 B 2% 0. 5 0 PM 0. 7 2 28 3 D 0. 7 3 28 6 D 1% 0. 7 4 10 I 58 0 EB NB Sa n t a Ri t a On Ra m p to El Ch a rr o Rd Of f ra m p Ba s ic AM 0. 4 6 15 7 B 0. 4 7 16 1 B 2% 0. 4 8 PM 0. 6 9 24 5 C 0. 7 0 24 8 C 1% 0. 7 0 Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 3 11 Tr a n sp o rta tio n d o cx Ta b l e 3. 1 1 20 c o n t Ex i s t i n g Co n d i t i o n s I 58 0 Ea s t b o u n d Ma i n l i n e Le v e l s of Se r v i c e No Ma i n l i n e Lo c a t i o n Se g m e n t Ty p e Pe a k Ho u r Ex i s t i n g wi t h o u t Pr o j e c t Ex i s t i n g wi t h Pr o j e c t Ph a s e 1A 1 b Existing V/ C De n s i t y LO S V/ C De n s i t y LO S V/ C Pe r c e n t In c r e a s e V/ C 11 I 58 0 EB El Ch a r r o Rd Of f ra m p to SB El Ch a r r o Rd On r a m p Ba s ic AM 0. 5 3 18 3 C 0. 5 3 18 3 C 0% 0. 5 4 PM 0. 7 8 29 1 D 0. 7 9 29 2 D 0% 0. 7 9 12 I 58 0 EB SB El Ch a r r o Rd On ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 5 4 22 0 C 0. 5 5 22 4 C 2% 0. 5 7 PM 0. 7 7 30 2 D 0. 8 2 32 0 D 7% 0. 9 1 13 I 58 0 EB NB El Ch a r r o Rd On ra m p to Ai r w a y Bl v d Of f ra m p Ba s ic AM 0. 4 7 16 1 B 0. 4 7 16 2 B 1% 0. 4 8 PM 0. 7 1 25 4 C 0. 7 3 26 3 D 2% 0. 7 6 So u r c e Fe h r an d Pe e r s 20 1 5 Ta b l e 3. 1 1 21 Ne a r Te r m Co n d i t i o n s I 58 0 Ea s t b o u n d Ma i n l i n e Le v e l s No Ma i n l i n e Lo c a t i o n Se g m e n t Ty p e Pe a k Ho u r Ne a r Te r m wi t h o u t Pr o j e c t Ne a r Te r m Th r o u g h Pr o j e c t Ph a s e 2 Ne V/ C De n s i t y LO S V/ C De n s i t y LO S V/ C Pe r c e n t In c r e a s e V/ C 1 I 58 0 EB SB Ho p y a r d Rd Lo o p On ra m p Ba s ic AM 0. 5 9 20 4 C 0. 6 2 21 6 C 5% 0. 6 3 PM 0. 6 0 20 8 C 0. 6 4 22 3 C 6% 0. 6 5 2 I 58 0 EB NB Ho p y a r d Rd Lo o p On ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 5 0 19 3 B 0. 5 2 20 1 C 5% 0. 5 2 PM 0. 5 6 21 3 C 0. 5 8 22 0 C 3% 0. 5 8 3 I 58 0 EB Ha c i e n d a Dr Of f ra m p Ba s i c AM 0. 6 0 21 0 C 0. 6 4 22 2 C 5% 0. 6 4 PM 0. 6 3 21 9 C 0. 6 7 23 5 C 6% 0. 6 7 4 I 58 0 EB Ha c i e n d a Dr Of f ra m p to SB Ha c i e n d a On r a m p Ba s ic AM 0. 7 0 24 8 C 0. 7 4 26 7 D 6% 0. 7 5 PM 0. 7 6 28 1 D 0. 8 2 31 0 D 6% 0. 8 3 Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 3 11 Tr a n sp o rta tio n d o cx Ta b l e 3. 1 1 21 c o n t Ne a r Te r m Co n d i t i o n s I 58 0 Ea s t b o u n d Ma i n l i n e Le v e ls No Ma in lin e Lo c a t io n Se g m e n t Ty p e Pe a k Ho u r Ne a r Te r m wi t h o u t Pr o je c t Ne a r Te r m Th ro u g h Pr o je c t Ph a s e 2 Ne V/ C De n s it y LO S V/ C De n s it y LO S V/ C Pe r c e n t In c r e a s e V/ C 5 I 58 0 EB SB Ha c ie n d a On r a m p Me r g e AM 0. 4 8 19 5 B 0. 5 1 20 4 C 5% 0. 5 1 PM 0. 5 6 22 3 C 0. 5 9 23 5 C 6% 0. 6 0 6 I 58 0 EB NB Ha c i e n d a On r a m p Me r g e AM 0. 4 8 19 6 B 0. 5 1 20 6 C 6% 0. 5 1 PM 0. 6 5 25 4 C 0. 6 8 26 5 C 7% 0. 6 9 7 I 58 0 EB Sa n t a Ri t a Of f ra m p to SB Sa n t a Ri t a On r a m p Ba s ic AM 0. 6 0 20 8 C 0. 6 3 22 2 C 6% 0. 6 5 PM 0. 7 2 25 8 C 0. 7 7 28 4 D 7% 0. 7 8 8 I 58 0 EB Sa n t a Ri t a Of f ra m p to SB Sa n t a Ri t a On Ra m p Ba s ic AM 0. 6 2 21 5 C 0. 6 4 22 5 C 4% 0. 6 5 PM 0. 7 8 28 9 D 0. 8 2 31 1 D 6% 0. 8 2 9 I 58 0 EB NB Sa n t a Ri t a On Ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 5 6 22 3 C 0. 5 8 23 1 C 4% 0. 5 8 PM 0. 7 5 29 2 D 0. 7 8 30 3 D 4% 0. 7 8 10 I 58 0 EB NB Sa n t a Ri t a On Ra m p to El Ch a r r o Rd Of f ra m p Ba s ic AM 0. 5 3 18 3 C 0. 5 6 19 1 C 4% 0. 5 6 PM 0. 7 1 25 6 C 0. 7 5 27 2 D 4% 0. 7 5 11 I 58 0 EB El Ch a r r o Rd Of f ra m p to SB El Ch a r r o Rd On r a m p Ba s ic AM 0. 5 9 20 3 C 0. 5 9 20 3 C 0% 0. 5 9 PM 0. 8 1 30 7 D 0. 8 4 32 1 D 3% 0. 8 4 12 I 58 0 EB SB El Ch a r r o Rd On ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 5 8 23 7 C 0. 6 0 24 4 C 4% 0. 6 1 PM 0. 7 9 31 1 D 0. 9 1 35 2 E 7% 0. 9 5 13 I 58 0 EB NB El Ch a r r o Rd On ra m p to Ai r w a y Bl v d Of f ra m p Ba s ic AM 0. 5 2 17 9 B 0. 5 3 18 2 C 2% 0. 5 3 PM 0. 7 4 26 8 D 0. 8 0 30 2 D 9% 0. 8 2 So u r c e Fe h r an d Pe e r s 20 1 5 Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 3 11 Tr a n sp o rta tio n d o cx Ta b l e 3. 1 1 22 Cu m u l a t i v e Co n d i t i o n s I 58 0 Ea s t b o u n d Ma i n l i n e Le v e l s of Se r v ic e No Ma in lin e Lo c a t io n Se g m e n t Ty p e Pe a k Ho u r Cu m u la t iv e wi t h o u t Pr o je c t Cu m u V/ C De n s it y LO S V/ C De n 1 I 58 0 EB SB Ho p y a r d Rd Lo o p On ra m p Ba s ic AM 0. 6 8 23 9 C 0. 8 0 30 PM 0. 6 0 20 8 C 0. 6 6 23 2 I 58 0 EB NB Ho p y a r d Rd Lo o p On ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 5 5 21 3 C 0. 6 7 25 PM 0. 5 6 21 3 C 0. 5 9 22 3 I 58 0 EB Ha c ie n d a Dr Of f ra m p Ba s ic AM 0. 6 9 24 5 C 0. 8 2 30 PM 0. 6 3 21 9 C 0. 6 9 24 4 I 58 0 EB Ha c ie n d a Dr Of f ra m p to SB Ha c ie n d a On r a m p Ba s ic AM 0. 7 9 29 6 D 0. 9 7 42 PM 0. 7 6 27 8 D 0. 8 5 32 5 I 58 0 EB SB Ha c ie n d a On r a m p Me r g e AM 0. 5 3 21 4 C 0. 6 9 26 PM 0. 5 5 22 0 C 0. 6 1 24 6 I 58 0 EB NB Ha c ie n d a On r a m p Me r g e AM 0. 5 4 21 5 C 0. 7 0 27 PM 0. 6 5 25 3 C 0. 7 1 27 7 I 58 0 EB Sa n t a Ri t a Of f ra m p to SB Sa n t a Ri t a On r a m p Ba s ic AM 0. 6 8 24 2 C 0. 8 6 33 PM 0. 7 1 25 4 C 0. 8 0 29 8 I 58 0 EB Sa n t a Ri t a Of f ra m p to SB Sa n t a Ri t a On Ra m p Ba s ic AM 0. 6 8 24 3 C 0. 8 3 31 PM 0. 7 5 27 5 D 0. 8 2 30 9 I 58 0 EB NB Sa n t a Ri t a On Ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 6 2 24 5 C 0. 7 4 28 PM 0. 7 3 28 3 D 0. 7 8 30 10 I 58 0 EB NB Sa n t a Ri t a On Ra m p to El Ch a r r o Rd Of f ra m p We a v e AM 0. 5 9 20 4 C 0. 7 1 25 PM 0. 6 9 24 6 C 0. 7 5 27 Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 3 11 Tr a n sp o rta tio n d o cx Ta b l e 3. 1 1 22 c o n t Cu m u l a t i v e Co n d i t i o n s I 58 0 Ea s t b o u n d Ma i n l i n e Le v e l s of Se r v i c e No Ma in lin e Lo c a t io n Se g m e n t Ty p e Pe a k Ho u r Cu m u la t iv e wi t h o u t Pr o je c t Cu m u V/ C De n s it y LO S V/ C De n 11 I 58 0 EB El Ch a r r o Rd Of f ra m p to SB El Ch a r r o Rd On r a m p Ba s ic AM 0. 6 3 22 1 C 0. 7 4 26 PM 0. 7 8 28 7 D 0. 8 3 31 12 I 58 0 EB SB El Ch a r r o Rd On ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 6 9 27 4 C 0. 8 0 31 PM 0. 7 6 30 0 D 0. 9 2 35 13 I 58 0 EB NB El Ch a r r o Rd On ra m p to Ai r w a y Bl v d Of f ra m p Ba s i c AM 0. 7 1 25 6 C 0. 8 2 31 PM 0. 7 3 26 2 D 0. 8 2 31 So u r c e Fe h r an d Pe e r s 20 1 5 Ta b l e 3. 1 1 23 Ex i s t i n g Co n d i t i o n s I 58 0 We s t b o u n d Ma i n l i n e Le v e l s of Se r v i c e No Ma i n l i n e Lo c a t i o n Se g m e n t Ty p e Pe a k Ho u r Ne a r Te r m wi t h o u t Pr o je c t Ne a r Te r m Th ro u g h Pr o je c t Ph a s e 2 Ne V/ C De n s it y LO S V/ C De n s it y LO S V/ C Pe r c e n t In c r e a s e V/ C 1 I 58 0 EB SB Ho p y a r d Rd Lo o p On ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 5 9 24 6 C 0. 6 1 25 3 C 3% 0. 6 4 PM 0. 6 0 25 0 C 0. 6 2 25 6 C 2% 0. 6 3 2 I 58 0 EB NB Ho p y a r d Rd Lo o p On ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 6 8 27 1 C 0. 7 0 27 8 C 3% 0. 7 2 PM 0. 7 3 28 8 D 0. 7 4 29 3 D 2% 0. 7 5 3 I 58 0 EB Ha c i e n d a Dr Of f ra m p Ba s i c AM 0. 7 2 25 8 C 0. 7 4 26 9 D 3% 0. 7 7 PM 0. 7 6 27 7 D 0. 7 7 28 5 D 2% 0. 7 9 4 I 58 0 EB Ha c i e n d a Dr Of f ra m p to SB Ha c i e n d a On r a m p Di v e r g e AM 0. 6 3 15 1 B 0. 6 5 15 9 B 3% 0. 6 8 PM 0. 6 6 16 4 B 0. 6 7 16 9 B 2% 0. 6 9 Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 3 11 Tr a n sp o rta tio n d o cx Ta b l e 3. 1 1 23 c o n t Ex i s t i n g Co n d i t i o n s I 58 0 We s t b o u n d Ma i n l i n e Le v e l s of Se r v i c e No Ma in lin e Lo c a t io n Se g m e n t Ty p e Pe a k Ho u r Ne a r Te r m wi t h o u t Pr o je c t Ne a r Te r m Th ro u g h Pr o je c t Ph a s e 2 Ne V/ C De n s it y LO S V/ C De n s it y LO S V/ C Pe r c e n t In c r e a s e V/ C 5 I 58 0 EB SB Ha c ie n d a On r a m p Ba s ic AM 0. 6 3 21 9 C 0. 6 3 22 0 C 1% 0. 6 3 PM 0. 6 9 24 5 C 0. 6 9 24 5 C 0% 0. 6 9 6 I 58 0 EB NB Ha c i e n d a On r a m p Me r g e AM 0. 6 4 25 6 C 0. 6 4 25 7 C 1% 0. 6 4 PM 0. 6 3 25 3 C 0. 6 3 25 3 C 0% 0. 6 3 7 I 58 0 EB Sa n t a Ri t a Of f ra m p to SB Sa n t a Ri t a On r a m p Ba s ic AM 0. 6 0 20 7 C 0. 6 1 21 0 C 1% 0. 6 1 PM 0. 6 0 20 6 C 0. 6 2 21 4 C 3% 0. 6 5 8 I 58 0 EB Sa n t a Ri t a Of f ra m p to SB Sa n t a Ri t a On Ra m p Ba s ic AM 0. 6 7 23 8 C 0. 6 8 24 2 C 1% 0. 6 9 PM 0. 6 7 23 8 C 0. 7 0 24 9 C 4% 0. 7 4 9 I 58 0 EB NB Sa n t a Ri t a On Ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 6 6 26 7 C 0. 6 6 26 9 C 1% 0. 6 7 PM 0. 7 0 28 1 D 0. 7 2 28 8 D 3% 0. 7 5 10 I 58 0 EB NB Sa n t a Ri t a On Ra m p to El Ch a r r o Rd Of f ra m p We a v e AM 0. 6 6 27 1 C 0. 6 7 27 5 C 1% 0. 6 8 PM 0. 6 4 26 1 C 0. 6 7 27 5 C 4% 0. 7 2 11 I 58 0 EB El Ch a r r o Rd Of f ra m p to SB El Ch a r r o Rd On r a m p Ba s ic AM 0. 7 4 26 6 D 0. 7 5 27 1 D 1% 0. 7 6 PM 0. 7 6 27 7 D 0. 7 9 29 4 D 4% 0. 8 5 12 I 58 0 EB SB El Ch a r r o Rd On ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 6 5 26 9 C 0. 6 6 27 2 C 1% 0. 6 7 PM 0. 8 0 31 9 D 0. 8 2 32 8 D 3% 0. 8 7 13 I 58 0 EB NB El Ch a r r o Rd On ra m p to Ai r w a y Bl v d Of f ra m p Ba s ic AM 0. 6 4 22 2 C 0. 6 5 22 6 D 1% 0. 6 6 PM 0. 7 3 26 3 D 0. 7 5 27 5 D 4% 0. 8 0 So u r c e Fe h r an d Pe e r s 20 1 5 Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 3 11 Tr a n sp o rta tio n d o cx Ta b l e 3. 1 1 24 Ne a r Te r m Co n d i t i o n s I 58 0 We s t b o u n d Ma i n l i n e Le v e l s of Se r v i c e No Ma in l in e Lo c a t io n Se g m e n t Ty p e Pe a k Ho u r Ne a r Te r m wi t h o u t Pr o j e c t Ne a r Te r m th ro u g h Ph a s e 2 Ne a V/ C De n s it y LO S V/ C De n s it y LO S V/ C Pe r c e n t In c r e a s e Vo l u m e 1 I 58 0 WB NB Ai r w a y Bl v d On ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 5 5 23 1 C 0. 5 8 24 4 C 7% 0. 6 0 PM 0. 7 8 31 4 D 0. 9 0 35 6 E 15 0. 9 1 2 I 58 0 WB SB Ai r w a y Bl v d On ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 6 8 27 1 C 0. 7 1 28 3 D 5% 0. 7 2 PM 0. 8 7 33 8 D 1. 0 4 F 20 1. 0 6 3 I 58 0 WB Ai r w a y Bl v d to Fa llo n Rd Ba s ic AM 0. 6 9 24 4 C 0. 7 3 26 2 D 6% 0. 7 4 PM 0. 9 2 38 0 E 1. 0 6 F 15 1. 0 7 4 I 58 0 WB Fa llo n Rd Of f Ra m p Di v e r g e AM 0. 6 0 14 1 B 0. 6 3 15 4 B 6% 0. 6 5 PM 0. 8 0 21 8 C 1. 0 8 F 15 1. 1 0 5 I 58 0 WB Fa llo n Rd Of f Ra m p to NB Fa llo n Rd On ra m p Ba s ic AM 0. 6 3 22 0 C 0. 6 3 22 1 C 1% 0. 6 3 PM 0. 7 9 29 5 D 0. 9 0 36 8 E 15 0. 9 1 6 I 58 0 WB NB Fa l l o n Rd On ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 6 4 25 8 C 0. 6 5 25 9 C 0% 0. 6 5 PM 0. 8 0 31 2 D 0. 8 9 34 7 D 35 0. 8 9 7 I 58 0 WB SB Fa l l o n Rd On ra m p to Ta s s a j a r a Rd Of f ra m p Ba s ic AM 0. 6 2 21 6 C 0. 6 3 22 0 C 2% 0. 6 3 PM 0. 7 1 25 6 C 0. 8 5 33 0 D 19 0. 8 6 8 I 58 0 WB Ta s s a ja r a Rd Of f ra m p to NB Ta s s a j a r a Rd On ra m p Ba s i c AM 0. 6 8 23 9 C 0. 6 9 24 5 C 2% 0. 6 9 PM 0. 8 0 30 0 D 0. 9 7 42 0 E 15 0. 9 8 9 I 58 0 WB NB Ta s s a j a r a Rd On ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 6 6 26 8 C 0. 6 7 27 2 C 2% 0. 6 7 PM 0. 8 0 31 9 D 0. 9 9 F 23 1. 0 0 10 I 58 0 WB SB Ta s s a j a r a Rd On ra m p We a v e AM 0. 6 8 27 6 C 0. 6 9 28 6 D 2% 0. 6 9 PM 0. 7 6 32 3 D 0. 9 0 F 12 0. 9 2 Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 3 11 Tr a n sp o rta tio n d o cx Ta b l e 3. 1 1 24 c o n t Ne a r Te r m Co n d i t i o n s I 58 0 We s t b o u n d Ma i n l i n e Le v e ls of Se r v i c e No Ma in l in e Lo c a t io n Se g m e n t Ty p e Pe a k Ho u r Ne a r Te r m wi t h o u t Pr o j e c t Ne a r Te r m th ro u g h Ph a s e 2 Ne a V/ C De n s it y LO S V/ C De n s it y LO S V/ C Pe r c e n t In c r e a s e Vo l u m e 11 I 58 0 WB Ha c ie n d a Dr Of f ra m p to NB Ha c ie n d a Dr On ra m p Ba s ic AM 0. 7 2 26 1 D 0. 7 4 26 9 D 2% 0. 7 4 PM 0. 8 8 35 2 E 1. 0 6 F 20 1. 0 8 12 I 58 0 WB NB Ha c i e n d a Dr On ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 6 4 26 6 C 0. 6 6 27 1 C 2% 0. 6 6 PM 0. 9 2 36 1 E 1. 2 5 F 19 1. 3 0 13 I 58 0 WB SB Ha c i e n d a Dr On ra m p to Ho p y a r d Dr Of f ra m p Ba s ic AM 0. 6 3 22 0 C 0. 6 5 22 6 C 2% 0. 6 5 PM 0. 8 4 32 2 D 0. 9 9 F 18 1. 0 1 So u r c e Fe h r an d Pe e r s 20 1 5 Ta b l e 3. 1 1 25 Cu m u l a t i v e Co n d i t i o n s I 58 0 We s t b o u n d Ma i n l i n e Le v e l s of Se r v i c e No Ma i n l i n e Lo c a t i o n Se g m e n t Ty p e Pe a k Ho u r Cu m u l a t i v e wi t h o u t Pr o j e c t Cu m u l V/ C De n s i t y LO S V/ C De n 1 I 58 0 WB NB Ai r w a y Bl v d On ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 5 2 22 1 C 0. 6 1 25 PM 0. 8 1 32 7 D 1. 2 3 2 I 58 0 WB SB Ai r w a y Bl v d On ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 6 8 27 1 C 0. 7 7 30 PM 0. 9 4 F 1. 4 0 3 I 58 0 WB Ai r w a y Bl v d to Fa llo n Rd Ba s ic AM 0. 6 9 24 4 C 0. 7 9 29 PM 1. 0 1 F 1. 2 3 Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 3 11 Tr a n sp o rta tio n d o cx Ta b l e 3. 1 1 25 c o n t Cu m u l a t i v e Co n d i t i o n s I 58 0 We s t b o u n d Ma i n l i n e Le v e l s of Se r v i c e No Ma in lin e Lo c a t io n Se g m e n t Ty p e Pe a k Ho u r Cu m u la t iv e wi t h o u t Pr o j e c t Cu m u l V/ C De n s it y LO S V/ C De n 4 I 58 0 WB Fa llo n Rd Of f Ra m p Di v e r g e AM 0. 6 0 14 1 B 0. 6 9 17 PM 0. 9 8 F 1. 4 6 5 I 58 0 WB Fa llo n Rd Of f Ra m p to NB Fa llo n Rd On ra m p Ba s ic AM 0. 6 3 21 9 C 0. 6 9 24 PM 0. 8 7 34 6 D 1. 0 7 6 I 58 0 WB NB Fa llo n Rd On ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 6 6 26 5 C 0. 7 1 28 PM 0. 8 6 33 7 D 1. 1 9 7 I 58 0 WB SB Fa llo n Rd On ra m p to Ta s s a ja r a Rd Of f ra m p Ba s ic AM 0. 6 3 22 1 C 0. 6 9 24 PM 0. 8 1 30 7 D 1. 0 2 8 I 58 0 WB Ta s s a ja r a Rd Of f ra m p to NB Ta s s a ja r a Rd On ra m p Ba s ic AM 0. 6 9 24 5 C 0. 7 6 28 PM 0. 9 2 38 2 E 1. 1 8 9 I 58 0 WB NB Ta s s a ja r a Rd On ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 6 7 27 2 C 0. 7 3 29 PM 0. 9 1 35 6 E 1. 4 2 10 I 58 0 WB SB Ta s s a ja r a Rd On ra m p We a v e AM 0. 6 9 28 2 D 0. 7 5 31 PM 0. 8 8 F 1. 0 9 11 I 58 0 WB Ha c ie n d a Dr Of f ra m p to NB Ha c ie n d a Dr On ra m p Ba s ic AM 0. 7 4 26 7 D 0. 8 2 30 PM 1. 0 3 F 1. 3 1 12 I 58 0 WB NB Ha c ie n d a Dr On ra m p Me r g e AM 0. 6 6 27 0 C 0. 7 2 29 PM 1. 1 7 F 1. 7 5 13 I 58 0 WB SB Ha c ie n d a Dr On ra m p to Ho p y a r d Dr Of f ra m p We a v e AM 0. 6 4 22 5 C 0. 7 1 25 PM 0. 9 9 F 1. 2 2 So u r c e Fe h r an d Pe e r s 20 1 5 City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.11127 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Individualdevelopment projects can indirectlymitigate impacts on regional facilities,such as freeways,through TransportationDemand Management measures that reduce peak hour trips and payment of traffic impact fees that fund capital improvements to transportation facilitiesincluding freeways. In accordance with Mitigation Measure TRANS 1,The project applicant will implement a TDM program to reduce the trip generation of the medical office components of the project by 5 percent forthe initial phases and up to 10percent with project buildout.The project applicant will also pay applicable regional and local transportation impacts fees that will be used to construct improvements such as the second phase ofI 680/I 580interchange improvements,widening of StateRoute 84,and other planned roadway system modifications that couldrelieve freeway congestion in the study area.However,the construction timing of these improvements is unknown as full funding has not yet been identified.Therefore,thisimpact would remain significantand unavoidable. No other feasible mitigation measures exist;therefore,the residual significance of this impact is significantandunavoidable. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 1. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Significant unavoidable impact. Alameda County Transportation Commission Roadway Analysis Impact TRANS 36:The proposed project would generate new trips that wouldcontribute to unacceptable operations on Congestion Management Plan facilities. A separate analysis of regional roadways is required to comply with requirements of the Alameda CTC).The Alameda CTC requires the analysis of project impacts to MTS roadways identifiedin the CMP for developmentprojects that would generate more than 100PM peak hourtrips.As previously discussed,the proposed projectwould generate more than 100PM peak hourtrips. This analysis considers the impact of the project on freeways,major arterials,and other major roadways as designated by Alameda CTC.Main items of discussion include the geographic scope of the Alameda CTC roadway analysis,the analysis method,and the results for 2025 and 2040. Roadway Study Area Freeway and surface street segments in Dublin,Pleasanton,andLivermore wereincluded in this analysis: I 580 5 segments) City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.11 128 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx I 680 2 segment) Dublin Boulevard 8 segments) Tassajara Road 5 segments) Dougherty Road 4 segments) Stoneridge Drive 4 segments) Las Positas Road 2 segments) Foothill Road 4 segments) Stanley Boulevard 2 segments) Isabel Avenue 3 segments) Vallecitos Road 1 segment) Traffic Forecasts Fehr Peers used the Alameda Countywide Travel Demand Model to forecast2025 and 2040 traffic volumes on the MTS roadway system.The forecasts forthe MTS system differ from the intersection forecasts previously discussed in the following aspects: The land use data sets used for the intersection forecasts and the MTS forecasts areconsistent with Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG)population and employment projections but may differfrom the City of Dublin model within Dublin. Regional model may not include some minor streets through the Tri Valley,potentially overstating traffic volumes on the roadways included in the model. The MTS roadway analysis reports the outputs of the Alameda CTC model directlyon a roadway segment level and the analysis does not consider the added capacity from turn pockets at intersections. The results of the Alameda CTC model were used to forecast the No Project condition for 2025 and 2040.Project trips for at buildout were distributed to the MTS roadway segments including both freeways and surface streets)identified above using the project trip distribution discussed previously.The distribution of projecttrips onto the MTS segments results in the with Project volumes for 2025 and 2040.Theanalysis of 2025 conditions reflects the projectthrough Phase 2, while the 2040 assessment reflects the full project buildout. Results The MTS PM Peak Hour roadwaysegment analyses under 2025 and 2040 conditions are provided in Table 3.11 26 forthe 2025 condition and Table 3.1127 forthe 2040 condition. Results of the analyses indicate that the proposed project couldworsen already deficient operations on the following segments in 2025 by increasing the volume to capacity ratio by more than 0.02 on a roadway that operates at a deficient level of service: Dublin Boulevard between Keegan Streetand Fallon Road Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road between I 580 and Dublin Boulevard Vallecitos Road between I 680and IsabelAvenue Isabel Avenue between Stanley Boulevard and Concannon Boulevard City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.11129 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx In 2040,the addition of projecttripswould increase the V/C ratio of segments already operating at LOS F by more than 0.02 or would result in LOS F conditions: Dublin Boulevard between Camp Parks Boulevard and Fallon Road Isabel Avenue between Airway Boulevard and Jack London Boulevard Isabel Avenue between Stanley Boulevard and Concannon Boulevard Vallecitos Road between I 680and IsabelAvenue Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 3 11 Tr a n sp o rta tio n d o cx Ta b l e 3. 1 1 26 20 2 5 PM Pe a k Ho u r Co n g e s t i o n Ma n a g e m e n t Pl a n Ro a d w a y Se g m e n t An a l y s i Li n k Lo c a t io n at Se g m e n t Li m it s No of La n e s No Pr o j e c t Vo l u m e Wi t h Pr o j e c t Vo l u m e at Ph a s e 1A 1 b Pe r c e n t In c r e a s e V/ C Ra t io No Pr o j e c t V/ C Ra t io wi t h Pr o j e c t No Pr o j e c t LO S Wi t h Pr o je c LO S Fr e e w a y Se g m e n t s I 58 0 Ea s t b o u n d Ho p y a r d Ro a d Ha c ie n d a Dr i v e 7 10 8 2 8 1 1 1 2 3 3 0. 7 7 0. 7 9 D D Ha c i e n d a Dr iv e Sa n t a Ri t a Ro a d 6 8, 8 3 2 9 1 2 5 3% 0. 7 4 0. 7 6 C D Sa n t a Ri t a Ro a d El Ch a r r o Ro a d 5 8, 7 9 2 8 9 4 3 2% 0. 8 8 0. 8 9 D D El Ch a r r o Ro a d Ai r w a y Bo u l e v a r d 5 8, 3 2 8 8 7 5 5 5% 0. 8 3 0. 8 8 D D Ai r w a y Bo u le v a r d Is a b e l Av e n u e 5 8, 2 1 7 8 5 9 4 5% 0. 8 2 0. 8 6 D D I 58 0 We s t b o u n d Is a b e l Av e n u e Ai r w a y Bo u l e v a r d 4 4, 4 5 4 4 6 5 3 4% 0. 5 6 0. 5 8 B B Ai r w a y Bo u le v a r d Fa l lo n Ro a d 5 5, 0 2 2 5 2 3 4 4% 0. 5 0 0. 5 2 B B Fa ll o n Ro a d Ta s s a j a r a Ro a d 5 5, 7 9 0 6 2 6 9 8% 0. 5 8 0. 6 3 B C Ta s s a j a r a Ro a d Ha c ie n d a Dr i v e 5 5, 2 7 5 5 8 3 1 11 0. 5 3 0. 5 8 B B Ha c i e n d a Dr iv e Do u g h e r t y Ro a d 5 5, 5 4 5 6 1 0 9 10 0. 5 5 0. 6 1 B C I 68 0 No r t h b o u n d Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Al c o s t a Bo u le v a r d 4 5, 6 0 3 5 8 0 3 4% 0. 7 0 0. 7 3 C C St o n e r i d g e Dr i v e I 58 0 4 5, 1 9 0 5 2 8 9 2% 0. 6 5 0. 6 6 C C I 68 0 So u t h b o u n d Al c o s t a Bo u l e v a r d Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d 5 6, 9 7 1 7 0 7 0 1% 0. 7 0 0. 7 1 C C I 58 0 St o n e r i d g e Dr i v e 4 4, 6 8 5 4 8 8 5 4% 0. 5 9 0. 6 1 C C Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 3 11 Tr a n sp o rta tio n d o cx Ta b l e 3. 1 1 26 c o n t 20 2 5 PM Pe a k Ho u r Co n g e s t i o n Ma n a g e m e n t Pl a n Ro a d w a y Se g m e n t An a Li n k Lo c a t i o n at Se g m e n t Li m i t s No of La n e s No Pr o j e c t Vo l u m e Wi t h Pr o j e c t Vo l u m e at Ph a s e 1A 1 b Pe r c e n t In c r e a s e V/ C Ra t i o No Pr o j e c t V/ C Ra t i o wi t h Pr o j e c t No Pr o j e c t LO S Wi t h Pr o j e c LO S Ar t e r i a l s Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Ea s t b o u n d Am a d o r Pl a z a Ro a d Vi l l a g e Pa r k w a y 3 89 2 9 4 1 6 0. 3 7 0. 3 9 B B Vi l l a g e Pa r k w a y Cl a r k Av e n u e 3 68 8 7 4 8 9 0. 2 9 0. 3 1 A A Cl a r k Av e n u e Do u g h e r t y Ro a d 3 65 1 7 1 1 9 0. 2 7 0. 3 0 A A Do u g h e r t y Ro a d Ca m p Pa r k s Bo u l e v a r d 3 66 3 8 2 4 2 4 0. 2 8 0. 3 4 A A Ca m p Pa r k s Bo u l e v a r d Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e 3 1, 2 4 3 1 4 0 4 13 0. 5 2 0. 5 8 B B Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e Ta s s a j a r a Ro a d 3 1, 3 3 6 1 5 6 0 17 0. 5 6 0. 6 5 B C Ta s s a j a r a Ro a d Ke e g a n St r e e t 3 1, 7 2 5 2 1 9 1 27 0. 7 2 0. 9 1 C E Ke e g a n St r e e t Fa l l o n Ro a d 3 1, 6 1 6 2 8 3 1 75 0. 6 7 1. 1 8 C F Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d We s t b o u n d Fa l l o n Ro a d Ke e g a n St r e e t 3 62 5 6 1 8 0 5 0. 0 3 0. 2 3 A A Ke e g a n St r e e t Ta s s a j a r a Ro a d 3 13 4 8 6 3 5 4 5 0. 0 6 0. 3 6 A B Ta s s a j a r a Ro a d Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e 3 10 1 5 8 1 4 7 6 0. 0 4 0. 2 4 A A Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e Ca m p Pa r k s Bo u l e v a r d 3 18 3 5 4 7 1 9 9 0. 0 8 0. 2 3 A A Ca m p Pa r k s Bo u l e v a r d Do u g h e r t y Ro a d 3 1, 1 0 7 1 4 7 1 33 0. 4 6 0. 6 1 B C Do u g h e r t y Ro a d Cl a r k Av e n u e 3 1, 3 6 0 1 4 8 8 9% 0. 5 7 0. 6 2 B C Cl a r k Av e n u e Vi l l a g e Pa r k w a y 3 1, 5 6 7 1 6 9 5 8% 0. 6 5 0. 7 1 C C Vi l l a g e Pa r k w a y Am a d o r Pl a z a Ro a d 3 45 9 5 5 7 2 1 0. 1 9 0. 2 3 A A Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 3 11 Tr a n sp o rta tio n d o cx Ta b l e 3. 1 1 26 c o n t 20 2 5 PM Pe a k Ho u r Co n g e s t i o n Ma n a g e m e n t Pl a n Ro a d w a y Se g m e n t An a Li n k Lo c a t i o n at Se g m e n t Li m i t s No of La n e s No Pr o j e c t Vo l u m e Wi t h Pr o j e c t Vo l u m e at Ph a s e 1A 1 b Pe r c e n t In c r e a s e V/ C Ra t i o No Pr o j e c t V/ C Ra t i o wi t h Pr o j e c t No Pr o j e c t LO S Wi t h Pr o j e c LO S Sa n t a Ri t a Ro a d T a s s a j a r a Ro a d No r t h b o u n d Ro s e w o o d Dr i v e I 58 0 EB ra m p s 3 1, 1 6 6 1 1 9 9 3% 0. 4 9 0. 5 0 B B I 58 0 EB ra m p s I 58 0 WB ra m p s 3 1, 3 0 9 1 4 8 5 13 0. 5 5 0. 6 2 B C I 58 0 WB ra m p s Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d 4 1, 4 1 3 1 5 8 9 12 0. 4 4 0. 5 0 B B Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Ce n t r a l Pa r k w a y 3 61 3 7 3 3 2 0 0. 2 6 0. 3 1 A A Ce n t r a l Pa r k w a y Gl e a s o n Dr i v e 3 56 3 6 6 4 1 8 0. 2 3 0. 2 8 A A Sa n t a Ri t a Ro a d T a s s a j a r a Ro a d So u t h b o u n d Gl e a s o n Dr i v e Ce n t r a l Pa r k w a y 3 27 8 3 4 0 2 2 0. 1 2 0. 1 4 A A Ce n t r a l Pa r k w a y Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d 3 30 6 3 7 5 2 3 0. 1 3 0. 1 6 A A Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d I 58 0 WB ra m p s 4 71 6 8 4 5 1 8 0. 2 2 0. 2 6 A A I 58 0 WB ra m p s I 58 0 EB ra m p s 3 1, 2 8 0 1 3 3 2 4% 0. 5 3 0. 5 6 B B I 58 0 EB ra m p s Ro s e w o o d Dr i v e 3 1, 0 0 1 1 0 5 3 5% 0. 4 2 0. 4 4 B B Ho p y a r d Ro a d D o u g h e r t y Ro a d No r t h b o u n d Ow e n s Dr i v e I 58 0 EB ra m p s 3 1, 8 8 5 1 9 0 0 1% 0. 7 9 0. 7 9 D D I 58 0 EB ra m p s I 58 0 WB ra m p s 3 2, 0 9 2 2 1 4 6 3% 0. 8 7 0. 8 9 D D I 58 0 WB ra m p s Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d 3 2, 7 1 8 2 7 7 2 2% 1. 1 3 1. 1 5 F F Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Sc a r l e t Dr i v e 3 2, 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 10 0. 8 3 0. 9 2 D E Ho p y a r d Ro a d D o u g h e r t y Ro a d So u t h b o u n d Sc a r l e t Dr i v e Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d 3 90 1 1, 0 0 0 11 0. 3 8 0. 4 2 B B Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d I 58 0 WB ra m p s 4 1, 4 5 6 1 5 4 4 6% 0. 4 5 0. 4 8 B B Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 3 11 Tr a n sp o rta tio n d o cx Ta b l e 3. 1 1 26 c o n t 20 2 5 PM Pe a k Ho u r Co n g e s t i o n Ma n a g e m e n t Pl a n Ro a d w a y Se g m e n t An a Li n k Lo c a t i o n at Se g m e n t Li m i t s No of La n e s No Pr o j e c t Vo l u m e Wi t h Pr o j e c t Vo l u m e at Ph a s e 1A 1 b Pe r c e n t In c r e a s e V/ C Ra t i o No Pr o j e c t V/ C Ra t i o wi t h Pr o j e c t No Pr o j e c t LO S Wi t h Pr o j e c LO S I 58 0 WB ra m p s I 58 0 EB ra m p s 3 1, 1 0 5 1 1 9 3 8% 0. 4 5 0. 4 8 B B I 58 0 EB ra m p s Ow e n s Dr i v e 3 1, 0 2 2 1 0 5 1 3% 0. 4 3 0. 4 4 B B St o n e r i d g e Dr i v e Ea s t b o u n d I 68 0 NB Ra m p Ho p y a r d Ro a d 3 1, 2 7 0 1 2 8 6 1% 0. 5 3 0. 5 4 B B Ho p y a r d Ro a d Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e 3 44 0 4 7 7 8 0. 1 8 0. 2 0 A A Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e Sa n t a Ri t a Ro a d 2 35 6 3 6 7 3 0. 2 2 0. 2 3 A A Sa n t a Ri t a Ro a d Fa l l o n Ro a d 2 35 9 3 7 6 5 0. 2 2 0. 2 4 A A St o n e r i d g e Dr i v e We s t b o u n d Fa l l o n Ro a d Sa n t a Ri t a Ro a d 2 22 5 2 7 3 2 1 0. 1 4 0. 1 7 A A Sa n t a Ri t a Ro a d Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e 3 25 3 2 8 4 1 2 0. 1 1 0. 1 2 A A Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e Ho p y a r d Ro a d 3 56 5 6 2 6 1 1 0. 2 4 0. 2 6 A A Ho p y a r d Ro a d I 68 0 NB Ra m p 3 1, 1 9 2 1 2 2 3 3% 0. 5 0 0. 5 1 B B La s Po s i t a s Bo u l e v a r d Ea s t b o u n d Ho p y a r d Ro a d Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e 3 36 0 3 8 1 6 0. 1 5 0. 1 6 A A Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e Sa n t a Ri t a Ro a d 3 35 4 3 7 5 6 0. 1 5 0. 1 6 A A La s Po s i t a s Bo u l e v a r d We s t b o u n d Sa n t a Ri t a Ro a d Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e 3 31 5 3 3 6 7 0. 1 3 0. 1 4 A A Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e Ho p y a r d Ro a d 3 37 7 3 9 8 6 0. 1 6 0. 1 7 A A Ea s t St a n l e y Bo u l e v a r d Ea s t b o u n d Is a b e l Av e n u e N Mu r r i e t a Bo u l e v a r d 2 1, 8 6 6 1 9 0 8 2% 1. 1 7 1. 1 9 F F Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 3 11 Tr a n sp o rta tio n d o cx Ta b l e 3. 1 1 26 c o n t 20 2 5 PM Pe a k Ho u r Co n g e s t i o n Ma n a g e m e n t Pl a n Ro a d w a y Se g m e n t An a Li n k Lo c a t i o n at Se g m e n t Li m i t s No of La n e s No Pr o j e c t Vo l u m e Wi t h Pr o j e c t Vo l u m e at Ph a s e 1A 1 b Pe r c e n t In c r e a s e V/ C Ra t i o No Pr o j e c t V/ C Ra t i o wi t h Pr o j e c t No Pr o j e c t LO S Wi t h Pr o j e c LO S N Mu r r i e t a Bo u l e v a r d N Li v e r m o r e Av e n u e 2 1, 3 0 1 1 3 2 2 2% 0. 8 1 0. 8 3 D D Ea s t St a n l e y Bo u l e v a r d We s t b o u n d N Li v e r m o r e Av e n u e N Mu r r i e t a Bo u l e v a r d 2 39 9 4 0 8 2 0. 2 5 0. 2 5 A A N Mu r r ie t a Bo u le v a r d Is a b e l Av e n u e 2 58 2 6 0 0 3 0. 3 6 0. 3 7 B B Is a b e l Av e n u e No r t h b o u n d Co n c a n n o n Bo u le v a r d St a n l e y Bo u l e v a r d 2 1, 3 1 5 1 3 6 5 4% 0. 8 2 0. 8 5 D D St a n le y Bo u le v a r d Ja c k Lo n d o n Bo u le v a r d 3 1, 4 7 7 1 5 4 4 5% 0. 6 2 0. 6 4 C C Ja c k Lo n d o n Bo u l e v a r d Ai r w a y Bo u l e v a r d 3 1, 5 8 7 1 6 5 0 4% 0. 6 6 0. 6 9 C C Is a b e l Av e n u e So u t h b o u n d Ai r w a y Bo u l e v a r d Ja c k Lo n d o n Bo u l e v a r d 3 2, 2 5 0 2 3 7 8 6% 0. 9 4 0. 9 9 E E Ja c k Lo n d o n Bo u l e v a r d St a n l e y Bo u l e v a r d 3 2, 0 9 5 2 2 3 7 7% 0. 8 7 0. 9 3 D E St a n l e y Bo u l e v a r d Co n c a n n o n Bo u l e v a r d 2 1, 9 3 5 2 0 3 5 5% 1. 2 1 1. 2 7 F F Va l l e c i t o s Ro a d No r t h b o u n d I 68 0 Is a b e l Av e n u e 1 1, 6 8 8 1 7 3 8 3% 2. 1 1 2. 1 7 F F Va l l e c i t o s Ro a d So u t h b o u n d Is a b e l Av e n u e I 68 0 1 1, 6 5 4 1 7 5 4 6% 2. 0 7 2. 1 9 F F No t e Bo l d an d it a l i c te x t in d i c a t e s a po t e n t i a l l y si g n i f i c a n t im p a c t So u r c e Fe h r an d Pe e r s 20 1 5 Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 3 11 Tr a n sp o rta tio n d o cx Ta b l e 3. 1 1 27 20 4 0 PM Pe a k Ho u r Co n g e s t i o n Ma n a g e m e n t Pl a n Ro a d w a y Se g m e n t An a l y s i Li n k Lo c a t io n at Se g m e n t Li m it s No of La n e s No Pr o j e c t Vo l u m e Wi t h Pr o j e c t Vo l u m e at Bu ild o u t Pe r c e n t In c r e a s e V/ C Ra t io No Pr o j e c t V/ C Ra t io wi t h Pr o j e c t No Pr o j e c t LO S Wi t h Pr o je c LO S Fr e e w a y Se g m e n t s I 58 0 Ea s t b o u n d Ho p y a r d Ro a d Ha c ie n d a Dr iv e 7 10 5 9 4 10 9 6 8 4% 0. 7 6 0. 7 8 D D Ha c ie n d a Dr iv e Sa n t a Ri t a Ro a d 6 9, 4 5 9 9, 8 2 7 4% 0. 7 9 0. 8 2 D D Sa n ta Ri ta Ro a d El Ch a r r o Ro a d 5 8, 8 8 1 9, 0 3 1 2% 0. 8 9 0. 9 0 D D El Ch a r r o Ro a d Ai r w a y Bo u le v a r d 5 8, 4 5 0 8, 9 5 4 6% 0. 8 4 0. 9 0 D D Ai r w a y Bo u le v a r d Is a b e l Av e n u e 5 8, 4 6 0 8, 8 9 9 5% 0. 8 5 0. 8 9 D D I 58 0 We s t b o u n d Is a b e l Av e n u e Ai r w a y Bo u l e v a r d 5 5, 6 2 9 5, 8 5 2 4% 0. 5 6 0. 5 9 B C Ai r w a y Bo u le v a r d Fa l l o n Ro a d 5 6, 2 0 5 6, 4 4 1 4% 0. 6 2 0. 6 4 C C Fa l l o n Ro a d Ta s s a j a r a Ro a d 5 6, 4 4 3 6, 9 8 9 8% 0. 6 4 0. 7 0 C C Ta s s a j a r a Ro a d Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e 5 6, 2 2 8 6, 9 8 1 12 0. 6 2 0. 7 0 C C Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e Do u g h e r t y Ro a d 5 6, 3 0 2 7, 0 7 5 12 0. 6 3 0. 7 1 C C I 68 0 No r t h b o u n d Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Al c o s t a Bo u l e v a r d 4 5, 8 3 0 6, 1 0 2 5% 0. 7 3 0. 7 6 C D St o n e r i d g e Dr i v e I 58 0 4 4, 6 2 6 4, 7 5 3 3% 0. 5 8 0. 5 9 B C I 68 0 So u t h b o u n d Al c o s t a Bo u l e v a r d Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d 5 6, 5 5 5 6, 6 8 2 2% 0. 6 6 0. 6 7 C C I 58 0 St o n e r i d g e Dr i v e 4 4, 5 7 4 4, 8 4 6 6% 0. 5 7 0. 6 1 B C Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 3 11 Tr a n sp o rta tio n d o cx Ta b l e 3. 1 1 27 c o n t 20 4 0 PM Pe a k Ho u r Co n g e s t i o n Ma n a g e m e n t Pl a n Ro a d w a y Se g m e n t An a Li n k Lo c a t i o n at Se g m e n t Li m i t s No of La n e s No Pr o j e c t Vo l u m e Wi t h Pr o j e c t Vo l u m e at Bu i l d o u t Pe r c e n t In c r e a s e V/ C Ra t i o No Pr o j e c t V/ C Ra t i o wi t h Pr o j e c t No Pr o j e c t LO S Wi t h Pr o j e c LO S Ar t e r i a l s Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Ea s t b o u n d Am a d o r Pl a z a Ro a d Vi l l a g e Pa r k w a y 3 1, 2 1 1 1, 2 7 1 5% 0. 5 0 0. 5 3 B B Vi l l a g e Pa r k w a y Cl a r k Av e n u e 3 1, 0 9 2 1, 1 6 6 7% 0. 4 6 0. 4 9 B B Cl a r k Av e n u e Do u g h e r t y Ro a d 3 1, 0 5 6 1, 1 3 0 7% 0. 4 4 0. 4 7 B B Do u g h e r t y Ro a d Ca m p Pa r k s Bo u l e v a r d 3 1, 1 3 5 1, 2 5 3 10 0. 4 7 0. 5 2 B B Ca m p Pa r k s Bo u le v a r d Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e 3 2, 2 3 6 2, 4 5 5 10 0. 9 3 1. 0 2 E F Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e Ta s s a j a r a Ro a d 3 2, 3 7 8 2, 6 7 2 12 0. 9 9 1. 1 1 E F Ta s s a j a r a Ro a d Ke e g a n St r e e t 3 2, 6 6 3 3, 3 2 0 24 1. 1 1 1. 3 8 F F Ke e g a n St r e e t Fa l l o n Ro a d 3 2, 4 6 8 4, 0 3 6 64 1. 0 3 1. 6 8 F F Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d We s t b o u n d Fa l l o n Ro a d Ke e g a n St r e e t 3 15 7 76 0 38 4 0. 0 7 0. 3 2 A A Ke e g a n St r e e t Ta s s a j a r a Ro a d 3 28 0 1, 3 6 2 38 6 0. 1 2 0. 5 7 A B Ta s s a j a r a Ro a d Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e 3 20 2 85 8 32 5 0. 0 8 0. 3 6 A B Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e Ca m p Pa r k s Bo u l e v a r d 3 45 7 94 7 10 7 0. 1 9 0. 3 9 A B Ca m p Pa r k s Bo u le v a r d Do u g h e r t y Ro a d 3 1, 8 2 0 2, 1 1 3 16 0. 7 6 0. 8 8 D D Do u g h e r t y Ro a d Cl a r k Av e n u e 3 1, 7 8 5 1, 9 4 9 9% 0. 7 4 0. 8 1 C D Cl a r k Av e n u e Vi l l a g e Pa r k w a y 3 1, 9 7 2 2, 1 3 6 8% 0. 8 2 0. 8 9 D D Vi l l a g e Pa r k w a y Am a d o r Pl a z a Ro a d 3 67 4 76 7 14 0. 2 8 0. 3 2 A A Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 3 11 Tr a n sp o rta tio n d o cx Ta b l e 3. 1 1 27 c o n t 20 4 0 PM Pe a k Ho u r Co n g e s t i o n Ma n a g e m e n t Pl a n Ro a d w a y Se g m e n t An a Li n k Lo c a t i o n at Se g m e n t Li m i t s No of La n e s No Pr o j e c t Vo l u m e Wi t h Pr o j e c t Vo l u m e at Bu i l d o u t Pe r c e n t In c r e a s e V/ C Ra t i o No Pr o j e c t V/ C Ra t i o wi t h Pr o j e c t No Pr o j e c t LO S Wi t h Pr o j e c LO S Sa n t a Ri t a Ro a d T a s s a j a r a Ro a d No r t h b o u n d Ro s e w o o d Dr i v e I 58 0 EB ra m p s 3 75 0 78 1 4% 0. 3 1 0. 3 3 A A I— 5 8 0 EB ra m p s I 58 0 WB ra m p s 3 1, 4 6 1 1, 7 1 0 17 0. 6 1 0. 7 1 C C I 58 0 WB ra m p s Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d 4 1, 5 3 2 1, 7 8 1 16 0. 4 8 0. 5 6 B B Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Ce n t r a l Pa r k w a y 3 84 6 99 2 17 0. 3 5 0. 4 1 B B Ce n t r a l Pa r k w a y Gl e a s o n Dr i v e 3 77 5 84 0 8% 0. 3 2 0. 3 5 A B Sa n t a Ri t a Ro a d T a s s a j a r a Ro a d So u t h b o u n d Gl e a s o n Dr i v e Ce n t r a l Pa r k w a y 3 34 1 38 4 13 0. 1 4 0. 1 6 A A Ce n t r a l Pa r k w a y Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d 3 37 4 45 9 23 0. 1 6 0. 1 9 A A Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d I 58 0 WB ra m p s 4 83 7 1, 0 8 5 30 0. 2 6 0. 3 4 A A I 58 0 WB ra m p s I 58 0 EB ra m p s 3 1, 0 9 7 1, 1 3 8 4% 0. 4 6 0. 4 7 B B I 58 0 EB ra m p s Ro s e w o o d Dr i v e 3 77 1 81 2 5% 0. 3 2 0. 3 4 A A Ho p y a r d Ro a d D o u g h e r t y Ro a d No r t h b o u n d Ow e n s Dr i v e I 58 0 EB ra m p s 3 2, 2 3 7 2, 2 5 7 1% 0. 9 3 0. 9 4 E E I 58 0 EB ra m p s I 58 0 WB ra m p s 3 2, 4 9 1 2, 5 6 2 3% 1. 0 4 1. 0 7 F F I 58 0 WB ra m p s Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d 3 3, 2 6 6 3, 3 3 7 2% 1. 3 6 1. 3 9 F F Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d Sc a r l e t Dr i v e 3 2, 6 5 1 2, 7 2 6 3% 1. 1 0 1. 1 4 F F Ho p y a r d Ro a d D o u g h e r t y Ro a d So u t h b o u n d Sc a r l e t Dr i v e Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d 3 99 2 1, 0 1 9 3% 0. 4 1 0. 4 2 B B Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d I 58 0 WB ra m p s 4 1, 6 6 2 1, 7 7 0 6% 0. 5 2 0. 5 5 B B Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 3 11 Tr a n sp o rta tio n d o cx Ta b l e 3. 1 1 27 c o n t 20 4 0 PM Pe a k Ho u r Co n g e s t i o n Ma n a g e m e n t Pl a n Ro a d w a y Se g m e n t An a Li n k Lo c a t i o n at Se g m e n t Li m i t s No of La n e s No Pr o j e c t Vo l u m e Wi t h Pr o j e c t Vo l u m e at Bu i l d o u t Pe r c e n t In c r e a s e V/ C Ra t i o No Pr o j e c t V/ C Ra t i o wi t h Pr o j e c t No Pr o j e c t LO S Wi t h Pr o j e c LO S I 58 0 WB ra m p s I 58 0 EB ra m p s 3 1, 2 7 9 1, 3 8 7 8% 0. 5 3 0. 5 8 B B I 58 0 EB ra m p s Ow e n s Dr i v e 3 1, 2 0 4 1, 2 4 4 3% 0. 5 0 0. 5 2 B B St o n e r i d g e Dr i v e Ea s t b o u n d I 68 0 NB Ra m p Ho p y a r d Ro a d 3 1, 6 6 4 1, 6 8 4 1% 0. 6 9 0. 7 0 C C Ho p y a r d Ro a d Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e 3 59 2 61 4 4% 0. 2 5 0. 2 6 A A Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e Sa n t a Ri t a Ro a d 2 54 5 56 0 3% 0. 3 4 0. 3 5 A B Sa n t a Ri t a Ro a d Fa l l o n Ro a d 2 72 1 73 0 1% 0. 4 5 0. 4 6 B B St o n e r i d g e Dr i v e We s t b o u n d Fa l l o n Ro a d Sa n t a Ri t a Ro a d 2 33 5 36 7 10 0. 2 1 0. 2 3 A A Sa n t a Ri t a Ro a d Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e 3 30 5 32 0 5% 0. 1 3 0. 1 3 A A Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e Ho p y a r d Ro a d 3 65 6 70 6 8% 0. 2 7 0. 2 9 A A Ho p y a r d Ro a d I 68 0 NB Ra m p 3 1, 3 6 8 1, 4 0 8 3% 0. 5 7 0. 5 9 B C La s Po s i t a s Bo u l e v a r d Ea s t b o u n d Ho p y a r d Ro a d Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e 3 32 6 37 9 9% 0. 1 5 0. 1 6 A A Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e Sa n t a Ri t a Ro a d 3 39 2 37 6 9% 0. 1 4 0. 1 6 A A La s Po s i t a s Bo u l e v a r d We s t b o u n d Sa n t a Ri t a Ro a d Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e 3 2, 9 4 7 35 6 9% 0. 1 4 0. 1 5 A A Ha c i e n d a Dr i v e Ho p y a r d Ro a d 2 1, 9 5 7 42 2 8% 01 6 0. 1 8 A A Ea s t St a n l e y Bo u l e v a r d Ea s t b o u n d Is a b e l Av e n u e N Mu r r i e t a Bo u l e v a r d 3 2, 9 4 7 3, 0 0 3 2% 1. 2 3 1. 2 5 F F Ci t y of Du b lin Ka i s e r Du b lin Me d ic a l Ce n t e r Pr o je c t Dr a f t EI R Fi r st C a r b o n So lu t io n s H: C lie n t P N JN 3 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 3 Dr a ft EI R 3 7 6 6 0 0 0 4 Se c0 3 11 Tr a n sp o rta tio n d o cx Ta b l e 3. 1 1 27 c o n t 20 4 0 PM Pe a k Ho u r Co n g e s t i o n Ma n a g e m e n t Pl a n Ro a d w a y Se g m e n t An a Li n k Lo c a t i o n at Se g m e n t Li m i t s No of La n e s No Pr o j e c t Vo l u m e Wi t h Pr o j e c t Vo l u m e at Bu i l d o u t Pe r c e n t In c r e a s e V/ C Ra t i o No Pr o j e c t V/ C Ra t i o wi t h Pr o j e c t No Pr o j e c t LO S Wi t h Pr o j e c LO S N Mu r r i e t a Bo u l e v a r d N Li v e r m o r e Av e n u e 2 1, 9 5 7 1, 9 8 5 1% 1. 2 2 1. 2 4 F F Ea s t St a n l e y Bo u l e v a r d We s t b o u n d N Li v e r m o r e Av e n u e N Mu r r i e t a Bo u l e v a r d 2 63 3 64 5 2% 0. 4 0 0. 4 0 B B N Mu r r i e t a Bo u l e v a r d Is a b e l Av e n u e 3 75 1 77 4 3% 0. 3 1 0. 3 2 A A Is a b e l Av e n u e No r t h b o u n d Co n c a n n o n Bo u le v a r d St a n l e y Bo u l e v a r d 2 1, 3 1 5 1, 3 7 9 5% 0. 8 2 0. 8 6 D D St a n l e y Bo u le v a r d Ja c k Lo n d o n Bo u le v a r d 3 1, 4 7 7 1, 5 6 4 6% 0. 6 2 0. 6 5 C C Ja c k Lo n d o n Bo u l e v a r d Ai r w a y Bo u l e v a r d 3 1, 5 8 7 1, 6 7 5 6% 0. 6 6 0. 7 0 C C Is a b e l Av e n u e So u t h b o u n d Ai r w a y Bo u le v a r d Ja c k Lo n d o n Bo u le v a r d 3 2, 2 5 0 2, 4 4 7 9% 0. 9 4 1. 0 2 E F Ja c k Lo n d o n Bo u l e v a r d St a n l e y Bo u l e v a r d 3 2, 0 9 5 2, 2 8 7 9% 0. 8 7 0. 9 5 D E St a n l e y Bo u le v a r d Co n c a n n o n Bo u l e v a r d 2 1, 9 3 5 2, 0 7 1 7% 1. 2 1 1. 2 9 F F Va l l e c i t o s Ro a d No r t h b o u n d I 68 0 Is a b e l Av e n u e 1 1, 6 8 8 1, 7 5 2 4% 2. 1 1 2. 1 9 F F Va l l e c i t o s Ro a d So u t h b o u n d Is a b e l Av e n u e I 68 0 1 1, 6 5 4 1, 7 9 0 8% 2. 0 7 2. 2 4 F F So u r c e Fe h r Pe e r s 20 1 5 City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.11 140 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentiallysignificant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 1 and: MM TRANS 36 The project applicant shall contribute funding to roadway improvements through the payment of City of Dublin and Tri Valley regional traffic impact fees. Level of Significance After Mitigation Dublin Boulevard between Keegan and Fallon 2025) Significant unavoidable impact. Dougherty Road between I 580 and Dublin Boulevard 2025): Less than significant impact with implementation of TDM Program under Mitigation Measure TRANS 1. Isabel Avenue between Stanley Boulevard and Concannon Boulevard 2025) Significant unavoidable impact. Vallecitos Road between I 580 and Isabel Avenue 2025) Less than significant impact with implementation of mitigation to pay regional traffic fee,which provides fair share payment for planned improvement of Vallecitos Road to two travel lanes in each direction. Dublin Boulevard between Camp Parks Blvd and Fallon Road 2040): Significant unavoidable impact. Dougherty Road between I 580 and Dublin Boulevard 2040): Significant unavoidable impact. Isabel Avenue between Airway Boulevard and Jack London Boulevard 2040): Significant unavoidable impact. Isabel Avenue between Stanley Boulevard and Concannon Boulevard 2040): Significant unavoidable impact. Air TrafficPatterns Impact TRANS 37:The proposed project would not alter airtraffic patterns associated with Livermore Municipal Airport. Impact Analysis Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Figure 33 sets forth airspace protection zones based on distance fromthe airport.The project site overlaps with airspace protection zones City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.11141 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx that extend 547 feet to 747 feet above mean sea level.Buildings that extend above these air protection zones are subject to Federal Aviation Administration Part 77 surface review. The project site is 353 feet above mean sea level;as such,project buildings would be permitted to extend up 194 feet above sea level before triggering Part 77 surface review.The tallest project building would be90 feet above finished grade and thereforewould not trigger Part 77 surface review.Thus,the proposed projectwould be consistent with the airspace protection policies of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Additionally,the proposed project does not 1)propose any exterior lights that could be mistaken for airport lights;2)propose any uses or activities that emit substantial amounts of dust,heat,steam, or smoke;3)propose any uses or activities that would generate electrical interference;or 4)have features that could attract largeflocks of birds e.g.,a pond). In summary,the proposed project does not possess any characteristics would have the potential air traffic patterns associated with Livermore Municipal Airport.Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Roadway Safety Impact TRANS 38:The proposed project may create roadwaysafety hazards associated with design features. Impact Analysis Site Access and Circulation Vehicular access to the site would be provided from four driveways on Dublin Boulevard.The westernmost driveway is aligned with Carnmore Place,a partially signalized intersection that provides protected left turn access into Carnmore Place as well as right in/right out operations,is proposed to provide right in/right out access to the commercial parcel.Keegan Street and Lockhart Street would extend into the site andconnect to the internal circulation system.The traffic signals at those intersections would be modified to accommodate project traffic.Dublin Boulevard would be widened along the project frontage to provide three through lanes in each direction,in addition to sidewalks along the northern project frontage with construction of Phase 1A.The easternmost driveway is proposed to be unsignalized and would provide right in/right out access.Left turn inbound access is proposed for emergency vehicles only,should emergency services be provided on the site. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.11 142 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx An internal roadway is proposed to loop around the campus core,with a five lane cross section on boththe Keegan Streetand Lockhart Street extensions into the site until thefirst internal driveway that would be constructed with Phase 1.The Keegan Street roadway would continue as a four lane roadway to the southern boundary of the project site,where it would continue along the southern boundary as a two laneroadway.Lockhart Street would be constructed as a four laneroadway to the southern boundary of the site. When Phase 2 is constructed,a two lane north south roadwayalong the eastern boundary of the project site would be constructed along with a right in/right out driveway at the eastern boundary. With Phase 3,a parking structure would be constructed on the southwestern portion of the Kaiser Campus and on site circulation wouldbemodified. The following have already been identified as site access mitigation measures: Construct asecond westbound left turn lane into the site at Keegan Street MM TRANS 7c) Extend the length of the left turn pocket on Dublin Boulevard at Lockhart Street to 350 feet MM TRANS 7d) Construct a second northbound right turn only lane on Lockhart Drive at Dublin Boulevard with Phase 3 total of four outbound lanes)Mitigation Measure TRANS 15) Restrict access to the commercialparcel from Keegan Street to right in only at the first driveway Mitigation Measure TRANS 34b) The following additional mitigation measures shall be implemented as the site plan is developed which will reduceimpacts to a level of less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measures TRANS 7c,TRANS 7d,TRANS 15,TRANS 34b,and: MM TRANS 38a Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 1A,the project applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin that depict the internal roadway extending south from Dublin Boulevard/LockhartStreet as a 1 lane each direction)facility south of the northern east west roadway withturn pockets at parking area access locations.The approved plans shall be incorporated into the project. MM TRANS 38b Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 2,the project applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin that limit or avoid the number of skewed intersections in the vicinity of the drop off area and the parking lot to the south.The approved plansshall be incorporated into the project. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.11143 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx MM TRANS 38c Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 2,the project applicant shall prepareand submit plans to the City of Dublin that demonstrates that adequate truck access can be provided to the loading area.The approved plans shall be incorporated into the project. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Emergency Response Impact TRANS 39:The proposed project requiresadequate emergency access. Impact Analysis Vehicular access to the proposed project would be provided from four locations on Dublin Boulevard.Two locations would be signalized,full access points and the other two would be unsignalized points that permitright in,right out,left in access.Internal roadways would linkthe four access points.The California Fire Code requires a minimum of two access points to a project of this size.The provision of four access points would satisfy this requirement and ensure that adequate emergency access would be provided.Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Public Transit,Bicycles,and Pedestrians Impact TRANS 40:The proposed project may conflict with plans and policies associated with public transit,bicycles,and pedestrians. Impact Analysis Public Transit The project site is currently served directly by Wheels Routes 12 and 30.Bus stops are provided along Dublin Boulevard at Keegan Street.The existing stop the south side of Dublin Boulevard on the near side of the intersection with Keegan Street is proposed to be relocated to the far side of the intersection with the project.This would allow transit vehicles to travel through the intersection before stoppingand will better allow transit vehicles to pull back into traffic.Transit amenitiesare provided at the Keegan Street eastboundand westbound stops,including shelters,seating,andreal time arrival displays.The transit amenities and the existing eastbound stop would be relocated with the project. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Transportation Draft EIR 3.11 144 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Existing transit serviceconnects the site to boththe West Dublin and Dublin/Pleasanton BART stations.Approximate travel fromthe site to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station is 10 minutes with buses timed to meet BART arrivals/departures.Based on information from LAVTA,the transit service provider,there is sufficient excess capacity on existing routes to accommodate the potential for increased ridership with the Phase 1development,with up to 60 additional peak hour transit trips without a TDM program and up to peak hour 240 transittrips with a TDM program.As the site is built out and the transportation demand management program is more fully developed,there may be a need to provide additional transit service to/from the site to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and other destinations.As part of the project,an internal network of sidewalks would be constructed providing a pedestrian connection from the Dublin Boulevard transit stops to the entrances of all buildings. In recognition that the precise characteristics of each phase employees,hours of operation,shifts, etc.)are not known at the time of this writing,Mitigation Measure TRANS 44a is proposed requiring the project applicant to coordinate with the City of Dublin and LAVTA regarding the adequacy of bus service prior to completion of eachphase.As part of this review process,service hours,service frequency,bus stop location and amenities,and related issues would be evaluated to ensure that transit service is accessible andconvenient for project employees,patients,and visitors.Mutually agreed upon service and facility improvements would be implemented in conjunction with the opening of eachphase.The implementation of this mitigation measure would reduceimpacts to a level of less than significant. Bicycles Bicycle access to and around the site is provided by Class II bicycle lanes on Dublin Boulevard.As the siteplan is refined,elements to support bicycling should be incorporated. Bicycle Recommendation:Incorporate the following bicycle elements intothe final siteplan: Provide bicycle lanes on internal roadways or provide additional space on sidewalks to allow shared use of the sidewalk with bicyclists. Provide short term and long term bicycle parking. Incorporate enhanced bicycle detection for left turns)in the Keegan and Lockhart intersections as they are modified. These recommendationsare reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS 42b. Pedestrians Sidewalks would be constructed on Dublin Boulevard as part of the project,and an internal pedestrian network would also be constructed connecting the building entries to the regional pedestrian network.As the siteplan is refined,elements to support walkingshould beincorporated and will be reviewed through the Site Development Review process. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.11145 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec03 11 Transportation.docx Mitigation Measures MM TRANS 40a Prior to completion of Phases 1A,1B,2,and 3,the project applicant shall coordinate with the City of Dublin andLivermore Amador Valley Transit Authority to review the adequacy of bus service in the projectvicinity andinside the development.As part of this review process,service hours,service frequency, bus stop location and amenities,and related issues shall be evaluated with the objective of ensuring that transit service is accessible and convenient for project employees,patients,customers,and visitors.Service and facility improvements shall be implemented in conjunction with the opening of each phase as approved by the City and Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority. MM TRANS 40b Prior to issuance of building permits for Phases 1A,1B,2,and 3,the project applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin depicting the following bicycle facilities andimprovements.Note that the itemslisted below are intended only for new facilities developed within the project site;existing bicycle facilities would not need to be replaced.The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. Off street paths Class I)or on street bicycle lanes on internal roadways Class II/III)within the project site Short term bike racks)and long term bicycle lockers)parking facilities Bicycle loop detectors at the modified Dublin Boulevard/Keegan Street and Dublin Boulevard/LockhartStreet intersections MM TRANS 40c Prior to issuance of building permits for Phases 1A,1B,2,and 3,the project applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin depicting the following pedestrian facilities and improvements.The approved plansshall be incorporated into the proposed project. Provide passive detection of pedestrians at all signals serving the development access points. Pedestrian facilities shall provide direct linkages between buildings,parking areas,plazas,and adjoining land uses. Pedestrian facilities shall be physically separated from vehicular circulation where possible and the number of roadway pedestrian crossings shallbe minimized. Roadway pedestrian crossings shall include safety features such as markings, signage,pavement treatments,or warning devices as appropriate. Pedestrian facilitieslinking the bus stop(s)on Dublin Boulevard with project buildings shall include wayfinding signage and lighting. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Cumulative Effects FirstCarbon Solutions 4-1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx SECTION 4: CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 4.1 - Introduction CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires the consideration of cumulative impacts within an EIR when a project’s incremental effects arecumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” Inidentifying projects that may contribute to cumulative impacts, the CEQA Guidelines allow the use of a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, producing related or cumulative impacts, including those which are outside of the control of the lead agency. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), “. . . the discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impactsand their likelihood of occurrence, the discussion need not provide as great [a level of] detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone.” The discussion should be guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness, and it should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contributerather than on the attributes of other projects that do not contribute to the cumulative impact. The proposed project’s cumulative impacts were considered in conjunction with other proposedand approved projects in Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton. Table 4-1 provides a list of the other projects considered in the cumulative analysis. Table 4-1: Cumulative Projects JurisdictionProject Characteristics Location Status City of Dublin TheGroves 930 dwellingunits Dublin Boulevard/ Keegan Street Approved; under construction East County Hall of Justice 196,213 square feet courthouse Hacienda Drive/ Gleason Drive Approved; under construction Grafton Plaza Mixed Use 115 dwellingunits,50,000 square feet retail commercial, and130 room hotel Dublin Boulevard/ Grafton Drive Proposed; not yet approved or built Grafton Station Phase III 133,446 square feet commercial Dublin Boulevard/ Tassajara Road Approved; unbuilt City of Pleasanton Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan 800 dwelling units (senior); 120,000–200,000 square feet commercial; 331,000 square feet auto mall El Charro Road Stoneridge Drive Adopted; partially implemented City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Cumulative Effects Draft EIR 4-2 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx Table 4 1 (cont.): Cumulative Projects JurisdictionProject Characteristics Location Status City of Livermore El Charro Specific Plan 1.5 million square feetretail; 250 acres El Charro Road/Jack LondonBoulevard Adopted; partially implemented San Francisco Premium Outlets Expansion 200,000square feet retailEl Charro Road/Jack LondonBoulevard Completed Sage Residential Project 476 dwelling unitsPortola Drive/Isabel Avenue Approved; under construction BART Livermore Extension 4.8-mile extension from Dublin/Pleasanton Station to I-580/Isabel Avenue I-580 Median (Dublin to Livermore) Planned Source: City of Dublin, 2015; City of Livermore, 2015; City of Pleasanton, 2015; Bay Area Rapid Transit District, 2015. 4.2 - Cumulative Impact Analysis The cumulative impact analysis below is guided by the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. Key principles established by this section include: A cumulative impactonly occurs from impacts caused by the proposed project and other projects. An EIR should not discuss impacts that do not result from the proposed project. When the combinedcumulative impact from the increment associated with the proposed project and other projects is not significant, an EIR need only briefly explain why the impact is not significant; detailed explanation is not required. An EIR may determine that a project’s contribution to a cumulative effect impactwould be rendered less than cumulatively considerable if a project is required to implement or fund its fair share of mitigation intended to alleviate the cumulative impact. The cumulative impact analysis that follows relies on these principles as the basis for determining the significance of the proposed project’s cumulative contribution to various impacts. 4.2.1 - Aesthetics, Light, and Glare The geographic scope of the cumulative aesthetics, light, and glare analysis is the area surrounding the project site. Thisis the area within view of the project and, therefore, the area mostlikely to experience changes in visual character or experience light and glare impacts. Several of the projects listed in Table 4-1 are immediately adjacent to orwithin 0.25 mile of the project site (The Groves, The Terraces, Grafton Plaza Mixed Use, BART Livermore Extension, etc.). The proposed project consists of the development of 1.2 million square feet of medical campus and commercial uses on 58.7 acres. The projectvicinity is characterized by urban development (Grafton Plaza and Fallon Gateway) and multi-family residential uses. Much of the surrounding project area City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Cumulative Effects FirstCarbon Solutions 4-3 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx has beendeveloped relatively recently in compliance with the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the City’s current municipal code requirements related to design and visual character. Compliance with these standards as well as the City’s review andapproval role in the planning process have ensured a visually compatible and cohesive development pattern in the surrounding area. Therefore, there is currently no existing cumulatively significant visual aesthetic impact within the project area. The proposed projectwould be developed in several phases over a period of morethan two decades. The projectwould feature buildings as high as 90 feet above finished; however, through the use of site planning techniques such as setbacks, structure placement, and landscaping, the visual appearance of the proposed projectwould be softened such that it would be compatible with its surroundings. Because the proposedmedicalandcommercial uses would be expected to employ visible illuminated signage, Mitigation Measure AES-2 requires the approval of a Master Sign Program to ensure that signage is compatible with the proposed project and surrounding uses. The mitigation measure places limits onilluminated signage, including a prohibition ondigital and non-digital freeway billboards. As such, the proposed project’s characteristics and required mitigationwould reduceimpacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other planned or approved projects, would not result in visual significantaesthetic impacts. As statedpreviously, several of the projects listed in Table 4-1 are within 0.25 mile of the project site. The proposed projectwould install new sources of light and glare on the project site, and Mitigation Measure AES-3 requires new exterior lightingfixtures to employ full cut-off fixtures to directlight downward and eliminate spillage. Other projects that involve the installation of new exterior lighting fixtures would be required to implement similar measures to prevent light spillage. The proposed impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other planned andapproved projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impact relating to aesthetics, light, and glare. 4.2.2 - Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions The geographic scope of the cumulative air quality emissions analysis is the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin), which covers all or portions of the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Sonoma, and Solano. Air quality is impacted by topography, dominant air flows, atmospheric inversions, location, and season; therefore, using the Air Basin represents the area most likely to be impacted by air emissions. All of the projects listed in Table 4-1 would result in newair emissions, duringconstruction or operations (or both). The Air Basinis currently in non-attainment of the federal standards for ozone and PM2.5, and is in nonattainment of the state standards for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. Therefore, there is anexisting cumulatively significant air quality impact with respect to these pollutants. The proposed projectwould emit construction and operational criteria pollutant emissions at levels that would exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) thresholds. Mitigation is proposed requiring the implementation of criteria pollutant emissions reduction measures; however, the emissions for certain pollutants (NOx and ROG) would not be reduced to below City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Cumulative Effects Draft EIR 4-4 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx BAAQMD thresholds. NOx is an ozone precursorand, therefore, wouldcontribute to formation of ozone. Other projects that exceedBAAQMD thresholds would also be required to mitigate their impacts. However, because the proposed project cannot reduce NOx emissions to below BAAQMD thresholds, it would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the existing cumulative significant impactrelated to nonattainment of the stateand federal ozonestandards. Additionally, because the proposed projectwould exceedBAAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants (NOx and ROG), it would alsohavea cumulatively significant impact associated with airqualityattainment planconflicts. As discussed in Section 3.2, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions, cumulative cancer, non-cancer chronicandacute health impacts, and PM2.5 concentrations were evaluated at the most impacted off-site sensitive receptor andproposed residence from all sources of Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) emissions located within 1,000 feet of the project site. The project’s individual contribution to cancer risk for all phasesis withinthe BAAQMD’s 10-in-a-million threshold for individual project impacts and is also below threshold for non-cancer chronicandacute health impacts; therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the existing TAC cancer risk. Greenhouse gas emissions are inherently cumulative in nature, and the appropriate scope of analysis is the global climate. The proposed project and other projects would emit new greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed project’s construction and operational greenhouse gas emissions would exceed the BAAQMD threshold even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures and project design features. Therefore, the project’s contribution of greenhouse gas emissions would be cumulatively significant. Other than those specifically addressed above, there are no other existing cumulatively significant air quality impacts. All other project-related air quality impacts were found to be less than significantand did not require mitigation. Other projects that result in similar impacts would be required to mitigate fortheir impacts. Because the proposed project can mitigateall of these remaining airquality impacts to a level of less than significant, it would not havea related cumulatively significant impact with respect to these impact areas. 4.2.3 - Biological Resources The geographic scope of the cumulative biological resources analysis is the regionsurrounding the project site. The project site is located in an area characterized byurban development and infrastructure; accordingly, habitats in these areas tend to be characterized as highly disturbed, and impacts would be localized. Recent development patterns and growth in the areahave resulted in an existing cumulatively significant impact to biological resources due to the loss of potential habitat for rare, endangered, and threatened species. The proposed project has the potential to have significant impacts on Congdon’s tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale. Mitigation Measure BIO-1a is proposed, requiring rare plant surveys for these species and implementation of relocation measures if they are found to be present. Some of the other projectslisted in Table 4-1 are located on sites with similar biological attributes and, therefore, would be required to mitigate for impacts on special-status plant species in a mannersimilar to the City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Cumulative Effects FirstCarbon Solutions 4-5 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx proposed project. The required mitigationwould reduce the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impacton special-status plant species to less than cumulatively considerable.. The proposed project has the potential to have significant impacts on the following special-status wildlife species: nesting birds, western burrowing owl, and the California red-legged frog. Mitigation Measures BIO-1b, BIO-1c, BIO-1d, and BIO-1e are proposed requiring pre-construction surveys for these species and implementation of protection measures if they are found to be present. Some of the other projects listed in Table 4-1 are located on sites with similar biological attributes and, therefore, would be required to mitigate for impacts on special-status wildlife species in a manner similar to the proposed project. The required mitigationwould reduce the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impact on special-status wildlife species to less than cumulatively considerable. The proposed project is within Zone 2 of the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy, which is a guidance document that isused by the City for public projects, but compliance is not mandated for private development. Therefore, it is not an adopted or approved plan that requires aconsistency determination under CEQA. As such, the proposed project, in conjunction with other projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impacton conflicts with adopted biological plans. All other project-related biological resource impacts (e.g., wildlife movement and local biological ordinances) were found to be less than significant and did not require mitigation. Other projects that result in similar impacts would be required to mitigate fortheir impacts. Because the proposed project’s impactonall of these remaining biological resources is less than significant, it would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact. 4.2.4 - Cultural Resources The geographic scope of the cumulative cultural resources analysis is the projectvicinity. Cultural resource impacts tend to be localized because the integrity of any givenresourcedepends on what occurs only in the immediate vicinity around that resource, such as disruption of soils; therefore, in addition to the project site itself, the area near the project site would be the area most affected by project activities (generally within a 500-foot radius). No known impacts to historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources have occurred in the projectvicinity as a result of past or current projects, and there is no existing cumulatively significant impact related to cultural resources. Constructionactivities associated with development projects in the projectvicinity may have the potential to encounter undiscovered cultural resources. These projects would be required to mitigate for impacts through compliance with applicable federal andstate laws governing cultural resources. Even if a significant cumulative impact couldbe found, the proposed project would not make a cumulatively considerable impact with required mitigation. The likelihood of any significant cultural resources on the project sitearevery low given previous disruptions to its ground and the lack of any known resource within its boundaries. Although there is the possibility that previously undiscovered resources couldbe encountered by subsurface earthwork activities, the implementation of standard construction mitigation measures would ensure that undiscovered cultural resources are not adversely affected by project-related construction activities, which would City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Cumulative Effects Draft EIR 4-6 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx prevent the destruction or degradation of potentially significant cultural resources in the project vicinity. Given thelow potential for disruption, and the comprehensiveness of mitigation measures that would apply to thisproject and those in the vicinity, the residual, insignificant impacts of the projects would not combine to makea significant cumulative impact. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other planned andapproved projects, would not havea cumulatively significant impact related to cultural resources. 4.2.5 - Geology, Soils, and Seismicity The geographic scope of the cumulative geology, soils, and seismicity analysis is the projectvicinity. Adverse effects associated with geologic, soil, and seismic hazards tend to be localized, and the area near the project site would be the area mostaffected by project activities (generally within a 0.25- mile radius). Development in the projectvicinity has not included any uses or activities that would result in geology, soils or seismicityimpacts (such as mining or other extractionactivities), and there is no existing, relatedcumulatively significant impact. Development projects in the projectvicinity may have the potential to be exposed to seismic hazards. However, there is a less than significant potential of the projects in combination to expose people or structure to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death in the event of a major earthquake; fault rupture; ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure; landslide; or liquefaction. The project site is in proximity to several activeearthquake faults and, thus, the proposed project may be susceptible to strong groundstrongground shaking during a seismic event; thus, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires the project applicant to retain a qualified geotechnical consultant to prepare adesign-level geotechnical study and implement all California Building Standards Code applicable requirements into project plans. Some or all of theother projects listed in Table 4-1 would be exposed to similar seismic hazards and, therefore, would be expected to implement similarregulatory requirements and mitigation measures. As such, the proposed project with mitigation, in conjunction with other projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impact associated with seismic hazards. Regarding soilerosion, developmentactivitiescould lead to increased erosion rates on site soils, which could cause unstable ground surfaces and increased sedimentation in nearby streams and drainagechannels. Mitigation Measure HYD-1a requires implementation of standard stormwater pollution prevention measures to ensure that earthwork activities do not result in substantial erosion off-site. This mitigation, in turn, would have to comply with the NationalPollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permitting program, which regulates water quality originating from construction sites. The NPDES program, which governs projects statewide (and nationwide), requires the preparation and implementation of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Programs for construction activities that disturb more than 1 acre, and the implementation of Best Management Practices that ensure the reduction of pollutantsduringstormwater discharges, as well as compliance with all applicable waterquality requirements. Thus, since the proposed project and would have to comply with federal and stateregulations and required mitigation that are designed to minimize impacts to projects on a wide geographic scale, the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative erosion impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Cumulative Effects FirstCarbon Solutions 4-7 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx Finally, the project site contains native soils that have shrink-swell characteristics, which may expose project structures to expansive soil hazards. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires the project applicant to retain a qualified geotechnical consultant to prepare a design-levelgeotechnical study and implement all California Building Standards Code applicable requirements into project plans. Some or all of theother projects listed in Table 4-1 would be exposed to expansive soil hazards and, therefore, would be expected to implement similar mitigation measures. The required mitigation would reduce the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impact due to expansive soils to less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other planned andapproved projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to geology, soils, and seismicity, with mitigation and compliance with regulatory requirements. 4.2.6 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials The geographic scope of the cumulative hazards and hazardous materials analysis is the project area. Adverse effects of hazards and hazardous materials tend to be localized; therefore, the area near the project area would be most affected by project activities. Hazards and hazardous materials are extensively regulated at the federal, state and local levels. There are no land uses in the project vicinity that are known to utilize large quantities of hazardous materials or involve hazardous activities, and there is no existing, related cumulatively significant impact. The proposed project would not have significant impacts associated with hazards or hazardous materials, as there is no evidence of contamination from past uses or project characteristics that involve the routine handling of large quantities of hazardous materials. Additionally, the proposed project is compatible with all relevant policies of the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Accordingly, all project-related impacts associated with hazards or hazardous materials were found to be less than significantand did not require mitigation. Other projects listed in Table 4-1 that have become contaminated from past uses, project characteristics that involve the routine handling of large quantities of hazardous materials, or airport incompatibility issues would be required to mitigate fortheir impacts. Because hazards and hazardous materials exposure is generally localized and developmentactivities associated with theother projectslisted in Table 4-1 may not coincide with the proposed project, this effectively precludes the possibility of cumulative exposure. Because the proposed project impact due to hazards and hazardous materials is less than significant, it would not havea cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact. 4.2.7 - Hydrologyand Water Quality The geographic scope of the cumulative hydrologyand water quality analysis is the projectvicinity, generally areas within 0.5 mile of the project site for stormwater impacts due to natural drainage patterns, drainage infrastructure, and impervious surfaces, all of which contribute to limit the distance of stormwater flows. Hydrologic and waterquality impacts tend to be localized; therefore, the area near the project site would be mostaffected by project activities. The nature and types of surrounding development, existing stormwaterinfrastructure and regulatory requirements have City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Cumulative Effects Draft EIR 4-8 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx ensured that no cumulatively significantimpacts related to water pollutants or flooding exist within the projectvicinity. Cumulativeimpacts to groundwater can also occur on a regional basis. The DSRSD utilizes groundwater for only a nominal portion of its supply. The Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin experiences no net loss of groundwater on anannual basis, due to the policy to only pump groundwater that is artificially recharged using imported surface water or locally stored runoff. Therefore, there are no existing cumulatively significanthydrologyand waterquality impacts in the projectvicinity. The proposed project would involve short-term construction and long-term operational activities that would have the potential to degrade water quality in downstream water bodies. Mitigation Measures HYD-1a and HYD-1b are proposed that would require implementation of various construction and operational waterqualitycontrol measures that would prevent the release of pollutants into downstream waterways. Other projects that propose new development would be required to implement similar mitigation measures in accordance with adopted regulations. The required mitigation would reduce the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative water quality impact to less than cumulatively considerable. A portion of the project site is located within a 100-year flood hazard area. Mitigation Measure HYD-4 is proposed requiringbuilding plans to comply with Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.24, which requires that all buildings within a flood hazard area be elevated above the 100-year flood elevation. Other projects that propose new development in flood hazard areas would be required to implement similar mitigation in accordance with adopted regulations. The required mitigation would reduce the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative flooding impact to less than cumulatively considerable due to compliance with regulatoryrequirements. All other project-related hydrologyimpacts (e.g., groundwater and drainage) werefound to be less than significant and did not require mitigation. Because all other project-related hydrologyimpacts are less than significant, it would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact for these impacts. 4.2.8 - Land Use The geographic scope of the cumulativeland use analysis is the Dublin area. Landuse decisions are made at the city level and there are no other jurisdictional boundariesadjacent to the project site Pleasanton is located across the I-580 freeway); therefore, the Dublin areais an appropriate geographic scope. Development within Dublin is governed by the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, which ensurelogical and orderly development and require discretionary review to ensure that projects do not result in land use impacts due to inconsistency with the General Plan and other regulations. As a result, there is no existing cumulatively significant land use impact. Developmentprojects in the Dublin area would continue to be required to demonstrate consistency with all applicable City of Dublin General Plan, applicable Specific Plan (including the East Dublin Specific Plan) requirements. This would ensure that these projects comply with applicable planning regulations. Those projectslisted in Table 4-1 that have been previouslyapproved have been City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Cumulative Effects FirstCarbon Solutions 4-9 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx deemed consistent with all applicable General Plan (as amended) and Specific Plan requirements. For pendingprojects, the lead agency would be required to issue findings demonstrating consistency with the applicable General Plan and Municipal Code requirements if they are ultimately approved. The proposed project is withinthe boundaries of the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The proposed project was found to be consistent with all applicable land use compatibilitycriteria. Other projects listed in Table 4-1 that are within the boundaries of the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan would be required to demonstrate consistency with the applicable land use compatibilitycriteria. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other planned andapproved projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to land use. 4.2.9 - Noise The geographic scope of the cumulative noise analysis is the projectvicinity, including surrounding sensitive receptors. Noise impacts tend to be localized; therefore, the area near the project site approximately0.25 mile) would be the area most affected by project activities. Furthermore, given the properties and the distance between other projects (more than 0.5 mile away), project-related noise would not combine with other sources further away. Outdoor noisemeasurements taken at the project site indicate that the average ambient noise levels are within the “normally acceptable” or “conditionally acceptable” range for all land uses. Therefore, there is no existing cumulatively significant noise impact in the projectvicinity. The proposed project’s construction noise levels may cause a temporary substantial increase in noise levels at nearby receptors. Mitigation is proposed that would require implementation of construction noise attenuation measures to reduce noise levels. Other projects listed in Table 4-1 that would expose nearby sensitive receptors to excessive construction noise would be required to implement similar mitigation. It is highlyunlikely that a substantial number of the cumulativeprojects would be constructed simultaneously, since the projects are at widely varying stages of approvaland development. Even if some of the construction schedules were to overlap with the project, all of the cumulative project sites are located a sufficient distance from the project that distance would diminish any additive effects. Construction noise would generally be limited to daytime hoursand would be short-term in duration. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that construction noise from the proposed project would not combine with noise fromother development projects to cause cumulatively significant noise impacts. The proposed project’s construction and operational vibration levels would not exceed annoyance thresholds and isa less than significant impact. Because vibration is a highly localized phenomenon, therewould be no possibility for vibration associated with the project to combine with vibration from other projects because of their distances from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant vibration impact. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Cumulative Effects Draft EIR 4-10 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx The proposed project’s contribution to vehicular noise levels would not exceed the applicable thresholds of significance, which take into accountexistingnoise levels as well as noise from trips associated with other planned or approved projects. Thus, the proposed projectwould not combine with other projects to cause a cumulatively considerable increase in ambient roadway noise. Other projectslisted in Table 4-1 would be required to evaluate noise and vibration impactsand implementmitigation, if necessary, to minimize noise impacts pursuant to local regulations. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other planned andapproved projects, would not havea cumulatively significant impact related to land use. 4.2.10 - Public Services and Utilities The geographic scope of the cumulative public services analysis is the service area of each of the providers serving the proposed project. Because of differences in the nature of the public service and utility topical areas, they are discussed separately. No existing cumulatively significant impacts have been identified for any of these areas, as all service providers areable to achieve the requisite level of service, capacity, or response times. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services The geographic scope of the cumulative fire protection and emergency medical servicesanalysis is the AlamedaCounty Fire Department’s local service area, which consists of the Dublin citylimits. The proposed project would result in the development of 1.4 million square feet of medical center and commercial uses on 58 acres. The project site is located within 1.1 miles of the nearest fire station and is within an acceptable response time for fire protection. As such, the proposed project would not create a need for new or expanded fire protection facilities and would not result in a physical impact on the environment. Additionally, the proposed projectwould comply with all applicable requirements of the California Fire Code, including provision of adequate emergency access points, and it would be accessible to fire apparatus. Other development projects in the Fire Department service area would bereviewed for impacts on fire protection and emergency medical services and would be required to address any potential impacts with mitigation. According to the Fire District, existing facilities are sufficient to serve the proposed project in conjunction with existing andcumulativeprojects. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with otherfuture projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impactrelated to fire protection and emergency medical services. Police Protection The geographic scope of the cumulativepolice protection analysis is the localservice areas of the AlamedaCounty Sheriff’s Office, which consist of the Dublin city limits and adjoiningunincorporated areas. The proposed project would result in the development of 1.4 million square feet of medical center andcommercial uses on 58 acres. The Sheriff’s Officeindicated that the proposed projectwould be expected to generate12 calls for service annually, which would not be significant enough to adversely affect its service level. As such, the proposed projectwould not create a need for new or City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Cumulative Effects FirstCarbon Solutions 4-11 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx expanded police protection facilities and, therefore, would not result in a physical impact on the environment. Other development projects withinthe Police Department servicearea would be reviewed for impacts on police protection and would be required to address any potential impacts with mitigation. According to the Sheriff’s Office, existing facilitiesare sufficient to serve the proposed project in conjunction with existing and cumulativeprojects. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other future projects, would not havea cumulatively significant impact related to police protection. Water The geographic scope of the cumulative potable water analysis is the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) servicearea, which encompasses the Dublin citylimits, as well as the southern portion of the San Ramon citylimits. Water supplyimpacts are analyzed in Section 3.10, Public Services and Utilities of this EIR, as well as the Water Supply Assessment (Appendix I) prepared for the project, which concluded that DSRSD has adequate potable and recycled water supplies to serve the proposed project as well as other existing and future users. Therefore, there is no existing cumulatively significant impact related to potable water supply. The proposed project is estimated to demand111.5 acre-feet per year of potable water and 29.4 acre-feet per year of recycled water. The DSRSD Urban Water Management Plan indicates that potable water supplies total 12,900 acre feet and recycled water supplies total 2,500 acre-feetin 2015. The proposed project’s demands would represent less than 1percent of potable water supplies and recycled water supplies. Furthermore, the DSRSD’s 2010 Urban Water Master Plan estimates that sufficient water is available to meet the needs of the servicearea through the year 2035, which accounts for the City of Dublin’s long-term growth assumptions. It should be noted thatnot all of the projects listed in Table 4-1 are located within the DSRSD service area. However, for thoseprojects that are located with the DSRSD’s water servicearea, the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan anticipatesadequate water supplies for all water year scenarios through 2035. These projects also would be required to demonstrate that they would be served with potable water service as a standard requirement of the developmentreview process, andthese projects may be required to implementwater conservation measures to the extent they are required. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other planned andapproved projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to water supply. Wastewater The geographic scope of the cumulativewastewater analysis is the Regional WastewaterTreatment Facilityservice area, whichtreats effluent from Dublin, San Ramon (southern portion), and Pleasanton. All future projects would be required to demonstrate that sewerservice is available to ensure that adequate sanitation can be provided. The proposed project is estimated to generate 89,988 gallons of wastewater on a daily basis (0.09 million gallons per day [mgd]). The project site is served by the Regional WastewaterTreatment Facility in Pleasanton, which has a treatment capacity of 17.0 mgd and currently treats an average of 10.5 mgd during dry weather and 10.9 mgd during wet weather. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Cumulative Effects Draft EIR 4-12 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx Thus, 6.1 mgd to 6.5 mgd of treatment capacity is available for new development. The proposed project’s 0.09 mgd of daily effluent would represent 1.4 to 1.5percent of the available treatment capacity at the Regional WastewaterTreatment Facility. As such, the Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility would be expected to accept the proposed project’s increase in effluent without needing to expand existing or constructnew facilities, as the treatment capacity is sufficient to serve both the project and planned future development in the area. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other planned andapproved projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to wastewater. Storm Drainage The geographic scope of the cumulative storm drainage analysis is municipal storm drainage in the projectvicinity, as these are the facilities would receive the project’s runoff. All future development projects in the projectvicinity would be required under existing regulations to provide drainage facilities that collect and detain runoff such that off-site releases are controlled and do not create flooding. The proposed projectwould install an on-site storm drainage system consisting of street gutters, inlets, basins, and underground piping that would ultimately convey runoff to the municipal storm drainage system. The drainagesystem would be designed to reduce the peak flows generated in the developed condition to the peak flows in the predevelopment condition. This would ensure that the proposed project would not contribute to downstream flooding conditions during peak storm events. As such, the proposed projectwould ensure that no net increase in stormwater would leave the project site during a peak storm event, and would avoid cumulatively significant stormwater impacts to downstream waterways at times when capacity is most constrained. The proposed projectwouldimplement standard pollution prevention measures duringconstruction to ensure that downstream water quality impacts are minimized to the greatest extent possible. Inaddition, the proposed projectwould provide water quality measures to prevent pollution during project operations. Stormwater facilities in the projectvicinity either have or will be required to have capacity to serve both the project and planned future development in the service area. Increases in runoff flow and volume fromfuture development must be managed so thatthe post-project runoff does not exceed estimated pre-project rates and durations, in accordance with Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3.g. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other planned andapproved projects, would not havea cumulatively significant impact related to storm drainage. Solid Waste The geographic scope of the cumulative solid waste analysis is the City of Dublin. Amador Valley Industries provides solid waste and recycling collection services to commercial customers in the City of Dublin. Future development projects would generate construction and operational solid waste and, depending on the volumesand end uses, would be required to implement recycling and waste reduction measures. The proposed project is anticipated to generate 3,268cubic yards of solid waste duringconstruction and 4,032cubic yards annually during operations. For comparison purposes, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery indicates that the City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Cumulative Effects FirstCarbon Solutions 4-13 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx Altamont Landfill and Resources Recovery Facility, Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill, andNewby Island Sanitary Landfill have a combined 71.9 million cubic yards of remaining capacity available. The project’s construction and operational solid waste generation would represent less than 1percent of the remaining capacity at these facilities. As such, sufficient capacity is available to serve the proposed project as well as existing and planned land uses in the City of Dublin for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, the proposed project, in conjunction with other future projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to solid waste. Energy The geographic scope of the cumulative energy analysis is the Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). PG&E’s electrical servicearea consists of all or part of the 47 counties in California (including Alameda County), while its natural gas servicearea consists of 39 counties in Californiacomprising most of the northern and central portions of the State (including AlamedaCounty). Future development projects in the PG&E service area would be required to comply with Title 24 energy efficiency standards. The proposed projectwould demand an estimated26.4 million kilowatt-hours of electricity and636,000 kBTUs of natural gas on anannual basis. The proposed project’s structures would be designed in accordance with Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. These standards include minimum energy efficiency requirements related to building envelope, mechanical systems (e.g., HVAC and water heating systems), indoor and outdoor lighting, and illuminated signs. The incorporation of the Title 24 standards into the projectwould ensure that the project would not result in the inefficient, unnecessary, or wasteful consumption of energy. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other future projects, would not havea cumulatively significant impact related to energy consumption. 4.2.11 - Transportation Section 3.11, Transportation contains the cumulative impacts analysis for the project traffic impacts on intersection operations androadway segments. Please refer to that section for the cumulative impacts analysis on those issues. For other transportation-related areas (air traffic patterns, emergency access and roadway safety hazards, and public transit, bicycles, and pedestrians), the proposed projectwould have potentially significantimpacts related to roadway hazards and alternative transportation, but after the implementation of mitigation, theseimpacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Other projects that result in similar impacts would be required to mitigate fortheir impacts. Because the proposed project can mitigateall other transportation impacts to a level of less than significant, it would not havea cumulatively considerable contribution to any significantcumulative impact relative to these other topics. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project FirstCarbon Solutions 5-1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx SECTION 5: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.1 - Introduction In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) contains a comparative impact assessment of alternatives to the proposed project. The primary purpose of this section is to provide decision makers and the general public with a reasonable number of feasible project alternatives that could attain most of the basic project objectives, while avoiding or reducing any of the project’s significant adverse environmental effects. Important considerations for these alternatives analyses are noted below (as stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project; An EIR should identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency, but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process; Reasons for rejecting an alternative include: Failure to meet most of the basic project objectives; Infeasibility; or Inability to avoidsignificant environmental effects. 5.1.1 - SignificantUnavoidableImpacts The proposed project would result in the following significant unavoidable impacts: Consistency with Air Quality Management Plan: The proposed project would generate operational emissions that would exceed regional emissions thresholds and, thus, be inconsistent with the planning assumptions in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Air Quality Management Plan. Mitigation is proposed that would require the applicant to implement emissions reduction measures; however, theywould not reduce the project’s contribution to less than significant levels. As such, the residual significance of this impact is significantand unavoidable. Cumulative Criteria Pollutant Impacts: The proposed projectwould generate operational emissions for certain pollutants that would exceed regional emissions thresholds, which is considered a cumulative impact. Mitigation is proposed that would require the applicant to implement emissions reduction measures; however, theywould not reduce the project’s contribution to less than significant levels. As such, the residual significance of this impact is significantand unavoidable. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The proposed projectwould generate new sources of greenhouse gas emissions that would exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management District thresholds. Mitigation is proposed requiring the implementation of feasible emissions reduction measures; however, these measures would not reduce emissions to less than significant levels. Therefore, the significance after mitigation is significant and unavoidable. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft EIR 5-2 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx Existing Plus Project Traffic: The proposed projectwouldcontribute vehicle trips to intersections and queues that would operate at unacceptable levels under Existing Plus Project Conditions. Mitigation is proposed; however, it would not fully reduce project impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. Near-Term Traffic: The proposed project would contribute vehicle trips to intersections and queues that would operate at unacceptable levels under Near-Term Conditions. Mitigation is proposed; however, it would not fully reduce project impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, the residual significanceis significant and unavoidable. Cumulative Traffic: The proposed projectwouldcontribute vehicle trips to intersections and queues that would operate at unacceptable levels under CumulativeConditions. Mitigation is proposed; however, it would not fully reduce project impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, the residual significanceis significantand unavoidable. Congestion Management Plan: The proposed project wouldcontribute vehicle trips to Congestion Management Plan facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels. Mitigation is proposed; however, it would not fully reduce project impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, the residual significanceis significant and unavoidable. 5.1.2 - Alternatives to the Proposed Project The three alternatives to the proposed project analyzed in this section are as follows: No Project Alternative: The proposed projectwould not bepursued and the project site would remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future. Reduced Density Alternative: The proposed project’s square footage would be reduced by 300,000 square feet or 25 percent, which would be proportionately applied to the medical campus andcommercial uses. Under this alternative, the proposed projectwould total 900,000 square feet. Corporate Office Campus Alternative: A 1.2-million-square-foot corporate office campus would be developed on the project site pursuant to the existing General Plan and Specific Plan land use designation of “Office Campus.” Three alternatives to the proposed project are analyzed below. These analyses compare the proposed project and each individual project alternative. In several cases, the description of the impact may be the same under each alternative when compared with the CEQA Thresholds of Significance (i.e., both the project and the alternative would result in a less than significant impact). The actual degree of impact may beslightly different between the proposed project and each alternative, and this relative difference is the basis for a conclusion of greater or lesser impacts. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project FirstCarbon Solutions 5-3 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx 5.2 - Project Objectives As stated in Section 2, Project Description, the objectives of the proposed project are to: 1. Enhance public safety and public health by providing for major medical care facilities within Dublin to serveexisting and future demand in the Tri-Valley region. 2. Provide high-quality health care in seismically safe new state-of-the-art advanced care medical center within the Eastern Dublin planning area that provides community vitality, economic growth and a wide range of employment opportunities in Dublin and the surrounding region. 3. Positively contribute to the localeconomy throughnew capital investment, the creation of new jobs, the provision of new services, and the expansion of the tax base. 4. Supplement and support existing Kaiser clinics and medical facilities in the Tri-Valley region and to provide additional medical services for local residents at facilities closer to their homes than currently exists. 5. Increase accessibility to affordable andconvenient health care options in a dynamic, changing health care environment. 6. Facilitate the logical, orderly, and phased development of a high-visibility, infill site in order to achievea beneficial set of end uses at a site with goodfreeway access and proximity to public transportation. 7. Provide flexibility for the potential end uses of the Commercial Parcel area in order to be responsive to market demand while also achieving compatibility with surrounding existing and future uses including medical, commercial, hotel, and residential neighborhoods. 8. Develop contemporary, visually appealingmedical center andcommercial uses that are aesthetically compatible with surrounding development and preserve views of the surroundinghills from I-580. 9. Close a gap in the bicycle and pedestrian network within the community by providing on- site pedestrianand bicycle facilities that link with existing facilities along Dublin Boulevard. 5.3 - Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires EIRs to evaluate a “No Project Alternative,” which is defined as the “circumstance underwhich the project does not proceed.” The project site currently has a land use designation under the General Plan and Eastern Dublin SpecificPlan and a preliminary Planned Development Zoning District. There are no approved entitlements for the project site, so at this moment, there is no project that could be constructed without first obtaining a revised Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning District and Site Development Review approval, at a minimum or any future development to take place on the site. Because the project site currently has no planning approvals, the No Project Alternative consists of the project siteremaining undeveloped for the foreseeable future. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft EIR 5-4 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx 5.3.1 - Impact Analysis The proposed project would not advance any of the project objectivesand the project site would remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future. Nodisturbance or newdevelopment would occur on the project site, thereby eliminating the potential for impacts associated with aesthetics, light, and glare; air quality and greenhouse gas emissions; biological resources; cultural resources; geology, soils, and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrologyand water quality; land use; noise; public services and utilities; and transportation. Accordingly, this alternative would avoid all of the proposed project’s significant impacts (including significant and unavoidable impacts), as well as the need to implement any mitigation measures. 5.3.2 - Conclusion The No Project Alternative would avoid the proposed project’s significantand unavoidable impacts and would have less impact on all environmental topical areas. However, this alternative would not advance any of the project objectives, including those related to: Enhancing public safetyand public health byproviding for major medical care facilities within Dublin to serve existing and future demand in the Tri-Valley region. Providing high-quality health care in seismically safe new state-of-the-art advancedcare medical center within the Eastern Dublin planning area that provides community vitality, economic growth and a wide range of employment opportunities in Dublin and the surroundingregion. Positively contribute to the localeconomy through new capital investment, the creation of new jobs, the provision of new services, and the expansion of the tax base. Supplementing and supporting existing Kaiser clinics and medical facilities in the Tri-Valley region and to provide additional medical services for local residents at facilities closer to their homes than currently exists. Increasing accessibility to affordable and convenient health care options in light of new statutesandregulations. Facilitating the logical, orderly, and phased development of a high-visibility, infill site in order to achieve the highest-and-bestend uses at a site with good freeway access and proximity to public transportation. Providing flexibility with the potential end uses of the commercial area in order to be responsive to market demand while also ensuring compatibility with the medical center and surrounding existing and future uses including commercial, hotel, and residential neighborhoods. Developing contemporary, visually appealing medical center andcommercial uses that are aesthetically compatible with surrounding development and preserveviews of the surroundinghills from I-580. Closing a gap in the bicycle andpedestrian network within the community by providing on-site pedestrianand bicycle facilities that link with existing facilities along Dublin Boulevard. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project FirstCarbon Solutions 5-5 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx 5.4 - Alternative 2 – Reduced Density Alternative The Reduced Density Alternative consists of reducing the proposed project’s square footageby 300,000 square feet or 25percent to a total of 900,000 square feet. The 25 percent reduction in square footage would be applied to boththe medical campus and commercial uses. All uses would be identical to those proposed by the project; however, 25 percent less square footage would be assigned to each use. Additionally, the phasing of the uses would be identical to the proposed project. Additional landscaping, pedestrian facilities, and outdoor seating areas would be developed in place of the eliminatedbuilding square footage. This alterative would require the same discretionary approvals as the proposed project. Table 5-1 summarizes the Reduced Density Alternative. The purpose of the Reduced Density Alternative is to evaluate a project alternative that develops the same end uses but with less square footage in order to lessen the severity of impacts associated with air quality/greenhouse gases, noise, public services and utilities, and transportation. Table 5-1: Reduced Density Alternative Summary Scenario Phase Use SquareFeet Reduced Density Alternative 1A Medical Office Building 1 and Cancer Center – Outpatient Services 165,000 square feet 1B Commercial 187,500 square feet 2 Medical Campus –High Acuity Medical Services Building and Energy Center 337,500 square feet 3Medical Office Building 2 and parking garage210,000 square feet Total 900,000 square feet Proposed Project 1A Medical Office Building 1 and Cancer Center – Outpatient Services 220,000 square feet 1B Commercial 250,000 square feet 2 Medical Campus –High Acuity Medical Services Building and Energy Center 450,000 square feet 3Medical Office Building 2 and parking garage280,000 square feet Total 1.2 million square feet Difference (300,000 square feet) Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, 2015 5.4.1 - Impact Analysis Aesthetics, Light, and Glare The Reduced Density Alternative consists of developing900,000 square feet of medical campus and commercial uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 300,000 square feet relative to City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft EIR 5-6 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx the proposed project. Buildings would employsimilararchitecture and design elements, be located in generally the same locations, and be used for land use activitiessimilar to those of the proposed project and, therefore, wouldimplement similar mitigation for a Master Sign Program to ensure that signage is compatible with the projectvicinity. Additionally, similar exterior light fixtures would be installed, and mitigation identical to the proposed project would be implemented. The 300,000- square-foot reduction in buildings would be offset with additional landscaping and pedestrian facilities, which would be more beneficial from a visual perspective. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would have less impacton aesthetics, light, and glare than the proposed project. Air Quality/Greenhouse Gases The Reduced Density Alternative consists of developing900,000 square feet of medical campus and commercial uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 300,000 square feet relative to the proposed project. The buildout potential of this alternative would be less than the proposed project and, therefore, would result in fewer construction emissions. Althoughconstruction emissions impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, the reduction in emissions would be considered more beneficial. The Reduced Density Alternative would generate 8,250 fewer daily vehicle trips than the proposed project and, therefore, would reduce operational emissions of criteriapollutants, toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gas emissions. The substantial reduction in daily trip generation would lessen the severity of the proposed project’s airquality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts, although it would not necessarily avoid the significant unavoidable impacts. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would less impacton air quality/greenhouse gas emissions than the proposed project. Biological Resources The Reduced Density Alternative consists of developing900,000 square feet of medical campus and commercial uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 300,000 square feet relative to the proposed project. Similar ground-disturbing activities would occurand, therefore, mitigation identical to the proposed project for special-status species would be implemented. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would have biological resources impacts similar to the proposed project. Cultural Resources The Reduced Density Alternative consists of developing900,000 square feet of medical campus and commercial uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 300,000 square feet relative to the proposed project. Similar ground-disturbing activities would occurand therefore, mitigation identical to the proposed project for historic resources, archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and burial sites would be implemented. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would have cultural resources impacts similar to the proposed project. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity The Reduced Density Alternative consists of developing900,000 square feet of medical campus and commercial uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 300,000 square feet relative to the proposed project. Similar developmentactivities would occur and, therefore, mitigation City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project FirstCarbon Solutions 5-7 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx identical to the proposed project for seismic hazards, erosion, and expansive soils would be implemented. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would have geology, soils, and seismicity impacts similar to the proposed project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Reduced Density Alternative consists of developing900,000 square feet of medical campus and commercial uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 300,000 square feet relative to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, no hazardous conditions exist on-site and the project’s end users would not expose surrounding receptors to hazardous materials; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would have hazards and hazardous materials impacts similar to the proposed project. Hydrologyand Water Quality The Reduced Density Alternative consists of developing900,000 square feet of medical campus and commercial uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 300,000 square feet relative to the proposed project. Similar developmentactivities would occur and, therefore, mitigation identical to the proposed project for waterquality, drainage, and flood hazards would be implemented. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would have hydrologyand waterquality impacts similar to the proposed project. Land Use The Reduced Density Alternative consists of developing900,000 square feet of medical campus and commercial uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 300,000 square feet relative to the proposed project. This alternative would require the same entitlements as the proposed project, and, therefore, would yield similar conclusions in terms of land use. Additionally, the uses developed under thisalternative would have physical characteristics and end uses similar to the proposed project and, therefore, would yield a similar compatibility finding with the Livermore Executive Airport LandUse Compatibility Plan. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would have land use impacts similar to the proposed project. Noise The Reduced Density Alternative consists of developing900,000 square feet of medical campus and commercial uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 300,000 square feet relative to the proposed project. The buildout potential of this alternative would be less than the proposed project and, therefore, construction noise impacts would be less severe to the proposed project, although these impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant. TheReduced Density Alternative would generate 8,250 fewer daily vehicle trips than the proposed project. Although the proposed project was found to have less than significantimpacts in this regard, the substantial reduction in daily trip generation would beconsidered more beneficial from a noise perspective. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would less impact on noise than the proposed project. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft EIR 5-8 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx Public Services and Utilities The Reduced Density Alternative consists of developing900,000 square feet of medical campus and commercial uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 300,000 square feet relative to the proposed project. End uses would be similar to the proposed project, and, therefore, similar mitigation measures would be implemented. This alternative would result in a 300,000 square-foot reduction in development potential and is considered more beneficial from a public services and utilities perspective because there would be less demand for fire protection, police protection, water, and energy, and less generation of wastewater and solid waste. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would have less impact on public services and utilities than the proposed project. Transportation The Reduced Density Alternative consists of developing900,000 square feet of medical campus and commercial uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 300,000 square feet relative to the proposed project. Table 5-2 summarizes the trip generation of the Reduced Density Alternative. As shown in the table, the Reduced Density Alternative would result in a net reduction of 8,250 daily trips, 318 AM peak hour trips, and805PM peak hourtrips. The substantial reduction in peak-hour trips would avoid or lessen the severity of significant impacts at several intersections and roadway segments; however, mostfacilities would still experienceunacceptable operations and require mitigation measures. For the reasons described in Section 3.11, Transportation, this alternative would yield a similar significant and unavoidable conclusion, although the severity of impacts would be less. Table 5-2: Reduced Density Alternative Trip Generation Comparison Scenario Trip Generation Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Reduced Density Alternative 32,890 2,106 3,183 Proposed Project 41,140 2,424 3,988 Difference (8,250) (318) (805) Note: Trip generation calculation provided in Appendix K. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. 5.4.2 - Conclusion The Reduced Density Alternative would lessen the severity of, but would not avoid, the significant and unavoidable airquality/greenhouse gas emissions and transportation impacts associated with the proposed project. Additionally, the Reduced Density Alternative would lessen the severity of several of the significantimpacts that can bereduced to a level of less than significant with mitigation (e.g., biological resources, cultural resources, hydrologyand waterquality, noise, public services and utilities). City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project FirstCarbon Solutions 5-9 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx The Reduced Density Alternative would advance all of the project objectives, although two would be advanced to a lesser degree than the proposed project due to the fewer positive economic benefits. This includes objectives related to enhancing public safetyand public health by providing major medical care facilities within Dublin to serveexisting and future demand in the Tri-Valley region, and by positively contributing to the local economy throughnew capital investment, the creation of new jobs, the provision of new services, and the expansion of the tax base. The Reduced Density Alternative would advance the following objectives to a degree equivalent to the proposed project: Provide high-quality health care in aseismically safe, new state-of-the-art advancedcare medical center within the Eastern Dublin planning area that provides community vitality, economic growth and a wide range of employment opportunities in Dublin and the surroundingregion; Supplementand support existing Kaiser clinics andmedical facilities in the Tri-Valley region and to provide additional medical services for local residents at facilities closer to their homes than currently exists; Increase accessibility to affordable andconvenient health care options in light of new statutes and regulations; Facilitate the logical, orderly, and phased development of a high-visibility, infill site in order to achieve the highest-and-best end uses at a site with goodfreeway access and proximity to public transportation; Provide flexibility with the potential end uses of the commercial area in order to be responsive to market demand while also ensuring compatibility with the medical center and surrounding existing and future uses including commercial, hotel, and residential neighborhoods; Develop contemporary, visuallyappealing medical center andcommercial uses that are aesthetically compatible with surroundingdevelopment and preserve views of the surroundinghills from I-580; and Close a gap in the bicycle and pedestrian network within the community by providing on-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities that link with existing facilities along Dublin Boulevard. 5.5 - Alternative 3 – Corporate Office Campus Alternative The Corporate Office Campus Alternative consists of developing a 1.2 million square-foot corporate office campus on the project site pursuant to the existing General Plan and Specific Plan land use designation of “Office Campus.” The office campus would consist of Class A space1 and cater to corporate tenants seeking to locate on the I-580 corridor in the Tri-Valley. The office space would be distributed amongst four buildings 1 Office space is classified as “A,” “B,” or “C,” with A representing newer space in business parks; B representing older space in business parks or newer space in outlying areas; and C representing alternative space such as flex buildings that are not located City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft EIR 5-10 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx that would total 300,000 square feet each. Each building would have fivefloors and stand 85 feet above finished grade. The buildings would employ a contemporary appearance with extensive use of glass. The office buildings would be clustered in the center of the campus, with a plaza area in between the buildings. The plaza would feature landscaping, seating, and a water feature. Two 4-story parking garages would be located on the east and west ends of campus, with surface parking to the north and south. Vehicular access would be taken fromthe same locations as the proposed project, with the Keegan Street and Lockhart Street access points being signalized, full access, and theother two being unsignalized left-in, right-in, right-out. The Corporate Office Campus Alternative can be developed under the existing General Plan and Specific Plan land use designation of “Office Campus” and, therefore, this alternative wouldonly require approval of a parcel map, Planned Development Rezone, andsite development review. Table 5-3 summarizes the Corporate Office Campus Alternative. The purpose of the Corporate Office Campus Alternative is to evaluatean alternate use that couldbe developed under the existing land use designations in order to lessen the severity of impacts associated with airquality/greenhouse gases, noise, public services and utilities, and transportation. Table 5-3: Corporate Office Campus Alternative Summary Scenario Phase Use Square Feet CorporateOffice Campus Alternative 1 Office Campus1.2 million square feet Parking structure (2) Total 1.2 million square feet Proposed Project 1A Medical Office Building 1 and Cancer Center – Outpatient Services 220,000 square feet 1B Commercial 250,000 square feet 2Medical Campus –High Acuity Medical Services Building and Energy Center 450,000 square feet 3Medical Office Building 2 andparking garage280,000 square feet Total 1.2 million square feet Difference Total — Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, 2015 within business parks or business districts. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project FirstCarbon Solutions 5-11 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx 5.5.1 - Impact Analysis Aesthetics, Light, and Glare The Corporate Office Campus Alternative would develop a 1.2 million square-foot corporate office campus on the project site. The office buildings would stand85 feet above finished grade and employ a contemporary appearance with extensive use of glass. This alternative’s buildings would have height and massing characteristics similar to the proposed project’s buildingsand, therefore, yield similar conclusions in terms of scenic vistas, State Scenic Highways, and visual character. Additionally, similar exterior light fixtures would be installed, and mitigation identical to the proposed projectwould be implemented. Therefore, the Corporate Office Campus Alternative would aesthetics, light, and glare impacts similar to the proposed project. Air Quality/Greenhouse Gases The Corporate Office Campus Alternative would develop a 1.2 million square-foot corporate office campus on the project site. The buildout potential of this alternative would be similar to the proposed project and, therefore, construction emissions would be similar to the proposed project. However, the Corporate Office Campus Alternative would generate 27,900 fewer daily trips and, therefore, reduce operational emissions of criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gas emissions. The substantial reduction in daily trip generation would lessen the severity of the proposed project’s air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts, although it would not necessarily avoid the significant unavoidableimpacts. Therefore, the Corporate Office Campus Alternative would less impact on air quality/greenhouse gas emissions than the proposed project. Biological Resources The Corporate Office Campus Alternative would have the same buildout potential as the proposed project. Similar ground-disturbing activities would occurand, therefore, mitigation identical to the proposed project for special-status species would be implemented. Therefore, the Corporate Office Campus Alternative would have biological resources impacts similar to the proposed project. Cultural Resources The Corporate Office Campus Alternative would have the same buildout potential as the proposed project. Similar ground-disturbing activities would occurand, therefore, mitigation identical to the proposed project for historic resources, archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and burial sites would be implemented. Therefore, the Corporate Office Campus Alternative would have cultural resources impacts similar to the proposed project. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity The Corporate Office Campus Alternative would develop an equivalent amount of new square footage as the proposed project. Similar construction activities would occur and, therefore, mitigation identical to the proposed project for seismic hazards, erosion, and expansivesoils would be implemented. Therefore, the Corporate Office Campus Alternative would have geology, soils, and seismicityimpacts similar to the proposed project. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft EIR 5-12 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx Hazards and Hazardous Material The Corporate Office Campus Alternative would have the same buildout potential as the proposed project. As with the proposed project, no hazardous conditions exist on-site and the proposed office uses would not expose surrounding receptors to hazardous materials; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Although thisalternative would avoiddevelopingmedical uses and, thus, would not generate medical wastes, this issue was found to be less than significant and did not require mitigation. Therefore, the Corporate Office Campus Alternative would have hazards and hazardous materialsimpacts similar to the proposed project. Hydrologyand Water Quality The Corporate Office Campus Alternative would develop an equivalent amount of new square footage as the proposed project. Similar construction and operational activities would occurand, therefore, mitigation identical to the proposed project for water quality, drainage, and flood hazards would be implemented. Therefore, the Corporate Office Campus Alternative would have hydrology and water quality impacts similar to the proposed project. Land Use The Corporate Office Campus Alternative consists of developing 1.2 million square feet of office uses on the project site. This alternative can be developed under the existing General Plan and Specific Plan’s land use designation of “Office Campus” and, therefore, would not require any amendments to these plans. Additionally, this alternative requires entitlements similar to the proposed project, and, therefore, would yield similar conclusions in terms of land use. Additionally, the office uses contemplated by thisalternative are permitted within Zone 7 of the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and, therefore, would yield a similar compatibility finding. Therefore, the Corporate Office Campus Alternative would have land use impacts similar to the proposed project except aGeneral Plan Amendment would not be sought. Noise The Corporate Office Campus Alternative would develop a 1.2-million-square-foot corporate office campus on the project site. The buildout potential of this alternative would be similar to the proposed project and, therefore, construction noise impacts would be similar to the proposed project. However, the Corporate Office Campus Alternative would generate 27,900 fewer daily trips and, therefore, reduce operational noise associated with vehicle trips. Although the proposed project was found to have less than significant impacts, the substantial reduction in daily trip generation would be considered more beneficial from a noise perspective. Therefore, the Corporate Office Campus Alternative would less impacton noise than the proposed project. Public Services and Utilities The Corporate Office Campus Alternative would develop a 1.2-million-square-foot corporate office campus on the project site. The development of office uses would beexpected to reduce demands for fire, police, water, wastewater, and energy, as these uses would generally be occupied during traditional business hours (as opposed to around-the-clock) and involve less intense land use City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project FirstCarbon Solutions 5-13 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx activities than medical center. Therefore, the Corporate Office Campus Alternative would have less impacton public services and utilities than the proposed project. Transportation The Corporate Office Campus Alternative would develop a 1.2-million-square-foot corporate office campus on the project site. Table 5-4 summarizes the trip generation of this alternative. As shown in the table, the Corporate Office Campus Alternative would result in a net reduction of 27,900 daily trips, 552 AM peak hour trips, and 2,200 PM peak hourtrips. The substantial reduction in peak hour trips would avoid or lessen the severity of significant impacts at several intersections androadway segments; however, mostfacilities would still experience unacceptable operations and require mitigation measures. For the reasons described in Section 3.11, Transportation, this alternative would yield a similar significant and unavoidableconclusion, although the severity of impacts would be less. Table 5-4: Corporate Office Campus Alternative Trip Generation Comparison Scenario Trip Generation Daily AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour CorporateOffice Campus Alternative 13,240 1,872 1,788 Proposed Project 41,140 2,424 3,988 Difference (27,900)(552)(2,200) Note: Trip generation calculation provided in Appendix K. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. Additionally, the Corporate Office Campus Alternative would have access points similar to the proposed project and, therefore, implement similar mitigation to ensure that the points operate safely and efficiently. Finally, this alternative wouldimplement similar mitigation measures to ensure accessibility to public transit, bicycles, and pedestrian. Therefore, the Corporate Office Campus Alternative would have less impact ontransportation than the proposed project. 5.5.2 - Conclusion The Corporate Office Campus Alternative would lessen the severity of, but would not avoid, the significant andunavoidable air quality/greenhouse gas emissions and transportation impacts associated with the proposed project. Additionally, the Corporate Office Campus Alternative would lessen the severity of several of the significant impacts that can bereduced to a level of less than significant with mitigation (e.g., noise and public services and utilities). The Corporate Office Campus Alternative would advance some—butnot all—of the project objectivesby virtue of developing office uses in place of a medical center. The Corporate Office Campus Alternative would advance the following objectives to an equivalent degree as the proposed project: City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft EIR 5-14 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx Enhancing public safety and public health byproviding for major medical care facilities within Dublin to serveexisting and future demand in the Tri-Valley region; Providing high-quality health care in seismically safe new state-of-the-art advancedcare medical center within the Eastern Dublin planning area that provides community vitality, economic growth and a wide range of employment opportunities in Dublin and the surrounding region; Positively contribute to the localeconomy through new capital investment, the creation of new jobs, the provision of new services, and the expansion of the tax base; Supplementingand supporting existing Kaiser clinics andmedical facilities in the Tri-Valley region and to provide additional medical services for local residents at facilities closer to their homes than currently exist; Increasing accessibility to affordable andconvenient health care options in light of new statutesandregulations; Facilitating the logical, orderly, and phased development of a high-visibility, infill site in order to achieve the highest-and-best end uses at a site with good freeway access and proximity to public transportation; Providing flexibility with the potential end uses of the commercial area in order to be responsive to market demand while also ensuring compatibility with the medical center and surrounding existing and future uses including commercial, hotel, and residential neighborhoods; Developing contemporary, visuallyappealing medical center andcommercial uses that are aesthetically compatible with surrounding development and preserveviews of the surroundinghills from I-580; and Closing a gap in the bicycle andpedestrian network within the community by providing on-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities that link with existing facilities along Dublin Boulevard. 5.6 - Environmentally Superior Alternative The qualitative environmental effects of each alternative in relation to the proposed project are summarized in Table 5-5. Table 5-5: Summary of Alternatives Environmental Topic Area No Project Alternative Reduced Density Alternative Corporate Office Campus Alternative Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Less impactSimilar impactSimilar impact Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less impactLessimpactLess impact Biological Resources Less impactSimilar impactSimilar impact City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project FirstCarbon Solutions 5-15 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx Table 5-5 (cont.): Summary of Alternatives Environmental Topic Area No Project Alternative Reduced Density Alternative Corporate Office Campus Alternative Cultural Resources Less impactSimilar impactSimilar impact Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Less impactSimilar impactSimilar impact Hazards and Hazardous Material Less impactSimilar impactSimilar impact Hydrologyand Water Quality Less impactSimilar impactSimilar impact Land Use Less impactSimilar impactSimilar impact Noise Less impactLessimpactLess impact Public Services and Utilities Less impactLessimpactLess impact Transportation Less impactLessimpactLess impact Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, 2015. As shown in Table 5-5, the NoProject Alternative is the environmentallysuperior alternative, as it avoids or substantially lessens the project’s significant impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(e)(2) requires an EIR to identify an environmentallysuperior alternative. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentallysuperior alternative, the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among theother alternatives. Of the two remainingalternatives, the Corporate Office Campus Alternative has the potential to yield the greatest reductions in the severity of the proposed significant and unavoidable impacts associated with air quality/greenhouse gas emissions and transportation, because it would generate fewer daily trips than the Reduced Density Alternative. The Corporate Office Campus Alternative would generate 27,900 fewer daily vehicle trips compared with the proposed project, while the Reduced Density Alternative would generate 8,250 fewer daily vehicle trips compared with the proposed project. Therefore, the Corporate Office Campus Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. 5.7 - Alternatives Rejected From Further Consideration The following alternative was initially considered, but it was rejected from further consideration for the reasons described below. 5.7.1 - 50-Percent Reduction Alternative A variation of the Reduced Density Alternative that was initially considered involved reducing the size of the project by 50percent (600,000 square feet). Such an alternative would be expected to reduce daily and peak-hour trip generation, which would lessen the severity of the significant unavoidableimpacts associated with airquality and greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation. Additionally, thisalternative would reduce demand for public services, consumption of water and energy, andgeneration of wastewater andsolidwaste. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft EIR 5-16 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx However, a 50-Percent Reduction Alternative would not avoid the proposed project’s significant unavoidableimpacts associated with airquality and greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation because it would still generate a substantial number of net new trips. Inthis sense, it would yieldno better conclusions that eitherthe Reduced Density Alternative orthe Corporate Office Campus Alternative. Additionally, a 50-Percent Reduction Alternative would yield a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.23, which is below the minimum FAR of 0.25 established by the General Plan for the “Campus Office” land use designation. Moreover, because the General Plan allows FARs of up to 0.80 for the “Campus Office” land use designation, developing a project at such a low density—particularlyon a majorcorridor such as Dublin Boulevard—would not advance the planning objectives for eitherthe Eastern Dublin planning area or the “Campus Office” land use designation. For these reasons, a 50-Percent Reduction Alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 5.7.2 - Alternative Location CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2) sets forth considerations to be used in evaluatingan alternativelocation. The section states that the “key question” is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by relocating the project. The CEQA Guidelines identify the following factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of an alternativelocation: 1) Site suitability 2) Economic viability 3) Availability of infrastructure 4) General Plan consistency 5) Other plans or regulatory limitations 6) Jurisdictional boundaries 7) Whether the project applicant can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site. The CEQA Guidelines establishes that only locations that can avoid or substantially lessen the proposed project’s significant impacts should be considered. To preface the discussion of potential alternative sites, it should be acknowledged that only sites located within the current Dublin city limits are consideredfeasible because of the provisions of Alameda County Measure D. (Measure D effectively prohibitsnew urban development outside of citylimitsin easternAlamedaCounty.) Table 5-6 summarizes the feasibility of three alternative locations within the Dublin city limits, and Exhibit 5-1 depicts the locations of the four sites. As shown in the table, none of the three sites is consideredfeasible. For these reasons, an alternative location is rejected from further consideration. I 37660004 • 03/2015 | 5-1_alts.mxd Exhibit5-1PotentialAlternativeLocations Source: ESRIImagery CITYOFDUBLIN • KAISERDUBLINMEDICALCENTERPROJECT ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT 580 Central Pky Dublin Blvd Ta s s a ja ra R d S a n t a R i t a R d E l C h a r r o R d StoneridgeDr F a llo n R d StoneridgeDr Gleason Dr Positano P k w y K e egan St L o c kha r t S t FallonSportsPark FallonGatewayGraftonPlaza T a s s a j a ra Creek CampParks D o u g h e rty R d EastofFallonRoad CampParks / DublinCrossing TassajaraRoad / DublinBoulevard Legend ProjectSite 3,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project FirstCarbon Solutions 5-19 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx Table 5-6: Potential Alternative Locations Site Description Feasibility Determination Camp Parks/ Dublin Crossing Approximately 189 acres located within the southern portion Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area bounded by Scarlett Drive (west), military training uses (north), Arnold Road (east), and Dublin Boulevard south). This site contains unused, dilapidated military buildings and undeveloped land. The United States Department of Defense transferred ownership of this land to the City of Dublin. This site is designated “Dublin Crossing SpecificPlan” by the City of Dublin General Plan, with various zoning established by the Dublin Crossing SpecificPlan. Not Feasible:This site is entitled for mixed- use development known as “Dublin Crossing” that contemplates 1,995 dwelling units, 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, 35 acres of parks, and a 12-acre elementary school site. As such, this site is considered committed to a higher-and- better use. Additionally, this site is not owned, controlled, or otherwise accessible to the project applicant and, because it is currently entitled for Dublin Crossing, it would be doubtful that the project applicant would consider this site for the proposed project. These factors preclude developing the proposed project at this location. East of Fallon Road Approximately 45 acres bounded by Fallon Road (west), undeveloped land (north and east), and I-580 (south). The site contains undevelopedland located within the Dublin citylimits. This site is designated “General Commercial” by the City of Dublin General Plan and zoned “GeneralCommercial” by the Eastern Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Not Feasible:This site is not owned, controlled, or otherwise accessible to the project applicant. Additionally, this site is 77 percent of the size of the project site 58.7 acres), which would likely result in the elimination of the proposedcommercial uses and the reduction in the size of the medical campus uses. These factors preclude developing the proposed project at this location. Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Southeast) Approximately 17 acres bounded by Tassajara Road (west), Dublin Boulevard north), Grafton Plaza (east), and I-580 south). The site contains undeveloped land located within the Dublin city limits. This site is designated “General Commercial” by the City of Dublin General Plan and zoned General Commercial” by the Eastern Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Not Feasible: This site is entitled for mixed- use development known as “Grafton Station Phase III” that contemplates 133,446 square feet of commercial uses. As such, this site is considered committed to a higher-and-better use. This site is not owned, controlled, or otherwise accessible to the project applicant. Additionally, this site is 29 percent of the size of the project site (58.7 acres), which would likely result inthe elimination of the proposed commercial uses and a dramatic reduction inthe size of the medical campus uses such that the basic project objectives would not be met. These factorspreclude developing the proposed project at this location. Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, 2015. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Oher CEQA Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 61 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec06 00 Other CEQA.docx SECTION 6:OTHERCEQA CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 Significant Unavoidable Impacts CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a)(b)requires an EIR to identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed project,including effects that cannotbe avoided if the proposed project were implemented. This section describes significant impacts,including those that can be mitigated butnot reduced to a level of less than significant.Where there are impacts that cannotbe alleviated without imposing a project alternative,their implications,and the reason why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect,is described.With implementation of the proposed project,the following significantimpacts that cannot be avoided would occur.Each significant unavoidable impact is discussed as follows. Consistency with Air Quality Management Plan:The proposed projectwould generate operational emissions that would exceed regional emissions thresholdsand,thus,be inconsistent with the planning assumptions in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Air Quality Management Plan.Mitigation is proposed that would require the applicant to implement emissions reduction measures;however,theywould not reduce the project’s contribution to less than significant levels.As such,the residual significance of thisimpact is significantandunavoidable. Cumulative Criteria Pollutant Impacts:The proposed project would generate operational emissions that would exceed regional emissions thresholds,which is considered a cumulative impact.Mitigation is proposed that would require the applicant to implement emissions reduction measures;however,they would not reduce the project’s contribution to less than significant levels.As such,the residual significance of this impact is significantand unavoidable. Greenhouse Gas Emissions:The proposed projectwould generate new sources of greenhouse gas emissions that would exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management District thresholds. Mitigation is proposed requiring the implementation of feasible emissions reduction measures;however,these measures would not reduce emissions to less than significant levels.Therefore,the significance after mitigation is significant andunavoidable. Traffic Impacts:The proposed projectwouldcontribute vehicle trips to the following facilities, which areexpected to experience unacceptable operations under Existing Plus Project Conditions,Near Term Conditions,or CumulativeConditions.Mitigation is proposed; however,it would not fully reduce project impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore,the residual significanceis significant andunavoidable. Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard Amador Plaza Road/I 680Southbound Ramps Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Oher CEQA Considerations Draft EIR 62 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec06 00 Other CEQA.docx Scarlett Drive/Dublin Boulevard Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Hacienda Drive/I 580 Westbound Ramps Hacienda Drive/I 580 Eastbound Ramps Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road and Santa Rita Road/I 580 Westbound Ramps Santa Rita Road/I 580 Eastbound Ramps Brannigan Street/Dublin Boulevard Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard LockhartStreet/Dublin Boulevard Fallon Road/Central Parkway Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Fallon Road/FallonGateway Fallon Road/I 580Westbound Ramps Airway Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway Isabel Avenue/Jack London Boulevard Isabel Avenue/Stanley Boulevard Jack London Boulevard/Isabel Avenue Interstate 580 Alameda County Transportation Commission Roadways 6.2 Growth Inducing Impacts There are two types of growth inducingimpacts that a project may have:direct and indirect.To assess the potential for growth inducingimpacts,the project’s characteristics that mayencourage and facilitate activities that individually or cumulatively may affect the environment must be evaluated CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)). Direct growth inducingimpactsoccur when the development of a project imposes new burdens on a community by directly inducing population growth,or byleading to the construction of additional developments in the same area.Also included in this category are projects that remove physical obstacles to population growth such as a new road into an undeveloped area or a wastewater treatmentplant with excess capacity that could allow additional development in the servicearea). Construction of these types of infrastructure projects cannotbe considered isolated from the development theyfacilitate and serve.Projects that physically remove obstacles to growth,or projects that indirectly induce growth may provide a catalyst forfuture unrelated development in an area such as a new residential community that requires additional commercial uses to support residents. The project site is located within the Dublin city limits and is surrounded on four sides by urban development and infrastructure;thus,the development of the proposed projectwould not represent the removal of physical barrier to growth.The proposed project’s medical campus and commercial uses representplanned growth contemplated by the City of Dublin General Plan and are located within an area served by urban infrastructure and services.The project is not constructing City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Oher CEQA Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 63 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec06 00 Other CEQA.docx any new infrastructure that would remove obstacles to further growth in the area.Moreover,such uses are growth accommodating,”since they are intended to serve population growth that has already occurred in the region.As such,theywould not be considered growth inducing.No impacts would occur. 6.3 Energy Conservation Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3)and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 require EIRs to describe,where relevant,the wasteful,inefficient,and unnecessary consumption of energy caused by a project.In 1975,largely in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s,the State Legislature adopted AB 1575,which created the California Energy Commission CEC).The statutory mission of the CEC is to forecast future energy needs,license thermalpower plants of 50 megawatts or larger,develop energy technologies andrenewable energy resources,plan for and direct State responses to energy emergencies,and—perhaps most importantly—promote energy efficiency through the adoption and enforcement of appliance and building energy efficiency standards.AB 1575 also amended Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3)to require EIRs to consider the wasteful,inefficient,and unnecessary consumption of energy caused by a project.Thereafter,the State Resources Agency created Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines.Appendix F is an advisory document that assists EIR preparers in determining whether a project will result in the inefficient,wasteful,and unnecessary consumption of energy.For the reasons set forth below,this EIR concludes that the proposed project will not result in the wasteful,inefficient,and unnecessary consumption of energy,will not cause the need for additional natural gas or electrical energy producingfacilities,and,therefore,will not create a significant impact on energy resources. 6.3.1 RegulatorySetting Federal andstate agencies regulate energy use and consumption through various means and programs.At the federal level,the United States Department of Transportation,the United States Department of Energy,and the United States Environmental Protection Agency are three federal agencies with substantial influenceover energy policies and programs.Generally,federal agencies influence and regulate transportation energy consumption through establishmentand enforcement of fuel economy standards for automobilesand light trucks,through funding of energy related research and development projects,and through funding for transportation infrastructure improvements.At the state level,the California Public Utilities Commission CPUC)and the CEC are two agencies with authority over different aspects of energy.The CPUC regulates privately owned utilities in the energy,rail,telecommunications,and water fields.The CEC collects and analyzes energy related data,prepares statewide energy policyrecommendations and plans,promotes and funds energy efficiency programs,and adopts and enforces appliance and building energy efficiency standards.California is exempt under federal law from setting State fuel economy standards for new on road motor vehicles.Some of the more relevant federaland State energy related laws and plans are discussed below. Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act The Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975sought to ensure that all vehicles sold in the U.S.would meet certain fuel economy goals.Through this Act,Congress established the first fuel City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Oher CEQA Considerations Draft EIR 64 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec06 00 Other CEQA.docx economy standards for on road motor vehicles in the U.S.Pursuant to the Act,the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration,which is part of the United States Department of Transportation,is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revisingexistingstandards. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is not determined for each individual vehicle model;rather,compliance is determinedon the basis of each manufacturer’s average fuel economy fortheportion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States.The Corporate Average Fuel Economy CAFE)program,which is administered by United States Environmental Protection Agency, was created to determine vehicle manufacturers’compliance with the fuel economy standards.The United States Environmental Protection Agency calculates a CAFE value for each manufacturer, based on city and highway fuel economy test results and vehicle sales.On the basis of the information generated under the CAFE program,the United States Department of Transportation is authorized to assess penalties for noncompliance.In the course of its over 30year history,this regulatory program has resulted in vastly improved fuel economy throughout the nation’s vehicle fleet. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ISTEA) The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ISTEA)promoted the development of inter modal transportation systems to maximize mobility as well as address national and local interests in air quality and energy.ISTEA contained factors that Metropolitan Planning Organizations MPOs)such asABAG were required to address in developing transportation plans and programs, including some energy related factors.To meet the new ISTEA requirements,MPOs adoptedexplicit policies defining the social,economic,energy,and environmental values that were to guide transportation decisions in that metropolitan area.The planning process for specific projects would then address these policies.Another requirement was to consider the consistency of transportation planning with federal,State,and local energy goals.Through this requirement,energy consumption was expected to become a decision criterion,along with cost and other values that determine the best transportationsolution. The TransportationEquity Act for the 21st Century TEA 21) The Transportation Equity Act forthe 21st Century TEA 21)was signed into law in 1998 and builds upon the initiatives established in the ISTEA legislation discussed above.TEA 21authorizeshighway, highway safety,transit,and other efficient surface transportation programs.TEA 21 continues the program structure established for highways and transit under ISTEA,such as flexibility in the use of funds,emphasis on measures to improve the environment,and focus on a strongplanning process as the foundation of good transportation decisions.TEA 21 also provides for investment in research and its application to maximize the performance of the transportation system through,for example, deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems,to help improve operationsand management of transportation systems and vehicle safety. State of California Energy Plan The CEC is responsible for preparing the State EnergyPlan,whichidentifies emerging trendsrelated to energy supply,demand,conservation,public health and safety,and the maintenance of a healthy economy.The plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality,reduce congestion,and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Oher CEQA Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 65 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec06 00 Other CEQA.docx environmental and energy costs.To further this policy,the plan identifies a number of strategies, including providing assistance to public agencies and fleet operators,encouraging urban designs that reduce vehiclemiles traveled,andaccommodating pedestrian and bicycle access. Title 24,Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24,which was promulgated by the CEC in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduceCalifornia’s energy consumption,provides energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings.According to the CEC,since the energy efficiency standards went into effect in 1978,it is estimated that California residential and nonresidential consumers have reduced their utility bills by at least15.8 billion.The latest Title 24 energy efficiency standards went into effect in 2013. 6.3.2 Energy Requirements of the Proposed Project The proposed project would not result in the unnecessary,wasteful,or inefficient use of energy. Impact Analysis Short term construction and long term operational energy consumption are discussed below. Short Term Construction The United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA)regulates nonroad diesel engines that power both mobile equipment bulldozers,scrapers,front end loaders,etc.)andstationary equipment generators,pumps,compressors,etc.).The EPA has noformal fuel economy standards for nonroade.g.,construction)diesel engines but does regulate diesel emissions,which indirectly affects fuel economy.In 1994,EPA adopted the first set of emission standards Tier 1”)for all new nonroad diesel engines greater than 37 kilowatts kW 50 horsepower]).The Tier 1 standards were phased in for different engine sizes between 1996 and 2000,reducing nitrogen oxide NOx)emissions from these engines by 30percent.Subsequently,the EPA adopted more stringent emission standards for NOx,hydrocarbons,and particulate matter from new nonroad diesel engines.This program included thefirst set of standards for nonroad diesel engines less than 37 kW.It also phased in more stringent Tier 2”emission standards from 2001 to 2006 for all engine sizes and added yetmore stringent Tier 3”standards for engines between 37 and560 kW 50 and 750 horsepower)from 2006 to 2008.These standards further reduced nonroad dieselengine emissions by 60 percent for NOx and40percent for particulate matter PM)from Tier 1 emission levels.In 2004,the EPA issued the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule.This rule cut emissions from nonroad diesel engines by more than 90 percent,and was phased in between 2008 and 2014.These emission standards are intended to promote advanced clean technologies for nonroad diesel engines that improve fuel combustion,but they also result in slight decreases infuel economy. The proposed projectwould entail short term construction activities that would consumeenergy, primarily in the form of diesel fuel e.g.,mobile construction equipment)and electricity e.g.,power tools).Mitigation Measure AIR 3a and the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations CCR]will both serve to ensure that energy is not consumed in a wasteful or inefficient manner.Mitigation Measure AIR 3arequires that engine idling for constructionequipment is limited and that all equipment is properly tuned andmaintained to City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Oher CEQA Considerations Draft EIR 66 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec06 00 Other CEQA.docx the manufacturer’s specifications.Additionally,the City’s Constructionand Demolition Debris Ordinance requires that 100percent of asphaltand concrete be recycled and a minimum of 50 percent of all other materials be recycled.Recycling construction and demolition waste not only keeps it from being transported to the landfill,but alsoreduces the upstream”energy consumption from the manufacturing of virgin material in thefirst place.The proposed project would be required to comply with this ordinance. Construction activities would be required to monitor airquality emissionsusing applicable regulatory guidance such as the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines.This requirement indirectly relates to construction energy conservation because whenair pollutant emissions are reduced as a result of monitoring and the efficient use of equipment andmaterials,this results in reduced energy consumption.There are no aspects of the proposed project that would foreseeably result in the inefficient,wasteful,or unnecessary consumption of energy duringconstructionactivities. Long Term Operations Transportation Energy Demand Vehicle fuel efficiency is regulated at the federal level.Pursuant to the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975,the National Highway TrafficSafety Administration NHTSA)is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revisingexistingstandards.As of December 2014,NHTSA indicated thatthe fuel economy of passenger vehicles averaged 34.2 miles per gallon and light trucks averaged 26.2miles per gallon. The proposed projectwould generate vehicle trips that would consume energy in the form of transportation fuel gasoline and diesel).Vehicle fuel efficiency standards are set at the federal level and vehicles serving the proposed projectwould be subject to these standards.The proposed project would implement a Transportation Demand Management TDM)program to reduce peak hour trips. Finally,as discussed in Section 6.4,Vehicles Miles Traveled,the proposed project is anticipated to result in a net reduction daily vehicle miles traveled by project users employees,patients,visitors, etc.)based on the OriginDestination Method–Shared Accounting”methodology.Daily vehicle miles traveled are projected to decrease by 4,000 miles under Year 2015 conditions and 12,000miles under Year 2040 conditions.This signifies that transportation fuel consumption would also be expected to experience a net decrease. In summary,the proposed projectwould not result in the inefficient,wasteful,or unnecessary consumption of transportation energy during operationalactivities. Building Energy Demand Pacific Gas and Electric Company PG&E)is the primaryelectricity and natural gas provider to the northern and centralparts of California including the City of Dublin. Electricity PG&E,which is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission CPUC)provides electricity to all orpart of the 47 counties in California,including AlamedaCounty.PG&E charges connection and user fees for all new development,and sliding use basedrates for electrical and natural gas service. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Oher CEQA Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 67 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec06 00 Other CEQA.docx In 2014,PG&E obtained 35.8percent of electricity from itsown generation sources and the remaining 64.2percent from outside sources.PG&E owned generating facilities include nuclear, natural gas,and hydroelectric,with a net generating capacity of more than 7,684megawatts. Outside suppliers to PG&E include DWR,irrigation districts,renewable energysuppliers,and other fossil fuel fired suppliers.PG&E operates approximately 141,700 circuit miles of transmission and distribution lines.PG&E is interconnected with electric power systems in the western Electricity Coordinating Council,which includes 14 western states;Alberta and British Columbia,Canada;and parts of Mexico.In 2014,PG&E delivered 86,303gigawatt hours of electricity to its 5.3 million electrical customers. Natural Gas PG&E provides natural gas to all or part of 39 counties in Californiacomprising most of thenorthern andcentral portions of the State.PG&E obtains its natural gas supplies from western North America, including basins in western Canada,the Rocky Mountains,the southwestern United States,and California.PG&E operates approximately 49,100 miles of transmissionand distribution pipelines, and three underground storage fields with a combined storage capacity of 48.7 billion cubic feet Bcf).In 2014,PG&E delivered 269 Bcf of natural gas to its 4.4 million natural gas customers. Annual Consumption Using consumption figures provided by Kaiser,the proposed project’s estimatedbuilding electricity and natural gas consumption following construction is summarized in Table 61. Table 61:Energy Consumption Estimate Phase Building SquareFeet Electricity Natural Gas Annual Consumption Rate Annual Consumption Annual Consumption Rate Annual Consumption 1A Medical Office Building 1 170,000 20 kWh/square foot 3,400,000 kWh 25,000 kBTU/ square foot 42,500 kBTU Cancer Center 50,000 20 kWh/square foot 1,000,000 kWh 25,000 kBTU/ square foot 12,500 kBTU 1B Commercial250,000 20 kWh/square foot 5,000,000 kWh 25,000 kBTU/ square foot 62,500 kBTU 2 High Acuity Medical Services Building 40,000 26 kWh/square foot 10,400,000 kWh 109,000 kBTU/ square foot 436,000 kBTU 2 Energy Center 50,000 20 kWh/square foot 1,000,000 kWh 25,000 kBTU/ square foot 12,500 kBTU 3 Medical Office Building 1 280,000 20 kWh/square foot 5,600,000 kWh 25,000 kBTU/ square foot 70,000 kBTU Total 1,200,000 26,400,000 kWh 636,000 kBTU City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Oher CEQA Considerations Draft EIR 68 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec06 00 Other CEQA.docx Table 6 1cont.):Energy Consumption Estimate Phase Building SquareFeet Electricity Natural Gas Annual Consumption Rate Annual Consumption Annual Consumption Rate Annual Consumption Notes: kWh Kilowatt hours;kBTU 1,000 British Thermal Units Source:Kaiser,2015. As shown in the table,the proposed project would demandapproximately 26.4 million kWh of electricity and 636,000 kBTU of natural gas at buildout.All new development would besubject to the latestadopted edition of the Title 24 energy efficiency standards,which areamong the most stringent in the United States. Kaiser indicates that the following energy efficiency measures will be incorporated in to the medical center: The exterior walls are designed with significant insulation values to passivelykeep the building cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter. The Kaiser DublinMedical Center will conduct enhancedenergycommissioning activities during design,construction,and operation according to specifications set forth by the United States Green Building Council Leadership in Energy andEnvironmental Design LEED). The Kaiser DublinMedical Center will use roofing materials having a Solar Reflectance Index equal to or greater than the values listed in LEED for Healthcare on a minimum of 75 percent of the roof surface. The Kaiser DublinMedical Center will select refrigerants and heating,ventilation,and air conditioning HVAC)equipment that would minimize or eliminate the emission of compounds that contribute to ozone depletion and climate change. Firesuppression systems that contain ozone depleting substances CFCs,HCFCs,or halons) would not be used. Lighting controls would beprovided for a minimum of 90 percent of the building occupants, including staff,to enable adjustments to suit individual needs and preferences. Natural lighting would be provided according to the standards of LEED for Healthcare. Artificial lighting in areas where natural lights are supplied shall be combined with solar sensors so that artificial lighting is only used when needed. South facing windows areproposed to have significant solar shading devices installed to reduce heat gain and glare issues.Highvalue Shading Heat Gain Coefficient Glazing will be utilized which reduces passive heat gain through windows reducingcooling loads.Thermally broken window systems will be utilizedwhich reduce heat gain through window frames. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Oher CEQA Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 69 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec06 00 Other CEQA.docx Electro chromic self tinting glazing windows that automatically tint in response to sunlight) are being considered to further reduce heat gain and sun glare through windows. As part of its commitment to green building,Kaiser will pursue LEED Gold certification or equivalent forthe buildings that it develops on the project site. Peak Energy Consumption Using peak consumption figures provided by Kaiser,the proposed project’s peak building electricity and natural gas consumption following construction is summarized in Table 62.As shown in Table 63,peak electricity consumption would total 5,845 kW and peak natural gas consumption would total 53,750 kBTU. Table 62:Peak Energy Consumption Phase(s)Square Feet Peak Electricity Peak Natural Gas Watts/SquareFeet Total kWhWatts/Square Feet Total kBTU 1A 220,000 5.0 1,100 22 4,840 2 and 3 730,000 6.5 4,745 67 48,910 Total 5,845 53,750 Notes: kW Kilowatts;kBTU 1,000 British Thermal Units Source:Kaiser,2015. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. 6.4 Vehicle Miles Traveled 6.4.1Background On September 27,2013,GovernorBrown signed Senate Bill SB)743 Steinberg 2013).Among other things,SB 743 createsa process to change analysis of transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Public Resources Code section21000,et seq.]).Currently, environmentalreview of transportation impacts focuses on the delay that vehicles experience at intersectionsand on roadway segments.Thatdelay is measured usinga metric known as level of service,”or LOS.Mitigation for increased delay often involves increasing capacity i.e.,the width of a roadway or size of an intersection),which may increase auto use and emissions and discourage alternative forms of transportation.Under SB 743,the focus of transportation analysis will shift City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Oher CEQA Considerations Draft EIR 610 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec06 00 Other CEQA.docx from driver delay to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,creation of multimodal networks,and promotion of a mix of land uses. Draft guidelines were developedby the Office of Planning and Research OPR)in August 2014,with updated draft guidelines prepared August 2015.At the time of this writing,new guidelines have not yet been adopted and the final guidelinesmay change based on the comments received.As such, analysis of vehicle miles of travel VMT)is not required under CEQA at this time because the proposed project’s Notice of Preparation was issued before any final guidelines had been adopted. Moreover,given the evolving nature of VMT analysis under CEQA and lack of adopted CEQA Guidelines,the analysis in this EIR is not being formally adopted asa CEQA policy or significance criteria by the City at this time.The analysis and significance criteria used in this EIR are not binding on the City in future EIRs.Accordingly,this EIR provides an assessment of the VMT generated by the proposed project for informational purposes. 6.4.2Proposed Changes to the CEQA Guidelines The proposed changes to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,as presented in Proposed Updates to the CEQA Guidelines,Preliminary Discussion Draft August2015),provides the potential basis forthe evaluation of vehicle miles of travel generated by a project: b)Cause substantial additional vehicle miles traveled per capita,per service population,or other appropriate measure)? c)Substantially induce additionalautomobile travel by increasing physical roadway capacity in congested areas i.e.,by adding new mixed flow lanes or by adding new roadways to the network)? Since the proposed projectwould not construct mixed flow lanes or add additional roadways to the network beyond those needed for project site access and circulation,this chapter focuses on the potential VMT impact of the project. Significance Criteria Since the CEQA guidelines on VMT have not be adopted,there is no adopted guidance on significance criteria.In particular,no regional averages for various land uses have been established. Therefore,based on input from the City Engineer and the traffic consultant Fehr Peers),both of whom are experts ontraffic analysis,the significance threshold developed for the purposes of evaluating the potential VMT impact of the proposed project is as follows:an impact may result if the project results in increased VMT per capitacompared with the no projectcondition. 6.4.3 Methodology Fehr Peers used the OriginDestination Method–Shared Accounting”methodology to evaluate VMT impacts. To estimate vehiclemiles of travel withinthe City of Dublin,both without and with the project,Fehr Peers used the updated City of Dublin travel demand model.All vehicular trips generated by City City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Oher CEQA Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 6 11 H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec06 00 Other CEQA.docx of Dublin land uses were tracked across the entire regional network,with an assignment of a portion of the trip length for trips with an origin or destination outside Dublin to the total.Four types of trips are isolated,which share the responsibility of trips with other jurisdictions: InternalInternal trips:Include all trips that beginandend within the City of Dublin. Internal External trips:Include one half of all trips that begin within the citylimits and end outside the citylimits.The City of Dublin assumes half the responsibility of these kinds of trips. External Internal trips:Include one half of all trips that begin outside the city limits and end inside thecity limits.The City of Dublin assumes half the responsibility of thesekinds of trips. ExternalExternal trips:Trips that begin andend outside the City of Dublin are not included. The City of Dublin assumes no responsibility for ExternalExternal trip type VMTs. The resulting metric is the total VMT and a summary of the average VMT per householdand service population residentsand workers)for without and with Project conditions.This allows for a calculation of thenet change in VMT with the project. 6.4.4 Analysis Table 63 presents the findings of the origin destination method—shared accounting for the base year 2015)and future year2040).As shown in Table 6 3,based on the Shared Accounting method, existing land uses in Dublin generate approximately 831,000vehicle miles of travel per day,with VMT per capita,including residents and workers,of approximately 9.4 miles of travel per day.The addition of project land uses would decrease total VMTgenerated by City of Dublin land uses by approximately 4,000 miles.The project results in a decrease in VMT per householdand per capita as it adds employment and services that were previously fulfilled by traveling outside the City of Dublin.In the future,VMT by land uses in Dublin is expected to increase to 972,000 vehicle miles per day,with a decrease in VMT per capita to 7.0 miles,as shown in Table 6 4.The projectwould result in a larger decrease in total VMT and VMT per household in the future condition. Table 6 3:Base Year Origin Destination Method–Shared Accounting Scenario Households Population Employment Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Vehicle Miles Traveled/ Households Vehicle Miles Traveled per Capita Population Employment) Year 2015 No Project 20,006 59,980 28,129831,000 41.5 9.4 Year 2015 With Project 20,006 59,980 32,104827,000 41.3 9.0 Note: AnnualizedVMT istypically354 times the daily VMT to account for less vehicle miles traveled on weekends,holidays,and summer periods. Source:Fehr Peers,2015. City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Oher CEQA Considerations Draft EIR 612 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client PN JN)\3766\37660004\3 Draft EIR\37660004 Sec06 00 Other CEQA.docx Table 64:Future Year OriginDestination Method–Shared Accounting Scenario Households Population Employment Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Vehicle Miles Traveled/ Households Vehicle Miles Traveled per Capita Population Employment) Year 2040 No Project 28,959 85,811 52,684972,000 33.6 7.0 Year 2040 With Project 28,959 85,811 56,659960,000 33.2 6.7 Note: AnnualizedVMT istypically354 times the daily VMT to account for less vehicle miles traveled on weekends,holidays,and summer periods. Source:Fehr Peers,2015. 6.4.5 Conclusion Results of the VMT analysis indicate that the projectwouldcontribute to an overall reduction in vehicle miles of travel as the project adds employment and services that were previously fulfilled by traveling outside the City of Dublin. Because the project is expected to contribute to decreased VMT per householdand per capita,the VMT impact of the proposed projectwould be less than significant based on the proposed significance criteria. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Effects Found not to beSignificant FirstCarbon Solutions 7-1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec07-00 EFNTBS.docx SECTION 7: EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 7.1 - Introduction This section is based on the Notice of Preparation (NOP), dated January 12, 2015, and contained in Appendix A of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The NOP was prepared to identifythe potentially significant effects of the proposed project and was circulated for publicreviewbetween January 12, 2015and February 12, 2015. In the course of this evaluation, certain impacts were found to be less than significant because the proposed project’s characteristics would not create such impacts. This section provides a brief description of effects found not to be significant or less than significant, based on the NOP comments or more detailed analysis conducted as part of the EIR preparation process. Note that a number of impacts that are found to be less than significant are addressed in the various EIR topical sections (Sections 3.1 through 3.11) to provide more comprehensive discussion of why impacts are less than significant, in order to better inform decision makers and the general public. 7.2 - Effects Found not to beSignificant 7.2.1 - Agricultural and Forest Resources Conversion of Important Farmland The project site does not currentlysupport agricultural land use activities. The project site is mapped as “Urban and Built-Up Land,” a non-agricultural designation, by the California Department of ConservationFarmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. This condition precludes the possibility of the proposed project converting Important Farmland to non-agricultural use. No impacts would occur. WilliamsonAct Contracts or Agricultural Zoning The project site does not currentlysupport agriculturalland use activities and therefore is not eligible for a Williamson Actcontract. The project site is zoned “Campus Office” by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which is a non-agricultural zoning designation. Additionally, the project site is proposed to be rezoned to “Campus Medical,” which is alsoa non-agricultural zoning designation. This condition precludes the possibility of conflicts with a WilliamsonAct contract or agricultural zoning. No impacts would occur. Forest Zoning The project site does not contain forest land and iszoned “Campus Office” by the Eastern Dublin SpecificPlan, which is a non-forest zoning designation. Additionally, the project site is proposed to be rezoned to “Campus Medical,” which is alsoa non-forest zoning designation. This condition precludes the possibility of the proposed project conflicting with forest zoning. No impact would occur. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Effects Found not to beSignificant Draft EIR 7-2 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec07-00 EFNTBS.docx Conversion of Forestland The project site contains undeveloped land; noforest land exists on-site. This condition precludes the possibility of the proposed project converting forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Pressures to Convert Agricultural/Forest Land to Non-Agricultural/Non-Forest Use The project site contains undeveloped land; no agricultural or forest land exists on-site or on any adjacent property. This condition precludes the possibility of adverse impacts to agricultural and forest resources. No impacts would occur. 7.2.2 - Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Septic or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems The proposed projectwould be served with sanitary sewer service provided by Dublin-San Ramon Services District. No septic or alternative wastewater disposal systems would beemployed. This condition precludes the possibility of related impacts. No impacts would occur. 7.2.3 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials Exposure of Schools to Hazardous Materials or Emissions The nearestschool to the project site is Kolb Elementary School, located 0.45 mile to the north. This condition precludes the proposed project from exposing schools located within 0.25 mile of the project site to hazardous materials or emissions. No impacts would occur. Private Airstrips There are no private airstrips in the projectvicinity. This condition precludes the possibility of the proposed project exposing persons residing or working in the projectvicinity to aviation hazards associated with private airstrips. No impacts would occur. Wildland Fires The project site is surrounded on four sides by urbandevelopment or infrastructure. Theclosest areas that could potentially be exposed to wildland fires are more than 1.5 miles away. This condition precludes the possibility of the proposed project exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impacts would occur. 7.2.4 - Land Use Division of an Established Community The project site contains undeveloped land and is surrounded by a chain link fence. No established communities exist on-site and the project site does not serve as a linkage between established communities. This condition precludes the division of an established community. No impacts would occur. City of Dublin – Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EIR Effects Found not to beSignificant FirstCarbon Solutions 7-3 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec07-00 EFNTBS.docx 7.2.5 - Mineral Resources Loss of Mineral Resources of Statewide or Local Importance The project site does not support mineralextraction operations. Neither the State nor the City of Dublin designates the project site as a location of known mineral deposits. This condition precludes the possibility of a loss of mineral resources of statewide or local importance. No impacts would occur. 7.2.6 - Population and Housing Growth Inducement The proposed project’s medical campus andcommercial uses representplanned growth contemplated by the City of Dublin General Plan and are located within an area served by urban infrastructure and services. Moreover, such uses are “growth accommodating,” as they are intended to serve population growth that has alreadyoccurred in the region. As such, they would not be considered growth-inducing. No impacts would occur. Displacement of Persons or Housing The project site does not contain any existing dwelling units. This condition precludes the possibility of displacement of persons or dwelling units. No impacts would occur. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Persons and Organizations Consulted/ Draft EIR List of Preparers FirstCarbonSolutions 8-1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec08-00 Persons-Orgs List of Preparers.docx SECTION 8: PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED/LIST OF PREPARERS 8.1 - Persons and OrganizationsConsulted 8.1.1 - Lead Agency City of Dublin City Attorney’s Office City Attorney ................................................................................................................... Timothy Cremin CommunityDevelopment Department Community Development Director .......................................................................................... Luke Sims Assistant CommunityDevelopment Director ............................................................................JeffBaker Principal Planner .................................................................................................................. Kristi Bascom Police Services (Alameda County Sheriff’s Office) Lieutenant ........................................................................................................................... Nate Schmidt PublicWorks Department Transportationand Operations Manager .............................................................................. Obaid Khan SeniorCivil Engineer ....................................................................................................... Jayson Imai, P.E. 8.1.2 - Public Agencies State Agencies California Department of Transportation, District4 Acting District Branch Chief, Local Development – Intergovernmental Review ............. Patricia Maurice Local Agencies Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 Water Resources Planner .......................................................................................................... Elke Rank Alameda County Transportation Commission DeputyDirector of Planning and Policy ................................................................................ Tess Lengyel City of Livermore Assistant Planner ...................................................................................................................... Andy Ross City of Pleasanton Community Development Director ....................................................................................... Brian Dolan Persons and Organizations Consulted/ City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project List of Preparers Draft EIR 8-2 FirstCarbonSolutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec08-00 Persons-Orgs List of Preparers.docx County of Contra Costa Department of Conservation and Development Planner I ....................................................................................................................... RobertSarmiento Dublin Unified School District Senior Director, Facilities ..................................................................................................... Kim McNeely 8.1.3 - Private Parties and Organizations Pacific Gas and Electric Company Project Manager ................................................................................................................. Terry Mullings City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Persons and Organizations Consulted/ Draft EIR List of Preparers FirstCarbonSolutions 8-3 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec08-00 Persons-Orgs List of Preparers.docx 8.2 - List of Preparers 8.2.1 - Lead Agency City of Dublin CommunityDevelopment Department Community Development Director .......................................................................................... Luke Sims Assistant CommunityDevelopment Director ............................................................................JeffBaker PrincipalPlanner .................................................................................................................. Kristi Bascom 8.2.2 - Lead Consultant FirstCarbon Solutions Project Director ....................................................................................................................... Mary Bean Project Manager .................................................................................................................. GrantGruber Project Manager ............................................................................................................ Ja nna Waligorski Air Quality Analyst .................................................................................................................. Elena Nuño Air Quality Analyst ............................................................................................................GregTonkovich Noise Analyst ............................................................................................................................... Phil Ault Project Archaeologist ............................................................................................... Dana DePi etro, PhD Technical Editor ................................................................................................................... Ed Livingston Word Processor .............................................................................................................. E ricka Rodriguez Graphics/GIS .................................................................................................................. John De Martino Reprographics ..................................................................................................................... Octavio Perez Reprographics ................................................................................................................... KevinSalguero 8.2.3 - Technical Subconsultants Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants Senior Associate .................................................................................................................. Kathrin Tellez West Yost Associates Project Manager ...................................................................................................... Elizabet h Drayer, P.E. 8.2.4 - Applicant Team Kaiser Permanente Senior Project Manager ................................................................................................... Came ronWhite Senior Project Manager ................................................................ William Bateman, AIA, LEED AP BD+C Senior Counsel ............................................................................................................ Chr istopher Alonzi Morrison Foerster Partner ..................................................................................................................................... David Gold Associate .............................................................................................................................Dan Gershwin Persons and Organizations Consulted/ City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project List of Preparers Draft EIR 8-4 FirstCarbonSolutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec08-00 Persons-Orgs List of Preparers.docx Consolidated Engineering Laboratories PrincipalGeotechnical Engineer ..................................................................... William Stevens, P.E., G.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer ......................................................................... Martin Skyrman, P.E., G.E. Project Engineer ........................................................................................................... Ma rc Hachey, P.G. SECOR International PrincipalGeologist ................................................................................................................ Gary Hoehn PrincipalGeologist ............................................................................................... Bruce Scarbrough, P.G. StaffGeologist ........................................................................................................................... Jim Dowd SeniorScientist .............................................................................................................. Gary Hennis, REA WRA Principal ................................................................................................................ Mich ael Josselyn, PhD Project Manager ....................................................................................................................... Kate Allan City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Draft EIR References FirstCarbonSolutions 9-1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec09-00 References.docx SECTION 9: REFERENCES AlamedaCounty Clean Water Program. 2013. C3 Stormwater Technical Guidance Manual, May 14. Website: http://www.cleanwaterprogram.org/c3-guidance-table.html?view=item. AlamedaCounty Transportation Commission. 2015. Alameda County Congestion Management Program. Website: http://www.alamedactc.org/app_pages/view/5224. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2011. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Website: http:// http://hank.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality.htm. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2014. 2010 Clean Air Plan. Website: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Plans/Clean-Air-Plans.aspx. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2014. Rules and Regulations. Website: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Rules-and-Regulations.aspx. Bay Area RapidTransit District. 2015. “Livermore Extension.” Website: http://www.bart.gov/about projects/liv. CalEEMod. California Emissions Estimator Model. Version 2013.2.2. Website: http://caleemod.com/. Accessed June 18, 2015. California Air Resources Board. 2014. In-Use Off-Road Diesel VehicleRegulation. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/ordiesel.htm. California Air Resources Board. 2014. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality – 2013. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac13/almanac2013all.pdf. California Air Resources Board. 2014. Top 4 Summary. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam topfour/topfourdisplay.php. California Department of Finance. 2015. E-5 Population and HousingEstimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011–2014. May. California Department of Health Services. 2010. California Indoor Radon Levels Sorted by Zip Code. May 4. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2015. “Solid Waste Information System.” Website: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/Default.htm. Accessed July 1, 2015. California Department of Transportation. 1998. Technical Noise Supplement to the TrafficNoise Analysis Protocol. October. California Department of Transportation. 2004. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. June 2010. City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project References Draft EIR 9-2 FirstCarbonSolutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec09-00 References.docx California Department of Transportation. 2015. “Officially Designated State Scenic Highways.” Website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/. California Department of Transportation. 2015. TrafficData Branch, 2014 All TrafficVolumes on CSHS. Website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/census/2014all/. California Department of Water Resources. 2003. Bulletin 118: Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. Website: http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater /bulletin118/san_francisco_bay.cfm. California EmploymentDevelopment Department. 2015. AlamedaCounty – Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places. May. City of Dublin General Plan. 2014. City of Dublin General Plan. Website: http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us index.aspx?NID=171#. City of Dublin. 2013. City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update. Website: http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us DocumentCenter/View/5799. Accessed January 23, 2015. City of Dublin. 2014. DublinMunicipal Code. November 4. Consolidated Engineering Laboratories. 2005. Preliminary Geologic and GeotechnicalFeasibility Study. December 5. County of Alameda. 2012. Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. August. County of Alameda. 2014. AlamedaCounty General PlanSafety Element. February 4. Dublin San Ramon Services District. 2011. Dublin San Ramon Services District 2010Urban Water Management Plan. June. Dublin San Ramon Services District. 2015. “Fact Sheet.” January 6. Website: http://www.dsrsd.com home/showdocument?id=811. Ed-Data. 2015. “DublinUnified School District Profile.” Website: http://www.ed- data.k12.ca.us/Pages/Home.aspx. Accessed March2, 2015. Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Highway Construction Noise Handbook. August. Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May. Fehr & Peers. 2015. Dublin Kaiser Campus Transportation Assessment. August. FirstCarbon Solutions. 2015. Health Risk Assessment. September17. FirstCarbon Solutions. 2015. Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment. March 25. Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 2015. 10-K AnnualReport. February 10. Secor International Incorporated. 2005. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. September14. City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Draft EIR References FirstCarbonSolutions 9-3 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660004\3 - Draft EIR\37660004 Sec09-00 References.docx Secor International Incorporated. 2005. Phase II Environmental SiteAssessment. December 22. United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdomand New York, NY, USA, Website: www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data ar4/wg1/en/contents.html. Accessed July 17, 2015. United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, IIand III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. Website: www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data ar4/syr/en/contents.html. AccessedJuly 17, 2015. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. “Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health andWelfare with anAdequate Margin of Safety.” March. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Characterization of Building Related Constructionand Demolition Debris in the United States. June. United States Geological Survey. 1981. Dublin, California 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. West Yost Associates. 2015. Dublin San Ramon Services District Water Supply Assessment for Kaiser Dublin Development Plan. August. Western Regional Climate Center. 2015. Website: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/. Accessed June 19, 2015. WRA. 2014. Biological Resources Assessment, Kaiser MOB DublinProperty. December. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FIRSTCARBONSO ±UTIONS FINAL Environmental Impact Report Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project City of Dublin, AlamedaCounty, California State Clearinghouse No. 2015012018 Prepared for. DUBLIN C A FCHN : A, City of Dublin 100 CIVIC Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 925 833 6610 Contact: Knsti Bascom, Principal Planner Prepared by. FirstCarbon Solutions 1350 Treat Boulevard,Suite 380 Walnut Creek,CA 94597 925 357 2562 Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director Grant Gruber, Project Manager lanna Waligorski, Project Manager Date:August 9, 2016 NORTH AMERICA I EUROPE I AFRICA AUSTRALIA I ASIA vmwv t IRSTCARBONSOwnons(.OM AN ADEC INNOVATION City of Dublin-Kaiser Dublin McOml Center Project Fend FIR Table of Contents Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction 1-1 Section 2: Master Responses 2-1 2.1- Master Response. . ... . .... . . .... ... .... 2-1 Section 3: Responses to Written Comments 3-1 3 1 -List of Authors . ... 3-1 3 2- Responses to Comments ..... ... . .. . 3-1 Section 4: Errata 4-1 4.1-Changes in Response to Specific Comments . . 4-1 Appendix L: Letter of Map Revision List of Exhibits Exhibit 2-1:Southern Property Boundary Cross Sections.... .. . ... _. ..... . . .... . .... .2-3 FvstCavbon Solutions no City of Dublin-Kaiser oub'n Medical Center Project Final FIR Introduction SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines Section15088,the City of Dublin has evaluated the comments receivedon the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft Environmental ImpactReport(EIR). The Responses to the Comments and Errata, which are included In thisdocument,together with the MitigationMonitoring and Reporting Program comprise the Final EIR for use by the City of Dublin in its review. This document is organized into four sections. Section 1—Introduction. Section 2—Master Responses: Provides a single, comprehensive response to similar comments about a particulartopic Section 3—Responses to Written Comments: Provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals that commented on the Draft EIR Copies of all of the letters received regarding the Draft EIR and responses thereto are included in this section Section 4-Errata: Includes an addendum listing refinements and clarifications on the Draft EIR,which have been incorporated. The Final EIR includes the following contents: Draft EIR (provided under separate cover) Draft DR appendices(provided under separate cover) Master Responses, Responses to Written Comments,and Errata (Sections 2,3, and 4 of this document) MitigationMonitoring and Reporting Program(provided under separate cover) FrrstCarbon Solutions 1-1 City of Oubbn-Nurser Oublm Medical Center Project Final MR Master Responses SECTION 2: MASTER RESPONSES Master responsesaddress similar comments made by multiple public agencies, businesses, organizations,or individuals through written commentssubmitted to the City of Dublin. One master response is provided in this section 2.1 - Master Response Master Response 1: Livermore BART Extension Summary of Relevant Comments The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans),the AlamedaCounty Transportation Commission (ACTC),and the City of Livermore all provided comments concerning the project's relationship to the Bay AreaRapid Transit District(BART) extension to Livermore. Caltrans inquired about the location of an existing storm drainage easement along the project site's frontage with 1- 580. ACTC reiterated comments it provided in its March 23, 2015 Notice of Preparation comment letter aboutthe proposed project reserving right-of-way for the extension along the 1-580 frontage The City of Livermore estimated that approximately 40 feet of right-of-way would need to be acquired from theproject site in order toaccommodate the BART extension and requested that Exhibits 2-4a,2-4b,and 2-4cbe revised to depict this area Response Exhibit 2-1 depicts a cross-section of the southern portion of theproject site, including easements and BART dedication. As shown in theexhibit, two paralleleasements for storm drainage (75 to 80 feet)and telecommunications(10 to 12 feet) occupy 85 to 90 feet immediately southof the project boundary, Within the storm drainage easement are the existing box culverts. A 45-foot dedication for the BART extension would overlap with a portion of the storm drainage easement and all of the telecommunication easement In summary,theproject siteplan provides 45 feet of dedication for the BART extension along the length of the site consistent with the recommendations of ACTC and the City ofLivermore. No new structures are planned to be constructed in this area that would restrict future acquisition by BART or Caltrans Note that right-of-way acquisition and the relocationof any affected facilities are the responsibilities of BART and the other agencies involved with the Livermore BART extension,and would be evaluated as part of the environmental review process for thatproject. FattCarbon solutont 2-1 e.""",o,u,". .Jn""°sE.wn: 'E "'C'en w..a'oon" ,o,. 3% 22 4\ St 4 4A 3y G c 36 1 , ice, ziy ' k\ e : p 9 { tit\ / \ d 43- H i 2> 1 % \ L 1 . i \ t. It CNI 5 1 S : t. t 100Vtt ,ED a. \ City of Dublin-Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Prolert Final FIR Responses to Written Comments SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS 3.1 - List of Authors A list of public agencies,organizations,and individuals that provided comments on the Drak EIR is presentedbelow Each comment has beenassigned a code. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be crossed-referenced with responses Following this list,the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response Author Author Code State Agencies California Department of Transportation CALTRANS Local Agencies Alameda County Transportation Commission ACTC Dublin San Ramon Services District DSRSD City of Livermore LIVERMORE City of Pleasanton... . . PLEASANTON City of San Ramon SAN RAMON Zone 7 Water Agency ZONE 7 Private Businesses,Organizations, and Individuals Kaiser Permanente .. .KAISER Lily Chai CHAT 3.2 - Responses to Comments 3.2.1 - Introduction In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines Section 15088,the City of Dublin, as the lead agency,evaluated the comments received on the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2015012018)for the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project,and has prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Response to Comments document becomes part of the Final EIR for theproject in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 3.2.2 - Comment Letters and Responses The comment lettersreproduced in the following pages follow the same organization as used in the List of Authors FirstCarbon Solutions 3-1 S 1 Al L Of CAI IFORNIA-CALIFORNIA STA It TRANSPORTATION AOFNCV LDMUNn G BR(NN lr Gmnmr DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 4 PO BOX 23660 OAKLAND,CA 94623-0660 PHONE 15101286-5528 Spoon Drought FAX 1510)286-5559 Help vale hater, TTY 711 wN w dot ca guy CALTRANS Page 1 of 4 March 21, 2016 ALA580881 ALA-580-PM 16.7 SCHN 2015012018 Ms. Kristi Bascom Planning Division City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,CA 94568 Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project—Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms. Bascom- Thankyou for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the project referenced above Our comments seek to promote 1theState's smart mobility goals that support a vibrant economy and build active communities rather than sprawl. We have reviewed the Draft Environmental ImpactReport (DEIR) andhave the following comments to offer. Project Understanding Theproposed project is proposing to develop approximately 1.2 million square feet on a currently vacant 58-acre project site that wouldinvolve construction of up to 950,000 square feet of medical campus uses, 250,000 square feet of commercial uses, a parking structure, andassociated site, roadway frontage, and landscape improvements. The project would developed in multiple phases. 2PhaseIAtobeevaluatedatproject-level. Phases1B, 2,and 3 are to be evaluated at program-level. The project will increase Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and travel demand having a significant impact on the State Highway SystemInterstate (I-) 580 forms the southern boundary of the site. Regional access to the site is provided by the 1-580 Interchanges at Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road and Fallon Road/El Charro Road approximately one mile east and west of the project site. Mitigation Responsibility As the lead agency, the City of Dublin (City) is responsible for identifying and ensuring the coordinated Implementation of all project mitigation,including any needed improvements to State 3highways. The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for allproposed mitigation measures. PPM idea f,vusluniable ttegtaed and efficient lmnspo, on vvvran m enfant.e Cnldanna's economy and h,abdirt- on CALTRANS Page 2 of 4 Ms. Kristi Bascom, City of Dublin March 21,2016 Page 2 Where mitigation is a conditionof approval, CEQA requires a MitigationMonitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Required information is listedbelow We recommend the completion of required roadway Improvements prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Further information on the MMRP is available on the following website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/igr_ceqa.html. 3 Lead Agency contact name, address, and telephone number,CON' Location,type and implementation schedule for each mitigation measure, and Signed and dated certification thatthe mitigation has been implemented, and all other reporting requirements havebeen adhered to, in accordance with Public Resources Code Sections 21081.6 and 21081 7 Transportation Operations Development facilitated by this project would significantly impact State facilities within 1-580 and 1-680 under Existing Plus Project Conditions, Near-Term Conditions, or Cumulative Conditions Impact TRANS-5, 12, 18, 26. and 35) For these impacts to State facilities, please be sureto follow Caltrans Practices, Standards,Policy,and Procedures Please ensure new development pays their fair share of mitigation necessary to fund improvements needed to mitigate significant 4 Impacts to State facilities, which are evaluated and listedin the project impacts' mitigation measures (MM TRANS-5, 12, 18). These contributions for upgrading the identified interchanges should be to the same standards as the Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive interchanges. The City and RegionalTransportation Impact Fees to be used for project mitigation should be fully Identified and explained. Table ES-1. Executive Summary Matrix, summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and resulting level of significanceafter mitigation for the relevant environmental issues areas evaluated for the proposed project(DEIR, pg. ES-6). Please clarify if the intersections at El Charro Road/ b 1-580eastbound Ramps and Tassajara Road/1-580 westbound ramps are impacted, mitigated, and should be included within this matrix. Please note, Intersection#24 of Table 3.11-5: Existing Conditions Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service, currently lists the PM Peak Hour Delay as 89. This should be revised to reflect actual 6 conditions (pg 3.11-12) Vehicle Trip Reduction The DEIR states the project will include a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program that will provide a comprehensive strategy to manage the travel demands created by the project through established trip budgets based on the Trip Generation Estimate total AM and PM peak hour trips in Table 3.11-9:Trips By Analysis Phase(pg. 3.11-35).The TDM Program incorporates 7 • a number of TDM strategies that are recommended in every phase of development to encourage alternative modes of travel (pg. 3.11-60).We commend the City's Mitigation Measure TRANS-1, which includes subsequentannual monitoring to demonstrate the effectiveness of the TDM Painde a cafe mwniahle nnep,ared andefficient mm crymmun, system to enhance Centfamid erom n and Innbdm ' CALTRANS Page 3 of 4 Ms. Knsti Bascom,City of Dublin March 21, 2016 Page 3 program that will promote mass transit use thereby reducing regional vehiclemiles traveled and traffic impacts. TheCaltrans StrategicManagement Plan aims to increase the percentage of non- auto mode shares through tripling bicycle, and doubling pedestrian and transit by 2020. This 7 strategic objective is consistent with MTC's Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable CONT Community Strategygoals of both increasing non-auto mode transportation, and reducing per capita VMT by 10 percent each. TheProject's Phase IA would provide associatedsurface parking for approximately 860 to 1,075 vehicles.The subsequent Phase 2 would provide parking for approximately 600 to 1,600 vehicles. Phase 3 wouldinclude associated surface parking and a parking structure located on the southwestern portion of the Campus site for approximately 1,140 to 1,425 vehicles (pg. 2-10). We encourage the City to include a parking management plan within the TDM Program to continue discussions on pricing incentives, considervariable pricing policies, and improvecoordination between on-streetand off-street parking prices to meet operational and policy goals. This will 8 reduce vehicles circling by effectively balancing the parking demand across the area. Parking management policies should ensure the best use of the future parking structure through pricing, shared parking policies. restricting the number of parking permits, and support for alternative modes,e.g. bike parking, car share,etc.,that are listed as strategies within the TDM Program. For information about parking ratios, see the Caltransfunded Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)report Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart Growthor visit the MTC parking webpage. http://mtc.ca gov/sites/default/fdes/Toolbox-Handbook.pdf. Hydraulics The DEIR states there is a double 10-foot by 9-foot concrete box culvert that parallels the north side of 1-580 within the Caltrans right-of-way (pg. 2-1). Please provide Caltrans with the appropriate map or project plans that identifies the culvert's location as we seek further 9 confirmation the culvert is in fact within Caltrans' right-of-way. Earlyconsultation with Caltrans is encouraged to identify any additional improvements or further required elements to project designand drainage facilities. Cultural Resources Caltrans requires that a project environmental document include documentation of a current archaeological record search from the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System if construction activities are proposed within State Right-of-way ROW) Current record searches must be no more than five years old.Caltrans requires the records search, and if warranted, a cultural resource study by a qualified, professional archaeologist, and 10evidenceofNativeAmericanconsultationtoensurecompliancewiththeCaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 50245 and 5097 of the California Public ResourcesCode, and Volume 2 of Caltrans' Standard Environmental Reference. Work subject tothese requirements includes, but is not limited to: lane widening, channelization, auxiliary lanes, and/or modification of existing features such as slopes, drainage features, curbs, sidewalks and driveways within or adjacent toState ROW. Sec the following website for more information. ens a cafe untamable mmxn,fed and efi rent antral,,,r,,,,t ti item UP enhnm a Gil/enun t e,nnnnn and b,vbdm" CALTRANS Page 4 of 4 Ms Kristi Bascom, City of Dublin March 21, 2016 Page 4 http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol2/vol2.htm. I 10 CONT Transportation Management Plan A Transportation Management Plan(TMP) or construction TIS may be required of the developer for approval by Caltrans prior to construction when traffic restrictions and detours affect State highways. TMPs must be prepared in accordance with California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the other transportation management plan requirements of the corresponding 11 jurisdictions.Please contact the Office of Traffic Management Plans/Operations Strategies at 510- 286-4579. Further information is available at the following website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/mutcd/pdf/camutcd2014/Part6.pdf. Encroachment Permit Please be advised that any work or traffic control that encroaches onto the State ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued by Caltrans. Traffic-related mitigation measures should be incorporated into the construction plans prior to the encroachment permit process. Since an encroachment permit is required for work in the State ROW, and Caltrans will not issue a permit until our concerns are adequately addressed, we strongly recommend that the County work with 12 both the applicant and Caltrans to ensure that our concerns are resolved during the environmental process, and in anycase prior to submittal of an encroachment permitapplication. To apply, a completed encroachment permitapplication, environmentaldocumentation, and five (5) sets of plans clearly indicating State ROW must be submitted to the following address: David Salladay, District Office Chief, Office of Permits, California Department of Transportation, District 4,P.O. Box 23660, Oakland, CA 94623-0660. See this website for more information: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits. Should you have any questions regarding this letter,please call Sherie George at 510-286-5535 or I13sherie.george@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, PATRICIAMAURICE District Branch Chief Local Development-Intergovernmental Review c: State Clearinghouse Provided f,sustainable,integrated and efficient transportanon systemto enhance California's economy and livability" 0 City of Dublin-Kinser Dublin Medical Center Project Final OR Responses to Written Comments StateAgencies California Department of Transportation ICALTRANS) Response to CALTRANS-1 The agency provided introductory remarks to open the letter. No response is necessary Response to CALTRANS-2 The agency summarized the project characteristics and noted that the project is located near the Interstate 580(1-580)interchanges at Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road and Fallon Road/EI Charro Road The agency's specific comments on impacts to these I-580 facilities are addressed in Response to CALTRANS-4. Response to CALTRANS-3 The agency provided standard language about a lead agency's mitigation responsibilities and CEQA requirements concerning the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP). The agency recommended that required traffic improvements be completed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy To clarify,the proposed project consists of four phases: 1A, 18, 2,and 3. For improvements that are within the jurisdictional control of the City of Dublin,the Draft EIR's mitigation measures identify the timing of traffic improvements byphase and require them to be implemented at theappropriate time noted in each mitigation measure For improvements that are outside the jurisdictional control of the City of Dublin (e.g.,the 1-580 interchanges with Tassajara Road/SantaRita Road andFallon Road/EI Charro Road),the Draft EIR requires that fair-share payments be made to the applicable agency at theappropriate time noted in each mitigation measure These practices are consistent with CEQA requirements in terms of implementing mitigation measures at the time that impacts occur. Response to CALTRANS-4 The agency noted that development facilitated by this project would significantly impact State facilities within 1-580 and 1-680 under Existing Plus Project, Near-Term conditions or Cumulative conditions (Impacts TRANS-5,-12, -18,-26,and-35) For these impacts to State facilities,the agency advisedto follow CaltransPractices,Standards, Policy and Procedures, and to ensure that new development pays their fair share of mitigation necessary to fund improvements needed to mitigate significant impacts to State facilities,which are evaluated and listed in the project impacts' mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures TRANS-5,TRANS-12,and TRANS-18) These contributions for upgrading the identified interchanges should be to the same standards as theDougherty Road and Hacienda Drive interchanges The City and Regional Transportation Impact Fees to be used for project mitigation should be fullyidentified and explained TheCity ofDublin has initiated conversations with regional agencies (the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton,Alameda CTC)regarding the establishment of an escrow account where fair-sharefunds can be deposited for interchange improvements not included in local or regional fee programs. Regardless of establishing a regionalescrowaccount,the City will ensure that the fair-share costs are ForstCarbon Solutions 3-7 City of Oubbn-.Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR collected and maintained for the needed improvements. The fair-sharepayments would be above the required local and regional fee payments,unless the identified improvements are added to a local or regional fee program prior to thefair-share payment requirement being triggered The Draft EIR text has been revised to clarify the intent of MM TRANS-12 and MM TRANS-18 that fair-share contributions to these two regional improvements will be collected The change is noted in Section 4, Errata The project applicant would also be required to pay the Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fee as well as the To-Valley Transportation Development Fee as established by the To-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC). Response to CALTRANS-5 The agency noted that Draft EIR Table ES-1 Executive Summary Matrix summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and resulting levels of significance after mitigation for the relevant environmental issue areas evaluated for the proposed project The agency requested clarification if the intersectionsat El Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps and Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps are impacted, mitigated,and should be included in this matrix. Project impacts were not identified at the El Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps and Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps intersections. Impacts and mitigation measures were identified for the El Charro Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps (TRANS-1S)and Tassajara Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps TRANS-12) intersections, as included in Table ES-1 Response to CALTRANS-6 The agency advised that Intersection 24 provided in Table 3 11-5 is shown as having a PM peak-hour delay as"89" and noted that this value should be revised to reflect actual conditions(p. 3.11-12). The Draft EIR text has been revised to reportthe correct value as "9" The change is noted in Section 4, Errata This correction does not result in any change in the conclusion on level of significance for traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR Response to CALTRANS- The agency noted that the project will include a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program that will provide a comprehensive strategy to manage the travel demands created by the project through established trip budgets based on the Trip Generation estimate total AM and PM peak-hour trips in Table 3.11-9 Trips by Analysis Phase(p.3.11-35) The TDM program incorporates a number of TDM strategies that are recommended in every phase of development to encourage alternative modes of travel(p3 11-60). The agency commended the City's Mitigation Measure TRANS-1,which includes subsequent annual monitoring to demonstratethe effectiveness of the TDM program that will promote mass transit use,thereby reducingregional vehicle miles traveled VMT)and traffic impacts TheCaltrans Strategic Management Plan aims to increase the percentage of non-auto mode shares through tripling bicycle and doubling pedestrian and transit by 2020 This strategic objective is consistent with MTC's Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy goals of both increasing non-auto mode transportation by 10 percent and reducing per capitaVMT by10 percent. F 3-8 Fnstoorbon Solutions sv.=ixmu irree 3 osm! ..newmii.o.o..m.eoo City of Dubin-Kaiser Dublin Medico)Center Project Final FIR' Responses to Written Comments The comment accurately describes Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 No additional response is necessary Response to CALTRANS-8 The agency noted that Phase 1A would provide associated surface parking for approximately 860 to 1,075 vehicles The subsequent Phase 2 would provideparking for approximately 600 to 1,600 vehicles Phase 3 would include associated surface parking and a parking structure located on the southwestern portion of the Campus for approximately 1,140 to 1,425 vehicles (p2-10). The agency encouraged the City to include a parking management plan within the TOM programto continue discussions on pricing incentives, consider variablepricing policies, and improvecoordination between on-street and off-street parking prices to meet operational and policy goalsThis will reduce vehicles circling by effectively balancing the parking demand across the area. Parking management policies should ensure the best use of the future parking structure through pricing, shared parking policies, restricting the number of parking permits, and support for alternative modes such as bike parking,car share,and others—all ofwhich are listed as strategies within the TDM program Parking management strategies are expected to be a primary component of the TDM plan, and potential strategies were identified in the Transportation Assessment Monitoring of the actual parking demand as project phases aredeveloped,such that excess parking is not provided in subsequent phases, was also recommended Response to CALTRANS-9 The agency referenced a statement on Draft EIR page 2-1 that there is a double 10-foot by 9-foot concrete box culvert that parallels the north side of 1-580 within the Caltrans right-of-way. The agency requested that the City provide it with a map or plans thatidentifies the culvert's location to confirm that it is in fact within Caltrans's nght-of-way The agency noted that early consultation with Caltrans is encouraged to identify any additional improvements or further required elements to project design or drainage facilities The proposed project's site plan (Exhibits 2-4a,2-4b,and 2-4c)depict the existing storm drainage easement and also illustrate a setback for the planned Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)extension to Livermore The storm drainage easement consists of two adjacent easements (20 feet and 10 feet) that total 30 feet in width. An American Land Title Association/American Congress of Surveying and Mapping (ALTA/AGSM) Land Title Survey is provided in Appendix L that depicts the location of the existing storm drainage easement. Thebox culverts do not appear to be within the Caltrans right-of- way and the change is noted in Section 4, Errata Refer to Master Response 1 for further discussion of the BART extension toLivermore Response to CALTRANS-10 The agency provided standard language about its cultural resourcesassessment requirements if the project involves construction activities within the State right-of-way, including requirements for records searches, cultural resources study, and Native American consultation hrstembon Solutions 3-9 City ofDi hlin-Raiser Dublin Medical Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final FIR As discussed in Master Response 1,theproject site plan includes a setback for the planned BART extension to Livermore. This setback begins at the edge of the 1-580 right-of-way and overlaps with the storm drainage easement on the north side of the freeway. As such, no disturbance is proposed within the existing State right-of-way and,therefore, no additional cultural resources assessments would be required Refer to Master Response 1 for further discussion of the BART extension to Livermore. Finally, it should be noted that a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared for development activities that would occur withinthe project site boundaries. That assessment,which included a record search at the NorthwestInformation Center, a field survey,and consultation with applicable NativeAmerican tribal representatives, is provided in Draft OR Appendix D. Response to CALTRANS-11 The agency stated that a Transportation Management Plan or Construction Traffic Impact Study may be required if project-related constructionactivities result in traffic restrictions ordetours to state highways. The agency provided standard language about the requirements of such a plan or study. The City has a standard requirement that developersprepare a construction traffic mitigation plan that identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction traffic impacts and noise on surroundingproperties and public streets. The plan includes construction traffic interface with public traffic on any existing publicstreet, hours of construction operation,speed limitfor construction traffic,and identification of haul routes. This will be included as a condition of approval,and language will be included that if the plan will result in traffic restrictions and/or detours to any state highways, Caltrans may require an impact study to be prepared and the measures outlined in the study followed duringconstruction Response to CALTRANS-12 The agency providedstandard language about encroachment permit applicationrequirements As noted in Responses to CALTRANS-10 and CALTRANS-11,the proposed project's development activities would not involve any work within the existing 1-580 right-of-way along theproject frontage or at the interchanges with Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road and Fallon Road/EI Charro Road; therefore, no encroachment permits would be required Response to CALTRANS-13 Theagency provided concluding remarks to close the letter. No response is necessary. 3-I0 Fintearbon Solutions a u..e .e.e n•xi.io.mir inlcree swa a amnssarc wa=rc n..p......mxnv..Dmm.m.e-.. ACTC t••I Page 1 of 3 ALAMEDA Ss Countytransportationcommission 1111 Broadway,smte 800,Oakland CA 94607 • 510208 7400 • www AlamedaCTC org March 18, 2016 Kristi Bascom Principal Planner City of Dublin too Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 SUBJECT: Response to the Draft Environmental ImpactReport for the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Dear Ms. Bascom, Thank you for the opportunity to comment onthe DraftEnvironmental Impact Report(DEIR)for the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project. The project site is approximately 58.9-acres located in the eastern portionof the City ofDublin and is bounded by undeveloped land and a stormwater basin tothe west, Dublin Boulevard to the north,the Fallon Gateway retail center to the east,and Interstate 58o to 1 the south. The proposed project would consist of approximately 1.2 million square feet of medical campus and commercial uses with surface and/orstructured parking for 3,300 to 5,2O0 vehicles. The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) respectfully submits the following comments: The Alameda CTC's CMP requires that the DEIR address potential impacts to not only roadways on the Metropolitan Transportation System(MTS)network,but also potential impacts of the project on MTS transit operators(BART and LAVTA in this case),Countywide Bicycle Network, and Pedestrian Areas of Countywide Significance. The following revisionsshould be made to the DEIR to reflect the multimodal nature of the CMP requirements: o The language in Appendix J - Chapter 8 should incorporate the multimodal nature of Alameda CTC's CMP requirement. o Appendix J-Chapter 8 should include multimodal project impact analysis.The DEIR has included some elements of this analysis in the Appendix J — Chapter 9 Site Access, Circulation and Parking. Specifically. 2 Transit impacts to consider include the effects of project vehicle traffic on mixed Bow transit operations, transit capacity,transit access/egress, need for future transit service,and consistency with adopted plans. See Appendix K of the 2015 CMP document for moredetails. Bicycle related impacts toconsider include effects of vehicle traffic on bicyclist conditions,site development and roadway improvements,and consistency with adoptedplans. See Appendix K of the 2015CMP document for more details. Pedestrian related impactsto consider include effects of vehicle traffic on pedestrian conditions,site development and roadway improvements, and consistency with adopted plans. See Appendix K of the 2015CMP document for more details. Kristi Bascom ACTC March iB,2016 Page 2 of 3 Page 2 The DEIRindicated that the Alameda CTC travel model was applied onthe MTS roadway segments analysis to analyze the impacts of the proposed project onthe regional network in 2025 and 2040. The current Alameda CTC model simulates travel demand for the forecast 3 years 2020 and 2040. The DEIR should explain how 2025 traffic condition was estimated based on the Alameda CTC travel model. Alameda CTC notes that for the purpose of developing future forecasts,the DEIR assumed BART extension to Livermore/Isabel by2040. Please note that Alameda CTC provided the following comment to the Notice of Preparation of the DEIR in March 2015 regarding the extension: Within your project area, the BART to Livermore Extension is a major transit 4 project included in Alameda CTC's 2014 Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) and Alameda CTC's CTP. This letter requests your consideration of right-of-way preservation related to this project." The DEIR correctly stated (on page 16 of Appendix J - Chapter 9) that Alameda CTC has not adopted any policy for determining a threshold of significance for Level of Service (LOS) for the Land Use AnalysisProgram (LUAP) of the CM?. However,the DEIR also stated (on page 17 of Appendix J - Chapter 9) that Alameda CTC has specific LOS thresholds standards for Caltrans 5 facilities. Please correct the language to reflect that Alameda CTC has not adopted any thresholds of significance. Alameda CTC noted that the TIA included a VMT assessment in line with the pending update of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)guidelines by the Office of Planning and Research (OPR).Alameda CTC has not set thresholds for a VMT assessment and is alsoclosely monitoring the development of the CEQA guidelines update. Our comments regarding the VMT 6 assessment are: o Appendix J-Tables 34 and 35:The VMT assessment estimated that there would be additional 3,975 employment created by the project in 2040. Please provide thesource of how the DEW converted square feet of project developmentto number of employees to model project land use. The DEIRindicated(on page 129)that the land use assumptions in the Alameda CTC travel model are consistent with Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG) population and employment projections that may differ from the City of Dublin's model. While this is true, 7 please note thatland use assumptions in the Alameda CTC travel model has been reviewed by City of Dublin staff in 2014 and incorporates their feedback. The DEIR concluded that in 2040,the following MTS roadway segments would experience significant project impacts: o Dublin Boulevardbetween Camp Parks Boulevard and Fallon Road o Hopyard Road/Dougherty Road between I-580 and Scarlett Drive o Isabel Avenue between Airway Boulevardand Jack London Boulevard o Isabel Avenue between Stanley Boulevard and Concannon Boulevard o Vallecitos Road between I-68o and Isabel Avenue: 8 , Alameda CTC noted that the DEIR acknowledged: That improvements to parallel corridors in the region wouldprovide alternative routes and additional transportation capacity in the region. The project developers would help fund improvements through payment of the City of Dublin and Tri-Valley Regional traffic impact fees .However, since implementation of a parallel capacity cannot be assured at this time, the impacts on these roadways could remain significant andunavoidable. Knsti Bascom ACTC March 18,moth Page 3 of 3 Page 3 Thank you for the opportunityto comment on this NOP. Please contact me at(51o)208-7428 or Daniel Wu of my staff at(510)208-7453 if you have any questions. g Sincerely, Tess Lengyel Deputy Director of Planning and Policy cc: Daniel Wu,Assistant Transportation Planner file: CMP/Environmental Review Opinions/2016 City of oubltn-xmser Dualm Mee¢a2enter Project Final FIR Responses to Written Comments Local Agencies Alameda County Transportation Commission/ACTC) Response to ACTC-1 The agency provided introductory remarks to open the letter. No response is necessary Response to ACTC-2 The agency noted that its CMP requires that the Draft EIR address potential impacts not only to roadways on the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) network, but also potential impacts of the project on Metropolitan Transportation System transit operators(BART and Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority [LAVTA] in this case),County wide Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Areas of Countywide Significance. The agency stated that the following revisions should bemade to Draft FIR to reflect the multimodal nature of the CMP requirements. The language in Appendix 1—Chapter 8 should incorporate the multimodal nature of Alameda's CTC's CMP requirements Appendix 1—Chapter 8 should include multimodalproject impact analysis The DEIR has included some elements of this analysis in the Appendix 1—Chapter 9 Site Access,Circulation andParking Specifically Transit impactsto consider include the effects of project vehicle traffic on mixed-flow transit operations,transit capacity,transit access/egress, need for future transit service,and consistency with adopted plans See Appendix K of the 2015 CMP document for more details Bicycle related impacts toconsider include effects of vehicle traffic on bicyclist conditions, site development and roadway improvements, and consistency with adopted plans. See Appendix K of the 2015 CMP document for moredetails Pedestrian related impacts to consider include effects of vehicle traffic on pedestrian conditions,site development and roadway improvements,and consistency with adopted plans. See Appendix K of the 2015 CMP document for more details. Significance criteria for transit operations, bicycle,and pedestrians are discussed on page 3 11-26 of the Draft FIR Project impacts to these modes of travel were identified from the significance criteria, and, as noted in the comment, impacts and mitigation measures were developed The commenter is correct in noting that the Countywide Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Areas of Countywide Significance were not specifically mentioned in the Draft EIR However,the potential impact to these modes were discussed and analyzed as part of the Draft EIR on pages 3 11-143 through 3 11-145 Mitigation measures that incorporate the intent of the multimodal nature of the CMP requirements were identified The level of transit trip generation was also estimated for the project as presented in the Transportation Assessment Prior to the implementation of the TDM program,approximately 20 morning peak-hour and 60 evening peak-hour transit trips are expected with Phase 1 of the project Of these trips, most would include a bus component, with some including a busand BART component. Based on ridership information provided by LAVTA,there is currently excess capacity on transit routes that serve the study area. Of the total transit trips, a percentage may use the BART FIrsICarEOn Solutions 3-I5 City of Dublin-xoiser Dublin Medical Center Protect Responses to Written Comments Final EIR system Even if all estimated transit trips used the BART system,the Dublin/Pleasanton stations are served by 10-car trains on 15-minute headways during peak periods,and the project would add fewer than 1 passenger per car during peak hours,a less thansubstantial increase. As part of the TDM program,theproject applicant would work with LAVTA to adjust transit service to the site to accommodateprojected demand. Finally,the proposed projectwould provide an internal network of pedestrian facilities that would link project buildingsto the Dublin Boulevard sidewalk and surrounding land uses Internal pedestrian facilities would be designed to minimize conflicts between motorists and pedestrians via the strategic siting of crosswalk locations and use of pavement treatments to alert motorists to the potential presence of pedestrians Additionally,the signalized pedestrian crossings at Dublin Boulevard/Keegan Street and Dublin Boulevard/Lockhart Street would employ the use of countdown heads to advise pedestrians of the time remaining to cross the street Response to ACTC-3 The agency noted that the Draft EIR indicated that the Alameda CTC travel model was applied on the MTS roadway segments analysis to analyze the impacts of the proposed project on the regional network in 2025 and 2040 The current Alameda CTC model simulates travel demand for the forecast years 2020 and 2040 The agency requested that the Draft EIR explain how 2025 traffic condition was estimated based on the Alameda CTC travel model. The Alameda CTC model simulates travel demand for the forecast years of 2020 and 2040 The Draft EIR text has been revised tocorrect the erroneous reference to 2025and the change is noted in Section 4, Errata. Response to ACTC-4 The agency noted that the Draft EIR assumed that the Livermore BART extension would be operational by 2040 and referenced a statement from its March 2015 Notice of Preparation comment letter about reserving right-of-way ACTC's Notice of PreparationMarch 23,2015 comment letter is listed in Draft FIR Table 1-1 and its commentsabout reserving right-of-way are specifically noted in the table. Refer to Master Response 1 for further discussion of the Livermore BART extension Response to ACTC-5 The agency noted that the Draft FIR correctly stated (on p. 16 of Appendix 1—Chapter 9)that Alameda CTC has not adopted any policy for determining a threshold of significance for Level of Service for the LandUse Analysis Program (LUAP)of the CMP. However,the Draft FIR also stated (on p 17 of Appendix 1—Chapter 9)that Alameda CTC has specific thresholds standards for Caltrans facilities The agency requested that the language be corrected to reflect that Alameda CTC has not adopted any thresholds of significance. The text in Appendix 1 has been revised to remove referencetoAlameda CTC related to standards for Caltrans facilities in the study area The change is noted in Section 4, Errata 3-16 First6Orbon Solutions City of Oublm-Korser Dublin Medical Center Protect Final FIR Responses to Written Comments Response to ACTC-6 The agency noted that the Transportation Assessment(Appendix 1) included A VMT assessment In line with the pendingupdate of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)guidelines by the Office of Planningand Research The agency noted that it has not set thresholds for a VMT assessment and is also closely monitoring the development of the CEQA guidelines update and provided the following comment Appendix 1—Tables 34 and 35:The VMT assessment estimated that there would bean additional 3,975employees created by the protect in 2040. Please provide the source of how the DEIR converted square feet of project development to number of employees to the model project land use. The transportation model that was used to estimatevehicle miles of travel for the proposed project uses dwelling units and number of employees by employment type as land use inputs General conversion factors are often used to convert a development by square foot to an associated number of employees These factors are often developed for use in fiscal assessments to estimate the level of employment within a project,and can also be correlated by reviewing theInstitute of Transportation Engineer Trip Generation Manual rates when data is presented that is based on both square feet and employees For this project,an initial conversion factor of approximately 1 employee per 250 square feet was used for the retail component of the project site, and approximately 1 employee per 400square feet was used for the medical components of the project. The resulting trip generationestimated by the model was then compared with the trip generation estimates used to evaluate off site impacts. For consistency between the VMT assessment and the off-site intersection analysis,the conversion rates were reduced for the medical component of the project to approximately 1 employeeper 330 square feet such that the vehicle trip generation estimated by the model closely matched trip generation used in the off-site intersection assessment Response to ACTC-7 The agency noted that the Draft DR indicated that the and use assumptions in the Alameda CTC travel model are consistent with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) population and employment projections may differ from the City of Dublin's model. While this is true,the agency noted that land use assumptions in the Alameda CTC model has been reviewed by City of Dublin staff in 2014 and incorporates its feedback The comment is noted, no further response is necessary Response to ACTC-8 The agency noted that the Draft EIR concluded that in2040,the following MTS roadway segments would experience significantproject impacts Dublin Boulevardbetween Camp Parks Boulevard and Fallon Road Hopyard Road/Dougherty Road between 1-580 and Scarlett Drive Isabel Avenue between Stanley Boulevard andConcannn Boulevard Vallecitos Road between 1-680 and Isabel Avenue [ ] FirstCarbon Solutions 3-17 City of Dublin-Kosser Dublin Medical Center Protect Responses to Written Comments mot EIR Theagency noted that the Draft EIR acknowledged That improvements to parallel corridors in the region would provide alternative routes and additional transportation capacity in the region. The project developers would help fund improvementsthroughpayment ofthe City of Dublin and Tri-Valley Regional traffic impact fees However,since implementation of a parallel capacity cannot be assured at this time,the impacts onthese roadways would remain significant and unavoidable The commenter correctly identifies the projects cumulative impact to MTS roadway segments, as well as the identified mitigation measures and conclusionson significant and unavoidable impacts. No further response necessary Response to ACTC-9 The agency provided concludingremarks to close the letter. No response is necessary 3-18 serstCarbon Solutions DSRSD Page 1 of 2 0 Dublin San Ramon 0510ublinBoulevard phone(9251828-0515 Services District Dublin,CA 94568-3018 fax(925)829-1180 Water,systevt le(regxkdwater www dsrsd corn March 21,2016 Kristi Bascom,Principal Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,CA 94568 Subject: Comments on DraftEnvironmental Impact Report(DEIR) Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project(PA 08-050) Dear Ms Bascom: Thank you for providing Dublin San Ramon Services District(DSRSD,District)the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EnvironmentalImpactReport(DEIR)for The Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project(Project) DSRSD has a significant role in the area to be developed by the Project. Our agency took note of the list of environmental issues f covered by the Draft EIR We have included our comments below on the environmental topics that bear on our agency's responsibilities in the area of the Project Land Use and Planning DSRSD currently serves as the potable water,recycled water,wastewater collection and wastewater treatment utility for the area of the Project and surrounding areas. As theprovider for these utilities, DSRSD is responsible for the planning and development of the infrastructure necessary for those services. Our intent is to ensure the infrastructure Is adequately planned to meet the interim as well as the ultimate build-out needs of the area. 2 DSRSD is the utility provider for the currently developedsections of Dublin surrounding the Project. The development of services for the Project must be done in a way that does not disrupt oreliminate the services for the active portions of the City of Dublin near the Project. Those services are to remain ongoing throughoutthe construction and completionof the Project. Potable Water Supply and Senate DSRSD will providepotable water tothe Project The wholesale provider for the District is Zone 7 Water Agency. Zone 7 providespotable water to retailers In the Tn-Valley area including DSRSD,City of Pleasanton,City of Livermore and California Water Company(also in Livermore)and regulates the withdrawal and recharge of the underlying groundwater 3 DSRSD adopted a Water SupplyAssessment and Availability for the project on September 1,2015 Subsequent to this adoption,Zone 7 adopted its 2015Urban WaterManagement Plan(UWMP)on March 16,2016. DSRSD is preparing its 2015 UWMP and expects to adopt the plans toadopt it in June 2016. All studies show that adequate water supply will be available for the project through its projected phases. Fireflow Water Supply DSRSD currently provides facilities that will provide a maximum fireflow water volume of 4,000 gpm. If this project will require a larger volume than 4,000 gpm for fireflow conditions,the additional volume must be provided by the 4 project's own internal potable water storage Recycled Water Supply and Service DSRSD currently provides recycled water service to sections of the City of Dublin around the Project. As a 5 condition of potable water service,DSRSD will require the Project to plan for and build a recycled water H\ENGDEPI\PERMfl5' eveiopmennindustnal_CommerciaiKaver Permanence Dublin Medical Center OP-15-289L15PF01-Kaisen06 Studies and Reports\Karser DEIRLCOmments Final-DOR Kaiser Dublin Med Cir PA 08-05 3-21-16 doe DSRSD Page 2 of 2 0 Dublin San Ramon 7051 Dublin Boulevard phone(925)828-0515 Services District Dublin,CA 94560-3018 fax(925)829-1180 Winer,RUStewarq recycled water wwwdsrsd.com Kaiser DEIR Comments Page 2 of 2 distribution network for landscape irrigation in the Project area. This is a potable water conservation element. An Increase in the use of recycled water in the Tri-Valley area has an impact on reducing the ultimate total potable water demand on Zone 7's water supply. Currently DSRSD owns and operates a facility for recovering recycled water at its wastewater treatment plant at 7399 Johnson Drive In Pleasanton. DSRSD is also framing plans to CONT increase the production and distribution of recycled water from the plant. Please note that text on page 2-18 of the DEIR raises the possibility that recycled waterwould be used for"...toilet flushing(to the extent consistentwith legal requirements for medical facilities and patient safety)." DSRSD does notcurrently have standards and guidelines established for using recycled water for any other purpose than landscape irrigation. If the Project plans to use recycled water for purposes other than landscape irrigation,those 6 plans must be discussed and reviewed with the District and ultimately must receiveapproval from the Engineering Services Manager Wastewater Treatment DSRSD believes that current capacity at the wastewater treatment plant is adequate to serve the proposedProject. However,because this is a large project in the commercial/industrialcategory;source controlrequirements may be required. Pretreatment of the wastewater may also be required depending on the constituents in the raw 7wastewaterThesourcecontrolrequirementsareintendedtoprotecttheDistrict's wastewater treatment process. This project may be requiredto obtain a DSRSD wastewater discharge permit as part of the application process. Wastewater Disposal The proposedProject would increase the amount of treated wastewater leaving the Tri-Valley area. Disposal of treated effluent from DSRSD's wastewater treatment plant is the responsibility of the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency(LAVWMA). LAVWMA currently exports secondary treated wastewater to the East 8BayDischargersAuthority(EBDA)interceptor pipeline for ultimate discharge to the San Francisco Bay via a deepwater outfall Water treated at DSRSD's treatment plant that is not converted to recycled water for landscape irrigation is disposed of throughthe LAVWMA system. Thank you for notifying DSRSD of the upcoming Draft Environmental ImpactReport Please contact Stan Kolodzie 9at(925)875-2253 or me at(925)875-2255 should you haveany questions. Sinc- y HODORA N.BIAGTA Principal Engineer SK/RN B/ST cc: Stan Kolodzie Bonifacio Duenas Ryan Pendergraft File: DP-15-289,15PF01(5.0)Chron H.\EHGDEPI\PERMnS\Development\Industrial_Commertlal\xalter Permanente Dublin Medical renter DP-15-289\15Pr01-xaner\065tudies and Reporis\karser DEIR\Comments Final-DEIR Kaiser Dublin me('-Or PA w-05 321-16.dm City of Dublin-Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Final SIR Responses to Written Comments Dublin San Ramon Services District/DSRSD) Response to DSRS0-1 Theagency provided introductory remarks to open the letter No response is necessary. Response to DSRSD-2 The agency provided background information about the services it provides and its infrastructure planning efforts. The agency stated that the development of the proposed project must be done in a way that doesnot disrupt or eliminate services for active portions of the City of Dublin near the project site As discussed on Draft EIR pages 2-17 and 2-18,the proposed projectwould connect via service lateralsto existing undergroundpotable water, recycle water,and sewer lines located within Dublin Boulevard Installation of service lateral connections will be conducted in accordance with DSRSD's regulations, including those that pertain to avoidance of disruption of service to other users Moreover,the existing potable water, recycled water, and sewer lines within Dublin Boulevard have adequate capacity to serve the project and no off-site improvements would be necessary This would avoid the potential for disruption or elimination of services for other users in Dublin. Response to DSRSD-3 The agency stated that it would provide potable water to the proposed project and provided background information about local water supply sources. DSRSD noted that it adopted a Water SupplyAssessment and Availability for the proposed project on September 1, 2015 and indicated that Zone 7 Water Agency adopted its 2015 Urban WaterManagement Plan on March 16,2016 The agency advised that it is currently preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan and expects to adopt it in June 2016. DSRSD stated that all three studies show that adequate water supply would be available for the proposed project through its projected phases. The Draft EIR also concluded that adequate water supply would be available for the proposed project through its projected phases,which is based on theWater Supply Assessment and Availability the agency adopted on September 1, 2015 The completeWater Supply Assessment and Availability is provided in Draft EIR Appendix 1 Response to DSRSD-4 The agency stated that it currently provides a maximum fire flow volume of 4,000 gallons per minute and noted that if the project requires a higher volume,the additional capacity must be provided by theproject's internalpotablewater storage Prior to issuance of buildingpermits for each phase,the City of Dublin and D5R5D will have the opportunity to review the proposed project's building plans to determine applicable fire flow requirements and whether additionalinternal potable water storage must be provided. Response to DSRSD-5 The agency stated that it will require the proposed project to planand build a recycled water distribution network for landscape irrigation in the project area. DSRSD provided background on its recycled water system FirstCarbon Solutions 3-21 City ofOublin-Kmser Dublin Medical Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final FIR The Draft EIR discloses that the proposed project includes a recycled water distribution system on pages 2-17 and 2-18 and its impacts were evaluatedwhere appropriate in the Draft EIR. Response to DSRSD-6 The agency referenced a statement from Draft DR page 2-18 about recycled water being used for toilet flushing to the extent it is consistent with legal requirements for medical facilities and patient safety. DSRSD noted that it does not have any current standards or guidelines for usingrecycled waterfor any other purpose than landscape irrigation and stated that any proposed use of recycled waterfor non-landscape use must be reviewed and approved by the agency. Prior to issuance of building permits for each phase,the City of Dublin and DSRSD will have the opportunityto review the proposed project's building plans to determine if recycled water is proposed for non-landscape use If such use is proposed,the agency will be engaged as appropriate for review and approval. The analysis of project potable water demanddid not include use of recycled water for any indoor uses. Response to DSRSD-7 The agency stated that it believes that the current capacity at the Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility in Pleasanton is adequate to serve the proposed project. DSRSD noted that because the proposed project falls in the"commercial/industrial" category,source controls may be required, including pretreatment. The agency indicated that the proposed project may be required to obtain a DSRSD wastewater discharge permit as part of the application process Prior to issuance of building permits for each phase,the City of Dublin and DSRSD will have the opportunity to review the proposed project's building plans to determine if source controls or a wastewater discharge permit is required If source controls or a wastewater discharge permit is determined to be necessary,the agency's existing regulations and process will be followed. Response to DSRSD-8 The agency noted that the proposed projectwould increase the amount of treated wastewater leaving the Tn-Valley area and provided backgroundaboutthe Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency,which conveys effluent to an outfall in San Francisco Bay. DSRSD noted that wastewater treated atthe Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility that is not reused as recycled water is discharged into San Francisco Bay. As previouslynoted,the proposed project would use recycled water for landscape irrigation and potential toilet flushing To the extent that this allows treated effluent to be reused as recycled water instead of being discharged into San Francisco Bay,this would be considered beneficial in terms of conveyance capacity for the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency Response to DSRSD-9 The agency provided concluding remarks to close the letter. Noresponse is necessary. 3-22 F,rsttorbon Solutions LIVERMORE U V LRM& T E Page 1 of 3 CAI imp NIA March 21, 2016 City of Dublin Community DevelopmentDepartment 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA, 94568 Attn: Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Dear Ms. Bascom: Thankyou for sending the City of Livermore the Draft Environmental Impact Report Draft EIR) for the proposed Kaiser Medical facility in Dublin. The new medical facility 1 will provide importantservices that will benefit the Tri-Valley region. Here are the City's comments after review of the Draft EIR sent by your office on February 5, 2016. 1. TheCity ofLivermore is currently engaged in a multi-agency effort to facilitate a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) extension toLivermore. The City of Livermore requests that the City of Dublin considerpotential right-of-way (ROW) expansion necessary to extendBART to Livermore in planning and approving proposed developments along the 1-580 corridor. Preliminary highway widening 2 designs shows the necessity of 40+1-feet of ROW atthis location. Exhibits 2- 4a, b and c include potential BART right-of-way in the legend. However, right- of-way line is not shown on the figure. The City recommends Figures 2-4a, b andc depict the BART right-of-way line on the site plans andthat Dublin coordinate with BART staff to ensure adequate right-of-way is available for the BART extension toLivermore. 2. Staff requests the Draft EIR acknowledge that the City is currently conducting the land use planning process to prepare the Isabel Neighborhood Plan that will meet the needs of the Livermore community, support City and community goals, and complement BART'S proposed extension to Livermore. The table 3 below summarizes new land uses associatedwith development or redevelopment of opportunity sites. Livermore staff is available to provide additional information regarding the planning process and timing. oy hall 1052:9 4411 L eunuie Axenu. L rcennore,CA 94550 omle a lne,mui, .a u. LIVERMORE NOA of a DEIR for Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Page 2 of 3 March 21, 2016 Page 2 of 3 Within the 1/ 2 Total New Land Use Type mile radius of Outside the 1 Development BART station mile radius in Planning focus area) Area Residential (housing units) 4,000 225 4,225 Non-residential(square feet) Office 1,300,0001 550,000 1,850,000 3 Business Park 0 r 400,000 400,000 COW Neighborhood 375,000 0 375,000Commercial General Commercial 275,000 100,000 375,000 Total 1,950,000 1,050,000 3,000,000 Jobs 7,470 2,800 10,270 3. Considering the potential trip generation with full campus buildout, the El Charro Road at 1-580 Westbound Ramps (LOS E, AM peak hour) intersection is projectedto degrade to an overall LOS E. Further, at Project buildout, the intersection of Isabel Avenue and Jack London Boulevard is projectedto degrade to LOSE in the am peak. The Draft EIR notes that the City of Livermore General Plan, describesthis intersection as potentially exempt from the City of Livermore LOS D standard, 4 as it carries a high proportionofregional cut-through traffic and further widening above planned levels may not be feasible or desirable (City ofLivermore General Plan Policy CIR-4.1, p. 4). Further, that the City of Dublin cannot make the determination of whether the exemption under the City of Livermore General Plan applies. That decision is in the control of the City ofLivermore, which is a separate agency fromthe City 4. Project buildoutwould potentially result in vehicle queuesexceeding the available storage, or wouldincrease vehicle queues by more than 25 feet (1 vehicle) for at leastone movement where the queue is projected to already exceed the available storage at the following intersections: Airway Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway 5 Isabel Avenue/Jack London Boulevard Isabel Avenue/Stanley Boulevard r The City of Livermore respectfully requests that the City of Dublin and applicant ti explore alternatives in coordination with theCity of Livermore to mitigate these potentially significant transportation impacts. LIVERMORE NOA of a DEIR for Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Page 3 of 3 March 21, 2016 Page 3 of 3 5. The DEIR notes the location of the Projectwithin ConservationZone 2 of the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Further, that the City of Dublin adopted the EACCS as guidance for public infrastructure/capital improvement projects and uses the document to provide input on managing biological 6 resources and conservation priorities duringpublic project-level planning and environmental permitting. The City of Livermore strongly recommends that theapplicant consult the Conservation Strategy for guidance regarding avoidance and minimization measures for any sensitive habitat for focal animal andplant species. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the DratEIR. Pleasecontinue to inform Livermore regarding the status of this application, the ER process and any 7 otherCEQA related notices and documents. If you have any questions, please call me at (925) 960-4475. CI Andy Ross, Assistant Planner cc: Bob Vinn, Assistant City Engineer Steve Stewart, Principal Planner City of Dublin-Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments City of Livermore(LIVERMORE) Response to LIVERMORE-1 The agency provided introductory remarks to open the letter. No response is necessary Response to LIVERMORE-2 The agency noted that it is currently engaged in a multi-agency effort toextend BART to Livermore and requested that the City of Dublin consider potential right-of-way expansion necessary to facilitate the extension The agency noted that preliminary designs indicated that approximately 40 feet of right-of-way would need to be acquiredat this location and noted that Draft EIR Exhibits 2-4a, b, and c show BART right-of-way in the legend The agency noted that the right-of-way line is not shown on the exhibits,andit recommended that they be revised to depict this feature and that the City of Dublin coordinate with BART staff to ensure that adequate right-of-way is available The Livermore BART extension is addressed in Master Response 1. Response to LIVERMORE-3 The agency requested that the Draft EIR acknowledge that the City is currently conducting the land use planning process to prepare the Isabel Neighborhood Plan that will complement the proposed Livermore BART extension. Theagency referenced a table showing that the Isabel Neighborhood Plan has a buildout of 4,225 dwelling units and 3 million square feet of commercial uses At the time of Draft FIR release(February 3, 2016),the City of Livermore had not begun the CEQA process for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan Thus, it was omitted as a cumulative project m Draft EIR Table 4-1 However,certainprojects that are within the boundariesof the Isabel Neighborhood Plan area were listed as cumulative projects in Table 4-1 (for example,the Sage Residential Project and the Livermore BART extension). Thus,the Draft EIR accounted for all known cumulative projects at time ofpublic release,which included two that were encompassed by the Isabel Neighborhood Plan For these reasons,there is no basis to revise the Draft EIR to include mention of additional projects Response to LIVERMORE-4 The agency noted that theintersection of El Charro Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps (LOS E,AM peak hour) intersection is projected to degrade to an overall LOSE and the intersection of Isabel Avenue/Jack London Boulevard is projected to degrade to LOS E in the AM peak hour The agency indicated that the Draft EIR notes that the City of Livermore General Plan describes this intersection as potentially exempt from the City of Livermore LOS D standard,as it carries a high proportion of regional cut-through traffic and further widening aboveplanned levels may not be feasible or desirable. The agency asserted that the City of Dublin cannot make thedetermination ofwhether the exemption under the City of Livermore General Plan applies and such a decision is in thecontrol of the City ofLivermore. In the contextof Isabel Avenue/lack London Boulevard,the Draft EIR states on page 3 11-113 that The City of Dublin cannot make a determination ofwhether the exemption under the City of Livermore General Plan applies"and That decision is in thecontrol of the City of Livermore " The Draft EIR's text is consistent with the City of Livermore's position on this matter. The EIR concluded there was no feasible mitigation measure available to address this impact that is within thecontrol ofthe City of Dublin. FnstCarbon solutions 3-27 City of Dublin-Kinser Dublin Medico:Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final FIR In the context of El Charro Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps,the Draft EIR evaluated impacts using City of Pleasanton criteria. A significant impact was identified and mitigation measures were proposed As the interchange is not under thecontrol of the City of Dublin, a significant and unavoidable impact was identified. The project will be required to provide a fair-share contribution to fund the construction of improvements. Response to LIVERMORE-5 The agency noted that projectbuildout may result in vehicle queues exceeding the availablestorage, orwould increase vehicle queues by more than 25 feet(1 vehicle)for at least one movement where the queue is projected to already exceed the availablestorage at the following intersections-Airway Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway, Isabel Avenue/Jack London Boulevard;and Isabel Avenue/Stanley Boulevard. The City of Livermore requested that the City of Dublin and applicant explore alternatives in coordination with the City of Livermore to mitigate these potentially significant transportation impacts. The Draft EIR used thefollowing significance criteria for queuing impacts: Project traffic causes the 95th percentile queue in a left turn pockettoextend beyond theturn pocket by25 feet or more(i e,the length of one vehicle) into adjacent traffic lanes that operate 0e, move)separately from the left turn lane, or If the 95th percentile queuealready exceeds thatturn pocket length under no project conditions,the project traffic lengthens the queue by 25 feet or more Vehiclequeue impacts were identified at a number of intersections, particularly those close to the project site where project traffic would be most concentrated, in addition to the intersections noted m in the comment. Mitigation measures for queue impacts typically include traffic signal upgrades or u. timing adjustments, extending the available vehicle storage length to minimize the effects of vehicle queue spillback, constructing additional transportation capacity on parallel routes to disperse travel or demand, and implementing project-level TMD programs to reduce net-new vehicle trip generation u, The projectapplicant will be required to pay allapplicable local and regional transportation impact fees that will fund the construction of transportation projects in the In-Valley area Additionally,the w„ project will be conditioned to implement and monitor a TDM program Furthermore, Mitigation Measures TRANS-3,TRANS-6a,TRANS-7a,TRANS-7b,TRANS-7c,TRANS-7d,TRANS-8,TRANS-19b, TRANS-19c,TRANS-19d, and TRANS-34a all provide improvements that either fully mitigate or its partially mitigate queueing impacts at local intersections However, as the effectiveness of these 0 measures to reduce vehicle queue spillback is uncertain,the queue impact was identified as Illiksignificantandunavoidable The ultimate design of the Airway Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway intersection is dependent on the potential Dublin Boulevard extension from FallonRoad connecting to thecurrent terminus of North Canyons Parkway The timing and ultimate design of this connection is unknown, and the City OP looks forward to a collaborative planning process with the City ofLivermore as plans for this connection develop. 3-28 FRSttarbon solutions a...n e.m....n. i.x,xoe ao•ew a rover cw.. .m=m ..oe.< mne..omm.rmmo rr City of Dublin-Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Protect Final FIR Responses to Written Comments City of Dublin staff have already reached out to Livermore staff to coordinate potentialimprovements. Response to LIVERMORE-6 The agency referenced the Draft El Ws evaluationof the proposed project's consistency with the East Alameda CountyConservationStrategy (EACCS) and noted that the City of Dublin uses the EACCS as guidance for public infrastructure/capital improvement projects AlthoughApplicants are encouraged to consult the EACCS,the EACCS guidance is not required by the City of Dublin to be applied to private projects such as this one. A biological survey was conducted of the project site and found that it provides suitable habitat for the burrowing owl,the California red-legged frog, San Joaquin spearscale, andCongdon's tarplant The other special-status species or sensitive habitats did not have potential tooccur on-site). As such, Mitigation Measures BIO-la (rare plants), BIO-1c(burrowingowl), and B10-1d/le (California red-legged frog)were proposed tomitigate impacts on these species Even though the EACCSis not required to be applied,this is consistent with the EACCS's conservation priorities and would ensure that impacts on these species are mitigated to a levelof less than significant. Response to LIVERMORE-7 The agency provided concluding remarks to close the letter No response Is necessary FirstCarbon Solutions 3-29 THE CITY OF PLEASANTON Page 1 of 2 pLEASANTON< March 21, 2016 Kristi Bascom Principal Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Draft Environmental Impact report Kaiser Medical Center, Dublin Dear Ms. Bascom: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report DEIR) for the Kaiser Medical Center Project, an approximately 1 2 million square foot 1medicalcampusandcommercialuses. It is my understanding that theproject site containsapproximately 58.7 acres and is located in the easternportionofthe City of Dublin. The DEIR states that the proposed project would require amendments to both the City of Dublin General Plan and EasternDublin Specific Plan to create a new "Campus Medical" designation and to re-designate the project site from "Campus Office" to 2 Campus Medical." The City of Pleasanton respectfully submits the following comments: 1. The Dublin intersection analysis includes a 95% queue analysis for left turn pockets; a similar analysisshould be completed for the intersections to determine if similar safety related impacts exist in Pleasanton. Specificallyintersections 15 and 25 in Appendix J, which have 250 to 300 project generated left turns in each 3 peak hour. While the turn pocket lengths are generous, queueimpactsmay extend beyond the available storage and should be reviewed for safety purposes. 2. Mitigation Measure TR-12 identifies the need for a second south-boundleft-turn lane at the intersection of Santa Rita Road and 1-580 eastbound ramps The mitigation states that Kaiser will be required to pay its "fair share " Please 4includelanguagerequiringKaisertoenterintoareimbursementagreement, a memorandum ofunderstanding, and / or impose a conditionofapproval that clarifies how the "fair share" will be calculated andwhen the payment will be requiredand to whom it shall be paid. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P. O. BOX 520, Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802 Planning Building& Safety Engineering Traffic Inspection 200 Old Denial Are 200 Old Bernal Are 200 Old Rcrnal Ave 200 Old Bernal Ave 157 Main Sired 9251931-5600 925) 9315300 19251 931-5650 925)931.5650 9251 931-5680 Fax. 931-5483 lax 931-5478 Fax 931-5479 Fax 931-5479 Fax 911.5484 PLEASANTON Page 2 of 2 Kaiser Medical Center Project Page 2 March 21,2016 3. Mitigation Measure TR-18 (El Charro Interchange Improvements) identifies the need for Phase 2 interchangemodifications (page 86 of Appendix J — Transportation Assessment), butonly requiresKaiser to pay fees to mitigate the impact. Given that the mitigation is the construction of additional lanes on the 5overpassandtheKaiserprojectwillgenerate674PMprojecttripsonthe southbound section ofthe overpass, the project should be requiredto construct the improvement. The added volume willrequire nearly one full vehicle travel lane. Additional capacitydoes not exist and the Kaiser project should be requiredtomitigate their impact by constructing the improvement. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I look forwardto our continued cooperative and proactive effort in addressing possible future impacts of this project. 6 Ifyou have any questions, please contact me or Mike Tassano, Traffic Engineerat 925) 931-5600. Sinc ely, erry Beau in Directorof Community Development Cc: Mike Tassano, Traffic Engineer City of Dublin—loner Dublin Medico)Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments City of Pleasanton(PLEASANTON) Response to PLEASANTON-1 The agency provided introductory remarks and a summary of the project to open the letter No response is necessary. Response to PLEASANTON-2 The agency summarized the proposed General Plan andSpecific Plan Amendments. No response is necessary. Response to PLEASANTON-3 The agency noted that the Draft EIR's intersection analysis includes a 95th percentile queue analysis for left-turn pockets and stated that a similar analysis should be completed for the intersectionsto determine if similar safety-related impacts exist in Pleasanton The agency specifically listed the intersections of Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps and El Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps,which have 250 to 300 project-generated left turns in each peak hour. While turn pocket lengths are generous, queueimpacts may extend beyond the available storage and should be reviewed for safety purposes Vehicle queues were reviewed at intersections in Pleasanton and, specifically,the two intersections listed by the agency. No 15 (Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps)and No 25(El Charro Road/I- 580 Eastbound Ramps) A significant queue and level of service impact was identified at Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps. Vehiclequeues at the El Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps are expected to remain within the available storage, as detailed in the Transportation Assessment in Draft EIR Appendix 1 Mitigation measures were proposed to reduce the intersection and queue impact to a less than significant level (Mitigation Measure TRANS-12, constructing a second southbound left-turn lane and traffic signal upgrades)were identified However, as the intersection is not within thecontrol of the City of Dublin,the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Response to PLEASANTON-4 The agency noted that Mitigation Measure TRANS-12 identifies the need for a second southbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Santa Rita Road and 1-580 eastbound ramps and indicated that the mitigation states that Kaiser will be required to pay its "fair share " Theagency requested that language be added requiring Kaiser to enter into a reimbursement agreement, a memorandum of understanding, or impose a condition of approval that clarifies how the "fair share"will be calculated,when the payment will be required,and to whom it shall be paid. TheCity of Dublin has initiated conversations with regional agencies (City of Livermore, City of Pleasanton, and Alameda CTC)regarding the establishment of an escrow account where fair-share funds can be deposited for interchange improvements not included in local or regional feeprograms. The fair-share payments would be in addition tothe required local and regional fee payments,unless the identified improvements are added to a local or regional fee program prior to thefair-share payment requirement being triggered;this language is included in revised MM TRANS-12 as shown in Section 4, Errata First Carbon Solutions 3-33 City of Dublin-Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR Response to PLEASANTON-5 The agency noted that Mitigation Measure TRANS-18 identifies the need for Phase 2 interchange modifications,but only requires Kaiser to pay fees to mitigate the impact Given that themitigation is the construction of additional lanes on the overpass and the Kaiser project will generate 674 PM project trips on the southbound section of the overpass,the project should be required to construct the improvement The added volume will require nearly one full vehicle travel lane. The agency stated that additional capacity does not exist and the Kaiser project should be required to mitigate their impact by constructing the improvement. The Phase 2 Fallon Road interchange project is identified in the Alameda CTC CapitalProject Delivery Plan as a freeway improvement project (1-580Freeway Corridor Management System)that will need federal, regional,and local funding The City of Dublin is the Sponsor Agency for this project and Is working with the Alameda CTC to develop the preliminary engineering documents for Phase 2 project. As this is a planned improvement of regional significance, it is beyond the scope of a single development projectto construct. Legal nexus requirements apply to mitigation measures under CEQA Therefore,given the extent of theproject impact,fair-share payment is the appropriate mitigation measure for this projectrather than requiring construction of theimprovement by the applicant Response to PLEASANTON-6 The agency provided concluding remarks to close the letter No response is necessary. 3-30 FrstCorbonSolutions e o os. i,o xu er,.senweu run v ecw .m.'`o..o="=="ew."..c.mm..vao., SAN RAMON Page 1 of 2 ENGINEERINGSERVICES DIVISION San Ramon MEMORANDUM DATE: March 21, 2016 TO: Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner City of Dublin CC: BrianBornstein. City Engineer Dehhie Chamberlain. Division Manager Mike Talley. City Traffic Engineer DeborahFehr, Associate Traffic Engineer FROM: Theresa Peterson, AssociateEngineer SUBJECT: Dublin Kaiser DEIR Review Comments Please see the below comments from traffic Engineering on the subject Dublin Kaiser DFIR• The City of San Ramon Traffic Engineering Division has the following comments on the Dublin 1 Kaiser DEIR 1. Dougherty Road is a major regional arterial that provides north-south access and runs through the City of San Ramon The City of San Ramonrequires the analysis of intersections when a project adds 50 or more new trips to any intersection The DEIR does not analyze any intersections on Dougherty Road north of Dublin Boulevard:2 therefore, the Project Trips (specifically, the northbound and southbound trips north of the intersection) at the intersection of Dougherty Road / Dublin Boulevard were reviewed a Project Full-Buildout Added Trips — There are 204(128) southbound trips and 55(271) northbound trips added to Dougherty Road north of Dublin Boulevard. Flow man) of these trips would be added to, for example, Dougherty Road 3 Bollinger Canyon Road (South)? If more than 50 new trips, this intersection should be Included in the analysis h. Project Full-Buildout Added TripsCumulative (2040) Conditions — The number of Project Trips drops significantly from the Project Full-Buildout Added Trips to 41127) southbound trips and 16(75) northbound trips on Dougherty Road north of 4 Dublin Boulevard. Please justify. 2. Westbound left turns at Dougherty Road / Dublin Boulevard. Under the Near-Term 2025) Conditions the westbound left turn shows volumes of 310(1,120). Under 5Cumulative (2040) Conditions there are 50(60) westbound. Please provide the justification for the 260(1.060) volumereduction for the westbound left turn? 3. A mitigation to consider is the installation of an adaptive traffic signal system to lessen the impacts. 'Me City of San Ramon has seen a significant reduction in delay along the 6 SAN RAMON Page 2 of 2 Bollinger Canyon Road and Crow Canyon Road corridors where an adaptive signal 6 system was installed. The City of San Leandro installed an adaptive signal system with CONTthenewlyconstructedKaiserfacility r rI I• City of Dublin—Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Protect Final DR Responses to Written Comments City of San Ramon(SAN RAMON) Response to SAN RAMON-1 The agency provided introductory remarks to open the letter No response is necessary. Response to SAN RAMON-2 The agency stated that Dougherty Road is a major regional arterial that provides north-south access and runs through the City of San Ramon,and it noted that the City requires analysis ofintersections when a project adds 50 or more new trips to any intersection The agency noted that the Draft EIR did not evaluate any intersections north of DublinBoulevard/Dougherty Road As noted on page 3 11-6 of the Draft EIR,the study intersections were selected in consultation with respective jurisdiction staff(including San Ramon), based on a review of theproject location and the amount of traffic that could be added to theintersections in the project vicinity In the case of Dougherty Road, it should be noted that the Dublin/San Ramon city limit line is located 1.8 miles north of the intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road The segment of Dougherty Road between DublinBoulevard and the Dublin/San Ramon city limit line includes the signalized intersections of Dougherty Road/Sierra Lane, Dougherty Road/Scarlett Drive, Dougherty Road/Camp Parks Boulevard, and Dougherty Road/Amador ValleyBoulevard—all ofwhich are in the Dublin city limits Furthermore, all of these intersections would experience equivalent or greater project- related traffic volumes than any intersection on Dougherty Road within the San Ramon city limits. The City of Dublin determined that evaluation of City of Dublin intersections on Dougherty Road north of Dublin Boulevard was notwarranted because project-related traffic would not have the potential to substantially increase traffic volumes to cause level of service to deteriorate to unacceptable levels Thus,the same conclusion would apply to City of San Ramon intersections on Dougherty Road Response to SAN RAMON-3 The agency noted that there are 204 AM peak-hour and 128 PM peak-hour southbound trips,and 55 AM peak-hour and 271 PM peak-hour northbound trips added toDougherty Road north of Dublin Boulevard The agency inquired how many of these trips will be added to the intersection of Dougherty Road/Bollinger Canyon Road, and assertedif they exceed 50 trips,then this intersection should be included in the analysis The intersection ofDougherty Road/Bollinger Canyon Road (south) is approximately 3 miles from Dublin Boulevard with numerous interveningintersections that would allow for the distribution project traffic Since this segment ofDougherty Road primarily adjoins residentialneighborhoods in Dublin and San Ramon, it would be expected that most project-related trips on this roadway would be made by local residents traveling to and from their place of residence. Thus, it would be logical to assume that project traffic would be distributed to the neighborhoods that connect to Dougherty Road such that there would be fewer than 50 peak-hour net-new project trips traveling through the intersection of Dougherty Road/Bollinger Canyon Road (south) Since fewer than 50 new peak-hour project trips are expected to travel though this intersection, no analysis is required Firstcarboa Solutions 3-37 City of Dublin—Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final FIR Response to SAN RAMON-4 The agency noted that,at full project buildout(2040),the number of project trips drops significantly from the project full-buildout added trips to 41AM peak hour and 27 PM peak hour southbound trips and 16 AM peak hour and 75 PM peak hour northbound trips on Dougherty Road north of Dublin Boulevard and requested justification. The changes in added traffic at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection in the Cumulative condition are primarily due to the future Scarlett Drive extension,that will provide an alternate travel route to Dougherty Road Response to SAN RAMON-5 The agency indicated that near-term (2025)westbound left-turn volumes at Dougherty Road/Dublin Road are 310 AM peak-hour trips and 1,120 PM peak-hour trips. The agency noted that cumulative 2040)westbound left-turn volumesat Dougherty Road/Dublin Road are 50 AM peak-hour trips and 60 PM peak-hour trips The agency requested justification for the decrease in left-turn volumes between the two scenarios It appears that the agency is referring to thewestbound right-turn movement, not the left-turn movement The volume reduction is associated withthe planned construction of the Scarlett Drive extension that would provide an alternate connection between Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard This connection would result in travel pattern shifts, including a reduction in the southbound left-turn movement volume from Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard, and the westbound right-turnvolume from DublinBoulevard toDougherty Road Response to SAN RAMON-6 The agency noted that a mitigation to consider is the installation of an adaptive traffic signal system to lessen the impacts. The City of San Ramon has seen a significant reduction in delay along the Bollinger Canyon Road and Crow Canyon Road corridors where an adaptive signal systemwas installed The agency also noted that City of San Leandro installed an adaptive signal system with the newly constructed Kaiser facility The City is currently in the process of installing an adaptive traffic signal system along the Dublin Boulevard corridor and may add Dougherty Road to the Adaptive System as appropriate However, the adaptive system alone may not be adequate to fully mitigate the impacts, and the project impacts at the intersection of Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard will remain significant and unavoidable. 3-38 FrstCarbonSolutions ZONE 7 Page 1 of 2 ore Amito,44, ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, ZONE 7 100 NORTHCANYONS PARKWAY• LIVERMORE,CA 94551 •PHONE(925)454-5000•FM(925)454-5727 r. March 16.2016 Pee C titer) City of Dublin Community Dec elopment Depanment n• 2 3 /u, 100 CI x rc Plaza DVBDublin.CA 94568 L// Attn: Kristi Bascom.Principal Planner Re Comments on DEIR(ur Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Knsti. Zone 7 Water Agency(Zone 71 has ie rowed the referenced DraftEIR in the context of Zone 7's mission to pro)ide water supply. flood protection,and groundwater and stream management within the Livermore-Amador Valle)1 We have comments for your consideration: I On page 3.7-2. 1 he FIR should clarify Arroyo Mucha empties into the Alamo Canal,which from that 2 point downstream is called Arroyo de la Laguna 2 On p37-2, W atcrohed The project site is located in the Line G-3'watershed, not Tassalara Creek watershed 3 3 On p 3.7-3. Flood HazardAreas: The City might want to mention to the reader that the Area is based on FEMA 2009 4 information (as indicated in Exhibit 3.7-1) 4 On p.37-6. Alameda CountyFlood Control and Water Consen anon District(ACFC'WC D1. For clant). change heading to"Zone 7 Water Agenc) (Zone 7)",as ACFCWC D does not hazejunsdiction in Dublin. Revise paragraph to read. 'lone 7 is responsible for prosidling flood protection to the residents of Eastern Alameda Count) Zone 7 owns and maintains the downstream facility I me G-3.to which the project proposes to drain Drainage plans for 5 development projects must be nee iewed by Zone 7 to ensuic thatthe project does not propose an) impacts to downstream facilities In addition, dmelopment projects that in nh'e work 'Anhui Zone 7's right-of-way or that nnveli e construction.modification.or connection to a Lone 7 facility,ate required to obtain an Encroachment Permit and compls w all Lone 7 standards and specifications." 5 On p 37-13,Impact HYD-3. Explain how new discharges occurring from 2/3 of the project site into an existing 6 stornwvatei basin does not require any additional treatment of rev icw Page 1 of 2 ZONE 7 Page 2 of 2 6. On p.37-14,MM HYD-3: Change Alameda County Flood Control and WaterConservation District to Zone 7. 7 7 On p 3 7-14,Impact HYD-4: The EIR needs to include an analysis of the displacement(shifting downstream)of the 8 flood hazard area as a result of the project. 8 On p 3.7-15,MM HYD-4' Mitigation measuredoes not address the displacement of the flood hazard area in the event that the project constructs in the flood hazard area There is a potentially gsignificantimpactifthefloodplainweretobedisplaceddownstreamduetoconstruction within the flood hazard area. Applicant must demonstrate that there is no impact We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project If you haveany questions on this letter, please feel free to contact me at(925)454-5005 or via email at eranbo zone7water corn. 10 Sincerely, CUR h Elkc Rank cc Carol Mahoney,Jeff Tang,JoeSeto,file Page 2 of 2 City of OuNm-kmser Dublin Medical Center Protect Final CM Responses to Written Comments Zone 7 WaterAgency(ZONE 7) Response to ZONE 7-1 The agency provided introductory remarks to open the letter No response is necessary Response to ZONE 7-2 The agency stated that the Draft EIR's description of the Tassajara Creek watershed on page 37-2 should be revised to state that Arroyo Mocho empties into the Alamo Canal,which from that point downstream is called Arroyo de la Laguna The revision has been made and the change is noted in Section 4, Errata Response to ZONE 7-3 The agency stated that the project site is located in the"Line G-3"watershed, not the Tassajara Creek watershed,as stated on Draft EIR page 3 7-2 The revisions have been made and the changes are noted in Section 4, Errata Response to ZONE 7-4 The agency suggested that the discussion of Flood Hazard Areas on Draft EIR page 3.7-3 note that theflood mapping was conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 2009. The text on page 37-3 has been revised to note that three Letters of Map Revision were processed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency between 2004 and 2007 that determined that grading associated with the Dublin Ranch project had raised the developable portions of the project site to above the 100-year flood elevation The changesare noted in Section 4, Errata. The most recent Letter of Map Revision is provided in Appendix L Response to ZONE 7-5 The agency requested changes to the final paragraph on Draft EIR page 3.7-6, including changing the name ofthe agency to Zone 7 and using narrative text, as provided, summarizing its regulatory responsibilities The revisions have been made and the changes are noted in Section 4, Errata. Response to ZONE 7-6 The agency referenced the discussion in Impact HVD-3 and requested further explanation as to why runoff from the western two-thirds of the project site wouldnot require any additional treatment or review In 2003,the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)approved Waste Discharge Requirements and a WaterQuality Certification for the Dublin Ranch Project under Order No R2- 2003-0032 The project site is located within the area covered by the Order and,therefore, is subject to the water quality requirements and the Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)that was prepared for the Dublin Ranch development and approved by the RWQCBin conjunction with the Order In accordance with the approved SWMP for the Dublin Ranch Development,the existing regional water-quality basin was designed toaccept and treat post-construction stormwater runoff from approximately two-thirds of the project site (western portion). Thus, stormwater runoff from FirstCarbon Solutions 3-41 c u ee v.,.,r.w., ,..L i„Ja i,.,,,mod,o...,,a..,,.,.omm..,... City of Dublin-Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR the western portion of the project site will not need to be treated and can he discharged directly into the public system. Stormwater runoff from the project site area that is outside the area served by the Regional Water Quality Pond (eastern portion)will need to be treated prior to discharge to the public system using current Low Impact Development standards contained in Order No. R2-2009-0074 (revised R2-2011- 0083) The LID standards will be reviewed during the Grading andSite Improvement Plan submittal Furthermore,subject to Order No. R2-2003-0031, hydro-modification (detention)willnot be required for any portion of the project site In summary,the proposed project complies with all applicable stormwater quality regulations Response to ZONE 7-7 The agency requested that the agency name in Mitigation Measure HYD-3 be changed from Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to Zone 7 The revision has been made and the change is noted in Section 4, Errata Response to ZONE 7-8 The agency referenced Draft EIR Impact HVD-4 and stated that the Draft EIR needs to include an analysis of the displacement of the flood hazard area downstream as a result of theproject Three Letters of Map Revision were processed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency between 2004 and2007 thatdetermined that grading associated with the Dublin Ranch project had raised the developable portions of the project site to above the 100-year flood elevation A copy of the May 3, 2007 Letter of Map Revision is provided in Final EIR Appendix L and documents all three revisions. As such,the text in Impact HYD-4 has been (1) revised to note that the developable portions of the project site are outside of a 100-year flood hazard area and (2)revised to strike Mitigation Measure HYD-4 The changes are noted in Section 4, Errata Response to ZONE 7-9 The author referenced Mitigation Measure HVD-4 and reiterated the previous commentabout the EIR needing to provide analysis of the displacement of the flood hazard area downstream as a result of the project Refer to Response to ZONE-7-8. Response to ZONE 7-10 Theagency provided closing remarks to conclude the letter No response is necessary. 3-02 NrstCarbon Solutions KAISER Page 1 of 5 thi KAISER PERMANENTE® National Facilities Services NCALService Delivery Operations 1950 Franklin Street, 12'"Floor Oakland,CA 94612 March 21, 2016 By E-mail: kristi.bascom(a)dublin.ca.gov Ms. Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project— Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms Bascom On behalf of KaiserFoundationHospitals, I am writing to express ourappreciationfor the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental ImpactReport prepared for the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project ("DEIR") When Kaiser madethe decision to acquire this large approximately 58 7 acre site in Dublin in 2006, it waswith the intention of locating a major medical center We are grateful for thewelcomeKaiser has continued to receive from the community and Dublin officials. We also appreciate the professional and collaborative approach 1 City Staff hasshown as we have moved forward with our plans to provideenhanced health care services to the community on this terrific site. As noted in the City's 2012 Economic Development Strategy, Kaiser acquired land in East Dublin "for a medical facility that could create spinoff economic activity, possibly including medical services and retail amenities." Dublin is now closer than ever to realizing this vision. ProjectOverview TheMedical Center will serve a criticalpublic safety role by eventually serving over 134,000 Kaiser Permanente members in Dublin and the Tri-Valley regionwho currently must travel to Kaiser Permanente facilities in Walnut Creek, San Leandro or Antioch to access the wide range of health care services the MedicalCenter will offer. At full buildout, the Medical Center is anticipated to offer comprehensiveservices in state-of-the-art facilities, including urgent care, radiation/oncology services, outpatient surgery, diagnostic services, women's services, inpatient 2 care, surgical services and emergency care, and supporting ancillary health care services such as optical, pharmacy, laboratory, education and trainingThese facilities will employ over 2,500 medical, professional, and supporting staff, and enhance local business revenues as employees and visitorspurchase goods and services in the area. In addition, development of the western portion of the site for commercial uses will contribute jobs, tax revenue, and amenities for Dublin residents. KAISER Page 2 of 5 DEIR Review The DEIR provides a thorough description of the proposed Medical Center, including the measuresthat Kaiser will implement during the construction period to minimize impactsto residents, employees, and visitors in the area. We wish to emphasizethat Kaiser is committed to contributing its "fair share" of traffic and infrastructure improvements at each phase of project 3 construction to ensure orderly development and integration of the Medical Center intothe East Dublin neighborhood. At projectbuildout, we believe that these improvementswill have a substantial contribution tothe pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and vehiclecirculationsystem. We also wishto note that the DEIR's analysis is based on veryconservative assumptions regardingthe impacts of project construction. While this approach is appropriate to ensure that all potential impacts are adequately studied, it necessarily results in "worst-case" conclusions regardingimpacts such as traffic, air quality, and greenhouse gasemissions. To take greenhouse gases as an example, theDEIR assumes that all vehicle trips associated withthe Medical Center will be "new" trips—rather than tripsthat would occur as part ofthe baseline, diverted from other existing medical facilities. Under these circumstances, webelieve it is appropriate to acknowledge that using conservativeassumptions may cause the Project-specific impacts to be overstated since as a practical matter, there are substantial traffic, air quality and 4 greenhouse gas benefits whenhealth care services are closer to residents. Kaiser also prides itself on voluntarily implementing green building features and sustainabilitystrategies—manyof which are mentioned in the DEIR—that will reduce the Project's greenhouse gas contributions to the greatest extentfeasible, including seeking LEED Gold certification. Green building features may include PVC-free materials (such as resilient flooring, carpet and roofs), low or VOC-free paints, construction waste diversionprograms, formaldehyde-free casework, turf-free and indigenous native planting for low irrigation demand, and non-smoking campus, to name just a fewmeasuresincorporated into our building design. Attached, please find a list with a few minor suggestions to include in the Final EIR. 15 We are grateful for the timeand attention that City staff have devoted to processingour applications and working with FirstCarbonSolutions to produce a high-quality DEIR. We look 6 forward to continued collaboration as we work to make theKaiser Dublin Medical Center a reality. Sincerely, Wo&4 Wannid Hollis Harris Vice President National Facilities Services cc. Colleen McKeown, SrVP, Kaiser Permanente David Gold, Morrison & Foerster Christopher Alonzi, Senior Counsel, Kaiser Permanente Attachment KP DublinDEIR Errata Docx 0 cs to W. 9 la\%> W 91 t\\ f 5 ! o 4 004) 3k ® \ \00) G\ a\« t % tip- zz\ t Ca -a ra+ T , & ; ; ; ± §\\ 1 \\\ \ \\\% \ k \\\ %% „ s , ! !« o o 1 j\€ u sOr, § : s , { ! \}\ \ \ Ia 0 0 al 0 3 0ea Oo 3 4 ` ` d - 1 : ° \s0 ly , , 0 Sii w 3.;,. 7-1: N 01 aP 2O Y Op qq 3 ' o Z N P , P b 1 n 3 A ka c w 2 4. oif 2 a a SC iA ^< , 3pntem ‘ A c 7 q n0 3 o d ? N 9 3 3 H c R Q m' m e oe a m m 0 FE r m m 3 c m 6 pop ^' r N C, 5 t .'i a C 7i n O 3 9 o n A 0 0 0 0' > 'O O 7 ro. N 3n ' O o' < O a 3 v 0 0-m ro. O, m m -- ?.9 N - A % m N 'O O- 0. m c 3 T N f.-. •ry W O j A • w m m 3 3 d. a. '° n v 3 m 3 3 m 4, w O ti m 6 m m t 4 m `n m e' G, of n in a F j ' ^ ,- CI 6NCN0. zW Dora O" robro No+ 0. S • s NCro . -o _ ?. Sra3Onma4Sma 6 y, C -- r o N O o j. w U 3 } N m j S ^ 3 t d ^ 3 Sip NmpoOO n > a a 0ay' v o o n 3 t(1 N 9' C N, 0 a.. n ^ y.+ d £ ry to n d N .p Nm n N. v w O f Q m fl' 3 r 'a7 N O N 6 p% f^ O 'co N O4NC '" ' C A tin 3 W A ^ %. m 0. W N vron A N ry. 4 a > d j NpNNO.N Y . t oo P N ol d . C. N 3- 0- 03-O- >'. 3 .L 7 3 O R 0 io N' - - 0, 9 N m 3 tTq % 9 O r. p ai j 4o, a' n m 1 O DN G 9 3 6 3 D '. 3r. 3 `P 3 0 `; i n 9 m n m 3 a 0.- 9 9 £ M m 30 3 n i a 7 3 Q, 0 N N O 91 p O G J O Y e• N. £ 0.' 0 -• N O = v ? ,` 3 a a ' P - 0 3 a c °rA w m 9- co c p_ F < 3w oa m , m3,.6 m N J y ro 3 n A m C O N m Cr m 0 £ N O ^"O U ry j 3 j N. ° N 7 n _5. O £ a ii. G 0, ' c % N C.C. o. 4. °% <, m N "' a e. a 3 N p. A < C v m 3 £ w U ro C5 re; .2 J 3 n. o '$ m o n > 10 °" n ? ^ m N 3 a m ^n a 3 ro 3 n n Z o 3 ' ° 3 "' N o ^ f J ai a n y m m -kyco 3 3, a N > a s. 5 £ A 3' d N m m o= '..3 m m N v p' N 3 % °s ^ O; p 6 ; p 2 N 6 m 6 F p A 3 m Q p C 1 O' 5: 75 ^ O w mn ..,w - A : o N' d m % a 3 No m Np2 N4 Nam9 N9 n nCGq 3t 6. o oO£ S iz A A 3 3 3 7 o N, a ,a >. o+ a 3 m o °o w " o o- 5 51 a 3 " m 7 9, o % m w n3 0, 3maa D .c m a o w d o o n ro 3 O p m v ... ry °v ' N, nqtm " Fr 6 a m p a m 0 3 c O m .n II N p 0 w °^ , ry ^° £. 3 Cr Tic:- a 'o mm a 3 a man w U, S. c 3 0 0 an v a o a a Cn N N 2 o co m 3 ^ °' i5 ^.. m ma c D o, % S o m m mc%, 0 R\ Q o a 'S r' 0 6 O % N a m m O' n 3 r 3 p n ^O D 13 D0. R ? f co O ni+ d 6 0. 7 mm5 N m S. O, .. ' n a > p45 o m n. .n L ^' 3 3G ? V. O 3 'L w a p° O 6 Cik A y n n O 3 -.. a m A et o d 4 6 3 N , N 3 3 N e ? m p N 0 0. 7 N a D oo Oo 3 m 4 3 j 6 m 9 ry VI us 3 v A 6 3ryr 3 .-, 63 > a6 O p 6 0. 6 - d A m N m Ge m W w3 a P. CP CP j 00 OD ct cc f z; 0 j7 N To{ \ }} \ T - 7 ;\ § ! i \ f 1 a y 0i } \ } , \ \ \ } k\ } rWtO ! C t \- 2oi } ! § § \ { w _c C2 4i.\ a !{ > % \ 3 \ \} a \! \ y \ ) d i { f c\\\\/. E\ \ 00 c t .6S \\} 2 \\ \ } % % \ : ` \ \ \\ }* 5 0ras ° 3= a ` : T \ ! \ { ! %; }* f at : a ; : ; tlt& 1 , ± ; ! ! - - } ; ia ® 1 » » ® 3 ° of t (\ { _ \ \ }\{ 75 : itionlinsaillii SIR URIniall City of Dublin-Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments Private Businesses, Organizations,and Individuals Kaiser Permanente(KAISER) Response to KAISER-1 The author provided introductory remarks to open the letter. No response is necessary Response to KAISER-2 The author provided background aboutthe Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project. No response is necessary. Response to KAISER-3 The author stated that the Draft EIR provides a thorough description of the proposed Medical Center, including measures Kaiser willimplement duringconstruction to minimize impacts. The author stated that Kaiser is committed to contributing its"fair share"of traffic and infrastructure improvements at each phase andbelieves that these improvements will have substantial contributions to the local transportation system. No response is necessary Response to KAISER-4 The author stated that the Draft EIR's analysis is based on very conservativeassumptions regarding the impacts of project construction and noted that this approach yields"worst-case"conclusions about subjects such as traffic, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions The author used the example of greenhouse gas emissions and noted that the Draft EIR assumed that all vehicle trips would be "new"trips, rather than trips that would be diverted from other existing medical facilities. The author stated that this results in project-specific impacts being overstated, particularly given that the project would be expected to bring health care services closer to residents The author also listed various voluntary measures theprojectwouldimplement that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions such as green building and operational practices. The author is correct in noting that the Draft OR employs conservative assumptions that yield worst-case"conclusions Regarding the example of all vehicle trips being considered"new" and not adjusting for reassignment of existing trips, it is a widely accepted practice employed by lead agencies in California and throughout the United States to treat all trips associated with a project as new" This is in large partdue to the speculativenature of attempting to forecast what type of trips would be reassigned (employee, patient, visitor,vendor, etc ) and where they would be diverted from, particularly given that manydetails of the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center(and associated commercial use)are notyet known. As such,any attempts to adjust for reassignment of trips would be very difficult to substantiate and would likely be considered an understatement of the full impacts of the proposed action. Consequently,the mobile sourceemissionsvalues reported in Table 3 2-79—the single largestemissions source—likely overstate actual greenhouse emissions. A statement has been added to Impact AIR-6(Greenhouse Gas Emissions) explaining why vehicle trips were treated as"new" and the change is noted in Section 4, Errata Response to KAISER-5 The author referenced an attachment with minor suggested revisions to the Draft EIR. Refer to Response to KAISER-7 through Response to KAISER-27. FnstCarbonSolutions 349 City ofDublin—Moser Dublin Metl¢o!Center Protect Responses to Written Comments Final FIR Response to KAISER-6 The author provided closing remarks to conclude the letter No response is necessary. Response to KAISER-7 The author requested that the list of discretionary and ministerial actions on Draft EIR page 2-19he clarified to note that a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map is a discretionary action. The change has been made and is noted in Section 4, Errata. Response to KAISER-8 The author requested that the list of responsibleand trustee agencies on Draft EIR page 2-20 be amended to include the California Department of Fish and Wildlife The change has been made and is noted in Section 4, Errata. Response to KAISER-9 The author requested that the first paragraph on page 3 2-7 be updated to note the regulatory status of inventorying short-lived climate pollutantspursuant to Senate Bill 605. The change has been made and is noted in Section 4, Errata Response to KAISER-10 The author requested that the discussion of the legal challenge to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)2010 CEQA thresholds on page 3.2-19be revised to note the outcome of the case in December 2015 Thechanges have been made and is noted in Section 4, Errata Response to KAISER-11 The author requested that the discussion of Renewable Electricity Standards on page 3.2-29be revised to note legislation that superseded the Executive Orders issued in 2002 and 2010. The change has been made and is noted in Section 4, Errata. Response to KAISER-12 The author requested that Table 3.2-17be revised to correct the values shown in the "Average Daily Emissions (pounds/day)" row The author indicated that the correct values represent "Total Emissions (pounds)" in the preceding row divided by 153 working days The values in the row have been corrected as described and the changes are noted in Section 4, Errata. These revisionsdo not result in any changes to the conclusions on significanceof impacts in the Draft EIR Response to KAISER-13 The author requested that Mitigation Measure AIR-3b be revised to (1)state that use of Tier 4 is only required tothe extent feasible,and (2)the City of Dublin Community Development Director has the discretion to waive this requirement with respect to individual pieces ofequipment provided that 3-50 F,rstcarbon Solutions i„mom. m...,,.,..,..,,..r,mm..,.a.. G4'of Dub/on—Kaiser oobbn Medical enter Project Final FIR Responses to Written Comments the applicant demonstrates that the waiverwill not cause exceedance of applicable thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants Mitigation Measure AIR-3b reflects BAAQMD guidance for mitigating construction emissions Moreover,her 4 construction equipment is widely available in the San Francisco Bay Area region and would be expected to be even more so by the time construction begins. Should the applicant encounter challenges in securingTier 4 construction equipment, the City of Dublin Is willing to work withthe applicant to identify alternative approaches that satisfy this mitigation measure. Response to KAISER-14 The author requested that a typographical error on page 3 2-69 be corrected The change has been made and is noted in Section 4,Errata. Response to KAISER-15 The author requested that the titleof Table 3 2-63be amended to include theword"Existing" The change has been made and is noted in Section 4, Errata Response to KAISER-16 The author requested that the columns in Table 32-63 labeled "1-580 Link 599 Health Risks" be amended to include the words Per Million People." The change has been made and is noted in Section 4, Errata. Response to KAISER-17 The author requested that the energy consumption values in Table 3.2-79 be revised to reflect the recent change in Renewable Portfolio Standard objective of 50 percent by 2030 The residual significance ofImpact AIR-6(Greenhouse Gas Emissions)was found to be significant and unavoidable. This accounted for the previous Renewable Portfolio Standard objective of 33 percent by 2030 However,as shown in Table 32-78,the analysis only assumed a 20 4 percent greenhouse gas reduction (and not 33 percent) pursuant to the ARB's "PG&E Emission Factor Local Government Operations Protocol." If the energy consumption values in Table 3 2-79 were recalculated to account for 50 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard,the full 50 percent reduction could not be taken for the same reasons the full 33 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard could not be taken (i.e,ARB's"PG&E Emission Factor Local Government Operations Protocol"). Regardless, even if the full 50 percentcould be accounted for, it wouldnot materiallyalter the conclusion because energy consumption represents a small percent(16 percent) of total project greenhouse gas emissions. Thus,the project's greenhouse gas emissions wouldstill exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold and the conclusion would remain significant and unavoidable For these reasons,there is no basis to revise to recalculate the values in Table 3.2-79 in themanner requested by the author. FirstCOrbon Solutions 3-SI c w+n.v ine.o on rA"..•4 nlvssysrocme FEIR\37 zam,sem cok.w.iw w[wn mmmrm.ec. City of Dublin—Kinser Dublin Medical Center Protect Responses to Written Comments Final FIR Response to KAISER-18 The author requested that the entry in Table 3 2-81 regarding"A 3 4 Commercial Recycling Program" be amended to include theword "Consistent" The change has been made and is noted In Section 4, Errata Response to KAISER-19 The author requested that the discussion of the drainage ditch on Draft EIR pages 3.3-5 and 33-6 address whether or not the feature would be subject to State jurisdiction The change has been made and is noted in Section 4, Errata Response to KAISER-20 The author noted that the discussion on page 33-16 regarding Sections 2050 through 2098 of the California Fish and Game Code is duplicative of the prior discussion of the California Endangered Species Act and requested that brief discussion about California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 raptors) and 1600(jurisdictional streambeds) be added Although the discussion ofCalifornia Fish andGame Code Sections 2050 through 2098 is indeed duplicative of the California Endangered Species Act,this is no different from how regulatory framework is addressed elsewhere in the Draft EIR (eg.,the Geology, Soils, and Seismicity section discusses the California Budding Code and then, later, how the City of Dublin has adopted the same code as part of its Municipal Code) Thus,there is no basis to make any changes to this discussion Discussion of California Fish and GameCode Sections1600 and 3503 has been added to the Draft EIR and the change is noted in Section 4, Errata Response to KAISER-21 The author requested that Mitigation Measure BIO-lc be clarified to note that occupied burrows must be avoiding during the nesting season The change has been made and is noted in Section 4, Errata. Response to KAISER-22 W The author requested that the discussion of the drainage ditch on page 3.3-26 be revised to include the words or State law" n S. The change has been made and is noted in Section 4, Errata Response to KAISER-23 oi The author requested that Draft EIR Section 34,Cultural Resources include discussion of Assembly Bill 52 tribal consultation requirements, which took effect on July 1, 2015 but do not apply to the r proposed project because the Notice of Preparation wasreleased prior to that date The change has been made and is noted in Section 4, Errata r, 3-52 FrstCarbon Solutions q x..sse..a,. reins zwx .m.nn..o",.mwm..oo.m...a". 4 City of Dublin-Koper Dublin Me0cal Center protect Final EIR Responses to Written Comments Response to KAISER-24 The author requested that the discussion of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPDES) requirements on page 3.7-4 be revised to note that the proposed project is not subject to hydromodificationrequirements. The change has been made and is noted in Section 4, Errata Response to KAISER-25 The author requested that Mitigation Measure NVD-ib be revised to note that the proposed project is not subject to hydromodification requirements The change has been made and is noted in Section 4, Errata Response to KAISER-26 The author requested that the text on page 3.11-93be clarified to note that the cumulative traffic scenario represents Year 2040 The change has been made and is noted in Section 4, Errata Response to KAISER-27 The author requested that the description of the Corporate Office Campus Alternative on page 5-10 be revised to remove a statement that"buildings would employ a contemporary appearance with extensive use of glass,"as it would be premature to comment on design aspects of an alternative that has not been designed As stated on Draft EIR page 5-10,the purposeof the Corporate Office Campus Alternative is to provide the decision-makers with a comparison of what level of development could occur under the existing General Plan andSpecific Plan land use designations of"Office Campus" It is a conceptual land use alternative that is evaluated strictly for CEQA purposes; no architectural drawings or engineering planshave prepared for any aspect of thisalternative The statement that the"buildings would employ a contemporary appearance with extensive use of glass" is general in nature and simply intended to give the reader a basic idea of the visual appearance of the CorporateOffice Campus Alternative It is in no way premature to make this statement,just as it is not premature to make any other statementsaboutthe basic characteristics of this alternative(number ofbuildings, layout, location of access points, parking facilities, etc ) On the contrary,the more description that can be provided about the alternative,the better the reader can understand how this alternative compares with the proposed project,which is consistent with CEQA informed decision-making principles For these reasons,there is no basis to revise this statement. NrstCabon Solutions 3-53 CHAI Page 1 of 1 From: Lily Chai [rialto lilychai @'gmail corn] Sent:Thursday, March 17, 2016 11:38 AM To: Knsti Bascom Subject: Not in support of Kaiser Dubin Medical Center at 3200 Dublin Blvd Dear Ms. Bascom. My parents and I own a condo across thestreet from the proposed site. They intend to retire in this location and we are very familiar with the Dublin area. Were active in the community and love the environment and 1 appreciate the boom of growth we've experienced the last several years. lowever, along with this growth, we'\e also experienced some pain points that I'm certain has beenechoed by many Dublin constituents. We know andfear the bottleneck traffic that will occur shouldthe Kaiser hospital be built across the street. Additionally, the noise pollution will become even worse. Its already pretty bad now as it is, the Toll Brother's condos did not use high quality double pane windows to keep noise out. My parents 2 already limit when they open their window at this point dueto the current traffic on DublinBlvd, but with the entrance of Kaiser, they'llnever be able to open their windows again dueto the constant traffic that will be on DublinBlvd at every hour of the day and night. I believe there are several other viable options for the Kaiser propertythat isn't so close to residential neighborhoods. The City of Dublin has made many good choices in the past for buildouts -such as the 3 HaciendaCrossings and Target center atthe corner of El Charro and Dublin. Please continue to make wise decisions and stop the build of the Kaiser hospital on 3200 Dublin. Thank you for your time and consideration, 4 Lily Chai City ofvcblm-KmmrWblm Meehan Center Project Final FIR Responses to Written Comments Lily Choi(CHAT/ Response to CHAT-1 The author explained that she and her parentsown a condominium on theopposite side of Dublin Boulevard from theproject site,and noted that her parents intend to retire at this location No response is necessary Response to al/11-2 The author expressed concern about traffic congestion that would occur as a result of the proposed project. She also noted that existing traffic noise levels were"pretty bad"and noted that her condominium does not have double paned windows She indicated that her parents currently limit the times they open their windows based on existing traffic noise levels and stated that"they'll never be able to open their windows again due the constant traffic that will be on Dublin Boulevard everyhour of the day and night" The Draft EIR evaluated traffic impacts associated with the proposed project, including the intersections of Dublin Boulevard/Keegan Street and Dublin Boulevard/Lockhart Street—the intersections closest to the Terraces at Dublin Ranch; referto Draft EIR pages 3 11-49 through 3.11-118 Mitigation measures are proposed to improve operations; refer to Section 3 11, Transportation for further discussion The Draft EIR's noise analysis included ambient noise monitoring at locations around the project site, including at locations the "Terraces at Dublin Ranch,'the author's condominium complex. Two locations within the Terraces at Dublin Ranch were monitored between 12:00 p m.and 3 30 p m on Wednesday,January 21, 2015 (ST-2 and ST-3; refer to Exhibit 39-1) and the results were reported in Table 39-4 As indicated in the table, Location ST-2 (the pool area)wasexposed to an averagenoise level(Leq)of 56 0 dBAand a maximum noise level (Lm,„)of 76.8 dB, while location ST-3(the Dublin Boulevard entrance)was exposed to an average noise level(Leq) of 65 0 dRA and a maximumnoise level (Lm,„)of 80 7 dB. For comparison purposes,the City of Dublin's Land Use Compatibility Noise Standards (reproduced in Draft EIR Table 3 9-9) indicated that noise levels up to 60 dB are"Normally Acceptable”for residential uses and noise levels between 61 and 70 dB are"Conditionally Acceptable”for residential uses. (It should be noted that the noise levels are based on average noise levels overa 24-hour period with penalties applied for nighttime noise.) Thus,the averagenoise level at ST-2 (56.0 dB) would fall within the "NormallyAcceptable" range,while the average noise levels at ST-3(65 0) wouldfall within the "Conditionally Acceptable" range. Moreover,the ST-3 noise readings indicate this receptor location is exposed tosubstantial roadway noise from both DublinBoulevard and 1-580. Accordingly,the Draft HR evaluated changes in roadway noise levels associated with the proposed project in Impact NOI-3 in Section 3.9, Noise. This included an evaluation of roadway noiselevelsat receptors located along DublinBoulevard, including the Terraces at Dublin Ranch. The analysis found that the proposed project would serve to reduce roadway noise exposure for most receptorson the north side of DublinBoulevard because of the shielding provided by the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center buildings. This reduction in noise levels is graphically depicted in Exhibit 3.9-5 (Cumulative No Project)and Exhibit 3.9-6(Cumulative With Project). Post-project noise levels at the Terraces at First(urban Solutions 3-57 City of Dublin—Kinser Dublin Med,col Centel-Pro/Mt Responses to Written Comments Final FIR Dublin would range from 00(no change)to a -3.5 reduction compared with the without project scenario Moreover, no receptors would experience an increase in noise levels. For these reasons, the proposed project would not exacerbate roadway noise impacts at the Terraces at Dublin Ranch or any other land use in the project vicinity. Response to CHAT-3 The author stated that there are several other viable options for the project siteand stated that the City of Dublin has made good choices in the past,citing the examples of Hacienda Crossings and Fallon Gateway The author urged the City to stop the development of the Kaiser Medical Center at the project site The Draft EIR evaluated two development alternatives to the proposed project in Section 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Project The Reduced Density Alternative consisted of a 25 percent reduction in the size of the proposed project,and the CorporateOffice Campus Alternative considered a12-million-square-foot office complex on the project site Both alternatives were found to lessen the severity of, butnot to avoid,the proposed project's significant impacts associated with air quality/greenhouse gas emissions and transportation Additionally,the Draft EIR considered three separate locations for the proposed project and found none of them were feasible because of small size, commitment to other uses, or that Kaiser did not own,control,or haveaccess to the site. In summary,theDraft EIR considered both alternative land use concepts for the project site and alternative locations for the proposed project,and found that they did not avoid the proposed project's significant impacts or were not feasible locations Response to CHAI-4 The author provided closing remarks to conclude the letter No response is necessary 3-58 FinrCarbon solutions om...on.n= o.,nen.umlo+'mn,zcusemn0_ onvsxw...m=w r..00.:.uo m..,fmm..ne... City of Dublin-Kaiser Dublm Medico!Center Project Final EIR Errata SECTION 4: ERRATA The following are revisions to the Draft EIR for the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project These revisions are minor modifications and clarifications to the document, and do not change the significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions withinthe Draft EIR. The revisions are listed by page number. All additions to the text are underlined (underlined) and all deletions from the text are stricken (staeken) 4.1 - Changes in Response to Specific Comments Executive Summary Page ES-I, ProjectDescription The fourth bullet has been modified to reference in the inclusion of related services(skillednursing, assisted living,or licensedcare facilities) inPhase 3 of the project. Suchuseshave been shifted from Phase 1E3 Phase 3: 280,000 square feet of medical office building, related services (skilled nursing,assisted living, or licensed care facilities),and parking garage This phase would be developed between 2035 and 2040. Section 2, Project Description Page 2-1, Existing Land Use Activities The secondparagraph has been modified to strike the reference to the storm drain box culvert being in the Caltrans right-of-way Two storm drainage utility easements cross the project site in a north-south direction The western easement extends into theproject sitealong the Keegan Street alignment and contains a 96-inch-diameter underground storm drain line The eastern easement extends into the project site along the Lockhart Street alignment and contains a 10-foot by 8-foot concrete box culvert Both lines discharge into a double 10-foot by 9-foot concrete box culvert that parallels the north side of 1-580 within ho ^'•'^ ight of way Page 2-9, Kaiser Medical Campus The bulleted list of health care services to be provided byKaiser Permanente at the project site has been modified to add skilled nursing,assisted living, or licensed care facilities. These uses have been shifted to a possible use in Phase 3 of the medical campus instead of on the commercial parcel Skilled nursing, assisted living, or licensedcare facilities. Page 2-10, Phase 3 The last sentence has been modified to include reference to skilled nursing, assisted living, or licensed care facilities These uses have been shifted to a possible use in Phase 3 of the medical campusinstead of on the commercial parcel F ctcarbon Solutions 1 City of Dublin-Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Errata Finnan? Depending upon future demand, Phase 3 may be repurposed for other Kaiser Medical Campus health care functions, including regional laboratory,skilled nursing, assisted living licensed care facilitiesccall center, or medical officefunctions Page 2-10,2.3.3-Commercial Uses The second to the last sentence has been removed to reflect the uses being shifted to Phase 3 of the medical campus. Page 2-19, Discretionary and Ministerial Actions The bulleted list of discretionary and ministerial actions has been modified to note that a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map is a discretionary action Discretionary approvals and permits are required by the City of Dublin for implementation of the proposed project The project application would require the following discretionary approvals and actions, including F EIR Certification General Plan Amendment Specific Plan Amendment Planned Development Rezone (Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans) r Site Development Review Vesting Tentative Parcel Map(Discretionary)or Lot Line Adjustment (Ministerial) Subsequent Permits including, but notlimited to,grading,sitework,and building permits Page 2-10, Responsible and Trustee Agencies The bulleted list of responsible and trustee agencies has been amended to include the California Department of Fish and Wildlife r A number of other agencies in addition to the City of Dublin will serve as Responsible and Trustee Agencies, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 and Section 15386, r respectively This Draft EIR will provide environmental information tothese agencies and other public agencies,which may be required to grant approvals or coordinate with other agencies,as part of project implementation These agencies may include but are not limited to the following y" California Department of Transportation M California Department of Fish and Wildlife fr California Regional WaterQuality Control Board San Francisco Region County of Alameda Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission r City of Livermore v 0-3 Firstcarbon Solutions ccmns Fin meuu+,.n..wino,a IPI Y CO of Dublin-Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Final EIF Errata City of Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit District Dublin-San Ramon Services District Section 3.2,Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Page 3.2-7, First Paragraph The first paragraph has been updated to note the regulatory status of inventorying short-lived climate pollutants pursuant to Senate Bill 605 The State has begun the process of addressing pollutants referred to as short-lived climate pollutants SenateBill 605,approved by the Governor on September 14, 2014, requires the ARB to complete a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants by January 1, 2016. ARB will complete an emission inventory of these pollutants, identify research needs, identify existing and potential new control measures thatoffer co- benefits, and coordinate with other state agencies and districts to develop measures. As of April 2016,ARB had issued a Draft Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy and held several publicworkshops, but a final strategy has yet to be adopted. Page 3.2-19, FourthParagraph, Sentences 1 through 6 The discussion of the legal challenge to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD) 2010 CEQA thresholds has been revised to note the outcome of the case This assessment is based on BAAQMD's 2010 CEQA thresholds. BAAQMD's adoption of its 2010 thresholds were havehaye-lieea challenged in the lawsuit ofCalifornia Building Industry Association v BAAQMD which was decided by ispnd.:g-befere the California Supreme Court on December 17, 2015(Supreme Court Case No. S213478) The3upreme-Eeurt The California Supreme Court Eeu4-ef-Appeal decision that CEQA does not require the analysis of the impacts of the existing environment on the Projectexcept in limited circumstances The Supreme Court rulingdid not address BAAQMD's adoption of the thresholds and the adequacy of the scientific basis for those thresholds - : The scientific and evidentiary basis supporting the BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds are set forth in the studies and documents in BAAQMD's record for adoption of the thresholds, including, butnot limited to,the Options and Justification Report(dated October 2009) prepared by BAAQMD. Page 3.2-29, Third Paragraph The discussion of Renewable Electricity Standards has been revised to note legislation that superseded the Executive Orders SB 1078-Renewable Electricity Standards. On September 12, 2002,Governor Gray Davis signed SB 1078 requiring California togenerate 20 percent of its electricityfrom renewable Forst Corbon Solutions 0-3 City of Dublin-Kamer Dublin Medical Center Project Errata Fnal FIR energy by 2017. SB 1078 changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017 On November 17, 2008,Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order 5-14-08,which established a Renewable Portfolio Standard target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020 Governor Schwarzenegger also directed the ARB(Executive Order S-21-09)to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the State's load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020 The ARB Board approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010 by Resolution 10-23 These Executive Orders were superseded by statuteunder SB 1X-2,signed by Governor Brown on April 12, 2011 Subsequently,on October 7, 2015, Governor Brown signed SB 350, Increasing the standard to 50 percent renewable energy by 2030. Page 3.2-51, Table 3.2-17 Table 32-17 has been revised to correct the values shown in the"Average Daily Emissions pounds/day)" row The corrected values represent "Total Emissions(pounds)" in the preceding row divided by 153 working days,which was the value originallyerroneously shown Table 3.2-17:2016 Mitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Average Daily Rate) Air Pollutants Parameter ROG NO, PM10' PMsss Total Construction Emissions Total Emissions(tons)016 089 001 001 Total Emissions(pounds) 319 1,770 29 6 28 Average Daily Emissions 2 08 11 57 0 19 0.18 pounds/day)'13.3 183 433 133 Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No NotesExhaust only 2 Calculated by dividing the total poundsby 153 working days of construction for the year ROG=reactive organic gases NO,=oxides of nitrogen PMio=particulate matter 10 micr ons in diameter PMr 5=particulate matter 2 5 microns in diameter Source FirstCarbon Solutions 2015,Appendix B Page 3.2-69, Last Paragraph, Third Sentence The third sentence has been revised to correct a typographical error. Note that under the recent California Supreme Court case of California BuildingIndustry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality ManagementDistrict,the court ruled that the existing environment's impact on of-project users is not required to be analyzed under CEQA except in limited circumstances L FntCarbon Solutions m,Po my,,...„,,,,ssm„,. Fenn o,,.m.Po.....a no City of Dublin—Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Final E/R Errata Page 3.2-83, Table 3.2-63 The title of Table 3.2-63 has been amended to include the word "Existing" and note that the columns labeled "1-580 Link 599 Health Risks" representhealth risks per 1 million persons Table 3.2-63: Existing Cumulative 1-580 Health Risks Receptor Location I-580 Link 599 Health Risks Per 1 Million Persons Distance Receptor from l-580 PM" Number Receptor Description X Y feet) Cancer Risk (psJm'I Chronic Hl Acute HI 1 MFR west side 600274 4,173,522 670 414 052 0070011 2 MFR west side 600268 4,173,605 950 316 041 005 0011 3 MFR northwest side 600,282 4,173,692 1,250 23.1 041 005 0014 4 MFR north side 600,369 4,173,685 1,200 245041 005 0 019 5 MFR north side 600,448 0173,684 1,200 24.5 041 005 0030 6 MFR north side 600,573 4,173,688 1,210 242041 005 0 043 7 MFR north side 600,668 4,173,691 1,220 239041 005 0040 8 MFR north side 600,764 4,173,695 1,240 233041 0.05 0034 9 MFR north side 600,849 4,173,709 1,360 199 041005 0036 10 MFR northeast side 600,910 4,173,736 1370196041005 0 032 11 MFR south side 601,027 4,173,227 105 794062010 0026 12 SFR south side 600.8374,173,221 140 704 0.64 010 0025 13 SFR south side 600,6924,173,234 105 79 4 0.62 0.10 0035 14 SFR south side 600,5584,173,236 100 807 058008 0028 15 SFR south side 600,414 4,173,236 100 80.7 058 008 0012 16 SFR southwest side 600,246 4,173,235 100 807 058 0080006 NotesReceptor location based on World Geodetic System 19801 W G584),Universal Transverse Mercator i UTMI MFR=muit'1am iiy residential SF=single-family residential Source BAAQMD Page 3.2-107,After Table 3.2-80 A statement has been added explaining why vehicle trips were treated as "new." Finally, it should be noted that this analysis treats all vehicle trips associated with the proposed project as"new"and does not attempt to account for the reassignment of trips from other existing Kaiser Medical facilities to the proposed Kaiser Dublin Medical Center. It is a widely accepted practiceemployed by lead agencies in California to treat all trips associated with a protect as "new" This is In large partdue to thespeculative nature of attempting to forecast what type of trips would be reassigned (employee, patient,visitor, vendor, etc 1 and where they would be diverted from, particularly given that many details of firsWarbon Solutions 4-5 V. s\ 01,0 uan.5en 5mmsrea circa my ..a_ City of oubI,rrxaiser Oublm Medical Center Project Errata Final FIR the Kaiser Dublin MedicalCenter(and associated commercial use)are not yetknown. As such, any attempts to adjust for reassignment of trips would be very difficult to substantiate and would likely be considered an understatement of the full impacts of the proposed action Consequently,the mobile sourceemissions values reported in Table 3.2-79—the single largest emissions source—mare a conservative worst-case analysis of actual greenhouse gas emissions. Page 3.2-109, Table 3.2-81 The word "Consistent" has been added to the beginning of the "Project Consistency"discussion for A 34 Commercial Recycling Program" CAP Measure Project Consistency A.3 Solid Wasteand Recycling Measures Consistent. In 2005,the City began offering a free commercial recycling program that also includes free indoor recycling containers for businesses Indoor A 3 4 Commercial Recycling Program recycling containers encourage employees to recycle by conveniently locating recycling containersnear their work areas. The project would include recycling areas within the medical facilities Page 3.2-109, Summary The summary has been expanded to explainhow certain mitigation measures would reduce the severityof greenhouse gas emissions impacts, but wouldnot lessen the impact to a level of less than significant Summary The project would exceed the BAAQMD GHG efficiency measure. Accordingly,this is a significant Impact Mitigation Measures TRANS-la,TRANS-40a,TRANS-40b,and TRANS-40c require that a transportation demand management program, public transit facilities, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities be incorporated into the proposed prolect All of these measures would also serve to promote reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources;however,substantiating such reductions is very difficult Therefore,the residual significance of this impact is significant and unavoidable Page 3.2-109, Mitigation Measures The list of mitigation measures has been revised to correct erroneous references. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measures TRANS-la,TRANS-40a,TRANS-40b, and TRANS-40c. TRANS 8a,TRANS Sb,and TRANS 8c. w. 0-6 F,rstcarbon Solutions ei oac. .e«,r..x.....rpm,xixiusesussmW_ royssro s.rw m Err ale do.. City Of Dub!n-Nurser Dublin Medico!Center Protect Final Em Errata Section 3.3, Biological Resources Page 3.3-6, First Paragraph The discussion ofthe drainage ditch has been amended to note that the feature is not subjectto federalor state jurisdiction. Because the subject drainage ditchonly drains stormwater from the project site and does not contain continuously flowing water for 3 months or longer, it meets this definition of a roadside ditch. Thus, it is not subjectto federal or state jurisdiction Page 3.3-17,After First Paragraph The text on page 3 3-17 has been amended to include summaries of California Fish and Game Code 1600 and 3503 The California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 mandates that"it is unlawful for any person to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel or bank of any river,stream,or lake designated by the department, or use any material from the stream beds,without first notifying the department of such activity" CDFW's jurisdiction includes ephemeral, intermittent,and perennialwatercourses(including dry washes) characterized by (1)the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, 12)the location of definable bed and banks, and 13)the presence of existing fish or wildlife resources. Furthermore,CDFW jurisdiction is often extendedto habitats adjacent to watercourses,such as oak woodlands in canyon bottoms or willow woodlands that function as part of the riparian system. Historic court cases have further extended CDFW jurisdiction to include watercourses that seeminglydisappear, but re-emerge elsewhere. Under the CDFW definition,a watercourse need not exhibit evidence of an Ordinary High Water Mark to be claimed as jurisdiction However,CDFW does not regulate isolated wetlands;that is,those that are not associated with a river, stream,or lake California Fish and Wildlife Code Sections 3503,3503.5,and 3800 prohibit the"take possession,or destruction of birds,their nests or eggs." Disturbance that causes nest abandonment or loss of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment of eggs or young)is considered a take Pages 3.3-21 and 3.3-22, Mitigation Measure RIO-1c Mitigation Measure BIO-lc has been revised to clarify that certain actions would occur during the nesting season. MM B10-1c Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities for Phase 1A,the project applicant shall implementthe following measures that pertain the burrowing owl,as applicable 1 Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact Assessment Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities,the projectapplicant shall retain a qualified biologist toconduct two pre-construction surveys for the F stCarban Solutions 7 City of nubhn—Katser Duban Medical Center Protect Errata Final FIF burrowing owl for the entire site The first survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing activities and the second survey shall be conducted within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW)Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation If the surveys determine owls are present,then the measures set forth in this mitigation shall be followed. 2 Implement Avoidance Measures If direct impacts to owls can be avoided, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities,theproject applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures during all phases of construction to reduce oreliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period,from February 1 through 31 August. Avoid impactingburrows occupied during the non-breeding season by migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls. Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining(dragging a heavy chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking,cultivation, and urban, industrial,or agricultural development Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on-site worker's recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that equipment and other machinery do not collapse burrows. Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur(e.g,sites observed with nesting owls, designated use areas) 3. Conduct Burrow Exclusion. If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible during the nesting season, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities,theproject applicant, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and followingthe CDFW 2012 Staff Report. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out as per the California Department of Fish andGame 2012 Staff Report. 4 Prepare and Implement a Mitigation Plan. If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible and projectactivities may result In impacts to nesting,occupied,and satellite burrows and/orburrowing owl habitat during the nesting season,theproject applicant shall consult with the CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation plan that shall include replacement of impactedhabitat, number of burrows, and burrowing owl at a ratio approved by CDFW. The mitigation plan shall be based on 1 the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report R on BurrowingOwl Mitigation and the Plan shall be reviewed and sr 0-8 F stcurbon Solutions r NOs,,,.aIro -E au.n,,...,m,.n. on Pr City of Dublin-NOrser Dublin Medical Center Project Final EIF Errata accepted by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground-disturbing activities Pages 3.3-24 and 3.3-25, Mitigation Measure BIO-le Mitigation Measure 1310-le has been revised to strike Items 2 and 3, as a Section 7 consultation and a biological opinion are not required for the proposed project. MM BIO-le Prior toground disturbing activities for Phase 1A,the project applicant shall implementthe following measures for the California red-legged frog(CRLF),as applicable 1 The project applicant shall retain a qualifiedherpetologist toconduct habitat assessments for CRLF within the entire project area and based on the results of the habitat assessments,determine in consultation with the USFWS if protocol-level CRLF surveys will be required within the entire project area. The project applicant can forgo thehabitat assessments and conduct protocol-levelsurveys If required,the focused surveysshall follow the Revised Guidance on Site Assessment and FieldSurveys for the California Red-legged Frog (USFWS 2005). A CRLF survey report prepared to meet the protocol guidelines shall be submitted to the USFWS If no CRLF are found then no further mitigation is required 2. If CRLF are found on the project site then the project applicant shall ensure no net loss of habitat that shall be achieved through avoidance, preservation, creation and/or purchase of credits. Mitigation may include, but would not be limited to, on-siteand off-site preservation and creationof CRLF habitat, purchase of creditsat mitigation banks payment of inlieu fees approved by the agencies,or other agency approved and required mitigation measures i^..a«.^..g^ ^..e.a•^ne, re-c^^tie^,crc'Hen'art/er purchase of perimffteg-pr-rac-ess7 3.4,Avoidance measures mayinclude the following or equivalentprotective measures: Frrst[arbon Solutions 4-9 City of Dublin-Muses Dublin Medical Center Project Errata Final1IR To minimizedisturbance of breeding anddispersing CRLF, construction activity within CRLF upland habitat shall be conducted during the dry season between April 15 and October 15 or before the onset of the rainy season, whichever occurs first. If construction activities are necessary in CRLF upland habitat betweenOctober 15 and April 15,the project applicant would contact the USFWS for approval to extend the work period To minimizedisturbance and mortality of adult and juvenile CRLF in aquatic habitat and underground burrows,the projectapplicant should minimizethe extent of ground-disturbing activities within these habitats by requiring the contractor to limit the work area to theminimum necessary for construction. In addition,the project applicant should ensure that thecontractor installs temporary exclusion fence between the construction work area and potential aquatichabitat for all construction within grasslands near aquatic habitat. A minimum buffer zone of 150 feet shall be maintained around CRLF aquatic habitat during construction. No staging, parking, material storage or ground disturbance shall be allowed in the buffer zone The buffer zone will be clearly defined with construction fencing priorto the initiation of construction activities and shall be maintained until completion of construction The projectapplicant should ensure that a qualified wildlife biologist monitors all construction activities within CRLF upland habitat to ensure no take of individual CRLF occurs during projectconstruction If a CRLF is found,then the monitor wouldimmediately stop construction in that area and contact USFWS for development of a plan for how to proceed with construction If preservation of upland habitat is required byUSFWS,the habitat land shall be within a USFWS approvedconservation area. Page 3.3-26, Second Paragraph, First Sentence The discussion of the drainage ditch in Impact BI0-3 has been amended to note that it also is not consider jurisdictional under state law Ditches constructed on dry land and draining only uplands are not considered jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or state law Because the subject drainage ditch only drains stormwater from the project site and does not contain continuously flowing water for 3 months or longer, it is not federallyor state jurisdictional Section 3.4, Cultural Resources Page 3.4-8,After ThirdParagraph The discussion of regulatory framework has been amended to include a summary of Public Resources Code 21080.3.1 tribal consultation requirements 4-10 FirsKOrbon Solutions sn icon sus.ion 4.nu PP Dry of Dublin-Kaiser Dublin Medal Center Project Final FIR Errata Tribal Consultation PublicResources Code 21080.3.1 establishes tribal consultation requirements for new development projects that may impact Tribal Cultural Resources. The requirements took effect on July 1, 2015 Because the Notice of Preparation was issued onJanuary 12,2015 and,thus, predate the date the requirements took effect,they do not apply to the proposed project Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality Page 3.7-2, First Paragraph The first paragraph has been revised to correct the name of the watershed and to state that Arroyo Mochoempties into the Alamo Canal,which from that pointdownstream is called Arroyo de la Laguna Watershed The project site is located within the Line G-3 Taoca arc-Creek watershed,which drains the eastern portion of Dublin North of Interstate 580(1-580), Line G-3 Ta ;aza:a-Creek is located within a natural watercourse. South of the freeway, it is located in an earthen-lined channel and flows south to Arroyo Mocho in Pleasanton Arroyo Mocho, an earthen-lined flood channel,empties into Alamo Canal S^atl-San °amen r --k near 1-680,which from that point downstream is called continue Arroyo De La Laguna. This drainage reverts to a natural watercourse and is tributary to Alameda Creek in Sunol, which ultimately outlets to San Francisco Bay in Fremont Page 3.7-3, Flood HazardAreas The discussion of flood hazard areas has been amended to note that theflood mapping was conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 2009. Flood Hazard Areas As shown in Exhibit 3.7-1,the southern portion of the project site is located in Flood Hazard Area Zone AH, a 100-year flood hazard area defined as "Flood Depths 1-3 feet(usually sheet flow)". However,three Letters of Map Revision were processed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency between 2004 and 2007 that indicate that grading associated with the Dublin Ranch protect raised the developable portion of the prolect site to above the 100- year flood elevation These Letters of Map Revision takeprecedence over the mapping shown in Exhibit 3.7-1 Page 3.7-4,Second Paragraph The second paragraph has beenrevised to strike thefinal sentence,as hydromodification requirements wouldnot apply to the proposed project in accordance with Regional WaterQuality Control Board Order No R2-2003-0031 Fnstcarbon Solutions 4-31 Dry of Dublur'Nmser Dublin Medical Center Project Errata Final EIF Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3.g pertains to hydromodification management. This Municipal Regional Permit provision requires that stormwater discharges not cause an increase in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the existing condition Increases in runoff flow and volume must be managed so that the post-project runoff does not exceed estimated pre-project rates and durations,where such increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause increased potential for erosion of creek beds and banks,silt pollutant generation,or other adverse impacts on beneficial uses due to increased erosive force. . . - mats Page 3.7-6, Last Paragraph The lastparagraph has been revised to correct the name of the agency and to use text provided by Zone 7 Water Agency to summarize its regulatory responsibilities. Zone 7Water Aaencv - • ArKVIri Zone 7 is responsible for providing flood protection to the residents of Eastern Alameda County Zone 7 owns and maintains thedownstream facility, Line G-3, into which theproject proposes to drain Drainage plans for development protects must be reviewed by Zone 7 to ensure that the project does not propose any impacts to downstream facilities. In addition development projects that involve work within Zone 7's right-of-way or that involve construction, modification, or connection to a Zone 7 facility are required to obtain an Encroachment Permit and comply with Zone 7 standards and specifications .he-..CFOIVC i n^^•ra'reeks•• nhl^ Ala''ed- Courty As-a f receivieg ^dn-ge permit, mustcomply with ACFCWC standards and spec, c`tions. Page 3.7-11, Mitigation Measure HYD-1b Y' Mitigation Measure HYD-lb has been revised to strike all references to"hydromodification,"as this Y' wouldnot apply to the proposed project MM HYD-1b Prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed project,the City of Dublin shall verifythat the project applicant has prepared al operational stormwater qualitycontrol measures that comply with the requirements of the current Municipal Regional Permit a' Responsibilities include but are not limited to designing BMPs into a-u FatEarbon Solutions i City of Dublin-Kaner Dublin Medico!Center Project Final CIF rota project features and operations to reduce potential impacts to surface waterquality and to manage changes in the timing and quantity of runoff P, hyrke"ed",ree'4 associated with operation of theproject These features shall be included in the design-level drainage plan and final development drawings. Specifically,the final design shall include measures designed to mitigate potential water quality degradation wren e'f from all portions of completed developments The proposed project shall incorporate site design and BMPs described in the current version of Alameda County Clean Water Program,C 3 Stormwater TechnicalGuidance manual Low Impact Development features, includingminimizing disturbed areas and impervious cover and then infiltrating,storing,detaining, evapotranspiring, or biotreating stormwater runoff close to its source,shall be used at each development covered by theMunicipal Regional Permit Funding for long-term maintenance of all BMPs must he specified For each development project,the project sponsor shall establish a self-perpetuating Operation and Maintenance of Stormwater Treatment Systems plan (Municipal Regional Permitprovision C 3 h) Thisplan shallspecify a regular inspection schedule of stormwater treatment facilities in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit Reports documenting inspections and any remedial action conducted shall be submitted regularly to the City for review and approval. Page 3.7-11, Mitigation Measure HYD-3 Mitigation Measure HYD-3 has been revised to change the reference to AlamedaCounty Flood Control and Water Conservation District to Zone 7 Water Agency MM HYD-3 Prior to issuance of buildingpermits for the proposed project,the City of Dublinshall verify that the applicant has prepared a storm drainage and hydraulic study in accordance with City requirements The storm drainage and hydraulic study shall quantify the increase in stormwater runoff peak flow rates and volumes resulting from the project,and identify the potential to exceed the conveyance and storagecapacity of the local storm drainage system. The study shall incorporate the stormwatertreatment controls and LID measures that will be designed to capture and treat runoff The analysis shall verify whether the existing drainage infrastructure is adequate to receive and convey runoff from the proposed project. If the findings of the analysisreveal that implementation of a proposedproject would create runoff beyond the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage systems,the project shall be required to upgrade undersized components oradopt a different form of stormwater Firstccrbon Solutions 0-13 City of Dublin-Kaiser Dublin Maraca!Center Protect Errata Final EIR runoff management Prior toapproval of a proposed project,the final design drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin PublicWorks Department and Zone 7 Water Agencythe Alameda County flood Control and Water Conservation Dist-Het Pages 3.7-14 and 3.7-IS, Impact HYD-4 and Mitigation Measure HVD-4 Impact HYD-4 has been revised to note that the project site is outside a 100-year flood area,which eliminates the need for Mitigation Measure HYD-4. 100-Year Flood Hazard Areas Impact HYD-4: The proposed projectwould not may locate structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. Impact Analysis This impact addresses the potential for the project to place structures or housing within a 100-year flood hazard area(checklist questions g and h) As shown in Exhibit 3.7-1,the southern portion of theproject site is located in Flood Hazard Area Zone AH,which is a 100-year flood hazard area,which is defined as"Flood Depths 1-3 feet (usually sheet flow)" However,three Letters of Map Revision were processed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency between 2004 and 2007 that indicate that grading associated with the Dublin Ranch project raised the developable portion of the protect site to above the 100- year flood elevation These Letters of Map Revision take precedence over the mapping shown in Exhibit 3.7-1. As such, the proposed project would not locate structures within a 100-year flood hazard area Impacts would be less than significant h A..", prricN bw1d)^gs-9-a-f1e' d-aee :. dne d ts; tke Level of SignificanceBefore Mitigation Less than significant impact Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. 4-14 FrrstCarbon Solutions City of oubltn-Kaiser Oublm Medical Center Project Final EIF Errata discharge Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Section 3.11,Transportation Page 3.11-12, Table 3.11-15, Fifteenth Row An erroneous value in the row has been corrected 24 El Charro Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal AM 9 A PM 989 A Page 3.11-32, Trip Generation,Second Paragraph An explanation has been added to the end of the second paragraph to indicate the consideration of an assisted living facility's trip generation in Phase 3 of theproject Because the assisted living facility trip generationdaily rate is less than that of medical office space,this shift in land uses would not result In greater traffic generation than what was considered in the Draft ER. Trip generationestimates are shown in Table 3411-7 for the medical components of the project,which show that the Kaiser Medical Center is expected to generate approximately 32,520 weekday daily trips, including about 2,150 morning peak-hour and 3,210 evening peak-hour trips with completion of all medical uses. The Phase IA project is expected to generate approximately 7,950 daily trips, including 530 morning peak-hour and796 evening peak-hour trips Phase 3 ofthe project may include skilled nursing, assisted living,or licensed care facilities as part of the 280,000square feet However,to assess the worst case scenario only the higher trip generating medical office space land use was considered Page 3.11-33, Bulleted List The bulleted list beneath the second paragraph has been updated to remove the 250-unit assisted living facility from trip generations considered for the commercial parcel. The skilled nursing, assisted living, or licensed care facility project component has been shifted to Phase 3 Frrsttarbon SOM ions 0-15 City of Dublin-Xmser Dublin Medical Center Project Errata Final OR Page 3.11-33 and 3.11-34, Table 3.11-8 The last row of the table and the notes have been revised to remove the assisted living facility trip generation estimates, as such usehas been shifted from the commercial parcel (Phase lb)to Phase 3 of the project Because the assisted living facility trip generation daily rate is less than that of medical office space,thisshift in land uses would not result in greatertraffic generation than what was considered in the Draft EIR e 234-dabs 849 4-S 3443Ss Notes ITE land use category 820-Shopping Center(Ad/Streets,7-94,4-6P) The analysis reflects a 30 percent pass-by reduction for the weekday PM peak hour for the retail use No AM peak-hour pass-by reduction was taken forthe retail component Daily Ln(T)=0 65Ln(X)+583,R2 for fitted curve is 079,fitted curve produces slightly higher trip estimates than the average rate for this size project,which would be expected from a regional retail center AM Peak Hour Ln(T)=0 61Ln(%)+2 24,Enter=62%,Exit=38%,R2 for fitted curve is 0 56,fitted curveproduces slightly higher trip estimates than the average rate for this size project,which would be expected from a regional retail center PM Peak Hour Ln(T)=067Ln(X)+3 31,Enter=48%,Exit=52%,R2 for fitted curve is 081,fitted curveproduces slightly higher trip estimates than the average rate for this size project,which would be expected from a regional retail center ITE Trip Generation(9t Edition)land use category 210-General OfficeBuilding(Ad)Streets,7-9A,4-6P) Daily T=1103'(X) AM Peak Hour T=1 56*(X)(88%in,12%out) PM Peak Hour T=149'1%I(17%in,83%out) ITE and use category 760-Research and Development Center(Pk Hr AM&PM) Daily LN(T)=083"LN(X)+309 R2 value is 073,fitted curve and average rate produce similar estimates for this size project AM Peak Hour LN(T)=087"LN(%)+086)83%in,17%out),R2 value is 076,fitted curve and average rate produce similar estimates for this size project PM Peak Hour LN(T)=083'LN(%)+106(15%in.85%out),R2 value is 076,fitted curve and average rate produce similar estimates for this size project ITE land use category 310-Hotel(Ad/Streets,7-9A,4-6P) Daily T=817'(X) AM Peak Hour T=053*(%)(59%in,41%out) i PM Peak Hour T=060*(X)(51%in,49%out) Baly T -' 11*c7 SourceFehr&Peers 2015 Page 3.11-85, Mitigation Measure TRANS-12 rl The text of the mitigation measure has been revised to clarify the intent that fair-share contributions to these two regional improvements will be collected, not actual construction of theimprovements, which are regional In nature and involving multiple local and state jurisdictions. 4-16 FvstCarbon Solutions A noir, xn-s.,_ssaw_ reiru City of Dublin-Kaiser Dublin Medical center Project Final EIR Errata MM TRANS-12 Prior to occupancy of Phase 2,the applicant shall provide its fair-share cost contribution to the Santa Rita/580 Eastbound ramp improvements The interchange improvements include constructing a second southbound left-turn laneand upgrading the traffic signal intersection of the Santa Rita/I-580 Eastbound ramp An escrow account where fair- share funds can be deposited for interchange improvements not included in local or regional fee programs shall be established In coordination with the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and the Alameda CTC. The City will ensure that thefair- share costs are collected for the escrow account and maintained for the needed improvements The fair-sharepayments would be above the required local and regional fee payments, unless the identified improvements are included or added to a local or regional fee program prior to occupancy of Phase 2. If the identified improvements are added to a local or regional fee program prior to occupancy of Phase 2,then the applicant shall pay the fee established underthe fee program prior to occupancy of Phase 2 as satisfaction of this mitigation measure. Prer-te g tti^' " c rg"'i i^t°•seven of Sa^Y42ita Pead/I-3°R-Eastb^und Ramps The Page 3.11-89,Mitigation Measure TRANS-18 The text of the mitigation measure has been revised to clarify the intent that fair share contributions to these two regional improvements will be collected, not actual construction of the improvements, which are regional in nature and involvingmultiple local and state Jurisdictions MM TRANS-18 Prior to occupancy of Phase 2,the applicant shall provide its fair-share cost contribution to the Phase 2 Fallon/I-580/El Charro interchange improvements The interchange improvements include (1) Reconstruction of overcrossrng to provide four-lanes in each direction, (2) reconstruction of the southbound to eastbound loop on-ramp; (3)widening of the eastbound off-ramp to provide two exit lanes with two left turn and two right tum lanes; 14)widening of the eastbound on-ramp; (5) widening of the westbound off-ramp to provide two left tum and two right turn lanes, (6)and widening of the westbound on-ramp. An escrow account where fair- share funds can be deposited for interchange improvements not included in local or regional fee programs shall be established in coordination with the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and the Alameda CTC TheCity will ensure that thefair- share costs are collected for the escrow account and maintained for the needed improvements. The fair-share payments would be above the required local and regional fee payments, unless the identified improvements are included or added to a local or regional fee program prior to occupancy of Phase 2. If the identified improvements are added to a local or regional fee program prior to occupancy of Phase 2,then the applicant shall pay the fee established under the fee program prior to occupancy of Phase 2 as satisfactionof this mitigation measure. T r_°,,.- Rya° Road rrstccrbon Solutions d] City of Dublin-Kuser Dublin Metlrml Center Project Errata Final UR Page 3.11-93, Cumulative Traffic Impacts The sentence describing the cumulative traffic impact scenario has been revised to note that it represents Year 2040. Cumulative TrafficImpacts The proposed projectwould generate new trips that would contribute tounacceptable traffic operationsunder Cumulative Conditions (Year 20401. Page 3.11-129, Last Paragraph A statement in the last paragraph has been revised to notethe correct horizon yearof Alameda County Transportation Commission roadway analyses Thisanalysis considers the impact of the project on freeways, major arterials, and other major roadways as designated by Alameda CTC Main items of discussion include the geographic scope of the Alameda CTC roadway analysis,the analysis method,and the results for 20202025 and 2040 Section 5,Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 5-3 and Page 5-4,Alternative 1—No Project Alternative The summary of the No Project Alternative has been amended to note the existing General Planand Specific Plan land use designation for the project site and reference the Corporate Office Campus Alternative CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires EIRs to evaluate a"No Project Alternative,' which is defined as the"circumstance under which the project does not proceed" The project site currently has a land use designation under the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan J"Office Campus"1 and a preliminary Planned Development Zoning Distnct There are no approved entitlements for theproject site,so at this moment,there is no project that could be constructed without first obtaining a revised Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning District and Site Development Review approval, at a minimum or any future development to take place on the site. Because the project site currently has no planning approvals,the No Project Alternative consists of the project site remaining undeveloped for the foreseeable future Refer to theCorporate Office Campus Alternative for an alternative that considers buildout of the protect site under the existing General Plan andSpecific Plan landuse designation of"Office Campus." Page 5-14, First Paragraph and Nine Bulleted Items Thediscussion of the degree to whichthe Corporate Office Campus Alternative would advance the project objectives has been revised to strike the first,second,fourth,fifth,seventh, and eighth objectives,as this alternative would not develop health care uses or have a commercial component with a range of end uses 4-18 First oman Solutions City of aubi,n-xoaer Dublin Medical Center Project Final ElR Errata The Corporate Office Campus Alternative would advance some—butnot all—of the project objectives by virtue of developing office usesin place of a medical center. The Corporate Office Campus Alternative would advance the following objectives to an equivalent degree as the proposed project: within Dublin to serve existing and future demand in the •-• "-"ey•cg•er, rtality,economy g•ewt'•a^d -"de rargc of employment opportunities in Dublin and th surrounding Positively contribute to the local economy through new capital investment,the creation of new jobs,the provision of new services,and the expansion of the tax base, Facilitating the logical, orderly, and phased development of a high-visibility, infill site in order to achieve the highest-and-bestend uses at a site with good freeway access and proximity to public transportation; ne surrounding hills from I SoB,and Closing a gap in the bicycle and pedestrian network within the community by providing on-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities that link with existing facilitiesalong DublinBoulevard Appendix 1,Transportation Assessment Chapter 1, Page 17, First Paragraph, Second Sentence The text on page 17 has been revised to indicate that the LOS E standard for Caltrans facilities in the study area is consistent with Tn-Valley Transportation Council guidelines. A standard of LOSE or better on a peak hour basis was used as the planning objective for the evaluation of potential impacts of thisdevelopment on Caltrans facilities as that is the FnwCarbon SolutIons 0-19 Gry of Dublin—Kane(Dublin Medical Center Project Errata Final EM standard set for Caltrans facilities,consistent with In-Valley Transportation Council guidelines in th ' meda r'TC Chapter 8, Global Change All references to "2025" are hereby changed to "2020.' 4-20 FirstCarbon Solutions age 1 of 2 IFollows Conditional No.:119-09-024C JDate: May 03,2007 Case No.:07-09-0840A LOMR-F p as to Federal Emergency Management Agency 4xo ° aF Washington,D.C.20472 sb LETTER OF MAP REVISION BASED ON FILL DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL) COMMUNITY AND MAP PANEL INFORMATION LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION CITYOF DUBLIN,ALAMEDA A portionof Parcels 4 and 5,asshown on Parcel Map No.9003, COUNTY,CALIFORNIA recorded inBook 292, Pages 89 through 92,in the Office of the Recorder,Alameda County,California COMMUNITY The portion of property is more particularly described by the following COMMUNITY NO.:060705 metes and bounds: AFFECTED NUMBER:0607050002B I MAP PANELDATE:9/17/1997 LOCOING SOURCE:PONDING APPROXIMATE LATITUDE 8LONGITUDE OF PROPERTY:37.705, -121 868 SOURCE OF UT 8 LONG:PRECISION MAPPING STREETS 7.0 DATUM:WAD 83 DETERMINATION OUTCOME 1%ANNUAL LOWEST LOWEST BLOCK/ WHAT IS CHANCE ADJACENT LOT SUBDIVISION STREET REMOVED FROM FLOOD FLOOD GRADE ELEVATION SECTION THE SFHA ZONE ELEVATION ELEVATION (NGVD29) NOVO 29) (NGVD 29) Portion of X 3460 feet 3470 feel Property (unshaded) Special Flood Hazard Area (SERA) - The SFHA Is an area thatwould be Inundated by the floodhaving a I-percent chance of being aualed or exceeded in any given year(base flood) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS(Please refer to the appropdale section on Attachment I for the additional considerations listed below.) LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FILL RECOMMENDATION PORTIONS REMAIN IN THE SFHA Thia document provides the Federal Emergency Management Agency's determination regarding a request for a Lester of Map Revision based m Fill for the property described above Using the information submitted and the effective National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map. we rave determined that the describedpenknife) ofthe property(ies) is/are not located in the SERA. an area inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance ofbeing equaled or exceeded In any given year (baseflood) This document revises the effective NFIP map to remove the subject property from the SFHA located onthe effective NFIP map, therefore, the Federalmandatory flood insurancerequirement does not reply However, the lender has the optionle continue the flood insurance requirement toprotect its financial risk on the loan, A Preferred Risk alley(PRP)is available ror buildings located outside the SFHA, Information about the PRP and how one can apply is enclosed IThis determination isbased en the flood datapresently available. The enclosed documents provide additional Information regarding This letermination. II you have any questions about This document. please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center loll free at (877) 336-2627 1877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 3601 Eisenhower Avenue. Suite 130, Alexandria, VA 223046439, William R.Blanton Jr.CFM,Chief Engineering Management Section Mitigation Division Page 2 of 2 !Follows Conditional No.:99M9-6240 Date: May 03,2007 Case No.:07-09-0840A I LOMR-F Federal EmergencyManagementAgency sp`uF Washington,D.C.20472 4xp ss LETTER OF MAP REVISION BASED ON FILL DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL) ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONALCONSIDERATIONS) LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION(CONTINUED) BEGINNING at the northeast corner of Parcel4; thence S00°00'00"W, 504.21 feet;thence N87°07'31°W, 94.54 feet;thence along the tangent curve to the right having a radius of 626.50 feet, through a central angle of 06°27'12", for an arc distance of 70.56 feet to a point of reverse curvature, along the reverse curve tothe left having a radial bearing of N09°19'41"E, a radius of 1637.50 feet, through a central angle of 20°57'14',for an arc distance of 598.86 feet; thence S78022'27"W, 92.42 feet, thence along the tangent curve to the right 376.50 feet, through a centralangle of 05°18'41", for an arc distance of 34 90 feet;thence S83°41'08"W, 12.00 feel;thence N00°45'00°W, 606.01 feet; thence N17°07'28"E, 133.00feet; thence along the non-tangent curve to theleft, having a radial bearing of S17°07128°W, aradius of 5058.00 feet, through a centralangleof 10°02'29",for an arc distance of 886.45 feet; thence S00°00'00°W, 18.14 feet tothe POINT OF BEGINNING FILL RECOMMENDATION(This Additional Consideration applies to the preceding 1 Property.) The minimum NFIPcriteria for removal of the subject area based on fill havebeen met for this request and the nmunity in which the property is located has certifiedthat the area and anysubsequent structure(s)built on the tined area are reasonably safe from flooding. FEMA's Technical Bulletin 10-01 provides guidance for the construction of buildings onland elevated above the baseflood elevation through the placement of fill. Acopy of Technical Bulletin10-01 can be obtained by calling the FEMAMap Assistance Center toll free at(877)336-2627 877-FEMA MAP)or from our web site at http://www.fema.gov/miVtb1001.pdf. Although the minimum NFIP standards no longer apply to this area, some communities may have floodplain management regulations that are I more restrictiveand may continue to enforce some or all of their requirements in areasoutside the Special Flood Hazard Area. PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTYREMAIN IN THE SFHA(This Additional Consideration applies to the preceding 1 Property.) Portions of this property, but not thesubject of theDetermination/Comment document, may remain in the Special Flood Hazard Area. Therefore, any future construction or substantial improvement on the property remains subject to Federal, State/Commonwealth,and local regulations for floodplain management. it allachment provides additional Information regarding this rogues!. If you have any question about This allachment, please contact the s FEMA Map Assistance Centerloll free at (877) 3364827 (877-FEMA MAP) or by leller addressed Ia the Federal Emergency Management Agency,3601 EisenhowerAvenue,Suite 130.Alexandria,VA 22304-6439 Weeme;, R 4L Z , _ William R Blanton Jr.CFM.Chief i Engineering Management Section oESi\ y' o FederalEmergency Management Agency jWashington, D.C. 20472 caxo se ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING LETTERS OF MAP REVISION BASED ON FILL When making determinations on requests for Letters of Map Revision based on the placement of fill LOMR-Fs), the Department of HomelandSecurity's Federal EmergencyManagement Agency(FEMA) bases its determination on the flood hazard information available at the time of the determination. Requesters should be aware that flood conditions may change or new information may begenerated that would supersede FEMA's determination.In such cases,the community will be informed by letter. Requesters also should be aware that removal of a property(parcel of land or structure) from the Special Flood HazardArea(SFHA)means FEMA has determined the property is not subject to inundation bythe flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year(base flood). This does not mean the property is not subject to otherflood hazards. The propertycould be inundated by a flood with a magnitude greater than the base flood or by localized floodingnot shown on the effective NationalFlood Insurance Program(NFIP)map. The effect of a LOMR-F is it removes the Federal requirement for the lender torequire flood insurance coverage for the property described. The LOMR-F isnot a waiver of the condition that the property owner maintain flood insurancecoverage for the property. Only the lender can waive the flood insurance purchase requirement because the lender imposed the requirement. The property owner must request and receive a written waiver from the lender before canceling the policy. The lendermay determine, on its own as a businessdecision,that it wishes tocontinue the flood insurance requirement to protect itsfinancial risk on the loan. The LOMR-F provides FEMA's continent onthe mandatory flood insurance requirements of the NFIP as they apply to a particular property. A LOMR-F is not a building permit,nor should It be construed as such.Any development, new construction, or substantial improvement of a property impacted by a LOMR-F must comply with all applicable State and local criteria and other Federal criteria. If a lender releases a propertyowner from the flood insurance requirement,and the propertyowner decides to cancel the policy and seek a refund, the NFIP will refund the premium paid for the current policy year, provided that no claim is pending or has been paid on the policy during the current policy year. The property owner must provide a written waiver of the insurance requirement from the lender to the property insurance agent or company servicing his or her policy. The agent or company will then process the refund request. Eventhough structures are not located in an SFHA,as mentioned above,they could be flooded by a flooding event with a greater magnitude than the base flood. In fact,more than 25 percent of all claims paid by the NFIP are for policies for structures located outside the SFHA in Zones B,C,X(shaded),or X(unshaded). More than one-fourth of all policies purchased under the NFIP protect structures located in these zones. The risk to structures located outside SFHAs is just not as great as the risk to structures located in SFHAs.Finally, approximately 90 percent of all federally declared disasters are caused by flooding, and homeowners insurance does not provide financial protection from this flooding. Therefore,FEMA encourages the widest possible coverage under the NFIP. LOMRFENC-I 111111 11111 MI MN NEN 111•1 NS NS 111111 ILMIA 111111 111111 lirr an 111111 IMI 1.111 I IMII Mit J.I A.MOB-3 Ier.I rat W. ..).......w emarAwo e..uai Swhi lem...r.en..t n1.60u002Wr3e•• 1KrgpK..M4 NW WAN YM'Mw.k 11404-044hi wle MK-I.up.-2 I•N-x 100.-41 MM-el nNW-le:00-e.IYM:IrM-1/Mn..N.nmeexi..,.mo.to.koom.m. TASSAJARA ROAD I l`_iJ j i1 47 k rY LANDS' OF 1.:',.DIMANTO ag r o tiU, C oros'49-E 142249' A 7 1 4 y rr 30" isr 9 Yhs0rriOi'.:'a9E 17 o yr 0 I 1422.49 a pCDONr g i.0eZ , N98'_ m w c0 JO' 1 mCl ti N 1 aid N u rn O U O i . w. r— A O f C D I y ..._ K. Q 1 Q.1 -- k oqf N0745'00'W T 293. 9yyN 9' INV1SINA1 I0Try1,, w A N - a, a zAIz 60 n-cs f pnr ON ! //1f 'm 1uP OJ Q rt--_ n D z 1• r, Q L' p- y°g, S r- 2, 80 N o a r1 o AA / f O A W0 l l 6 WGS•'914 t"E (' Q. a 466 6:'N00•00.00'E-- EC 1 1 N f 1 w. r tvcoAV N VI v'4 Co J Z K pp> ;_ CD 8nIOADODZ-I O y m OIUQQtiv0rPoNZ> rm i.a.to A<>r A0 s_ 0 br pFoD Try II 0 0 ri ,P A$ 4 N 3 n o D o 1> 8 Ul I IIOpi 0 AAMI 10 P Z o6, sT e ,0olK> 0 (...I a g8prnz (0 c-' i $0 g UI N A$ 087C1 _ t4J i=- S O N V,I I II V, ti 40110011111111111111111111! 11,1111 \ L 0. w- 0" 1 i CO PI O p9 O pm a Sv). r)„.. m d N o anO ° orZz aF D FALCONROADz JVV--- 8 s 1 EXHIBIT B FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, the City Council hereby makes these findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental impacts from adoption and implementation of the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California (“Specific Plan,” or “Project”), State Clearinghouse No. 2015012018, and means for mitigating those impacts. For the purpose of these findings, the term “EIR” means the Draft and Final EIR documents collectively, unless otherwise specified. These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the EIR. Instead, the findings provide a summary description of each impact, describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by the City, and state the findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the EIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in those documents supporting the EIR’s determinations regarding mitigation measures and the Project’s impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. The facts supporting these findings are found in the record as a whole for the Project. In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analysis and explanation in the EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings. SECTION 3.1 – AESTHETICS, LIGHT, AND GLARE Impact AES – 3: The proposed project may substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Mitigation Measures: MM AES – 3: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for either the medical campus or commercial uses, a Master Sign Program shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Dublin for review and approval that sets forth standards for illuminated signage. (Separate Master Sign Programs may be pursued for the medical campus and commercial uses as appropriate). The Master Sign Program shall set forth performance standards for illuminated signage, including (1) limitations on the size, location, and orientation of illuminated and non-illuminated pylon, monument, and wall signs; (2) a prohibition on digital and non-digital freeway billboards, flashing, oscillating, animated lights or other moving sign components; and (3) the use of dimmers or other devices intended to limit the intensity of illumination during late night and 2 early morning hours. The approved Master Sign Program shall be incorporated into the proposed project. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measure AES-3 requires the Master Sign Program to place limitations on the size, location, and orientation of illuminated and non-illuminated pylon, monument, and wall signs; prohibit digital and non-digital freeway billboards, flashing, oscillating, animated lights or other moving sign components; and require the use of dimmers or other devices intended to limit the intensity of illumination during late night and early morning hours. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Impact AES – 4: The project may create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Mitigation Measures: Implement MM AES – 3 and MM AES – 4: Prior to issuance of the building permit for each project building, the project applicant shall prepare and submit building plans to the City of Dublin for review and approval that demonstrate that exterior lighting fixtures would not create adverse spillover effects on adjoining land uses. The plans shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting fixtures are either fully shielded or employ full cut-off fixtures. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measure AES-4 is proposed requiring that all exterior lighting fixtures be either fully shielded or employ full cut-off fixtures to prevent adverse spillover effects onto nearby land uses. Additionally, Mitigation Measure AES-3 requires a Master Sign Program to be developed that places limits or prohibitions on various types of illuminated signage. (Specifically, digital and non-digital freeway billboards, flashing, oscillating, animated lights, or other moving sign components are prohibited.) With the implementation of these mitigation measures, light and glare impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. SECTION 3.2 – AIR QUALITY / GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3 Impact AIR – 1: The project may conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Mitigation Measures: Implement MMs AIR – 3a, AIR – 3b, and TRANS – 1a. (see below for text of mitigation measures) Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. Rationale for Finding: The Project would not be consistent with the goals of the air quality plan because of the exceedance of regional ozone precursor thresholds during operation. Mitigation Measures AIR – 3a, AIR – 3b and TRANS – 1a would help to reduce ozone precursor emissions, but not to a level of less than significant. Therefore, the project would conflict with the implementation of the air quality plan. The impact is significant and unavoidable. Impact AIR – 3: The project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS – 1a and: MM AIR – 3a During construction, the following air pollution control measures shall be implemented: • Exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day, or more as needed. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads and surfaces shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks shall be paved 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 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics 4 control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact both at the City of Dublin and at the office of the General Contractor regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 2 business days of a complaint or issue notification. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. MM AIR – 3b: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Dublin that demonstrate that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 off-road emissions standards. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. Rationale for Finding: The project would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for ROG and NOx during operation. With the incorporation of the mitigation measures, the emissions would be reduced, but not below the level of significance. Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Impact AIR – 6: Implementation of the project would generate direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment. Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS–1A, MM TRANS–40a, MM TRANS–40b, AND MM TRANS-40c. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. 5 Rationale of Finding: The Project’s greenhouse gas emissions would exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold. Even with the implementation of mitigation measures, the emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact AIR-7: Implementation of the project would conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS–1A, MM TRANS–40a, MM TRANS–40b, AND MM TRANS-40c. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. SECTION 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact BIO – 1: The proposed project may have a substantial adverse effect on special-status plant and wildlife species. Mitigation Measures: MM BIO – 1a: Prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, focused surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence of special-status plant species with potential to occur in the project site. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009). These guidelines require rare plant surveys to be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both “evident” and identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with known blooming periods, and/or during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. If no special-status plant species are found, then the project will not have any impacts to the species and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. If any of the species are found on-site and cannot be avoided, the following measures shall be required: • Where surveys determine that special-status plant species are present within or adjacent to the proposed project site, direct and indirect impacts of the project on the species (e.g., Congdon’s tarplant and/or San Joaquin spearscale) shall be avoided where feasible through the establishment of activity exclusion zones, where no ground-disturbing activities shall take place, including construction of new facilities, construction staging, or other temporary work areas. Activity exclusion zones for special-status plant species shall be established prior to construction activities around each occupied habitat site, the boundaries of which shall be clearly marked with standard orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its equivalent. 6 The establishment of activity exclusion zones shall not be required if no construction-related disturbances would occur within 250 feet of the occupied habitat site. The size of activity exclusion zones may be reduced through consultation with a qualified biologist and with concurrence from CDFW based on site-specific conditions. • If exclusion zones and avoidance of impacts on a special-status plant species are not feasible, then the loss of individuals or occupied habitat of a special-status plant species shall be compensated for through the acquisition, protection, and subsequent management of other existing occurrences. Before the implementation of compensation measures, the project’s applicant shall provide detailed information to the CDFW and lead agency on the quality of preserved habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing the areas, the responsible parties involved, and the other pertinent information that demonstrates the feasibility of the compensation. A mitigation plan identifying appropriate mitigation ratios shall be developed in consultation with, and approved by, the CDFW and the City prior to the commencement of any activities that would impact any special status plants. MM BIO – 1b: No more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance and vegetation removal during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to perform pre-construction breeding bird surveys. If any nests are found, they shall be flagged and protected with a suitable buffer. Buffer distance will vary based on species and conditions at the site, but is usually at least 50 feet, and up to 250 feet for raptors. Note that this mitigation measure does not apply to ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities that occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 to January 31). MM BIO – 1c: Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities for Phase 1A, the project applicant shall implement the following measures that pertain the burrowing owl, as applicable: 1. Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact Assessment. Prior to the first ground- disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct two pre- construction surveys for the burrowing owl for the entire site. The first survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing activities and the second survey shall be conducted within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the surveys determine owls are present, then the measures set forth in this mitigation shall be followed. 2. Implement Avoidance Measures. If direct impacts to owls can be avoided, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures during all phases of construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls. • Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from February 1 through 31 August. • Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls. 7 • Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a heavy chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial, or agricultural development. • Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on-site worker’s recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection. • Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that equipment and other machinery do not collapse burrows. • Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed with nesting owls, designated use areas). 3. Conduct Burrow Exclusion. If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out as per the California Department of Fish and Game 2012 Staff Report. 4. Prepare and Implement a Mitigation Plan. If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible and project activities may result in impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat, the project applicant shall consult with the CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation plan that shall include replacement of impacted habitat, number of burrows, and burrowing owl at a ratio approved by CDFW. The mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the Plan shall be reviewed and accepted by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground-disturbing activities. MM BIO – 1d: Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, a wildlife exclusion fence shall be installed along the project site boundary with the water quality basin to the west. The fence shall be designed and installed to prevent the California red-legged frog from entering the project site. MM BIO – 1e: Prior to ground disturbing activities for Phase 1A, the project applicant shall implement the following measures for the California red-legged frog (CRLF), as applicable: 1. The project applicant shall retain a qualified herpetologist to conduct habitat assessments for CRLF within the entire project area and based on the results of the habitat assessments, determine in consultation with the USFWS if protocol level CRLF surveys will be required within the entire project area. The project applicant can forgo the habitat assessments and conduct protocol-level surveys. If required, the focused surveys shall follow the Revised Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog (USFWS 2005). A CRLF survey report prepared to meet the protocol guidelines shall be submitted to the USFWS. If no CRLF are found then no further mitigation is required. 2. If CRLF are found on the project site then the project applicant shall ensure no net loss of habitat that shall be achieved through avoidance, preservation, creation and/or purchase of credits. Mitigation may include, but would not be limited to, on-site and off-site preservation and creation of CRLF habitat, purchase of credits at mitigation banks, payment of in lieu fees approved by the agencies, or other agency approved and required mitigation measures. 8 3. Avoidance measures may include the following or equivalent protective measures: • To minimize disturbance of breeding and dispersing CRLF, construction activity within CRLF upland habitat shall be conducted during the dry season between April 15 and October 15 or before the onset of the rainy season, whichever occurs first. If construction activities are necessary in CRLF upland habitat between October 15 and April 15, the project applicant would contact the USFWS for approval to extend the work period. • To minimize disturbance and mortality of adult and juvenile CRLF in aquatic habitat and underground burrows, the project applicant should minimize the extent of ground- disturbing activities within these habitats by requiring the contractor to limit the work area to the minimum necessary for construction. In addition, the project applicant should ensure that the contractor installs temporary exclusion fence between the construction work area and potential aquatic habitat for all construction within grasslands near aquatic habitat. A minimum buffer zone of 150 feet shall be maintained around CRLF aquatic habitat during construction. No staging, parking, material storage or ground disturbance shall be allowed in the buffer zone. The buffer zone will be clearly defined with construction fencing prior to the initiation of construction activities and shall be maintained until completion of construction. • The project applicant should ensure that a qualified wildlife biologist monitors all construction activities within CRLF upland habitat to ensure no take of individual CRLF occurs during project construction. If a CRLF is found, then the monitor would immediately stop construction in that area and contact USFWS for development of a plan for how to proceed with construction. • If preservation of upland habitat is required by USFWS, the habitat land shall be within a USFWS approved conservation area. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. SECTION 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact CUL – 1: Subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project may damage or destroy previously undiscovered historic resources. Mitigation Measures: MM CUL – 1: In the event that buried historic or archaeological resources are discovered during construction, operations shall stop within 50 feet of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to evaluate the resource in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15064.5. The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to 9 inform contractors of this requirement. If the resource does not qualify as a significant resource, then no further protection or study is necessary. If the resource does qualify as a significant resource then the impacts shall be avoided by project activities. If the resource cannot be avoided, adverse impacts to the resource shall be addressed. The archaeologist shall make recommendations concerning appropriate mitigation measures that shall be implemented to protect the resources, including but not limited to excavation and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the project area should be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. Impact CUL – 2: Subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project may damage or destroy previously undiscovered archaeological resources Mitigation Measures: Implement MM CUL – 1. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. Impact CUL – 3: Subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project may damage or destroy previously undiscovered paleontological resources. Mitigation Measures: MM CUL – 3: In the event a fossil is discovered during construction for the proposed project, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the paleontological 10 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. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. Impact CUL – 4: Subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project may damage or destroy previously undiscovered human burial sites. Mitigation Measures: MM CUL – 4: In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5; Health and Safety Code § 7050.5; Public Resources Code § 5097.94 and § 5097.98 must be followed. If during the course of project development there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken: 1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the Alameda County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. 2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendant or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance: • The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission. 11 • The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: If human remains are discovered, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL – 4 would reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. SECTION 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY Impact GEO – 1: The proposed project may expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic hazards. Mitigation Measures: MM GEO – 1: Prior to the issuance of building permits for each structure, the project applicant shall submit a design-level Geotechnical Investigation to the City of Dublin for review and approval. The investigation shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and identify necessary grading and building practices necessary to achieve compliance with the latest adopted edition of the California Building Standards Code geologic, soils, and seismic requirements. The measures identified in the approved report shall be incorporated into the project plans. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. Impact GEO – 2: The proposed project may result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Mitigation Measures: Implement MM HYD – 1a.(see below for text of mitigation measure) Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. 12 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. Impact GEO – 4: The proposed project may create substantial risks to life or property as a result of expansive soil conditions on the project site. Mitigation Measures: Implement MM GEO – 1. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. SECTION 3.7 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Impact HYD – 1: Construction and operation activities associated with the proposed projects may have the potential to degrade surface water quality in downstream water bodies. Mitigation Measures: MM HYD – 1a: Prior to issuance of grading permits for the proposed project, the City of Dublin shall verify that the applicant has prepared a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the requirements of the statewide Construction General Permit. The SWPPP shall be designed to address the following objectives: (1) all pollutants and their sources, including sources of sediment associated with construction, construction site erosion, and all other activities associated with construction activity are controlled; (2) where not otherwise required to be under a Regional Water Quality Control Board permit, all non- stormwater discharges are identified and either eliminated, controlled, or treated; (3) site Best Management Practices (BMPs) are effective and result in the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from construction activity; and (4) stabilization BMPs installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction are completed. The SWPPP shall be prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer. The SWPPP shall include the minimum BMPs required for the identified Risk Level. BMP implementation shall be consistent with the BMP requirements in the most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Handbook- Construction or the Caltrans Stormwater Quality Handbook Construction Site BMPs Manual. 13 MM HYD – 1b: Prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed project, the City of Dublin shall verify that the project applicant has prepared operational stormwater quality control measures that comply with the requirements of the current Municipal Regional Permit. Responsibilities include but are not limited to designing BMPs into project features and operations to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality and to manage changes in the timing and quantity of runoff associated with operation of the project. These features shall be included in the design-level drainage plan and final development drawings. Specifically, the final design shall include measures designed to mitigate potential water quality degradation from all portions of completed developments. The proposed project shall incorporate site design and BMPs described in the current version of Alameda County Clean Water Program, C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance manual. Low Impact Development features, including minimizing disturbed areas and impervious cover and then infiltrating, storing, detaining, evapotranspiring, or biotreating stormwater runoff close to its source, shall be used at each development covered by the Municipal Regional Permit. Funding for long-term maintenance of all BMPs must be specified. For each development project, the project sponsor shall establish a self-perpetuating Operation and Maintenance of Stormwater Treatment Systems plan (Municipal Regional Permit provision C.3.h). This plan shall specify a regular inspection schedule of stormwater treatment facilities in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit. Reports documenting inspections and any remedial action conducted shall be submitted regularly to the City for review and approval. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. Impact HYD – 3: The proposed projects may create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Mitigation Measures: MM HYD – 3: Prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed project, the City of Dublin shall verify that the applicant has prepared a storm drainage and hydraulic study in accordance with City requirements. The storm drainage and hydraulic study shall quantify the increase in stormwater runoff peak flow rates and volumes resulting from the project, and identify the potential to exceed the conveyance and storage capacity of the local storm drainage system. The study shall incorporate the stormwater treatment controls and LID measures that will be designed to capture and treat runoff. The analysis shall verify whether the existing drainage infrastructure is adequate to receive and convey runoff from the proposed project. If the findings of the analysis reveal that implementation of a proposed project would create runoff beyond the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage systems, the project shall be 14 required to upgrade undersized components or adopt a different form of stormwater runoff management. Prior to approval of a proposed project, the final design drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin Public Works Department and Zone 7 Water Agency. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. SECTION 3.9 – NOISE Impact NOI – 1: The project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Mitigation Measures: MM NOI – 1a: To reduce potential construction noise impacts, the following multi-part mitigation measure shall be implemented for the proposed project: • The construction contractor shall limit all on-site noise producing construction activities, including deliveries and warming up of equipment, to the daytime hours of 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday (excluding holidays) unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. • The construction contractor shall ensure that all internal combustion engine-driven equipment is equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. In addition, the project contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. • The construction contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. • The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on-site equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. • The construction contractor shall designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would 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 complaints (starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem, as deemed acceptable by the Dublin Planning Department. The construction contractor shall 15 conspicuously post the contact name and telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator at the construction site. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. Impact NOI – 4: The project may result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Mitigation Measures: Implement MM NOI – 1a. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. SECTION 3.10 – PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Impact PSU-6: The proposed projects may create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. MITIGATION MEASURES: Implement Mitigation Measure HYD-3. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. 16 SECTION 3.11 – TRANSPORTATION Impact TRANS – 1: The proposed project would generate new trips that would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard under Existing Plus Project Conditions. MITIGATION MEASURES: MM TRANS – 1a: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A, the project applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to the City of Dublin for review and approval. The TDM program shall be prepared by a qualified transportation consultant/ engineer and identify TDM measures. The TDM program shall contain the following provisions: • The TDM program shall establish the following trip budgets for each project phase: - Phases 1A and 1B: The number of trips generated should be no more than expected based on the Trip Generation Estimate total AM and PM peak hour trips for Phases 1A and 1B noted in Table 3.11-9 (Trips By Analysis Phase). - Phase 2: Implementation of the TDM program shall produce a 5% reduction from the Trip Generation Estimate total AM and PM peak hour trips for Phases 1A, 1B, and 2 combined as noted in Table 3.11-9. - Phase 3: Implementation of the TDM program shall produce a 10% reduction from the Trip Generation Estimate total AM and PM peak hour trips for the total project, as shown in Table 3.11-9. • The TDM program may include but may not be limited to the following measures: - Shuttle service between the project and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station - Public transit subsidies - Employer-sponsored carpooling and ride-matching programs. - Preferential carpool parking - Guaranteed ride home - On-site car share program - Scheduling practices to avoid peak-hour travel (flex time, staggered shifts, compressed work schedules, etc.) - End of trip facilities such as lockers, showers, or storage facilities. - Provision of kiosks, website(s), brochures, and similar items that provide information about the TDM program. • The effectiveness of the TDM program shall be monitored 6 months after the completion of each phase. Monitoring shall consist of conducting peak period traffic counts at the project driveways over a 3-day period. The cost of conducting the traffic counts shall be paid by the project applicant or project owner. The resulting trip rates should be normalized by employee, patient loads and/or square footage and compared the trip generation presented to determine if the peak-hour trip budgets have been attained. • If the TDM program is not achieving the established trip budgets, specific changes shall be made to the TDM program to be reviewed and approved by the City to ensure that the reductions required in the mitigation measure are met. • Subsequent monitoring periods shall be on an annual basis until it is shown that the TDM measures are effective in reducing vehicle trips to the budget set forth for each phase. 17 A report shall be provided to the City every year summarizing the program’s effectiveness and identifying additional steps to be taken if necessary. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, vehicle trips from the Project will be reduced but the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS – 2: The proposed project would generate new trips that would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard under Existing Plus Project Conditions. Mitigation Measures: MM TRANS – 2: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A, the south side of Dublin Boulevard shall be widened between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street (approximately 800 feet) to provide a third eastbound through lane, connecting to an existing three‐lane eastbound cross section at Brannigan Street. This improvement shall be constructed by the applicant prior to occupancy of Phase 1A if not constructed by the City prior to that date. If the City constructs the improvement in advance of the occupancy of Phase 1A, the applicant shall meet this obligation through the payment of the Eastern Dublin TIF or through the payment of a fair share contribution (if the improvement is not identified in the EDTIF program). Resulting Significance: Less than significant Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 3: The proposed project would generate new trips that would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard under Existing Plus Project Conditions. Mitigation Measures: 18 MM TRANS – 3 : Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A, the intersection of Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard shall be improved to provide second left-turn lanes on both the northbound and eastbound approaches. In addition, the signal operation shall be retimed to minimize queuing. This improvement shall be constructed by the applicant prior to occupancy of Phase 1A if not constructed by the City prior to that date. If the City constructs the improvement in advance of the occupancy of Phase 1A, the applicant shall meet this obligation through the payment of the Eastern Dublin TIF or through the payment of a fair share contribution (if the improvement is not identified in the EDTIF program). Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 4: The proposed project would generate new trips that would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at Fallon Road / Fallon Gateway under Existing Plus Project Conditions. Mitigation Measures: MM TRANS – 4: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A, the City of Dublin shall retime the signal operation at Fallon Road / Fallon Gateway to better accommodate the added traffic associated project buildout. The applicant shall pay to the City of Dublin the cost of retiming. Resulting Significance: Less than significant. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS–5: Fallon Road / I-580 Westbound Ramps under Existing Plus Project Conditions. Mitigation Measures: MM TRANS – 5: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A, the applicant and the City of Dublin shall coordinate with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to retime the signal operation at the 19 intersection of Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps to better accommodate the added traffic associated project buildout. The applicant shall provide Caltrans or the City of Pleasanton with its fair-share cost of retiming. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact. Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced but the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Rationale for Finding: Because implementation of this mitigation measure is not within the control of the City of Dublin, its implementation cannot be assured. Therefore, the impact will be considered significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS – 6a: Dougherty Road / Dublin Boulevard queuing Mitigation Measures: MM TRANS – 6a: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A, the City of Dublin shall retime the signal operation at Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road to better accommodate the added traffic‐ associated project buildout. The applicant shall pay to the City of Dublin with the cost of retiming. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced but the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS – 6b: Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard queuing Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS – 3. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. 20 Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 7a: Amador Plaza Road / Dublin Boulevard queuing Mitigation Measures: MM TRANS – 7a: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A, the City of Dublin shall retime the signal operation at Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road to better accommodate the added traffic associated project buildout. The applicant shall pay to the City of Dublin the cost of retiming. Resulting significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 7b: Dougherty Road / Dublin Boulevard queuing Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS – 6a: Resulting significance: Significant unavoidable impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced but the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS – 7c: Keegan Street / Dublin Boulevard queuing Mitigation Measures: MM TRANS – 7c: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A, the applicant shall construct a second minimum 250-foot westbound left-turn lane on Dublin Boulevard at Keegan Street. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. 21 Resulting significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 7d: Lockhart Street / Dublin Boulevard queuing Mitigation Measures: MM TRANS – 7d: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A, the applicant shall extend the existing dual westbound left-turn lanes on Dublin Boulevard to Lockhart Street to provide an additional 100 feet of vehicle storage, for a total of 350 feet. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. This is a proposed project improvement, but it has been included as a mitigation measure to ensure implementation Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 7e: Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard queuing Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS – 3. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 8: Amador Plaza / Dublin Boulevard under Near-Term Plus Project Conditions 22 Mitigation Measures: MM TRANS – 8: A southbound right-turn only lane shall be constructed at this intersection as identified by the Downtown Dublin Transportation Impact Fee (October 2015). This improvement shall be constructed by the applicant prior to occupancy of Phase 2 if not constructed by the City prior to that date. If the City constructs the improvement in advance of the occupancy of Phase 2, the applicant shall meet this obligation through the payment of the Eastern Dublin or Downtown TIF or through the payment of a fair share contribution (if the improvement is not identified in the ED or Downtown TIF program). Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 10: Dougherty Road / Dublin Boulevard under Near-Term Plus Project Conditions Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS – 1A and MM TRANS – 6a. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced but the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS – 11: Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard under Near-Term Plus Project Conditions Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS – 2. 23 Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact (City of Dublin); Less than significant impact (TVTC). Finding: Under City of Dublin Standards, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. Under TVTC Standards, Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: For City of Dublin Standards, with the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced but the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. For TVTC Standards, With the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 12: Santa Rita Road / I-580 Eastbound Ramps under Near-Term Plus Project Conditions Mitigation Measures: MM TRANS – 12: Prior to occupancy of Phase 2, the applicant shall provide its fair-share cost contribution to the Santa Rita/I-580 Eastbound ramp improvements. The interchange improvements include constructing a second southbound left turn lane and upgrading the traffic signal intersection of the Santa Rita/I-580 Eastbound ramp. An escrow account where fair- share funds can be deposited for interchange improvements not included in local or regional fee programs shall be established in coordination with the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and the Alameda CTC. The City will ensure that the fair-share costs are collected for the escrow account and maintained for the needed improvements. The fair-share payments would be above the required local and regional fee payments, unless the identified improvements are included or added to a local or regional fee program prior to occupancy of Phase 2. If the identified improvements are added to a local or regional fee program prior to occupancy of Phase 2, then the applicant shall pay the fee established under the fee program prior to occupancy of Phase 2 as satisfaction of this mitigation measure. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact. 24 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced but the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS – 13: Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard under Near-Term Plus Project Conditions Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS – 2. Resulting Significance: Less than significant. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 14: Keegan Street / Dublin Boulevard under Near-Term Plus Project Conditions Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS – 7c. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 15: Lockhart Street / Dublin Boulevard under Near-Term Plus Project Conditions Mitigation Measures: 25 Implement MM TRANS – 7d and MM TRANS – 15: Prior to occupancy of Phase 3, the applicant shall construct a second northbound right-turn lane, providing a four-lane northbound cross-section on Lockhart Street at Dublin Boulevard. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 16: Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard under Near-Term Plus Project Conditions Mitigation Measures: MM TRANS – 16: Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for Phase 2, a second northbound left-turn lane shall be constructed at Fallon Road/ Dublin Boulevard. This improvement shall be constructed by the applicant prior to occupancy of Phase 2 if not constructed by the City prior to that date. If the City constructs the improvement in advance of the occupancy of Phase 2, the applicant shall meet this obligation through the payment of the Eastern Dublin TIF or through the payment of a fair share contribution (if the improvement is not identified in the EDTIF program). Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 17: Fallon Road / Fallon Gateway under Near-Term Plus Project Conditions Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS – 4. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. 26 Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 18: Fallon Road / I-580 Westbound Ramps under Near-Term Plus Project Conditions Mitigation Measures: MM TRANS – 18: Prior to occupancy of Phase 2, the applicant shall provide its fair-share cost contribution to the Phase 2 Fallon/I-580/El Charro interchange improvements. The interchange improvements include: (1) Reconstruction of overcrossing to provide four-lanes in each direction; (2) reconstruction of the southbound to eastbound loop on-ramp; (3) widening of the eastbound off-ramp to provide two exit lanes with two left turn and two right tum lanes; (4) widening of the eastbound on-ramp; (5) widening of the westbound off-ramp to provide two left tum and two right tum lanes; and (6) widening of the westbound on-ramp. An escrow account where fair-share funds can be deposited for interchange improvements not included in local or regional fee programs shall be established in coordination with the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and the Alameda CTC. The City will ensure that the fair-share costs are collected for the escrow account and maintained for the needed improvements. The fair-share payments would be above the required local and regional fee payments, unless the identified improvements are included or added to a local or regional fee program prior to occupancy of Phase 2. If the identified improvements are added to a local or regional fee program prior to occupancy of Phase 2, then the applicant shall pay the fee established under the fee program prior to occupancy of Phase 2 as satisfaction of this mitigation measure. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced but the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS – 19: Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard -Vehicle Queues Through Phase 2 and Phase 3 Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS – 1A and MM TRANS – 8. 27 Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 19b: Village Parkway / Dublin Boulevard -Vehicle Queues Through Phase 2 and Phase 3 Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS – 1A and MM TRANS – 19b: The project applicant shall work with the City of Dublin to adjust signal timings subsequent to the completion of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 project to minimize the effects of vehicle queue spillback. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced but the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS – 19c: Dougherty Road / Dublin Boulevard -Vehicle Queues Through Phase 2 and Phase 3 Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS – 1A and MM TRANS – 19c: The project applicant shall pay the TIF (which would satisfy its obligation for the Scarlett Drive extension) and work with the City of Dublin to adjust signal timings subsequent to the completion of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 project to minimize the effects of vehicle queue spillback. The applicant shall pay the costs for the adjustment of the signal timing. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no 28 feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced but the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS – 19d: Tassajara / Dublin Boulevard -Vehicle Queues Through Phase 2 and Phase 3 Implement MM TRANS – 11 and MM TRANS – 19d: The project applicant shall also work with the City of Dublin to adjust signal timings subsequent to the completion of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 project to minimize the effects of vehicle queue spillback. The applicant shall pay the costs for the adjustment of the signal timing. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 19e: Keegan Street / Dublin Boulevard -Vehicle Queues Through Phase 2 and Phase 3 Implement MM TRANS – 7c Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 19f: Lockhart Street / Dublin Boulevard -Vehicle Queues Through Phase 2 and Phase 3 Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS‐7d and Mitigation Measure TRANS‐15, which requires extending the existing dual westbound left‐turn lanes on Dublin Boulevard to Lockhart Street to provide an additional 100 feet of vehicle storage, for a total of 350 feet. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. 29 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 19g: Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard -Vehicle Queues Through Phase 2 and Phase 3 Implement MM TRANS – 3. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 20: Amador Plaza Road / Dublin Boulevard under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS – 7a and MM TRANS – 8. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rational for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 22: Dougherty Road / Dublin Boulevard under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS – 1A. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact. 30 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced but the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS – 23: Scarlett Drive / Dublin Boulevard under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS – 1A. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced but the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS – 24: Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Mitigating Measures: Implement MM TRANS – 1A. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced but the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. 31 Impact TRANS – 25: Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS – 1A. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced but the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS – 26: Santa Rita Road / I-580 Eastbound Ramps Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS – 12. Resulting Significance: Under Caltrans and TVTC Standards – Less than Significant without mitigation Under City of Pleasanton Standards - Significant unavoidable impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. However, because implementation of this mitigation measure is not within the control of the City of Dublin, its implementation cannot be assured. Therefore, the impact will be considered significant and unavoidable. Rationale for Finding: Because implementation of this mitigation measure is not within the control of the City of Dublin, its implementation cannot be assured. Therefore, the impact will be considered significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS – 27: Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Mitigation Measures: 32 Implement MM TRANS – 1A. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact under City of Dublin Standards. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced but the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS – 28: Keegan Street / Dublin Boulevard under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS – 1A and MM TRANS – 7c. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact (City of Dublin); Less than significant impact (TVTC). Finding: For TVTC, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. For City of Dublin, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. Rationale for Finding: For TVTC, with the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact.. For City of Dublin, with the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced but the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS – 29: Lockhart Street / Dublin Boulevard under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Mitigation Measures: 33 Implement MM TRANS – 1A and MM TRANS – 7c. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced but the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS – 30: Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS – 1A. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced but the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS – 31: Jack London Boulevard/Isabel Avenue under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS – 1A. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact under City of Livermore standards Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. 34 Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced. The City of Dublin cannot make the determination of whether the exemption under the City of Livermore General Plan applies. That decision is in the control of the City of Livermore, which is a separate agency from the City. Since the determination is in the control of another agency, the impact is significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS – 33: Vehicle Queues under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS – 1A and other Mitigation Measures identified for Impacts 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d and 7e above. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact for certain impacts. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced but the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS – 34: Site Access Vehicle Queues With Buildout Mitigation Measures: Carnmore Place/Future Project Driveway/Dublin Boulevard - MM TRANS – 34a: . Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Phase 1B, the northbound approach at Carnmore Place/Future Project Driveway/Dublin Boulevard shall provide adequate storage capacity for northbound left turns. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City and incorporated into the proposed project. Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard - Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS‐7c. Lockhart Street/Dublin Boulevard - Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS‐7d and Mitigation Measure TRANS‐15 Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. 35 Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, site access roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 35: The proposed project would generate new trips that would contribute to unacceptable operations on Interstate 580 Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS – 1A. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced but the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS – 36: The proposed project would generate new trips that would contribute to unacceptable operations on Congestion Management Plan facilities Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS – 1A and MM TRANS – 36: The project applicant shall contribute funding to roadway improvements through the payment of City of Dublin and Tri Valley regional traffic impact fees. Resulting Significance: Dublin Boulevard between Keegan and Fallon (2025) - Significant unavoidable impact. Dougherty Road between I‐580 and Dublin Boulevard (2025): - Less than significant impact with implementation of TDM Program under Mitigation Measure TRANS‐1. Isabel Avenue between Stanley Boulevard and Concannon Boulevard (2025) - Significant unavoidable impact. Vallecitos Road between I‐580 and Isabel Avenue (2025) - Less than significant impact with implementation of mitigation to pay regional traffic fee, which provides fair share payment for planned improvement of Vallecitos Road to two travel lanes in each direction. Dublin Boulevard between Camp Parks Blvd and Fallon Road (2040): -significant unavoidable impact. Dougherty Road between I‐580 and Dublin Boulevard (2040): Significant unavoidable impact. Isabel Avenue between Airway Boulevard and Jack London Boulevard (2040): Significant unavoidable impact. 36 Isabel Avenue between Stanley Boulevard and Concannon Boulevard (2040): Significant unavoidable impact. Finding: For significant and unavoidable impacts -Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures. For less than significant impacts - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: For significant and unavoidable impacts -With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced but the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. For less than significant impacts - With the implementation of the mitigation measure, intersection or roadway operations would improve to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 38: The proposed project may create roadway safety hazards associated with design features Mitigation Measures: Implement MMs TRANS – 7c, TRANS – 7d, TRANS – 15, TRANS – 34b, and MM TRANS – 38a - Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 1A, the project applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin that depict the internal roadway extending south from Dublin Boulevard/Lockhart Street as a 1-lane (each direction) facility south of the northern east-west roadway with turn pockets at parking area access locations. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the project. MM TRANS – 38b: Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 2, the project applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin that limit or avoid the number of skewed intersections in the vicinity of the drop-off area and the parking lot to the south. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the project. MM TRANS – 38c: Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 2, the project applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin that demonstrates that adequate truck access can be provided to the loading area. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the project. 37 Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, potential site access and circulation issues will be improved to acceptable conditions resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS – 40: The proposed project may conflict with plans and policies associated with public transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Mitigation Measures: MM TRANS – 40a: Prior to completion of Phases 1A, 1B, 2, and 3, the project applicant shall coordinate with the City of Dublin and Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority to review the adequacy of bus service in the project vicinity and inside the development. As part of this review process, service hours, service frequency, bus stop location and amenities, and related issues shall be evaluated with the objective of ensuring that transit service is accessible and convenient for project employees, patients, customers, and visitors. Service and facility improvements shall be implemented in conjunction with the opening of each phase as approved by the City and Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority. MM TRANS – 40b: Prior to issuance of building permits for Phases 1A, 1B, 2, and 3, the project applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin depicting the following bicycle facilities and improvements. Note that the items listed below are intended only for new facilities developed within the project site; existing bicycle facilities would not need to be replaced. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. • Off-street paths (Class I) or on-street bicycle lanes on internal roadways (Class II/III) within the project site • Short-term (bike racks) and long-term bicycle (lockers) parking facilities • Bicycle loop detectors at the modified Dublin Boulevard/Keegan Street and Dublin Boulevard/Lockhart Street intersections MM TRANS – 40c: Prior to issuance of building permits for Phases 1A, 1B, 2, and 3, the project applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin depicting the following pedestrian facilities and improvements. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. • Provide passive detection of pedestrians at all signals serving the development access points. • Pedestrian facilities shall provide direct linkages between buildings, parking areas, plazas, and adjoining land uses. • Pedestrian facilities shall be physically separated from vehicular circulation where possible and the number of roadway pedestrian crossings shall be minimized. 38 • Roadway pedestrian crossings shall include safety features such as markings, signage, pavement treatments, or warning devices as appropriate. • Pedestrian facilities linking the bus stop(s) on Dublin Boulevard with project buildings shall include wayfinding signage and lighting. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, impacts on transit, bicycles and pedestrians would be reduced to a less than significant impact. 1 EXHIBIT C FINDINGSCONCERNING INFEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES AND POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES CEQA providesthatdecision makers should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasiblealternatives or feasible mitigation measures that would substantially lessen the significant impacts of the project (CEQA section21002). The Project EIR identified feasible mitigation measures that would reduce most of the potentially significant impacts to less than significant, as set forth in the Exhibit B findings, above. However, the following impacts in the EIR either remained significant after mitigation or no feasible mitigation was identified: Consistency with Air Quality Management Plan: The proposed Project would generate operational emissions that would exceed regional emissionsthresholds and, thus, be inconsistent with the planning assumptions in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Air Quality ManagementPlan. Mitigation is proposed that would require the applicant to implement emissions reduction measures; however, they would not reduce the Project’s contribution to less than significant levels. As such, theresidual significance of this impact is significant and unavoidable. Cumulative Criteria Pollutant Impacts: The proposed Project would generate operational emissions for certain pollutants that would exceed regional emissionsthresholds, which is considered a cumulativeimpact. Mitigation is proposed that would require the applicant to implement emissions reduction measures; however, they would not reduce the Project’s contribution to less than significant levels. As such, the residual significance of this impact is significant and unavoidable. Greenhouse GasEmissions: The proposed Project would generate new sources of greenhouse gas emissions that would exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management District thresholds. Mitigation is proposed requiring the implementation of feasible emissions reduction measures; however, thesemeasures would not reduce emissions to less than significant levels. Therefore, the significanceafter mitigation is significant and unavoidable. Traffic Impacts: The proposed Project would contribute vehicle trips to the following facilities that are expected to experienceunacceptable operationsunder Existing Plus Project Conditions, Near-TermConditions, or CumulativeConditions. Mitigation is proposed; however, it would not fully reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard Amador Plaza Road/I-680 Southbound Ramps Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive/Dublin Boulevard Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps 2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 EastboundRamps Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road and Santa Rita Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Santa Rita Road/I-580 EastboundRamps Brannigan Street/Dublin Boulevard Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard Lockhart Street/Dublin Boulevard Fallon Road/CentralParkway Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Fallon Road/Fallon Gateway Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Airway Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway Isabel Avenue/Jack London Boulevard Isabel Avenue/Stanley Boulevard Jack London Boulevard/Isabel Avenue Interstate 580 Alameda County Transportation Commission Roadways As required by CEQA, the following findings address whether there are any feasiblealternatives or any additional feasible mitigation measures available that would reduce any of these impacts to less than significant. FINDINGSCONCERNING ALTERNATIVES CEQA requires that an EIR “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project…” CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a)). If a project alternative will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, the decision maker should not approve the proposed project unless it determines that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,… makethe project alternativeinfeasible” (CEQA sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section15091(a)(3)). The City Council hereby makes these findings with respect to alternatives. The Projectobjectives are set forth in Section 2.4 of the Draft EIR. Alternatives are identified and analyzed in Section 5 of the Draft EIR and include the required No Project Alternative, a Reduced Density Alternative and a Corporate Office Campus Alternative. Each of the alternatives was assessed for each resource topic andcompared to potential Projectimpacts. As further set forth below, the City Council considered the alternatives identified and analyzed in Section 5 of the DraftEIR and finds them to be infeasible for specific economic, social, or other considerations pursuant to CEQA sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(3). For CEQA purposes, “feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successfulmanner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal factors. (CEQA section21061.1, CEQA Guidelines section15364.) 3 In addition to the Project Alternatives described below, the Draft EIR consideredthree different locations for the proposed project and found none of them were feasible because of small size, commitment to other uses, or that Kaiser did not own, control, or have access to the site. Alternative #1: No Project Alternative CEQA Guidelines section15126.6(e)(3) requires that a “No-Project” alternative be evaluated as part of an EIR, proceeding under one of two scenarios: the project area remaining in its current state or development of the project area under its current GeneralPlan land use and zoning designations. Because the Project site currently has no planning approvals for a specific project, the No Project Alternative consists of the Projectsite remaining undeveloped for the foreseeable future. The No Project Alternative would not advance any of the Project objectives because the Project site would remain vacant and undeveloped for the foreseeable future. No disturbance or new development would occur on the Project site, thereby eliminating the potential for impacts associated with aesthetics, light, and glare; air quality and greenhouse gas emissions; biological resources; cultural resources; geology, soils, and seismicity; hazards andhazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use; noise; public services and utilities; and transportation. Accordingly, this alternative would avoid all of the proposed Project’s significant impacts including significant and unavoidable impacts), as well as the need to implement any mitigation measures. The City finds this alternativeinfeasible because it would not be consistent with any of the Project’s objectives. The No Project Alternativewould not achieve any of the following Project objectives: enhancing public safety and public health by providing major medical care facilities within Dublin to serve existing and future demand in the Tri-Valley region; providing high- quality health care in a seismically safe new state-of-the-art advanced care medical center within the Eastern Dublin planning area thatprovides community vitality, economic growth and a wide range of employmentopportunities in Dublin and the surroundingregion; positively contributing to the local economy throughnewcapital investment, the creation of newjobs, the provision of new services, and the expansion of the tax base; supplementing and supporting existing Kaiser clinics and medical facilities in the Tri-Valley region and providing additional medical services for local residentsat facilities closer totheir homes than currently exists; increasing accessibility to affordable and convenient health care options in lightof new statutes and regulations; facilitating the logical, orderly, and phased development of a high-visibility, infill site in order to achieve the highest-and-best end uses at a site with good freeway access and proximity topublic transportation; providing flexibility with the potential end uses of the commercial area in order to be responsive to market demand while also ensuring compatibility with the medical center and surrounding existing and future uses including commercial, hotel, and residential neighborhoods; developing contemporary, visually appealing medical center and commercial uses that are aesthetically compatible with surrounding development andpreserve views of the surrounding hills from I-580; and closing a gap in the bicycle and pedestrian network within the community byproviding on-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities that link with existing facilities along Dublin Boulevard. 4 Finding: The City Council consideredthe No Project Alternative and declines to adopt it because it will not achieve any of the Project’s objectives and is infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations described above, as supported by the administrative record for the Project. Alternative #2: Reduced Density Alternative Alternative #2 – The Reduced Density Alternative consists of reducing the proposed Project’s square footage by 300,000 square feet or 25 percent to a total of 900,000 square feet. The25 percent reduction in square footage would be applied to both the medical campusand commercial uses. The Reduced Density Alternativewould lessen the impacts in the following areas as compared to the proposed Project: aesthetics, light and glare; air quality and greenhouse gas emissions; noise; public services; and utilities. The Reduced Density Alternativewould have similar impacts to the proposed Project in the following areas: biological resources, cultural resources, geology, soils and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; and land use. The Reduced Density Alternative would result in a net reduction of 8,250 daily trips, 318 AM peak hour trips, and 805 PM peak hour trips. The substantial reduction in peak-hour trips would avoid or lessen the severity of significant impacts atseveral intersections and roadway segments. However, most facilities would still experience unacceptable operations and require mitigation measures. For the reasons described in Section 3.11, Transportation, of the EIR, this alternative would yield a similar significant and unavoidable traffic impacts, although the severity of impacts would be less thanthe proposed Project. The Reduced Density Alternative is somewhat consistent with some of the Project’s objectives. However, it does not attain most of the basic Projectobjectives to the same degree as the proposed Project. In particular, the Reduced Density Alternative will result in fewerpositive economic benefits to the City and lower revenuedue to the reduced commercial use. In addition, the reduced size of the Project components reduces the economic viability and feasibility of the Project. Finding: The City Council consideredtheReduced Density Alternative and declines to adopt it because it will not avoid or substantially lessen the Project’s significant impacts, including its significant and unavoidableimpacts, will not attainmost of the basic Projectobjectives, and is infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations described above, as supported by the administrative record for the Project. Alternative #3: CorporateOffice Campus Alternative Alternative #3 - The Corporate Office Campus Alternative consists of developing a 1.2 million square foot corporate office campus on the Project site pursuant to the existing GeneralPlan and Specific Plan land use designation of “Office Campus.” The office campus would consist of Class A space andcater to corporate tenants seeking to locate on the I-580 corridor in the Tri- Valley. The office space would be distributed amongst four buildings that would total 300,000 square feet each. Each building would have five floors and stand 85feet above finished grade. 5 The purpose of theCorporate Office Campus Alternative is to evaluate an alternate use that could be developedunderthe existing land use designations in order to lessen the severity of impacts associated with air quality and greenhouse gases, noise, public servicesand utilities, and transportation. The Corporate Office Campus Alternative would lessen the severity of, but would not avoid, the significant and unavoidable air quality and greenhouse gas emissionsand transportation impacts associated with the proposed Project. Additionally, the Corporate Office Campus Alternative would lessen the severity of several of the significant impacts of the proposed Projectthat can be reduced to a level of less than significant with mitigation (e.g., noise, public services and utilities). The Corporate Office Campus Alternativewould achieve only 3 of the 9 Projectobjectives. This alternative would only be consistent with the objectives to create newjobs, expand the tax base, facilitate the development of a high-visibility infill site, and provide pedestrian and bicycle connection facilities along Dublin Boulevard. This alternative would not be consistent with most of the main Projectobjectives to enhance public health, provide needed health care facilities to the community, and provide commercial uses which generate revenue for the City. Finding: The City Council considered the Corporate Office Campus Alternative and declines to adopt it because it will notavoid or substantially lessen the Project’s significant impacts, includingits significant unavoidableimpacts, will not obtain most of thebasic Project objectives, and is infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations described above, as supported by the administrative record for the Project. FINDINGS REGARDING INFEASIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES There are certain additional mitigation measures and/or modifications to the measures described in the Draft EIR that may lessen significant and unavoidableimpacts identified in the Draft EIR. The City carefully consideredtheproposed additionalmitigations, and finds the proposed mitigations infeasible, or otherwise rejects the suggested mitigation, as further described below. In considering specificadditional mitigation measures, the City is guided byCEQA’s legal standard to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental effects to the extentfeasible. The mitigation measures recommended in the Project EIR represent the professional judgment and experience of the City’s expert staff and environmental consultants. The City therefore believes that these recommendations should not be modified unless necessary to comply with CEQA legal standards. Thus, in considering changes or additions to the mitigation measures, the City, in determining whether to acceptsuch modifications, either in whole or in part, has consideredthe following factors, among others: 1) whether thesuggestion relates to a significant and unavoidable environmental effect of the Project, or insteadrelates to an effect that can already be mitigated to less than significant levels by mitigation measures identified in the EIR; 2) whether the suggested mitigation represents a clear improvement, from an environmental standpoint, over the EIR mitigation that it would replace; 3) whether the suggested mitigationis sufficiently clear as to be easily understood by those who will implement the mitigation as 6 finally adopted; 4) whether the suggested language might be too inflexible to allow for pragmatic implementation; 5) whether the suggestions are “feasible” as defined under CEQA including being able to be accomplished in a successfulmanner in a reasonable period of time taking into account economic, environmental, technical, legal, social or otherfactors; and 6) whether the proposed mitigation is consistent with the Projectobjectives. Mitigation for Impacts to Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard This intersection has been builtout within its ultimate right-of-way and no further intersection widening to provideadditionalvehicle capacity is planned. Acquisition of additional right-of- way is not feasible given development in the area. The construction of additional improvements within the existing right-of-way would result in adverse impacts on transit, bicycles and pedestrians. Additionally, extending the southbound left-turn lane to provideadditional storage capacity is not considered feasible due to the short block size. For thesereasons, the City finds additional mitigation measures at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection are infeasible and declines to imposethe measures. Mitigation for Impact to Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Additional vehicle capacityimprovements than identified in the mitigation measure would be contrary to City policies, such as the Complete Streets Policy. Additional vehicle capacity improvements would have adverse impactson bicycles, pedestrians and transit. For these reasons, the City finds that additional mitigation atthe Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection is infeasible and declines to imposethe measures. Mitigation for impactson Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Modifying the southbound approach to construct a second southbound left-turn lane in addition to retiming the traffic signal would result in LOS D operations during the weekday PM peak hour, reducing the projectimpact to a less than less than significantlevel based on City of Pleasanton criteria. However, this improvementmay not be feasible to construct and could be contrary to other goals, such as improving bicycle and pedestrian access across the interchange. Should the City of Pleasanton in consultation with the City of Dublin, Alameda CTC, TVTC, and Caltrans identify feasibleimprovements at theinterchange, the Project applicant should pay its fair share. Otherwise, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable under City of Pleasanton criteria. For thesereasons, the City finds that the mitigation at the Santa Rita Road/I- 580 Eastbound Ramps may be infeasible. Impact TRANS 19: Vehicle Queues Through Phase 2 and Phase 3 The addition of Phase 2 and Phase 3 project traffic wouldpotentially result in left-turn vehicle queues exceeding the available storage, orwould increase vehicle queues by more than 25feet (1 vehicle) for movements where the queue already exceeds the available storage for the following movements: Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard – westbound left-turn with Phase 2 and buildout. 7 Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard –southbound left-turn and westbound left-turn with Phase 2 and buildout. Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard – southbound left-turn with Phase 2 and buildout. Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard –westbound left and northbound leftwith Phase 2 and buildout. Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard – westbound left-turn with Phase 2 and buildout, and northbound left-turn with buildout. Lockhart Street/Dublin Boulevard – westbound left-turn with Phase 2 and buildout, and northbound left-turn with buildout. Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard – northbound left-turn with Phase 2, eastbound left-turn with buildout Improvements have been identified at all affected locations; however, in some cases they are not feasible because of (1) right-of-way constraints; and (2) conflicts with GeneralPlan policies that promote Multimodal access and circulation. Additionally, several of the affected facilities are underthe jurisdiction of anotheragency (either Caltrans or the City of Pleasanton), and, therefore, the City of Dublin cannot ensure that they would be implemented as contemplated. As such, the residual significance of several of these impacts are significant and unavoidable. For thesereasons, the City finds the additional mitigation measures to addressthese queuingimpacts are infeasible as described in the DraftEIR and declines to impose the measures. Conclusion. For those suggested alternatives and mitigation measures not incorporated or adopted by the City, the City finds them infeasible, for the reasons explained above. 2702557.4 1 EXHIBIT D STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council has balanced the benefits of the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center project Project”) to the City of Dublin against the significant adverse impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) that cannot be reduced to less than significant through feasible mitigations or alternatives. Pursuant to section 15093, the City Council hereby determines that the benefits of theProjectoutweighthe adverse impacts and the Project should be approved. The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve the Project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that implementation of the Project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent the identified significant adverse impacts for the Project have not been reduced to acceptable levels through feasible mitigation or alternatives, there are specific economic, social, land use and other considerations thatsupport approval of the project. 2. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. The following significant unavoidable air quality and traffic impacts are associated with the Project as identified in the EIR. Consistency with Air Quality Management Plan: The proposed Project would generate operational emissions that would exceed regional emissions thresholds and, thus, be inconsistent with the planning assumptions in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Air Quality ManagementPlan. Mitigation is proposed that would require the applicant to implement emissions reduction measures; however, they would not reduce the Project’s contribution to less than significant levels. As such, the residual significance of thisimpact is significant and unavoidable. Cumulative Criteria Pollutant Impacts: The proposed Project would generate operational emissions for certain pollutants thatwould exceed regional emissions thresholds, which is considered a cumulative impact. Mitigation is proposed that would require the applicant to implement emissions reduction measures; however, they would not reduce the Project’s contribution to less than significant levels. As such, the residual significance of thisimpact is significant and unavoidable. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The proposed Project would generate new sources of greenhouse gas emissions that would exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management District thresholds. Mitigation is proposed requiring the implementation of feasibleemissions reduction measures; however, thesemeasures would not reduce emissions to less than significant levels. Therefore, the significance after mitigation is significant and unavoidable. 2 Traffic Impacts: The proposed Project would contribute vehicle trips to the following facilities that are expected to experienceunacceptable operations under Existing Plus Project Conditions, Near-Term Conditions, or Cumulative Conditions. Mitigation is proposed; however, it would not fully reduce Project impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard Amador Plaza Road/I-680 Southbound Ramps Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive/Dublin Boulevard Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Roadand Santa Rita Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Brannigan Street/Dublin Boulevard Keegan Street/Dublin Boulevard Lockhart Street/Dublin Boulevard Fallon Road/Central Parkway Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Fallon Road/Fallon Gateway Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Airway Boulevard/North CanyonsParkway Isabel Avenue/Jack London Boulevard Isabel Avenue/Stanley Boulevard Jack London Boulevard/Isabel Avenue Interstate 580 Alameda CountyTransportation Commission Roadways 3. Overriding Considerations. TheCityCouncil has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve theKaiser Dublin MedicalCenter project. The City Council now balances those unavoidableimpacts against its benefits, andherebydetermines that the unavoidableimpacts are outweighed bythe benefits of theProject as further set forth below. Any one of these benefits is sufficient to justify approval of the Project. The substantial evidence supporting the variousbenefits canbe found in the record as a whole. The Project will result in economic and community benefits to the City. The Development Agreementterms provide revenue to the City through itsprovisions on allocation of sales and use taxes associated with Project construction and operation, and the sale and development of the commercial site. The development of the commercial site will generate sales and property tax revenue to the City. Development of the site will provide construction employment and permanent employment opportunities for Dublin residents. 3 The Project will enhance public safety and public health by providing for major medical care facilities within the City to serve existing and future demand in the City and Tri-Valley region. The Project will supplement and support existing Kaiser clinics and medical facilities in the Tri - Valley region and to provide additional medical services for local residentsat facilities closer to their homes thancurrently exists. The Project will facilitate development of a vacant, high-visibility, infill area, fully served by public utilities, and convenient to major arterials, services, BART and public transit. The Project will implement the City’s goals, objectives, policies and programs for the area, as described in the City General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. For all of the above reasons, the benefits of the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center project outweigh its significant unavoidable air quality and traffic impacts. 2702563.2 NORTHAMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM Mitigation Monitoring andReporting Program for the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project Draft EnvironmentalImpactReport City of Dublin, AlamedaCounty, California Prepared for: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 925.833.6610 Prepared by: FirstCarbon Solutions 1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 925.357.2562 Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director Grant Gruber, ProjectManager Janna Waligorski, ProjectManager Date: August 23, 2016 City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 1 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1: Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial Section 3.1 - Aesthetics, Light, and Glare MM AES-3: Prior to issuance of thefirst building permit for either the medical campus or commercial uses, a Master Sign Programshall be preparedand submitted to the City of Dublin for review and approval that sets forth standards for illuminated signage. (Separate Master Sign Programs may be pursued for the medical campus andcommercial uses as appropriate). The Master Sign Program shall set forth performance standards for illuminated signage, including (1) limitationson the size, location, and orientation of illuminated and non-illuminated pylon, monument, and wall signs; (2) a prohibition on digital and non-digital freeway billboards, flashing, oscillating, animated lights or other moving sign components; and (3) the use of dimmers or other devices intended to limit the intensity of illumination duringlate night andearly morning hours. The approved Master Sign Program shall be incorporated into the proposed project. Approval of Master Sign Program Prior to issuance of the first building permit for either the medical campus or commercial uses City of Dublin MM AES-4: Prior to issuance of the building permit for each project building, the project applicant shall prepare and submit building plans to the City of Dublin for review and approval that demonstrate that exterior lightingfixtures would not create adverse spillover effects on adjoiningland uses. The plans shall demonstrate that allexteriorlightingfixtures are either fully shielded or employ full cut-off fixtures. The approved plans shall beincorporated into the proposed project. Approval of building plans Prior to issuance of the building permit for each project building City of Dublin City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 2 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial Section 3.2 - Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions MM AIR-3a: During construction, the followingair pollution control measures shall beimplemented: Exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day, or more as needed. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. Theuse of dry power sweeping is prohibited. All vehicle speeds on unpavedroads and surfaces shall be limited to 15miles per hour. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks shall be paved as soon as possible. Idlingtimes shall be minimized either by shuttingequipment off when notin use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in propercondition prior to operation. A publicly visible sign shall beposted with the telephone number and person to contact both at the City of Dublin and at the office of the General Contractor regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 2 business days of a complaint or issue notification. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Site inspection; notes on construction plans During construction City of Dublin City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 3 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial MM AIR-3b: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepareand submit documentation to the City of Dublin that demonstrate that all off-road diesel-poweredconstruction equipment greater than 50horsepowermeets United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier4 off-road emissions standards. Submittal of documentation; site inspection; notes on construction plans Prior to issuance of grading permits; during construction City of Dublin Section 3.3 - Biological Resources MM BIO-1a: Prior to any vegetation removal or ground- disturbingactivities, focused surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence of special-status plant species with potential to occur in the project site. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009). These guidelines require rare plant surveys to be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both “evident” and identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with known blooming periods, and/or during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identifythe plant species of concern. If no special-status plant species are found, then the project willnot haveany impacts to the species and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. If any of the species are found on-site and cannot be avoided, the following measures shall berequired: Where surveys determine that special-status plant species are present within or adjacent to the proposed project site, direct and indirect impacts of the project on the species e.g., Congdon’s tarplant and/or San Joaquin spearscale) shall be avoided where feasible through the establishment of activity exclusion zones, where no ground-disturbing activities shall take place, including construction of new facilities, construction staging, or other temporary work Submittal of documentation; site inspection; notes on construction plans Prior to any vegetationremoval or ground-disturbing activities; during construction City of Dublin City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 4 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial areas. Activity exclusion zones for special-status plant species shall be established prior to construction activities around each occupied habitat site, the boundaries of which shall be clearlymarked with standard orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its equivalent. The establishment of activity exclusion zones shall not be required if no construction-related disturbances would occur within 250 feet of the occupied habitat site. The size of activity exclusion zones may be reduced through consultation with a qualified biologist and with concurrence from CDFW based on site-specific conditions. If exclusion zones and avoidance of impacts on a special- status plant species are not feasible, then the loss of individuals or occupied habitat of a special-status plant species shall be compensated for through the acquisition, protection, and subsequent management of other existing occurrences. Before the implementation of compensation measures, the project’s applicant shall provide detailed information to the CDFW and lead agency on the quality of preserved habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing the areas, the responsible parties involved, and the other pertinent information that demonstrates the feasibility of the compensation. A mitigation plan identifying appropriate mitigation ratios shall bedeveloped in consultation with, and approved by, the CDFW and the City prior to the commencement of any activities that would impact any special status plants. MM BIO-1b: No more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbanceandvegetationremoval during the nesting season February 1 to August 31), the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to perform pre-construction breeding bird surveys. If any nests are found, they shall be flagged and Submittal of documentation; site inspection; notes on construction plans No more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance andvegetation removal during the City of Dublin City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 5 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial protected with a suitable buffer. Buffer distance will vary based on species and conditions at the site, but is usually at least 50 feet, and up to 250 feet for raptors. Note that this mitigation measuredoes not apply to ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities that occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 to January 31). nesting season February 1 to August 31); during construction MM BIO-1c: Prior to the first ground-disturbingactivities for Phase 1A, the project applicant shall implement the following measures that pertain the burrowing owl, as applicable: 1. Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact Assessment. Prior to thefirst ground-disturbingactivities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct two pre-construction surveys for the burrowing owl for the entire site. The first surveyshall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground-disturbingactivities and the second surveyshall be conducted within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) StaffReport on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the surveys determine owls are present, then the measures set forthin thismitigation shall be followed. 2. Implement AvoidanceMeasures. If direct impacts to owls can be avoided, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures during all phases of construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls. Avoid disturbing occupied burrowsduring the nesting period, from February 1 through 31 August. Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non- breeding season by migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls. Submittal of documentation; site inspection; notes on construction plans Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities for Phase 1A; during construction City of Dublin City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 6 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining dragging a heavy chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial, or agricultural development. Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on-site worker’s recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection. Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that equipment and other machinery do not collapse burrows. Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed with nesting owls, designated use areas). 3. Conduct Burrow Exclusion. If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible during the nesting season, prior to the first ground-disturbingactivities, the project applicant, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicatedand following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out as per the California Department of Fish and Game 2012 Staff Report. 4. Prepare and Implement a Mitigation Plan. If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible and project activities may result in impacts to nesting, occupied, and satelliteburrows and/or burrowing owl habitat during the nesting season, the project applicant shall consult with the CDFW anddevelop a detailed mitigation plan that shall include replacement of impacted habitat, number of burrows, and burrowing owl at a ratio approved by CDFW. The mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the Plan shall be reviewed City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 7 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial and accepted by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground- disturbingactivities. MM BIO-1d: Prior to the first ground-disturbingactivities, a wildlife exclusion fence shall be installed along the project site boundary with the waterquality basin to the west. The fence shall be designed and installed to prevent the California red - legged frog from entering the project site. Site inspection; notes on construction plans Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities; during construction City of Dublin MM BIO-1e: Prior to ground disturbing activities for Phase 1A, the project applicant shall implement the following measures for the California red-legged frog (CRLF), as applicable: 1. The project applicant shall retain a qualifiedherpetologist to conduct habitat assessments for CRLF withinthe entire project area and based on the results of the habitat assessments, determine in consultation with the USFWS if protocol-level CRLF surveys will be required withinthe entire project area. The project applicant can forgo the habitat assessments and conduct protocol-level surveys. If required, the focused surveys shall follow the Revised Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys forthe California Red-legged Frog (USFWS 2005). A CRLF survey report prepared to meet the protocol guidelinesshall be submitted to the USFWS. If no CRLF are found then no further mitigation is required. 2. If CRLF are found on the project site then the project applicant shallensure no net loss of habitat that shall be achieved through avoidance, preservation, creation and/or purchase of credits. Mitigation may include, but would not be limited to, on-site and off-site preservationand creation of CRLF habitat, purchase of credits at mitigation banks, payment of in lieu fees approved by the agencies, or other agency approved and required mitigation measures. 3. Avoidance measures may include the following or equivalent protective measures: Submittal of documentation; site inspection; notes on construction plans Prior to ground disturbing activities for Phase 1A; during construction City of Dublin City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 8 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial To minimize disturbance of breedingand dispersing CRLF, construction activity within CRLF upland habitat shall be conducted during the dry season between April 15 and October 15 or before the onset of the rainy season, whichever occurs first. If construction activities are necessary in CRLF upland habitat between October 15 and April 15, the project applicant would contact the USFWS for approval to extend the work period. To minimize disturbanceand mortality of adult and juvenile CRLF in aquatic habitat and underground burrows, the project applicant should minimize the extent of ground- disturbing activities within these habitats byrequiring the contractor to limit the work area to the minimum necessary for construction. In addition, the project applicant should ensure that the contractor installs temporary exclusion fence between the construction work area and potential aquatic habitat for all construction within grasslands near aquatic habitat. A minimumbuffer zone of 150 feet shall be maintainedaround CRLF aquatic habitat during construction. No staging, parking, material storage or ground disturbance shall be allowed inthe buffer zone. The buffer zone will be clearly defined with construction fencing prior to the initiation of construction activitiesand shall be maintained until completion of construction. The project applicant should ensure that a qualified wildlife biologist monitors all construction activities within CRLF upland habitat to ensure no take of individual CRLF occurs during project construction. If a CRLF is found, then themonitor would immediately stop construction in that area and contact USFWS for development of a plan for how to proceed with construction. If preservation of upland habitat is required by USFWS, the City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 9 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial habitat land shall be within a USFWS approved conservation area. Section 3.4Cultural Resources MM CUL-1: In the event that buried historic or archaeological resources are discovered during construction, operations shall stop within 50 feet of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to evaluate the resource in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15064.5. The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the resourcedoes not qualify as a significant resource, then no further protection or study is necessary. If the resource does qualify as a significant resource then the impacts shall be avoided by project activities. If the resource cannot be avoided, adverse impacts to the resourceshall be addressed. The archaeologist shall make recommendations concerning appropriate mitigation measures that shall beimplemented to protect the resources, including butnot limited to excavation and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Any previously undiscovered resources found duringconstruction within the project area should be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria. Submittal of documentation; site inspection; notes on construction plans During subsurface earthwork activities City of Dublin MM CUL-3: In the event a fossil is discovered during construction for the proposed project, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every constructioncontract to inform contractors of Submittal of documentation; site inspection; notes on construction plans During subsurface earthwork activities City of Dublin City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 10 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial this requirement. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, they shall beavoided byproject 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 resourcesis 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 resourcesis confirmed, a monitoring plan of further project subsurface construction shall be prepared in conjunction with this assessment. Afterproject subsurface construction has ended, a report documenting monitoring, methods, findings, and further recommendations regarding paleontological resources shall be preparedand submitted to the Director of Community Development. MM CUL-4: In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5; Health and Safety Code § 7050.5; Public Resources Code § 5097.94 and § 5097.98 must be followed. If during the course of project development there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken: 1. Thereshall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the Alameda CountyCoroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if aninvestigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall Notification of Alameda CountyCoroner; submittal of documentation; site inspection; notes on construction plans During subsurface earthwork activities City of Dublin; Alameda County Coroner City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 11 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD maymake recommendations to the landowner or the personresponsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. 2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representativeshall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendant or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance: The NAHC isunable to identify a most likely descendent or the mostlikely descendent failed to makea recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission. The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. The landowner or his authorized representativerejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediationby the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. Section 3.5 - Geology, Soils, and Seismicity MM GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits for each structure, the project applicant shall submit a design-level Geotechnical Investigation to the City of Dublin for review and approval. The investigation shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and identify necessary grading and building practices necessary to achieve compliance with the latestadopted edition of the California Building Standards Code geologic, soils, and seismic requirements. Themeasures identified in the Approval of Geotechnical Investigation and building plans Prior to the issuance of buildingpermits City of Dublin City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 12 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial approved report shall be incorporated into the project plans. Section 3.7 - Hydrologyand Water Quality MM HYD-1a: Prior to issuance of grading permits for the proposed project, the City of Dublin shall verify that the applicant has prepared a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWPPP) in accordance with the requirements of the statewide Construction General Permit. The SWPPP shall be designed to address the following objectives: (1) allpollutants and their sources, including sources of sediment associated with construction, construction site erosion, and all other activities associated with construction activity are controlled; (2) where not otherwise required to be under a Regional WaterQuality Control Board permit, all non-stormwater discharges are identified and either eliminated, controlled, or treated; (3) site Best Management Practices (BMPs) are effective and result in the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges andauthorized non-stormwater discharges from construction activity; and (4) stabilization BMPs installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction are completed. The SWPPP shall be prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer. The SWPPP shall include the minimum BMPs required forthe identified Risk Level. BMP implementation shall be consistent with the BMP requirements inthe most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Handbook-Construction or the Caltrans StormwaterQuality HandbookConstruction Site BMPs Manual. Approval of SWPPP Prior to issuance of grading permits City of Dublin City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 13 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial MM HYD-1b: Prior to issuance of buildingpermits forthe proposed project, the City of Dublin shall verify that the project applicant has prepared operational stormwater qualitycontrol measures that comply with the requirements of the current Municipal Regional Permit. Responsibilities include but are not limited to designing BMPs into project features and operations to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality and to manage changes in thetiming and quantity of runoff associated with operation of the project. These features shall be included in the design-level drainage plan and final development drawings. Specifically, the final design shall include measures designed to mitigate potential water quality degradation from all portions of completed developments. The proposed project shall incorporate site design and BMPs described in the current version of AlamedaCounty Clean Water Program, C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance manual. Low Impact Development features, includingminimizing disturbed areas and impervious cover and theninfiltrating, storing, detaining, evapotranspiring, or biotreating stormwater runoff close to its source, shall be used at each development covered by the Municipal Regional Permit. Funding for long-term maintenance of all BMPs must be specified. For each development project, the project sponsor shallestablish aself-perpetuating Operation and Maintenance of Stormwater Treatment Systems plan Municipal Regional Permit provision C.3.h). This plan shall specify a regular inspection schedule of stormwater treatment facilities in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit. Reports documenting inspections and any remedial action conducted shall be submitted regularly to the City for review and approval. Approval of plan Prior to issuance of building permits City of Dublin City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 14 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial MM HYD-3: Prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed project, the City of Dublin shall verify that the applicant has prepareda storm drainage and hydraulic study in accordance with City requirements. The storm drainage and hydraulic study shall quantify the increase in stormwater runoff peak flow rates and volumes resulting from the project, and identify the potential to exceed the conveyance and storage capacity of the local storm drainage system. The study shall incorporate the stormwater treatment controls and LID measures that will be designed to capture and treat runoff. The analysis shall verify whether the existing drainage infrastructure is adequate to receive and convey runoff from the proposed project. If the findings of the analysis reveal that implementation of a proposed project would create runoff beyond the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage systems, the project shall be required to upgrade undersized components or adopt a different form of stormwater runoff management. Prior to approval of a proposed project, the final design drainageplans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin Public Works Department and Zone 7 Water Agency. Approval of study Prior to issuance of building permits City of Dublin Section 3.9 – Noise MM NOI-1: To reduce potential construction noise impacts, the following multi-part mitigation measureshall be implemented for the proposed project: The constructioncontractor shall limit all on-site noise producing construction activities, including deliveries and warming up of equipment, to the daytime hours of 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday (excludingholidays) unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The constructioncontractor shallensure that all internal combustion engine-driven equipment is equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. Notes onconstruction plans; siteinspection During construction City of Dublin City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 15 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial The constructioncontractor shall locate stationary noise - generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. In addition, the project contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. The constructioncontractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. The constructioncontractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on-site equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during allproject construction. The constructioncontractor shall designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the disturbance coordinator shall notifythe City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaints (starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem, as deemed acceptable by the Dublin Planning Department. The construction contractor shallconspicuously post the contact nameand telephone number for the noisedisturbance coordinator at the construction site. City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 16 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial Section 3.11 – Transportation MM TRANS-1: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A, the project applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management TDM) Program to the City of Dublin for review and approval. The TDM program shall beprepared by a qualified transportation consultant/ engineerand identify TDM measures. The TDM program shall contain the following provisions: The TDM program shall establish the following trip budgets for each project phase: Phases 1A and 1B: The number of trips generated should be no more than expected based on the Trip Generation Estimate total AM and PM peak hour trips for Phases 1A and 1B noted in Table 3.11-9 (Trips By Analysis Phase). Phase 2: Implementation of the TDM program shall produce a 5% reduction from the Trip Generation Estimate total AM and PM peak hour trips for Phases 1A, 1B, and 2 combined as noted in Table 3.11-9. Phase 3: Implementation of the TDM program shall produce a 10% reduction from the Trip Generation Estimate total AM and PM peak hour trips for the total project, as shown in Table 3.11-9. The TDM program may include but may not be limited to the following measures: Shuttle service between the project and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station Public transit subsidies Employer-sponsored carpooling and ride-matching programs. Preferentialcarpoolparking Guaranteed ride home On-site car share program Scheduling practices to avoid peak-hour travel (flex time, staggered shifts, compressed work schedules, etc.) Approval of program Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A City of Dublin City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 17 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial End of trip facilities such as lockers, showers, or storage facilities. Provision of kiosks, website(s), brochures, and similar items that provide informationabout the TDM program. The effectiveness of the TDM program shall be monitored 6 months afterthe completion of each phase. Monitoring shall consist of conducting peak period traffic counts at the project driveways over a 3-day period. The cost of conducting the traffic counts shall be paid by the project applicant or projectowner. The resulting trip rates should be normalized by employee, patient loads and/or square footageand compared the trip generation presented to determine if the peak-hour trip budgets have been attained. If the TDM program is not achieving the established trip budgets, specific changes shall be made to the TDM program to be reviewedand approved by the City to ensure that the reductionsrequired in the mitigation measureare met. Subsequent monitoring periods shallbe on an annual basis until it is shown that the TDM measures are effective in reducingvehicle trips to the budget set forth for eachphase. A report shall be provided to the City every year summarizing the program’s effectiveness and identifying additional steps to betaken if necessary. MM TRANS-2: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A, the south side of Dublin Boulevardshall be widened between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street (approximately800 feet) to provide a third eastbound through lane, connecting to an existing three - lane eastbound cross section at Brannigan Street. This improvement shall be constructed by the applicant prior to occupancy of Phase 1A if not constructed by the City prior to that date. If the City constructs the improvement in advance of the occupancy of Phase 1A, the applicant shall meet this Acceptance of improvements or receipt of fees Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A City of Dublin City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 18 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial obligation through the payment of the Eastern Dublin TIF or through the payment of a fair share contribution (if the improvement is not identified in the EDTIF program). MM TRANS-3: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A, the intersection of Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard shall be improved to provide second left-turn lanes on both the northbound and eastbound approaches. In addition, the signal operation shall be retimed to minimize queuing. This improvement shall be constructed by the applicant prior to occupancy of Phase 1A if not constructed by the City prior to that date. If the City constructs the improvement in advance of the occupancy of Phase 1A, the applicant shall meet this obligation through the payment of the Eastern Dublin TIF or through the payment of a fair share contribution (if the improvement is not identified in the EDTIF program). Acceptance of improvements; implementation of signal timing of adjustments; or receipt of fees Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A City of Dublin MM TRANS-4: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A, the City of Dublin shall retime the signal operation at Fallon Road/Fallon Gateway to better accommodate the added traffic associated project buildout. The applicant shallpay to the City of Dublin the cost of retiming. Receipt of fees; implementation of signal timing of adjustments Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A City of Dublin MM TRANS-5: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A, the applicant and the City of Dublin shall coordinate with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to retime the signal operation at the intersection of Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps to better accommodate the added traffic associated project buildout. The applicant shall provide Caltrans or the City of Pleasanton with its fair-share cost of retiming. Receipt of fees; implementation of signal timing of adjustments Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A City of Dublin; Caltrans; City of Pleasanton City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 19 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial MM TRANS-6a: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A, the City of Dublin shall retime the signal operation at Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road to better accommodate the added traffic-associated project buildout. The applicant shall pay to the City of Dublin with the cost of retiming. Receipt of fees; implementation of signal timing of adjustments Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A City of Dublin MM TRANS-7a: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A, the City of Dublin shall retime the signal operation at Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road to better accommodate the added traffic associated project buildout. The applicant shall pay to the City of Dublin the cost of retiming. Acceptance of improvements Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A City of Dublin MM TRANS-7c: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A, the applicant shall construct a second minimum 250 -foot westbound left- turn lane on Dublin Boulevard at Keegan Street. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. Acceptance of improvements Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A City of Dublin MM TRANS-7d: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A, the applicant shall extend the existing dualwestbound left-turn lanes on Dublin Boulevard to LockhartStreet to provide an additional 100 feet of vehicle storage, for a total of 350 feet. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. This isa proposed project improvement, but it has been included as a mitigation measure to ensure implementation. Acceptance of improvements Prior to occupancy of Phase 1A City of Dublin City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 20 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial MM TRANS-8: A southbound right-turn only lane shall be constructed at the Amador Plaza Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection as identified by the Downtown Dublin Transportation Impact Fee (October 2015). This improvement shall be constructedby the applicant prior to occupancy of Phase 2 if not constructed by the City prior to that date. If the City constructs the improvement in advance of the occupancy of Phase 2, the applicant shall meet this obligation through the payment of the Eastern Dublin or Downtown TIF or through the payment of a fair share contribution (if the improvement is not identified inthe ED or Downtown TIF program). Acceptance of improvements or receipt of fees Prior to occupancy of Phase 2 City of Dublin MM TRANS-12: Prior to occupancy of Phase 2, the applicant shall provide itsfair-share cost contribution to the Santa Rita/I- 580 Eastbound ramp improvements. The interchange improvementsincludeconstructing a second southbound left turn lane and upgrading the traffic signal intersection of the Santa Rita/I-580 Eastbound ramp. An escrow account where fair-share funds can be deposited for interchange improvements not included in local or regionalfee programs shall be established in coordination with the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and the Alameda CTC. TheCity will ensure that the fair-share costs arecollected for the escrow account and maintained for the needed improvements. The fair-share payments would be above the required local and regionalfee payments, unless the identified improvements are included or added to a local or regionalfeeprogram prior to occupancy of Phase 2. If the identified improvements are added to a local or regionalfeeprogram prior to occupancy of Phase 2, then the applicant shall pay the fee established under the fee program prior to occupancy of Phase 2 as satisfaction of thismitigation measure. Receipt of fees Prior to occupancy of Phase 2 City of Dublin; Caltrans; City of Pleasanton City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 21 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial MM TRANS-15: Prior to occupancy of Phase 3, the applicant shall construct a second northbound right-turn lane, providing a four-lane northbound cross-section on LockhartStreet at Dublin Boulevard. Acceptance of improvements Prior to occupancy of Phase 3 City of Dublin MM TRANS-16: Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for Phase 2, a second northbound left-turn lane shall be constructed at Fallon Road/ Dublin Boulevard. This improvement shall be constructed by the applicant prior to occupancy of Phase 2 if not constructed by the City prior to that date. If the City constructs the improvement in advance of the occupancy of Phase 2, the applicant shall meet this obligation through the payment of the Eastern Dublin TIF or through the payment of a fair share contribution (if the improvement is not identified in the EDTIF program). (Note that construction of the second eastbound left-turn lane was assumed inthe background near-term condition.) Acceptance of improvements or receipt of fees Prior to the issuance of thefirst certificate of occupancy for Phase 2 City of Dublin MM TRANS-18: Prior to occupancy of Phase 2, the applicant shall provide its fair-share cost contribution to the Phase 2 Fallon/I-580/El Charro interchange improvements. The interchange improvements include: Reconstruction of overcrossing to provide four-lanes in each direction; reconstruction of the southbound to eastbound loop on -ramp; widening of the eastbound off-ramp to provide two exit lanes with two left turn and two right tum lanes; widening of the eastbound on-ramp; widening of the westbound off-ramp to provide two left tum and two right tum lanes; and widening of the westbound on-ramp. An escrow account where fair-share funds can be deposited for interchange improvements not included in local or regionalfee programs shall be established in coordination with the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and the Alameda CTC. The City will ensure that the fair-share costs Receipt of fees Prior to issuance of building permits City of Dublin City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 22 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial arecollected for the escrow account and maintained for the needed improvements. The fair-share payments would be above the required local and regionalfee payments, unless the identified improvements are included or added to a local or regionalfee program prior to occupancy of Phase 2. If the identified improvements are added to a local or regional fee program prior to occupancy of Phase 2, then the applicant shall pay the fee established under the feeprogram prior to occupancy of Phase 2 as satisfaction of this mitigation measure. MM TRANS-19b: Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard. The project applicant shall work with the City of Dublin to adjust signal timings subsequent to the completion of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 project to minimize the effects of vehicle queue spillback. Implementation of signal timing of adjustments Subsequent to the completion of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 City of Dublin MM TRANS-19c: Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard. The project applicant shall pay the TIF (which would satisfy its obligation for the Scarlett Driveextension) and work with the City of Dublin to adjust signal timings subsequent to the completion of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 project to minimize the effects of vehicle queue spillback. The applicant shallpay the costs for the adjustment of the signal timing. Receipt of fees; implementation of signal timing of adjustments Subsequent to the completion of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 City of Dublin MM TRANS-19d: Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard. The project applicant shall also work with the City of Dublin to adjust signal timings subsequent to the completion of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 project to minimize the effects of vehicle queue spillback. The applicant shall pay the costs for the adjustment of the signal timing. Implementation of this measure would reducevehicle queues to a level that can be accommodated within the available storage space, reducing the queuing impact to a less than significant level. Receipt of fees; implementation of signal timing of adjustments Subsequent to the completion of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 City of Dublin City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 23 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial MM TRANS-34a: Carnmore Place/FutureProject Driveway/ Dublin Boulevard. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Phase 1B, the northbound approach at Carnmore Place/FutureProject Driveway/Dublin Boulevard shall provide adequate storagecapacity for northbound left turns. The plans shall be reviewedand approved by the City and incorporated into the proposed project. Approval of plans Prior to the issuance of thefirst building permit for Phase 1B City of Dublin MM TRANS-36: The project applicant shall contribute funding to roadway improvements through the payment of City of Dublin and Tri Valley regional traffic impact fees. Receipt of fees Prior to issuance of building permits City of Dublin MM TRANS-38a: Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 1A, the project applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin that depict the internal roadway extending south from Dublin Boulevard/Lockhart Street as a 1-lane (each direction) facility south of the northern east-west roadway with turn pockets at parking area access locations. The approved plans shall beincorporated into the project. Approval of plans Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 1A City of Dublin MM TRANS-38b: Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 2, the project applicant shall prepareand submit plans to the City of Dublin that limit or avoid the number of skewed intersections inthe vicinity of the drop-off area and the parking lot to the south. The approved plansshall be incorporated into the project. Approval of plans Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 2 City of Dublin MM TRANS-38c: Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 2, the project applicant shall prepareand submit plans to the City of Dublin that demonstrates that adequate truck access can beprovided to the loading area. The approved plans shall beincorporated into the project. Approval of plans Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 2 City of Dublin City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 24 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial MM TRANS-40a: Prior to completion of Phases 1A, 1B, 2, and 3, the project applicant shall coordinate with the City of Dublin and Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority to review the adequacy of bus service in the projectvicinity and inside the development. As part of this review process, service hours, service frequency, bus stop location and amenities, and related issues shall be evaluated with the objective of ensuring that transit service is accessible and convenient for project employees, patients, customers, and visitors. Service and facility improvements shall be implemented in conjunction with the opening of each phase as approved by the City and Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority. Consultation with LivermoreAmador Valley Transit Authority Prior to completion of Phases 1A, 1B, 2, and 3 City of Dublin; Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority MM TRANS-40b: Prior to issuance of building permits for Phases 1A, 1B, 2, and 3, the project applicant shall prepareand submit plans to the City of Dublin depicting the following bicycle facilities and improvements. Note that the items listed below are intended only for new facilities developed within the project site; existingbicycle facilities would not need to be replaced. The approved plansshall beincorporated into the proposed project. Off-street paths (Class I) or on-street bicycle lanes on internal roadways (Class II/III) within the project site Short-term (bike racks) and long-term bicycle (lockers) parking facilities Bicycle loop detectors at the modified Dublin Boulevard/Keegan Street and Dublin Boulevard/Lockhart Street intersections Approval of plans Prior to issuance of building permits for Phases 1A, 1B, 2, and3 City of Dublin City of Dublin – Kaiser DublinMedical Center Project Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram FirstCarbon Solutions 25 C:\users\carolines\appdata\local\temp\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\1470.docx Table 1 (cont.): Kaiser Dublin Medical Center Project MitigationMonitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of VerificationTiming of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial MM TRANS-40c: Prior to issuance of buildingpermits for Phases 1A, 1B, 2, and 3, the project applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin depicting the following pedestrian facilities andimprovements. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. Provide passive detection of pedestrians at all signals serving the development access points. Pedestrian facilities shall provide direct linkages between buildings, parking areas, plazas, and adjoiningland uses. Pedestrian facilities shall be physicallyseparated from vehicular circulation where possible and the number of roadway pedestrian crossings shall be minimized. Roadway pedestrian crossings shall include safety features such as markings, signage, pavement treatments, or warning devices as appropriate. Pedestrian facilitieslinking the bus stop(s) on Dublin Boulevard with project buildings shall includewayfinding signage and lighting. Approval of plans Prior to issuance of building permits for Phases 1A, 1B, 2, and3 City of Dublin 1 RESOLUTIONNO. 16-16 A RESOLUTIONOFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATIONOF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTIONOFENVIRONMENTALFINDINGS UNDER CEQA FOR THE KAISERDUBLIN MEDICAL CENTER PROJECT PA 08-050 and PLPA 2016-00007 APNs 985-0061-005-00 and 985-0027-009-02) WHEREAS, theApplicant, Kaiser FoundationHospitals, submitted a PlanningApplication for the Kaiser Dublin Medical Centerproject, which is comprisedof 950,000square feet of medicalcampususes in threemain buildings, 250,000 square feet ofcommercialuses, a parkingstructure, and associated site, roadway frontage, and landscapeimprovements. The requestedland use approvals include a GeneralPlanAmendment and Eastern DublinSpecific Plan Amendment tocreate two new landuse districts, PlannedDevelopmentRezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), and a SiteDevelopmentReviewPermit for Phase 1A (a 220,000 square foot medicaloffice building), a requestfor a DevelopmentAgreement, and certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report, among otherrelatedactions. Theseplanningandimplementing actionsare collectively known as the “KaiserDublin MedicalCenterProject” or the “Project”; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA), together with the State guidelinesandCityenvironmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmentalimpacts and thatenvironmentaldocuments be prepared . It was determinedthat an EnvironmentalImpactReport (EIR) bepreparedto analyze theKaiser Dublin MedicalCenter project; and WHEREAS, the Citycirculated a Notice of Preparation, datedJanuary12, 2015, to public agenciesand interested parties for con sultation on thescopeoftheEIR. TheCityalso conducted a publicscopingmeeting on January 22, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Cityprepared a Draft Environmental ImpactReport (EIR) datedFebruary 3, 2016for the proposed Project that reflected the City’s independentjudgmentand analysis of the potentialenvironmental impacts of theProject. TheDraftEIR is incorporatedherein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for publicreview in February and March 2016 for45 days; and WHEREAS, theCity received commentletters from State , regional, and local agencies as well as interestedindividuals and organizations duringthepublicreview period. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the City preparedwrittenresponsesto all the comments received duringthepublic comment period. The Cityprepared a FinalEIR (that includes the Responses to Comments), datedAugust2016, for the proposed Project, which included an annotated copy of eachcommentletter identifying specific comments, responses to eachspecific comment, and clarifications andminorcorrectionsto information presented in the Draft EIR. The FinalEIR is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution and is incorporated herein 2 by reference (Exhibit A alsocontainsthe complete EIR – DraftEIR, Appendices, and FinalEIR combined – on a CDwithin the document). The complete KaiserDublinMedicalCenter Project EIR incorporates the Draft EIRand theFinal EIR together. Theresponsestocomments provide the City’s good faith, reasoned analysis oftheenvironmental issues raised bythe comments; and WHEREAS, the City carefullyreviewed the comments and writtenresponses and determinedthattheFinal EIR, includingtheclarifications and minorcorrections to the Draft EIR, do not constitutesignificant new information requiring recirculation of the DraftEIRunderthe standards in CEQA Guidelinessection 15088.5; and WHEREAS, a StaffReport, dated August 23, 2016 andincorporatedherein by reference, describedand analyzed the Project for the PlanningCommission and containedinformation on the FinalEIR; and WHEREAS, thePlanningCommissionreviewedthe Staff Report, the FinalEIR, including commentsand responses, at a noticed publichearing on August 23, 2016 at whichtime all interestedpartieshadtheopportunity to beheard; and WHEREAS, the FinalEIR, including comments and responses, reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmentalimpacts fromtheProject; and WHEREAS, the FinalEIR identifiedseveralpotentially significant impactsthat will be reducedtoa less thansignificant levelwith specifiedmitigationmeasures. Approvalofthe project bythe CityCouncilwilltherefore requireadoption of findings on impactsandmitigations and a MitigationMonitoring and ReportingProgram; and WHEREAS, the FinalEIR identifiedsignificant and unavoidableenvironmentalimpactsof the projectand approval of the project bythe CityCouncilwilltherefore requireadoption of Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations: and WHEREAS, the FinalEIR andall of thedocuments relating to the Project are available for review in the City PlanningDivisionat the DublinCityHall, filePA 08-050, during normal businesshours. Thelocation and custodianoftheFinal EIR andotherdocumentsthat constitutethe record ofproceedings for theProject isthe Cityof Dublin Community DevelopmentDepartment, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, file PA 08-050. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDTHAT, the DublinPlanningCommissionhereby makes the following findings and recommendations to theCityCouncil on the FinalEIRand the environmentalreviewofthe Project under CEQA: A. The foregoing recitalsaretrueandcorrectand made a partof this resolution. B. TheFinal EIR has been completed in compliance withCEQA, theCEQAGuidelinesand theCityof DublinEnvironmental Guidelines. C. The PlanningCommission has independentlyreviewed and considered the information contained in theFinalEIR, including the writtencommentsreceivedduringthe Draft EIR 3 review periodandthe oraland written comments received at the public hearing, prior to making its recommendation on theproposedProject. D. The Final EIRreflects the City’s independentjudgmentand analysis on the potential environmentalimpacts of the proposed Project. The FinalEIR providesinformation to thedecision-makers and thepublic on theenvironmental consequences of the proposed Project. E. The Final EIR adequately describesthe proposed Project, its significantenvironmental impacts, mitigationmeasuresand a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Dublin Planning Commission hereby recommends that, prior to the approval of the Project, the CityCouncil certify the Final EnvironmentalImpact Report as complete, adequateand in compliancewithCEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, andthe City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines. ThePlanningCommissionfurtherrecommendsthat the City Councilmake all required, mitigation and alternatives findings, adopta Statement of Overriding Considerations, andadopt a MitigationMonitoring and Reporting Program, all in compliance with the requirements ofCEQA. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day ofAugust, 2016 bythe following vote: AYES: Do, Kohli, Goel, Bhuthimethee NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mittan Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant CommunityDevelopment Director RESOLUTIONNO. 16-17 A RESOLUTIONOFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCILADOPT A RESOLUTIONAMENDINGTHE GENERAL PLAN AND THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN RELATEDTO THE KAISERDUBLIN MEDICAL CENTER PROJECT PA 08-050 and PLPA 2016-00007 APNs 985-0061-005-00 and 985-0027-009-02) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Kaiser FoundationHealth Plan, submitted a Planning Application forthe Kaiser Dublin MedicalCenter project, which is comprised of 950,000square feet of medicalcampus uses in threemain buildings, 250,000 square feet of commercialuses, a parking structure, andassociated site, roadwayfrontage, andlandscape improvements. Requested land useapprovals includeaGeneralPlan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to create two new landuse districts, Planned DevelopmentRezoning (Stage 1andStage 2), and SiteDevelopment Review for Phase 1A (a 220,000 square foot medicaloffice building), a request for aDevelopment Agreement, andcertificationofaFinalEnvironmentalImpact Report, amongother relatedactions. Theseplanning and implemen ting actionsare collectively known as the “KaiserDublinMedicalCenterProject” or the “Project”; and WHEREAS, theGeneralPlanandEastern Dublin SpecificPlan land use designation for the project site is amended from “CampusOffice” to “MedicalCampus” and “Medical Campus/Commercial” in accordancewith theExhibit within the Resolution. In addition, other provisionsoftheGeneralPlanandEasternDublinSpecificPlanare amended to ensure consistency with the new land usedesignations for theProject site; and WHEREAS, the CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct (CEQA), together with the State guidelinesandCityenvironmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmentalimpacts and that environmental documentsbeprepared; and WHEREAS, the City prepareda Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Projectwhich reflected the City’s independentjudgmentandanalysis of thepotential environmentalimpacts of the Project; and WHEREAS, the DraftEIR was circulated for 45days for public comment in February and March 2016; and WHEREAS, comments received on the DraftEIRwerereviewedandrespondedto, and the Final EIR (thatcontainstheResponsetoComments) dated August9, 2016 was prepared; and WHEREAS, consistent with section65352.3 oftheCaliforniaGovernmentCode, theCity obtaineda contactlist oflocal NativeAmerican tribesfrom the NativeAmerican Heritage Commission and notified the tribes onthe contactlist of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposedGeneral Plan Amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a consultation within the90-day statutoryconsultationperiod and nofurtheraction is required undersection 65352.3; and 2 WHEREAS, a StaffReport, dated August 23, 2016 and incorporated herein by reference, describedandanalyzedtheProject, including the GeneralPlanAmendments, Eastern Dublin SpecificPlan Amendments, PlannedDevelopmentRezoning and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and certification of a Final Environmental ImpactReport, for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the PlanningCommissionheld aproperly noticed public hearing on the Project, includingtheproposedGeneralPlan and EasternDublinSpecific Plan Amendments, on August 23, 2016 at whichtime all interested partieshadthe opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the PlanningCommissionconsidered the Final EIR, all above-referenced reports, recommendations, andtestimony to evaluatetheProject. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDthat theforegoingrecitalsaretrue and correct and madeapartof this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the PlanningCommissionrecommends thatthe City Council approve theResolutionattached as Exhibit A approvingamendmentstothe General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan based on findings, asset forth in Exhibit A, that the amendmentsare inthe publicinterest, promotesgeneral health, safetyandwelfare, and thatthe GeneralPlanand Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, asso amended, will remain internally consistent. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day ofAugust2016 by thefollowing vote: AYES: Do, Kohli, Goel, Bhuthimethee NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mittan PlanningCommission Chair ATTEST: Assistant CommunityDevelopment Director RESOLUTIONNO. 16-18 A RESOLUTIONOFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THECITY COUNCILADOPT AN ORDINANCEAMENDINGTHE ZONING MAPAND APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICTWITH A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FORTHE WHOLEPROJECT SITE ANDSTAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FORPHASE 1A PA 08-050 and PLPA 2016-00007 APNs 985-0061-005-00 and 985-0027-009-02) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Kaiser FoundationHealth Plan, submitted a PlanningApplication for the KaiserDublinMedicalCenterproject, which is comprisedof 950,000square feet of medical campus uses inthree main buildings, 250,000squarefeetof commercial uses, a parkingstructure, and associated site, roadway frontage, and landscapeimprovements. Requestedlanduseapprovals include a General Plan AmendmentandEasternDublinSpecificPlan Amendment to create two new landuse districts, PlannedDevelopmentRezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), andSite Developme nt Review Permit for Phase 1A (a 220,000 square foot medical office building), a request for a DevelopmentAgreement, and certification of aFinal Environmental ImpactReport, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actionsarecollectivelyknown asthe “Kaiser DublinMedicalCenterProject” or the “Project”; and WHEREAS, the implementationofthe development project requires thattheproject site be rezoned to a new PlannedDevelopmentZoningDistrict with approvalof a related Stage 1 DevelopmentPlanforthewholeproject site and Stage 2 DevelopmentPlan for Phase 1A only; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) certain projects are requiredto be reviewed for environmentalimpactsandwhenapplicable, environmental documentsprepared; and WHEREAS, thePlanningCommissionheldaproperlynoticedpublichearingon the General Plan andEastern Dublin SpecificPlanAmendments and Planned Development Rezone on August 23, 2016at which timeall interested partieshad the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the PlanningCommissionadopt a Resolutionrecommending that theCityCounciladopt an Ordinance approving a Planned DevelopmentRezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the KaiserDublin MedicalCenter Project; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2016, the Planning CommissionadoptedResolution 16-xx recommending that theCity Councilcertify the Final EIR for the Project, whichResolution is incorporatedherein by referenceandavailable for reviewatCity Hall duringnormalbusinesshours ; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2016, the Planning CommissionadoptedResolution 16-xx recommending that theCityCouncil approve the proposed G eneralPlan and Eastern DublinSpecific Plan amendmentsrelated to the Project, whichresolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for reviewat City Hallduringnormalbusiness hours; and WHEREAS, thePlanningCommissiondidreview the Final Environmental Impact Report, all saidreports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forthand used its independent judgmentpriorto making a recommendation onthe Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE ITRESOLVEDthat the foregoingrecitalsare true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED thattheDublinPlanning Commission doesherebyadopt a Resolutionrecommending that the CityCounciladopt an Ordinance (Attached as Exhibit A) approving a Planned Development Zoning District with arelated Stage 1 Development Plan for the wholeproject site and a Stage 2 Development Plan for Phase 1A, based on findings, including but not limitedto, thatthe PlannedDevelopmentzoning andproject as a whole is consistentand in conformance with the General Plan and EasternDublinSpecificPlan as proposed, is consistent with the purpose and intent ofthe PlannedDevelopmentZoning District, andthat development of the proposedprojectwillbeharmoniousandcompatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of August2016 by the following vote: AYES: Do, Kohli, Goel, Bhuthimethee NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mittan PlanningCommission Chair ATTEST: Assistant CommunityDevelopment Director RESOLUTIONNO. 16-19 A RESOLUTIONOFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THECITY COUNCILADOPT AN ORDINANCEAPPROVING A DEVELOPMENTAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLINANDKAISER FOUNDATION HEALTHPLAN RELATED TO THE KAISERDUBLIN MEDICAL CENTER PROJECT PA 08-050 and PLPA 2016-00007 APNs 985-0061-005-00 and 985-0027-009-02) WHEREAS, theApplicant, KaiserFoundationHealthPlan, submitted a Planning Application for, and is proposing to obtain approvals for, the KaiserDublinMedical Center project, which is comprised of950,000square feet of medicalcampus uses in three main buildings, 250,000 square feet of commercial uses, a parkingstructure, and associated site, roadwayfrontage, andlandscapeimprovements. Requestedlanduse approvals include a GeneralPlan Amendment and EasternDublinSpecific Plan to createtwo new land use districts, Planned Development Rezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), and a SiteDevelopment Review Permit for Phase1A (a 220,000 squarefoot medical office building), a request for a Development Agreement, andcertification of aFinalEnvironmentalImpactReport, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectivelyknown asthe “KaiserDublin MedicalCenterProject” or the “Project”; and WHEREAS, theproject is thesubjectofanEnvironmentalImpactReport (EIR), State Clearinghousenumber2015012018. On August 23, 2016, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 16-xx, recommendingthattheCityCouncilcertify the Kaiser DublinMedical Center FinalEIRand adopt CEQAfindings, aStatement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring andReporting Program for the Project. The DevelopmentAgreementwas part ofthe Projectanalyzedin the EIRandtheimpacts of the activitiesunder the Development Agreementwereanalyzed inthe EIR; and WHEREAS, the proposed DevelopmentAgreement is attached to this Resolutionas Exhibit A-1; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2016, the Planning Commissionheld a public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, propernotice of thepublic hearingwas given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, theStaffReport was submitted recommending that thePlanning Commission recommend that the CityCounciladoptanOrdinance approving the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgmentand considered all reports, recommendations, andtestimonyhereinabove setforth. Page 2 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE ITRESOLVEDTHAT the City of DublinPlanning Commission does herebyrecommend that theCityCouncil make the following findings and determinations regardingthe proposedDevelopmentAgreement: 1. The Development Agreement is consistentwith the objectives, policies, general landuses andprogramsspecifiedandcontained in the City’s GeneralPlan, and inthe Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in that: (a) the DevelopmentAgreement incorporates the object ives, policies, generalland usesand programs inthe GeneralPlanandSpecificPlananddoesnot amendor modify them; and (b) theproject is consistent with thefiscal policies of the General Plan andSpecificPlan with respect to the provision of infrastructure and publicservices. 2. TheDevelopmentAgreement is compatiblewith the uses authorized in, and the regulationsprescribedfor, the land usedistricts in which the realproperty is locatedbecause the Development Agreement does not amend the use s or regulations inthe applicableland use district. 3. The DevelopmentAgreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare, andgood landuse policies in that the Developer’s project will implementland use guidelines set forth in the Ge neralPlan as articulated in Resolution No. xx-xx, amending the General PlanandtheEastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted bythe CityCouncil on 2016. 4. The DevelopmentAgreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and generalwelfare in that the Developer’s proposed project willproceed in accordance withall the programs and policies of the GeneralPlan, Eastern Dublin SpecificPlan, andfuture Project Approvalsand any Conditions of Approval. 5. The Development Agreementwill not adversely affect theorderlydevelopment of property or the preservation of propertyvalues in that the projectwillbeconsistent with the General Plan, theEasternDublinSpecific Plan, andfuture ProjectApprovals. 6. TheDevelopment Agreementspecifies thedurationof the agreement, the permitted uses oftheproperty, and the obligationsofthe Applicant. TheDevelopment Agreement contains anindemnity and insurance clause requiring the developer to indemnify andhold the City harmlessagainstclaimsarising out of thedevelopmentprocess, including all legalfees andcosts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THATtheCity ofDublinPlanning Commissiondoesherebyrecommendthat the CityCouncil adopt the Ordinance, attachedas Exhibit A, approving the Development Agreement betweentheCity of Dublin and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals related to the KaiserDublin MedicalCenter project. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTEDthis 23rd day of August2016. AYES: Do, Kohli, Goel, Bhuthimethee NOES: ABSENT: Page 3 of 3 ABSTAIN: Mittan PlanningCommissionChairperson ATTEST: Assistant CommunityDevelopmentDirector RESOLUTIONNO. 16 - 20 A RESOLUTIONOFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITYCOUNCILADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITEDEVELOPMENTREVIEW PERMIT FORPHASE 1A OF THE KAISERDUBLIN MEDICAL CENTER PROJECT PA 08-050 and PLPA 2016-00007 APNs 985-0061-005-00 and 985-0027-009-02) WHEREAS, theApplicant, KaiserFoundation Hospitals, submitted a PlanningApplication forthe Kaiser DublinMedical Center project, which is comprisedof 950,000square feet of medicalcampus uses in threemainbuildings, 250,000 square feet of commercial uses, a parking structure, and associated site, roadwayfrontage, andlandscapeimprovements. Requested land useapprovals includeaGeneralPlan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment tocreate twonew landusedistricts, Planned Development Rezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), and a Site Development ReviewPermit for Phase1A (a 220,000 square foot medical office building), a requestfor a Development Agreement , and certificationof a Final Environmental ImpactReport, among other relatedactions. Theseplanningand implementing actionsarecollectivelyknown as the “KaiserDublin MedicalCenterProject” or the “Project”; and WHEREAS, theproject site is locatedwithinaPlanned Development Zoning District; and WHEREAS, theProjectPlans, attached as Exhibit B, illustratethe site layoutandbuilding elevations for approximately 220,000square feet ofmedical officeuses, which are permitted by the EasternDublinSpecific Planand General Plan, as amended; and WHEREAS, theSite Development ReviewPermitapplication collectively defines this Project” and is availableand on file inthe Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA), together with State Guidelinesand Dublin’s CEQA Guidelines require thatcertainprojectsbe reviewed for environmentalimpacts and thatenvironmentaldocuments be prepared; and WHEREAS, the City prepareda Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Projectwhich reflected the City’s independentjudgmentandanalysis of thepotential environmentalimpacts of the Project; and WHEREAS, aStaffReportforthePlanningCommission, datedAugust 23, 2016and incorporated herein byreference, described and analyzed the Project, includingtheSite Development Review Permitand furthermore, on August 23, 2016, the PlanningCommission held a properlynoticedpublichearing on the Project, includingthe proposed SiteDevelopment Review Permit, at whichtime all interestedparties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on August23, 2016, the PlanningCommission adopted Resolution 16 -xx recommendingthatthe City Councilcertify the Final EIR for the Project, which Resolution is incorporated hereinby referenceand available for review at City Hallduringnormalbusiness hours; and 2 WHEREAS, on August 23, 2016, the PlanningCommission adopted Resolution 16 -xx recommending that theCityCouncilapprove the proposedGeneral Plan andEasternDublin SpecificPlan amendments relatedtotheProject, whichresolution is incorporatedherein by referenceandavailable for review at City Hall duringnormalbusiness hours; and WHEREAS, thePlanningCommission did hearandconsider allsaid reports, recommendations and testimony herein aboveset forth and used its independent judgment to evaluatetheproject. NOW, THEREFORE, BE ITRESOLVEDthat the PlanningCommission of theCity of Dublin, basedonthefindings and conditions of approval in the attachedResolution, recommendsthatthe City Council adopt the Resolutionattached as Exhibit A, which Resolution approves a Site Development Review Permit for Phase 1Aof the KaiserDublinMedical Center Project. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of August 2016 by thefollowing vote: AYES: Do, Kohli, Goel, Bhuthimethee NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mittan PlanningCommission Chair ATTEST: Assistant CommunityDevelopment Director