Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.1 Cambria Hotel (PLPA-2019-00020, PLPA-2019-00044 and PLOC-2020-00053)STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: April 28, 2020 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Cambria Hotel (PLPA-2019-00020, PLPA-2019-00044 and PLOC-2020- 00053) Prepared by. -Amy Million, Principal Planner The Applicant, Jerry Hunt of VP-RPG Dublin, LLC., is proposing to construct a 138- room hotel on an existing parking lot located south of the existing Corrie Center office building at 7950 Dublin Boulevard within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) Transit -Oriented District. The new six -story hotel will consist of four stories of guest rooms and amenities over two stories of podium parking, and related landscaping and site improvements. Requested approvals include a Site Development Review Permit, a Minor Use Permit for shared parking between the proposed hotel and existing office building and a Heritage Tree Removal Permit for the removal of two Coast redwood trees. RECOMMENDATION: Disclose ex-parte contacts, conduct the public hearing, deliberate and adopt a Resolution approving a Site Development Review Permit for the construction of a 138- room hotel, a Minor Use Permit to allow a parking reduction for shared parking and a Heritage Tree Removal Permit at 7950 Dublin Boulevard. DESCRIPTION: Background The 4.5-acre project site is located at 7950 Dublin Boulevard at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road within the DDSP Transit -Oriented District as shown in Figure 1 below. The project site, which includes the Corrie Center office building and the former Hooter's restaurant (closed February 2020), shares street access with Earl Anthony's Dublin Bowl, a two-story office building on Regional Street and a single -story multi -tenant retail building on Dublin Boulevard. Access to the site is provided from both Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street through the parking field. 5.1 Page 1 of 11 Packet Pg. 9 5.1 1. Proiect Location The proposed project is one piece of the larger development plan the Applicant has undertaken on the subject property. On April 14, 2020, the Community Development Director approved a Site Development Review Permit to remodel the exterior of the Corrie Center office building, modify the landscaping, and upgrade the parking area to meet current accessibility requirements. In conjunction with the Site Development Review Permit, a Heritage Tree Removal Permit was also considered and approved to allow nine redwood trees to be removed throughout the subject property. In December 2019, the Community Development Director approved the Lot Line Adjustment to relocate the existing property line between the existing office building and the former Hooter's restaurant to the south side of the office building. The Lot Line Adjustment places the proposed hotel on one parcel and the office building and restaurant on another. The total number of parcels has not change. Proposed Project The Applicant, Jerry Hunt of VP-RPG Dublin, LLC., is proposing to construct a 138- room hotel and associated site improvements on the newly created 1.75-acre parcel at 7950 Dublin Boulevard. The six -story building is designed with four floors of hotel over two stories of podium parking. The proposed project includes the following entitlements for consideration by the Planning Commission: • Site Development Review Permit — Site Development Review Permit to allow construction of a 138-room hotel and associated site improvements. • Minor Use Permit — A Minor Use Permit to allow a parking reduction for shared parking between the proposed hotel and existing office building. • Heritage Tree Removal Permit — A Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove two Coast redwood trees. Page 2 of 11 Packet Pg. 10 5.1 The draft resolution approving the Site Development Review Permit, Minor Use Permit and Heritage Tree Removal Permit is included in the staff report as Attachment 1. In addition, the project requires City Council approval of a Community Benefit Agreement (CBA) for the allocation of non-residential square footage from the Downtown Dublin Development Pool. The City Council meeting for consideration of the CBA has not yet been scheduled. ANALYSIS: Site Development Review Permit Site Layout The project site is located on the southern end of the parcel between the existing office building and 1-580 offramp/Holiday Inn hotel and does not have direct access to a public street. As a result, access to the project site from Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street is provided via several easements through the existing parking field. As shown in Figure 2, the proposed project would replace the existing parking area on the south side of the office building with the hotel and podium parking structure. Access to the hotel would be via existing drive aisles from Dublin Boulevard or through the parking field from Regional Street. The primary entrance to the hotel would orient to the east along the access drive aisle with secondary access from the west. A new pedestrian path along the drive aisle, which is part of the Site Development Review Permit for the office building remodel, would be extended to the front entrance of the hotel. Figure 2. Site Plan i�r►iri�iif r�ir;%►1j��r�i�i�iri�i�i►� V0��� 0 00 As stated, the proposed hotel would include a two-story parking structure with four floors of hotel above. Four points of vehicular access would be provided to the parking structure; two on the west side and two on the east side. Additional ground -level parking would be provided on the south and west sides of the building. The parking structure is designed to accommodate the parking demand for both the hotel and the adjacent office building. Refer to the Minor Use Permit — Parking Reduction for Shared Parking section below for additional information on the total parking requirements for the project. Page 3 of 11 Packet Pg. 11 5.1 Architecture The architectural vision for the Transit -Oriented District as outlined in the DDSP is that new buildings "will complement the existing uses with designs that are compatible with adjacent structures and the district as a whole." In addition, buildings shall use high - quality materials while utilizing creative and unique designs. The project's architectural design and material palette is consistent with this vision. The hotel's architecture has a contemporary aesthetic with angular lines and includes complementary high -quality exterior materials and colors. Facade treatments include concrete, composite panels and aluminum windows. The overall form of the six -story building is L-shaped with a two-story circular form located within the inside corner. The circular form functions as the parking structure with amenity space on the roof. The contemporary building form is highlighted with the upper portions of the hotel cantilevering over the ground -floor parking areas. Figure 3. Southwest Elevation Facing 1-580 A color and material palette has been provided that illustrates the variety of colors and textures for the buildings on Sheet DR-3.3 of the Project Plans (Attachment 2). A color and material board will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting for review and consideration. The hotel's architecture is designed to complement proposed modifications to the adjacent office building shown below in Figure 4 for reference. Page 4 of 11 Packet Pg. 12 5.1 Figure 4. Rendering of Remodeled Office Building West Elevation Facing San Ramon Road r A h�a -�r _TT _rTT r i Landscaping The landscape palette and layout have been designed to be consistent with the DDSP by utilizing enhanced hardscape and a variety of plant materials. The overall landscape concept is on Sheet L1 of the Project Plans (Attachment 2). The preliminary landscape plan shows the removal of all existing on -site landscaping in the project area and installation of landscaping in the new parking areas and around the building. The preliminary landscape plan includes a conceptual plant pallet with Chinese pistache and maple trees along the property line. Several storm water treatment planters would be located within the parking area and around the building. New landscape areas are proposed with a variety of drought tolerant plants suitable for low maintenance and water conserving efforts. Public Art Compliance The Applicant intends to satisfy the requirements of the City's Public Art Ordinance on - site. In acknowledgement that the subject building has limited street frontage, the Applicant would work with Parks and Community Services, Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission and City Council to find a suitable location that is visible to the public to meet the intent of the City's Ordinance. Condition of Approval No. 20 of Attachment 1 reflects this intent. Minor Use Permit — Parking Reduction for Shared Parking The proposed hotel would remove the existing parking lot on the south side of the Corrie Center office building which serves the office use. The proposed parking structure for the hotel is designed to accommodate both the hotel and the office building. In order to allow the proposed hotel with less than the required number of parking spaces on -site, the Applicant is requesting a parking reduction. Dublin Municipal Code (DMC) Section 8.76.050 (Parking Reductions for Shared Parking) states that Page 5 of 11 Packet Pg. 13 when shared off-street parking is proposed between two or more adjacent use types, a 5.1 reduction in off-street parking requirements (from the sum of the parking required by each use type) may be granted with a Minor Use Permit if each of the following standards are met: 1. The Minor Use Permit findings can be made; 2. A sufficient number of spaces are provided to meet the greatest parking demands of the participating use types and to ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency; 3. Satisfactory evidence is provided that the use types, by their natures and operating times, will not conflict with each other; 4. Overflow parking will not adversely affect any adjacent use; 5. Additional documents, covenants, deed restrictions, or other agreements as may be deemed necessary by the Community Development Director are executed to assure that the requirement parking spaces provided are maintained and that uses with similar hours and parking requirements as those uses sharing the parking facilities remain for the life of the documents, covenants, deed restrictions, or other agreements. The Applicant's consultant (Advanced Mobility Group) conducted a Parking Study for Mixed -Use Development dated September 30, 2019, that the City's Transportation and Operations Manager reviewed (Attachment 3). The parking study included three different land use options. The purpose of the different options was to not only address the shared parking between the office and the hotel, but to also evaluate different development options that could be used later without the need for additional study. The Applicant requested this in order to take advantage of the data and analysis that was necessary for the parking study and utilize that data to create certainty in different development options. The parking study evaluated the following options: Option 1 — Shared parking between the office building and the hotel and also including the former Hooter's restaurant, thus, utilizing all available parking across the two parcels. Option 2 — Shared parking between the office building and the hotel only and NOT including the former Hooter's restaurant and associated parking field. The purpose was to confirm if the office building and the hotel provide enough parking to satisfy those two uses without including the former Hooter's restaurant and associated parking field. y Option 3 — Shared parking between the office building and the hotel and also including a new 8,000-square-foot multi -tenant pad building to replace the former Hooter's restaurant. Included in all three options were additional commercial uses contemplated to be in the ground floor of the office building. Those uses were 5,000 square feet of retail, 4,000 square feet of restaurant and 5,000 square feet of fitness. Page 6 of 11 Packet Pg. 14 The parking study utilized the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) parking 5.1 demand rates. The results of that analysis are provided in Table 1 below. Table 1: Parkinq Analysis No. of Parking No. of Parking Shared No. of Shared Parking Spaces Required Spaces Required Parking Parking Peak Demand (ITE Parking (Zoning Peak Spaces (Up to 15% Demand) Ordinance) Demand Provided Reduction) Option 1 431 442 334 351 284 Option 2 376 417 291 280 247 Option 3 441 460 340 360 289 As shown in Table 1, the proposed uses and parking spaces provided would meet the parking need for Option 1 and Option 3; but would be short in Option 2 by 11 spaces (when using the ITE rate, 4% short) or 29 spaces (when using the City rate, 10% short) during the peak parking demand for those uses. Given the proximity to transit (Wheels, BART, etc.), the City's Transportation and Operations Manager has recommended providing an overall parking reduction of up to 15% of shared peak parking demand using the ITE procedures as shown in the parking study. With the 15% reduction, all three land use Options would meet the peak demand. Since the project is taking advantage of the shared parking based on specific uses, if the use change in the future, a new shared parking analysis should be conducted while taking into account the overall reduced parking rate of up to 15% from the shared parking peak demand. Heritage Tree Removal Permit DMC Chapter 5.60 states that any redwood tree having a truck or main stem of 24 inches or more in diameter measured at four feet six inches above grade requires a Heritage Tree Removal Permit (PLOC-2019-00192). In October 2019, the Applicant submitted a Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove nine Coast redwood trees, which included seven trees along San Ramon Road and two located in the southeast corner of the property. In April 2020, the Community Development Director approved the permit. After consideration and hearing the concerns of the community, the Applicant rescinded the approved Heritage Tree Removal Permit. As part of the proposed hotel, the removal of two Coast redwood heritage trees is necessary to accommodate a future bioretention treatment area required for the development of the project. The two trees, shown as #51 and #52 on the site plan (Attachment 4) measure 29 inches and 38 inches respectively. A Heritage Tree Removal Permit is required to remove these two Coast redwood trees and is, therefore, being considered concurrently with the proposed project. The remaining seven heritage trees along San Ramon Road will remain. The type of planting to be installed in the bioretention areas is show on Sheet L-3 and L-4 of the project plans (Attachment 2). Community Benefit Agreement (Downtown Dublin Development Pool) The DDSP identifies a base and a maximum building density in the form of a floor area ratio (FAR). The base FAR is what is allowed outright and a maximum FAR is what can Page 7 of 11 Packet Pg. 15 be constructed based on the use and district. For the Transit -Oriented District the base 5.1 FAR is .50 and the maximum FAR is 2.5. If a property owner would like to develop a project beyond the base FAR, they may obtain additional square footage up to the maximum FAR by drawing on the Development Pool and in exchange entering into a Community Benefit Agreement (CBA). The DDSP identified a pool of 1,145,050 square feet of non-residential development that may be constructed in the Transit -Oriented District. In the Transit -Oriented District, the developer must provide a benefit to the community for use of the additional square footage. No square footage has been drawn from the pool in the Transit -Oriented District since establishment of the pool. The project is requesting an FAR of 1.12 which necessitates an allocation of up to 51,528 square feet from the Development Pool. On July 16, 2019, City Council held a study session and provided input on the proposed project design and the negotiated deal points of the proposed CBA, which included the following: • Hotel will supply approximately 50 new full-time jobs to the community and generate an estimated annual Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) of $450,000 or $2.5 million over five years. • Enhanced streetscape/drive aisle improvements between the former Hooter's restaurant and the Video Only building) into the property off Dublin Boulevard. • The design, construction and installation of a new Downtown Dublin monument sign located on the corner of Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road. City Council directed Staff to proceed with processing the project entitlements for consideration by the Planning Commission and prepare a Community Benefit Agreement for the City Council to consider. The Planning Commission will review and render a decision on the Site Development Review Permit, Minor Use Permit and Heritage Tree Removal Permit applications, and the associated CBA will be reviewed and considered by the City Council at later date. Any Site Development Review and Minor Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission will not be effective until a CBA for the project has been approved by the City Council. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: On February 1, 2011, the City Council approved the DDSP to guide development within the 284-acre Downtown Dublin area and create a vibrant and dynamic mixed -use center (Resolution No. 09-11). Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2010022005) was prepared for the DDSP and certified by the City Council on February 1, 2011 (Resolution No. 08-11). On May 6, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 49-14 adopting an Addendum to the DDSP Environmental Impact Report (DDSP EIR) for changes to the DDSP. The changes included increasing the number of residential units permitted in the DDSP area Page 8 of 11 Packet Pg. 16 by 1,200 units and decreasing the amount of commercial square footage permitted by 5.1 773,000 square feet, creating minimum density thresholds for the Transit -Oriented and Retails Districts, and restricting residential development on the west side of San Ramon Road in the Retail District. On December 3, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 126-19 adopting an Addendum to the DDSP EIR for changes to the DDSP. The changes included an amendment to the General Plan and DDSP to allow an increase in the allowable commercial floor area ratio in the Transit -Oriented and Retail Districts to 2.5 and 2.0 respectively, combining the new residential dwelling unit allocation into one pool for all three districts, and amending the parking standards in the Village Parkway and Transit - Oriented Districts. The DDSP EIR and subsequent Addendums analyzed the construction of approximately 2.2 million square feet of non-residential development and 2,500 residential dwelling units, included within the DDSP. This is the first project to utilize a portion of the 1.6 million square feet of non-residential development that was allocated to the Transit - Oriented District. Therefore, the proposed project's 51,528 square feet is within the already contemplated non-residential development activity in the Transit -Oriented District. As provided in Government Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR has been prepared for a project (DDSP EIR), no new environmental document shall be prepared for the proposed project, unless the Planning Commission makes one of the following determinations under Section 15162(a): 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was adopted, shows any of the following: a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; b. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative; or Page 9 of 11 Packet Pg. 17 5.1 c. Mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure. The City conducted a review to determine if the proposed project met any of the standards requiring the preparation of supplemental environmental review under CEQA and concluded that the project is within the scope of development analyzed by the DDSP EIR and subsequent Addendums. The circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken have not substantially changed since the DDSP EIR and subsequent Addendums were prepared and will not substantially change with approval of the project. The DDSP EIR adequately described the impacts of the project for the purposes of CEQA, and no mitigation measures or new alternatives are required other than those previously disclosed and analyzed in the DDSP EIR and subsequent Addendums. Approval of the project will not create any site -specific operations giving rise to environmental effects different from those examined by the DDSP EIR or requiring the preparation of an Initial Study. The proposed project is subject to the DDSP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Consequently, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, the project impacts are covered by the DDSP EIR and its Addendums and no further environmental review is required for this project. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE: The General Plan designation is Downtown Dublin -Transit -Oriented District. The proposed uses are permitted within the DDSP Transit -Oriented District. The proposed project would meet the development standards established in the DDSP as shown in Table 2 below. Table 2: Overview of DDSP Development Regulations Development Standard Proposed Regulation Floor Area Ratio 2.5 1.12 Building Height 8 floors / 90 feet 6 floors / 69 feet Setbacks: San Ramon Road 10 feet minimum Varies. 72 feet minimum Interior 5 feet minimum Varies. 10 feet minimum Required Frontage n/a n/a Buildout Parking 165 spaces Based on Minor Use Permit for Shared Parking. See PLPA-2019- 00044 Building Entrance 1 entrance per building Parcel is landlocked requiring facing the street entrance/lobby to front along main driveway Page 10 of 11 Packet Pg. 18 Approval of the proposed project would be within the development threshold of the 1.6 5.1 million square feet of non-residential development allocated for the Transit -Oriented District. In addition, the proposed building size and configuration would not exceed the allowable building area or create adverse conditions on -site or for surrounding properties but would enhance the existing commercial area consistent with the DDSP. REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES: The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, and Dublin San Ramon Services District have reviewed the project and provided Conditions of Approval (Attachment 1) where appropriate to ensure that the project is established in compliance with all local ordinances and regulations. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: In accordance with State law, a Public Notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project. The Public Notice was also published in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, the City has received no objections from surrounding property owners regarding the project. A copy of this Staff Report was provided to the Applicant and posted to the City's website. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution 2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 Project Plans 3. Exhibit B to Attachment 1 Shared Parking Study 4. HeritageTree Removal Map 5. 2020.04.24 Cambria Hotel - LIUNA Comment Letter 6. Public Comment 4.28.20 Page 11 of 11 Packet Pg. 19 5.1.a RESOLUTION NO. 20-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 138-ROOM HOTEL, A MINOR USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PARKING REDUCTION FOR SHARED PARKING AND A HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AT 7950 DUBLIN BOULEVARD APN: 941-1500-037-00 PLPA-2019-00020, PLPA-2019-00044 & PLOC-2020-00053 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Jerry Hunt, Rubicon Property Group, is proposing to construct a 138-room hotel on an existing parking lot located south of the existing Corrie Center office building at 7950 Dublin Boulevard within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Transit -Oriented District. The new six -story hotel will consist of four stories over two stories of podium parking, and related landscape and site improvements (the "project"). The proposal includes a Site Development Review Permit to allow construction of the hotel, a Minor Use Permit to allow a parking reduction for shared parking between the proposed hotel and an existing office building, and a Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove two Coast redwood trees; and WHEREAS, the project site is located in Downtown Dublin, within the Transit -Oriented District of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, a hotel is a permitted use in the Transit -Oriented District of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the project site is currently occupied by a surface parking lot serving the existing Corrie Center office building; and WHEREAS, a Heritage Tree Removal Permit is required to remove two Coast redwood LL trees located in a future bioretention treatment area necessary for the development of the project; and E WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2010022005) was a prepared for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and certified by the City Council on February 1, 2011 (Resolution No. 08-11); and WHEREAS, Downtown Dublin Environmental Impact Report (DDSP EIR) and subsequent Addendums analyzed development of approximately 2.2 million square feet of non-residential development and 2,500 residential dwelling units. The project is the first to utilize a portion of the 1.6 million square feet of non-residential development that was allocated to the Transit -Oriented District. Therefore, the project's 51,528 square feet is within the already contemplated non-residential development activity in the Transit -Oriented District; and WHEREAS, the project was examined to determine if any of the standards contained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) requiring preparation of supplemental environmental review would be met. The analysis concluded that the project is within the scope of Packet Pg. 20 5.1.a development analyzed by the DDSP EIR and subsequent Addendums; the circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken have not substantially changed since the DDSP EIR and subsequent Addendums were prepared and will not substantially change with the approval of the project; and no new mitigation measures would be required; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated April 28, 2020, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the project on April 28, 2020, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Site Development Review Permit: A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 of the Zoning Ordinance, with the General Plan and the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and design guidelines because: 1) the project is compatible with the architectural character and scale of development in the immediate area in which the proposed project is to be located; 2) the project is utilizing traditional building forms with contemporary, high -quality materials and finishes in compliance with the design guidelines of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; 3) the proposed project supports the more specific vision for the Transit -Oriented District to encourage the development of the area with land uses that support and complement transit uses, particularly the West Dublin BART Station; 4) the project will help to provide additional lodging opportunities to Downtown Dublin; and 5) the project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Downtown Dublin Specific Plan — Transit -Oriented District. B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because- 1 ) the project contributes to the orderly, attractive, and harmonious site and architectural development that is compatible with the architectural style, intensity of development — either in place or permitted in the future, and context of surrounding and adjacent properties; and 2) the project complies with the development a standards of the Downtown Dublin Zoning District, as outlined in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties, and the lot in which the project is proposed because: 1) the project is consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan in that it provides additional lodging opportunities in close proximity to offices, retail and the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station; 2) the size and mass of the proposed building is consistent with other commercial development in the immediate vicinity and in compliance with the minimum and maximum development density/intensity permitted; and 3) the redevelopment of the subject property is an important incremental change to advance the vision of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan to make Downtown Dublin a vibrant and dynamic mixed -use center. Packet Pg. 21 5.1.a D. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development because: 1) the project proposes a hotel, which is an allowed use in the Transit - Oriented District; 2) the project is consistent with the Downtown Dublin Zoning District in which it is located; 3) the project site will be fully served by a network of existing and planned infrastructure of public roadways, access easements, services, and facilities; and 4) the proposed project meets all of the development standards established to regulate development in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Transit -Oriented District and are consistent and compatible with other commercial development projects in the immediate vicinity. E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because the project site is generally flat and the development of the parcel will replace an existing parking field which will not impact any slopes or other topographic features. F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other developments in the vicinity because: 1) the project provides a high degree of design and landscaping to provide a unique, urban, contemporary-themed lodging opportunity in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; 2) the structures reflect the architectural styles and development standards for other higher -density projects within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; 3) the architectural style, colors and materials will be consistent and compatible with the contemporary architectural style, colors, and materials being utilized on other projects in the immediate vicinity and more specifically the adjacent Corrie Center office building; 4) the project is utilizing traditional building forms with contemporary, high -quality materials and finishes in compliance with the design guidelines of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; and 5) the size and scale of the development will be similar to others buildings in the immediate project vicinity. G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and ;E coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the a project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public because: 1) all perimeter landscaping and hardscape are proposed for construction in accordance with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; 2) the project perimeter and interior landscaping is consistent with other developments in the vicinity and 3) the project will conform to the requirements of the City's Water a Efficient Landscape Ordinance. H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure the proper circulation for bicyclist, pedestrians, and automobiles because: 1) all infrastructure including streets, sidewalks, and street lighting are proposed for construction in accordance with the project plans and have been reviewed for safety and adequate circulation; and 2) development of this project will include enhancement to the existing driveway from Dublin Boulevard so that all modes of transportation are supported and ensuring the safe use of these facilities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin hereby makes the following findings and determinations regarding the Minor Use Permit to allow a parking reduction for shared parking related to a proposed hotel and existing office building, located at 7950 Dublin Boulevard: Packet Pg. 22 5.1.a A. The proposed use and related structures are compatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity in that: 1) the project is located in the Downtown Dublin Zoning District, which allows for a variety of uses including hotels, offices, restaurants, and retail; 2) the project is a hotel development located within a developed parcel that includes an office building, parking lot and adjacent commercial uses; and 3) the project is accessible from existing driveways on Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street. B. The proposed use meets the parking requirement for the use type in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 8.76 (Off -Street Parking and Loading Regulations), which could include a parking reduction for shared parking in that: 1) a parking study was prepared by Advanced Mobility Group, which shows that there is sufficient parking available during the peak demand for both the office and hotel uses with up to a 15% transit reduction; 2) adequate signage will be placed within the project site to delineate the location of available parking spaces; 3) the project's proposed use types and transit oriented location indicate the proposed on -site parking supply would adequately serve the expected parking demand; and 4) the Parking Reduction for Shared Parking will facilitate the establishment of a hotel which will provide a service to the community. C. The proposed use, as conditioned, will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that: 1) a parking study was prepared by Advanced Mobility Group which shows that there is sufficient parking available to meet the greatest parking demands of all tenants within the project; and 2) due to sufficient on -site parking it is not anticipated that there will be any overflow parking that would adversely affect an adjacent use. D. The proposed use, as conditioned, will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood in that. 1) proposed hotel will include a parking structure that, in conjunction with the ground -level parking, will be adequate parking to meet the greatest parking demands of all tenants within the project; and 2) the establishment of the commercial uses will be done in accordance with all applicable Building and a r Fire Codes and local ordinances. E. There are adequate provisions for public access, water sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use and related structures would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that: 1) the proposed building a is located in a developed commercial area of Downtown Dublin; 2) the project will be served by existing public roadways including Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street; and 3) the project will be served by existing public utilities and services including water and sanitation. F. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and related structures being proposed in that: 1) the project is located in the Downtown Dublin Zoning District, which allows for a variety of uses including hotels, offices, restaurants, and retail; 2) adequate signage will be placed within the project site to delineate the location of shared parking spaces; and 3) the project's proposed use types and transit oriented location indicate the proposed on -site parking supply would adequately serve the expected parking demand. Packet Pg. 23 5.1.a G. The proposed use will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located in that: 1) the proposed hotel will contribute to the vibrate commercial area of Downtown Dublin and provide a service to the residents of the City and its visitors; and 2) as conditioned, the proposed will comply with the development standards and performance standards established for the Downtown Dublin Zoning District. H. The proposed use is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans in that: 1) the General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use designation is Downtown Dublin — Transit -Oriented District which includes, but is not limited to, hotels, offices, retail, restaurants, multi -family residential, and the proposed use will not be contrary to these standards. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin hereby approves the Site Development Review Permit, Minor Use Permit and Heritage Tree Removal Permit for the proposed project, subject to the conditions: o x CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: E Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the U issuance of building permits or establishment of use and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies 3 responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL.] Planning, [B] o Building, [PO] Police, [PW] Public Works [P&CS] Parks & Community Services, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney, [FIN] Finance, [F] Alameda County Fire Department, [DSR] o Dublin San Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, [Z7] Zone 7. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D AGENCY Prior to: 1. Approval — Site Development Review Permit. This Site PL On -going Development Review Permit approval is for the Cambria Hotel (PLPA-2019-00020). This approval shall be as generally depicted and indicated on the project plans prepared by DesignCell dated November 22, 2019, attached as Exhibit A, and other plans, text, and diagrams relating to this Site Development Review Permit, unless modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein. 2. Approval — Minor Use Permit. This Minor Use Permit PL On -going ("MUP" or "Permit") approval to allow a parking reduction for shared parking (PLPA-2019-00044), located at 7950 Dublin Boulevard (APN 941-1500-037-00). The approval shall be as provided in the Technical Memorandum ("Parking Study") prepared by Advanced Mobility Group dated September 30, 2019, attached as Exhibit B, and as specified by the following Conditions of Approval for this project. 3. Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall commence PL One Year After within one (1) year of the effective date of this Permit or the Effective Date Site Development Review/MUP shall lapse and become null and void. If there is a dispute as to whether the Permit has expired, the City may hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. Such a determination may be r c a� E U r a Packet Pg. 24 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D AGENCY Prior to: processed concurrently with revocation proceedings in appropriate circumstances. If a Permit expires, a new application must be made and processed according to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Time Extension. The Community Development Director PL Prior to permit may grant an extension of the approval for a period not to expiration exceed twelve (12) months, upon the Applicant's written request prior to expiration, and the determination that all Conditions of Approval remain adequate and all applicable findings of approval will continue to be met. The Director of Community Development may grant a maximum of two extensions of approval, and additional extensions may be ranted by the original decision maker. 5. Compliance. Developer shall comply with the Subdivision PL, PW On -going Map Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, City of Dublin Title 7 Public Works Ordinance, which includes the Grading Ordinance, the City of Dublin Public Works Standards and Policies, the most current requirements of the State Code Title 24 and the Americans with Disabilities Act with regard to accessibility, and all building and fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. All public improvements constructed by Developer and to be dedicated to the City are hereby identified as "public works" under Labor Code section 1771. Accordingly, Developer, in constructing such improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law Labor Code. Sects. 1720 and followin . 6. Effective Date. This Site Development Review Permit PL On -going approval becomes effective only after the Community Benefit Agreement associated with the project is approved by the City Council. 7. Revocation of Permit. The Site Development Review PL On -going Permit/MUP approval shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subject to citation. 8. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Applicant/ Various Building Permit Developer shall comply with applicable City of Dublin Fire Issuance Prevention Bureau, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services District and the California Department of Health Services requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building permits or the installation of any improvements related to this project, the Applicant/Developer shall supply written statements from each such agency or department, where applicable, to the Planning Department, indicating that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met. 9. Required Permits. The Applicant/Developer shall obtain PW Building Permit all permits required by other agencies which may include, Issuance but are not limited to Alameda County Environmental a� 0 x �L E M U c 0 0 a� o: c 0 .N N E E 0 U c .E c �a a r c aD E r Q Packet Pg. 25 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D AGENCY Prior to: Health, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans, or other regional/state agencies as required by law, as applicable. Copies of the permits shall be provided to the Public Works Department. 10. Fees. The Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees Various Grading in effect at the time of building permit issuance, including, Permit, and but not limited to: Planning fees; Building fees; Dublin San Building Permit Ramon Services District fees; Public Facilities fees; City of Issuance Dublin Fire fees; Noise Mitigation fees; Inclusionary House In -Lieu fees; Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation fees. 11. Zone 7 Impervious Surface Fees. The ADM Building Permit Applicant/Developer shall complete a "Zone 7 Impervious Issuance Surface Fee Application" and submit an accompanying exhibit for review by the Public Works Department. Fees generated by this application will be due at issuance of building permit. 12. Indemnification. The Applicant/Developer shall defend, ADM On -going indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its 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, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 65009 or other applicable law; provided, however, that the Applicant's/Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying the Applicant/Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. 13. Clarification of Conditions. In the event that the parties PL/PW On -going agree that there needs to be clarification to the Conditions of Approval, the Director of Community Development and the City Engineer have the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developer without going to a public hearing. The Director of Community Development and the City Engineer also have the authority to make minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in order for the Applicant/Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts of this project. 14. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible PL On -going for clean-up and disposal of project related trash to maintain a safe, clean, and litter -free site. 15. Modifications. Modifications or changes to this Site PL On -going Development Review Permit approval may be considered by the Community Development Director in compliance with Chapter 8.104 of the Zoning Ordinance. 16. Controlling Activities. The Applicant/Developer shall PL On -going as 0 x �a E U c 0 0 as c 0 .N N E E 0 U c .E c a. r c as E U M r a Packet Pg. 26 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D AGENCY Prior to: control all activities on the project site so as not to create a nuisance to the existing or surrounding businesses and residences. 17. Accessory Structures/Construction. The use of any PL Establishment of accessory structures, such as storage sheds or the Temporary trailer/container units used for storage or for any other Use purpose during construction, shall not be allowed on the site at any time unless a Temporary Use Permit is applied for and approved. 18. Property Maintenance. The Applicant/Developer and PL On -going property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the site in a clean and litter free condition during construction and through completion. Per the City of Dublin Non -Residential Property Maintenance Ordinance, DMC Section 5.64.050, the Applicant/ Property Owner shall maintain the building, site and all signage in good condition and shall keep the site clear of trash, debris and graffiti vandalism on a regular and continuous basis. PLANNING DIVISION - PROJECT SPECIFIC — SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 19. Equipment Screening. All electrical, fire risers and/or PL Building Permit mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view. Issuance Any roof -mounted equipment shall be completely screened and from view by materials architecturally compatible with the On -going building and to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The building permit plans shall show the location of all equipment and screening for review and approval by the Director of Community Development. 20. Public Art. The Applicant/Developer intends to acquire PL Building Permit and install public art on the project site in accordance with Issuance Chapter 8.58 of the Dublin Municipal Code. The value of and the public art project is required to equal or exceed 0.5 Occupancy percent of the building valuation (exclusive of land) for the entire hotel project. The Building Official will determine the building valuation at the time of Plan Check submittal for the first building permit on -site. An agreement that sets forth the ownership, maintenance responsibilities, and insurance coverage for all public art on -site shall be executed prior to occupancy. All public art installations are subject to approval of the City Council upon recommendation by the Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission. 21. Bike Racks. The bike racks shall have two points of PL, PW Landscape Plan connection as required by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Approval Master Plan. 22. Parking. Parking shall be provided as stated in the PL Building Permit approved Minor Use Permit for shared parking (PLPA- Issuance and 2019-00044) On -going 23. Master Sign Program. A Master Sign Program shall be PL Installation of reviewed and approved for all project -related signage any project - including, but not limited to, wall signs, monument signs, related signage community identification signage, address signage, directional signage, parking signage, speed limit signage, retail tenant signage, and other signage deemed necessary by the City. All signs shown in the Project Plans are for as 0 x �a �L E U c 0 0 as c 0 .N N E E 0 U a� c .E c a. r c a� E U 2 r a Packet Pg. 27 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D AGENCY Prior to: illustrative purposes only and the full details of the sign sizes, materials, and construction shall be shown in the separate sign package. PLANNING DIVISION - PROJECT SPECIFIC — MINOR USE PERMIT 24. Options 1 and 3 as provided in the Parking Study utilize the PL Ongoing parking field adjacent to Dublin Boulevard (associated with the former Hooter's building). At such time that a Site Development Review Permit is approved for development on this portion of the site that modifies the former Hooter's building configuration and/or use, Options 1 and 3 that utilize this parking field shall be reevaluated. DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MEASURES 25. MM 3.3-1: Project applicants shall consult with a registered PL Building Permit geotechnical engineer to prepare a design level Issuance geotechnical report that addresses the affects [sic] of seismic ground shaking and includes a quantitative evaluation of liquefaction and liquefaction -induced lateral spreading for future development in the DDSP project area. The design level geotechnical report shall specify foundations and structural elements that are designed to resist forces and potential ground settlement for liquefaction and lateral spreading. This report shall be submitted in conjunction with a Building Permit application. 26. MM 3.4-2: Future development or substantial PL Building Permit redevelopment within the project area shall prepare a Issuance Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to determine whether or not a particular development site contains any hazardous materials as a result of historic contamination within the project area subject to review and approval by the City of Dublin. In the event that the Phase I recommends subsequent testing, the potential health risks shall be evaluated and a work plan prepared to remediate the soil and/or groundwater in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. This assessment shall be submitted to the City in conjunction with the Building and Grading/Site work permit and shall be found acceptable by the City prior to ground disturbance. 27. MM 3.5-1a: Prior to issuance of grading permit, the project PL/PW Site Work proponent shall file a Notice of Intent as required by (Grading) Permit Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding storm water discharges associated with construction activities. Upon completion of construction activities, a Notice of Termination shall be filed. MM 3.5-1b: Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared by the project contractors and submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for review and comment and to the City of Dublin in conjunction with the Building/Grading/Site work permit and shall be found to be acceptable by the City prior to ground disturbance. The SWPPP shall be prepared to Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program requirements, and shall identify erosion minimization and control provisions, pollution detection as 0 x �a E U c 0 0 as c 0 .N N E E 0 U a� c .E c 0 a. r c a� E U M r a Packet Pg. 28 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ'D Prior to: provisions, and pollution elimination/ minimization provisions appropriate to the development project and its site for construction and post -construction activities. The SWPPP shall include best available technology, engineering, and design solutions such as the use of silt screens, hay bales, modern trash screens, energy dissipaters, and/or absorbent devices. Stormwater runoff water quality monitoring procedures shall be clearly detailed in the SWPPP. 28. MM 3.7-1a: Project applicants within the project area shall PUPW Building Permit prepare a construction noise management plan that Issuance identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding sensitive receptors (e.g. residential uses and schools) and includes specific noise management measures to be included into project plans and specifications subject to review and approval by the City. These measures shall I include, but not be limited to the following: • Construction activities, including the maintenance and warming of equipment, shall be limited to Monday through Friday, and non -City holidays, between the hours of 7:30 AM and 5:30 PM except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. • All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than those provided on the original equipment and no equipment shall have an un-muffled exhaust. • The City shall require that the contractor maintain and tune-up all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. • Stationary equipment shall be placed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to the sensitive receptors. • All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to the sensitive receptors. • The construction contractor shall provide an on -site name and telephone number of a contact person. In the event that construction noise is intrusive to an educational process, the construction liaison will revise the construction schedule to preserve the learning environment. • Select demolition methods to minimize vibration, where possible (e.g., sawing masonry into sections rather than demolishing it by pavement breakers). MM 3.7-1 b: Should the proposed project require off -site import/export of fill material during construction, trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably major roadways (Interstate 580, Interstate 680, San Ramon Road, Dublin Boulevard, and Amador Valley Boulevard). Construction trucks should, to the extent practical, avoid the weekday and Saturday a.m. and p.m. as 0 x �a E U c 0 0 as c 0 .N N E E 0 U a� c .E c 0 a. r c a� E U 2 r a Packet Pg. 29 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D AGENCY Prior to: peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 P.M.). 29. MM 3.7-3: Future development within the DDSP project PL Building Permits area that is located adjacent to Highway 580; Amador Plaza Issuance (between Dublin Boulevard and Saint Patrick Way); and Dublin Boulevard (between Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway; between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive and between San Ramon Road and Regional Street) shall prepare a site -specific acoustical analysis subject to review and approval by the City of Dublin. The acoustical analysis prepared for future development shall evaluate resultant noise impacts in comparison to the City's noise criteria for Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments. Feasible project specific mitigation measures shall be required as part of the project design to reduce noise impacts at future noise sensitive land uses, including but not limited to the following: 1) site design; 2) operational restrictions; 3) barriers; 4) setbacks; and 5) insulation. No development permits or approval of land use applications shall be issued until the acoustical analysis is received and approved by City staff and any project design features are incorporated into the future development project. LANDSCAPING 30. Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans. Final landscape PL Landscape Plan plans, irrigation system plans, tree preservation techniques, Approval and and guarantees, shall be reviewed and approved by the Installation Dublin Planning Division prior to the issuance of the building permit. All such submittals shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. The Final Landscape Plans shall ensure: a. That plant material is utilized which will be capable of healthy growth within the given range of soil and climate. b. That proposed landscape screening is of a height and density so that it provides a positive visual impact within three years from the time of planting. c. That unless unusual circumstances prevail, all trees on the site shall be a minimum of 15 gallons in size. All trees that are on the exterior building perimeter shall be 24-inch box minimum, with at least 30 percent at 36- inch box or greater. All shrubs shall be five gallon minimum. d. That a plan for an automatic irrigation system be provided which assures that all plants get adequate water. In unusual circumstances, and if approved by staff, a manual or quick coupler system may be used. e. That concrete curbing is to be used at the edges of all planters and paving surfaces where applicable. f. That all cut and fill slopes conform to the conditions as 0 x �a �L E U c 0 0 as c 0 .N N E E 0 U c .E c a. r c as E M U 2 r a Packet Pg. 30 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D AGENCY Prior to: detailed in the Site Development Review Permit packet. g. That a guarantee from the owners or contractors shall be required guaranteeing all shrubs and ground cover, all trees, and the irrigation system for one year. h. That a permanent maintenance agreement on all landscaping will be required from the owner insuring regular irrigation, fertilization and weed abatement, if applicable. 31. Landscaping at Street/Drive Aisle Intersections. PL On -going Landscaping shall not obstruct the sight distance of motorists, pedestrians or bicyclists. Except for trees, landscaping (and/or landscape structures such as walls) at drive aisle intersections shall not be taller than 30 inches above the curb. Landscaping shall be kept at a minimum height and fullness giving patrol officers and the general public surveillance capabilities of the area. 32. Plant Clearances. All trees planted shall meet the PL Landscape Plan following clearances: Approval and a. Six feet from the face of building walls or roof eaves. Installation b. Seven feet from fire hydrants, storm drains, sanitary sewers and/or gas lines. c. Five feet from top of wing of driveways, mailboxes, water, telephone and/or electrical mains d. Fifteen feet from stop signs, street or curb sign returns. e. Fifteen feet from either side of street lights. 33. Landscaping. Applicant/Developer shall construct all PL, PW Landscape Plan landscaping within the site and along the project frontage Approval and within the site. Installation 34. Backflow Prevention Devices. The Landscape Plans shall PL, PW, F Landscape Plan show the location of all backflow prevention devises. The Approval and location and screening of the backflow prevention devices Installation shall be reviewed and approved by City staff. 35. Root Barriers and Tree Staking. The Landscape Plans PL, PW Landscape Plan shall provide details showing root barriers and tree staking Approval and will be installed which meet current City specifications. Installation 36. Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The PL Landscape Plan Applicant/Developer shall submit written documentation to Approval and the Public Works Department (in the form of a Landscape Installation Documentation Package and other required documents) that the development conforms to the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. 37. Landscaping at Trash Enclosure. Landscaping shall PL Landscape Plan provide adequate screening of the trash enclosure through Approval and the use of shrubs, vines, etc. Installation 38. The trees within the Project site along San Ramon Road PL Landscape Plan and 1-580 off ramp shall be Chinese pistache. Approval and Installation 39. Trees with the Parking Area. The proposed London plane PL Landscape Plan trees shall be replaced with evergreen trees with less root Approval and damage potential in narrow parking lot planters. Installation a� 0 x A2 �L E U c 0 0 a� o: c 0 N N E 0 U c .E c �a a r c aD E M r Q Packet Pg. 31 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D AGENCY Prior to: BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION 40. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project construction B Through shall conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect Completion at the time of building permit. 41. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be fully B Building Permit dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately Issuance drawn (depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. All structural calculations shall be prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent with each other. 42. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, B Building Permit Applicant/Developer shall submit electronic drawings and Issuance specifications, and the number of hard copies - as determined by the Chief Building Official - for plan check. Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will or have been complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the annotated resolutions attached to each set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participation non -City agencies prior to the issuance of building permits. 43. As -Built Drawings. All revisions made to the building plans B Occupancy during the project shall be incorporated into an "As Built" electronic file and submitted prior to the issuance of the final occu anc . 44. Addressing. B 1. Release of 1. A site plan shall be provided with the City of Dublin's Addresses address grid overlaid on the plans (1 to 30 scale). All exterior door openings shall be highlighted on plans (front, rear, etc.). Three copies on full size sheets and 2. Permitting five copies reduced sheets. 2. Address signage shall be provided as per the Dublin Commercial Security Code. 3. Occupancy 3. Address shall be required on all doors leading to the exterior of the building. Addresses shall be illuminated and be able to be seen from the street, four inches in height minimum. 4. The architectural plans shall include a proposed room / suite number plan. 45. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of Record shall be B Scheduling Final retained to provide observation services for all components Frame of the lateral and vertical design of the building, including Inspection nailing, hold-downs, straps, shear, roof diaphragm and structural frame of building. A written report shall be submitted to the City Inspector prior to scheduling the final frame inspection. 46. Foundation. Geotechnical Engineer for the soils report B Permit Issuance shall review and approve the foundation design. A letter shall be submitted to the Building Division on the approval. 47. CASp Reports. Applicant shall obtain the services of a B Permitting and a� 0 x A2 E U c 0 0 a� o: c 0 .N N E E 0 U c .E c �a a r c aD E M r Q Packet Pg. 32 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D AGENCY Prior to: Certified Access Specialist for the review of the construction Occupancy drawings and inspections for the building interior and site exterior. A written report shall be submitted to the City prior to approval of the permit application. Additionally, a written report shall be submitted to the City Building Inspector prior to scheduling the final inspection. 48. Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units and B Occupancy of ventilation ducts shall be screened from public view with Building materials compatible to the main building and shall not be roof mounted. Units shall be permanently installed on concrete pads or other non -movable materials approved by the Chief Building Official and Director of Community Development. 49. Plumbing Fixture Count. The plumbing fixture count (e.g., B Permitting water closets, lavatories, urinals, drinking fountains) shall meet the minimum requirements for the use as regulated by the CA Plumbing Code, Tables A and 422.1. 50. Cool Roofs — CA Energy Code. Flat roof areas shall have B Through their roofing material coated with light colored gravel or Completion painted with light colored or reflective material designed for cool roofs. 51. Solar Zone — CA Energy Code. The location and B Through orientation of the Solar Zone shall be shown on the site Completion plan. This condition of approval will be waived if the project meets the exceptions provided in the CA Energy Code. 52. Accessible Parking. The design, location and number of B Through required accessible parking stalls shall be as required by Completion the CA Building Code. 53. Green Parking. The design and number of clean air/ EV B Through ready stalls shall be as required by the CA Green Building Completion Standards Code. 54. FEMA — Floodplain. The project is currently shown to be B Prior to in a floodplain. The applicant shall submit either a letter of Permitting map amendment, letter of map change or letter of map revision prior to permitting. If the site has not been removed from the floodplain by a letter, then elevation certificates will be required at the correct stages. 55. Temporary Fencing. Temporary construction fencing shall B Through be installed along perimeter of all work under construction Completion 56. Copies of Approved Plans. Applicant shall provide the B 30 Days After City with one reduced (1/2 size) copy of the City of Dublin Permit and Each stamped approved plans. Revision Issuance FIRE DEPARTMENT 57. No fire service lines shall pass beneath buildings. F Approval of Improvement Plans 58. New Fire Sprinkler System and Monitoring F Building Permit Requirements. In accordance with the Dublin Fire Code, Issuance fire sprinklers shall be installed in the building. The system shall be in accordance with the NFPA 13, the CA Fire Code and CA Building Code. Plans and specifications showing detailed mechanical design, cut sheets, listing sheets and as 0 x �a E U c 0 0 as c 0 .N N E E 0 U c .E c a. r c a� E U r a Packet Pg. 33 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ'D Prior to: hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval and permit prior to installation. This may be a deferred submittal. 1. Sprinkler Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item). Submit detailed mechanical drawings of all sprinkler modifications, including cut sheets, listing sheets and calculations to the Fire Department for approval and permit prior to installation. 2. Sprinkler System Components. All sprinkler system components shall remain in compliance with the applicable N.F.P.A. 13 Standard, the CA Fire Code and the CA Building Code. 3. Underground Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item). Submit detailed shop drawings for the fire water supply system, including cut sheets, listing sheets and calculations to the Fire Department for approval and permit prior to installation. All underground and fire water supply system components shall be in compliance with the applicable N.F.P.A. 13, 24, 20, 22 Standards, the CA Fire Code and the CA Building Code. The system shall be hydrostatically tested and inspected prior to being covered. Prior to the system being connected to any fire protection system, a system flush shall be witnessed by the Fire Department. 4. Central Station Monitoring. Automatic fire extinguishing systems installed within buildings shall have all control valves and flow devices electrically supervised and maintained by an approved central alarm station. Zoning and annunciation of central station alarm signals shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. 5. Fire Protection Equipment. Fire protection equipment shall be identified with approved signs constructed of durable materials, permanently installed and readily visible. 59. Fire Access During Construction. F During 1. Fire Access. Access roads, turnaround, pullouts, and Construction fire operation areas are fire lanes and shall be maintained clear and free of obstructions, including the parking of vehicles. 2. Entrances. Entrances to job sites shall not be blocked, including after hours, other than by approved gates/barriers that provide for emergency access. 3. Site Utilities. Site utilities that would require the access road to be dug up or made impassible shall be installed prior to construction commencing. 4. Fire Lane. Entrance flare, angle of departure, width, turning radii, grades, turnaround, vertical clearances, road surface, bridges/crossings, gates/key-switch, within a 150-foot distance to Fire Lane shall be maintained. 5. Personnel Access. Route width, slope, surface and obstructions must be considered for the approved route to furthermost portion of the exterior wall. a Packet Pg. 34 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D AGENCY Prior to: 6. All -Weather Access. Fire access is required to be all- weather access. Show on the plans the location of the all-weather access and a description of the construction. Access roads must be designed to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus. 60. Fire Alarm Detection System. A fire alarm detection F Occupancy system shall be installed throughout the building so as to provide full property protection, including combustible concealed spaces, as required by NFPA 72. The system shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 72, CA Fire, Building, Electrical, and Mechanical Codes. If the system is intended to serve as an evacuation system, compliance with the horn/strobe requirements for the entire building must also be met. All automatic fire extinguishing systems shall be interconnected to the fire alarm system so as to activate an alarm if activated and to monitor control valves. Delayed egress locks shall meet requirements of C.F.C. 1. Fire Alarm Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item). Submit detailed drawings of the fire alarm system, including floor plan showing all rooms, device locations, ceiling height and construction, cut sheets, listing sheets and battery and voltage drop calculations to the Fire Department for review and permit prior to the installation. Where employee work areas have audible alarm coverage, circuits shall be initially designed with a minimum 20 percent spare capacity for adding appliances to accommodate hearing impaired employee's. 2. Central Station Monitored Account. Automatic fire alarm systems shall be monitored by an approved central alarm station. Zoning and annunciation of central station alarm signals shall be approved by the Fire Department. 3. Qualified Personnel. The system shall be installed, inspected, tested, and maintained in accordance with the provisions of NFPA 72. Only qualified and experienced persons shall perform this work. Examples of qualified individuals are those who have been factory trained and certified or are NICET Fire Alarm Certified. 4. Inspection and Testing Documentation. Performance testing of all initiating and notification devices in the presence of the Fire Inspector shall occur prior to final of the system. Upon this inspection, proof that the specific account is UL certified must be provided to the Fire Inspector. 61. Fire Extinguishers. Extinguishers shall be visible and F Occupancy unobstructed. Signage shall be provided to indicate fire extinguisher locations. The number and location of extinguishers shall be shown on the plans. Additional fire extinguishers maybe required by the fire inspector. as 0 x �a E U c 0 0 as c 0 .N N E 0 U c .E c a. r c as E U r a Packet Pg. 35 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D AGENCY Prior to: Fire extinguisher shall meet a minimum classification of 2A 10BC. Extinguishers weighing 40 pounds or less shall be mounted no higher than five feet above the floor measured to the top of the extinguisher. Extinguishers shall be inspected monthly and serviced by a licensed concern annually. 62. Building Key Box. A Fire Department key box shall be F Occupancy installed at the main entrance to the building. Note these locations on the plans. The key box should be installed approximately 5 1/2 feet above grade. The box shall be sized to hold the master key to the facility as well as keys for rooms not accessible by the master key. Specialty keys, such as the fire alarm control box key and elevator control keys shall also be installed in the box. The key box door and necessary keys shall be provided to the Fire Inspector upon the final inspection. The inspector will then lock the keys into the box. 63. Means of Egress. Exit signs shall be visible and F Occupancy illuminated with emergency lighting when building is occupied. 64. Main Entrance Hardware Exception. It is recommended F Occupancy that all doors be provided with exit hardware that allows exiting from the egress side even when the door is in the locked condition. However, an exception for A-3, B, F, M, S occupancies and all churches does allow key -locking hardware (no thumb -turns) on the main exit when the main exit consists of a single door or pair of doors. When unlocked the single door or both leaves of a pair of doors must be free to swing without operation of any latching device. A readily visible, durable sign on or just above the door stating "This door to remain unlocked whenever the building is occupied" shall be provided. The sign shall be in letters not less than one -inch high on a contrasting background. The use of this exception may be revoked for cause. 65. Maximum Occupant Load. Posting of room capacity is F Occupancy required for any occupant load of 50 or more persons. Submittal of a seating plan on 8.5" x 11" paper is required prior to final occupancy. 66. Interior Finish. Wall and ceiling interior finish material shall F Occupancy meet the requirements of Chapter 8 of the California Fire Code. Interior finishes will be field verified upon final inspection. If the product is not field marked and the marking visible for inspection, maintain the products cut - sheets and packaging that show proof of the products flammability and flame -spread ratings. Decorative materials shall be fire retardant. 67. General Inspection. Upon inspection of the work for which F Occupancy this submittal was provided, a general inspection of the business and site will be conducted. 68. Addressing. Addressing shall be illuminated or in an F Occupancy illuminated area. The address characters shall be a� 0 x �L E M U c 0 0 m o: c 0 .N N E E 0 U c .E c �a a r c aD E r Q Packet Pg. 36 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D AGENCY Prior to: contrasting to their background. If address is placed on glass, the numbers shall be on the exterior of the glass and a contrasting background placed behind the numbers. Building Address. The building shall be provided with all addresses or the assigned address range so as to be clearly visible from either direction of travel on the street the address references. The address characters shall not be less than 5 inches in height by 1-inch stroke. Larger sizes may be necessary depending on the setbacks and visibility. Multi -Tenants. Where a building has multiple tenants, address shall also be provided near the main entrance door of each tenant space. The address shall be high enough on the building to be clearly visible from the driveway, street or parking area it faces even when vehicles are parked in front of the tenant space. The address shall not be less than 5- inches in height with a'/2-inch stroke. 69. Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition. F On -going 1. Clearance to combustibles from temporary heating devices shall be maintained. Devices shall be fixed in place and protected from damage, dislodgement or overturning in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. 2. Smoking shall be prohibited except in approved areas. Signs shall be posted "NO SMOKING" in a conspicuous location in each structure or location in which smoking is prohibited. 3. Combustible debris, rubbish and waste material shall be removed from buildings at the end of each shift of work. 4. Flammable and combustible liquid storage areas shall be maintained clear of combustible vegetation and waste materials. DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT 70. Complete improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD DSRSD Issuance of that conform to the requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Building Permits Services District Code, the DSRSD "Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities," all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. 71. Planning and review fees, inspection fees, and fees DSRSD Issuance of associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be Building Permit paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules or Improvement and at time of payment as established in the DSRSD Code. Plans Planning and review fees are due after the 1st submittal of plans. Construction Permit and Inspection Fees are due prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit. Capacity Reserve Fees are due before the water meter can be set or the connection to the sewers stem. 72. All improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be DSRSD Building Permit signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of Issuance by improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall City; or Building contain a signature block for the District Engineer Permit or indicating approval of the sanitary sewer and/or Construction water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the Permit Issuance by DSRSD as 0 x �a E U c 0 0 as c 0 N N E 0 U c .E c a r c as E U 2 r a Packet Pg. 37 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D AGENCY Prior to: District Engineer, the applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a faithful performance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer. 73. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by DSRSD Formal separate instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD. Acceptance 74. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to DSRSD Issuance of accommodate future flow demands in addition to each Improvement development project's demand. Layout and sizing of mains Plans shall be in conformance with DSRSD utility master planning. 75. The locations and widths of all proposed easement DSRSD Issuance of dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted to Improvement and approved by DSRSD. Plans 76. Water and sewer mains shall be located in public streets DSRSD Issuance of rather than in off-street locations to the fullest extent Improvement possible. If unavoidable, then sewer or water easements Plans must be established over the alignment of each sewer or water main in an off-street or private street location to provide access for future maintenance and/or replacement. 77. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for DSRSD Issuance of commercial developments shall be designed to be looped Improvement or interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance Plans with requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound engineering practice. 78. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of Improvement sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed under Plans extreme circumstances following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the applicant for any project that requires a pumping station. 79. This project will be analyzed by DSRSD to determine if it DSRSD Issuance of represents additional water and/or sewer capacity demands Building Permit on the District. Applicant will be required to pay all incremental capacity reserve fees for water and sewer services as required by the project demands. All capacity reserve fees must be paid prior to installation of a water meter for water. If a water meter is not required, the capacity reserve fee shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. The District may not approve the building permit until capacity reserve fees are paid. 80. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be permitted DSRSD Issuance of any unless the proper utility construction permit has been Construction issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be Permit a� 0 x A2 �L E M U c 0 0 a� o: c 0 .N N E E 0 U c .E c �a a r c aD E r Q Packet Pg. 38 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D AGENCY Prior to: issued after all of the items in the condition immediately above have been satisfied. 81. Above ground backflow prevention devices/double detector DSRSD Issuance of check valves shall be installed on fire protection systems Improvement connected to the DSRSD water main. The Applicant shall Plans collaborate with the Fire Department and with DSRSD to size and configure its fires stem. 82. If trash enclosures are required to drain to the sanitary DSRSD Issuance of sewer system, grease interceptors shall be installed within Improvement the trash enclosure area. The trash enclosure shall be Plans roofed and graded to minimize rain water or stormwater from entering the trash enclosure. 83. District Code requires each parcel to have its own DSRSD Issuance of independent service for both water and wastewater. Improvement Independent connections to water and wastewater mains Plans are required for each parcel. Laterals shall not cross into adjacent parcels. 84. Sewer capacity allocation for parcels shall be determined DSRSD Issuance of per comments on the Lot Line Adjustment related to this Improvement project area. Please refer to those comments. Plans PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS 85. Conditions of Approval. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval contained below ("Standard Condition") unless PW On -going specifically modified by Project Specific Conditions of Approval below. PUBLIC WORKS — AGREEMENTS 86. Storm Water Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement. Applicant/Developer shall enter into an Agreement with the City of Dublin that guarantees the property owner's perpetual maintenance obligation for all stormwater treatment measures installed as part of the project, including those on -site and within the public Rights Acceptance of of Way. Said Agreement is required pursuant to Provision PW Improvements C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2009-0074. Said permit requires the City to provide verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be properly operated and maintained. The Agreement shall be recorded against the property and shall run with the land. PUBLIC WORKS — PERMITS AND BONDS 87. Encroachment Permit. Applicant/Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for all construction activity within the public right-of-way. At PW Permit Issuance the discretion of the City Engineer an encroachment permit for work specifically included in an Improvement Agreement may not be required. 88. Grading/Sitework Permit. Applicant/Developer shall obtain a grading permit from the Public Works Department for all grading. Applicant/Developer shall obtain a sitework PW Permit Issuance permit from the Public Works Department for all sitework. A separate grading permit is not necessary if grading will be included in the sitework permit submittal. as 0 x �a �L E U c 0 0 as c 0 .N N E E 0 U a� c .E c a. c as E U 2 r a Packet Pg. 39 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D AGENCY Prior to: 89. Security. Applicant/Developer shall provide faithful performance security to guarantee the grading improvements, as determined by the City Engineer (Note: PW Permit Issuance The performance security shall remain in effect until one year after final inspection). 90. Permits from Other Agencies. Applicant/Developer shall obtain all permits and/or approvals required by other agencies including, but not limited to: • Army Corps of Engineers • US Fish and Wildlife • Regional Water Quality Control Board • Federal Emergency Management Agency • California Department of Fish and Wildlife PW Permit Issuance • California Dept. of Transportation (Caltrans) • Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) • Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) • Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority • Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) • Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7) PUBLIC WORKS — SUBMITTALS 91. Improvement Plan Submittal Requirements. All submittals of plans shall comply with the requirements of the "City of Dublin Public Works Department Improvement Plan Submittal Requirements", the "City of Dublin Improvement Plan Review Check List," and current Public Grading or Works and industry standards. A complete submittal of PW Sitework Permit improvement plans shall include all civil improvements, joint Issuance trench, street lighting and on -site safety lighting, landscape plans, and all associated documents as required. Applicant/Developer shall not piecemeal the submittal by submitting various components separately. 92. Improvement Plan Requirements from Other Agencies. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for submittals and Grading or reviews to obtain the approvals of all participating non -City PW Sitework Permit agencies, including but not limited to: the Alameda County Issuance Fire Department and the Dublin San Ramon Services District. 93. Composite Exhibit. Construction plan set shall include a Composite Exhibit showing all site improvements, utilities, Grading or landscaping improvements and trees, etc. to be constructed PW Sitework Permit to ensure that there are no conflicts among the proposed Issuance and existing improvements. 94. Geotechnical Report. Applicant/Developer shall submit a Grading or Design Level Geotechnical Report for the property owned PW Sitework Permit by Applicant/Developer, grading and additional information Issuance and/or clarifications as determined by the City Engineer. 95. Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements. Applicant/Developer shall submit an Ownership and Grading or Maintenance Exhibit for review and approval by Planning PL, PW Sitework Permit Division and Public Works Department. Terms of Issuance maintenance are subject to review and approval by the City as 0 x ca �L E 0 U c 0 0 as c 0 .N N E E 0 U a� c .E c 0 a. r c a� U 2 r a Packet Pg. 40 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D AGENCY Prior to: Engineer. 96. Building Pads, Slopes and Walls. Applicant/Developer shall provide the Public Works Department with a letter from a registered civil engineer or surveyor stating that the Acceptance of building pads have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the PW Improvements grades shown on the approved Grading Plans, and that the top & toe of banks and retaining walls are at the locations shown on the approved Grading Plans. 97. Approved Plan Files. Applicant/Developer shall provide the Public Works Department a PDF format file of approved PW Acceptance of site plans, including grading, improvement, landscaping & Improvements irrigation, joint trench and lighting. 98. Master Files. Applicant/Developer shall provide the Public Works Department a digital vectorized file of the "master" files for the project, in a format acceptable to the City Engineer. Digital raster copies are not acceptable. The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher PW Acceptance of drawing format. All objects and entities in layers shall be Improvements colored by layer and named in English. All submitted drawings shall use the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot. PUBLIC WORKS - PARCEL MAP, EASEMENTS AND ACCESS RIGHTS 99. Dedications and Easements. All rights -of -way and easement dedications required by these conditions or PW Acceptance of determined necessary by the City Engineer shall be done Improvements by a separate instrument. 100. Emergency Vehicle Access Easements. The Applicant/Developer shall dedicate Emergency Vehicle Acceptance of Access Easements (EVAE) over the clear pavement width PW Improvements of all drive aisles as required by the Alameda County Fire Department and City Engineer. 101. Granting of Easements. Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for granting all on -site utility easements between parcels owned by Applicant/Developer. The Acceptance of Applicant/Developer shall prepare all required PW Improvements documentation for the granting of all easements on -site. The easements and/or rights -of -entry shall be in writing and copies furnished to the Public Works Department. 102. Approval by Others. The Applicant/Developer will be Grading or responsible for submittals and reviews to obtain the PW Sitework Permit approvals of all applicable non -City agencies. Issuance PUBLIC WORKS - GRADING 103. Grading Plan. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with the recommendation of the Geotechnical Report for the property owned by Applicant/Developer, the approved Site Grading or Development Review Permit and the City design standards PW Sitework Permit and ordinances. In case of conflict between the soil Issuance engineer's recommendation and the City ordinances, the City Engineer shall determine which shall apply. 104. Geotechnical Engineer Review and Approval. The Grading or Project Geotechnical Engineer shall be retained to review PW Sitework Permit all final grading plans and specifications. The Project Issuance as 0 x �a E U c 0 0 as c .2 N E E 0 U c .E c a. r c a� U 2 r Q Packet Pg. 41 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D AGENCY Prior to: Geotechnical Engineer shall approve all grading plans prior to City approval. 105. Grading Off -Haul. The disposal site and haul truck route for any off -haul dirt materials shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading permit. If the Developer does not own the parcel on Grading or which the proposed disposal site is located, the PW Sitework Permit Applicant/Developer shall provide the City with a Letter of Issuance Consent signed by the current owner, approving the placement of off -haul material on their parcel. A Grading Plan may be required for the placement of the off -haul material. 106. Erosion Control Plan. A detailed Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be included with the Grading Plan Grading or submittal. The plan shall include detailed design, location, PW Sitework Permit and maintenance criteria of all erosion and sedimentation Issuance control measures. 107. Demolition Plan. The Applicant/Developer's Civil Engineer shall prepare a demolition plan for the project, which shall be submitted concurrent with the improvement plan package. The demolition plan shall address the following: • Pavement demolition, including streetlights and Grading or landscaped median islands. PW Sitework Permit • Landscaping and irrigation Issuance • Fencing to be removed and fencing to remain • Any items to be saved in place and or protected, such as trees, water meters, sewer cleanouts, drainage inlets or backflow prevention devices. PUBLIC WORKS - STORM DRAINAGE AND OTHER UTILITIES 108. On -Site Storm Drain System. Storm drainage for the 10- year storm event shall be collected on -site and conveyed through storm drains to the public storm drain system. Grading or Show the size and location of existing and proposed storm PW Sitework Permit drains and catch basins on the site plan. Show the size and Issuance location of public storm drain lines and the points of connection for the on -site storm drains stem. 109. Hydrology and Hydraulics. Developer shall submit hydrology and hydraulic calculations for review and Grading or approval. Construction plan set shall show grate, invert and PW Sitework Permit hydraulic grade line information at all storm drain structures, Issuance slope and design flow at all storm drain pipes. 110. Drainage. Runoff from roofs, including the trash enclosure, Grading or shall be collected by roof drains and drain to stormwater PW Sitework Permit treatment areas. Issuance 111. Storm Drain Easements. Private storm drain easements and maintenance roads shall be provided for all private storm drains or ditches that are located on private property. Grading or The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for the PW Sitework Permit acquisition of all storm drain easements from offsite Issuance property owners which are required for the connection and maintenance of all offsite storm drainage improvements. 112. Storm Drain Inlet Markers. All public and private storm Acceptance of drain inlets must be marked with storm drain markers that "No PW Improvements read: dumping, drains to creek," and a note shall be as 0 x �a E U c 0 0 as c 0 .N E E 0 U a� c .E c a. r c as E U 2 r a Packet Pg. 42 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D AGENCY Prior to: shown on the improvement plans. The markers may be purchased from the Public Work Department. 113. Fire Hydrants. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the Alameda County Fire Department. A raised reflector PW Acceptance of blue traffic marker shall be installed in the street opposite Improvements each hydrant and shown on the signing & striping Ian. 114. Dry Utility Locations. All electric, telephone, cable TV, and communications utilities, shall be placed underground Certificate of in accordance with the City policies and ordinances. All PW Occupancy or utilities shall be located and provided within public utility Acceptance of easements or public services easements and sized to meet Improvements utility company standards. 115. Utility Vaults and Boxes. All utility vaults, boxes, and structures, unless specifically approved otherwise by the City Engineer, shall be underground and placed in Certificate of landscaped areas and screened from public view. Occupancy or Landscape drawings shall be submitted to the City showing PW Acceptance of the location of all utility vaults, boxes, and structures and Improvements adjacent landscape features and plantings. The Joint Trench Plans shall be submitted along with the grading and/or improvement plans. PUBLIC WORKS - CONSTRUCTION 116. Erosion Control Implementation. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be implemented between October 1st and April 30th unless otherwise allowed in Start of writing by the City Engineer. The Applicant/Developer will PW Construction be responsible for maintaining erosion and sediment control and On -going measures for one year following the City's acceptance of the improvements. 117. Archaeological Finds. If archaeological materials are encountered during construction, construction within 100 feet of these materials shall be halted until a professional Start of Archaeologist certified by the Society of California PW Construction Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional and On -going Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. 118. Construction Activities. Construction activities, including the idling, maintenance, and warming up of equipment, shall be limited to Monday through Friday, and non -City holidays, Start of between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. except as PW Construction otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Extended hours and On -going or Saturday work will be considered by the City Engineer on a case -by -case basis. Note that the construction hours of operation within the public right-of-way are more restrictive. 119. Temporary Fencing. Temporary construction fencing shall be installed along the construction work perimeter to separate the construction area from the public. All Start construction activities shall be confined within the fenced PW Construction area. Construction materials and/or equipment shall not be and On -going operated/stored outside of the fenced area or within the public right-of-way unless approved in advance by the City Engineer. 120. Construction Noise Management Plan. PW Start of as 0 x �a E 0 U c 0 0 as c 0 .N N E E 0 U c .E c a. c a� E U 0 r a Packet Pg. 43 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D AGENCY Prior to: Applicant/Developer shall prepare a construction noise Construction management plan that identifies measures to minimize and On -going as construction noise on surrounding developed properties. needed The plan shall include hours of construction operation, use of mufflers on construction equipment, speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be provided prior to project construction. 121. Traffic Control Plan. Closing of any existing public right of way pedestrian pathway and/or sidewalk during Start of Construction construction shall be implemented through a City -approved PW and On -going as Traffic Control Plan and shall be done with the goal of needed minimizing the impact on pedestrian circulation. 122. Construction Traffic Interface Plan. Applicant/Developer Start of shall prepare a plan for construction traffic interface with Construction; public traffic on any existing public street. Construction PW Implementation, traffic and parking may be subject to specific requirements and On -going as by the City Engineer. needed 123. Pest Control. Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for controlling any rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due PW On -going to construction activities. PUBLIC WORKS - EROSION CONTROL AND STORMWATER QUALITY 124. Stormwater Treatment. Consistent with Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) Grading or Order No. R2-2015-0049, the Applicant/Developer shall PW Sitework Permit submit documentation including construction drawings Issuance demonstrating all stormwater treatment measures and h dromodification requirements as applicable are met. 125. NOI and SWPPP. Prior to any clearing or grading, Applicant/Developer shall provide the City evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been sent to the California State Start of Any Water Resources Control Board per the requirements of the PW Construction NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Activities Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works Department and be kept at the construction site. 126. SWPPP. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall identify the Best Management Practices SWPPP to be (BMPs) appropriate to the project construction activities. Prepared Prior The SWPPP shall include the erosion and sediment control to Grading measures in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Permit Issuance; most current version of the Association of Bay Area PW Implementation Governments (ABAG) Erosion and Sediment Control Prior to Start of Handbook or State Construction Best Management Construction Practices Handbook. The Applicant/Developer is and On -going as responsible for ensuring that all contractors implement all needed storm water pollution prevention measures in the SWPPP. 127. Stormwater Management Plan. A final Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. Approval is subject to the Grading, Applicant/Developer providing the necessary plans, details, PW Sitework, or and calculations that demonstrate the plan complies with Building Permit the standards issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Issuance Water Quality Control Board and Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. a� 0 x �L E M U c 0 0 a� o: c 0 .N N E E 0 U a� c .E c �a a r c aD E Q Packet Pg. 44 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D AGENCY Prior to: PUBLIC WORKS — ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS 128. Drive Aisle Width. The parking lot aisles shall be a Grading or minimum of 24 feet wide to allow for adequate on -site PW Sitework Permit vehicle circulation for cars, trucks, and emergency vehicles. Issuance 129. Curb Ramps and Pedestrian Walkways. All curb ramps shall include truncated domes and meet the most current City and ADA design standards applicable to the Project Grading or site. All curb ramp locations shall be clearly shown on site PW Sitework Permit plans and shall be subject to the Traffic Engineer's Issuance approval. Said work shall not be required on real property owned by the State of California. 130. Vehicle Parking. All on -site vehicle parking spaces shall conform to the following: 1. All parking spaces shall be double striped using four - inch white lines set two feet apart in accordance with City Standards and DMC 8.76.070.A.17. 2. Twelve -inch wide concrete step -out curbs shall be constructed at each parking space where one or both sides abut a landscaped area or planter. 3. Where wheel stops are shown, individual six-foot long wheel stops shall be provided within each parking space in accordance with City Standards. 4. A minimum two -foot radius shall be provided at curb returns and curb intersections where applicable. Grading or 5. Parking stalls next to walls, fences and obstructions to PW Sitework Permit vehicle door opening shall be an additional four feet in Issuance width per DMC 8.76.070.A.16. 6. Landscaped strips adjacent to parking stalls shall be unobstructed in order to allow for a minimum two -foot vehicular overhang at front of vehicles. 7. Any reduction of standard parking spaces to compact spaces shall be in accordance with City Standards and DMC 8.76.050 and as approved by Traffic Engineer. Number of on -site parking spaces shall be in accordance with shared parking provisions of the shared parking analysis report prepared by AMG Consultants, dated September 30, 2019, under the Minor Use Permit (MUP 2019-00044). 131. On -site Signing and Striping Plan. A Traffic Signing and Grading or Striping Plan showing all proposed signing and striping PW Sitework Permit within on -site parking lots and drive aisles, shall be Issuance submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. 132. Photometrics. The Applicant/Developer shall provide a complete photometrics plan for both on -site and frontage Grading or roadways. Include the complete data on photometrics, PW Sitework Permit including the High, Average and Minimum values for Issuance illuminance and uniformity ratio. 133. Project signs. All proposed project monument signs shall be placed on private property. Signs should be located Grading or outside of any easement areas unless specifically approved PW Sitework Permit by the City Engineer. Any signage allowed to be located in Issuance an easement is subject to removal and replacement at the as 0 x �a E U c 0 0 as c 0 .N N E E 0 U c .E c a. r c as E U 2 r a Packet Pg. 45 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D AGENCY Prior to: expense of the Developer/property owner if required by the easement holder. PUBLIC WORKS — SPECIAL CONDITIONS — SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 134. Trash Enclosure. The trash enclosure shall meet all of the requirements set forth within the Dublin Municipal Code Section 7.98, including but not limited to providing sewer Grading, and water hook-ups. The improvement plans and/or Sitework, or building permit plans shall show additional information PW Building Permit demonstrating these requirements are met. A pedestrian Issuance accessible path of travel shall be provided for employees from the building to the trash enclosure in conformance with current accessibility requirements. 135. Drive Aisle Condition. Applicant/Developer shall evaluate the existing condition of the drive aisle and remove/replace Grading, Sitework, or damaged and hazardous pavement within the Project site PW Building Permit and access easements. The final pavement condition shall Issuance be subject to the City Engineer approval. 136. Pedestrian Walkway. Applicant/Developer shall provide a concrete walkway that connects to the adjacent office building walkway that meets the most current City and ADA Grading, design standards and shall be in conformance with the PW Sitework, or project plans prepared by DesignCell dated November 22, Building Permit 2019, attached as Exhibit A. This concrete walkway shall Issuance directly connect to the public sidewalk on Dublin Boulevard at the project entry driveway. 137. Bicycle Parking. Applicant/Developer shall install all bike lockers and bike racks in accordance with California Green Grading, Building Standards Code requirements. Both short-term PW Sitework, or and long-term needs shall be provided, and locations of the Building Permit bicycle parking shall be subject to the review and approval Issuance of the City Engineer. PUBLIC WORKS — SPECIAL CONDITIONS — MINOR USE PERMIT 138. Access and Circulation. Applicant/Developer shall PW Grading Permit, provide access and circulation improvements including but Sitework Permit, not limited to driveway design, parking layout, pedestrian or Building and bicycle circulation, drive aisle and removal/replacement Permit Issuance or grinding of damaged and hazardous pavement. 139. Shared Parking Study. Applicant/Developer shall adhere PW Ongoing to the recommendations and analysis proposed in the Technical Memorandum: Parking Study for Mixed -Used Development in Dublin dated September 30, 2019 by Advanced Mobility Group as it pertains to the Office Building and Hotel Development. Any subsequent reports or studies shall be subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 140. Bicycle Parking. Applicant/Developer shall install the bike PW Grading Permit, lockers and bike racks in accordance with California Green Sitework Permit, Building Standards Code requirements. Both short term or Building and long-term needs shall be provided, and locations of the Permit Issuance bicycle parking shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 141. Signing and Striping Plan. Applicant/Developer shall PW Grading Permit, provide a separate signing and striping plan on property Sitework Permit, owned by Applicant/Developer showing the sin locations or Building a� 0 x E M U c 0 0 a� o: c 0 .N N E E 0 U c .E c �a a r c aD E 0 r Q Packet Pg. 46 5.1.a CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D AGENCY Prior to: for the shared parking between the hotel and the office Permit Issuance building. Signs shall include guiding users to garage access from both the hotel and office building sites. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin, on this 281h day of April 2020 by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director r a+ Q Packet Pg. 47 5.1.b HOTEL DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN, CA ENTITLEMENT PACKAGE DEFERRED SUBMITTALS 1. THE "DEFERRED ITEMS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE WHO SHALL REVIEW THEM AND FORWARD THEM TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WITH A NOTATION INDICATING THAT THE DEFERRED SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED & FOUND TO BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE TO THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING WITHOUT ANY CORRECTIONS' 2. THE DEFERRED SUBMITTAL ITEMS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED UNTIL THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS APPORVED THEIR DESIGN AND SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS. 3. THE ENGINEER(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESIGN OF THE DEFERRED SUBMITTAL ITEMS SHALL STAMP AND SIGN THOSE DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS FOR WHICH HE/SHE IS RESPONSIBLE. • CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS CONCRETE MIX DESIGNS STAIRS, HANDRAILS, GUARDRAILS, AND THEIR COMPONENTS • SPRINKLER SYSTEM EXTERIOR CLADDING AND VENEER SUPPORT/ANCHORAGE OF MECH., ELECT., AND PLUMBING • SIGNAGE PACKAGE MASONRY GROUT AND MORTAR MIX DESIGNS EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS • ANCHOR TIEDOWN SYSTEM PREFABRICATED WOOD TRUSSES ELEVATORS "FIRE SPRINKLER APPROVALS ARE NOT INCLUDED UNDER THIS PERMIT. BEFORE COMMENCING ANY WORK ON THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM, PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE BUILDING SAFTEY DIVISION. THE SYSTEM MUST BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BY BUILDING SAFETY INSPECTION PRIOR TO A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY." FIRE DEPARTMENT DEFERRED SUBMISSIONS: • FULLY -AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM DESIGNED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 2O16 CFC SECTION 903, AND NFPA 13, 2013 EDITION. • CLASS 1 STANDPIPE SYSTEM DESIGNED & INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 2O16 CBC, SECTIONS 905.1 THROUGH 905.10 & NFPA 14, 2016 EDITION • COMPLETE FIRE ALARM AND DETECTION SYSTEM, DESIGNED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 2O16 CBC, SECTIONS 907.1 THROUGH 907.9 (WHICH INCLUDES ALL OTHER USES AND OCCUPANCY GROUPS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT) & NFPA 72, 2016 EDITION. SPECIFY TYPE OF SYSTEM: MANUAL OR AUTOMATIC, COMBINATION AUTOMATIC / MANUAL ALARM & DETECTION SYSTEM, AND SPECIFY SPRINKLER MONITORING REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH 2O16 CBC, 903.4 THROUGH 903.4.2. SWIMMING POOL PERMIT SUBMITTAL: 1. POOL DWGS INCLUDING ALL DETAILS 2. ACCESSIBLE CHAIR LIFT 3. POOL EQUIPMENT 4. POOL CHEMICALS 5. POOL SIGNAGE NOVEMBER 22,2019 SHEET INDEX COVER SHEET DR-1.1 SITE PLAN / SITE DATA DR-1.2 SITE SECTION DR-2.1 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 DR-2.2 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 DR-2.3 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 DR-2.4 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4 DR-2.5 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 5 DR-2.6 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 6 DR-3.1 BUILDING ELEVATIONS DR-3.2 BUILDING ELEVATIONS DR-3.3 MATERIAL BOARD DR- 4.1 ROOF PLAN DR-5.1 HOTEL 3D VIEWS DR-5.2 HOTEL 3D VIEWS DR-6.1 CODE ANALYSIS DR-6.2 EGRESS PLAN- LEVEL 1 DR-6.3 EGRESS PLAN- LEVEL 2 DR-6.4 EGRESS PLAN- LEVEL 3 DR-6.5 EGRESS PLAN- LEVEL 4-6 Cl- COVER SHEET C2 -EXISTING CONDITIONS C3 -SECTIONS C4 -HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN C5 -PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C6 -EROSION CONTROL PLAN C7- STORM WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN C8-AUTO TURN ANALYSIS L-1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN L-2 LANDSCAPE IMAGES, PLANT LEGEND AND PLANT IMAGES L-3 PLANT IMAGES -SUN L-4 PLANT IMAGES -SHADE de ign .11 ARCHITECTURE 1725 VILLAGE CENTER CIRCLE, SUITE 110 LAS VEGAS NV 89134 T. 702 403-1575 WWW.DESIGN-CELL.COM 2a �L m E m U N c m IL r d 0 L a E s u c� r Q O Q x W N C N E s u a Q Packet Pg. 48 5.1.b PROJECT SUMMARY SITE SUMMARY AREA CALCULATIONS PARKING CALCULATIONS VICINITY MAP COMPLIANCE NAME HARDSCAPE AREA 11020 SF PERCENTAGE ° 29/0 THIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF SITE DEVELOPMENT FOR: - 2 STORY PARKING STRUCTURE AND 4 STORY, 138 KEYS HOTEL ABOVE IT. DESCRIPTION INFORMATION / REQUIREMENT PARCEL A EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING ( ) TOTAL PARKING PARCEL A: 51 STALLS EXISTING STANDARD: 41 STALLS EXISTING ACCESSIBLE: 2 STALLS COMPACT: 6 STALS PARCEL B TOTAL PARKING PARCEL B: 300 STALLS (SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT) OFFICE REQUIRED PARKING (1:350): 222 STALLS ACCESSIBLE PARKING: 7 STALLS TOTAL OFFICE PARKING PROVIDED: 99 STALLS STANDARD: 57 STALLS COMPACT: 9 STALLS MOTORCYCLE: 4 STALLS ACCESSIBLE: 5 STALLS VAN ACCESSIBLE: 2 STALLS CLEAN AIR VEHICLE (CAV) (8%): 22 STALLS BICYCLE LOCKER: 1 SHORT TERM BIKE RACK: 2 HOTEL REQUIRED PARKING: 165 STALLS 1 SPACE PER GUESTROOM, PLUS 1 PER 250 SQ. FT. OF OFFICE, 1 PER 100 SQ. FT. OF EATING AND DRINKING FACILITY, AND 1 PER EMPLOYEE ON THE LARGEST SHIFT PER DUBLIN MINICIPAL CODE ( ) HOTEL 1: 1 (138) =138 STALLS OFFICE 750 SF:250= 3 STALLS EATING- 1,400 SF:100= 14 STALLS 10 EMPOYEES= 10 STALLS ACCESSIBLE 6 STALLS TOTAL HOTEL PARKING PROVIDED: 196 STALLS PARKING GARAGE: 145 STALLS ON -SITE PARKING: 51 STALLS (HOTEL) COMPACT: ACCESSIBLE: 5 STALLS VAN ACCESSIBLE:1 EV CHARGING: 12 (ACCESSIBLE AND VAN ACCESSIBLE INCLUDED) CLEAN AIR VEHICLE (CAV): 16- BICYCLE PARKING 10 SHORT TERM & 10 LONG TERM BICYCLE SPACES PROVIDED. EXISTING PARKING BEFORE IMPROVEMENT- 260 STALLS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSED +40 STALLS TOTAL PARKING BOTH PARCELS: 346 STALLS t,��an� sharFrockvivageQ r m Target l Q Q Dublin Place s n` P Martin canyon 9 s gnu s b "°` Q 0 Dubin Retail center Safi Dublin a svpe1 '`° 0� � o W i � ^ PROPOSED SITE g 4 Dublin Heritage �e",jam Park&Museurn'S H<.i.�-: l - ..R ©� 01011 O°d ry �Dublln/�Plznfo_nj�rSAN -: artnurH- Breed,JrFwy Ys # stoneridge # APN 941-1500-037-00 LANDSCAPE o ADDRESS DUBLIN BLVD PARKING 17230 SF 1723 S 46% 46% JURISDICTION CITY OF DUBLIN, CA Y Y 37500 SF 100% ZONING CLASSIFICATION DDZD DOWNTOWN DUBLIN ZONING DISTRICT ACTUAL BUILDING AREA (GROSS) (HOTEL & PARKING GARAGE BUILDING) PLANNED LAND USE C-1 RETAIL COMMERCIAL HOTEL USE ALLOWED YES # OF PARKING STALLS REQUIRED REFER TO CODE FOR DETAIL LEVEL AREA SIZE OF PARKING STALLS REQUIRED 9 x 20' Y LEVEL 3 22,194 SF LEVEL 4 21,615 SF MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 65'-0" Y LEVEL 5 21,615 SF FIRE ACCESS REQUIRED 26-0" DRIVEWAY Y Y LEVEL 6 LEVEL 1 21,615 SF STREET SETBACK FROM DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND RAMON ROAD 10'-0" 38,791 SF LEVEL 2 19,834 SF 145,664 SF Y Y STREET SETBACK FROM OTHER STREETS 5'-0" INTERNAL SETBACK 0'-0" NOTE: ACCESSIBLE PARKING CALCULATION ON SITE PARKING - 201 SPACES 9 ACCESSIBLE STALL PROVIDED (2 VAN ACCESSIBLE INCLUDED) PARKING GARAGE - 145 SPACES 6 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED (1 VAN ACCESSIBLE INCLUDED) 0 TLj o U-) 2�i r` 0 w M J CJj � w c, U U o_ Z CD W ~ (n z M w LU 000 w>� CDZ3: J Cn J Q > CD Lo w CV > ti co J V15 22/11 /2019 PRELIMINARY DESIGN U) J W O _ J F_ w t� -0 O V06 W �CD � Q U � Z Q z co ::D 0 0 0 p N m WLu = z Q O m CM)U)M N o0o V­ 0 PROJECT NUMBER: 18 048 SITE PLAN / SITE DATA 0 x 0 m E m U N C co IL r D 0 L a c d E s c� r Q 0 a r s x w N r-: C N E s 0 r Q SITE PLAN 1 If = 30'-0" DRml ■ 1 Packet Pg. 49 5.1.b II -- II II rj ui� W oLo2�i �ti �uc,0 W M J j � w cV U U o Z w ~ crn W z M w 0 ui ~ w00 >� (D = J cn J Q > W > N 0) Q � J V15 22/11 /2019 PRELIMINARY DESIGN J W H 0 J W H O O H cn 4 06 w C� a C� Z w O a� �N � w o= F� in00 M N V­ PROJECT NUMBER: 18 048 SITE SECTION Q SITE SECTION 1 lit = 30'-0" DRml 2 ■ 1 Packet Pg. 50 5.1.b r!lqm4nwlm JiI �4wlr!l�7ri + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + -- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + I I z z 0 I I 20'-0" TYP. 1 1 1 1:. ft + + + + +++++++ + + v + + + + +, + + ,++o+, + + — — — — — — — — — TRANSFORMER PAD i w 0 0 a L Cn n - w o Q R n- m 0 ZD o ■ MECHANICAL Co 441 SF i o w a� o U Ln � co / I 24'-0" I I O I 0 CV F I CHARGING ONLY CHARGING ONLY co-ARGoNG ONLY co-ARGoNG ONLY co-ARGoNG ONLY 0 -0 9 -0 27 -0 27 -0 I 3 SPACES 3 SPACES I I o I PARKING N GARAGE I 8 463 S � I R � 12 20'-0" ■ U) w o Q ti N � Co CO ti a Cl) o Q U) N 0 0 W � a N 0 N 0 0 17'-0" o a TYP. 41'-0" � U) 0 w �Q0 N U M ■ 0 cn o Q 0 v N U M 0 0 16'-0" 5'-0" 2 SPACES 1OVdW00 61OVdW00 MECHANICAL 396 S F zo 0 I I I I I I - + + + + + + GENERATOR STAIRS #2 �._'��-�-_:� 172 SF + 4 - 03 + D + I+ - J 4+ + I iT 20'-0" 1 !.r + Lu N u) i 1 + + + + + + + + - - � + + + + + ® 11 — - - — — — — — — — — — — — — I+ + - II I+ I+ 11 I+ 11 1 I+ 0 I+ N Co 11 I+ I+ 24'-0" 1 1I � II I+ 1 II II I — i/ + TTT I TMIRS #31 I I I I I 177SF ! I� + + + + �+ + ++ ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + TRASH CHUTE 183 SF + + + 11 I+ + I+ U i 11 + 1 =C$=A-+-+ + ------------- + ------- F ------------------------ + r isrr�a�" ss + 4 + + ++++++++++ +++++++++ + + + + + + + IN PROPERTY LINE LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 3/32" = V-0" PARKING SCHEDULE - LEVEL 1 TYPE COUNT 8' X 17' - 90° (COMPACT) 13 2 9' X 20' - 90° (ACCESSIBLE) 9' X 20' - 90° (ACCESSIBLE/EV CHARGING) 1 9' X 20' - 90° (ACCESSIBLE/EV CHARGINGNAN) 1 9' X 20' - 90° (ACCESSIBLENAN) 1 9' X 20' - 90° (CLEAN AIRNANPOOLIEV) 10 9' X 20' - 90° (EV CHARGING) 5 9' X 20' - 90° (STANDARD) 39 GRAND TOTAL: 72 W o�� 0 � � U W ch J U � W CV U W W Cl) 2 ZMo V w�� a w N > ti C/) Q J V15 11/22/2019 PRELIMINARY DESIGN Cn m 0 J N w W � 00 M m O w W 0 = � O O cn V 06 W >m � Q U � Z Z 0 0 J a0 m u N PROJECT NUMBER: 18 048 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 DRm2ml Packet Pg. 51 5.1.b I I r—----———————————II——————————————————————————————————————————————————————- I I I I I I I I I I r--J I F-1 I I I I I I I I — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — PARKING SCHEDULE - LEVEL 2 TYPE COUNT 8' X 17' - 90° (COMPACT) 11 9' X 20' - 90° (ACCESSIBLE) 9' X 20' - 90° (CLEAN AIRNANPOOUEV) 3 6 9' X 20' - 90° (EV CHARGING) 9' X 20' - 90° (STANDARD) 5 48 GRAND TOTAL: 73 0 � � U W ch J J O J U-j-w V CD U Ur-Z W W Cl) H - W Lij Z M 00 V w>� Q as > c� w N > ti C/) � Q J V15 11/22/2019 PRELIMINARY DESIGN Cn J W H 0 W (m) O V m a PROJECT NUMBER: 18 048 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 0 x 0 �L m E 0 U N c m a r d 0 L a c d E s u 0 r Q 0 Q r s x w N C N s u 0 r Q PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL 2 3132" = l'-0" DRm2m2 Packet Pg. 52 5.1.b BED TYPE SUMMARY GUESTROOM BED TYPE COUNT PERC. KING 64 46% KING SUITE 18 13% QUEEN/QUEEN 56 41% TOTAL GUESTROOMS: 138 100% OVERALL DISTRIBUTION GUESTROOM UNIT TYPE BED TYPE COUNT LEVEL 3 1 BDRM BK1 KING SUITE 1 1 BDRM BK4 KING SUITE 1 1 BDRM BK5 ACC. (TUB) KING SUITE 1 STUDIO K1 KING 7 STUDIO Q1 QUEEN/QUEEN 4 STUDIO Q3 ACC. (TUB) QUEENIQUEEN 1 LEVEL 3 15 LEVEL 4 1 BDRM BK1 KING SUITE 2 1 BDRM BK2 KING SUITE 1 1 BDRM BK3 KING SUITE 1 1 BDRM BK4 KING SUITE 1 STUDIO K1 KING 18 STUDIO K2 ACC. (TUB) KING 1 STUDIO Q1 QUEEN/QUEEN 16 STUDIO Q2 QUEENIQUEEN 1 LEVEL 4 41 LEVEL 5 1 BDRM BK1 KING SUITE 2 1 BDRM BK2 KING SUITE 1 1 BDRM BK3 KING SUITE 1 1 BDRM BK4 KING SUITE 1 STUDIO K1 KING 18 STUDIO K2 ACC. (TUB) KING 1 STUDIO Q1 QUEEN/QUEEN 16 STUDIO Q3 ACC. (TUB) QUEEN/QUEEN 1 LEVEL 5 41 LEVEL 6 1 BDRM BK1 KING SUITE 2 1 BDRM BK2 KING SUITE 1 1 BDRM BK3 KING SUITE 1 1 BDRM BK4 KING SUITE 1 STUDIO K1 KING 18 STUDIO K2 ACC. (ROLL -IN SHOWER) KING 1 STUDIO Q1 QUEEN/QUEEN 15 STUDIO Q2 QUEENIQUEEN 1 STUDIO Q3 ACC. (ROLL -IN SHOWER) QUEEN/QUEEN 1 LEVEL 6 41 TOTAL GUESTROOMS: 138 BUILDING AREA (GROSS) LEVEL AREA HOTEL LEVEL 1 2,614 SF LEVEL 3 22,194 SF LEVEL 4 21,615 SF LEVEL 5 21,615 SF LEVEL 6 21,615 SF 89,653 SF PARKING GARAGE LEVEL 1 36,183 SF LEVEL 2 119,631 SF 55,815 SF TOTAL AREA: 145,468 SF ACESSIBLE UNITS ROOM# GUESTROOM UNIT TYPE NOTES LEVEL 3 107 STUDIO Q3 ACC. (TUB) ITUB 122 1 BDRM BK5 ACC. (TUB) ITUB LEVEL 4 251 STUDIO K2 ACC. (TUB) TUB LEVEL 5 307 STUDIO Q3 ACC. (TUB) ITUB 351 STUDIO K2 ACC. (TUB) ITUB LEVEL 6 419 STUDIO Q3 ACC. (ROLL -IN SHOWER) ROLL IN SHOWER 451 STUDIO K2 ACC. (ROLL -IN SHOWER) ROLL IN SHOWER TOTAL ACCESSIBLE GUESTROOMS: 7 UNITS WITH COMM. FEATURES ROOM# GUESTROOM UNIT TYPE LEVEL 3 100 1 BDRM BK1 101 STUDIO K1 STUDIO Q1 116 LEVEL 4 205 STUDIO Q1 1 BDRM BK2 226 235 STUDIO K1 LEVEL 5 305 STUDIO Q1 326 1 BDRM BK2 335 STUDIO K1 LEVEL 6 405 STUDIO Q1 426 1 BDRM BK2 435 STUDIO K1 TOTAL GUESTROOMS WITH COMM. FEATURES: 12 - W o�� ti O � � U W ch J U � W CV U V UCDZ W w~cl) F— 't W = ZMo V LU 0 Z i�: a > C7 w N > ti C/) Q J V15 11/22/2019 PRELIMINARY DESIGN J W H 0 m a 0 0 N Lu 00 M Lu H 0 0 N 06 W 0 Z Q 0 N PROJECT NUMBER: 18 048 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN 3/32" = 1'-0" KflbW2447, VC.A#.A DRm2m3 Packet Pg. 53 5.1.b W o�� 0 44-- — U W A J J O J U�w V CD U U �Z W W Cl) H - W LLJ Z M V LU 0Zi�: Q as > c� w N > ti C/) � Q J V15 11/22/2019 PRELIMINARY DESIGN J W H 0 W (m) O V m a 0 0 DC N Lu 00 M Lu H 0 2 DC 0 N 06 W Z_ Y Q 0 Cl) N PROJECT NUMBER: 18 048 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL4 LEVEL 4 FLOOR PLAN 3/32" = V-0" 2�D DRm2m4 Packet Pg. 54 5.1.b W o�� 0 44-- — U W A J J O J U�w V CD U U �Z W W Cl) H - W LLJ Z M V LU 0Zi�: Q as > c� w N > ti C/) � Q J V15 11/22/2019 PRELIMINARY DESIGN J W H 0 W (m) O V m a 0 0 DC N Lu 00 M Lu H 0 2 DC 0 N 06 W Z_ Y Q 0 Cl) N PROJECT NUMBER: 18 048 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 5 LEVEL 5 FLOOR PLAN 3/32" = 1'-0" 2�D DRm2m5 Packet Pg. 55 5.1.b W o�� 0 44-- — U W A J J O J U�w V CD U U �Z W W Cl) H - W LLJ Z M V LU 0Zi�: Q as > c� w N > ti C/) � Q J V15 11/22/2019 PRELIMINARY DESIGN J W H 0 W (m) O V m a 0 0 DC N Lu 00 M Lu H 0 2 DC 0 N 06 W Z_ Y Q 0 Cl) N PROJECT NUMBER: 18 048 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 6 LEVEL 6 FLOOR PLAN 3/32" = V-0" 2�D DRm2m6 Packet Pg. 56 5.1.b EELiLOIL -101/2" 1PET 1LOIL 6'-4 5/8" F TG '-10 1/2" .EVEL 6 54'-0" ,, IF .EVEL 5 44'-0" - IF .EVEL 4 34'-0" ,. _EVEL 3 22'-0" _EVEL 2 10'-0" _EVEL 1 0' 0" or SOUTH ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0" EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND SYMBOL ID DESCRIPTION FC1 REVEAL PANEL SYSTEM JAMES HARDIE - PAINTED MINDFUL GRAY SW 7016 FC2 REVEAL PANEL SYSTEM JAMES HARDIE - PAINTED GAUNTLET GRAY SW 7019 EXTERIOR SIDING PANEL SYSTEM WP1 SAGIPER - SAGIWALL CHANNELED REF#79 KNOTTY MAPLE OR SIMILAR PT1 EIFS INTEGRAL COLOR/PAINTED METAL SHERWIN-WILLIAMS - TOQUE WHITE SW 7003 CON1 PAINTED CONCRETE & CMU, VERTICAL DESIGN SHERWIN-WILLIAMS - GAUNTLET GRAY SW 7019 CON2 PAINTED CONCRETE, SMOOTH DESIGN SHERWIN-WILLIAMS - GAUNTLET GRAY SW 7019 MTL1 PAINTED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT FRAMES/DOORS - DARK BRONZE PROTECTIVE OPENINGS CALCULATION. FIRE SEPERATION DISTANCE 10' TO LESS THAN 15'. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE AREA OF EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGS 45%. CALCULATED OPENINGS AREA - 17% (OPENINGS- 512SF, EXTERIOR WALL -3170 SF). T.O. PARAPET #2 68' 1 /2" T.O. PARAPET #1 66'-4 5/8" T.O. ROOF TG 63'-10 1 /2" - _LEVEL 6 54'-0" - _LEVEL 5 44'-0" w r� L) LEVEL 4 34'-0" 0 0 0 r 0 - —LEVEL 3 22'-0" - —LEVEL 2 10'-0" - —LEVEL 1 0'-0" — W CD O � � U W ch J J O J U­j-w V CD U Ur-Z W W N H 't W = Lu V Lu 0 z j�: Q i Cl) w N > ti C/) Q J V15 11/22/2019 PRELIMINARY DESIGN J W H 0 W (m) O V m a 0 0 I..L N Lu 00 M Lu H 0 06 Lu Q 0 N PROJECT NUMBER: 18 048 BUILDING ELEVATIONS 0 x 0 �L m E 0 U 0 c 0 a r d 0 a` c d E s u 0 r Q 0 x w N C N s u 0 r Q EAST ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0" DRm3ml Packet Pg. 57 5.1.b NOTE: DETAILED ENCLOSURE WILL BE PROVIDED FOR PERMIT DRAWINGS. TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATION MATCH HOTEL BUILDING NORTH TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0" \, `' / 3/32" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0" ARAPET #2 68'-10 1 /2" ARAPET #1 66'-4 5/8" ;O�12�" 6 _LEVEL 6 54'-0" _LEVEL 5 44'-0" _LEVEL 4 34'-0" _LEVEL 3 22'-0" _LEVEL 2 10'-0" _LEVEL1 0'-01, EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND SYMBOL ID DESCRIPTION FC1 REVEAL PANEL SYSTEM JAMES HARDIE - PAINTED MINDFUL GRAY SW 7016 FC2 REVEAL PANEL SYSTEM JAMES HARDIE - PAINTED GAUNTLET GRAY SW 7019 EXTERIOR SIDING PANEL SYSTEM WP1 SAGIPER - SAGIWALL CHANNELED REF#79 KNOTTY MAPLE OR SIMILAR PT1 EIFS INTEGRAL COLOR/PAINTED METAL SHERWIN-WILLIAMS - TOQUE WHITE SW 7003 CON1 PAINTED CONCRETE & CMU, VERTICAL DESIGN SHERWIN-WILLIAMS - GAUNTLET GRAY SW 7019 CON2 PAINTED CONCRETE, SMOOTH DESIGN SHERWIN-WILLIAMS - GAUNTLET GRAY SW 7019 MTL1 PAINTED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT FRAMES/DOORS - DARK BRONZE - W o�� ti O 44-- - U W A J U � W CV U V UCDZ W w~C0 'tw LU 2 zMo w>� V m < z Q as w N > ti C/) � Q J V15 11/22/2019 PRELIMINARY DESIGN J W H 0 W (m) O V m a 0 0 Lu 00 M Lu H 0 2 DC 0 Cl? 06 W Z_ Y Q 0 Cl) N PROJECT NUMBER: 18 048 BUILDING ELEVATIONS WEST ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0" DRm3m2 Packet Pg. 58 5.1.b f a Stud waFls 1 Substrate CP YYVG0 , QSB, etr- V&terpmofff g membrane Adhesiv and mecharkal fasbu r5 attachthe rnmjlwUCd} board t6 the PL6stmte Mediarncal fastener Reinforong umnh M gasecoat' v6dc T farms the uwer portion of the prrrnEff-y moistum b-arrier. Finish coat, WF7ich farms the• auGer partion of the Rr awy moistum harrier. PT-1 EIFS SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW-7003 TOQUE WHITE SW-7003 li CON-1 & CON-2 CON-1 SW-7019 PAINTED CONCRETE VERTICAL DESIGN SW-7019 SOUTH ELEVATION 1 /16" = l'-0" CON-2 PAINTED CONCRETE SMOOTH DESIGN SW-7019 FC-1 SW-7016 FC-2 SW-7019 MTL-1 --------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FC-1 & FC-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FC-1 & FC-2 JAMES HARDIE WALL SIDING REAVEAL PANEL I I I I I I I I I I I I I MTL-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L J MTL-1 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOW FRAMES- DARK BRONZE, PAINTED DOORS rjk 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WP-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L J SAGIPER SAGIWALL SIDING PANEL CHANNEL PROFILE & PANEL AT SOFFIT, OR SIMILAR TO BORAL SIDE PANEL KNOTTY MAPLE COLOR LEGEND PT-1 EIFS SHERWIN WILLIAMS TOQUE WHITE SW-7003 FC-1 JAMES HARD I E WALL SIDING REVEAL PANEL MINDFUL GRAY SW-7016 FC-2 JAMES HARD I E WALL SIDING REVEAL PANEL SW-7019 GAUNTLET GRAY WP-1 SAGIPER SAGIWALL SIDING PANEL CHANNEL PROFILE, OR SIMILAR TO BORAL SIDING KNOTTY MAPLE COLOR C-1 PAINTED CONCRETE, VERTICAL DESIGN SW 7019 GAUNTLET GRAY C-2 PAINTED CONCRETE, SMOOTH DESIGN SW 7019 GAUNTLET GRAY MTL-1 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOW FRAMES- DARK BRONZE, PAINTED DOORS - W O Lo Lo ti O � � U W ch J J O J U�w V (ifCV U U �o Z w w�N i- 'tw = Lu V LU 0 z j�: Q i Cl) � C7 w N > ti C/) � Q J V15 11/22/2019 PRELIMINARY DESIGN J W H 0 W C� O V m a m a U 0 N Lu 00 M Lu 0 0 06 Lu a 0 CV PROJECT NUMBER: 18 048 MATERIAL BOARD 0 x 0 �L m E 0 U 0 a 0 a d 0 a a E m Q 0 a Z x W c d E 0 Q DRm3m3 Packet Pg. 59 5.1.b A) W o�� 0 44-- — U W A J J O J U�w V CD U U �Z W W Cl) H - W LLJ Z M V LU c.DZi�: Q as > c� w N > ti C/) � Q J V15 11/22/2019 PRELIMINARY DESIGN J W H 0 W (m) O V m a 0 0 DC N Lu 00 M Lu H 0 2 DC 0 N 06 W Z_ Y Q 0 Cl) N PROJECT NUMBER: 18 048 ROOF PLAN ROOF PLAN 3/32" = V-0" DRm4ml Packet Pg. 60 5.1.b 3D EAST VIEW 3D SOUTH WEST VIEW y - W o � tiLo O � � U W ch J J O J U-j-w V CD U Ur-Z W W Cl) H - W LLJ Z M V LU 0Zi�: Q as > c� w N > ti C/) � Q J V15 11/22/2019 PRELIMINARY DESIGN J W H 0 W (m) O V m a 0 0 I..L N w 0 00 M Lu 0 I..L 0 06 W Z_ Y Q 0 Cl) N PROJECT NUMBER: 18 048 HOTEL 3D VIEWS 0 x 0 �L m E 0 U w a 0 a r d 0 L a c d E s u 0 r Q 0 Q r s x w N C N s u 0 r Q DRm5ml Packet Pg. 61 k" �W6'jm . . . . . . . . . . PIMP, M� BE L1 M L i 0 2 0 0 �o 0 Imme.o. m Adm-mq' -44 Il: 5.1.b CPC TABLE 422.1 PLUMBING FIXTURES CALCULATION NUMBER NAME OCCUPANT LOAD WATER CLOSETS URINALS (MALE) LAVATORIES DRINKING FOUNTAINS MALE FEMALE MALE I FEMALE CPC A-2 - Assembly: restaurants, pubs, lounges, night clubs and banquet halls 149 LOUNGE/ RESTAURANT 47.64 0.48 0.95 0.12 0.16 0.16 0.19 148 BAR 6.76 0.07 0.14 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 132 HANGOUT 14.24 0.14 0.28 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 68.64 0.69 1.37 0.17 0.23 0.23 0.27 CPC A-3 - Assembly (typical without fixed or permanet seating): indoor pools 001 POOL 36.53 0.18 0.73 10.18 10.09 10.18 10.15 36.53 0.18 0.73 0.18 0.09 0.18 0.15 CPC A-3 - Assembly: conference rooms, dining rooms, gymnasiums, lounges, restaurants 123 FITNESS CENTER 32.38 0.16 0.65 0.16 0.08 0.16 0.13 142 CONFERENCE ROOM 14.23 0.07 0.28 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.06 145 MEETING ROOM 49.79 0.25 1.00 0.25 0.12 0.25 0.20 161 TERRACE / LOUNGE 29.32 0.15 0.59 0.15 0.07 0.15 0.12 164 POOL DECK 42.64 0.21 0.85 0.21 0.11 0.21 0.17 168.36 0.84 3.37 0.84 0.42 0.84 0.67 CPC B - Business 136 KITCHEN 3.85 0.04 0.13 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.03 125 GM. OFFICE 0.60 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 128 OFFICE 0.60 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 127 DOS OFFICE 0.60 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 129 WORK AREA 1.44 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 151 GUEST LAUNDRY 0.45 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 155 BREAK ROOM 1.33 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 154 LAUNDRY 3.74 0.04 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 133 WELCOME LOBBY 1.33 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 134 MARKET 10.75 10.01 10.02 10.00 10.00 10.01 10.00 131 WELCOME DESK 0.72 0.01 0.02 10.00 10.00 10.01 10.00 15.39 0.15 0.51 0.08 0.10 0.15 0.10 CPC S-1, S-2 - Storage 126 IT ROOM 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 256 LINEN 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 255 STORAGE 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 254 ELECTRICAL 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 253 TELIDATA 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 152 LINEN STOR. 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 135 FUNCTION STORAGE 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 009 STORAGE 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 008 STORAGE 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 ELECTRICAL 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 141 STORAGE 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 258 TRSH 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 130 LUGGAGE 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 143 STORAGE 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 137 BEV. STOR. 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 002 MECHANICAL 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 003 BICYCLE STO. 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 004 GENERATOR 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 356 LINEN 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 355 STORAGE 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 354 ELECTRICAL 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 353 TELIDATA 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 358 ITIRSH 0.01 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 456 LINEN 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 455 STORAGE 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 454 ELECTRICAL 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 453 TELIDATA 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 458 TRSH 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 159 STORAGE 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 007 STO. 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL (FRACTION): 289.84 1.87 5.99 1.27 0.85 1.41 1.20 TOTAL REQUIRED 12 6 2 1 2 2 TOTAL PROVIDED 2 6 2 3 3 2 CPC TABLE422.1 PLUMBING FIXTURES (GUESTROOMS) WATER CLOSETS REQUIRED 1/UNIT TUB OR SHOWER LAVATORIES 1/UNIT DRINKING FOUNTAINS 1/UNIT PROVIDED 1/UNIT 1/UNIT 1/UNIT TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION CBC CHAPTER 6 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: HOTEL- IIIA PARKING GARAGE- I A CBC TABLES 601 & 602. FIRE -RESISTANCE RATING REQUIRED FOR BUILDING ELEMENTS: HOTEL (IIIA) PARKING GARAGE (IA) PRIMARY STRUCTURAL FRAME: 1 HR 3 HR BEARING WALLS (EXTERIOR): 2 HR 3 HR BEARING WALLS (INTERIOR): 1 HR 3 HR NON -BEARING EXTERIOR WALLS (X >_ 30): 0 HR 0 HR NON -BEARING EXTERIOR WALLS (10 <_ X < 30): 1 HR 1 HR NON -BEARING EXTERIOR WALLS (5:5 X < 10): 1 HR 1 HR NON -BEARING INTERIOR WALLS: 0 HR 0 HR FLOOR CONSTRUCTION: 1 HR 2 HR ROOF CONSTRUCTION: 1 HR 1 1/2 HR FIRE PROTECTION FEATURES CBC CHAPTER 7 SPACES REQUIRING FIRE -RESISTANCE -RATED SEPARATION: AREA SEPARATION 2 HR FIRE WALL PER CBC 706 SHAFT ENCLOSURES 2 HR FIRE BARRIER PER CBC 707, 713 ELEVATOR SHAFT CONSTRUCTION 2 HR FIRE BARRIER PER CBC 707, 713.14 STAIR ENCLOSURE CONSTRUCTION 2 HR FIRE BARRIER PER CBC 707, 1022 LAUNDRY CHUTE SHAFT ENCLOSURE 2 HR FIRE BARRIER PER CBC 707, 713.4 LAUNDRY CHUTE ACCESS ROOM 1 HR FIRE BARRIER PER CBC 707, 713.13.3 LAUNDRY CHUTE DISCHARGE ROOM 2 HR FIRE BARRIER PER CBC 707, 713.13.4 OCCUPANCY SEPARATION (R-1, A-2, A-3, S-1 & B) 1 HR FIRE BARRIER PER CBC 707, 711 & TABLE 508.4 DWELLING OR SLEEPING UNIT SEPARATION 1 HR FIRE PARTITION PER CBC 708, 420.2 CORRIDORS 1 HR FIRE PARTITION PER CBC 708, 1020.1 HORIZONTAL ASSEMBLIES 1 HR PER CBC 711 ELEVATOR MACHINE ROOM 0 HR PER CBC 3005.4 EXCEPTION #2 CBC 705.8. MAXIMUM AREA OF EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGS DUE TO LOCATION ON PROPERTY: 5 FT TO LESS THAN 10 FT UNPROTECTED, SPRINKLERED 25% 10 FT TO LESS THAN 15 FT UNPROTECTED, SPRINKLERED 45% 15 FT TO LESS THAN 20 FT UNPROTECTED, SPRINKLERED 75% EXIT DISCHARGE EXITS SHALL DISCHARGE DIRECTLY TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. THE EXIT DISCHARGE SHALL BE AT GRADE OR SHALL PROVIDE A DIRECT PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL TO GRADE. THE EXIT DISCHARGE SHALL NOT REENTER A BUILDING. EXCEPTIONS: NOT MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE NUMBER AND MINIMUM WIDTH OR REQUIRED CAPACITY OF INTERIOR EXIT STAIRWAYS AND RAMPS IS PERMITTED TO EGRESS THROUGH AREAS ON THE LEVEL OF DISCHARGE PROVIDED ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET: 1.1. DISCHARGE OF INTERIOR EXIT STAIRWAYS AND RAMPS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A FREE AND UNOBSTRUCTED PATH OF TRAVEL TO AN EXTERIOR EXIT DOOR AND SUCH EXIT IS READILY VISIBLE AND IDENTIFIABLE FROM THE POINT OF TERMINATION OF THE ENCLOSURE. 1.2. THE ENTIRE AREA OF THE LEVEL OF EXIT DISCHARGE IS SEPARATED FROM AREAS BELOW BY CONSTRUCTION CONFORMING TO THE FIRE -RESISTANCE RATING FOR THE ENCLOSURE. 1.3. THE EGRESS PATH FROM THE INTERIOR EXIT STAIRWAY AND RAMP ON THE LEVEL OF EXIT DISCHARGE IS PROTECTED THROUGHOUT BY AN APPROVED AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM. PORTIONS OF THE LEVEL OF EXIT DISCHARGE WITH ACCESS TO THE EGRESS PATH SHALL BE EITHER EQUIPPED THROUGHOUT WITH AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3.1.1 OR 903.3.1.2, OR SEPARATED FROM THE EGRESS PATH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ENCLOSURE OF INTERIOR EXIT STAIRWAYS OR RAMPS. PROJECT DATA PROJECT DESCRIPTION THIS PROJECT IS A 2-STORY PARKING GARAGE AND 4 STORY HOTEL ON TOP, 138-ROOM HOTEL WITH SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING TRASH ENCLOSURE AND LANDSCAPING. OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION CBC CHAPTERS 3&5 A-2 ASSEMBLY A-3 ASSEMBLY B BUSINESS R-1 HOTEL (TRANSIENT) S-1 STORAGE S-2 STORAGE (PARKING GARAGE) LEVEL 1 MIXED OCCUPANCY (CBC 302 & 506.2.4): • A-2 & S-2 ARE SEPARATED OCCUPANCIES (CBC 508.4) AND IS SEPARATED BY A WALL ASSEMBLY COMPLYING WITH CBC TABLE 508.4 AND CBC 707. LEVEL 2 • S-2 SINGLE OCCUPANCY (CBC 302 & 506.2.3) LEVEL 3 MIXED OCCUPANCY (CBC 302 & 506.2.4): • A-2, A-3, B & S-1 ARE NONSEPARATED OCCUPANCIES (CBC 508.3). • R-1 IS A SEPARATED OCCUPANCY (CBC 508.4) AND IS SEPARATED BY A WALL ASSEMBLY COMPLYING WITH CBC TABLE 508.4 AND CBC 707. LEVELS 4-6 • R-1 SINGLE OCCUPANCY (CBC 302 & 506.2.3) LEVEL 2 & 3 IS SEPARATED FROM UPPER LEVELS BY A HORIZONTAL ASSEMBLY COMPLYING WITH CBC 711. BUILDING HEIGHT CB N504.3 FPA13 CBC 504.3. ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT TYPE I -A UNLIMITED TYPE III -A WITH AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM: A-2, A-3, B, R-1, S-1 65-0" PER CBC TABLE 504.3 90'-0" PER DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN (TRANSIT ORIENTED DISTRICT) ACTUAL: 64' 0" (ROOF SURFACE) BUILDING STORIES CBC 504.4 & NFPA 13 PER CBC SECTION 510.2 BUILDINGS SEPARATED BY HORIZONTAL SEPARATION OF 3H ARE CONSIDERED SEPARATE FOR THE PURPOSE DETEMINING NUMBER OF STORIES. CBC 504.4. ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF STORIES - TYPE III -A WITH AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM: TYPE II IA - A-2, A-3 3 STORIES TYPE IIIA - B 6 STORIES TYPE IIIA- R-1 4 STORIES TYPE IA- S-2 UNLIMITED ACTUAL: TYPE I A- S-2 OCCUPANCY- 2 STORIES TYPE IIIA- A-2 OCCUPANCY - 1 STORY TYPE IIIA- R-1 OCCUPANCY - 4 STORIES ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA CBC 506,508 510.2 NFPA13 PER CBC SECTION 510.2 BUILDINGS SEPARATED BY HORIZONTAL SEPARATION OF 3H ARE CONSIDERED SEPARATE FOR THE PURPOSE DETEMINING AREA LIMITATIONS. BUILDING A BUILDING B LEVEL 1 S-2 & A-3 ARE SEPARATED OCCUPANCIES BY A FIRE PARTITION (CBC 420.1) LEVEL 2 S-2 SINGLE OCCUPANCY LEVEL 3 A-2, A-3, B & R-1 ARE MIXED OCCUPANCIES A-2, A-3, B ARE NON SEPERATED OCCUPANCIES. R-1 IS SEPARATED FROM OTHER OCCUPANCIES BY A FIRE PARTITION (CBC 420.1) LEVEL 4-6 CONSISTS OF R-1 SINGLE OCCUPANCY PER CBC 302& 506.2.3. CBC 506.2. ALLOWABLE AREA DETERMINATION - TYPE III -A WITH AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM: A-2, A-3 42,000 SF / LEVEL B 85,500 SF / LEVEL R-1 72,000 SF / LEVEL S-1 78,000 SF / LEVEL CBC 506.2.4. MIXED OCCUPANCY, MULTISTORY BUILDING: TOTAL BUILDING AREA SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE AGGREGATE SUM OF THE RATIOS OF THE ACTUAL AREA OF EACH STORY DIVIDED BY THE ALLOWABLE AREA OF SUCH STORIES SHALL NOT EXCEED 2. LEVEL 3 22,241 SF / 42,000 SF = 0.53 (MOST RESTRICTIVE) LEVEL 4 21,615 SF / 72,000 SF = 0.3 LEVEL 5 21,615 SF / 72,000 SF = 0.3 LEVEL 6 21,615 SF / 72,000 SF = 0.3 SUM: 1.43 < 2 CBC 508.4.2. ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA OF SEPARATED OCCUPANCIES: IN EACH STORY, THE BUILDING AREA SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE SUM OF THE RATIOS OF THE ACTUAL BUILDING AREA OF EACH SEPARATED OCCUPANCY DIVIDED BY THE ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA OF EACH SEPARATED OCCUPANCY SHALL NOT EXCEED 1. BUILDING AREA (GROSS) LEVEL AREA HOTEL LEVEL 1 2,614 SF LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 22,194 SF 21,615 SF LEVEL 5 21,615 SF LEVEL 6 21,615 SF 89,653 SF PARKING GARAGE LEVEL 1 36,183 SF LEVEL 2 19,631 SF 55,815 SF TOTAL AREA: 145,468 SF 0 W J U U w Z w U w 0 Q J LO N ti V15 11/22/2019 O M J O J ­j-w cNCD U r_ Z W 'tw M � co rn z� W Q C7 w Q J PRELIMINARY DESIGN J W H 0 W (M) O V m a 0 0 N LU 00 M LU H 0 0 Cn 06 W 0 Z Q 0 Cl) N PROJECT NUMBER: 18 048 CODE ANALYSIS DRm6ol Packet Pg. 63 ACCESSIBLE ROUTE. SEE DR 1.1 FOR CONTINUATION OCCUPANCY LEGEND SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL DESCRIPTION A-2 - ASSEMBLY R-1 - RESIDENTIAL A-3 - ASSEMBLY S-1 - STORAGE A-5 - ASSEMBLY S-2 - STORAGE B- BUSINESS ACCESSORY EGRESS PLAN LEGEND ROOM NAME ROOM NAME - ROOM NUMBER 000 -14" _ OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR (CBC TABLE 1004.1.2) 100 10 OCCUPANT LOAD (MAX NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS) 1 000 SF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROOM EXIT DOOR #1 EXIT NUMBER 0.15 EGRESS CAPACITY FACTOR PER OCCUPANT: 2'-8" REQD 0.2" FOR STAIRWAYS (CBC 1005.3.1, EXCEP. 1) 0'-0" ACTUAL 0.15" FOR OTHERS (CBC 1005.3.2, EXCEP. 1) 0 REQD MIN. REQUIRED EGRESS WIDTH (CALCULATED) 0 ACTUAL ACTUAL PROVIDED EGRESS WIDTH ACTUAL OCCUPANT LOAD ACTUAL PROVIDED OCCUPANT LOAD -- DIRECTION OF EXIT TRAVEL -___-- PATH OF EXIT TRAVEL 10? NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS EXITING 100 TOTAL NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS EXITING THROUGH THE EXIT ROUTE FOR ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL FROM THE BUILDING TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET FEC EGRESS ANALYSIS 1. CBC 906. MAXIMUM DISTANCE OF TRAVEL TO EXTINGUISHER - 75'. 2. CBC 1020.4. DEAD END CORRIDORS IN GROUP A SHALL NOT EXCEED 20 FEET. 3. CBC 1020.4 EXCEPTION #2. DEAD END CORRIDORS IN GROUPS B, R-1, S SHALL NOT EXCEED 50 FEET. 4. CBC 1113-206.4.1. ALL PUBLIC ENTRANCES AND EXTERIOR GROUND -FLOOR EXITS SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE. DESCRIPTION REQUIRED PROVIDED CBC 1006. NUMBER OF EXITS 2 2 AT LEVEL 1 FROM HOTEL 4 AT LEVEL 1 FROM PARKING GARAGE 4 AT LEVEL 2 3 AT LEVEL 3 2 AT TYP. LEVELS CBC TABLE 1006.2.1. COMMON PATH OF 75' MAX. 47' AT LEVEL 4 EGRESS TRAVEL DISTANCE (A & R OCC.) (1 BEDROOM KB4) 100' MAX. 33' AT LEVEL 1 (S OCC.) (MECHANICAL) CBC 1017. EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE 250' MAX. 147' AT LEVEL 1 (A,R&S OCC.) 169' AT TYP. LEVELS CBC 1010.1.1. DOOR WIDTH 32" MIN. 44" MIN. SEE EGRESS PLANS 48" TYP. CBC 1011.2. STAIRWAY WIDTH CBC 1020.2. CORRIDOR WIDTH 44" MIN. 60" TYP. EGRESS PLAN NOTES 1. WALL MOUNTED (INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED) EXIT SIGNS TO BE PROVIDED IN CORRIDORS DIRECTLY BELOW EACH CEILING MOUNTED EXIT SIGN - REFER TO PLANS AND ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR LOCATIONS. 2. PANIC HARDWARE TO BE INSTALLED AT ALL EXIT DOORS SERVING THE ASSEMBLY ROOMS. 3. PANIC HARDWARE FOR ALL THE EXTERIOR GATES THAT SERVE THE OUTDOOR PATIO (WHICH SURROUNDS THE POOL AREA AND THAT PROVIDE EGRESS TO THE PUBLIC WAY). 4. FLOOR LEVEL EXITS SIGNS AND PATH MARKINGS TO BE PROVIDED PER CBC 1013. EXIT SIGNS ARE TO BE INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BY PHOTOLUMINESCENT OR SELF LUMINOUS AND BE PROVIDED IN ALL INTERIOR CORRIDORS. PATH MARKINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT FLOOR LEVEL OR NO HIGHER THAN 8" ABOVE FLOOR LEVEL. 5. FLOOR IDENTIFICATION TO BE PLACED WITHIN STAIRWAYS AT THE LANDING OF EACH FLOOR LEVEL ADJACENT TO THE LATCH SIDE OF THE DOOR PER CBC 1023.9. 6. RAISED CHARACTER AND TACTILE SIGNAGE TO BE UTILIZED PER CBC 1013.4. 7. THE CLEAR WIDTH OF AISLE SHALL BE MIN 36 INCHES IF SERVING ELEMENTS ARE ONLY ON ONE SIDE AND MIN 44 INCHES IF SERVING ELEMENTS ARE ON BOTH SIDES. 8. SEATING AT TABLES SHALL BE MIN 19 INCHES AWAY FROM PARALLEL EDGE OF ACCESSWAY. LOCATION FOR SIGNAGE 1. RAISED CHARACTER AND BRAILLE EXIT SIGNS ARE REQUIRED AT EACH GRADE LEVEL EXTERIOR DOOR THAT IS AN ACCESSIBLE EXIT. SIGN COMPLYING WITH CBC 1013.1 AND SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE SIGN WITH THE WORD "EXIT". 2. STAIRWAYS SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE SIGN WITH THE WORDS "EXIT STAIR DOWN". 3. EACH EXIT ACCESS DOOR FROM AN INTERIOR ROOM OR AREA TO A CORRIDOR THAT LEADS TO AN EXIT SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE SIGN WITH THE WORDS "EXIT ROUTE". 4. EACH EXIT DOOR THROUGH A HORIZONTAL EXIT SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE SIGN WITH THE WORDS "TO EXIT" 5. RAISED CHARACTER AND BRAILLE EXIT SIGNS SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC 11B-703.2,11B-703.3 AND 11B-703.5. REFER TO DETAILS. 6. PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE DOOR SIGN ON ALL ACCESSIBLE EXIT DOORS ON THE GROUND LEVEL. FIRE PROTECTION NOTES 1. EACH BUILDING SHALL BE EQUIPPED THROUGHOUT WITH A MONITORED AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM DESIGNED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CFC, CBC & NFPA 13. 2. COMPLETE FIRE ALARM AND DETECTION SYSTEM, DESIGNED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CFC SECTIONS 907.1 THROUGH 907.9 (WHICH INCLUDES ALL OTHER USES AND OCCUPANCY GROUPS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT) AND NFPA 72. SPECIFY TYPE OF SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND DETECTION SYSTEM AND SPECIFY SPRINKLER MONITORING REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CFC SECTIONS 903.4 THROUGH 903.4.2. 3. FULLY FIRE ALARMED, 100% POINT ADDRESSABLE FIRE ALARM IN AND OUT OF GUESTROOMS. 5.1.b - W o�� ti O 44-- - U W A J U � W CV U V UCDZ W w~C0 ��w = LU V w>� CD z i�: Q i Cl) > C7 w N > ti C/) Q J V15 11/22/2019 PRELIMINARY DESIGN J W H 0 W (m) 0 0 N W 0 00 M Lu H 0 0 Cn 06 W 0 Z Q 0 N PROJECT NUMBER: 18 048 EGRESS PLAN - LEVEL 1 m 0 x 0 �L m E 0 U 0 c 0 IL r d 0 L a c d E s u 0 r Q 0 Q r s x cm C s u 0 r Q LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 3/32" = V-0" rflbw A , 64]47,� �*Af DRm6m2 Packet Pg. 64 5.1.b F I J I I I -- - - - - I I - - - - - - - I- I --- 7 ■ I I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I OCCUPANCY LEGEND SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL DESCRIPTION �//ZZ//// A-2 - ASSEMBLY R-1 - RESIDENTIAL A-3 - ASSEMBLYQm/ S-1 - STORAGE A-5 - ASSEMBLY S-2 - STORAGE B - BUSINESS ACCESSORY EGRESS PLAN LEGEND ROOM NAME ROOM NAM ROOM NUMBER 000 OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR (CBC TABLE 1004.1.2) E0T 10 OCCUPANT LOAD (MAX NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS) 1 000 SF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROOM EXIT DOOR #1 - EXIT NUMBER 0.15 EGRESS CAPACITY FACTOR PER OCCUPANT: 2'-8" REQD 0.2" FOR STAIRWAYS (CBC 1005.3.1, EXCEP. 1) 0'-0" ACTUAL 0.15" FOR OTHERS (CBC 1005.3.2, EXCEP. 1) 0 REQD MIN. REQUIRED EGRESS WIDTH (CALCULATED) 0 ACTUAL ACTUAL PROVIDED EGRESS WIDTH ACTUAL OCCUPANT LOAD ACTUAL PROVIDED OCCUPANT LOAD DIRECTION OF EXIT TRAVEL PATH OF EXIT TRAVEL NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS EXITING 100 TOTAL NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS EXITING THROUGH THE EXIT ROUTE FOR ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL FROM THE BUILDING TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 0� FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET FEC EGRESS ANALYSIS 1. CBC 906. MAXIMUM DISTANCE OF TRAVEL TO EXTINGUISHER - 75'. 2. CBC 1020.4. DEAD END CORRIDORS IN GROUP A SHALL NOT EXCEED 20 FEET. 3. CBC 1020.4 EXCEPTION #2. DEAD END CORRIDORS IN GROUPS B, R-1, S SHALL NOT EXCEED 50 FEET. 4. CBC 11 B-206.4.1. ALL PUBLIC ENTRANCES AND EXTERIOR GROUND -FLOOR EXITS SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE. DESCRIPTION REQUIRED PROVIDED CBC 1006. NUMBER OF EXITS 2 2 AT LEVEL 1 FROM HOTEL 4 AT LEVEL 1 FROM PARKING GARAGE 4 AT LEVEL 2 3 AT LEVEL 3 2 AT TYP. LEVELS CBC TABLE 1006.2.1. COMMON PATH OF 75' MAX. 47' AT LEVEL 4 EGRESS TRAVEL DISTANCE (A & R OCC.) (1 BEDROOM KB4) 100' MAX. 33' AT LEVEL 1 (S OCC.) (MECHANICAL) CBC 1017. EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE 250' MAX. 147' AT LEVEL 1 (A,R&S OCC.) 169' AT TYP. LEVELS CBC 1010.1.1. DOOR WIDTH 32" MIN. SEE EGRESS PLANS CBC 1011.2. STAIRWAY WIDTH 44" MIN. 48" TYP. CBC 1020.2. CORRIDOR WIDTH 44" MIN. 60" TYP. EGRESS PLAN NOTES 1. WALL MOUNTED (INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED) EXIT SIGNS TO BE PROVIDED IN CORRIDORS DIRECTLY BELOW EACH CEILING MOUNTED EXIT SIGN - REFER TO PLANS AND ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR LOCATIONS. 2. PANIC HARDWARE TO BE INSTALLED AT ALL EXIT DOORS SERVING THE ASSEMBLY ROOMS. 3. PANIC HARDWARE FOR ALL THE EXTERIOR GATES THAT SERVE THE OUTDOOR PATIO (WHICH SURROUNDS THE POOL AREA AND THAT PROVIDE EGRESS TO THE PUBLIC WAY). 4. FLOOR LEVEL EXITS SIGNS AND PATH MARKINGS TO BE PROVIDED PER CBC 1013. EXIT SIGNS ARE TO BE INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BY PHOTOLUMINESCENT OR SELF LUMINOUS AND BE PROVIDED IN ALL INTERIOR CORRIDORS. PATH MARKINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT FLOOR LEVEL OR NO HIGHER THAN 8" ABOVE FLOOR LEVEL. 5. FLOOR IDENTIFICATION TO BE PLACED WITHIN STAIRWAYS AT THE LANDING OF EACH FLOOR LEVEL ADJACENT TO THE LATCH SIDE OF THE DOOR PER CBC 1023.9. 6. RAISED CHARACTER AND TACTILE SIGNAGE TO BE UTILIZED PER CBC 1013.4. 7. THE CLEAR WIDTH OF AISLE SHALL BE MIN 36 INCHES IF SERVING ELEMENTS ARE ONLY ON ONE SIDE AND MIN 44 INCHES IF SERVING ELEMENTS ARE ON BOTH SIDES. 8. SEATING AT TABLES SHALL BE MIN 19 INCHES AWAY FROM PARALLEL EDGE OF ACCESSWAY. LOCATION FOR SIGNAGE 1. RAISED CHARACTER AND BRAILLE EXIT SIGNS ARE REQUIRED AT EACH GRADE LEVEL EXTERIOR DOOR THAT IS AN ACCESSIBLE EXIT. SIGN COMPLYING WITH CBC 1013.1 AND SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE SIGN WITH THE WORD "EXIT". 2. STAIRWAYS SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE SIGN WITH THE WORDS "EXIT STAIR DOWN". 3. EACH EXIT ACCESS DOOR FROM AN INTERIOR ROOM OR AREA TO A CORRIDOR THAT LEADS TO AN EXIT SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE SIGN WITH THE WORDS "EXIT ROUTE". 4. EACH EXIT DOOR THROUGH A HORIZONTAL EXIT SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE SIGN WITH THE WORDS "TO EXIT" 5. RAISED CHARACTER AND BRAILLE EXIT SIGNS SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC 11B-703.2, 11B-703.3 AND 116-703.5. REFER TO DETAILS. 6. PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE DOOR SIGN ON ALL ACCESSIBLE EXIT DOORS ON THE GROUND LEVEL. FIRE PROTECTION NOTES 1. EACH BUILDING SHALL BE EQUIPPED THROUGHOUT WITH A MONITORED AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM DESIGNED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CFC, CBC & NFPA 13. 2. COMPLETE FIRE ALARM AND DETECTION SYSTEM, DESIGNED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CFC SECTIONS 907.1 THROUGH 907.9 (WHICH INCLUDES ALL OTHER USES AND OCCUPANCY GROUPS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT) AND NFPA 72. SPECIFY TYPE OF SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND DETECTION SYSTEM AND SPECIFY SPRINKLER MONITORING REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CFC SECTIONS 903.4 THROUGH 903.4.2. 3. FULLY FIRE ALARMED, 100% POINT ADDRESSABLE FIRE ALARM IN AND OUT OF GUESTROOMS. - W ti �L,o (Jj�W cv U V U oC Z W w~U) H `tw = zMo rn Lu Q z Q J < Q U w CV ti cf) Q J V15 11 /22/2019 PRELIMINARY DESIGN N J W H 0 W V O V t� 0 0 W 00 M LLI H 0 0 od w Z Q 0 N PROJECT NUMBER: 18 048 Q U J 0 0 J m Z J 0 EGRESS PLAN - LEVEL 2 m 0 x ca �L E 0 U c 0 a r u m 0 L IL r c a� E t u c� r a 0 a t x w t u ca r Q PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL 2 3/32" = V-0" DRm6m3 Packet Pg. 65 5.1.b EXIT ACCESS #3 101 FROM HOTEL 30 FROM TERRACE 49 FROM POOL OCCUPANCY LEGEND SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL DESCRIPTION A-2 - ASSEMBLY R-1 - RESIDENTIAL A-3 - ASSEMBLY S-1 - STORAGE A-5 - ASSEMBLY S-2 - STORAGE / B- BUSINESS ACCESSORY EGRESS PLAN LEGEND ROOM NAME ROOM NAME - ROOM NUMBER 000 ­4 ---------------- OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR (CBC TABLE 1004.1.2) 100 10 OCCUPANT LOAD (MAX NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS) 1 000 SF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROOM EXIT DOOR #1 EXIT NUMBER 0.15 EGRESS CAPACITY FACTOR PER OCCUPANT: 2'-8" REQD 0.2" FOR STAIRWAYS (CBC 1005.3.1, EXCEP. 1) 0'-0" ACTUAL 0.15" FOR OTHERS (CBC 1005.3.2, EXCEP. 1) 0 REQD MIN. REQUIRED EGRESS WIDTH (CALCULATED) 0 ACTUAL ACTUAL PROVIDED EGRESS WIDTH ACTUAL OCCUPANT LOAD ACTUAL PROVIDED OCCUPANT LOAD - DIRECTION OF EXIT TRAVEL __- PATH OF EXIT TRAVEL -- NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS EXITING 100 TOTAL NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS EXITING THROUGH THE EXIT ROUTE FOR ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL FROM THE BUILDING TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 0 FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET FEC EGRESS ANALYSIS 1. CBC 906. MAXIMUM DISTANCE OF TRAVEL TO EXTINGUISHER - 75'. 2. CBC 1020.4. DEAD END CORRIDORS IN GROUP A SHALL NOT EXCEED 20 FEET. 3. CBC 1020.4 EXCEPTION #2. DEAD END CORRIDORS IN GROUPS B, R-1, S SHALL NOT EXCEED 50 FEET. 4. CBC 1113-206.4.1. ALL PUBLIC ENTRANCES AND EXTERIOR GROUND -FLOOR EXITS SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE. DESCRIPTION REQUIRED PROVIDED CBC 1006. NUMBER OF EXITS 2 2 AT LEVEL 1 FROM HOTEL 4 AT LEVEL 1 FROM PARKING GARAGE 4 AT LEVEL 2 3 AT LEVEL 3 2 AT TYP. LEVELS CBC TABLE 1006.2.1. COMMON PATH OF 75' MAX. 47' AT LEVEL 4 EGRESS TRAVEL DISTANCE (A & R OCC.) (1 BEDROOM KB4) 100' MAX. 33' AT LEVEL 1 (S OCC.) (MECHANICAL) CBC 1017. EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE 250' MAX. 147' AT LEVEL 1 (A,R&S OCC.) 169' AT TYP. LEVELS 32" MIN. 44" MIN. SEE EGRESS PLANS 48" TYP. CBC 1010.1.1. DOOR WIDTH CBC 1011.2. STAIRWAY WIDTH CBC 1020.2. CORRIDOR WIDTH 44" MIN. 60" TYP. EGRESS PLAN NOTES 1. WALL MOUNTED (INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED) EXIT SIGNS TO BE PROVIDED IN CORRIDORS DIRECTLY BELOW EACH CEILING MOUNTED EXIT SIGN - REFER TO PLANS AND ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR LOCATIONS. 2. PANIC HARDWARE TO BE INSTALLED AT ALL EXIT DOORS SERVING THE ASSEMBLY ROOMS. 3. PANIC HARDWARE FOR ALL THE EXTERIOR GATES THAT SERVE THE OUTDOOR PATIO (WHICH SURROUNDS THE POOL AREA AND THAT PROVIDE EGRESS TO THE PUBLIC WAY). 4. FLOOR LEVEL EXITS SIGNS AND PATH MARKINGS TO BE PROVIDED PER CBC 1013. EXIT SIGNS ARE TO BE INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BY PHOTOLUMINESCENT OR SELF LUMINOUS AND BE PROVIDED IN ALL INTERIOR CORRIDORS. PATH MARKINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT FLOOR LEVEL OR NO HIGHER THAN 8" ABOVE FLOOR LEVEL. 5. FLOOR IDENTIFICATION TO BE PLACED WITHIN STAIRWAYS AT THE LANDING OF EACH FLOOR LEVEL ADJACENT TO THE LATCH SIDE OF THE DOOR PER CBC 1023.9. 6. RAISED CHARACTER AND TACTILE SIGNAGE TO BE UTILIZED PER CBC 1013.4. 7. THE CLEAR WIDTH OF AISLE SHALL BE MIN 36 INCHES IF SERVING ELEMENTS ARE ONLY ON ONE SIDE AND MIN 44 INCHES IF SERVING ELEMENTS ARE ON BOTH SIDES. 8. SEATING AT TABLES SHALL BE MIN 19 INCHES AWAY FROM PARALLEL EDGE OF ACCESSWAY. LOCATION FOR SIGNAGE 1. RAISED CHARACTER AND BRAILLE EXIT SIGNS ARE REQUIRED AT EACH GRADE LEVEL EXTERIOR DOOR THAT IS AN ACCESSIBLE EXIT. SIGN COMPLYING WITH CBC 1013.1 AND SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE SIGN WITH THE WORD "EXIT". 2. STAIRWAYS SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE SIGN WITH THE WORDS "EXIT STAIR DOWN". 3. EACH EXIT ACCESS DOOR FROM AN INTERIOR ROOM OR AREA TO A CORRIDOR THAT LEADS TO AN EXIT SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE SIGN WITH THE WORDS "EXIT ROUTE". 4. EACH EXIT DOOR THROUGH A HORIZONTAL EXIT SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE SIGN WITH THE WORDS "TO EXIT" 5. RAISED CHARACTER AND BRAILLE EXIT SIGNS SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC 11B-703.2, 11B-703.3 AND 1113-703.5. REFER TO DETAILS. 6. PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE DOOR SIGN ON ALL ACCESSIBLE EXIT DOORS ON THE GROUND LEVEL. FIRE PROTECTION NOTES 1. EACH BUILDING SHALL BE EQUIPPED THROUGHOUT WITH A MONITORED AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM DESIGNED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CFC, CBC & NFPA 13. 2. COMPLETE FIRE ALARM AND DETECTION SYSTEM, DESIGNED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CFC SECTIONS 907.1 THROUGH 907.9 (WHICH INCLUDES ALL OTHER USES AND OCCUPANCY GROUPS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT) AND NFPA 72. SPECIFY TYPE OF SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND DETECTION SYSTEM AND SPECIFY SPRINKLER MONITORING REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CFC SECTIONS 903.4 THROUGH 903.4.2. 3. FULLY FIRE ALARMED, 100% POINT ADDRESSABLE FIRE ALARM IN AND OUT OF GUESTROOMS. - W o�� ti O 44-- - U W A J U � W CV U V UCDZ W w~C0 ��w = LU V w>� 0 z i�: Q i Cl) > C7 w N > ti � Q J V15 11/22/2019 PRELIMINARY DESIGN J W H 0 W (m) O V m a 0 0 N W 0 00 M Lu H 0 0 Cn 06 W 0 Z Q 0 N PROJECT NUMBER: 18 048 EGRESS PLAN - LEVEL 3 0 2L m m U w c m IL r d 0 L a .r c d E s u m r Q 0 Q r s x cm C s u 0 r Q LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN 3/32" = V-0" DRm6m4 Packet Pg. 66 5.1.b OCCUPANCY LEGEND SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL DESCRIPTION A-2 - ASSEMBLY R-1 - RESIDENTIAL A-3 - ASSEMBLYEm S-1 - STORAGE A-5 - ASSEMBLY S-2 - STORAGE / B- BUSINESS ACCESSORY EGRESS PLAN LEGEND ROOM NAME ROOM NAME' ROOM NUMBER 000 ­14"- OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR (CBC TABLE 1004.1.2) 100 10 OCCUPANT LOAD (MAX NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS) 1,000 SF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROOM EXIT DOOR #1 EXIT NUMBER 0.15 EGRESS CAPACITY FACTOR PER OCCUPANT: 2'-8" REQD 0.2" FOR STAIRWAYS (CBC 1005.3.1, EXCEP. 1) 0'-0" ACTUAL 0.15" FOR OTHERS (CBC 1005.3.2, EXCEP. 1) 0 REQD MIN. REQUIRED EGRESS WIDTH (CALCULATED) 0 ACTUAL ACTUAL PROVIDED EGRESS WIDTH ACTUAL OCCUPANT LOAD ACTUAL PROVIDED OCCUPANT LOAD _-- DIRECTION OF EXIT TRAVEL PATH OF EXIT TRAVEL 10? NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS EXITING A TOTAL NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS EXITING THROUGH THE EXIT ROUTE FOR ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL FROM THE BUILDING TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 0 FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET FEC EGRESS ANALYSIS 1. CBC 906. MAXIMUM DISTANCE OF TRAVEL TO EXTINGUISHER - 75'. 2. CBC 1020.4. DEAD END CORRIDORS IN GROUP A SHALL NOT EXCEED 20 FEET. 3. CBC 1020.4 EXCEPTION #2. DEAD END CORRIDORS IN GROUPS B, R-1, S SHALL NOT EXCEED 50 FEET. 4. CBC 11B-206.4.1. ALL PUBLIC ENTRANCES AND EXTERIOR GROUND -FLOOR EXITS SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE. DESCRIPTION REQUIRED PROVIDED CBC 1006. NUMBER OF EXITS 2 2 AT LEVEL 1 FROM HOTEL 4 AT LEVEL 1 FROM PARKING GARAGE 4 AT LEVEL 2 3 AT LEVEL 3 2 AT TYP. LEVELS CBC TABLE 1006.2.1. COMMON PATH OF 75' MAX. 47' AT LEVEL 4 EGRESS TRAVEL DISTANCE (A & R OCC.) (1 BEDROOM KB4) 100' MAX. 33' AT LEVEL 1 (S OCC.) (MECHANICAL) CBC 1017. EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE 250' MAX. 147' AT LEVEL 1 (A,R&S OCC.) 32" MIN. 44" MIN. 169' AT TYP. LEVELS SEE EGRESS PLANS 48" TYP. CBC 1010.1.1. DOOR WIDTH CBC 1011.2. STAIRWAY WIDTH CBC 1020.2. CORRIDOR WIDTH 44" MIN. 60" TYP. EGRESS PLAN NOTES 1. WALL MOUNTED (INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED) EXIT SIGNS TO BE PROVIDED IN CORRIDORS DIRECTLY BELOW EACH CEILING MOUNTED EXIT SIGN - REFER TO PLANS AND ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR LOCATIONS. 2. PANIC HARDWARE TO BE INSTALLED AT ALL EXIT DOORS SERVING THE ASSEMBLY ROOMS. 3. PANIC HARDWARE FOR ALL THE EXTERIOR GATES THAT SERVE THE OUTDOOR PATIO (WHICH SURROUNDS THE POOL AREA AND THAT PROVIDE EGRESS TO THE PUBLIC WAY). 4. FLOOR LEVEL EXITS SIGNS AND PATH MARKINGS TO BE PROVIDED PER CBC 1013. EXIT SIGNS ARE TO BE INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BY PHOTOLUMINESCENT OR SELF LUMINOUS AND BE PROVIDED IN ALL INTERIOR CORRIDORS. PATH MARKINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT FLOOR LEVEL OR NO HIGHER THAN 8" ABOVE FLOOR LEVEL. 5. FLOOR IDENTIFICATION TO BE PLACED WITHIN STAIRWAYS AT THE LANDING OF EACH FLOOR LEVEL ADJACENT TO THE LATCH SIDE OF THE DOOR PER CBC 1023.9. 6. RAISED CHARACTER AND TACTILE SIGNAGE TO BE UTILIZED PER CBC 1013.4. 7. THE CLEAR WIDTH OF AISLE SHALL BE MIN 36 INCHES IF SERVING ELEMENTS ARE ONLY ON ONE SIDE AND MIN 44 INCHES IF SERVING ELEMENTS ARE ON BOTH SIDES. 8. SEATING AT TABLES SHALL BE MIN 19 INCHES AWAY FROM PARALLEL EDGE OF ACCESSOAY. LOCATION FOR SIGNAGE 1. RAISED CHARACTER AND BRAILLE EXIT SIGNS ARE REQUIRED AT EACH GRADE LEVEL EXTERIOR DOOR THAT IS AN ACCESSIBLE EXIT. SIGN COMPLYING WITH CBC 1013.1 AND SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE SIGN WITH THE WORD "EXIT". 2. STAIRWAYS SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE SIGN WITH THE WORDS "EXIT STAIR DOWN". 3. EACH EXIT ACCESS DOOR FROM AN INTERIOR ROOM OR AREA TO A CORRIDOR THAT LEADS TO AN EXIT SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE SIGN WITH THE WORDS "EXIT ROUTE". 4. EACH EXIT DOOR THROUGH A HORIZONTAL EXIT SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE SIGN WITH THE WORDS "TO EXIT" 5. RAISED CHARACTER AND BRAILLE EXIT SIGNS SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC 1113-703.2, 1113-703.3 AND 1113-703.5. REFER TO DETAILS. 6. PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE DOOR SIGN ON ALL ACCESSIBLE EXIT DOORS ON THE GROUND LEVEL. FIRE PROTECTION NOTES 1. EACH BUILDING SHALL BE EQUIPPED THROUGHOUT WITH A MONITORED AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM DESIGNED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CFC, CBC & NFPA 13. 2. COMPLETE FIRE ALARM AND DETECTION SYSTEM, DESIGNED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CFC SECTIONS 907.1 THROUGH 907.9 (WHICH INCLUDES ALL OTHER USES AND OCCUPANCY GROUPS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT) AND NFPA 72. SPECIFY TYPE OF SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND DETECTION SYSTEM AND SPECIFY SPRINKLER MONITORING REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CFC SECTIONS 903.4 THROUGH 903.4.2. 3. FULLY FIRE ALARMED, 100% POINT ADDRESSABLE FIRE ALARM IN AND OUT OF GUESTROOMS. V15 11/22/2019 PRELIMINARY DESIGN J W H 0 W (m) O V m a 0 0 N W 0 00 M Lu H 0 0 Cn 06 W 0 Z Q 0 N PROJECT NUMBER: 18 048 Q 0 J 0 0 J m z J 0 EGRESS PLAN - LEVEL 4-6 m 0 x 0 �L m E 0 U 0 c 0 IL r d 0 L a c d E s u 0 r Q 0 Q r s x cm C s u 0 r Q EGRESS PLAN - LEVELS 4-6 3/32" = V-0" DRm6m5 Packet Pg. 67 5.1.b LEGEND PROPOSED EX/STING ASPHAL T BERM T TT TT 7­ BLOCK/RETAINING WALL n BUILDING LINE CENTER LINE CONCRETE CURB CONCRETE CURB CUT CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER — 100 100 CONTOUR LINE — 77 A N DRI VEWA Y EDGE OF PA VEMENT FLUSH CONCRETE CURB FENCE LINE G6 GB GRADE BREAK LINE GUARD RAIL - - - - LOT LINE -r MONUMENT/MONUMENT LINE PERF. PIPE PERFORA TED STORM DRAIN PIPE — - - - - PROPERTY LINE RP AWL— — — _ RA/NWA TER LEADER R R RIDGE LINE SIDEWALK SD - s��❑ STORM DRAIN -MANHOLE & CATCH BASIN 7HRU CURB DRAIN 12.5 + � 00 00 SPOT GRADE C/OL ENGINEER + 11.37 SPOT GRADE PER LS ARCHITECT PLANS ❑T ] TRANSFORMER _w o T TRAFFIC SIGN 0 TREE ■ U77LITY BOX AD AREA DRAIN BW BACK OF WALK BLDG BUILDING BL BUILDING LINE CB CATCH BASIN COTG CLEANOUT TO GRADE C CONCRETE DR DOOR DS DOWN SPOUT DIP DUC77LE IRON PIPE ESMT EASEMENT EW EDGE OF WALK FB FACE OF BERM FC FACE OF CURB FW FACE OF WALL FF FINISHED FLOOR FL FLOW LINE GB GRADE BREAK HP HIGH POINT IE INVERT ELEVA77ON LP LOW POINT LT LIGHT OF OVERFLOW OD OVERFLOW DRAIN PV PA VEMENT POC POINT OF CONNEC77ON RWL RAINWATER LEADER R RIDGE RE RIM ELEVATON RD ROOF DRAIN SL STREET LIGHT SOJB STORM DRAIN JUNC77ON BOX SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE SWL SWALE 7B TOP OF BERM TC TOP OF CURB TW TOP OF WALL T TRANSFORMER TE TRASH ENCLOSURE ON -SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS ABBREVIATIONS (MT) MULTI TRUNK /.P. IRON PIPE AC ASPHAL77C CONCRE7E IN INVERT ELEVATON ADJ. ADJUST JT JOINT TRENCH AN ANODE LIP LIP OF GUTTER BC BEGINNING OF CURVE MON MONUMENT BFP BACK FLOW PREVENTER PED PEDESTAL BL BUILDING PV PAVEMENT BW BACK OF WALK RCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE CB CATCH BASIN RIM RIM ELEVATION C/P CAST IRON PIPE RPBP REDUCE PRESSURE BACKFLOW PREVEN7ER CL CENTERLINE RPDA REDUCE PRESSURE DETECTOR ASSEMBL Y COMM COMMON/CA TION SO STORM DRAIN CONST CONSTRUCT SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE CTV CABLE TELEOS/ON SL STREET LIGHT DET DETECTOR SLB STREET LIGHT BOX DIP DUCTILE IRON PIPE SS SANITARY SEWER DTL. DETAIL SSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE DWY DRIVEWAY STD. STANDARD EB ELEC7R/C BOX TB TELEPHONE BOX EC END OF CURVE TC TOP OF CURB EM ELEC7R/C METER TELE TELEPHONE EV ELECTRIC VAULT TMH TELEPHONE MANHOLE EX. EX/S77NG TOP TOP OF SLOPE FH FIRE HYDRANT TR TOP OF RAMP FL FLOW LINE TSB TRAFFIC SIGNAL BOX FNC FENCE UB U77LITY BOX FND FOUND VCP VITRIFIED CLA Y PIPE FOMH FIBER OP77C MANHOLE WB WATER BOX FS FIRE SERVICE or FINISH SURFACE ► u WATER METER GB GRADE BREAK UNK UNKNOWN HP HIGH POINT N.A.P. NOT A PART FOR PROPOSED HOTEL SITE — --------------------------------------- — _ o NOTES DUBLIN BL VD AND SAN ROMON RD. DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 1. THIS PLOT WAS PREPARED FROM INFORMATION FURNISHED IN A PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT, PREPARED BY CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2018, ORDER NUMBER 36301133-363-LB-KD, UPDATE "B". NO LIABILITY IS ASSUMED FOR MATTERS OF RECORD NOT STATED IN SAID PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT THAT MAY AFFECT THE TITLE LINES, OR EXCEPTIONS, OR EASEMENTS OF THE PROPERTY. 2. ALL DISTANCES AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF. 3. THE TYPES, LOCATIONS, SIZES AND/OR DEPTHS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THIS TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY WERE OBTAINED FROM SOURCES OF VARYING RELIABILITY. THE CONTRACTOR IS CAUTIONED THAT ONLY ACTUAL EXCAVATION WILL REVEAL THE TYPES, EXTENT, SIZES, LOCATIONS AND DEPTHS OF SUCH UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. (A REASONABLE EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO LOCATE AND DELINEATE ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES). HOWEVER, THE ENGINEER CAN ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COMPLETENESS OR ACCURACY OF ITS DELINEATION OF SUCH UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WHICH MAY BE ENCOUNTERED, BUT WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. 4. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SHOWN ON THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM) FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MAP NUMBER 06001CO308G FOR COMMUNITY NUMBER 060705 (CITY OF DUBLIN), WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF AUGUST 3, 2009, AS BEING LOCATED IN FLOOD ZONES "X-UNSHADED & X-SHADED". ACCORDING TO FEMA THE DEFINITION OF ZONE "X-UNSHADED" IS: AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN. THE DEFINITION OF "X-SHADED" IS AREAS OF 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD; AREAS OF 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WITH AVERAGE DEPTHS OF LESS THAN 1 FOOT OR WITH DRAINAGE AREAS LESS THAN 1 SQUARE MILE; AND AREAS PROTECTED BY LEVEES FROM 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD. FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NAVD88 DATUM. NO VEMBER, 2 0 19 PROJECT LOCATION 1" 0=60' Z 5. CORNER RECORD NOTE: THE DEVELOPER AND/OR CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PREPARATION AND FILING OF PRE -CONSTRUCTION AND POST -CONSTRUCTION CORNER RECORDS FOR ANY MONUMENTS OR PROPERTY CORNERS SHOWN HEREON THAT MAY BE DESTROYED DURING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS DEFINED IN SECTION 8771(B) OF THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS ACT. 6. THE ENTIRE SUBJECT PROPERTY LIES WITHIN A "LIQUEFACTION ZONE", A PORTION OF WHICH ALSO LIES WITHIN AN "EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE", AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTIAN DUBLIN QUADRANGLE MAP ENTITLED "EARTHQUAKE ZONES OF REQUIRED INVESTIGATION". THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE HAS BEEN PLOTTED HEREON. 7. THIS SURVEY WAS COMPILED USING THAT CERTAIN ALTA SURVEY PREPARED BY DK CONSULTING, INC. AND DATED AUGUST 16, 2018, AS A BASE MAP FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN HEREON. SAID BASE MAP HAS BEEN SUPPLEMENTED BY A GROUND SURVEY IN SPECIFIC AREAS OF INTEREST. I P RO.J ECT SITE c r z 0 c D Cc Ln Lu Lu SAN RAMON ROAD DUBLIN VICINITY MAP NO SCALE SHEET INDEX SHEET DESCRIPTION C1 COVER SHEET C2 TYPICAL SECTIONS C3 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY C4 HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN C5 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C6 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C7 EROSION CONTROL PLAN C8 CLEAN BAY BLUEPRINT C9 STORM WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN C10 HOTEL AUTO TURN ANALYSIS NOTE: THIS SITE HAS FIBER OPTIC LINES LOCATED ON OR ADJACENT TO IT. BENCHMARK: BENCHMARK: CITY OF DUBLIN MONUMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD AND REGIONAL STREET. ELEVATION= 355.01 (NAVD 88 DATUM) BASIS OF BEARINGS: BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BEARING OF NORTH 200 51' 45" WEST TAKEN ON THE MONUMENT LINE OF REGIONAL STREET AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP, NUMBER 1920 FILED FOR RECORD ON DECEMBER 1, 1976, IN BOOK 94 OF MAPS AT PAGES 11 & 12, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS FOR ALL BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON. NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS CON TRA C TOR TO NOTIFY USA (UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT) A T 811 A MINIMUM OF 24 HOURS BEFORE BEGINNING UNDERGROUND WORK FOR VERIFICATION OF THE LOCH TION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTE: THE PRELIMINARY PLANS PROVIDE DESIGN INTENT. ALL PROPOSED CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS HEREIN WILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL DETAILS, DURING THE DETAILED PHASE, I.E. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. IT'S EXPECTED AND UNDERSTOOD THAT DURING THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE THE CIVIL ENGINEER WILL REVISE THE PLANS TO MEET AND SATISFY THE CITY'S COMMENTS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVALS. m z O w z a a a a a } Co z O w oz a a a a a 00 E °O o Ln Ln N 0 0 N� IL u j fu 0 Ln o u, U Q U 0 U 0� 00 m N J a Z oC U° J J J U ZD o O w J ce Lu coV z_ r= V J LL ocoO L.LJ LU o O 0 ce o Lo U �' '� z a U Co ZD ce Z_ J Co ZD 0 DATE NOVEMBER, 2019 SCALE AS SHOWN DESIGNER ZS DRAFTER STAFF JOB NO. A18645 SHEET C i OF 10 SHEETS a1 r 0 x To E m U a 2 0 a` a1 m a 0 a t x W N C m V a Packet Pg. 68 5.1.b SECTION De PARKING P BUILDING OVERHANG SECOND LEVEL AC PAVEMENT—\ 6" .6 n N 0 N N LcD Qo 0 Do Q w ol ol w cl- z w w z w Qc DO 0 i Qc Q i 0 N r� 6.67' SIDEWALK CONCRETE SIDEWALK SLOPE VAR/ES 2% MAX SEE PLAN " CURB BUILDING S=0.005 CATCH BASIN 1 ° a 15' COMPACT PARKING 13.3' CURB & GUTTER ON WALL WITH FOOTING �n 18" BIO- TREA TMENT SOIL MIX 12" MIN CLASS # PERMEABLE MA TER/AL BUILDING 0 20'INGRESS EGRESS PL 20'INGRESS EGRESS & PUBLIC U77LITY ESMT & PUBLIC U77LITY ESMT I �I 1 CONFROM - 1 -------------------- - I I PA VEMENT 26' DRIVE AISLE AC PA VEMENT SLOPE VARIES SEE PLAN SECTION ANG PARKING �' SECOND LEVEL J.5' 10.75' PASSENGER LOADING LANE AC PAVEMENT SLOPE VARIES 27' MAX SEE PLAN SECTION 14.75' CONCRETE ENTRANCE 15.6' COMPACT PARKING 5.2' LANDSCAPE PL Y VALLEY GUTTER I I 6" CURB CONFROM 1 EX/S77NG SLOPE VARIES 1 GRADE ------ ------ SEE PLAN ° //\10/ /// 26' DRIVE AISLE 16.1' COMPACT PARKING 4.95' LANDSCAPE PL 1 1 I 6" CURB CONFROM 1 EXISTING SLOPE VARIES 1 GRADE ------ ------ SEE PLAN �//ice//i�///\00i // SECTION V SLOPE VAR/ES 29 MAX SEE PLAN BUILDING m z O w zz < < < < < m z O w OZ aaa a a °0 E °O o co r .� N O N cy, Ne O C O d ry W fu 0 �Ln oLn r� U Q � U O Op U E �[ \` cno > N J a Z ce U LL J J J U Vl � z ZD p o 0 I --I J ce coV U z w LL J °C C� o co o LL J Q LLJ a 0 o U � Ln Z � a u m ZD ce z J m ZD 0 DATE NOVEMBER, 2019 SCALE AS SHOWN DESIGNER zS DRAFTER STAFF JOB NO. A18645 SHEET C2 OF 10 SHEETS Packet Pg. 69 5.1.b DRIVEWAY TO BE REPLACED o - co N N� W Ln 00 CD 0-) �71 ROAD LEDICtTION 96-200269 ,O.R. CONCRETE TO BE REPLACED TEMPORARY CC EASEM 96-20021 TE, CURB, AND LIP TO BE REPLACED W 0 Q � J m � o _Z J � CO U 0 m CD 4, / NOTES 1. THIS PLOT WAS PREPARED FROM INFORMATION FURNISHED IN A PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT, PREPARED BY CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2018, ORDER NUMBER 36301133-363-LB-KD, UPDATE "B". NO LIABILITY IS ASSUMED FOR MATTERS OF RECORD NOT STATED IN SAID PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT THAT MAY AFFECT THE TITLE LINES, OR EXCEPTIONS, OR EASEMENTS OF THE PROPERTY. 2. ALL DISTANCES AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF. 3. THE TYPES, LOCATIONS, SIZES AND/OR DEPTHS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THIS TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY WERE OBTAINED FROM SOURCES OF VARYING RELIABILITY. THE CONTRACTOR IS CAUTIONED THAT ONLY ACTUAL EXCAVATION WILL REVEAL THE TYPES, EXTENT, SIZES, LOCATIONS AND DEPTHS OF SUCH UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. (A REASONABLE EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO LOCATE AND DELINEATE ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES). HOWEVER, THE ENGINEER CAN ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COMPLETENESS OR ACCURACY OF ITS DELINEATION OF SUCH UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WHICH MAY BE ENCOUNTERED, BUT WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. 4. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SHOWN ON THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM) FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MAP NUMBER 06001CO308G FOR COMMUNITY NUMBER 060705 (CITY OF DUBLIN), WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF AUGUST 3, 2009, AS BEING LOCATED IN FLOOD ZONES "X-UNSHADED & X-SHADED". ACCORDING TO FEMA THE DEFINITION OF ZONE "X-UNSHADED" IS: AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN. THE DEFINITION OF "X-SHADED" IS AREAS OF 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD; AREAS OF 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WITH AVERAGE DEPTHS OF LESS THAN 1 FOOT OR WITH DRAINAGE AREAS LESS THAN 1 SQUARE MILE; AND AREAS PROTECTED BY LEVEES FROM 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD. FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NAVD88 DATUM. 75 `91231 0. R. 77257418 O.R. I I I w Lu u SAN RAM0N (pu /� Ro w I.E.E. & P.U.E. 77257418 O.R. J Lu o. ---- aoDoo- O O O O O w CD—N['�co O� -- C)oo 00 N CO 0 0 0 0 0 �L-LiwL�0--)0,mC)-) (7� '\°hO 48 SD UKD �°` 1, — LEGEND 0 15 30 60 90 Scale 1 " = JO' 38" REDWOOD tti D_ C) —1 u-) 6 L� i� L� Ll LLB �1 C."I / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / NOTE: THIS SITE HAS FIBER OPTIC LINES LOCATED ON OR ADJACENT TO IT. TI —1— IT ABBUTER'S RIGHTS RELINQUISHED AD AREA DRAIN MH MANHOLE BUILDING LINE BC BACK OF CURB MON MONUMENT 5. BENCHMARK: CONCRETE CURB BFP BACKFLOW PREVENTOR OH OVERHEAD CITY OF DUBLIN MONUMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD AND REGIONAL STREET. CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER BL BUILDING O.R. OFFICIAL RECORD ELEVATION- 355.01 (NAVD 88 DATUM) �- 1GO - CONTOUR LINE BS BOTTOM OF STAIRS PG&E PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC DRIVEWAY BW BACK OF WALK PM PARCEL MAP 6. BASIS OF BEARINGS: EDGE OF PAVEMENT C CONCRETE P-FC PAVEMENT FACE OF CURB — E ELECTRIC LINE CB CATCH BASIN (P) PER PLAN THE BEARING OF NORTH 200 51' 45" WEST TAKEN ON THE MONUMENT LINE OF REGIONAL STREET AS SHOWN —EO FIBER OPTIC LINE CL CENTER LINE RE RIM ELEVATION ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP, NUMBER 1920 FILED FOR RECORD ON DECEMBER 1, 1976, IN BOOK 94 OF — G GAS LINE CO CLEANOUT SD STORM DRAIN MAPS AT PAGES 11 & 12, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS FOR ALL - - LOT LINE COL COLUMN SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON. — - MONUMENT/MONUMENT LINE CTVB CABLE TELEVISION BOX SS SANITARY SEWER PROPERTY LINE DR DOOR SSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 7. CORNER RECORD NOTE: —SS0 SANITARY SEWER -MANHOLE AND LINE ESMT EASEMENT T TRANSFORMER THE DEVELOPER AND/OR CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PREPARATION AND FILING OF ------------ SIDEWALK EB ELECTRIC BOX TC TOP OF CURB � 100.00 SPOT ELEVATION EV ELECTRIC VAULT T.E. TRASH ENCLOSURE PRE -CONSTRUCTION AND POST -CONSTRUCTION CORNER RECORDS FOR ANY MONUMENTS OR PROPERTY —SD STORM DRAIN -MANHOLE & CATCH BASIN EUC EUCALYPTUS TSB TRAFFIC SIGNAL BOX CORNERS SHOWN HEREON THAT MAY BE DESTROYED DURING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS —SD m STORM DRAIN OVER 24"DIAMETER EW EDGE OF WALK (TYP) TYPICAL DEFINED IN SECTION 8771(B) OF THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS ACT. —T TELEPHONE LINE FD FOUND UB UNKNOWN UTILITY BOX TV TELEVISION LINE FF FINISH FLOOR UNK UNKNOWN 8. THE ENTIRE SUBJECT PROPERTY LIES WITHIN A "LIQUEFACTION ZONE", A PORTION OF WHICH ALSO LIES WATER LINE & VALVE FMH FIBER OPTIC MANHOLE UTIL UTILITY WITHIN AN "EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE", AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTIAN DUBLIN QUADRANGLE MAP ENTITLED -i} + BOLLARD ELECTROLIER G.A. G.I. GAS ASSEMBLY GREASE INTERCEPTOR W.I. WM WROUGHT IRON WATER METER "EARTHQUAKE ZONES OF REQUIRED INVESTIGATION". THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE EARTHQUAKE � FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION IE INVERT ELEVATION . FAULT ZONE HAS BEEN PLOTTED HEREON. � FIRE HYDRANT IM IMAGE 4�,�e� 0- POST INDICATOR VALVE k 9. THIS SURVEY WAS COMPILED USING THAT CERTAIN ALTA SURVEY PREPARED BY DK CONSULTING, INC. AND T TRAFFIC SIGN DATED AUGUST 16, 2018, AS A BASE MAP FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN HEREON. SAID BASE MAP HAS TRAFFIC SIGNAL PREPAROJY OR UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF RICHARD JAMES HICKENBOTTOM, P.L.S. 8654 BEEN SUPPLEMENTED BY A GROUND SURVEY IN SPECIFIC AREAS OF INTEREST. 12" REDWOOD O TREE TREE DRIPLINE JHICKENBOTTOM®KIERWRIGHT.COM 0 UTILITY BOX WATER VALVE 1 1/ 4/2019 DATE LAND S H /C LF`- Q No. 8654 0--1 Qz'� CAL\ Cc z O L1J O a a a a a } m z O L1J z a a a a a °0 E °O o OP Ln [N 0 � C 7� 0 N� IL LLJ 0 fu 0 Ln o Ln r� U Q U �[ \` O U p� (z:) Ln > N J Q ce U° Lu J Q u 0. ZD m O J ce V m U Z � LJ °C 0CoLLW QC 0_ Q o ce V Lll 'n- o � z � a O u m ZD ce ZZD J m 0 DATE NOVEMBER, 2019 SCALE AS SHOWN DESIGNER ZS DRAFTER STAFF JOB NO. A18645 SHEET C 3 OF 10 SHEETS m 0 x �a E m V IL V N O L IL c m E Q 0 a x W C N s V w r r Q Packet Pg. 70 5.1.b m I � I / I I I ------------ -------- --------------- —� ----1— --------------------------- I I N 24' 26,? 107' 24' U B \ day N 20' C 2 --- --- ---- _ 67' 9 N TYP EV ONLYR ON 81' m - N 42.5' 20' i� ' CID 17' 16 n n n I� II i I 368 o (z)6 2' 9' S 9' -uo CHRRO�NO "T'NO O ORO'N0 O ORO'N0 NG 24' 5' 8' 8' �� a H a�N//24, 41.7' � 17' HE c�i �20 X 6S � o X 12'or- :n �T 0 I 0 10 20 40 60 Scale 1 " = 20' I 14.3' I �' J + x 26' � � l 4 15. s' 26' 0 IN O LLB Lt L ---------------------- L� L L 0 t-L Er \� 1 LL _ C C2 o� 5 R3.5'J x J ` J ® Z D C2 � \ B z O LA w af I� e z O LA w af Iffimmomm a �L 0 U °° s I 00� �. a V 2 o 0- 0 yr E d s O r W a rl > Lf) x 0 M U Q nj 7�\ U ' N rD C o E C.J Ln s C,j ' cvv N Q Q !Y U° J J J v z .. Q a J 0 O O J m z z OIL J Q LL J ILL LU Q 0 � O z o j:e O Ln 1-4 Z cl� Q O U m ZD ce z J m 0 DATE NOVEMBER, 2019 SCALE AS SHOWN DESIGNER zS DRAFTER STAFF JOB NO. Al 8645 SHEET C4 OF 10 Packet Pg. 71 5.1.b co co CD 0 N 01 J w 0 �I CD Ln 00 Q w 0 ry I z w w z w i 0 Ln CD 00 Q i 0 N i N LEGEND 0 AREA DRAIN O STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN ■ STORM DRAIN JUNCTION BOX • STORM DRAIN MANHOLE FL FLOW LINE FF FINISH FLOOR PV PA VEMENT RE RIM ELEVATION _ 23.8 SPOT ELEVATION _ X"SD_ STORM DRAIN LINE TO TOP OF CURB ❑ BUILDING COLUMN ----- SAWCUT BARRIER/RAIL PER ARCHITECT PROPOSED SIDEWALK NEW AC PAVEMENT /N KIND PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PROPOSED B/O- TREA TMEN T AREA PROPOSED ,GRIND �c P01%ERLAY WIr- PROPOSED PEOUS PAVEMENT CD TE=359.70 -S'. TVA --- i87--- NO TES,- 1. ALL INLETS TO BE MARKED WI TH STORM DRAIN MARKERS THA T READ "NO DUMPING, DRAINS TO CREEK" PER CITY OF DUBLIN STANDARD DETAIL CD-704. 2. ALL INLETS TO HA VE SCREEN FIL TERS FOR FULL TRASH CAPTURE MEASURES PER PROVISION C.10 OF THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD'S MUNICIPAL REGIONAL PERMIT i Q,F 0 -Fa - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 10 20 40 60 Scale 1 " = 20' O O / SDCB TC360.32 0-356.1 SDJB RE 361.JO w 9 -6"SD RWL lE 355.93 S=0.0050 SDCB RE 360.24 RE 360.70 lE 354.22 a, x x FL 360.20 00 MI - - - - - - - - N- 003 - j �o 000000 - _ _ o - SDCB - - o /BUBBLER 1. ,,,,,, ,,,,,, e.eOo - I / ��� o,00 e� A>> BUBBLER RE 360.90 _ _ ® - ---� FL 362.50 I `� 4 RE 363.00- - p j• j , h a, FL J62.50_ � �\ � W W°W ,O$ , � •Q Q �� ,�6�•Q, o FL 360.20 /E 356.73 " ❑ o " - lE 354.02 6" A TE 36 �� - -- /l / ,' `� A o lE 359.38 6 • I O ooT �� 10 -6 SD \ 0-357.4 -� ` 4,6"SD S=0.0200 � o '56 h6S', S=0.0200 ) P�Cn I I <v0 J- s ROOE- I - - - - �o =`�' 20%�6"SD �g DO S I 6.90 CL 30R _ SDCB I �R 2 9 DOWI ® ° I I i- - RE 363.10 11 RE 36251i S=0.0100 r �o O / �I ° I FL 362.60 lE 359.47 t� _ _ � h0� tea, I SDCB / I 6R 6ti Q •�� 'tom RE 362.03 \l o lE 356.78 __ o v� B \ h SDJB \ \ -J I \ FL 361.53 I V I /l /III I •III -� I 0 lE 357.25 0 5 -6 SDI C2 \RE 362.40 36 /E 357.45 BUBBLER 1-L0 S=0.0069 RWL h6 Q a o ? ¢ RE 362.23 �- 1 I v RE 366.30 =`'' o � x FL 361.53 BUBBLER ' I lE 359.63 N o RWL 6`L � I " � ii RE 361.58 hQ /E 354.72 6" RE 363.30 v� 0 1 J 23 N6 SD - ��+ cv <n lE 355.00 W V 1 A �o�j \ I ll III I FL 362.60- S=0.0073 6v' o a� �a� 14 -6"SD L� lE 359.43 6� - - V-�� �,� S=0.0200 SDCB �N69'08151/ 4 I 24 N6 "SSDJB D - / SDJB �W J62.79 245.67' o�� S=00069 0 RE 363.20 FL 36229 4E7 -1EJ57.50- 1EJ5770 1E359.46 Z`y y6(( y \ BUBBLER I U ❑ CIURfiING CIURfiING ❑ CIURGING CHRRGING CHFRGING ❑ ❑ F=c:] " RE J62.99 / ROOF ��Q� �;s, r�/� / �ti I goo A F � 20�6 SD R FL 362.29 " ONLY ONLY ONLV ONLY ONLY NG W I- DOWNSPOUT o�. s� / / I oo C2 RwL x- 2 STORY PARKING S=0.0100 RE 362.33 10-6"SD < lE 355.06 6 1 T - T � C � / s- -_ - I RE 363.03 �� lE J55.25 - - � - � � / �/ I a I- lE 359.63 STRUCTURE AND 4 STORY _ o _//� li HOTEL ABOVE II I- - ----- �� O !-r=-I-� 0 / L_�---------------�- \-------�-- I I a o W C2 \ / I O � ❑ RK ROOF RE 363.4 DOWNSPOUT I I ,ff "lE 356.78 5 N6 SD co 0 S=0.0200 °p I�. BUBBLER 0 ILI RE 364.20 W �� Y I I FL 363.50 �s� ,� 6s 0 yet I lE 356.68 6 gk� �� •� G . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING ---------�------_ oo� I ❑ 0 SDCB �oh6hQ� RE 364.00 60 1 lEL 359.24 x w 6s 43 .. 1 YP) 1°A B r I SDCB W .W o ��i3` G • i RE 364.00 I 'e II ❑ FL 363.50 W W �o o cs�4 `� SDMH O I I I 6' o RE 365. '`� �n o " 0 6 6' �o o� o 0 00�N `n� �,�2 Epp �� lE 358'36 12 NW \ �� A /� R E - BUBBLER �0 6,� �6, 5� �p PV 1 358.36 12 E / � D N S O U I RE 364.20 x x g a so 5 A \ / / I FL 363.50 x SDCO, � -- / I lE 356.45 6" - F-------- �-� - ---------------------------------------- CIE _358.98 G _-----_-------------�� I� --------_��--------__--__ �� - 12�6"SD x ''` 5"8"SD o _ �O ��LL ----- -- S=0.0200 x x x S=0.0100 SDJB !� RO E -O� _� g ��N� 1� �1�-�IF �aae� -�4 �� -- - - ---- ------ x REJ65JO D�oD OW S P 0 T = - _ = - _ 1- //6 - O 364.7 x lE 358.93 1 - J - i - - - - RK RE 363.96 3 �6 SD / RWL W 1 E �❑ - _ _ IE 357.04 S=0.0200RE 363.51 l 1 o - - ),6-5 ----- - I � - - -SDCB ,�` •9, � v - 1 - - - RE 364.47 '°lam BUBBLER s 0 w i -/ - - --------- - - T FL 363.97 + RE 364.67 'e / )) AVO /IbO o o �/ 1 / I I 1 I Off- _ �X lE 360.00 /FL 363.97 " 1 �6"SO • II n A'Vo o I I 1 I I l - O1 - 6S tea, lE 356. 97 6 g' 13 \ n 1 11 11 n AbOn 1 1 1 �I I I I I I I II I I I 1 1 1 1 �nbOnnbO 1 I l O fi-- I I l o III � -- - - 1 n I II Eee W 6, 1 , I I I I I I I 1 1 I I nnb�nnb� V I / �I I I I I �` / 0 1 1 n I I n bO 3 4 ,,, 6q. W W° W SDJB I I 1 1 I I F� I I 1 1 n�b�n 1 1 �s a r k i n g ❑ �- c� � � 1 �� '` p� I V h W W� W� W ���� RE 365.13 0 o Y 1 1 11 On1 bO6 - h6 W IE 359.84 -- l g I I 11 I I 11 bon b� i e L �' 16 -6"SD /. o o I I 1 1 I I n�bO� �o�' S=0.0100 C2 --___ o [X� 1 1 i I 1 �` 11, , �- E ----- _ l I -1 I 1 1 1 l I I ���b-0nV� -- ___ • o� - - - _ I 1 1 1 nAbOnAbO77 l _-7 7 I 1 6s 1 b 1 ❑ n n J�_ _ _1 I; 1 I I I I I I I I I n n n gR TE g Rn T- R/ CH Tf---- --R-ELINQUIS[�SAN _ oAMp E ��_ O I<�L ��o --__� 366 R� AD O o ��o ___ o� _ 1_ 6 C) -7 -��- O 368 -&WARWRI Mh` SSMH 362 58 RF 1 E Y� I - �TQ ��1. -------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- ----- ---- GRATE I I I - - - - - - - -- Ez� 36 �a m v � U N I m� .� L N i ' R v V Ln o o c m LL a 0 0 0 L 0� n x t_- w U Q nj U 0 o CD U o E s Ln N a z Q J °C a U LL O (W J Q V U z � i--i Q O 0 J ce 0 m z Q z � _ U LL C) z °��w 0- 0 o O Q c � L11 � Z Q Q z U ZD J W oC z J m 0 DATE NOVEMBER, 2019 SCALE AS SHOWN DESIGNER zS DRAFTER STAFF JOB NO. Al 8645 SHEET C 5 OF 10 SHEETS Packet Pg. 72 5.1.b T 00 0 4 Lo N 0 N 01 J W 0 cl-I In 00 Q Ld 0 Of Ld i z L1J w z L1J i CD Ln 00 i Q 0 N i --- -- - ���---------------- ------ 777 18"SD � SSMH 00 RE 362.58 IE 355.96 8"S 171 -8"SS S=0.0050 36 SDJB SDJB RE 3629 18 �12"SD9 W RE 362.87 8"w - IE 356.71 /E 356.66 41 S=0.0030 - 24 N12'SD S=0.0030 15 N6"SD S=0.0050 o�� _----o�--/- - __ ----==-=-==--=-=-==--=-=-- _ ---- _- °00000, _ BUBBLER - 0 -i� I _ _ / --- - ---- -- --- RE363.20 SDCB / a � - � ® 11 I / 13 N6 SD S=0.005 FL 36250 RE 363.00 C t / c6 .� RE o _� / 1Ew358.93 /E 359.38 6"' IE 356.73 I 3ad - \ RO F �� �I - _ _ I ROOF I I 4N6"SD RWL -I DO SP I II DOWNSPOUT SDCB S=0.0200 a ® 1E�356.78 I I RK 59.47 C I 1l III I i_ I o I IE 359.63 �< �� _ I� I 23-6"SD - t I I III I I � I S=0.0073 / V BUBBLER RE 363.30 SDJB FL 36260 I - a� RE 366.67 41- I IE 359.43 6 LLL= IE 359.46< N ' S�O.0069 24-6"SD �< S=o.0069 RIX � 1 I o I /E 359.63 -- -- 1SSMH RE 360.38 E356.81 81N (OUT) 3 -I ❑ o 0 0 piA COTG IE 357.59 E 0 II \\\\7 7 WM WM F� V_ BFP BFP FDC - - - - - - W STUB STUB I RE 361.30\ IE 355.93 J L_Uu 13 -15'SD S=0.003 � �� SDJB RE 063 8 IE 355.97 T RE 362.4C �o � BE 357.25 AENUT i ----- ---- SDJB _ RE 37.50 IE 357.50 6A� - II .2 -- --� ---------------- I N I i I ❑ ROOF I I I cB 361.60 RE DOWNSPOUT I�� IE 35 IE 359.42 8"S I � � I EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING II I 13N60SD S=0.005 SDLB RE 366.88 IE 357.21 � I / RK IE 359.37 / / I R F / D VNS UU11 CIE-- \------- _ --- -- - _T ��__ Ifl��-------------- - Au-i I RK - rs II Ir 7-�-�/€o :: J // L� -- -- - -_-_--_=___ �- 1EJ57.04 L --�-1-1= _-�_= z RK s �6 __------- - I BUBBLER IE 359.34 RE 364.67 EB I --- FL 363.97 2 -6" SD S=0. 0200 365 SDCB L / IE 356.97 6" RE 362.66 - - BUBBLER IE 357.35 RE 363.15 FL 36265 SRE J64.47 DCB �6Nsps� S -n7 x'`IE 359.30 6" FL 363.97 O �030 /Ib0 SDCB IE 360.00 /lb On4vo I I I I I I I I I I .esese RE 362.45 n n /I bO li I U FL 361.95 I I n /Ib0 � ��5 Parkin �� J I I I I I I I I I �� - CIE J5746 e e nb�n®� g U �CU�UC�,�__, n 0 I I ' I I I I I I I � iI /IbOn�bO b0 /Ib ' - - - 16 6 SD l 1 n� /I b L `� s=o 0100 � / I I i n �n�b�n,�b� � o �� L -� I- I I n4T/I b�nb� /I I n n 364 n77 n 366 2 STORY PARKING ITRUCTURE AND 4 STORY HOTEL ABOVE 47N4"SS RWL 0 COTG " IE 356.78 /E 359.37 4 5 -6"SD S=0.0200 BUBBLER RE 364.20 FL 363.50 lE 356.68 6" '� 0 SOCB RE 364.00 FL 363.50 x � IE 359.24 SDCB ° RE 364.00 FL 363.50 Z o IE 359.15 0 ` � �'�'i N cn 5�' `�120 0 5 p. x cni x x SDCO x BUBBLER + IE J58.97°8" �xx 5-8"SD 364 RE .20 FL x x �� S=0.0100\ SDJB 363.50 IE 3�45 6' '`�� RE 365.30 � IE 358.93 12 N6'SD ° x /S=0.0200 pp 3 '"6'SD r6 SO S=0.0200 g1 ` RE 365.13 IE 359.84 �9 DETAIL Ls 2 RE SDCB 57.1612"NW RE 360.70 FL 360.20 IE 355.97 BUBBLER 10 N6"SD RE 361.40 o VV S=0.0200 FL 360.90 RK IE 354.02 6" n 8' REDWOOD 0 IE 354.22 SDCB RE 362. o3 j 20 N6 "SD FL 361.53 i t� S=0.0100 /E 357.45 Lvl x L� N N o ' BUBBLER S '0.0200 Z o RWL 1 RE 362.73 �v IE 355.00 1 FL 362.23 20N6"SD 354.72 6"o L-L] S=0.0100 <j� x x SDCB 7' RE 362.79 FL 362.29 (-n I- o - IE 357.70 j Qs_ 10'-6 BUBBLER ;1 - - RK S=O.0200, RE 363 49 �- FL 362.99 IE 355.25 - lE 355.0.6 6"J n \ cV =---- COTG11 1 IE 360.31 1 ING 0 S=0.020 �o 0 SAND OIL SEPERA TOR N D IE 360.85 4 W � IE 360.60 41 E / D I 6"W 37-4"SS FH S=o.0200 i ill SS -AD IE 361.75 COTG [ 1" / T R IE 361.59 8 N4 SS S=0.0200 SDMH / RE 365.85 IE 358.36 Z' / I / / / / / / / / / Scale 1 " = 20' LEGEND --� SITE BOUNDARY ASR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER RISER RE RIM ELEVATION TC TOP OF CURB WS WA TER SERVICE �F EXISTING UTILITY TO BE ABANDONDED BY REMOVAL X FS FIRE SERVICE SS SANITARY SEWER CO TO CLEANOUT TO GRADE - - - STORM DRAIN LINE 0 AREA DRAIN O STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN ■ STORM DRAIN JUNCTION BOX • STORM DRAIN MANHOLE •*+ BACK FLOW PREVENTION DEVICE } FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION TO FIRE HYDRANT & VALVE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT & VALVE POST INDICA TOR VALVE SSMH • SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE A SINGLE CHECK VALVE SOMH • STORM DRAIN MANHOLE 0 WATER METER } m z O w INEEMEN MENNEN Iffiammom 00U 0 0 U I Ln 4-;.� N i ' R t v N N (71 _�te 0 a -Q W0 r 0 L 0 Ln co uQ - U a) 0 0 U o E V-, N J Q oC z O U LL J J Q oO I --I J ce V z_ LL _j o co O L_LJ Q 0 c) ce zLr) rim Z U_ J m Lu ZD J m 0 DATE NOVEMBER, 2019 SCALE AS SHOWN DESIGNER zS DRAFTER STAFF JOB NO. Al 8645 SHEET C 6 OF 10 N l Packet Pg. 73 -I ❑ o 0 0 piA COTG IE 357.59 E 0 II \\\\7 7 WM WM F� V_ BFP BFP FDC - - - - - - W STUB STUB I RE 361.30\ IE 355.93 J L_Uu 13 -15'SD S=0.003 � �� SDJB RE 063 8 IE 355.97 T RE 362.4C �o � BE 357.25 AENUT i ----- ---- SDJB _ RE 37.50 IE 357.50 6A� - II .2 -- --� ---------------- I N I i I ❑ ROOF I I I cB 361.60 RE DOWNSPOUT I�� IE 35 IE 359.42 8"S I � � I EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING II I 13N60SD S=0.005 SDLB RE 366.88 IE 357.21 � I / RK IE 359.37 / / I R F / D VNS UU11 CIE-- \------- _ --- -- - _T ��__ Ifl��-------------- - Au-i I RK - rs II Ir 7-�-�/€o :: J // L� -- -- - -_-_--_=___ �- 1EJ57.04 L --�-1-1= _-�_= z RK s �6 __------- - I BUBBLER IE 359.34 RE 364.67 EB I --- FL 363.97 2 -6" SD S=0. 0200 365 SDCB L / IE 356.97 6" RE 362.66 - - BUBBLER IE 357.35 RE 363.15 FL 36265 SRE J64.47 DCB �6Nsps� S -n7 x'`IE 359.30 6" FL 363.97 O �030 /Ib0 SDCB IE 360.00 /lb On4vo I I I I I I I I I I .esese RE 362.45 n n /I bO li I U FL 361.95 I I n /Ib0 � ��5 Parkin �� J I I I I I I I I I �� - CIE J5746 e e nb�n®� g U �CU�UC�,�__, n 0 I I ' I I I I I I I � iI /IbOn�bO b0 /Ib ' - - - 16 6 SD l 1 n� /I b L `� s=o 0100 � / I I i n �n�b�n,�b� � o �� L -� I- I I n4T/I b�nb� /I I n n 364 n77 n 366 2 STORY PARKING ITRUCTURE AND 4 STORY HOTEL ABOVE 47N4"SS RWL 0 COTG " IE 356.78 /E 359.37 4 5 -6"SD S=0.0200 BUBBLER RE 364.20 FL 363.50 lE 356.68 6" '� 0 SOCB RE 364.00 FL 363.50 x � IE 359.24 SDCB ° RE 364.00 FL 363.50 Z o IE 359.15 0 ` � �'�'i N cn 5�' `�120 0 5 p. x cni x x SDCO x BUBBLER + IE J58.97°8" �xx 5-8"SD 364 RE .20 FL x x �� S=0.0100\ SDJB 363.50 IE 3�45 6' '`�� RE 365.30 � IE 358.93 12 N6'SD ° x /S=0.0200 pp 3 '"6'SD r6 SO S=0.0200 g1 ` RE 365.13 IE 359.84 �9 DETAIL Ls 2 RE SDCB 57.1612"NW RE 360.70 FL 360.20 IE 355.97 BUBBLER 10 N6"SD RE 361.40 o VV S=0.0200 FL 360.90 RK IE 354.02 6" n 8' REDWOOD 0 IE 354.22 SDCB RE 362. o3 j 20 N6 "SD FL 361.53 i t� S=0.0100 /E 357.45 Lvl x L� N N o ' BUBBLER S '0.0200 Z o RWL 1 RE 362.73 �v IE 355.00 1 FL 362.23 20N6"SD 354.72 6"o L-L] S=0.0100 <j� x x SDCB 7' RE 362.79 FL 362.29 (-n I- o - IE 357.70 j Qs_ 10'-6 BUBBLER ;1 - - RK S=O.0200, RE 363 49 �- FL 362.99 IE 355.25 - lE 355.0.6 6"J n \ cV =---- COTG11 1 IE 360.31 1 ING 0 S=0.020 �o 0 SAND OIL SEPERA TOR N D IE 360.85 4 W � IE 360.60 41 E / D I 6"W 37-4"SS FH S=o.0200 i ill SS -AD IE 361.75 COTG [ 1" / T R IE 361.59 8 N4 SS S=0.0200 SDMH / RE 365.85 IE 358.36 Z' / I / / / / / / / / / Scale 1 " = 20' LEGEND --� SITE BOUNDARY ASR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER RISER RE RIM ELEVATION TC TOP OF CURB WS WA TER SERVICE �F EXISTING UTILITY TO BE ABANDONDED BY REMOVAL X FS FIRE SERVICE SS SANITARY SEWER CO TO CLEANOUT TO GRADE - - - STORM DRAIN LINE 0 AREA DRAIN O STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN ■ STORM DRAIN JUNCTION BOX • STORM DRAIN MANHOLE •*+ BACK FLOW PREVENTION DEVICE } FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION TO FIRE HYDRANT & VALVE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT & VALVE POST INDICA TOR VALVE SSMH • SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE A SINGLE CHECK VALVE SOMH • STORM DRAIN MANHOLE 0 WATER METER } m z O w INEEMEN MENNEN Iffiammom 00U 0 0 U I Ln 4-;.� N i ' R t v N N (71 _�te 0 a -Q W0 r 0 L 0 Ln co uQ - U a) 0 0 U o E V-, N J Q oC z O U LL J J Q oO I --I J ce V z_ LL _j o co O L_LJ Q 0 c) ce zLr) rim Z U_ J m Lu ZD J m 0 DATE NOVEMBER, 2019 SCALE AS SHOWN DESIGNER zS DRAFTER STAFF JOB NO. Al 8645 SHEET C 6 OF 10 N l Packet Pg. 73 COTG IE 357.59 E 0 II \\\\7 7 WM WM F� V_ BFP BFP FDC - - - - - - W STUB STUB I RE 361.30\ IE 355.93 J L_Uu 13 -15'SD S=0.003 � �� SDJB RE 063 8 IE 355.97 T RE 362.4C �o � BE 357.25 AENUT i ----- ---- SDJB _ RE 37.50 IE 357.50 6A� - II .2 -- --� ---------------- I N I i I ❑ ROOF I I I cB 361.60 RE DOWNSPOUT I�� IE 35 IE 359.42 8"S I � � I EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING II I 13N60SD S=0.005 SDLB RE 366.88 IE 357.21 � I / RK IE 359.37 / / I R F / D VNS UU11 CIE-- \------- _ --- -- - _T ��__ Ifl��-------------- - Au-i I RK - rs II Ir 7-�-�/€o :: J // L� -- -- - -_-_--_=___ �- 1EJ57.04 L --�-1-1= _-�_= z RK s �6 __------- - I BUBBLER IE 359.34 RE 364.67 EB I --- FL 363.97 2 -6" SD S=0. 0200 365 SDCB L / IE 356.97 6" RE 362.66 - - BUBBLER IE 357.35 RE 363.15 FL 36265 SRE J64.47 DCB �6Nsps� S -n7 x'`IE 359.30 6" FL 363.97 O �030 /Ib0 SDCB IE 360.00 /lb On4vo I I I I I I I I I I .esese RE 362.45 n n /I bO li I U FL 361.95 I I n /Ib0 � ��5 Parkin �� J I I I I I I I I I �� - CIE J5746 e e nb�n®� g U �CU�UC�,�__, n 0 I I ' I I I I I I I � iI /IbOn�bO b0 /Ib ' - - - 16 6 SD l 1 n� /I b L `� s=o 0100 � / I I i n �n�b�n,�b� � o �� L -� I- I I n4T/I b�nb� /I I n n 364 n77 n 366 2 STORY PARKING ITRUCTURE AND 4 STORY HOTEL ABOVE 47N4"SS RWL 0 COTG " IE 356.78 /E 359.37 4 5 -6"SD S=0.0200 BUBBLER RE 364.20 FL 363.50 lE 356.68 6" '� 0 SOCB RE 364.00 FL 363.50 x � IE 359.24 SDCB ° RE 364.00 FL 363.50 Z o IE 359.15 0 ` � �'�'i N cn 5�' `�120 0 5 p. x cni x x SDCO x BUBBLER + IE J58.97°8" �xx 5-8"SD 364 RE .20 FL x x �� S=0.0100\ SDJB 363.50 IE 3�45 6' '`�� RE 365.30 � IE 358.93 12 N6'SD ° x /S=0.0200 pp 3 '"6'SD r6 SO S=0.0200 g1 ` RE 365.13 IE 359.84 �9 DETAIL Ls 2 RE SDCB 57.1612"NW RE 360.70 FL 360.20 IE 355.97 BUBBLER 10 N6"SD RE 361.40 o VV S=0.0200 FL 360.90 RK IE 354.02 6" n 8' REDWOOD 0 IE 354.22 SDCB RE 362. o3 j 20 N6 "SD FL 361.53 i t� S=0.0100 /E 357.45 Lvl x L� N N o ' BUBBLER S '0.0200 Z o RWL 1 RE 362.73 �v IE 355.00 1 FL 362.23 20N6"SD 354.72 6"o L-L] S=0.0100 <j� x x SDCB 7' RE 362.79 FL 362.29 (-n I- o - IE 357.70 j Qs_ 10'-6 BUBBLER ;1 - - RK S=O.0200, RE 363 49 �- FL 362.99 IE 355.25 - lE 355.0.6 6"J n \ cV =---- COTG11 1 IE 360.31 1 ING 0 S=0.020 �o 0 SAND OIL SEPERA TOR N D IE 360.85 4 W � IE 360.60 41 E / D I 6"W 37-4"SS FH S=o.0200 i ill SS -AD IE 361.75 COTG [ 1" / T R IE 361.59 8 N4 SS S=0.0200 SDMH / RE 365.85 IE 358.36 Z' / I / / / / / / / / / Scale 1 " = 20' LEGEND --� SITE BOUNDARY ASR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER RISER RE RIM ELEVATION TC TOP OF CURB WS WA TER SERVICE �F EXISTING UTILITY TO BE ABANDONDED BY REMOVAL X FS FIRE SERVICE SS SANITARY SEWER CO TO CLEANOUT TO GRADE - - - STORM DRAIN LINE 0 AREA DRAIN O STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN ■ STORM DRAIN JUNCTION BOX • STORM DRAIN MANHOLE •*+ BACK FLOW PREVENTION DEVICE } FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION TO FIRE HYDRANT & VALVE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT & VALVE POST INDICA TOR VALVE SSMH • SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE A SINGLE CHECK VALVE SOMH • STORM DRAIN MANHOLE 0 WATER METER } m z O w INEEMEN MENNEN Iffiammom 00U 0 0 U I Ln 4-;.� N i ' R t v N N (71 _�te 0 a -Q W0 r 0 L 0 Ln co uQ - U a) 0 0 U o E V-, N J Q oC z O U LL J J Q oO I --I J ce V z_ LL _j o co O L_LJ Q 0 c) ce zLr) rim Z U_ J m Lu ZD J m 0 DATE NOVEMBER, 2019 SCALE AS SHOWN DESIGNER zS DRAFTER STAFF JOB NO. Al 8645 SHEET C 6 OF 10 N l Packet Pg. 73 ING 0 S=0.020 �o 0 SAND OIL SEPERA TOR N D IE 360.85 4 W � IE 360.60 41 E / D I 6"W 37-4"SS FH S=o.0200 i ill SS -AD IE 361.75 COTG [ 1" / T R IE 361.59 8 N4 SS S=0.0200 SDMH / RE 365.85 IE 358.36 Z' / I / / / / / / / / / Scale 1 " = 20' LEGEND --� SITE BOUNDARY ASR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER RISER RE RIM ELEVATION TC TOP OF CURB WS WA TER SERVICE �F EXISTING UTILITY TO BE ABANDONDED BY REMOVAL X FS FIRE SERVICE SS SANITARY SEWER CO TO CLEANOUT TO GRADE - - - STORM DRAIN LINE 0 AREA DRAIN O STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN ■ STORM DRAIN JUNCTION BOX • STORM DRAIN MANHOLE •*+ BACK FLOW PREVENTION DEVICE } FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION TO FIRE HYDRANT & VALVE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT & VALVE POST INDICA TOR VALVE SSMH • SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE A SINGLE CHECK VALVE SOMH • STORM DRAIN MANHOLE 0 WATER METER } m z O w INEEMEN MENNEN Iffiammom 00U 0 0 U I Ln 4-;.� N i ' R t v N N (71 _�te 0 a -Q W0 r 0 L 0 Ln co uQ - U a) 0 0 U o E V-, N J Q oC z O U LL J J Q oO I --I J ce V z_ LL _j o co O L_LJ Q 0 c) ce zLr) rim Z U_ J m Lu ZD J m 0 DATE NOVEMBER, 2019 SCALE AS SHOWN DESIGNER zS DRAFTER STAFF JOB NO. Al 8645 SHEET C 6 OF 10 N l Packet Pg. 73 } m z O w INEEMEN MENNEN Iffiammom 00U 0 0 U I Ln 4-;.� N i ' R t v N N (71 _�te 0 a -Q W0 r 0 L 0 Ln co uQ - U a) 0 0 U o E V-, N J Q oC z O U LL J J Q oO I --I J ce V z_ LL _j o co O L_LJ Q 0 c) ce zLr) rim Z U_ J m Lu ZD J m 0 DATE NOVEMBER, 2019 SCALE AS SHOWN DESIGNER zS DRAFTER STAFF JOB NO. Al 8645 SHEET C 6 OF 10 N l Packet Pg. 73 Q oC z O U LL J J Q oO I --I J ce V z_ LL _j o co O L_LJ Q 0 c) ce zLr) rim Z U_ J m Lu ZD J m 0 DATE NOVEMBER, 2019 SCALE AS SHOWN DESIGNER zS DRAFTER STAFF JOB NO. Al 8645 SHEET C 6 OF 10 N l Packet Pg. 73 N l Packet Pg. 73 5.1.b EXIST. GROUND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FILTER FABRIC 12"MIN. 3" TO 6" COARSE AGGREGATE PROFILE PROVIDE APPROPRIATE TRANSITION BETWEEN STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 50'MIN. FILTER FABRIC PLAN STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE NOT TO SCALE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" ,�i�, 3„_5„ 6"-10" L !' STRAW DIAMETER WATTLE ilL� '' STAKE 25mm (11NCH) ROCK CONTAINED IN PERVIOUS BURLAP BAGS OR SYNTHETICS NET BAGS (3mm MESH) APPROXIMATELY 60cm (241NCH) LONG, 30cm (121NCH) WIDE AND 15cm (61NCH) HIGH ROCK BARRIER BAGS CAN ROCK 1"x1"x2' BE A SINGLE OR DOUBLE STAKES LAYER RUNOFF WATER NOTE: WITH SEDIMENT 1. STRAW WATTLES ARE TUBES MADE FROM STRAW BOUND W/BIO-DEGRADABLE NETTING. SEDIMENT THEY ARE APPROX. C-10" DIA AND 20-30 FT LONG. 2. STRAW WATTLES TRAP SEDIMENT AND REDUCE SHEET AND HILL EROSION BY REDUCING SLOPE GRADIENT. INCREASING INFILTRATION RATES AND BY PRODUCING A FAVORABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR PLANT ESTABLISHMENT. iI=III=III=III=11=11 I I-1 I I -I 11=1 11=1 11= 3. STRAW WATTLE INSTALLATION REQUIRES THE PLACEMENT AND SECURE STAKING OF =III=III-III-III=1_I -1 11-1 11-1 11-1 1I- THE WATTLE IN A TRENCH Y-5" DEEP, DUG ON CONTOUR. RUNOFF MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO RUN UNDER OR AROUND WATTLE. STRAW WATTLE SEDIMENT TRAP/FILTER NOT TO SCALE SDJB SDJB RE 362.9 18 N12"SD RE 36287 IE 356.71 IE 356.66 S=0.0030 -T---�---- --- - - (TYP) 5-6"S S .0050 PLACE ROCK BARRIER BAGS SUCH THAT NO GAPS ARE EVIDENT IF A DOUBLE LAYER OF ROCK BARRIER BAGS ARE USED, THE TOP BAGS MUST BE PLACED SUCH THAT NO GAPS ARE EVIDENT WITH THE LOWER LAYER OF BAGS FILTERED WATER DROP INLET SEDIMENT FILTER UTILIZING ROCK BARRIER BAGS NOT TO SCALE 230 N 15"SD S=0.0030 TRA W WA T TLE SE7PK T 363.00 I 'TRAP FlL TER - ;v - - RWL IEL 356 3 - OWNSPOUT IE 359.4 11 (T�P) B 363.20 I S TABIL IZED CONS T FL 362.50 " IE 6 EN TRA NCE R59.38 IE 359.63 I V All,! _ 23 �6"SD S=0.0073 X SDJB a - RE 366.67a lE 359.46 V4 S=0.0069 / \ RWL 1 1 El / o / 1 III oo' 5 " N6SD S=0.0069 � I � BUBBLER - U -----------�--- 362.60 --------- = / / FL I �, lE 359.43 6 '� - ❑ ROOF :z DOWNSPOUT I' I' I' ---- EXISTING ADEFICEA3UJLDING_--------- -I -- I� I � ' I I i SDJB. RE 366.88 \13 -6"SD S=O. 0050 /E 357.21 l RWL IE 359. 37 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In o ----- _ _T - BUBBLER _ RE 363.30 \--:-a-1 J =:-� -�� z. _FL 36260,------------oo -_88 1 %1 ' I�'I - IE 359.59 s �� E B D 1 LL = 7E 365.21 ti6 "SD, S_� �1 I� _ 365 L E 361.20 0 0�00 �R,,N� h` -1 1- 0 S� l 1 �o l-��--_ -��� SDCB 1 j � 36 Y_6"S� RE J62.45 SDCB S_O.OIOp I 1 / -f�'S_ p 00,30 1 � 1 � FL 361.95 RE 364.73 SDCB IE J57.46 IE 360.39 I I, I I I I RE 363.101 I �I SDJB 11 ' I I I I I FL 362.601 I L C;'RE 364.1, f U U CIE 35735J (TYP) 2 S TRA W WA T TL E SED/MEN T ' - TRAP IFIL TER I �I N Sar EXISTING CURB INLET FILTER DETAIL NOT TO SCALE ISDJB o 0 RE 361.JO h o .� O KEDWvvu3 SDJB 13 -15"SD 9-6 SD RE 063 8 S=0.0030 SRO Elk IE 355.97 I1 o � x-, SDCB (TrP) O , 3 DROP INLE � p - SEDIMENT Fl, SDJB RE 363.20 - IE 357.50 II" x 99 � o 9 D RW 10-6"SD Z S=0.0200 20N6"S�� i 0 RWL I , " lE 356.78 5 6 SD S=0.0200 BUBBLER I I RE 364.20 I o FL 363.50 1 SDCB x An IE 356.68 6" I 0 36 FL 363.50 C IE 359.24 m mk0 25 -6"SD �S=0.0101_ ' p SDCB RE J64.00 SDC IE 359.150 x IE 358.98 ° 1 I �z � - 9 S.o 17 -6" Q 0 Y. �XS=0.0100 0, " x '` ,x 5-8"SD S�0.0200 x SD x BUBBLER S=0.0100 SDJB RE 364.20 x FL 363.50 RE 365.30 RWL RWL X� + IE 356.45 6" Sao Ogg /E 358.93 IE 357.04 �� IE 356.69 Y x 3 N6"SD BUBBLER S=1 0200 g1'' I RE 364.67 _ J FL 363.97 1 /E 356.97 6" �� SDCB RE 364.47 FL 363.97 0 IE 360.00 i SDJB RE J65.13 \ IE 359.84 \ o RWL T IE 355.00 I 20 N6"SD7 S=0.0100 ' 5- _ lE 355.25 - _ o 10" 6 "SD - 99 4 - S=0.0200 C --- o 0 O 0 1 N 2 0 0 SDMH ' RE 5 IE 358.36 '� :E r 1 RE 360.70 FL 360.20 IE 355.97 BUBBLER RE 360.90 AFL 360.20\ 1E 354.02 6" SDCB 9 RE 362.03 3 g n FL J61.53 IE 357.45 14 N6"SD S=0.0200 BUBBLER RE 362.23 FL 361.53 IE 354.72 6" SDCB RE 362.79 FL 362.29 IE 357.70 BUBBLER RE 362.99 FL 362.29 IE 355.06 6" LEGEND ;AND BAG 1 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION X ENTRANCE 2 STRAW WATTLE X SEDIMENT TRAP/FILTER r m 3 DROP INLET X SEDIMENT FILTER CURB INLET �VI X SEDIMENT FILTER 0 10 20 40 60 Scale 1" = 20' EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES 1. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE EFFECTIVE FOR THE DURA T/ON OF CONSTRUCT/ON. 2. AFTER THE UNDERGROUND STORM DRAIN SYSTEM /S INSTALLED, THE CA TCH BASINS WILL BE INSTALLED (AS SOON AS PRACTICAL) AND ROCK BARRIER BAGS WILL BE PLACED AROUND THOSE CATCH BASINS AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN UNTIL THIS SITE /S PA VED. J. SHOULD THE ON -SITE STORM DRAINS NOT BE INSTALLED COMPLETEL Y BY OCTOBER 15, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS AT THE EXISTING STORM PIPES STUBBED TO THE SITE. 4. PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR /MPLEMENTA TION OF EROSION AND SED/MENTA TION PLAN. NAME- LOW. ADDRESS: T.B.D. TELEPHONE. Lap 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PLACE 3"-6" COARSE AGGREGA TE AS A GRA VEL ROAD WA Y (12" MIN. THICK FOR THE FULL WIDTH AND 50 FEET LONG) A T EACH D/W ENTRANCE TO S/ TE. ANY MUD THA T IS TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC STREETS SHALL BE REMOVED THAT SAME DAY AND AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF DUBLIN. 6. ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED ` UNTIL DISTURBED AREAS ARE STABILIZED AND CHANGES TO THIS EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN SHALL BE MADE TO MEET FIELD CONDI TONS ONL Y W/ TH THE APPROVAL OF OR A T THE DIRECTION OF THE Cl TY ENGINEER. 7. ALL PAVED AREAS SHALL BE KEPT CLEAR OF EARTH MA TER/AL AND DEBRIS. THE S/TE SHALL BE MAINTAINED SO AS TO MINIMIZE SEDIMENT -LADEN RUN-OFF TO ANY STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM. 8. THIS PLAN COVERS ONLY THE FIRST WINTER FOLLOWING GRADING. PLANS ARE TO BE RESUBMITTED FOR CITY APPROVAL PR/OR TO THE SEPTEMBER FIRST OF EACH SUBSEQUENT YEAR UNTIL THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE ACCEPTED BY THE CITY. 9. ALL EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES MUST BE INSPECTED AND REPAIRED A T THE END OF EACH WORKING DA Y. 10. SEDIMENT BASINS SHALL BE CLEANED OUT WHENEVER SEDIMENT REACHES THE SEDIMENT CLEANOUT LEVEL INDICATED ON THE PLANS 11. BORROW AREAS AND TEMPORARY STOCKPILES SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH APPROPR/ATE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES TO THE SA T/SFACTION OF THE Cl TY ENGINEER. 12. ALL CUT AND FILL SLOPES ARE TO BE PROTECTED TO PREVENT OVERBANK FLOW. 13. INLETS WHICH ARE NOT USED /N CONJUNCTION WITH ROCK BARRIER BAGS OR SEDIMENT BASINS SHOULD BE COVERED, OR OTHERWISE ADJUSTED TO PREVENT INFLOW, UNLESS THE AREA DRAINED /S UNDISTURBED OR STABILIZED. 14. THIS PLAN MA Y NOT COVER ALL THE SI TUA TONS THA T AR/SE DURING CONSTRUCTION DUE TO ANTICIPATED FIELD COND/ TONS. VAR/A TONS MA Y BE MADE TO THE PLAN /N THE FIELD SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER. 15. DETAILS FOR THE CONSTRUCT/ON OF FAC/L/TIES ARE SHOWN ON THESE PLANS 16. THIS PLAN /S INTENDED TO BE USED FOR EROSION CONTROL ONL Y. OTHER /NFORMA T/ON SHOWN HEREIN MA Y NOT BE THE MOST CURRENT SEE SHEET C4 FOR OTHER INFORMA T/ON. z O w 0 z m z 0 > w °0 E � o U op Ln I" L N 0 a LL W0 0 Ln 0 `n v U a) 0 0 C) > l� o Ln a) \` N J Q oC z u° Q J Q j ., U Z) J o O O J ce Ic, m v F z_ > z � O O L.LJ U o 0 z o ce O z rH� V 1 O � I..L Co w Z) c z J m 0 DATE NOVEMBER, 2019 SCALE AS SHOWN DESIGNER ZS DRAFTER STAFF JOB IN Al 8645 SHEET C 7 OF 10 l Packet Pg. 74 5.1.b T N Ln Ln CV 0 N N 0 co 11 00 Q w 0 ry 0 z w w z w i CD 00 i co Q i 0 N Materials storage & spill cleanup Or Sand, dirt, and similar materials must be stored at least 10 feet (3 meters) from catch basins. All construction material must be covered with a tarp and contained with a perimeter control during wet weather or when rain is forecasted or when not actively being used within 14 days. L-1 Use (but don't overuse) reclaimed water for dust control as needed. j.- Sweep or vacuum streets and other paved areas daily. Do not wash down streets or work areas with water! Recycle all asphalt, concrete, and aggregate base material from demolition activities Comply with City of Dublin Ordinances for recycling construction materials, wood, gyp board, pipe, etc. P` Check dumpsters regularly for leaks and to snake sure they are not overfilled. Repair or replace leaking dumpsters promptly. L-' Cover all dumpsten with a tarp at the end of every work day ar during wet weather. E 1azai-dt+u� maicriak managemoit P, Label all 1azardous materials and Hazardous wastes (such as pesticides, paints, thinners, solvents, fuel, oil, and antifreeze) in accordance with city, county, state, and federal regulations. joor Store hazardous materials and wastes in water tight containers, store in appropriate secondary containment, and cover them at the end of every work day or during wet weather or when rain is forecasted. +.0 Follow manufacturer's application instructions for hazardous materials and be careful not to use more than necessary. Do not apply chemicals outdoors when rain is forecasted within 24 hours. &01 Be stare to arrange for appropriate disposal of all hazardous wastes. ko- Keep a stockpile of spill cleanup materials (rags, absorbents, etc, ) available at the construction site at all times. Pol When spills or leaks occur, contain thein immediately and be particularly careful to prevent leaks and spills from reaching the gutter, street, or storm drain. Never wash spilled material into a gutter, street, storm drain, or creek! Dispose of all containment and cleanup materials properly. Report any hazardous materials spills immediately! Dia1911 i c}n%mtctumn rtlirancoc ; a0ld i'V611101CI is Establish and maintain effective perimeter controls and stabilize all construction entrances and exits to sufficiently control erosion and sediment discharges froth site and tracking off site. rr Sweep or vacuum any street tracking immediately and secure sediment source to prevent further tracking. Clean Bay Blue Print Make sure U crews and subs do the job+ ��i-i ht! Runoff from streets and other paved areas is a major source of pollution and damage to creeks and the San Francisco Bay. Construction activities can directly affect the health of creeks and the Bay unless contractors and crews plan ahead to keep dirt, debris, and other construction waste away from storm drains and local creeks. Following these guidelines and the project specifications will ensure your compliance with City of Dublin requirements. Vehicle and equipment maintenance & cleaning re Inspect vehicles and equipment for leaks frequently. Use drip pans to catch leaks until repairs are made, repair leaks promptly. k-0 Fuel and maintain vehicles on site only in a bermed area or over a drip pan that is big enough to prevent runoff. i- if you must clean vehicles or equipment on site, clean with water only in a bermed area that will not allow rinse water to run into gutters, streets, storm drains, or creeks. &-o Do not clean vehicles or equipment on -site using soaps, solvents, degreasers, steamcleaning equipment, etc. Earthwork & contaminated coils josr Keep excavated soil on the site where it will not collect in the street, P0 Transfer to dump trucks should take place on the site, not in the street. t- Use fiber rally, silt fences, or outer control measures to minimize the flow of silt off the site. ,s Earth moving activities are only allowed during dry weather by permit and as approved by the City of Dublin inspector in the Field_ iw Mature vegetation is the best form of erosion control. Minimize disturbance to existing vegetation whenever passible. Po If you disturb a slope during construction, prevent erosion by securing the soil with erosion control fabric, or seed with fast- growing grasses as soon as possible. Place fiber rolls down -slope until soil is secure. rr If you suspect contamination (from site history, discoloration, odor. texture, abandoned underground tanks or pipes, or buried debris). call the Engineer for lieip in determining ghat should be clone, and manage disposal ofentaminated soil according to their instructions. Ike waterin g operations ow Effectively manage all run-on, all runoff with in the site, and all runoff that discharges farom the site. 'Run-on from off site shall be directed away from all disturbed areas or shall collectively be in compliance, j-0 Reuse water for dust control, irrigation, or another on -site purpose to the greatest extent possible. rf Be sure to noti fy and obtain approval from the Engineer before discharging water to a street, utter, or storur drain. Filtration or diversion through a bas4 tank, or sediment trap may be required. t.- In areas of known contamination, testing is required prior to reuse or discharge of groundwater, Consult with the Engineer to determine what testing is required and how to interpret results. Contaminated groundwater crust be treated or hauled off -site for proper disposal. Saw cutting v Always completely cover and barricade storm drain inlets when saw cutting. Use plastic sheeting (Visqueen) to keep slurry out of [lie storm drain system. ;-1 Shovel, absorb, or vacuum saw -cut slurry and pick up all waste as soon as you are finished in one location or at the end of each work day (whichever is sooner!). w if saw cut sherry enters a catch basin, clean it up immediately. �'avin('rlasplia t xvor W Always cover storm drain inlets and manholes when paving or applying seal coat, tack coat, slurry seal, or fog seal. &oo Protect gutters, ditches, and drainage courses with sand/gravel bags, or earthen berms. P0 Do not sweep or wash down excess sand from sand sealing into gutters, storm drains, or creeks. Collect sand and return it to the stockpile, or dispose of it as trash. x-ol Do .not use water to wash down fresh asphalt concrete pavement. Storin drain polluters may be liable for fines of S 10,000 car more per clay! Concrete, grout, and mortar storage & waste disposal ,� Store concrete, grout, and mortar tinder cover, on pallets, and away from drainage areas. These materials must never reach a stonn drain. i-all Wash out concrete equipment/trucks off site or into contained washout areas, that will not allow discharge of wash water onto the underlying soil or onto the surrounding areas. s-0 Collect the wash water from washing exposed aggregate concrete and remove it for appropriate disposal off site. Painting t-1 Never rinse paint brushes or materials in a gutter or street! ro' Paint out excess water -based paint before rinsing brushes, rollers, or containers in a Sink_ r,oll Paint out excess oil -based paint before cleaning brushes in thinner, Filter paint thinners and solvents for reuse whenever possible_ Dispose of oil -based paint sludge and unusable thinner as hazardous waste. Landscape Materials v Contain, cover, and stone on pallets all stockpiled landscape materials (mulch, compost, fertilizers, etc.) during wet weather or when rain is forecasted or when not actively being used within 14 days, P, Discontinue the application of any erodible landscape material within 2 days of forecasted rain and during wet weather. For references and irnore detailed information: www, c I eanwaterprograin.org www.cabraphandbooks.com z O w z 0 Ln w CO E co 0 U ^ U op T -L� + N i R �/ ' N N V � _3: 0 a N+ UJ0 - Ln 0Ln �M M ru U Q U 0 0 U > o Ln N J Q Z U O U_ J U z Z) 0 O w J ce m V JJ z O__ �Jor-, O co O ` y I W LL � Q O O oC z Q z UJ U J U °° Z_ J m ZD 0 DATE NOVEMBER, 2019 SCALE AS SHOWN DESIGNER zS DRAFTER STAFF JOB NO. Al 8645 SHEET C8 OF 10 Packet Pg. 75 5.1.b SOURCE CONTROL & SITE DESIGN MEASURES • MINIMIZE LAND DISTURBANCE • MINIMIZE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE • PRESERVE OPEN SPACE SOURCE CON TROL: • STORM DRAIN LABELING • BENEFICIAL LANDSCAPING (MINIMIZES IRRIGATION, RUNOFF, PEST/C/DES AND FERTILIZERS; PROMOTES TREATMENT) STORMWATER CONTROL NOTES 1. POTENT/AL POLLUTANTS INCLUDE MOTOR VEHICLE LUBRICANTS, COOLANTS, DISC BRAKE DUST LITTER AND DEBRIS. POLLUTANT SOURCE AREAS INCLUDE THE ASPHALT CONCRETE PARKING LOT AND DRIVE AISLES, THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING, AND THE SITE STORM DRAIN INLETS. ALL INLETS WILL BE MARKED "NO DUMPING - DRAINS TO BAY". THE PARKING LOT SHALL BE SWEPT REGULARLY TO PREVENT THE ACCUMULATION OF LITTER AND DEBRIS. 2 BIOTREATMENT S/Z/NG /S BASED ON THE FLOW BASED CALCULATIONS METHOD (SIMPLIFIED BIO-RETENTION SIZING CALCULATIONS Area No. Area (SF) Area (AC) Pervious (SF) Pervious (AC) Imperv. (SF) Imperv. (AC) Treatment Area* (SF) Treatment Provided (SF) Sizing Ratio (%) Type of Planter DMA 1 4,082 0.09 120 0.00 3,842 0.09 3,854 120 3.1% Bio-Retention Planter DMA 2 13,398 0.31 578 0.01 12,242 0.28 12,300 578 4.7% Bio-Retention Planter DMA 3 2,688 0.06 105 0.00 2,478 0.06 2,489 105 4.2% Bio-Retention Planter DMA 4 2,363 0.05 92 0.00 2,179 0.05 2,188 92 4.2% Bio-Retention Planter DMA 5 17,042 0.39 1,246 0.03 15,183 0.35 15,308 613 4.0% Bio-Retention Planter DMA 6 2,357 0.05 95 0.00 2,167 0.05 2,177 95 4.4% Bio-Retention Planter DMA 7 2,766 0.06 117 0.00 2,532 0.06 2,544 117 4.6% Bio-Retention Planter DMA 8 3,066 0.07 117 0.00 2,832 0.07 2,844 117 4.1% Bio-Retention Planter DMA 9 10,152 0.23 1,059 0.02 8,771 0.20 8,877 322 3.6% Bio-Retention Planter DMA 10 11,362 0.26 11,362 0.26 0 0.00 N/A N/A N/A Self Treating DMA 11 31,463 1 0.72 1 6,122 0.14 24,251 1 0.56 1 24,863 1 1,089 1 4.4% Bio-Retention Planter UNTREATED 12,129 0.28 2,717 0.06 9,413 0.22 9,684 0 0.0% In -Lieu Treatment OFFSITE 1,590 1 0.04 0 0.00 1,590 0.04 N/A N/A N/A N/A SIZING METHOD) PER THE ALAMEDA COUNTY CLEANWA TER PROGRAM. FINAL SIZING MA Y Tota I s 114,457 2.6 23,730 0.54 87,479 2.01 87,126 3,248 BE BASED ON ETHER THE FLOW BASED OR COMB/NAT/ON FLOW/VOLUME BASED METHOD. * Total Treatment Area is equal to Impervious Area +0.10 * Landscape Area. J. A THIRD PARTY INSPECTION OF THE B/ORETENT/ON PONDS WILL BE REQUIRED DURING INSTALLATION AND PR/OR TO OCCUPANCY. CONTACT THIRD PARTY INSPECTOR PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF B/ORETENTION SOIL. 4. TRASH CAPTURE MEASURES TO BE INSTALLED IN STORM DRAIN CATCH BASINS PER PROVISION C.10 OF THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD'S MUNICIPAL REGIONAL PERMIT i MH SSE O 366.3 / 2"-3" MULCH LAYER.• SHREDDED HARDWOOD OR SOFTWOOD OR COMPOST (VAR/ES) POND/NG VAR/ES SEE PLANS FOR 6" MIN TOP OF INLET ELEVA 110N �12" MAX VARIES 2" MIN. A O� NA T/VE SOIL NO COMPACTION 6"MIN. 4" PERFORATED PIPE ' I I -�- I ----1- pX. 3.t M -18" 810- TREATMENT SOIL SEE BIOTREA TMENT SOIL M/X PER BASMAA MRP SOIL SPECIFICATION. • 60-659 LOAMY SAND + 35-409 COMPOST OR 309 LOAMY SAND + 309 COURSE SAND + 409 COMPOST TYPICAL TREATMENT PLANTER SECTION NOT TO SCALE WASHED DRAIN ROCK (0.5 - 1.5 INCH DIAMETER). 267 0 10 20 40 60 Scale 1 " = 20' LEG EN D ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ TRIBUTARY AREA LIMITS BIOTREATMENT AREA W W W W LANDSCAPE AREA PERVIOUS PAVEMENT (FIRE TRUCK WEIGHT RATED) EXISTING AC TREATED IN -LIEU UNTREATED IMPERVIOUS AREA UNTREATED LANDSCAPE AREA FLOW ARROW DMA DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA TCM TREATMENT CONTROL MEASURE SDJB o 0 RE 361.30 ^ o0 lE 355.93 Z o 111 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• .••••••••••••••••,••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• / ••� / •••�� I / .1••!••101 o••••••10 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••�I••••••••••••••••••••••••••••11MIN 11NO•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••mmmazo•••••••••• .y • • •••• % ��♦1���•il��••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ,/% ` ��•••�360.72 RE 0 WE El RE 360. 10 EEE Ell 'W" NONNI P, wilp FL J60.20 IE J55.97 IRON TCM 1 Rr_ ./'/ DOW' U. ' ' c / I 1 V! RWL IE54.021 ' x x ,�IL RE 363.00 1 II lE 354.22 354.02 6" FL 362.50 R 00 F RWL IE 356.73 N SDCB - I 10 6 SD 1 1 RE 362.03 DOWNSPOUT 1 lE 359.47 1 1 Z S=0.0200 1 FL 361.53 TC_ 2 '� ,' 4 �6"SD S=0.0200 1 DMA 9 1 SDJB IE 357.45 BUBBLER 1 " 1 / 14 -6 SD 1 DMA 8 RE 362.40 20 -6 SD# ��- RE 363.20 BUBBLER FL 362.50 1 1 1 /E 357.25 1 S=0.0100 T S=0.0200 IE 359.38 6" 1 1 1 DMA 7 _ RE 362.23 x 1 - o o FL 361.53 RWL 1 1 IE 359.63 D M A 1 1 cn o RWL " / + + 1 / `� IE 355.00 1 /E 354.72 6 / 23-6"SD S=0.0073 1 1 1 h lol' -TCM 8 w 1 N 1 DMA 9 ' �SDJB - 1 SDJB " ---- - S=0.0100 RE 366.67 � 0 1 RE 363.20 - 1 20'_ 6 SD � SDCB ,' lE 359.46 1 _ _ 1 /E 357.50 1 � x ' RE J62.79 FL J62.29 I, II 24�6'SDS-0.0069 ---- ---�_�-----� IEJ57.70 - 1---�•---- ---- TCM 7 \ RWL ❑ ❑ 1 ❑ 1 _ RWL W � - IE 355.25 �/a� Llll /111 ,359.63 � 1 1 - _ BUBBLER RE 362.99 *lir ' ' ' ' o "SD S=O.0069 1 1 " FL 362.29 ' / /' o 10 "6 SD - xk / , ', %;'' ; ;,',� i ' ,,�;�, , / I 1 DMA 6 1 S=0.0200 - " BU BL R 1 /E 355.06 6 �" /' RE 3F 3.30 DMA 2 1 IE 554J 6 1 1 DMA 9 1 JI El1 0 ROOF I / /',� �----------------� N T DOWNSPOUT ' 359.42 8"�E 1� RN2 i IE 356.78 °p 5-6 SD I' S=0.0200 BUBBLER ' RE 364.20 FL 363.50� ' SDCB x IE 356.68 6" EXISTING OFFICE BULDIN-G- _ _ _ _ _ ,'; i ❑ DMA 5 FL 36RE 364.00 ----------F-- 3.50 v 1 ' /' /' IE 359.24 I w I SDMH I R 366.88 i N6"SD S=0.005 /' /' /E 35; .21 i R ' '' i TCM 5 lE 359.37 - ------------- �- 1 , , , , o <, - � DMA 4 W . . . DMA 3 o �r� RWL BUBBLER •� i w RE 363.30 °0 W t W IE 357.04 W W FL J62.60 ao / W x 1 SnCR w ( �o lE 359.59 6" x � xxl x x BUBBLER iRE364.67 /"do 2 010 w - x x x FL 363.97 ° W W r� o Xx + x * TCM 3 1 /E 356.97 6" SDCB ��•-�� 48;.6 "SO _ N CA � E 36 �6"SD --- RE 362.45 � SDCB S_0. TCM 11 5=0. °030 FL 361.95 010p 1 SDCB RE 364.73 - SDCB IE 357.46 - - EIENEI RE 364.47 IE 360.32 RE 363.10 FL 363.97 wW w W W SDJB FL 36260 v lE 360.00 Q r RE 364.17 /E 357.35 IE359.84 DMA 11 W y � W w 25 N6"SD W SDCB S=0.0100 W RE 364.00 Wx W FL 363.50 lE 359.15 N6"SD x �xSX0.01 7-00 5 R S S20.0200 BUBBLER S=0.0100 RE 36 W * FL 3.50 RIB 356.45 6" 0�00 IE 35 5�0 3-6"SD 6"S° S=0.0200 g1'' DMA 5 TCM 4 1 00 SDJB RE 365.13 IE 359.84 SDCO lE 358.9 8 W ♦ RE 58. J6 ♦ lE 38.36 '� TCM 6 ♦ S%0 0�00 ♦ W � � L 5 W W SDJB RE 365.30 lE 358.93 '"i ' Refer to Sheet I for limit of work for the hotel I � I z O w ccf NEEMEN MENNEN ffizzmam °0 E � o U ? _ U .271 N i N � O a LL W0 0 L 0 Ln UQ 6 U a) - Uj 0 0 > o Ln N J Q oC z Vo Q J J a J u J � ZD C) O z > � J V U op z_ > J 'L J or-e QC Q o coO L.LJ Q � CY O oC O oC LU Lll (I. Q z Q U_ m O ZD c Z J m 0 DATE NOVEMBER, 2019 SCALE AS SHOWN DESIGNER zS DRAFTER STAFF JOB NO. Al 8645 SHEET C9 OF 10 l Packet Pg. 76 5.1.b LAINDE-) O G1 L R O Y T-'HrATrR r0 IINr r\Pi\J; J% 1J 1 0 0- 02 BJ J 2 0 15 30 60 90 Ilm Scale 1 " = JO' mmwe• 8.00 24.00 PUMPER FIRE TRUCK FEET WIDTH :8.50 TRACK :8.50 LOCK TO LOCK TIME :6.0 STEERING ANGLE :37.8 I I � I I � I � I I r AR l=) O \jVLJJ\J r I r��J�J; J% JJ J �JJJJ�JJJ� I - -J L �o 0 — — �-7 r_ I I L _ I — I j tLl j� "- 1 t� C) i 1 � 9 z O w ce mmomom MENNEN z O w ce 00 E 00o n U -17 00 Lf) L � N .L i N ry O \V^ d N� IL w0 _Lr) oLr) r� ro ua L U 1) Q O O u CC O Lr) > N J V / z Z U) U LL J J u a z � a o o > z m u z L-LJCeoc °�°w O 0 � O o poo Lr) CL a z a J U W Co ZD O oc z J m I) DATE NOVEMBER, 2019 SCALE AS SHOWN DESIGNER zS DRAFTER STAFF JOB NO. A1864S SHEET 10 OF 10 I Packet Pg. 77 1 a WEB iA, W� r • + IY1r I I r. ,.7 i i *' Landscape Notes 1 y 1. Tree species shall be selected which minimize lifting of sidewalks or pavement. Trees shall be planted within root barriers and provided with proper deep watering irrigation to assure deep root systems and a minimum of lifting of sidewalks and ,i Legend r,V pavement 2. Landscape buffers are provided in front of solid walls. t I Acer rubrum 'Armstrong' 0 Planting Area 3. Landscaping including vines and shrubs will be provided around the trash existing (Armstrong Maple) enclosure. Bio-Treatment Area 4. Utilities will be screened by walls, fencing, enclosures or landscape. op, Pistachia chinensis 'Keith Davey' 5. All landscape improvements proposed are privately owned. (Keith Davey Chinese Pistache) 6. No fence, wall, hedge, sign or other structure, shrubbery, mounds of earth, or other W_ visual obstruction over 30 inches in height above the nearest street curb elevation r will be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow within Traffic Visibility Areas. Existing Trees To Remain Trees within Traffic 'Visibility Areas will be trimmed (to the trunk) to maintain a line at least 6 feet above the level of the intersection. Y -- 7. Trees will not be planted within 15 of a street light or within 5 of a hydrant a 8. All planted areas are to be top -dressed with 3• organic mulch. V. All planted areas will be irrigated by a state-of-the-art automatic irrigation systems r with a dedicated water service connection and with 'smart' weather -based controls in conformance with state and local water -efficient landscape regulations. _ 10. No new fencing is proposed. f - r r — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -.— — — — — — — — — — y — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ r- -- -- Entry Drive - -- -- ------ ------ -- -- -- -- � - - -- -- -- -- Entry Drive - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- . I Property line Property line 11ZShort-term bike 1 j r r � I I r - o 1 m I ' I Ex street light \ I _,_� UCUCUCUC Property line 41 parking (10) . I -" --- ---- ----- ---__._----- - - - - ------------------------- BI I v o � o 0 ® ® � , - - - — CocnerB ---- ❑ I r I I Z1L Bio ❑ PA Ir I u I I Parking Ed n ® ' I +19 Hotel Lobby \ l I 1,2 - I Entrance 0 ® Bio ' Property line rty line c I r I BIo - -- ----------- Ex perimeter / -a- El I fence to remain entry_ I I / 1 2 Level Parking i y A Structure and 4 Story Hotel Above - ❑ 1 I U A (E) Building I ° I U ['f 777 I (E) Building I PA Tre sn Landscaping to screen Enci re trash enclosure 0 ianftv 000, - - - o b /lb Abo Ebb_ ' Drainage ' • Q nba Abo ^bO C «r Landscaping part of a Ex. street light ~ - _ hb� "b� /1b� Abe Parking - ° 'y� separate SDR /rb� /IbO nbo Ex. trash ' � .. . Property line enclosure >F , San R _ _ Landscaping to screen a ni o n trash enclosure #v Ct Property line o S Ex. street light an Ramon ° a d Na i+ r 'I •a. 4ulf* a� y { r A# -10 :r 0 10 20 30 60 91 Scale: 1° = 30'-0° cZarr 580 . 5.1.b SMITH+SMITI- P: (415) 543-0332 1501 North Point Street F: (415) 543-9740 San Francisco CA 9412 www.srnith2.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS W O U-) 2i �Loo OG � � c� W CM J J O - U `�I' w � C1 U W zMo N LU 00 —_ Qz� J_ C CD CV tiU) aJ 11 /22/2019 PRELIMINARY DESIGN Z x M Q a .o a c a 0 a L x LU E s J a Z Zi 06 0 Z 0 Q I.L Q Z z Q� U) C PROJECT NUMBER: 18 048 Landscape Plan Lml Packet Pg. 78 5.1.b SMITH+SMITF- P: (415) 543-0332 1501 North Point Street F: (415) 543-9740 San Francisco CA 9412 www.smith2.com Spun Plant List VJ +J S: 0) 1- O a� Cy) w U) Z3 O U c J p U 0 fn D L 1 Botanical name COMMOn name Ti0-,eE,h,S Acer rubrum 'Armstrong' Armstrong Maple 12' 26 D M S Ih rya bE.1 Arctostaphylos 'Sunset' Sunset Manzanita 4' 4.' E L Correa pulchella Australian Fuchsia 4' 2' E L Rosa x ftaschnee' Flower Carpet white Groundcover Rose 3' 2' D M Rosa x 'Radrazz" Knock Out(E) Shrub Rose 3' 4.1 D M Trachelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine 5' 2' E M Westringia fruticosa Coast Rosemary 6' 12' E L GraSOSEN)S/ Se!d( es / Rushes Calamagrostis 'Karl Foerster' Karl Fo�erster Feather Reed Grass 1' 3' E M Carex tumulicola Berkeley Sedge 2' 1' E L Festucai idahoensis Idaho Blue Fescue 2' 1' E 1VL Festuca californica California Fescue 3' 2' E L Festuca mairei Atlas Festuca 2' 2' E L Liriope muscari Big Blue Lily Turf 15" 15" E M Liriope spicata Lily Turf 18" 15" E M Lornandra 'Platinum Beauty' Varigated Dwarf Mat Rush 2' 2' E L Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass 4' 4.' E L Ophiopogon japonicus MOndo Grass 15" 12" E M Pennisetum alopecuroides `Hameln' Dwarf Fountain Grass 2' 3' E L GrolandCOVE),),rs Myoporum parvifolium Myoporum 9' 61" E L Myoporum parvilolium 'Putah Creek' Putah Creek Creeping Myoporum 8' 1' E L Vines Ficus pumila Creeping Fig 3' 25' E M Parthenocissus tricuspidata Veitchii' Boston Ivy 20' 30' D L P e., r r e n i a Is Achillea mi11(:.1f61hfm Common Yarrow 3' 3' E L Pelargonium peltatum Ivy Geranium 2' 1' E L B ii o-TrE), at,m e. nt Chondropetalum tectorum Cape Rush 2' Z. E M Juncus ,patens Spireadling Rush 2' 2' E L * WUCOLS (Water Use Classification of Landscape Species) is a guide to estimating irrigation water needs of landscape plantings in California by the Unlversl'ty of California Cooperative Extension and the California Department of Water Resources. Trash Receptacle Note: Public recycling collection containers will be installed per Dublin Municipal Code 7.98.120. �7 Acer rubrum `Armstrong;' Armstrong Maple Bike Rack Integrate Color Concrete LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS W oU-)� 0 w c� J J O J U w ® N U ti U 0 0 ~ w cn W zMo ® LU � wCC)AM �_ 0 z ®® J Q Uj li N Ui ti U) Q J m e ®® 11 /22/2019 PRELIMINARY DESIGN G J an Z J m PROJECT NUMBER: 18 048 Landscape Furnishings, Plant Legend and Imag( 0 T E U c a. L a. E a 0 a x W N C a Lm2 Packet Pg. 79 5.1.b Sun Plant List I SMITH+SMITE P: (415) 543-0332 1501 North Point Street F: (415) 543-9740 San Francisco CA 9412 www.smith2.com r . _ - - � � a. - \• ,�� 714 r • +•� re;.3 C" \r„-�1,;., �T� :''�'' 'e 1 �•`x •�- _ ,rWNWM-;�-' �•. ~ - r,. •4 ,� ; �. }d v ■ : -,.,- -, ._ i,, `.r �- 1: S!'. i. _ �:. '' F ! / ram:. �. - .,M1 ry• tt •_ ` R: ,,,v �. .. - .-. 41 ,;i %lam .�.�.`,,�[ t. -� ...�; '. (j. 1� � 1 � J• �.� � f - .-. fA:• _____ , • r .. a..r :r •-i.,.. ;, _.:',. -- ee ;. __ ... .- ,.1W s5il, r .''- '_^ .• ,';,a- _ -r 'a` _ - - .'V'-T-• A� S•P.-, - f, '"+E I i _ --__ - - -•ems,. - • - •, �.Y 1 V t y 1. • }, .y� ti1•r a ' , QI .:,;, ..fit`-.� ^�+- .r - '�.t. '�,, � t , ;;�'. ,w,. i , � • ..i:/ 1 �" ,F 4,,7. ."' ".. r .;4 - - 4 1 - •'�. sw/ •,.y _ . �^ 1 `` r .\ • . .l - _ '1 .f.�"'. 40 yy - +v- � �:A ��IF;- ��' r t !�'t y � :r! ♦ Y'- -..t- 1•` .: - z ��- - _ � _ k � �a ,ari.�•i��'�>i• K� �?•y,,,:.t' :. �s. l;h - - .. - �•�t r•W � (���+, 4' t' � , iyj�:a' _ - .� �" ■ _ — —_ a L` ; 1 _ \; g rr .. A �r ♦. do y� .-tlri. - �' fir' 1 1y�.� I 9 '. f..s a�, 1 � s � � __ `%1. r.,c.. L{ ,d!. a. A!a •ic'e:. '�.t } �;.� ,t' - f '<s �:'k- --�.. �' '�. y � `t ".r i7/ i �.' •: �,• - ^ __ ■ :... .._ yl'a.z,. Y: ,tic, ', . ,... .,:,. �.. .: +o-.. ''�'` .f .•' - 'i •�I. - Jfi :.i 1 ,T ,. .,.• f .�r '=vr. T.■x �. y,k•a YA' -„•.. a !y+;�„et: .:' -. r .'ec.�4�= _•f^� .7ia ;, •!'S �- ,R' i 1 •• f���. ..; .W.� �l• Y. _ -No-.,d_ �• 1 ?,; 7.4 �'•'-• r '.� '• - -_ a r do W • 1 _ , l •/, l yv � Il�r • I r I/ ; r , r - --_ .yam= �- �1 :/ •. .. - -- -. I S \ � �"`w� ��.,� ''' •�., 1 1•'. >��/ - !�``?� 'Y `* � I, a. '�_ �� '&.- a �`i�r j.? a�,�:.;.�\ �,! .?i`.1 t'r_g t',, "". -. - ._ _ l / i t � L. g�`4 I t ,♦ "�_. �' "�'. .. ,'1�e ,��/I7 - ,,1 :a tea : s^� , „r �t• ,,r� ,T' , .�/ - • y r 1 i .r i / tea• i ff 'l r V' Jr� AV e - 3 l - t I 4 1 � . I. k A 1 •:Q . r xr � g : i'� •,. a � 7 _t +,�- ♦ !/ �•�� ✓ 'i. - -t,, ,/S fir., +y,, T r� -its a � MKAU / �< �\' ."«,I1N ICY J. ¢�,f• � ,. _ � ' .. /., RN ` f 67, +.- f,t • 1 't,` ,,'. i/�y -` ..�. vld -i/�, ji/F� if,lw,. sMNK d ✓0.." S W _ Owl-/ .,f�_ . ��►� 'ate -- ' \ . ^•�„� _ �.: w{I] r+,t+i -. - POW r N �/... "- - ,�, 1 W', si if ` -=Qst• .f'Y- I �{ '+� ,I1+ 1 t ,i/ r '4`�. / j, ,�,�,.,, v.. >rf.•! •,L. 'y .�_ ►-'.C= !• s'► .b. ,4'l+, '.i.1. . Aa -'i r I I N- \ ��� \� �'.' ' :i•,.�1 i* g"``�. -_ .,`a, IkY. '1"�'1}p- 1 - Via"-1. '� „7�'1 .� / w` �t _~- yi:..11 r•.'� v / f;/t �'� �1 it Wx, y' I,.}'�,.,A,:v i�`+ +•ti '+•',1•'U ♦ - ./. r. � � f . • \ '.'Iv. �7r1 �� •�"• _ -.� �I�i•T 'y�,. ,\,, u,r9 .:fA ..I iQ :T ,�..., � � •'1�... � '.r _ ?• / I 'y ' �� `` ♦, ��'�,� � � ilr _ .+ -��1: a� }� � � � `13'� �,•. v'. �.=i ,r�. -,� .�', I��.. r� v , ` iw l f'r _ �. ,� �fr � /1 �/,II � �. ,,� \ 1 \. r�t�., r ",.'i-��,'^� ';� c' i.. .•..•,R'Y �,'� ' I��i�b +e:. �'Ar I �, `�1 Fif' i "'1 �1 �- _ / 4 g � -� 1\\"0.. � a<'G�' -'_✓ � 1 •'1�� � � ♦ $/i:�A�i� >,L ,: .1 �ya 1�. � � •'�I°i S� � '■t� +�}� !_ y� + Ir SO i Iml LAO= W4 72A I ff�", } r �+ Y ,l ! /„i 11 ��• �' a !► ' � -1't A I ' ':I. �i 1. Lomandra 'Platinum Beauty' Muhlenbergia rigens Festuca californica Pennisetum alopecuroides 'Hameln' Liriope spicata Liriope muscari Festuca mairei O� Varigated Dwarf Mat Rush Deer Grass California Fescue Dwarf Fountain Grass Lily Turf Big Blue Lily Turf Atlas Festuca Q Z O Groundcovers Vines Bio-Treatment . { `�,' - / y \I /� � .1� , `oe'rx - l .+wry. � y, � - A. S - t ��a . I�` r ' �•r'� .� _ +� � t�s�'' t ` :y;�l : �I ar ., �+ �' 7 , r.- ► � 1 � � I 1 , i5, �> i " �M:' - � -- . -� � �, I � � I � 1�I,� ' :INN ! „f,I,� @ - - - i� � _,Y�— , ... *ILL + � ,11. - ♦ 1, k _ � VI'L'i, �'5+.,`, \ �: 1, may'! �Lj:c� �i•���e 1 d,. \N t,.< l' :.FI • - � .,,.> � Vx, , \ `t �.'V`:sf: . `•., :I. � / �y� " �' \,r• I t a - I I i .1 i _� 1 , �.` vRN J. tCn C: J All A tl\ { I I I' \ j II \ y I l , Y/q - l _ _ ✓' `L. .. �.:" +g � d 1�11I ,: �. , , : ., i, i .i '�. .,.� ': �. �: .,\• ,.\F ,:`4, YI di', ,( r ✓ A 1 ti ti *.,A1 I � { , . „1 ft , r. ♦ � " .-a -!'l 1�. a. _ . � \I � I �'A'� �IIdk� 1'I1 I,irll'� r Itl�"� � R� U�• - . � �x ., 1. 'i •'. r ,Y" _ •-''►. ��:d. �1.4etF'� f( I i 'I r' v. PROJECT NUMBER: 18 048 .1► '- / ✓- � „� •"-- IF b,l ,t \\\':\''11'pIV iI kyr:! 0p1, �Ii JYAII /.Y �r''C 4. _: I �1 I' . ,{ ,, . � r I � � I �� �� Itl , i� ,I r �A► ; s/,,'r1'li Ira Plant ImagespSu ", -.✓ate Y / � � _. - �_--'��1� 1 '� "-- a - ... ��� � 7 .,. '���` y .j✓V - "_ _ Trachelospermum jasminoides Myoporum parvifolium 'Putah Creek' Ficus pumila Parthenocissus tricuspidata Juncus patens Chondropetalum tectorum Lm3 Star Jasmine Putah Creek Creeping Myoporum Creeping Fig Bonton Ivy Spreading Rush Cape Rush Packet Pg, 80 5.1.b E ShrubsEspaliers SMITH+SMIT P: (415) 543-0332 1501 North Point Street F: (415) 543-9740 San -. Francisco CA 9412 wwwsmith2.com Shade Plant List0, . '. y LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS . 9 r LU Wes` ��U - Q% OJP- r r- },- a w cn LU U s< co 0 y a = Q Z Botanical name Common name r }r s. CLO V !'� w ti Shrubs ,: v �< . 1 Q WIT Aucuba japonica 'Variegate' Gold Dust Plant 5' 6' E M Camellia japonica Japanese Camellia 3' 6' E M Aucuba japonica 'Variegata' Camellia japonica Camellia sasanqua 'Setsugekka' Camellia japonica 'Finlandia' Groundcovers Gold Dust Plant Japanese Camellia Setsugekka Camellia Camellia - Aspidistra elatior Cast Iron Plant 3' 2' E L Bergenia cordifolia Tubby Andrews Elephants Ears 1 1 E M Groundcovers ®® Bergenia cordifolia 'Winterglut' Winterglow Bergenia 2' 1' E M Carex oshimensis 'Everest' Everest Variegated Sedge 2' 15" E M Heuchera x 'Santa Ana Cardinal' Santa Ana Cardinal Coral Bells 2' 3' E M —Marie Crawford' Britt -Marie Crawford LiulariaLigularia dentate 'Britt 21 3I k D H�`�` Ligularia tussilaginea variegate Varigated Ligularia 1' 1' D H Liriope muscari Big Blue Lily Turf 15 15 E M -tea 1�1`��i��i �►fJQa; _ i �'������'" v q" 11/22/2019 � Ferns - F =--:,..�; PRELIMINARY DESIGN Alsophila australis Australian Tree Fern 20' 10, E M Asparagus densiflorus Meyers Myers Asparagus 31 21 E M Dicksonia antarctica Tasmanian Tree Fern 12 15 E H Polystichum polyblepharum Tassel Fern 21 21 E M Espaliers Aspidistra elatior Bergenia cordifolia 'Tubby Andrews' Bergenia cordifolia 'Winterglut' Carex oshimensis'Everest" Camellia sasanqua 'Setsugekka' Setsugekka Camellia 8' 8' E M Cast Iron Plant Elephant's Ears Winterglow Bergenia Everest Variegated Sedge Camellia japonica 'Finlandia' Camellia 8' 8' E M '�- ��►- --�k: ' -- �x�a Bio-Treatment / / G 7 I I arx3. y Mahonia eur bracteata Soft Caress Soft Caress Mahonia 3 3 E M Y Mahonia aquifolium Holly -Leaved Barberry 2' 3' E M b * WUCOLS Water Use Classification of Landscape Species) is a guide to estimating Irrigation water needs of i p p � g g g landscape plantings in California by the University of California Cooperative Extension and the California Department of Water Resources. - WKA Heuchera x 'Santa Ana Cardinal' Ligularia dentate "Britt -Marie" Ligularia tussilaginea variegate Liriope muscari Santa Ana Cardinal Coral Bells Britt -Marie Ligularia Varigated Ligularia Big Blue Lily Turf Q Bio-Treatment FernsZ 0 x Q W.. AAA30W. '000 t - . s� _ SNOW . 3, Fmk. .. • . , r; C C _ . �•�'�.` r � � � Yam 1 *�r * � _ _ '.. ■'! " .■y `, _ r 'V r .;� �'l} ~iat ` rr' .,'� .,�* ti.�! PROJECT NUMBER 18048 .+ '' . f" _ 1. r7 , ( f "•.y.: yr.•~ . ..4r Plant Legendan Images -Shade - Mahonia eurybracteata 'Soft Caress' Mahonia aquifolium Dicksonia antarctica Alsophila australis Asparagus densiflorus 'Myers' polystichum polyblepharum Lm4 `Soft Caress' Mahonia Holly -Leaved Barberry Tasmanian Tree Fern Australian Tree Fern Foxtail Fern Tassel Fern Packet Pg. 81 5.1.c ADVANCED AM GROU MOBILITY GROUP Technical Memorandum Kameron Klotz To: Director of Investments & Acquisitions From: Christopher Thnay, PE, AICP & Rubicon Property Group Shruti Shrivastava 1840 San Miguel Drive, Suite 206 Address: Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Email: kameron(q_brubiconla.com Date: September 30, 2019 Subject: Parking Study for Mixed -Used Development in Dublin Introduction The purpose of the study is to conduct a parking demand estimate for the proposed mixed -use project being developed at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard as shown in Figure 1. The proposed project with three land use options includes a hotel, office, retail and restaurant. rs .-► �T ;� Schematic of the project site in aerial view is shown Figure 2. Project Area The project site is located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road. This site is approximately 0.5 miles (10- 1 2-minute walk) from West Dublin BART Station. AP-1-4 Transit Services �.- L '��s� a. ' M�. PIT 1 Route 30R transit service stop provided Figure 1: Project Vicinity by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) is located near the intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive as shown in Figure 3 which is approximately 0.4 miles (8- minute walk) from the project site. The 30R (Rapid) provides service every 15-minutes all day on weekdays to the following locations: East and West Dublin BART, Dublin Boulevard, Las Figure 2: Project Site Positas College, Portola Avenue, on Railroad Avenue adjacent to the Livermore Transit Center/ACE, and East Avenue. Additionally, Route 503 transit stops are present at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Donlon Way, Advanced Mobility Group 1 3003 Oak Road, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, Ca. 94596 www.amobility.com 1000010 Packet Pg. 82 5.1.c novnNceo AMGMOBILITY GROUP September 30, 2019 Kameron Klotz Page 2 of 17 approximately 0.1 miles (3-minute walk) from the project site. There are several commercial and retail land uses within the vicinity of the project. San Ramon Road connects to Interstate 1-580 south of Dublin Boulevard and the project area. Project Options Three land use options or phasing are proposed for the project and are summarized below and shown in Table 1. The purpose of the land use options are as follows: • Option 1 is the proposed project as submitted in the two SDRs. • Option 2 removes the Hooter's building and associated parking field. The idea here is that if the office building and the hotel provide enough Alin o Senior Ctr ;3 ■ • Dublin Place �' Plaza o ■ Dublin o Civic V+ m & Lib West Dublin PleasantonPAPT parking to satisfy those two uses, then the Figure 3: Bus Route 3011 Stop Locations development of the Hooter's portion would not be required to consider shared parking. • Option 3 is the pre -application project with the demolition of Hooter's and addition of pads totaling 8,000 square feet building on the site. Table 1: Proposed Land Use Options Option 1 Land Use Quantity (so ITE 1 Retail 5,000 ITE 850 2 Restaurant 4,000 ITE 932 3 Fitness 5,000 ITE 492 4 Restaurant 5,065 ITE 932 5 Hotel -Business 138 (rm) ITE 312 6 Office 63,562 ITE 701 Total Parking Provided Option 2 Land Use Quantity (so ITE 1 Retail 5,000 ITE 850 2 Restaurant 4,000 ITE 932 3 Fitness 5,000 ITE 492 4 Hotel -Business 138 (rm) ITE 312 5 Office 63,562 ITE 701 Total Parking Provided - 80 Option 3 Land Use Quantity (so ITE 1 Retail 5,000 ITE 850 2 Restaurant 4,000 ITE 932 3 Fitness 5,000 ITE 492 4 Retail -pad 3,000 ITE 850 5 Restaurant -pad 2,500 ITE 932 6 Restaurant - pad BOH 2,500 ITE 932 7 Hotel -Business 138 (rm) ITE 312 8 Office 63,562 ITE 701 Total Parking Provided 360 Packet Pg. 83 5.1.c September 30, 2079 AMGADVANCED MOBIL17Y Kameron Klotz GROUP Page 3 of 1 1 Parking Spaces Required Per City of Dublin Municipal Code AMG estimated the number of parking spaces required for the proposed project per the City of Dublin's Municipal Code, Chapter 8.76 Off -Street Parking and Loading Regulations, Section 8.76.080 Parking Requirements by Use Type. Tables 2, 3 and 4 summarize the estimated parking spaces required under Options 1,2 and 3 of the proposed projects. Table 2: Parking Spaces Required per City Standards for Option 1 Project Data Estimated Parking Land Use Quantity Unit Retail 5,000 sf GFA 17 Restaurant 4,000 sf GFA 20 Fitness 5,000 sf GFA 33 Restaurant 5,065 sf GFA 25 Hotel -Business 138 rooms 165 Office 63,562 sf GFA 182 Total 1 442 Table 3: Parking Spaces Required per City Standards for Option 2 Project Data Estimated Parking Land Use Quantity Unit Retail 5,000 sf GFA 17 Restaurant 4,000 sf GFA 20 Fitness 5,000 sf GFA 33 Hotel -Business 138 rooms 165 Office 63,562 sf GFA 182 Total 417 (D r 0 2 2 E CU U U) a� c IL (D R t U) Packet Pg. 84 5.1.c AMG A001LITY M91LITY GROUP Table 4: Parking Spaces Required per City Standards for Option 3 2 3 4 5 0 7 0 Project Data Estimated Parking Land Use Quantity Unit Retail 5,000 sf GFA 17 Restaurant 4,000 sf GFA 20 Fitness 5,000 sf GFA 33 Retail -pad 3,000 sf GFA 10 Restaurant -pad 2,500 sf GFA 13 Restaurant - pad BOH 2,500 sf GFA 8 Hotel -Business 138 rooms 165 Office 63,562 sf GFA 182 Total 448 September 30, 2079 Kameron Klotz Page 4 of 1 1 Based on the results of the analysis, the number of parking spaces to be provided by the proposed mixed -use project does not meet the City requirements by 91 spaces under Option 1, 137 under Option 2, and 88 spaces under Option 3. ITE Parking Trip Generation Analysis and Methodology As a comparison, AMG utilized Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, 5r" Edition to evaluate if the parking demand created by the proposed hotel, office, retail and restaurant land uses would be met for the three land use options and parking -spaces provided by the options. The parking demand analysis evaluates the three land use options as shown in Table 1. ITE Average Parking Demand Rates The ITE Parking Generation Manual provides several statistical information including average, 33rd percentile, 85h percentile and standard deviation. Additional information provided include time of day peaking and place — urban vs. suburban. Many agencies use average parking demand rate as the likely peak parking demand for a land use. However, in some situations such as a large shopping center with large seasonal demand fluctuations (e.g. holiday season) use of average might not be appropriate. As recommended by the City,' AMG used 1 1 5% of ITE average rate — with additional 15 % being a safety factor against unexpected parking surges. ' July 76, 2079 comment by Amy Million on AMG July I Draft Report Packet Pg. 85 5.1.c September 30, 2019 AMGAnvAHceO MOBIL17Y Kameron Klotz GROUP Page 5 of 17 The parking rates and time of day (TOD) information for four land use categories from ITE Parking (5'" Edition) for the proposed mixed -use project were approved by staff2 before we proceed with this analysis. Tables 5, 6 and 7 summarize the average peak period parking demand generated under Options 1,2 and 3 scenarios for the proposed project. Table 5: ITE Parking Demand Summary for Option 1 (1 15% Average Peak Period Parking Demand) Project Data Weekday ITE Parking Weekday Estimated Land Use Quantity Unit Rate (X 1.15%) Parking Demand Retail 1 5000 sf GFA 3.37 17 (ITE Land Use 850) Restaurant 2 4,000 sf GFA 10.86 43 (ITE Land Use 932) Fitness 3 5,000 sf GFA 5.44 27 (ITE Land Use 492) Restaurant 4 5,065 sf GFA 10.86 55 (ITE Land Use 932) Hotel -Business 5 138 rooms 0.83 114 (ITE Land Use 312) 6 Office (ITE 710) 63,562 sf GFA 2.75 175 Note: 431 Hotel -Business (ITE Land Use 372) - occupied room rate used which is more conservative, 5th Edition Table 6: ITE Parking Demand Summary for (Average Peak Period Parking Demand) Project Data Weekday ITE Parking Weekday Estimated Land Use Quantity Unit Rate (X 1. I S%) Parking Demand Retail 1 5000 sf GFA 3.37 17 (ITE Land Use 850) Restaurant 2 4,000 sf GFA 10.86 43 (ITE Land Use 932) Fitness 3 5,000 sf GFA 5.44 27 (ITE Land Use 492) Hotel -Business 4 138 rooms 0.83 114 (ITE Land Use 312) 5 Office (ITE 710) 63,562 sf GFA 2.75 175 Note: 376 ITE, 5th Edition 2 August 8, 2019 email from Obaid Khan, City of Dublin Packet Pg. 86 5.1.c September 30, 2019 AMGADVANCED MOBIL17Y Kameron Klotz GROUP Page 6 of 17 Table 7: ITE Parking Demand Summary for Option 3 (Average Peak Period Parking Demand) Project Data Weekday ITE Parking Weekday Estimated Land Use Quantity Unit Rate (X 1.15%) Parking Demand Retail 1 5000 sf GFA 3.37 17 (ITE Land Use 850) Restaurant 2 4,000 sf GFA 10.86 43 (ITE Land Use 932) Fitness 3 5,000 sf GFA 5.44 27 (ITE Land Use 492) Retail - pad 4 3000 sf GFA 3.37 10 (ITE Land Use 850) Restaurant - pad 5 2,500 sf GFA 10.86 27 (ITE Land Use 932) Restaurant - pad BOH 6 2,500 sf GFA 10.86 27 (ITE Land Use 932) Hotel -Business 7 138 rooms 0.83 114 (ITE Land Use 312) 8 Office (ITE 710) 63,562 1 sf GFA 2.75 175 N ote: 441 ITE, 5th Edition Based on the results of the 1 15% factored ITE average peak period parking demand generation analysis, the parking spaces provided by the proposed project for the three land use options would be short respectively by 80 spaces, 96 spaces and 81 spaces. Potential Factors in Reduction of Parking Demand Note that these parking demand rates were based on ITE standalone site estimates without taking into considerations internal trips due to mixed -use or shared parking. For example, hotel patrons and office employees could walk to the restaurants or retail stores without having to drive and park. In addition, major changes in car rental of hotel guests have also been noted by the hotel industry. It has been shown that ride -hailing companies, like Uber and Lyft, are changing transportation habits and having a measurable impact on parking demand for many land uses. Specifically, it has been shown the largest impacts of ride -hailing to parking are occurring at hotels, restaurants, events centers, and airports where demand for ride -hailing is greatest. Particularly, studies have shown that hotel parking demand seems to have decreased in many places due to ride -hailing; travelers are choosing to use ride -hailing, instead of rental cars, to get to and from the hotel. Based on the survey conducted for TNC usage for various land -uses as summarized in the "Ride - Hailing Impacts on Parking" — An overview created by Walker Consultants, approximately 40% of the visitors to Hotel land use utilized a car rental while the remaining used taxi's and ride sharing services (60% not driving). Packet Pg. 87 5.1.c September 30, 2019 nn BIL17Y Kameron Klotz A� MOBILITY GROUP Page 7 of 17 Since the site is approximately 0.5 miles (10- 1 2-minute walk) from West Dublin BART Station, it is anticipated that some of the hotel workers of office employees might be able to use transit instead of driving to work. Note that the ITE Parking Generation Manual states that the most accurate way to estimate parking demand is by conducting parking studies at a similar use in the vicinity of proposed project. In the absence of such data use of ITE parking generation tables could be used by applying local knowledge and judgment on parking supply and demand. Other Mixed -Use Development Parking Factors to Consider 0 Very often in the recent past, many agencies or municipalities would enforce parking rate = regulations for developers to provide a predetermined amount of parking space for each type of land use. This could result in an overabundance of parking, as far more spaces are created E c� than needed at any given moment. The excess and availability of free parking spaces v (unknowingly) induces more driving while also typically leaving many spaces underused. With prevailing awareness on creating sustainable developments, many agencies are discontinuing such ' N parking policies since it inhibits the possibility to design more compact developments and 0 neighborhoods with active uses. Y Since the proposed project is a mixed -use development consisting of hotel office building, retail p p p l p g gr M a. � building, fitness and restaurant, it is anticipated that there would be some internal trips within mixed -use developments as well as variations in peak parking demand by time of day by U) several land uses that are not captured by ITE parking rates that were derived based on standalone land uses. Various studies have shown that conventional use of ITE has overlooked the full potential for internalizing trips through interaction among on -site activities. The ITE trip -generation data and analysis methods apply primarily to single -use and freestanding sites, which limits their applicability to compact, mixed -use development. In 2011, two major studies introduced methodologies for predicting traffic generation from mixed use development: National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 684, "Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed- Use Developments," analyzed internal -capture relationships of mixed -use sites and examined the travel interactions among six individual types of land uses: office, retail, restaurant, residential, cinema, and hotel, and 2. The U.S. EPA —sponsored 2011 report, "Traffic Generated by Mixed -Use Developments — A Six -Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental Measures," investigated trip generation, mode choice, and trip length for trips produced and attracted by mixed use developments. Researchers selected six regions — Atlanta, Boston, Houston, Portland, Sacramento, and Seattle — to represent a wide range of urban scale, form, and climatic condition. It was concluded that the ITE Trip Generation Manual and Handbook overestimate peak traffic generation for mixed -use development by an average of 35 percent3. 3 NCHRP Report 684, "Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed- Use Developments,"20 7 1, page 26 Packet Pg. 88 September 30, 2019 5.1.c nn ANCEO BIL17Y MOBILITY Kameron Klotz AM GROUP Page 8 of 17 It could be expected that the proposed mixed -use development would experience a fair number of internal trips. In essence, there is a captive -market when patrons who are already parked in the area can take advantage of other nearby services. For example, office employees, hotel patrons and employees could walk across to the restaurant without having to drive and park. Thus, they are not a source of additional parking demand to use the restaurant. In addition, since the proposed development is a business hotel, it could be expected that some of the hotel patrons could be working out of the office building. Both users could also be patrons at the proposed health club. Based on the expected internal trips and the aforementioned studies, the estimated ITE average parking demands generated by the proposed project for the three options are within 25 percent or less of the parking supply provided for each scenario. This would be considerably less than the 35 percent potential overestimation of parking demand as documented in the NCHRP mentioned previously. However, the ITE Parking Generation Manual states that the most accurate way to estimate parking demand is by conducting parking studies at a similar use in the nearby area. In the absence of such data use of ITE parking generation tables could be used by applying local knowledge and judgment on parking supply and demand. Shared Parking Concept and Analysis Background Typically, shared parking is possible for project sites that serve two or more land uses without conflict or encroachment. Parking spaces can be shared if there are variations in the accumulation of vehicles by hour, day or season at the individual land uses and if the parking demand of land uses results in same auto - trips. Like other urban travel characteristics, parking demands fluctuates during peak and off-peak schedules depending on types of land use and the project area. It has been shown conclusively that distinct but complementary patterns, such as "office parking" that is generally empty in the evenings and on weekends and "hotel parking" that is generally fuller in the evenings, offer an opportunity for cities to better satisfy residents and commuters without increasing supply. Shared parking is a land use/development strategy that optimizes parking capacity by allowing complementary land uses to share spaces, rather than constructing separate parking spaces for separate uses. Shared parking works especially well with mixed use development. Many cities that embraced sustainable developments have shown that shared parking unlocks the potential for higher development densities around transit hubs, and acts as a control mechanism against urban sprawl. By allowing and encouraging adjacent property owners to share parking spaces, cities can accommodate essential parking demands like disabled parking, emergency vehicles and freight delivery while promoting travel by more sustainable modes with better land use integration. This study uses shared parking potential due to inherent land use characteristics of hotel, office, retail and restaurant which has peak parking demand that fluctuates and varies at various times of day. Time of Day information are based on data contained in the ITE 5r" Edition report and obviously could vary based on the location. Based on our experience, the time of day parking demand shown for office and hotel could be considered consistent. Details of ITE 5'" Edition Time of Day Parking information for some of the land uses are contained in Appendix A. Packet Pg. 89 ADVANCED AMGMOBILITY GROUP 5.1.c September 30, 2019 Kameron Klotz Page 9 of 17 Using the Time of Day Parking demand information, AMG estimated an expected parking demand for the proposed mixed -used development. The estimated parking demand due to time of day shared parking for Option 1,2 and 3 are shown in Table 8, 9 and 10. The result seems to indicate that the proposed parking spaces provided by the development would be adequate. Detailed hourly calculations for Time of Day Parking for each of the three Options based on ITE 5th Edition information are contained in Appendix B. Table 8: Estimated Parking due to Fluctuations in Time of Day Parking Demand (Option 1) m ITE Parking Demand Cumulative Estimates for Option 1 _ITE Rates p Based on Time of Day Demand (Suburban) City Rates = 400 �L 350 E 300 _ (Q V a250 E200 -a m150 — r N 6100 — — 50 — — i L 0 M 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 70:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM I:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM a Time of Day - m L Cumulative Time of Day Total Parking Demand Estimates Cumulative Spaces 1 124 1 149 1 224 1 288 1 333 1 334 1 325 1 309 1 288 1 278 1 275 1 258 1 222 1 195 1 143 1 130 1 122 (� Time 6:00 AM 1 7:00 AM 1 8:00 AM 1 9:00 AM 1 10:00 AM 1 11:00 AM 1 12:00 PM 1 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 1 10:00 PM r Parking Spaces Provided: 351 C Table 9: Estimated Parking due to Fluctuations in Time of Day Parking Demand (Option 2) 350 300 250 m 200 E 0 m 150 u 100 50 0 ITE Parking Demand Cumulative Estimates for Option 2 Based on Time of Day Demand (Suburban) —ITE Rates —City Rates 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 7:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 70:00 PM Time of Day Cumulative Time of Day Total Parking Demand Estimates Cumulative Spaces 118 1 135 1 186 1 249 291 1 288 270 1 259 1 257 1 255 1 252 1 223 1 174 1 152 1 106 1 107 1 110 Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PAA 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM Parking Spaces Provided: 280 Packet Pg. 90 5.1.c ADVANCED AMGMOBILITY GROUP September 30, 2079 Kameron Klotz Page 10 of 1 1 Table 10: Estimated Parking due to Fluctuations in Time of Day Parking Demand (Option 3) Parki.. ..and Cumulative Estimates for _ ITE Rates Based on Time of Day Demand (Suburban) —elty Rates 5-W i Cumulative Time of Day Total Parking Demand Estimates Cumulative Spaces 124 148 223 288 338 340 332 317 296 287 284 268 231 203 148 133 124 Time 6:00 AM 1 7.00 AM 1 8:00 AM 1 9:00 AM 1 10:00 AM 1 11:00 AM 1 12:00 PM 1 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM I 9:00 PM I 10:00 PM Parking Spaces Provided: 360 Conclusion Based on results of our parking analysis, the following are several conclusions: Proposed mixed -used development (consisting of a hotel, office, restaurant and retail) showed three options being proposed for the project and summarized here: • Option 1 consists of a 5,000 s.f. retail, 4,000 s.f. restaurant, 5,000 s.f. fitness club, 5,065 s.f. restaurant, 138 room hotel and 63,562 s.f. office with 351 parking spaces. • Option 2 consists of a 5,000 s.f. retail, 4,000 s.f. restaurant, 5,000 s.f. fitness club, 138 room hotel and 63,562 s.f. office with 280 parking spaces. • Option 3 consists of a 5,000 s.f. retail, 4,000 s.f. restaurant, 5,000 s.f. fitness club, 3,000 s.f. retail store, a 5,000 s.f. restaurant, 138 room hotel and 63,562 s.f. office with 360 parking spaces. City Parking Demand Rates - results of the parking demand analysis based on city parking rates estimated that 442, 417 and 460 spaces would be required respectively for Option 1, Option 2 and Option 3. Therefore, based on the City parking rates, the proposed parking supply is short by 91 spaces under Option 1, 137 under Option 2, and 100 spaces under Option 3. ITE Parking Generation ITE provided several parking demand rates and statistical factors including average and 85t" percentile parking demand. • Average Parking Demand - Many agencies use average parking demand rate as the likely peak parking demand for a land use. As recommended by the City, AMG used 1 1 5% of ITE average rate — with additional 15 % being a safety factor against unexpected parking surges. Results of the parking demand analysis based on 1 1 5% ITE Packet Pg. 91 5.1.c September 30, 2019 nn BIL17Y Kameron Klotz A� MOBILITY GROUP Page 11 of 11 average parking rates estimated that 431, 376 and 441 spaces would be required respectively for Option 1, option 2 and Option 3. Therefore, the parking spaces provided by the proposed project does not meet the parking demand generated by the proposed land uses. • It is noted that based on the expected internal trips and key studies conducted by NCHRP and U.S. EPA concluded that ITE parking rates could overestimate peak traffic generation for mixed -use development by an average of 35 percent parking demands. • Rate used did not account for hotel travelers who are choosing to use ride -hailing, instead of rental cars, to get to and from the hotel. • It is anticipated that some of the hotel workers of office employees might be able to use m o transit instead of driving to work. x M .c • ITE Parking Generation Manual states that the most accurate way to estimate parking E demand is by conducting parking studies at a similar use in the nearby area. In the v absence of such data use of ITE parking generation tables could be used by applying local knowledge and judgment on parking supply and demand. r N Time of Day Parking Fluctuations Factors a� S The ITE report provided an estimate of time of day peak parking information for hotel, office, L a. retail and restaurant. AMG has generated expected parking demand for the proposed mixed - used development under both ITE and City rates (as shown in Table 8, 9 and 10). The results indicated that proposed parking spaces provided by the development for a combination of land options would be adequate for Options 1 and 3. Based on time of day peak for Option 2, parking demand estimate would be short by 1 1 (four percent) and 29 (10 percent) respectively c m E for ITE and City parking rates. t z:\p1812165 - dublin parking (rubicon)\report\tm 093079 dublin mixed -use parking study.docx Packet Pg. 92 5.1.c ADVANCED AM GROU MOBILITY GROUP Appendix A — ITE 5th Edition Time of Day Parking information Advanced Mobility Group 1 3003 Oak Road, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, Ca. 94596 %%40. www.amobility.com Packet Pg. 93 Lend use: M Supmmwrkel Lend Llse: 932 Migh•Tvrnevar (Su•Oown) Resianranl Land Ilse: 312 Buainosa Homl �� ..�r..� b.. �.:�.��_,�.a.�.w.�. ter... �..n....._...�........�... ....a,..,........a,d�....'H".*v i`�...o-''uw� +�a+i.dwv:r• r .iw.e.i�w+�_. 9.,...`�......>...,.�y-...+.�......+. .�.Y._�..:.r..` �..�.....�_� ..:.�....w ---- �...m+r+....w..-.+ab Isar. s..ry rr. r...w.rw Mr Superrnarkot High -Turnover (Sit Down) kaetaurard - Family (959) (932) hr vr....ry err....rMrtpa r.r Mw..w,ewrr....v.Mrtu. ..wP.a. e.r.e.nrn •ren6wvn ^.-e.m.e.np PnN �>m�We�lm amem IVeli P.vk.f1r11iN o.werA W,ate q R NA ..w.wxp uww w,.eo In R era Husinese Hotel j712j .............. o-.rr.nr.....r„ I.n1►W rr4re ee.eM Ov.Rxw � Garen! We* Building (71M .r r..ir..r.o.•d ame• %maprt�. W M1rt Rlkr r.raq e..�W w+rss Qy R9ra La- uar. aex,wanNFxn to 11rNtluFlb— Club Land Use! gSi Cnfkamnwl Shnp Co4eaDonut Shop whh lldw Through WNndow t�g2) wish Dd—Thmugh YWndow (93� 0 'i R U 3 a (D m c (D E �a a 0 m r 72 M k W C7 E V Q _ . _ Packet Pg. 94 5.1.c ADVANCED AM GROU MOBILITY GROUP Appendix B — ITE 5th Edition Time of Day Parking Calculations for three Land Use Options Advanced Mobility Group 1 3003 Oak Road, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, Ca. 94596 www.amobility.com 1000010 Packet Pg. 95 ITE (5th Ed) Suburban Parking Demand Summary for Option 1 (x1.15% Average) ITE Parking Demand Cumulative Estimates for Option 1 —ITE Rates Based on Time of Day Demand (Suburban) City Rates 400 350 300 a 250 E 200 — G a 150 100 50 0 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM Time of Day — Cumulative Time of Day Total Parking Demand Estimates Cumulative Spaces 124 149 224 288 333 334 1 325 1 309 1 288 1 278 1 275 1 258 1 222 1 195 1 143 130 1 122 Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 1 12:00 PM 1 1:00 PM 1 2:00 PM 1 3:00 PM 1 4:00 PM 1 5:00 PM 1 6:00 PM 1 7:00 PM 1 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM Parking Spaces Provided: 351 Time of Day Parking Estimates for Land Uses (ITE Parking 5th Edition) 1. ITE 850 Supermarket Time of Day Parking Estimates 2. ITE 932 High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates 3. ITE 492 Fitness - Office Time of Day Parking Estimates 4. ITE 932 High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates 5. ITE 312 Business Hotel Time of Day Parking Estimates 6. ITE 701 General Office Building Time of Day Parking Estimates 912712019 Z:1P1812165-Dublin Parking (Rubkon)lParkingAnalysisID Packet Pg. 96 ITE (5th Ed) Suburban Parking Demand Summary for Option 2 (x1.15% Average) 35o ITE Parking Demand Cumulative Estimates for Option 2 ITE Rates Based on Time of Day Demand (Suburban) —city Rates 300 250 01 200 E 150 y 100 50 0 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM I:00 PM 2:01 PM 301 PM 101 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:10 PM 110 PM 9:01 PM 10:00 PM Time of Day }' G Cumulative Time of Day Total Parking Demand Estimates Cumulative Spaces 118 135 186 249 291 288 270 259 257 255 252 223 174 152 108 107 110� Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 1 8:00 AM 1 9:00 AM 1 10:00 AM 1 1 1:00 AM 1 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 1 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM M Parking Spaces Provided: 280 0 7 02 Time of Day Parking Estimates for Land Uses (ITE Parking 5th Edition) C 1. ITE 850 Supermarket Time of Day Parking Estimates 10 1 11 1 15 15 16 16 1 16 17 17 1 14 9 6 3 L Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 1 1:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM d Percent Peak 59 67 86 87 93 97 97 100 99 83 53 38 20 Max Parking 17 Spaces L M i 2. ITE 932 High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates 3. ITE 492 Fitness - Office Time of Day Parking Estimates 4. ITE 312 Business Hotel Time of Day Parking Estimates 5. ITE 701 General Office Building Time of Day Parking Estimates 912712019 Z:1P1812165-Dublin Parking (8ubicon)kParkingAnalysislDu Packet Pg. 97 ITE (5th Ed) Suburban Parking Demand Summary for Option 3 (xl.1 5% Average) A0o 350 300 ,250 E 200 Me 150 n 100 50 0 fE Parking Demand Cumulative Estimates for Option 3 Based on Time of Day Demand (Suburban) ITE Rates —City Rates 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM A:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM Time of Day Cumulative Time of Day Total Parking Demand Estimates Cumulative Spaces 124 148 223 288 338 340 332 317 296 287 284 268 231 203 148 133 124 Time1 6:00 AM 1 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM I 1 1:00 AM 1 12:00 PM 1 1:00 PM 1 2:00 PM 1 3:00 PM I 4:00 PM 1 5:00 PM 1 6:00 PM 1 7:00 PM 1 8:00 PM 1 9:00 PM 10:00 PM Parking Spaces Provided: 360 Time of Day Parking Estimates for Land Uses (ITE Parking 5th Edition) 1. ITE 850 Supermarket Time of Day Parking Estimates 2. ITE 932 High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates 3. ITE 492 Fitness - Office Time of Day Parking Estimates 4. ITE 850 Supermarket Time of Day Parking Estimates 5. ITE 932 High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates 6. ITE 932 High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates 7. ITE 312 Business Hotel Time of Day Parking Estimates 8. ITE 701 General Office Building Time of Day Parking Estimates 91271-9 Z:(P1812165-Dublin Parking (Rubicon)(ParkingAnalysislDu Packet Pg. 98 5.1.c City Parking Spaces Required Summary for Option 1 City Parking Spaces Required Cumulative Estimates for Option 1 Based on Time of Day Demand (ITE) 350 Cumulative Time of Day Total Parking Demand Estimates Cumulative Spaces 170 182 224 285 328 323 303 290 287 284 285 259 210 187 141 144 155 Time 6:00 AM 7:60 AM 1 8:00 AM 1 9:00 AM 1 10:00 AM 1 1 1:00 AM 1 12:00 PM 1 1:00 PM 1 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 1 4:00 PM 1 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 1 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 1 10:00 PM Parking Spaces Provided:351 Time of Day Parking Estimates for Land Uses (ITE Parking 5th Edition) 1. ITE 850 Supermarket Time of Day Parking Estimates 2. ITE 932 High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimate! 3. ITE 492 Fitness - Office Time of Day Parking Estimates 4. ITE 932 High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates 5. ITE 312 Business Hotel Time of Day Parking Estimates 6. ITE 701 General Office Building Time of Day Parking Estimates 9/27/2019 Z:1P1812165-Dublin Parking(Rubicor)kParkingAnalysislDubfi Packet Pg. 99 5.1.c City Parking Spaces Required Summary for Option 2 City Parking Spaces Required Cumulative Estimates for Option 2 Based on Time of Day Demand (ITE) 350 300 250 200 E 0 150 y 100 50 0 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM Time of Day Cumulative Time of Day Total Parking Demand Estimates Cumulative Spaces 167 176 207 267 309 302 278 267 273 274 275 243 188 167 124 134 150 Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 1 8:00 AM 1 9:00 AM 1 10:00 AM 1 1 1:00 AM 1 12:00 PM 1 1:00 PM 1 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 1 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 1 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 1 10:00 PM Parking Spaces Provided: 280 Time of Day Parking Estimates for Land Uses (ITE Parking 5th Edition) 1. ITE 850 Supermarket Time of Day Parking Estimates 2. ITE 932 High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates 3. ITE 492 Fitness - Office Time of Day Parking Estimates 4. ITE 312 Business Hotel Time of Day Parking Estimates 5. ITE 701 General Office Building Time of Day Parking Estimates 912712019 Z:1P1812165-Dublin Parking(Rubicor)kParkingAnalysislDubli Packet Pg. 100 5.1.c City Parking Spaces Required Summary for Option 3 400 — 350 — 300 y 250 E 200 G 150 6100 50 0 City Parking Spaces Required Cumulative Estimates for Option 3 Based on Time of Day Demand (ITE) 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 900 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM Time of Day Cumulative Time of Day Total Parking Demand Estimates Cumulative Spaces 1 171 1 184 1 230 1 292 1 342 1 338 1 322 1 308 1 301 1 298 1 299 1 275 1 228 1 203 1 152 1 152 1 159 Time 1 6:00 AM 1 7:00 AM 1 8:00 AM 1 9:00 AM I 10:00 AM I 1 1:00 AM 1 12:00 PM 1 1:00 PM 1 2:00 PM 1 3:00 PM 1 4:00 PM 1 5:00 PM 1 6:00 PM 1 7:00 PM 1 8:00 PM 1 9:00 PM 1 10.00 PM Parking Spaces Provided: 360 Time of Day Parking Estimates for Land Uses (ITE Parking 5th Edition) 1. ITE 850 Supermarket Time of Day Parking Estimates 2. ITE 932 High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates 3. ITE 492 Fitness - Office Time of Day Parking Estimates 4. ITE 850 Supermarket Time of Day Parking Estimates 5. ITE 932 High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates 6. ITE 932 High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates 7. ITE 312 Business Hotel Time of Day Parking Estimates 1 General Office Building Time of Day Parking Estimates d O Ag �L �C G M U co L M IL d L M i co 912712019 ZiP1812165- Dublin Parking (Rubicon)(ParkingAnalysis(Dubli Packet Pg. 101 0 0 N N O O v a FURNITURE STORE a BOWLING ALLEY PARCEL B n N PARCEL A (97 PM 24) %0 (97 PM 24) 941-1500-28- I ,p Q 941-150 -2 i�).B. CAT 'BASIN z CATCH BASIN 3 9.70la RIM 1.1NI9 ---------- - 20'51'45"W�— g^ 5 © ® H CATCH BASIN SS LAT (PLAN�t BASIN ) 51 GR 361.65 R METERS FL 356.1 — WA TERMF— H WATEVALVES + ��`— 7C xzss — STO�PLAN)DER _— —LLJ — — I- F- n r . CO C sa 7 — R c,� Q v $ vQ oo S re aeaa7 , i x � RESTAURANT - PARCEL 1— (107 PM 67) W3.,5- 941-1500-36-214 — N 355 —� SMM =< \ Q U — OFFICE BUILDING H i 4 e ' � \ n: PG&;SIBO ' 1%o � AN — — k SAN RAMOIV ROAD �- _ - _ --- ------ --__ y I - S _ 355 5.1.d Tree Assessment Plan Corrie Center 7950 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, CA Prepared for: Rubicon Property Group, LLC Walnut Creek, CA August 2018 ^ Updated June 2019 0 2 E fC V No Scale CL M 2 O E (NNV (V L Notes: Base map provided by: a) 0) DKAssociates, Inc. +�+ Walnut Creek, CA L O 2 Driplines and numbered tree locations are approximate. c t U r a HORT SCIENCE BARTLETT CONSULTING 325 Ray Street Pleasanton, CA 94566 Phone 925.484.0211 www.hortscience.com Packet Pa. 102 5.1.e DUBLIN C A L i F 0 R N I A April 28, 2020 S B 343 Senate Bill 343 mandates supplemental materials that have been received by the Community Development Department that relate to an agenda item after the agenda packets have been distributed to the Planning Commission be available to the public. The attached documents were received in the Community Development Department's Office after distribution of the April 28, 2020, Planning Commission meeting agenda packet. Packet Pg. 103 DRURYuP T 510.836.4200 1939 Harrison Street, Ste. 150 www.lozeaudrury.com F 510.836.4205 Oakland, CA 94612 1 michael@lozeaudrury.ccm Apri124 2020 Via E-Mail Dawn Benson, Commissioner Amy Million, Principal Planner o Amit Kothari, Commissioner Community Development Department Stephen Wright, Commissioner City of Dublin Scott Mittan, Commissioner 100 Civic Plaza E Janine Thalblum, Commissioner Dublin, CA 94568 v Planning Commission Amy.Million@dublin.ca.gov, City of Dublin J 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 E PlanningCommission@ci.dublin.ca.us E e Re: Comment on the Cambria Hotel Project (PLPA-2019-00020, PLPA-2019-00044) Dear Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of the Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union No. 304 ("LIUNA") and its members living and/or working in and around the City of Dublin ("LIUNA") regarding the Cambria Hotel Project ("Project") (PLPA-2019-00020, PLPA- 2019-00044) proposed by Applicant Jerry Hunt of VP-RPG Dublin, LLC ("Applicant"). The City of Dublin ("City") is proposing to approve the Site Development Review Permit and the Minor Use Permit of the Project without review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Pub. Res. Code section 21000, et seq., based on the assertion that the Project's potential impacts were studied in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report ("DDSP EIR") approved in December 2010. The City contends that under CEQA Guidelines section 15182, no further environmental review is required. Given the nature of the Project, LIUNA disagrees and requests that the Planning Commission deny approval and direct staff to prepare an EIR to analyze the significant environmental impacts of the Project and to propose all feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce those impacts. This comment has been prepared with the assistance of Certified Industrial Hygienist Francis Offerman, PE, CIH, wildlife biologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D, environmental consulting firm SWAPE, and traffic expert Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E. Mr. Offermann's comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A hereto and are incorporated herein by reference and entirety. Dr. Smallwood's comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit B and are incorporated herein by reference and entirety. SWAPE's comment and curriculum vitae are Packet Pg. 104 5.1.e Cambria Hotel Project April 24, 2020 Page 2 of 14 attached as Exhibit C hereto and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. Mr. Smith's comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit D hereto and are incorporated herein by reference as well. I. PROJECT BACKGROUND Applicant proposes to demolish the existing parking lot located south of the existing Corrie Center office building at 7950 Dublin Boulevard and construct a six -story hotel with four a) stories comprised of a total of 138 rooms and two stories of parking comprised of 277 parking spaces. The Project is located at 7950 Dublin Boulevard, APNs: 941-1500-037-00 and 941-1500- M 036-02. E M II. STANDING v Members of LIUNA Local 304 live, work, and/or recreate in the vicinity of the Project Site. These members will suffer the impacts of a poorly executed or inadequately mitigated Project, just as would the members of any nearby homeowners association, community group or environmental group. LIUNA Local 304 members live and work in areas that will be affected by traffic, noise, air pollution, wildlife impacts and greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions generated by the Project. Therefore, LIUNA Local 304 and its members have a direct interest in ensuring that the Project is adequately analyzed and that its environmental and public health impacts are mitigated to the fullest extent possible. III. LEGAL STANDARDS CEQA mandates that "the long-term protection of the environment ... shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions" throughout California. Pub. Res. Code § 21001(d). To achieve its objectives of environmental protection, CEQA has a three -tiered structure. CEQA Guidelines § 15002(k); Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.AppAth 1168, 1185-86 ("Hollywoodland" ). First, if a project falls into an exempt category, or it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question will not have a significant effect on the environment, no further agency evaluation is required. Id. Second, if there is a possibility the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency must perform an initial threshold study. Id.; CEQA Guidelines § 15063(a). If the study indicates that there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment the agency may issue a negative declaration. Id., CEQA Guidelines § § 15063(b)(2), 15070. Finally, if the project will have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report ("BIR") is required. Id. Here, the City is attempting to bypass CEQA entirely by claiming that the project is exempt per Section 15182 because the "potential impacts associated with the proposed project were studied in the DDSP EIR." CEQA Guidelines section 15182 provides that "[c]ertain residential, commercial, and mixed -use projects that are consistent with a specific plan ... are exempt from CEQA ...." CEQA Guidelines § 15182(a). Residential or mixed -use projects, or projects with a floor plan Packet Pg. 105 5.1.e Cambria Hotel Project April 24, 2020 Page 3 of 14 area ratio of at least 0.75 on commercially zoned property, are exempt from CEQA only if the project satisfies 3 criteria: (A) It is located within a transit priority area as defined in Public Resources Code section 21099(a)(7); (B) It is consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report was certified; and (C) It is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy for which the State Air Resources Board has M accepted the determination that the sustainable communities strategy or the alternative planning strategy would achieve the applicable greenhouse gas emissions reduction v targets. 0 Id., § 15182(b)(1). However, if one of the events in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 occurs, additional environmental review is required. Id., § 15182(b)(2). CEQA Guidelines section 15162 provides that if an EIR has been certified for a project, a subsequent EIR should not be prepared unless one of the following occurs: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Packet Pg. 106 5.1.e Cambria Hotel Project April 24, 2020 Page 4 of 14 Id. § 15162(a). Here, the Project is not consistent with the DDSP, and there is substantial evidence of new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the DDSP EIR was certified as complete in 2010, including that the Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, substantial changed circumstances will now require major revisions to the EIR due to a substantial increase in the severity of significant effects, and mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. M III. DISCUSSION L M V A. The Project is Not Consistent with the DDSP Because the DDRSP and its Accompanying EIR Did Not Address and Expressly Deferred Specific Project -Level Impacts. One of the three conditions under CEQA Guidelines section 15182 in which a project can be exempt from CEQA review is if a project is consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR was certified. Here, the Project is inconsistent with the DDSP because the DDSP and the DDSP EIR expressly defer specific project -level environmental review requirements. The need for these subsequent Project -specific reviews is part and parcel of the DDRSP. The City's failure to comply with these requirements results in the Project's inconsistency with those parts of the DDSP, and the City can therefore not rely on the DDSP to exempt the Project from a project - level environmental review. i. The Project is inconsistent with the DDSP's provision that individual projects be subject to project -level BAAQMD emission thresholds. For construction emissions, the DDSP EIR states that "[fJuture individual projects under the DDSP would be subject to new project -level emissions thresholds in the BAAQMD Draft CEQA Guidelines, if adopted. Through the environmental review process for individual projects, additional mitigation may also be required to further reduce emissions and potential impacts on a project -by -project basis." DDSP EIR, p. 3-32. However, the Project's Hearing Notice states "Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, potential impacts associated with the proposed project were studied in the DDSP EIR and its Addendums and, therefore, no further environmental review is required for this project." City of Dublin Public Hearing Notice, March 24, 2020. This conclusion is unsubstantiated since the DDSP EIR did not quantify or evaluate the Project's emissions. As adopted in 2010 and since updated in 2017, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, as well as the DDSP EIR, require proposed individual projects to compare their expected emissions to the relevant thresholds of significance. See "California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines." BAAQMD, adopted 2010, updated May 2017, available at: https://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/planning- and-research/cega/cega_guidelines_may20l7-pdf.pdPla=en, p. 2-2, Table 2-1. By failing to Packet Pg. 107 5.1.e Cambria Hotel Project April 24, 2020 Page 5 of 14 compare the Project's estimated emissions to the relevant BAAQMD thresholds, the City fails to demonstrate consistency with the DDSP. The DDSP EIR additionally states that "future development within the project area would be required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings)," which would in part "ensure that the proposed [DDSP] would have a less than significant impact during short-term construction activities." DDSP EIR, p. 3-32. The City fails to address BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings), and therefore the Project is further inconsistent a) with the DDSP. ii. The Project is inconsistent with the DDSP's provision for project -by- 0 project analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. M The DDSP EIR states that, with regard to greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions, "[f]uture projects within the City, including within the project area, would be reviewed on a project -by - project basis to ensure their compliance with the City's policies and to determine if any impacts would occur beyond those already identified in this EIR." DDSP EIR, p. 3-42. As stated above, the Project relies on the DDSP EIR for environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15182. However, without a project -level analysis of the Project's GHG emissions, the City cannot ensure its compliance with the City's policies or if the Project would have any GHG impacts occurring beyond those identified in the DDSP EIR, and therefore the Project is inconsistent with the DDSP. B. There is Substantial Evidence of New Information of Substantial Importance, Which was Not Known and Could Not Have Been Known with the Exercise of Reasonable Diligence at the Time the DDSP EIR was Certified as Complete Showing the Project Will Have a Significant Health Risk Impact from its Indoor Air Quality Not Discussed in the DDSP EIR. Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis "Bud" Offermann, PE, CIH, conducted a review of the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project's indoor air emissions. Indoor Environmental Engineering Comments (March 19, 2020) (Exhibit A). Mr. Offermann concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose future hotel employees of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer -causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann's calculations are based on new information from a study published in 2019 on formaldehyde emissions. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. See attached CV. Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products used in modern hotel construction contain formaldehyde -based glues which off -gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. He states, "The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea -formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims." Ex. Packet Pg. 108 Cambria Hotel Project April 24, 2020 Page 6 of 14 A, pp. 2-3. Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offermann states that the employees of the Project are expected to experience significant work -day exposures. Id., p. 4. This exposure of employees would result in "significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels." Id., p. 3. Assuming they work eight hour days, five days per week, an employee would be exposed to a cancer risk of approximately 16.4 per million, assuming all a) materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board's formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. Id., p. 4. This is more than the Bay Area Air Quality Management District M (BAAQMD) CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. Id. 0 M Mr. Offermann also notes that the high cancer risk that may be posed by the Project's v indoor air emissions likely will be exacerbated by the additional cancer risk that exists as a result; of the Project's location near roadways with moderate to high traffic (i.e. I-580, Dublin 0 Boulevard, and San Ramon Boulevard) and the high levels of PM2.5 already present in the c ambient air. Id., p. 10. No analysis has been conducted of the significant cumulative health E impacts that will result to employees working at the Project. c Mr. Offermann concludes that this significant environmental impact should be analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. Id., p. 4. Mr. Offermann identifies mitigation measures that are available to reduce these significant health risks, including the installation of air filters and a requirement that the applicant use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no - added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra -low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins in the buildings' interiors. Id., pp. 11-12. Mr. Offermann relies in part on the study by Chan et al. published in 2019 to calculate of the Projects emissions. This study analyzed the indoor concentrations of formaldehyde for homes built between 2011 and 2015, and since only Phase 2 composite wood products were permitted for sale after July 2012, most of the homes in the Chan study were constructed with CARB Phase 2 compliant materials. See id., p. 3. The Chan study shows that homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 California New Home Study. See id. While these buildings had a lower median formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk for homes built with CARB Phase 2 compliant composite wood products still greatly exceeded the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold. Id. Mr. Offermann relies in part on the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in the 2019 Chan study to conclude that the Project will have similar indoor concentrations of formaldehyde as observed in the Chan study and exceed the CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk because the building materials and furnishings commonly found in homes that release formaldehyde are also found in hotels. The 2019 Chan study and resulting finding that a project's compliance with CARB Phase 2 compliant materials Packet Pg. 109 5.1.e Cambria Hotel Project April 24, 2020 Page 7 of 14 is not enough to get a project below the cancer risk threshold is new information that was not previously available of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the DDSP EIR was certified as complete, showing that the Project will have a significant health risk impact from its indoor air quality not discussed in the DDSP EIR. Therefore, the City must prepare a subsequent EIR for the Project. The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project's potential environmental a) impacts, especially those issues raised by an expert's comments. See Cty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Cty. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.AppAth 1544, 1597-98 ("under CEQA, the lead agency bears a M burden to investigate potential environmental impacts"). In addition to assessing the Project's potential health impacts to workers, Mr. Offermann identifies the investigatory path that the City M should be following in developing an EIR to more precisely evaluate the Projects' future v formaldehyde emissions and establishing mitigation measures that reduce the cancer risk below; the BAAQMD level. Ex. A, pp. 4-9. Such an analysis would be similar in form to the air quality modeling and traffic modeling typically conducted as part of a CEQA review. c The failure to address the project's formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court's decision in California Building Industry Ass'n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 CalAth 369, 386 ("CBIA "). At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider the environment's effects on a project. CBIA, 62 CalAth at 800- 801. However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing adverse environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. Id. at 801 ("CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present"). In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA's statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze "impacts on a project's users or residents that arise from the project's effects on the environment." Id. at 800 (emphasis added). The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project. Employees will be users of the hotel. Currently, there is presumably little if any formaldehyde emissions at the site. Once the project is built, emissions will begin at levels that pose significant health risks. Rather than excusing the City from addressing the impacts of carcinogens emitted into the indoor air from the project, the Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of effect by the project on the environment and a "project's users and residents" must be addressed in the CEQA process. The Supreme Court's reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA's statutory language. CEQA expressly includes a project's effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. "Section 21083(b)(3)'s express language, for example, requires a finding of a `significant effect on the environment' (§ 21083(b)) whenever the Packet Pg. 110 Cambria Hotel Project April 24, 2020 Page 8 of 14 `environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly."' CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 (emphasis in original). Likewise, "the Legislature has made clear —in declarations accompanying CEQA's enactment —that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme." Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d). It goes without saying that the hundreds of future employees of the project are human beings and the health and safety of those workers is as important to CEQA's safeguards as nearby residents currently living near the project site. as C. There is Substantial Evidence of New Information of Substantial Importance, Which was Not Known and Could Not Have Been Known with the Exercise of M Reasonable Diligence at the Time the DDSP EIR was Certified as Complete .0 Showing the Project Will Have a Significant Impact on Biological Resources that was Not Discussed in the DDSP EIR. 0 Ecologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., conducted a review of the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project's impacts on biological resources. Shawn Smallwood Comments (March 24, 2020) (Exhibit B). The DDSP EIR explicitly did not analyze impacts to biological resources because the DDSP project site is an urban infill area and biological resources do not exist on the project site and/or are not considered to cause a significant environmental impact. See DDSP EIR, p. 4-7. However, as Dr. Smallwood explains, substantial evidence of new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the DDSP EIR was certified as complete shows the Project may have a significant impact on biological resources that was not discussed in the DDSP EIR. Within the last year, the scientific community confirmed that human actions are cumulatively contributing to the rapid decline of birds across North America. Rosenburg et al. (2019) quantified a 29% decline of overall bird abundances across North America over the last 48 years. One of the leading causes of bird mortality contributing to this decline is collisions with windows, and Dr. Smallwood indicates that the Project, as proposed, will result in significant impacts on birds colliding with the Project's clear glass windows. Ex. B, p. 9. Specifically, Dr. Smallwood predicts "69 bird deaths per year" due to the Project. Id. Project illustrations show extensive use of glass in the fagade of the Project's building. Based on the proposed commercial floor space, including the hotel and club retail, Dr. Smallwood estimates the Project would include 892 m2 of glass windows. Id. Since 2016, recent advances in structural glass engineering have contributed to a worldwide 20% increase in glass manufacturing for building construction. Id., p. 2. Increasing window -to -wall ratios and glass facades have also become popular, which is a major feature of the Project. Making matters worse, this feature could potentially introduce an ecological trap to the many thousands of birds flying across the junction of east -west and north -south migration routes along the valley structures in which Downtown Dublin is situated. Id. On September 27, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 454, reinstating as state law the recently repealed federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act ("MBTA"). As a result, Packet Pg. 111 5.1.e Cambria Hotel Project April 24, 2020 Page 9 of 14 California Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA. The Project's glass windows inserted into the aerosphere would annually kill birds of many species protected by California's new version of the MBTA, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Id., p. 5. On March 18, 2019, the tricolored blackbird was listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act ("CESA"). See State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California, p. 11, available at https://nnn.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109405&inline. eBird records reveal that the tricolored blackbird has been observed west and east of Dublin, so therefore likely flies across Dublin during dispersal and migration. Ex. B, p. 4, 5. The Project's glass windows, which will be in the tricolored blackbird' aerosphere, would likely kill some of them, resulting in a v potentially significant impact on that threatened species. Id., p. 5. 0 As Dr. Smallwood states, reports of scientific investigations published since 2010 have informed the scientific community of the magnitude of impacts on North American birds, of the factors contributing to bird -window collisions, and how to mitigate collision risk. Id. Further, most of the studies contributing to the current understanding of the use of structural glass were reported in the scientific literature since 2010, and the most comprehensive and informed guidelines on building design and landscaping to minimize impacts were produced after 2010. All of this information, including California's adoption of the MBTA and the change in the tricolored blackbird's listing status, was not known at the time the DDSP EIR was certified and could not have been known because the information came out after the DDSP EIR was certified. Based on this information, Dr. Smallwood's analysis provides substantial evidence of a new significant impact that was not known and could not have been known at the time the DDSP EIR was certified, and therefore a project -level EIR is required. D. There is Substantial Evidence of New Information of Substantial Importance, Which was Not Known and Could Not Have Been Known with the Exercise of Reasonable Diligence at the Time the DDSP EIR was Certified as Complete Showing the Project Will Have a Significant Impact on Air Quality from Construction Emissions that was Not Discussed in the DDSP EIR. Environmental consulting firm SWAPE conducted a review of the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project's air quality impacts. SWAPE Comments (March 25, 2020) (Exhibit C). The DDSP EIR explicitly stated that for construction emissions, individual projects within the DDSP would be subject to new project -level emission thresholds in the BAAQMD Draft CEQA Guidelines, if adopted, and that through the environmental review process for individual projects, additional mitigation may be required to further reduce emissions and potential impacts on a project -by -project basis. See DDSP EIR, p. 3-32. As stated above, BAAQMD adopted and updated the Draft CEQA Guidelines after the certification of the DDSP EIR and there is no evidence that the City conducted a project -level emissions analysis for the Project. In an effort to determine the Project's construction emissions, SWAPE prepared a CalEEMod model for the Project, using the Project -specific information provided in the Project's Packet Pg. 112 5.1.e Cambria Hotel Project April 24, 2020 Page 10 of 14 documentation. Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day) Model VOC/ROG SWAPE 54.8 BAAQMD Regional Threshold (lbs/day) 54 Threshold Exceeded? Yes 0 x When modeled, the Project's construction -related VOC emissions exceed the BAAQMD M significance threshold of 54 lbs/day, resulting in a significant impact. Ex. C, p. 5. SWAPE's analysis provides substantial evidence of a significant impact not discussed in the previous M DDSP EIR because SWAPE's analysis is new information, which was not known and could not v have been known at the time the DDSP EIR was certified because the BAAQMD CEQA 2 Guidelines had not yet been adopted. The City can therefore not rely on CEQA Guidelines J section 15182 to exempt the Project from a project -level EIR. c E. There is Substantial Evidence of New Information of Substantial Importance, Which was Not Known and Could Not Have Been Known with the Exercise of Reasonable Diligence at the Time the DDSP EIR was Certified as Complete Showing the Project Will Have a Significant Health Risk Impacts that were Not Discussed in the DDSP EIR. The DDSP EIR states that the development of any new stationary sources of TACs associated with the DDSP project area would be subject to BAAQMD rules and regulations and permitting requirements. DDSP EIR, p. 3-37. However, there is no evidence that the City evaluated the Project's potential health risk impacts. In an effort to demonstrate the potential risk posed by the Project to nearby sensitive receptors, SWAPE prepared a screening -level health risk assessment ("HRA"). SWAPE used AERSCREEN, the leading screening -level air quality dispersion model. Ex. C, pp. 7-10. SWAPE used a sensitive receptor distance of 50 meters (the distance to the closest sensitive receptor) and analyzed impacts to individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA guidance. Id., pp. 7-9. SWAPE calculates that the Project's construction and operation may pose cancer risks to adults, children, infants, and during the 3rd trimester of pregnancy of approximately 15, 98, 290, and 22 in one million, well above the BAAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. Id., pp. 9-10. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime calculated by SWAPE is 430 in one million, also exceeding the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Id., p. 10. SWAPE's analysis provides substantial evidence of a significant impact not discussed in the previous DDSP EIR because SWAPE's analysis is new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the DDSP EIR was certified because the BAAQMD CEQA significance thresholds had not yet been adopted and the DDSP EIR required project - level analysis of TACs. The City can therefore not rely on CEQA Guidelines section 15182 to Packet Pg. 113 5.1.e Cambria Hotel Project April 24, 2020 Page 11 of 14 exempt the Project from a project -level EIR. F. There is Substantial Evidence of New Information of Substantial Importance, Which was Not Known and Could Not Have Been Known with the Exercise of Reasonable Diligence at the Time the DDSP EIR was Certified as Complete Showing the Project Will Have a Significant Greenhouse Gas Impacts that were Not Discussed in the DDSP EIR. The DDSP EIR states that future projects within the City, including those within the as DDSP, are to be reviewed on a project -by -project basis to ensure they comply with the City's greenhouse gas ("GHG") policies in order to determine if any impacts would occur beyond those already identified in the DDSP EIR. DDSP EIR, p. 3-42. With regards to GHG significance M criteria, the City elected to use their own GHG significance criterion "until such a time as a state v or regional threshold is adopted by a competent agency." Id., p. 3-44. As stated above, there is no evidence that the City reviewed the Project's GHG emissions at a project -level. 0 In order to determine the Project's GHG emissions, SWAPE ran a GHG analysis using CalEEMod with Project -specific information as disclosed in the Project's documents. SWAPE determined that the Project's emissions include approximately 380 MT CO2e/year of total construction emissions and approximately 1,570 MT CO2e/year of annual operational emissions. Ex. C, p. 13. Since BAAQMD adopted GHG thresholds, SWAPE compared the Project's emissions to BAAQMD's bright -line threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e/year, concluding that the Project's emissions exceed the significance threshold. Id. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 77Annual Proposed Project Phase Project (MT CO2e/year) Construction (amortized over 30 years) 12.65 Area 0.0079 Energy 579.46 Mobile 941.52 Waste 37.99 Water 10.7 Total 1,582.33 Threshold 1,100 Exceed? Yes Since the Project's GHG emissions exceed the BAAQMD's 1,100 MT CO2e/year significance threshold, a service population analysis is warranted. Id. SWAPE divided the Project's GHG emissions by the service population value of 199 people to find that the Project would emit approximately 7.95 MT CO2e/SP/year, which exceeds the BAAQMD's efficiency Packet Pg. 114 5.1.e Cambria Hotel Project April 24, 2020 Page 12 of 14 target goal of 2.6 MT CO2e/SP/year. Id., pp. 13-14. WAPE Greenhouse Gas Emissions 7 Project Phase Proposed Project (MT CO2e/year) Annual Emissions 1,582.33 Service Population 199 Service Population Efficiency 7.95 Threshold Exceed? 2.6 Yes SWAPE's GHG analyses provide substantial evidence of a significant impact not discussed in the previous DDSP EIR because SWAPE's analyses are new information, which were not known and could not have been known at the time the DDSP EIR was certified because the BAAQMD CEQA significance thresholds had not yet been adopted and the DDSP EIR required project -level analysis of GHG emissions. The City can therefore not rely on CEQA Guidelines section 15182 to exempt the Project from a project -level EIR. G. There are Substantial Changed Circumstances Requiring Major Revisions to the DDSP EIR Due to a Substantial Increase in the Severity of Previously Identified Transportation and Circulation Significant Effects. Under CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a)(2), if there is substantial evidence of substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the DDSP EIR due to a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, then a subsequent EIR should be prepared. The DDSP EIR found that in the Near -Term, the Base FAR Project and Maximum FAR Project results in significant and unavoidable impacts, and in the Cumulative scenario, the Maximum FAR Project results in significant and unavoidable impacts. See DDSP EIR, pp. 3-172-3-175. Traffic engineer Dan Smith conducted a review of the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project's impacts on traffic and circulation. Dan Smith Comments (March 24, 2020) (Exhibit D). Mr. Smith concludes that the traffic and circulation circumstances in the DDSP area have significantly changed since the DDSP EIR's 2010 analysis of these impacts, and there has been a substantial increase in the severity of the DDSP EIR's previously identified significant impacts on traffic and circulation. The City may therefore not rely on CEQA Guidelines section 15182 to exempt the Project from environmental review. As Mr. Smith notes, the DDSP EIR Traffic and Circulation analysis relied on an existing traffic data base going back to 2008 and its impact and mitigation findings were based on forecasts of Near Term traffic to 2015 and Cumulative traffic to year 2035. Ex. D, p. 2. The 2015 analysis is based on existing traffic counts, estimated traffic from a limited set of entitled 0 x 0 �L E M 0 Packet Pg. 115 5.1.e Cambria Hotel Project April 24, 2020 Page 13 of 14 projects, six within the Project area itself, four elsewhere in Dublin and three others in nearby areas of Pleasanton and San Ramon, the Project itself, and an estimate of regional traffic growth through the Project study area to 2015. Id. The 2025 analysis is estimated from Project generated traffic and general plan based modeled traffic estimates for the area. Id. Mr. Smith states that the problem with the DDSP EIR analyses is: many additional major projects have been approved in Dublin alone since 2010, many of them not on the entitled projects list in the [DDSP EIR] and many of them requiring General Plan Amendments, so not reflected in either the 2015 or M 2035 analyses. In fact there have been a total of 12 development projects 0 requiring General Plan Amendments approved in Dublin between 2010 and 2018. v Id. To show just how much these additional projects have changed the traffic and circulation in the DDSP area, Mr. Smith lists out these major additional projects and the increase in daily trips they add to the DDSP area that were not considered in the DDSP EIR Traffic and Circulation analysis. See Ex. B, pp. 2-4. The major projects identified in Mr. Smith's analysis, together with numerous small projects not mentioned in his analysis, were clearly not considered or not fully considered in the DDSP EIR traffic analysis. Therefore, there is substantial evidence of substantial changed circumstances due to a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects that preclude the City's reliance on the DDSP and exemption from further CEQA review under Guidelines sections 15182 and 15162. H. There are Mitigation Measures That are Considerably Different From Those Analyzed in the DDSP EIR that Would Substantially Reduce Significant Effects on the Environment, but the City declines to Adopt the Mitigation Measures. If there is new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known when the DDSP EIR was certified as complete, including mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the DDSP EIR that would substantially reduce significant effects on the environment, but the City declines to adopt them, then a subsequent EIR may be required. See CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(3). The DDSP EIR did not analyze the impacts on biological resources or indoor air quality, yet as Mr. Offermann and Dr. Smallwood concluded, the Project will have significant impacts on indoor air quality and biological resources. The DDSP EIR also concluded that the air quality and GHG emission impacts would be less than significant, yet SWAPE concluded that the Project will have significant air quality and GHG impacts. Along with these experts' conclusions, they provided feasible mitigation measures that the City could implement to substantially reduce the significant impacts they identified. However, since the City relies on CEQA Guidelines section 15182 to exempt the Project from further environmental review, the City is declining to adopt any mitigation measures for the Project's impacts outside of the ones identified in the DDSP EIR. Packet Pg. 116 5.1.e Cambria Hotel Project April 24, 2020 Page 14 of 14 Mr. Offermann's comment includes a list of mitigation measures the City could feasibly implement to substantially reduce the Project's significant indoor air quality impacts. Ex. A, pp. 11-12. The effectiveness of these mitigation measures were not fully understood until after the certification of the DDSP EIR, so it is new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known when the DDSP EIR was certified as complete. Dr. Smallwood's comment also includes a list of mitigation measures the City could feasibly implement to substantially reduce the Project's significant impacts on biological a) resources. Ex. B, pp. 13-16. Most of the mitigation measures suggested by Dr. Smallwood were not identified until after the DDSP EIR was certified, such as the American Bird Conservancy Guidelines in 2015, and the City of San Francisco building design guidelines in 2011. See id., p. 16. These mitigation measures are therefore new information of substantial importance, which were not known and could not have been known when the DDSP EIR was certified as complete. 0 SWAPE's comment also includes a list of mitigation measures the City could feasibly implement to substantially reduce the Project's significant construction and operational emissions. See Ex. C, pp. 14-21. Many of these mitigation measures were not identified until after the DDSP EIR was certified, including the Northeast Diesel Collaborative's Best Practices for Clean Diesel Construction in 2012. See id., p. 15. These mitigation measures are therefore new information of substantial importance, which were not known and could not have been known when the DDSP EIR was certified as complete. The feasible mitigation measures Mr. Offermann, Dr. Smallwood, and environmental consulting firm SWAPE recommended to substantially reduce the significant impacts each expert also identified that the Project will have is new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence when the DDSP EIR was certified, and are considerably difference from those analyzed in the DDSP EIR because no mitigation measures were analyzed for these categories of environmental effects. The City therefore cannot rely on CEQA Guidelines section 15182 to exempt the Project from project -level environmental review. IV. CONCLUSION The City has not met the criterion under CEQA Guidelines section 15182 and therefore cannot use section 15182 to relieve the City from conducting project -level CEQA review for the Project. Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please include this letter and all attachments hereto in the record of proceedings for this project. Sincerely, Paige Fennie Lozeau I Drury LLP Packet Pg. 117 5.1.e Exhibit A J Q Packet Pg. 118 5.1.e HEE INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING HEE 1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700 E-mail: offermannOIEE-SF.com hLtp://www.iee-sf com Date: March 19, 2020 To: Paige Fennie Lozeau I Drury LLP; 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 X Oakland, California 94612 E From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH v Subject: Indoor Air Quality: \Cambria Hotel — Dublin, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4344) Pages: 15 Indoor Air Quality Impacts Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well -recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high- performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments. The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain Packet Pg. 119 and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants. Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk; 0 as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No M L Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level E M calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., v L ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL as J concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming d a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% E 0 absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL v Q concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 J as µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68. X Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the Bay Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD, 2017). Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non -cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3. The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea -formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and Packet Pg. 120 5.1.e particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARE) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced; 0 emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that M L homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor E M formaldehyde concentrations that are below cancer and non -cancer exposure guidelines. v A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016- 2018 (Chan et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 38% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 112 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products, which is more than 11 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a). With respect to this project, the buildings in the Cambria Hotel Project in Dublin, CA consist of a hotel. The employees of the hotel are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels. 3 Packet Pg. 121 5.1.e Because the hotel will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 22.4 µg/m3 (Chan et. al., 2019) Assuming that the hotel employees work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day,; 0 the formaldehyde dose per work -day at the offices is 149 µg/day. M L E M Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years v (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 65.8 µg/day. This is 1.64 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 16.4 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report ("EIR"), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR. While measurements of the indoor concentrations of formaldehyde in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials (Chan et. al., 2018), indicate that indoor formaldehyde concentrations in buildings built with similar materials (e.g. hotels, residences, offices, warehouses, schools) will pose cancer risks in excess of the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million, a determination of the cancer risk that is specific to this project and the materials used to construct these buildings can and should be conducted prior to completion of the environmental review. The following describes a method that should be used prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of the specific building materials/furnishings al Packet Pg. 122 5.1.e selected for the building exceed cancer and non -cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City's CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non -cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project. as 0 Pre -Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment. M 'L E M This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review v L under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed J loading of building materials/furnishings, the area -specific formaldehyde emission rate d data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation E E 0 rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine before the v Q conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings J are specified, purchased, and installed if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer ' as and non -cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific x° 2 material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that E cancer and non -cancer guidelines are not exceeded. � 1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well -mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type. 2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde 5 Packet Pg. 123 5.1.e sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea - formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard). 3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area -specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit -specific formaldehyde emission rate c (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone. _ 'L E M NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes v L (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers J of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate d tests using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and E E 0 Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using v Q Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate J testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States ' as conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for ° x 0 Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate E testing methods. � CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area -specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area -specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission Con Packet Pg. 124 rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area -specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate. If the actual area -specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test °' 0 report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area- M L specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed E M in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and v L reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor J Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air d Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals E E 0 with the greatest emission rates. 0 Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate. 4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3. 5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (in 3/h) for the IAQ Zone. Etotal Cin = (Equation 1) Qoa where: Cln = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) 7 Packet Pg. 125 5.1.e Etotai = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone. Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section 3.10.2 "Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations" of the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017). as 6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non -Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ X I Zone, calculate the cancer and non -cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde E concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots v Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk; as Assessments (OEHHA, 2015). y 7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehydeposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non -Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non -cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0. Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non -cancer health risks. Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include: 1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde 2.) substituting a different material with a lower area -specific emission rate of formaldehyde Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include: 1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone. NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, N. Packet Pg. 126 5.1.e or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems. Further, we are not asking that the builder to "speculate" on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile 6 0 Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", L (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre -Construction Building E Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials �? L selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated air contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24-hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24-hour measurement was 0.26 ach, with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations. 9 Packet Pg. 127 5.1.e The Cambria Hotel Project — Dublin, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g. I-580, Dublin Boulevard, and San Ramon Boulevard, etc.). As a result of the outdoor vehicle traffic noise, the Project site is likely to be a sound impacted site. The noise analyses provided in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (RBF Consultants, 2010), reports in Table 3.7-5, noise levels exceeding 65 dBA CNEL at many locations and ranging to a maximum of 70.1 dBA CNEL As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require the need for c mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation air to allow for a habitable interior M L environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow E M windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant's discretion to control exterior noise v L within building interiors. PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. According to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (RBF Consultants, 2010), this Project is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non -attainment area for PM2.5. An air quality analyses should to be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. 10 Packet Pg. 128 5.1.e It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems. Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon o x indoor quality: �L E �M♦ V indoor formaldehyde concentrations L - outdoor air ventilation - PM2.5 outdoor air concentrations Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no -added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra -low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins (CARE, 2009). Other projects such as the AC by Marriott Hotel — West San Jose Project (Asset Gas SC Inc.) and 2525 North Main Street, Santa Ana (AC 2525 Main LLC, 2019) have entered into settlement agreements stipulating the use of composite wood materials only containing NAF or ULEF resins. Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre -Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non -cancer health risks. It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder to "speculate" on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using 11 Packet Pg. 129 Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre -Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Outdoor Air Ventilation Miti ag tion. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the o greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the M L system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is E M entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor v L airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced J outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a d manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the E E 0 mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the v Q system. PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement. References AC 2525 Main LLC. 2019. Environmental Settlement Agreement with Laborers' International Union of North America Local 652. 12 Packet Pg. 130 5.1.e Asset Gas SC. Inc. 2019. Settlement Agreement and Release with Jose Mexicano, Alejandro Martinez, and Laborers' International Union of North America Local 652. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, San Francisco, CA. http://www.baagmd.gov/-/media/files/planning-and- research/ceaa/ceaa guidelines mav2017-ndf.ndf?la=en as 0 x BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. c° L www.bifma.org//page/standardsoverview E 0 California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca. og v/reaact/2007/compwoodO7/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. hltps://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA. California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA hitp://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx. California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf. 13 Packet Pg. 131 5.1.e California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca. gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf CDPH.2017. StandardMethodfor the Testing andEvaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1. California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ ; 0 DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. M L E Chan, W., Kim, Y., Singer, B., and Walker I. 2019. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in v L New California Homes with Gas Appliances and Mechanical Ventilation. Lawrence J Berkeley National Laboratory, Energy Technologies Area, LBNL-2001200, DOI: d 10.20357/B7QC7X. Er - EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 — Activity Factors Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235-242. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at: hLtp://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/Tdf/safeharborO8l5l3.pdf 14 Packet Pg. 132 OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at: hltp:Hoehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy -Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/i)ast/04-310.ydf ; 0 x c� L Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic E M Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12'h International Conference v L on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX USA. Price, Phillip P., Max Sherman, Robert H. Lee, and Thomas Piazza. 2007. Study of Ventilation Practices and Household Characteristics in New California Homes. RBF Consultants. 2010. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report. USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.us bg corg/credits/homes/v4 15 Packet Pg. 133 5.1.e Francis (Bud) J. Offermann III PE, CIH Indoor Environmental Engineering 1448 Pine Street, Suite 103, San Francisco, CA 94109 Phone:415-567-7700 Email: Offermann@iee-sf.com http://www.iee-sf.com Education M.S. Mechanical Engineering (1985) Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Graduate Studies in Air Pollution Monitoring and Control (1980) University of California, Berkeley, CA. B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (1976) Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y. Professional Experience President: Indoor Environmental Engineering, San Francisco, CA. December, 1981 - present. Direct team of environmental scientists, chemists, and mechanical engineers in conducting State and Federal research regarding indoor air quality instrumentation development, building air quality field studies, ventilation and air cleaning performance measurements, and chemical emission rate testing. Provide design side input to architects regarding selection of building materials and ventilation system components to ensure a high quality indoor environment. Direct Indoor Air Quality Consulting Team for the winning design proposal for the new State of Washington Ecology Department building. Develop a full-scale ventilation test facility for measuring the performance of air diffusers; ASHRAE 129, Air Change Effectiveness, and ASHRAE 113, Air Diffusion Performance Index. Develop a chemical emission rate testing laboratory for measuring the chemical emissions from building materials, furnishings, and equipment. Principle Investigator of the California New Homes Study (2005-2007). Measured ventilation and indoor air quality in 108 new single family detached homes in northern and southern California. Develop and teach IAQ professional development workshops to building owners, managers, hygienists, and engineers. 0 x E M 0 Packet Pg. 134 5.1.e Air Pollution Engineer: Earth Metrics Inc., Burlingame, CA, October, 1985 to March, 1987. Responsible for development of an air pollution laboratory including installation a forced choice olfactometer, tracer gas electron capture chromatograph, and associated calibration facilities. Field team leader for studies of fugitive odor emissions from sewage treatment plants, entrainment of fume hood exhausts into computer chip fabrication rooms, and indoor air quality investigations. Staff Scientist: Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Program, Energy and Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. January, 1980 to 0 August, 1984. _ L Deputy project leader for the Control Techniques group; responsible for laboratory and E field studies aimed at evaluating the performance of indoor air pollutant control strategies c? (i.e. ventilation, filtration, precipitation, absorption, adsorption, and source control). Coordinated field and laboratory studies of air-to-air heat exchangers including evaluation of thermal performance, ventilation efficiency, cross -stream contaminant transfer, and the effects of freezing/defrosting. Developed an in situ test protocol for evaluating the performance of air cleaning systems and introduced the concept of effective cleaning rate (ECR) also known as the Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR). Coordinated laboratory studies of portable and ducted air cleaning systems and their effect on indoor concentrations of respirable particles and radon progeny. Co -designed an automated instrument system for measuring residential ventilation rates and radon concentrations. Designed hardware and software for a multi -channel automated data acquisition system used to evaluate the performance of air-to-air heat transfer equipment. Assistant Chief En ig neer: Alta Bates Hospital, Berkeley, CA, October, 1979 to January, 1980. Responsible for energy management projects involving installation of power factor correction capacitors on large inductive electrical devices and installation of steam meters on physical plant steam lines. Member of Local 39, International Union of Operating Engineers. Manufacturing Engineer: American Precision Industries, Buffalo, NY, October, 1977 to October, 1979. 2 Packet Pg. 135 5.1.e Responsible for reorganizing the manufacturing procedures regarding production of shell and tube heat exchangers. Designed customized automatic assembly, welding, and testing equipment. Designed a large paint spray booth. Prepared economic studies justifying new equipment purchases. Safety Director. Project Engineer: Arcata Graphics, Buffalo, N.Y. June, 1976 to October, 1977. Responsible for the design and installation of a bulk ink storage and distribution system and high speed automatic counting and marking equipment. Also coordinated material handling studies which led to the purchase and installation of new equipment. PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) • Chairman of SPC-145P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Assessing the Performance of Gas Phase Air Cleaning Equipment (1991-1992) • Member SPC-129P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Ventilation Effectiveness (1986-97) - Member of Drafting Committee • Member Environmental Health Committee (1992-1994, 1997-2001, 2007-2010) - Chairman of EHC Research Subcommittee - Member of Man Made Mineral Fiber Position Paper Subcommittee - Member of the IAQ Position Paper Committee - Member of the Legionella Position Paper Committee - Member of the Limiting Indoor Mold and Dampness in Buildings Position Paper Committee • Member SSPC-62, Standing Standards Project Committee - Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality (1992 to 2000) - Chairman of Source Control and Air Cleaning Subcommittee • Chairman of TC-4.10, Indoor Environmental Modeling (1988-92) - Member of Research Subcommittee • Chairman of TC-2.3, Gaseous Air Contaminants and Control Equipment (1989-92) - Member of Research Subcommittee American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) • D-22 Sampling and Analysis of Atmospheres - Member of Indoor Air Quality Subcommittee • E-06 Performance of Building Constructions American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH) American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) • Bioaerosols Committee (2007-2013) as 0 x c� E M 0 Packet Pg. 136 5.1.e American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) Cal -OSHA Indoor Air Quality Advisory Committee International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate (ISIAQ) • Co -Chairman of Task Force on HVAC Hygiene U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC) - Member of the IEQ Technical Advisory Group (2007-2009) - Member of the IAQ Performance Testing Work Group (2010-2012) as 0 Western Construction Consultants (WESTCON) _ 0 �L E PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS 0 Licensed Professional Engineer - Mechanical Engineering Certified Industrial Hygienist - American Board of Industrial Hygienists SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA Biological Contamination, Diagnosis, and Mitigation, Indoor Air'90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990. Models for Predicting Air Quality, Indoor Air'90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990. Microbes in Building Materials and Systems, Indoor Air '93, Helsinki, Finland, July, 1993. Microorganisms in Indoor Air Assessment and Evaluation of Health Effects and Probable Causes, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997. Controlling Microbial Moisture Problems in Buildings, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997. Scientific Advisory Committee, Roomvent 98, 61h International Conference on Air Distribution in Rooms, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, June 14-17, 1998. Moisture and Mould, Indoor Air '99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999. Ventilation Modeling and Simulation, Indoor Air '99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999. Microbial Growth in Materials, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August, 2000. El Packet Pg. 137 5.1.e Co -Chair, Bioaerosols X- Exposures in Residences, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002. Healthy Indoor Environments, Anaheim, CA, April 2003. Chair, Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Multi -Family Homes, Indoor Air 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2008. Co -Chair, ISIAQ Task Force Workshop; HVAC Hygiene, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002. as 0 Chair, ETS in Multi -Family Housing: Exposures, Controls, and Legalities Forum, _ Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009. E Chair, Energy Conservation and IAQ in Residences Workshop, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, 0 TX, June 6, 2011. Chair, Electronic Cigarettes: Chemical Emissions and Exposures Colloquium, Indoor Air 2016, Ghent, Belgium, July 4, 2016. SPECIAL CONSULTATION Provide consultation to the American Home Appliance Manufacturers on the development of a standard for testing portable air cleaners, AHAM Standard AC-1. Served as an expert witness and special consultant for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission regarding the performance claims found in advertisements of portable air cleaners and residential furnace filters. Conducted a forensic investigation for a San Mateo, CA pro se defendant, regarding an alleged homicide where the victim was kidnapped in a steamer trunk. Determined the air exchange rate in the steamer trunk and how long the person could survive. Conducted in situ measurement of human exposure to toluene fumes released during nailpolish application for a plaintiffs attorney pursuing a California Proposition 65 product labeling case. June, 1993. Conducted a forensic in situ investigation for the Butte County, CA Sheriff's Department of the emissions of a portable heater used in the bedroom of two twin one year old girls who suffered simultaneous crib death. Consult with OSHA on the 1995 proposed new regulation regarding indoor air quality and environmental tobacco smoke. E Packet Pg. 138 5.1.e Consult with EPA on the proposed Building Alliance program and with OSHA on the proposed new OSHA IAQ regulation. Johnson Controls Audit/Certification Expert Review; Milwaukee, WI. May 28-29, 1997. Winner of the nationally published 1999 Request for Proposals by the State of Washington to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Washington State Department of Ecology building in Lacey, WA. Selected by the State of California Attorney General's Office in August, 2000 to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Tulare County Court House. as 0 Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory IAQ Experts Workshop: "Cause and Prevention of Sick = Building Problems in Offices: The Experience of Indoor Environmental Quality Investigators", Berkeley, California, May 26-27, 2004. E c.� Provide consultation and chemical emission rate testing to the State of California Attorney General's Office in 2013-2015 regarding the chemical emissions from e- cigarettes. c d E E PEER -REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS: v F.J.Offermann, C.D.Hollowell, and G.D.Roseme, "Low -Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Environment International, 8, pp. 435-445, 1982. W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and A.W.Robb, "Automated System for Measuring Air Exchange Rate and Radon Concentration in Houses," Health Physics, 45, pp. 525-537, 1983. F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window -Mounted Residential Air -to -Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 89-2B, pp 507-527, 1983. W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Onset of Freezing in Residential Air -to -Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91- IB, 1984. W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Performance of Residential Air -to -Air Heat Exchangers During Operation with Freezing and Periodic Defrosts," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91-IB, 1984. F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, and K.L.Revzan, "Control of Respirable Particles with Portable Air Cleaners," Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 19, pp.1761-1771, 1985. Packet Pg. 139 5.1.e R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater, "Evaluation of Indoor Control Devices and Their Effects on Radon Progeny Concentrations," Atmospheric Environment, 12, pp. 429-438, 1986. W.J. Fisk, R.K.Spencer, F.J.Offermann, R.K.Spencer, B.Pedersen, R.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques," Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, (1987). F.J.Offermann, "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," ASHRAE Transactions , Volume 94, Part 1, pp 694-704, 1988. F.J.Offermann and D. Int-Hout "Ventilation Effectiveness Measurements of Three ,. Supply/Return Air Configurations," Environment International, Volume 15, pp 585-592 0 1989. _ L F.J. Offermann, S.A. Loiselle, M.C. Quinlan, and M.S. Rogers, "A Study of Diesel Fume E Entrainment in an Office Building," IA '89, The Human Equation: Health and c? Comfort, pp 179-183, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1989. R.G.Sextro and F.J.Offermann, "Reduction of Residential Indoor Particle and Radon Progeny Concentrations with Ducted Air Cleaning Systems," submitted to Indoor Air, 1990. S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, and F.J.Offermann, "Development of An Indoor Air Sampler for Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air, Vol 2, pp 191-210, 1991. F.J.Offermann, S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, L.A. Gundel, and J.M. Daisey, "A Pilot Study to Measure Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 4, pp 497-512, 1991. F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance Comparisons of Six Different Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air Ventilation System," IA '91, Healthy Buildings, pp 342-350, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA (1991). F.J. Offermann, J. Daisey, A. Hodgson, L. Gundell, and S. Loiselle, "Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air, Vol 4, pp 497-512 (1992). F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance of Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air System," ASHRAE Journal, pp 51-57, July, 1992. F.J. Offermann and S. A. Loiselle, "Performance of an Air -Cleaning System in an Archival Book Storage Facility," IA '92, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1992. S.B. Hayward, K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, K. Shah, S. Loiselle, F.J. Offermann, Y.L. Chang, L. Webber, "Effectiveness of Ventilation and Other Controls in Reducing Exposure to ETS in Office Buildings," Indoor Air '93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993. 7 Packet Pg. 140 5.1.e F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, G. Ander, H. Lau, "Indoor Contaminant Emission Rates Before and After a Building Bake -out," IA '93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 157-163, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993. L.E. Alevantis, Hayward, S.B., Shah, S.B., Loiselle, S., and Offermann, F.J. "Tracer Gas Techniques for Determination of the Effectiveness of Pollutant Removal From Local Sources," IA '93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 119-129, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993. L.E. Alevantis, Liu, L.E., Hayward, S.B., Offermann, F.J., Shah, S.B., Leiserson, K. Tsao, E., and Huang, Y., "Effectiveness of Ventilation in 23 Designated Smoking Areas in California Buildings," IA '94, Engineering Indoor Environments, pp 167-181, o ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1994. _ L L.E. Alevantis, Offermann, F.J., Loiselle, S., and Macher, J.M., "Pressure and Ventilation E Requirements of Hospital Isolation Rooms for Tuberculosis (TB) Patients: Existing Guidelines in the United States and a Method for Measuring Room Leakage", Ventilation and Indoor air quality in Hospitals, M. Maroni, editor, Kluwer Academic publishers, Netherlands, 1996. F.J. Offermann, M. A. Waz, A.T. Hodgson, and H.M. Ammann, "Chemical Emissions from a Hospital Operating Room Air Filter," IA '96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 95-99, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996. F.J. Offermann, "Professional Malpractice and the Sick Building Investigator," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 132-136, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996. F.J. Offermann, "Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness," Indoor Air, Vol 1, pp.206-211, 1999. F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, and J. P. Robertson, "Contaminant Emission Rates from PVC Backed Carpet Tiles on Damp Concrete", Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, and F.J. Offermann, "A Survey of Environmental Tobacco Smoke Controls in California Office Buildings", Indoor Air, Vol 11, pp. 26-34, 2001. F.J. Offermann, R. Colfer, P. Radzinski, and J. Robertson, "Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in an Automobile", Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002. F. J. Offermann, J.P. Robertson, and T. Webster, "The Impact of Tracer Gas Mixing on Airflow Rate Measurements in Large Commercial Fan Systems", Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002. M. J. Mendell, T. Brennan, L. Hathon, J.D. Odom, F.J.Offermann, B.H. Turk, K.M. Wallingford, R.C. Diamond, W.J. Fisk, "Causes and prevention of Symptom Complaints Packet Pg. 141 5.1.e in Office Buildings: Distilling the Experience of Indoor Environmental Investigators", submitted to Indoor Air 2005, Beijing, China, September 4-9, 2005. F.J. Offermann, "Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes With and Without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems", Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009. F.J. Offermann, "ASHRAE 62.2 Intermittent Residential Ventilation: What's It Good For, Intermittently Poor IAQ", IAQVEC 2010, Syracuse, CA, April 21, 2010. F.J. Offermann and A.T. Hodgson, "Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes", Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011. as 0 P. Jenkins, R. Johnson, T. Phillips, and F. Offermann, Chemical Concentrations in New = California Homes and Garages", Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011. I E W. J. Mills, B. J. Grigg, F. J. Offermann, B. E. Gustin, and N. E. Spingarm, "Toluene and 0 Methyl Ethyl Ketone Exposure from a Commercially Available Contact Adhesive", Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 9:1395-13102 May, 2012. F. J. Offermann, R. Maddalena, J. C. Offermann, B. C. Singer, and H, Wilhelm, "The Impact of Ventilation on the Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in Residences", HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012. F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, P. L. Jenkins, R. D. Johnson, and T. J. Phillips, "Attached Garages as a Source of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes", HB 2012, Brisbane, CA, July, 2012. R. Maddalena, N. Li, F. Offermann, and B. Singer, "Maximizing Information from Residential Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds", HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012. W. Chen, A. Persily, A. Hodgson, F. Offermann, D. Poppendieck, and K. Kumagai, "Area -Specific Airflow Rates for Evaluating the Impacts of VOC emissions in U.S. Single -Family Homes", Building and Environment, Vol. 71, 204-211, February, 2014. F. J. Offermann, A. Eagan A. C. Offermann, and L. J. Radonovich, "Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications", Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014. F. J. Offermann, "Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures", Building and Environment, Vol. 93, Part 1, 101-105, November, 2015. F. J. Offermann, "Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Lumber Liquidators Laminate Flooring Manufactured in China", Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016. F. J. Offermann, "Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Emission Rates for E-Cigarettes", Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016. 6 Packet Pg. 142 5.1.e OTHER REPORTS: W.J.Fisk, P.G.Cleary, and F.J.Offermann, "Energy Saving Ventilation with Residential Heat Exchangers," a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory brochure distributed by the Bonneville Power Administration, 1981. F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and C.D.Hollowell, "Midway House Tightening Project: A Study of Indoor Air Quality," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-12777, 1981. F.J.Offermann, J.B.Dickinson, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, C.D.Hollowell, D.L.Krinkle, and 0 G.D.Roseme, "Residential Air -Leakage and Indoor Air Quality in Rochester, New York," _ Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-13100, 1982. I E F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, Residential Air -to -Air Heat 0 Exchangers: A Study of the Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window- Mounted Units," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-14358, 1982. F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, W.W.Nazaroff, and R.G.Sextro, "A Review of Portable Air Cleaners for Controlling Indoor Concentrations of Particulates and Radon Progeny," An interim report for the Bonneville Power Administration, 1983. W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E.Chant, D.Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.S. Pedersen, "Freezing in Residential Air -to -Air Heat Exchangers: An Experimental Study," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16783, 1983. R.G.Sextro, W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and K.L.Revzan, "Measurements of Indoor Aerosol Properties and Their Effect on Radon Progeny," Proceedings of the American Association of Aerosol Research Annual Meeting, April, 1983. F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, W.W. Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater, "Control of Respirable Particles and Radon Progeny with Portable Air Cleaners," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16659, 1984. W.J.Fisk, R.K.Spencer, D.T.Grimsrud, F.J.Offermann, B.Pedersen, and R.G.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques: A Critical Review," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16493, 1984. F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and R.G.Sextro, "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,", Indoor Air, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol 1, pp 257-264, Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm (1984), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-17603, 1984. 10 Packet Pg. 143 5.1.e R.Otto, J.Girman, F.Offermann, and R.Sextro,"A New Method for the Collection and Comparison of Respirable Particles in the Indoor Environment," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Special Director Fund's Study, 1984. A.T.Hodgson and F.J.Offermann, "Examination of a Sick Office Building," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, an informal field study, 1984. R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, and A.V.Nero, "Effects of Aerosol Concentrations on Radon Progeny," Aerosols, Science, & Technology, and Industrial Applications of Airborne Particles, editors B.Y.H.Liu, D.Y.H.Pui, and H.J.Fissan, p525, Elsevier, 1984. a� 0 K.Sexton, S.Hayward, F.Offermann, R.Sextro, and L.Weber, "Characterization of = Particulate and Organic Emissions from Major Indoor Sources, Proceedings of the Third I International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August E 20-24, 1984. 0 F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Laboratory Fume Entrainment at a Semi - Conductor Manufacturing Plant," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Ventilation Rates in a Large Office Building," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. F.J.Offermann, "Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds in a New Large Office Building with Adhesive Fastened Carpeting," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. F.J.Offermann, "Designing and Operating Healthy Buildings", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. F.J.Offermann, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Spray-Applicated Pesticides", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1988. F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Mold Contamination in a Residence", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989. F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Performance Measurements of an Air Cleaning System in a Large Archival Library Storage Facility", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989. F.J. Offermann, J.M. Daisey, L.A. Gundel, and A.T. Hodgson, S. A. Loiselle, "Sampling, Analysis, and Data Validation of Indoor Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Final Report, Contract No. A732-106, California Air Resources Board, March, 1990. 11 Packet Pg. 144 5.1.e L.A. Gundel, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann, "A Sampling and Analytical Method for Gas Phase Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August 1990. A.T. Hodgson, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann "Development of an Indoor Sampling and Analytical Method for Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August, 1990. F.J. Offermann, J.O. Sateri, "Tracer Gas Measurements in Large Multi -Room Buildings", Indoor Air '93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993. a� 0 F.J.Offermann, M. T. O'Flaherty, and M. A. Waz "Validation of ASHRAE 129 Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness", Final Report of ASHRAE Research Project 891, December 8, 1997. E S.E. Guffey, F.J. Offermann et. al., "Proceedings of the Workshop on Ventilation Engineering Controls for Environmental Tobacco smoke in the Hospitality Industry", U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration and ACGIH, 1998. F.J. Offermann, R.J. Fiskum, D. Kosar, and D. Mudaari, "A Practical Guide to Ventilation Practices & Systems for Existing Buildings", Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning Engineering supplement to April/May 1999 issue. F.J. Offermann, P. Pasanen, "Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems", Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. F.J. Offermann, Session Summaries: Building Investigations, and Design & Construction, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. F.J. Offermann, "The IAQ Top 10", Engineered Systems, November, 2008. L. Kincaid and F.J. Offermann, "Unintended Consequences: Formaldehyde Exposures in Green Homes, AIHA Synergist, February, 2010. F.J. Offermann, " IAQ in Air Tight Homes", ASHRAE Journal, November, 2010. F.J. Offermann, "The Hazards of E-Cigarettes", ASHRAE Journal, June, 2014. PRESENTATIONS: "Low -Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Presented at the International Symposium on Indoor Air Pollution, Health and Energy Conservation, Amherst, MA, October 13-16,1981. 12 Packet Pg. 145 "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window -Mounted Residential Air -to -Air Heat Exchangers," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Summer Meeting, Washington, DC, June, 1983. "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements," Presented at the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984. "Indoor Air Pollution: An Emerging Environmental Problem", Presented to the Association of Environmental Professionals, Bar Area/Coastal Region 1, Berkeley, CA, May 29, 1986. as 0 "Ventilation Measurement Techniques," Presented at the Workshop on Sampling and = I Analytical Techniques, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, September 26 1986 and September 25, 1987. E V "Buildings That Make You Sick: Indoor Air Pollution", Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 18, 1986. "Ventilation Effectiveness and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Northern Nevada Chapter, Reno, NV, February 18, 1987, Golden Gate Chapter, San Francisco, CA, October 1, 1987, and the San Jose Chapter, San Jose, CA, June 9, 1987. "Tracer Gas Techniques for Studying Ventilation," Presented at the Indoor Air Quality Symposium, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, September 22-24, 1987. "Indoor Air Quality Control: What Works, What Doesn't," Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 17, 1987. "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Winter Meeting, Dallas, Texas, January 31, 1988. "Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation, and Energy in Commercial Buildings", Presented at the Building Owners &Managers Association of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, July 21, 1988. "Controlling Indoor Air Quality: The New ASHRAE Ventilation Standards and How to Evaluate Indoor Air Quality", Presented at a conference "Improving Energy Efficiency and Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Buildings," National Energy Management Institute, Reno, Nevada, November 4, 1988. "A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment Into an Office Building," Presented at Indoor Air '89: The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, San Diego, CA, April 17-20, 1989. 13 Packet Pg. 146 5.1.e "Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Office Buildings," Presented at the Renewable Energy Technologies Symposium and International Exposition, Santa Clara, CA June 20, 1989. "Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the San Joaquin Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, September 7, 1989. "How to Meet New Ventilation Standards: Indoor Air Quality and Energy Efficiency," a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers; Chicago, IL, March 20-21, 1989; Atlanta, GA, May 25-26, 1989; San Francisco, CA, October 19-20, 1989; Orlando, FL, December 11-12, 1989; Houston, TX, January 29-30, 1990; Washington D.C., 0 February 26-27, 1990; Anchorage, Alaska, March 23, 1990; Las Vegas, NV, April 23-24, _ 1990; Atlantic City,NJ September 27-28 1991 • Anaheim CA November 19-20 1991 • c° Orlando, FL, February 28 - March 1, 1991; Washington, DC, March 20-21, 1991; E Chicago, IL, May 16-17, 1991; Lake Tahoe, NV, August 15-16, 1991; Atlantic City, NJ, c� November 18-19, 1991; San Jose, CA, March 23-24, 1992. "Indoor Air Quality," a seminar presented by the Anchorage, Alaska Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, March 23, 1990. "Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the 1990 HVAC & Building Systems Congress, Santa, Clara, CA, March 29, 1990. "Ventilation Standards for Office Buildings", Presented to the South Bay Property Managers Association, Santa Clara, May 9, 1990. "Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the Responsive Energy Technologies Symposium & International Exposition (RETSIE), Santa Clara, CA, June 20, 1990. "Indoor Air Quality - Management and Control Strategies", Presented at the Association of Energy Engineers, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Meeting, Berkeley, CA, September 25, 1990. "Diagnosing Indoor Air Contaminant and Odor Problems", Presented at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, New York City, NY, January 23, 1991. "Diagnosing and Treating the Sick Building Syndrome", Presented at the Energy 2001, Oklahoma, OK, March 19, 1991. "Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems" a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers, Chicago, IL, October 29-30, 1990; New York, NY, January 24-25, 1991; Anaheim, April 25-26, 1991; Boston, MA, June 10-11, 1991; Atlanta, GA, October 24-25, 1991; Chicago, IL, October 3-4, 1991; Las Vegas, NV, December 16-17, 1991; Anaheim, CA, January 30-31, 1992; Atlanta, GA, March 5-6, 1992; Washington, DC, May 7-8, 1992; Chicago, IL, August 19-20, 1992; Las Vegas, 14 Packet Pg. 147 5.1.e NV, October 1-2, 1992; New York City, NY, October 26-27, 1992, Las Vegas, NV, March 18-19, 1993; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 14-15, 1994; Las Vegas, NV, April 3-4, 1995; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 11-12, 1996; Miami, Fl, December 9-10, 1996. "Sick Building Syndrome and the Ventilation Engineer", Presented to the San Jose Engineers Club, May, 21, 1991. "Duct Cleaning: Who Needs It ? How Is It Done ? What Are The Costs T' What Are the Risks ?, Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis ID, June 23, 1991. "Operating Healthy Buildings", Association of Plant Engineers, Oakland, CA, November o 14, 1991. _ L "Duct Cleaning Perspectives", Moderator of Seminar at the ASHRAE Semi -Annual E Meeting, Indianapolis, IN, June 24, 1991. 0 "Duct Cleaning: The Role of the Environmental Hygienist," ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, January 29, 1992. "Emerging IAQ Issues", Fifth National Conference on Indoor Air Pollution, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, April 13-14, 1992. "International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness", Member of Scientific Advisory Board, University of Tokyo, July 22-24, 1992. "Guidelines for Contaminant Control During Construction and Renovation Projects in Office Buildings," Seminar paper at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993. "Outside Air Economizers: IAQ Friend or Foe", Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993. "Orientation to Indoor Air Quality," an EPA two and one half day comprehensive indoor air quality introductory workshop for public officials and building property managers; Sacramento, September 28-30, 1992; San Francisco, February 23-24, 1993; Los Angeles, March 16-18, 1993; Burbank, June 23, 1993; Hawaii, August 24-25, 1993; Las Vegas, August 30, 1993; San Diego, September 13-14, 1993; Phoenix, October 18-19, 1993; Reno, November 14-16, 1995; Fullerton, December 3-4, 1996; Fresno, May 13-14, 1997. "Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers," an EPA one half day indoor air quality introductory workshop for building owners and facility managers. Presented throughout Region IX 1993-1995. "Techniques for Airborne Disease Control", EPRI Healthcare Initiative Symposium; San Francisco, CA; June 7, 1994. 15 Packet Pg. 148 5.1.e "Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems", CIHC Conference; San Francisco, September 29, 1994. "Indoor Air Quality: Tools for Schools," an EPA one day air quality management workshop for school officials, teachers, and maintenance personnel; San Francisco, October 18-20, 1994; Cerritos, December 5, 1996; Fresno, February 26, 1997; San Jose, March 27, 1997; Riverside, March 5, 1997; San Diego, March 6, 1997; Fullerton, November 13, 1997; Santa Rosa, February 1998; Cerritos, February 26, 1998; Santa Rosa, March 2, 1998. ASHRAE 62 Standard "Ventilation for Acceptable IAQ", ASCR Convention; San Francisco, CA, March 16, 1995. 0 x "New Developments in Indoor Air Quality: Protocol for Diagnosing IAQ Problems", AIHA-NC; March 25, 1995. E "Experimental Validation of ASHRAE SPC 129, Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness", 16th AIVC Conference, Palm Springs, USA, September 19-22, 1995. J y "Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment", American Society of Safety Engineers Seminar: `Indoor Air Quality — The Next Door'; San Jose Chapter, September 27, 1995; Oakland Chapter, 9, 1997. "Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment", Local 39; Oakland, CA, October 3, 1995. "Diagnostic Protocols for Solving IAQ Problems", CSU-PPD Conference; October 24, 1995. "Demonstrating Compliance with ASHRAE 62-1989 Ventilation Requirements", AIHA; October 25, 1995. "IAQ Diagnostics: Hands on Assessment of Building Ventilation and Pollutant Transport", EPA Region IX; Phoenix, AZ, March 12, 1996; San Francisco, CA, April 9, 1996; Burbank, CA, April 12, 1996. "Experimental Validation of ASHRAE 129P: Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness", Room Vent `96 / International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness"; Yokohama, Japan, July 16-19, 1996. "IAQ Diagnostic Methodologies and RFP Development", CCEHSA 1996 Annual Conference, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, August 2, 1996. "The Practical Side of Indoor Air Quality Assessments", California Industrial Hygiene Conference `96, San Diego, CA, September 2, 1996. 16 Packet Pg. 149 5.1.e "ASHRAE Standard 62: Improving Indoor Environments", Pacific Gas and Electric Energy Center, San Francisco, CA, October 29, 1996. "Operating and Maintaining Healthy Buildings", April 3-4, 1996, San Jose, CA; July 30, 1997, Monterey, CA. "IAQ Primer", Local 39, April 16, 1997; Amdahl Corporation, June 9, 1997; State Compensation Insurance Fund's Safety & Health Services Department, November 21, 1996. "Tracer Gas Techniques for Measuring Building Air Flow Rates", ASHRAE, Philadelphia, PA, January 26, 1997. "How to Diagnose and Mitigate Indoor Air Quality Problems"; Women in Waste; March 19, 1997. "Environmental Engineer: What Is It?", Monte Vista High School Career Day; April 10, 1997. "Indoor Environment Controls: What's Hot and What's Not", Shaklee Corporation; San Francisco, CA, July 15, 1997. "Measurement of Ventilation System Performance Parameters in the US EPA BASE Study", Healthy Buildings/IAQ'97, Washington, DC, September 29, 1997. "Operations and Maintenance for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments", PASMA; October 7, 1997. "Designing for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments", Construction Specification Institute, Santa Rosa, CA, November 6, 1997. "Ventilation System Design for Good IAQ", University of Tulsa loth Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA, February 25, 1998. "The Building Shell", Tools For Building Green Conference and Trade Show, Alameda County Waste Management Authority and Recycling Board, Oakland, CA, February 28, 1998. "Identifying Fungal Contamination Problems In Buildings", The City of Oakland Municipal Employees, Oakland, CA, March 26, 1998. "Managing Indoor Air Quality in Schools: Staying Out of Trouble", CASBO, Sacramento, CA, April 20, 1998. "Indoor Air Quality", CSOOC Spring Conference, Visalia, CA, April 30, 1998. "Particulate and Gas Phase Air Filtration", ACGIH/OSHA, Ft. Mitchell, KY, June 1998. a 0 x c� �L E M V 17 Packet Pg. 150 5.1.e "Building Air Quality Facts and Myths", The City of Oakland / Alameda County Safety Seminar, Oakland, CA, June 12, 1998. "Building Engineering and Moisture", Building Contamination Workshop, University of California Berkeley, Continuing Education in Engineering and Environmental Management, San Francisco, CA, October 21-22, 1999. "Identifying and Mitigating Mold Contamination in Buildings", Western Construction Consultants Association, Oakland, CA, March 15, 2000; AIG Construction Defect Seminar, Walnut Creek, CA, May 2, 2001; City of Oakland Public Works Agency, ,. Oakland, CA, July 24, 2001; Executive Council of Homeowners, Alamo, CA, August 3, 0 2001. _ 0 L "Using the EPA BASE Study for IAQ Investigation / Communication", Joint E Professional Symposium 2000, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Orange County c� & Southern California Sections, Long Beach, October 19, 2000. "Ventilation," Indoor Air Quality: Risk Reduction in the 21 st Century Symposium, sponsored by the California Environmental Protection Agency/Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, May 3-4, 2000. "Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems", Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. "Closing Session Summary: `Building Investigations' and `Building Design & Construction', Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. "Managing Building Air Quality and Energy Efficiency, Meeting the Standard of Care", BOMA, MidAtlantic Environmental Hygiene Resource Center, Seattle, WA, May 23ra, 2000; San Antonio, TX, September 26-27, 2000. "Diagnostics & Mitigation in Sick Buildings: When Good Buildings Go Bad," University of California Berkeley, September 18, 2001. "Mold Contamination: Recognition and What To Do and Not Do", Redwood Empire Remodelers Association; Santa Rosa, CA, April 16, 2002. "Investigative Tools of the IAQ Trade", Healthy Indoor Environments 2002; Austin, TX; April 22, 2002. "Finding Hidden Mold: Case Studies in IAQ Investigations", AIHA Northern California Professionals Symposium; Oakland, CA, May 8, 2002. "Assessing and Mitigating Fungal Contamination in Buildings", Cal/OSHA Training; Oakland, CA, February 14, 2003 and West Covina, CA, February 20-21, 2003. In Packet Pg. 151 5.1.e "Use of External Containments During Fungal Mitigation", Invited Speaker, ACGIH Mold Remediation Symposium, Orlando, FL, November 3-5, 2003. Building Operator Certification (BOC), 106-IAQ Training Workshops, Northwest Energy Efficiency Council; Stockton, CA, December 3, 2003; San Francisco, CA, December 9, 2003; Irvine, CA, January 13, 2004; San Diego, January 14, 2004; Irwindale, CA, January 27, 2004; Downey, CA, January 28, 2004; Santa Monica, CA, March 16, 2004; Ontario, CA, March 17, 2004; Ontario, CA, November 9, 2004, San Diego, CA, November 10, 2004; San Francisco, CA, November 17, 2004; San Jose, CA, November 18, 2004; Sacramento, CA, March 15, 2005. "Mold Remediation: The National QUEST for Uniformity Symposium", Invited o Speaker, Orlando, Florida, November 3-5, 2003. _ L "Mold and Moisture Control", Indoor Air Quality workshop for The Collaborative for E High Performance Schools (CHPS), San Francisco, December 11, 2003. 0 "Advanced Perspectives In Mold Prevention & Control Symposium", Invited Speaker, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 2004. "Building Sciences: Understanding and Controlling Moisture in Buildings", American Industrial Hygiene Association, San Francisco, CA, February 14-16, 2005. "Indoor Air Quality Diagnostics and Healthy Building Design", University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, March 2, 2005. "Improving IAQ = Reduced Tenant Complaints", Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 27, 2007. "Defining Safe Building Air", Criteria for Safe Air and Water in Buildings, ASHRAE Winter Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 27, 2008. "Update on USGBC LEED and Air Filtration", Invited Speaker, NAFA 2008 Convention, San Francisco, CA, September 19, 2008. "Ventilation and Indoor air Quality in New California Homes", National Center of Healthy Housing, October 20, 2008. "Indoor Air Quality in New Homes", California Energy and Air Quality Conference, October 29, 2008. "Mechanical Outdoor air Ventilation Systems and IAQ in New Homes", ACI Home Performance Conference, Kansas City, MO, April 29, 2009. "Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes with and without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems", Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009. 19 Packet Pg. 152 5.1.e "Ten Ways to Improve Your Air Quality", Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 30, 2009. "New Developments in Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings", Westcon meeting, Alameda, CA, March 17, 2010. "Intermittent Residential Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation Systems and IAQ", ASHRAE SSPC 62.2 Meeting, Austin, TX, April 19, 2010. "Measured IAQ in Homes", ACI Home Performance Conference, Austin, TX, April 21, 2010. as 0 "Respiration: IEQ and Ventilation", AIHce 2010, How IH Can LEED in Green buildings, _ Denver, CO, May 23, 2010. 2 E "IAQ Considerations for Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB)", Northern California 0 Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 22, 2010. "Energy Conservation and Health in Buildings", Berkeley High SchoolGreen Career Week, Berkeley, CA, April 12, 2011. "What Pollutants are Really There ?", ACI Home Performance Conference, San Francisco, CA, March 30, 2011. "Energy Conservation and Health in Residences Workshop", Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June 6, 2011. "Assessing IAQ and Improving Health in Residences", US EPA Weatherization Plus Health, September 7, 2011. "Ventilation: What a Long Strange Trip It's Been", Westcon, May 21, 2014. "Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures", Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014. "Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications", Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014. "Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes", IMF Health and Welfare Fair, Washington, DC, February 18, 2015. "Chemical Emissions and Health Hazards Associated with E-Cigarettes", Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, August 15, 2014. "Formaldehyde Indoor Concentrations, Material Emission Rates, and the CARB ATCM", Harris Martin's Lumber Liquidators Flooring Litigation Conference, WQ Minneapolis Hotel, May 27, 2015. 20 Packet Pg. 153 5.1.e "Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposure", FDA Public Workshop: Electronic Cigarettes and the Public Health, Hyattsville, MD June 2, 2015. "Creating Healthy Homes, Schools, and Workplaces", Chautauqua Institution, Athenaeum Hotel, August 24, 2015. "Diagnosing IAQ Problems and Designing Healthy Buildings", University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, October 6, 2015. a� 0 "Diagnosing Ventilation and IAQ Problems in Commercial Buildings", BEST Center = Annual Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 6, 2016. I E M "A Review of Studies of Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes and Impacts �? of Environmental Factors on Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Composite Wood Products", AIHce2016, May, 21-26, 2016. "Admissibility of Scientific Testimony", Science in the Court, Proposition 65 Clearinghouse Annual Conference, Oakland, CA, September 15, 2016. "Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation", ASHRAE Redwood Empire, Napa, CA, December 1, 2016. 21 Packet Pg. 154 5.1.e Exhibit B J d O 2 R �L E U N 1* O O N O N ui r-i C d E L V R r a Packet Pg. 155 5.1.e Shawn Smallwood, PhD 3108 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Amy Million - Principal Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department loo Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Cambria Hotel Project Dear Ms. Million, 24 March 2020 I write to comment on the proposed Cambria Hotel Project, which I understand would add a 68-foot tall, 6-story hotel (89,700 ft2) on o.91 acres of land. I write to comment on bird -window collisions that would result from this project, as well as traffic impacts on wildlife. Neither of these impacts were addressed in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR (City of Dublin 2010), and scientific understanding of both has increased in recent years. My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I subsequently worked for four years as a post -graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, habitat restoration, interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure and activities, conservation of rare and endangered species, and on the ecology of invading species. I perform research on wildlife mortality caused by wind turbines, electric distribution lines, agricultural practices, and road traffic. I authored numerous papers on special -status species issues, including "Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation" (Smallwood et al. 1999), and "Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues" (Smallwood et al. 2001). I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society — Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and the Raptor Research Foundation, and I've been a part-time lecturer at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology's premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-three years, including at many proposed project sites. My CV is attached. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT According to the City of Dublin's public hearing announcement regarding the proposed Cambria Hotel Project, no further environmental review is required for the Project beyond that already performed in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR (City of Dublin 2010). However, circumstances related to biological resources have changed in a� 0 x c� �L E M 0 Packet Pg. 156 5.1.e the decade since the City certified its EIR. These changed circumstances are all the more pertinent to potential impacts of the proposed project because the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR did not analyze potential impacts on biological resources. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR omitted any analysis of potential impacts on biological resources because City of Dublin (2010:4-7) concluded that biological resources do not exist within the City. Evidence collected since 2oio demonstrates otherwise — that special -status species of wildlife often occur within the City of Dublin. For example, eBird (https://eBird.org) records reveal hundreds of eyewitness observations of birds in and around Downtown Dublin, including members of special - status species (Table 1). Many birds live and breed in Downtown Dublin, but many o thousands also pass through Dublin annually on migration along valley corridors which x also accommodate Highways 58o and 680. The evidence is overwhelming that the premise of City of Dublin's conclusion of no impacts to wildlife was a false premise. Be E that as it may, circumstances have changed since 2oio, and these changed circumstances bring a fair argument that a project -specific EIR should be prepared for L the Cambria Hotel Project. Just in the last year, the scientific community confirmed that human actions are cumulatively contributing to the rapid decline of birds across North America. Using data from radar installations and Breeding Sird Survey transects across North America, Rosenberg et al. (2019) quantified a 29% decline of overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years. The likely ecological and economic costs of losing nearly a third of our birds has yet to be estimated, but these costs are likely substantial. The current trend cannot continue without suffering extinctions of multiple species, reduced biological diversity and a diminished quality of life for Americans. One of the leading causes of bird mortality contributing to this decline has been collisions with windows (see below). Recent advances in structural glass engineering have contributed to a proliferation of glass windows on building fagades. This proliferation is readily observable in newer buildings and in recent project planning documents, and it is represented by a worldwide 20% increase in glass manufacturing for building construction since 2o16. Increasing window -to -wall ratios and glass fagades have become popular for multiple reasons, including a growing demand for `daylighting.' A high window -to -wall ratio is also a major feature of the Cambria Hotel Project, as depicted on City of Dublin's web site introducing the Project. This proposed project would potentially introduce an ecological trap to birds flying across the junction of east -west and north -south migration routes along the valley structures in which Downtown Dublin is situated. 2 Packet Pg. 157 5.1.e Table 1. Special -status species reported on eBird (https: Z/eBird.orc�) for the project area. Species Scientific name Status' eBird posts Window impacts Long -billed curlew Numenius americanus TWL, BCC Nearby Caspian tern H dro ro ne cas is BCC Nearby California gull Larus calf ornicus TWL Nearby Osprey Pandion haliaetus TWL, FGC 3503.5 Nearby Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucoce halus BGEPA, BCC, CE, CFP Nearby Golden eagle Aquila chr saetos BGEPA, BCC, CFP Nearby Ferruginous hawk Buteo re alis TWL, FGC 3503.5 Nearby Red-tailed hawk Buteo 'amaicensis FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BCC, FGC 3503.5 Nearby Red -shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes Sharp -shinned hawk Acci iter striatus TWL, FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes Cooper's hawk Acci iter coo eri TWL, FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes Northern harrier Circus c aneus SSC3, FGC 3503.5 Nearby White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP, TWL, FGC 3503.5 Nearby American kestrel Falco s arverius FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes Merlin Falco columbarius TWL, FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus TWL, FGC 3503.5 Nearby Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus CE, CFP, BCC, FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, FGC 3503.5 Nearby Great -horned owl Bubo vir inianus FGC 3503.5 Nearby Long-eared owl Asio otus SSC3, FGC 3503.5 Nearby Short -eared owl Asio ammeus FGC 3503.5 Nearby Western screech -owl Me asco s kennicotti FGC 3503.5 Nearby Barn owl T to alba FGC 3503.5, Nearby Vaux's swift Chaetura vauxi SCC2 Nearby Allen's hummingbird Selas horns sasin BCC Nearby Many Nuttall's woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Nearby Willow flycatcher Em idonax trailii extimus FE, CE Nearby Olive -sided flycatcher Conto us coo eri SSC2 Nearby Horned lark Eremo hila al estris actia TWL Nearby Yellow -billed magpie Pica nuttalli BCC Nearby Oak titmouse Baeolo hus inornatus BCC Nearby Yes Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 Nearby Yellow warbler Seto ha a petechia SSC2, BCC Nearby Yes San Francisco common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa SSC3, BCC Nearby Yes Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Nearby Yes Tricolored blackbird A elaius tricolor CT, BCC Nearby Lawrence's goldfinch I Sinus lawrencei I BCC I Nearby 3 Packet Pg. 158 5.1.e I Listed as BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird Species of Conservation Concern, CE = California endangered, CT = California threatened, CFP = California Fully Protected (Fish and Game Code 3511), FGC 3503.5 = California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code 3503.5 (Birds of prey), and SSC1, SSCZ, and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2oo8). 4 Packet Pg. 159 5.1.e Not only would this ecological trap be inserted into the airspace of migrating birds, but it would be inserted after just learning of humanity's cumulative effects on North American birds and just after new laws were passed to do something about these effects. Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 454 into law on 27 September 2019, adding protection to several hundred bird species. This new law amended California Fish and Game Code section 3513 to protect birds that had been protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This new law carries particular significance for bird -window collisions that the proposed project would cause, because hundreds of these newly protected species have been recorded in and around Downton Dublin in recent years (see eBird: https://eBird.org), 38 of which are special -status species in addition to the new law, and 12 of which are known to be susceptible to window collisions (Table 1). o Another recent change to legal protections of birds was the recent listing of tricolored x blackbird as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. Tricolored blackbirds have been recorded west and east of Dublin, so likely fly across Dublin during E dispersal and migration. Glass windows inserted into their airspace could kill some of them. Glass windows inserted into the aerosphere would annually kill birds of many L other species protected by California's new version of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Just as the scientific community recently quantified the effects of humanity's cumulative effects on North American birds, reports of scientific investigations published since 2010 have also informed the scientific community of the magnitude of impacts, of the factors contributing to bird -window collisions, and how to mitigate collision risk. And just as the use of structural glass proliferated over the last several years, most of the studies contributing to our new understanding were reported in the scientific literature since 2010. Also, the most comprehensive and informed guidelines on building design and landscaping to minimize impacts were produced after 2010 (San Francisco Planning Department 2011, Sheppard and Phillips 2015). Therefore, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR could not have anticipated the proliferation of structural glass in new developments, nor could it have anticipated the documented 29% decline of North America's birds or the added legal protections afforded to birds in response to this decline. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare a project -specific EIR for the Cambria Hotel Project, which proposes to impose large glass windows on birds attempting to pass through Dublin. Below I review the bird -window collision issue, hypothesized causal factors and recommended mitigation solutions. I also predict bird -window collision rates based on studies performed across the USA at structures ranging widely in height, window to wall ratio, types of glass, orientation, and structural context. My aim is to make a robust prediction from this range of study conditions, and to present the associated large confidence interval that I believe is appropriate in the face of uncertainty over how many birds fly through the project area and what proportion of the birds are more susceptible that others to window collision. Glass -facades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but these facades are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 5 Packet Pg. 160 5.1.e bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn birds of the collision hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and not attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,235 birds were likely killed over the 50 years since the start of their study, and that's at a relatively small building facade (Figure 2). Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 50 years would have been about 12,705. And this is just for one 3-story, glass -sided walkway between two college campus buildings. Figure 2. A walkway connecting two buildings at Washington State University where one of the earliest studies of bird collision mortality found 85 bird fatalities per year prior to marking windows (254 annual deaths adjusted for the proportion not found). Given that the window markers have long since disappeared, this walkway has likely killed at least 12,705 birds since 1968, and continues to kill birds. Notice that the transparent glass on both sides of the walkway gives the impression of unimpeded airspace that can be navigated safely by birds familiar with flying between tree branches. Also note the reflected images of trees, which can mislead birds into seeing safe perch sites. Further note the distances of ornamental trees, which allow birds taking off from those trees to reach full speed upon arrival at the windows. Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human -caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem's (199o) and Dunn's (1993) estimates of about too million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently Loss et al.'s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.'s (2013) and Machtans et al.'s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. However, these estimates and their interpretation warrant examination because they were based on opportunistic sampling, volunteer study participation, and fatality monitoring by more inexperienced than experienced searchers. Klem's (199o) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Mem's speculation was supported by fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also, the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the bird- 0 a� 0 x 2 E U Packet Pg. 161 5.1.e window collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper end of his estimated range —1 billion bird fatalities — as conservative. Furthermore, the estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to windows has the same level of impact. Homes with birdfeeders are associated with higher rates of window collisions than are homes without birdfeeders (Kummer and Bayne 2015, Kummer et al. 2o16a), so the developed area might pose even greater hazard to birds if it includes numerous birdfeeders. Another factor potentially biasing national or North American estimates low was revealed by Bracey et al.'s (2o16) finding that trained fatality searchers found 2.6 x the number of fatalities found by homeowners on the days when both trained x° searchers and homeowners searched around homes. The difference in carcass detection was 30.4-fold when involving carcasses volitionally placed by Bracey et al. (2o16) in E blind detection trials. This much larger difference in trial carcass detection rates likely resulted because their placements did not include the sounds that typically alertCD L homeowners to actual window collisions, but this explanation also raises the question of CD how often homeowner participants with such studies miss detecting window -caused J fatalities because they did not hear the collisions. By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA bird - window fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were underway. Loss et al. (2014) were able to incorporate many more fatality rates based on scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include. However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which in one study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et al. 2o16). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand, such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.'s (2014) fatality metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was based on window collisions. Because most of the bird -window collision studies were limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption - laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only 2 of the studies included adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al. (2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source, their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low. In my review of bird -window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird -window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher detection rates tend to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover 7 Packet Pg. 162 5.1.e or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on anthropogenic sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby preventing the fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates for these factors — search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence rates — would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird -window collision fatalities. Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants as well as birds flying in daylight. As mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State University (no adjustments attempted). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among 13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days. Monitoring twice per week, Hager at al. (20o8) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year, x° and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species for 24 birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2oo9) recorded 540o bird fatalities under E buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during migration periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of fatalities each. L Klem et al. (2009) monitored 73 building facades in New York City during 114 days of two migratory periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds per day. Borden et J al. (2010) surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found 271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird fatalities of 16 E species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building facades. From 24 days of 0 survey over a 48-day span, Porter and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under 8 Q buildings on a university campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird fatalities over 61 days of searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355 collision victims within 1,762 days under a 5-story building. Ocampo-Penuela et al. (2016) E searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after c x 63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, and another M building with collision -deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities, thereby indicating a wide range in impacts likely influenced by various factors. There is ample evidence M available to support my prediction that the proposed project would result in many `* collision fatalities of birds. Project Impact Prediction Predicting the number of bird collisions at a new project is challenging because the study of window collisions remains in its early stages. Researchers have yet to agree on a collision rate metric. Some have reported findings as collisions per building per year and some as collisions per building per day. Some have reported findings as collisions per m2 of window. The problem with the temporal factor in the collision rate metrics has been monitoring time spans varying from a few days to 10 years, and even in the case of the 10-year span, monitoring was largely restricted to spring and fall migration seasons. Short-term monitoring during one or two seasons of the year cannot represent a `year,' but monitoring has rarely spanned a full year. Using `buildings' in the metric treats buildings as all the same size, when we know they are not. Using square meters of glass in the metric treats glass as the only barrier upon which birds collide against a building's fagade, when we know it is not. It also treats all glass as equal, even though 0 Packet Pg. 163 5.1.e we know that collision risk varies by type of glass as well as multiple factors related to contextual settings. Without the benefit of more advanced understanding of window collision factors, my prediction of project impacts will be uncertain. Klem's (1990) often -cited national estimate of avian collision rate relied on an assumed average collision rate of 1 to 10 birds per building per year, but studies since then have all reported higher rates of collisions 12 to 352 birds per building per year. Because the more recent studies were likely performed at buildings known or suspected to cause many collisions, collision rates from them could be biased high. By the time of these comments I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 181 buildings and fagades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and M Hudson 1976, O'Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, E Ocampo-Penuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Schneider et al. 2018). M These study results averaged 0.077 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.04- L 0.11). Looking over the proposed commercial floor space, including the hotel and club retail, I estimated the project would include 892 m2 of glass windows. Applied to the J mean fatality rate, this area of glass would predict 69 bird deaths per year (95% Cl: 36-98). The 50-year toll from this average annual fatality rate would be 3,434 bird E deaths (95% CI: 1,784-4,906), which would continue until the buildings of the project 0 are either renovated to reduce bird collisions or they come down. Q As mentioned earlier, the accuracy of this prediction depends on factors known or hypothesized to affect window collision rates. However, I used all the variation in collision rates that was available and which resulted from a wide range in building height, type of glass, indoor and outdoor landscaping, interior light management, window to wall ratio, and structural context of the facade. This variation contributed to a robust bird -window collision rate represented by a wide 95% confidence interval. According to the confidence interval, which again was based on the wide range of conditions in the underlying data, the proposed project built as designed at too locations would be predicted to kill between 36 and 98 birds per year at 95 of those too locations, leaving the other 5 to kill birds at rates either lower or higher than this range. Even at the low end of the interval, the death toll would be excessive, amounting to 1784 bird deaths over 50 years. This impact would be significant, especially considering that the predicted fatality rate can be prevented by implementing appropriate mitigation measures. Below I will discuss hypothesized bird -window collision factors, and I will recommend mitigation measures. Bird -Window Collision Factors Below is a list of collision factors I found in the scientific literature. Following this list are specific notes and findings taken from the literature and my own experience. (1) Inherent hazard of a structure in the airspace used for nocturnal migration or other flights 9 Packet Pg. 164 5.1.e (2) Window transparency, falsely revealing passage through structure or to indoor plants (3) Window reflectance, falsely depicting vegetation, competitors, or open airspace (4) Black hole or passage effect (5) Window or facade extent, or proportion of facade consisting of window or other reflective surface (6) Size of window (7) Type of glass (8) Lighting, which is correlated with window extent and building operations (9) Height of structure (collision mechanisms shift with height above ground) (1o) Orientation of facade with respect to winds and solar exposure o (11) Structural layout causing confusion and entrapment x (12) Context in terms of urban -rural gradient, or surrounding extent of impervious surface vs vegetation E (13) Height, structure, and extent of vegetation grown near home or building (14) Presence of birdfeeders or other attractants L (15) Relative abundance (16) Season of the year J (17) Ecology, demography and behavior � (18) Predatory attacks or cues provoking fear of attack E (19) Aggressive social interactions c (1) Inherent hazard of structure in airspace. —Not all of a structure's collision risk can be attributed to windows. Overing (1938) reported 576 birds collided with the Washington Monument in 90 minutes on one night, 12 September 1937. The average annual fatality count had been 328 birds from 1932 through 1936. Gelb and Delacretaz (2oo9) and Mem et al. (2oo9) also reported finding collision victims at buildings lacking windows, although many fewer than they found at buildings fitted with widows. The takeaway is that any building going up at the project site would likely kill birds, although the impacts of a glass -sided building would likely be much greater. (2) Window transparency. —Widely believed as one of the two principal factors contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the transparency of glass used in windows on the buildings (Mem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred where transparent windows revealed interior vegetation. (3) Window reflectance. —Widely believed as one of the two principal factors contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the reflectance of glass used in windows on the buildings (Klem 1989). Reflectance can deceptively depict open airspace, vegetation as habitat destination, or competitive rivals as self-images (Klem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred toward the lower parts of buildings where large glass exteriors reflected outdoor vegetation. Klem et al. (20o9) and Borden et al. (2olo) also found that reflected outdoor vegetation associated positively with collisions. 10 Packet Pg. 165 5.1.e (4) Black hole or passage effect. —Although this factor was not often mentioned in the bird -window collision literature, it was suggested in Sheppard and Phillips (2015). The black hole or passage effect is the deceptive appearance of a cavity or darkened ledge that certain species of bird typically approach with speed when seeking roosting sites. The deception is achieved when shadows from awnings or the interior light conditions give the appearance of cavities or protected ledges. This factor appears potentially to be nuanced variations on transparency or reflectance or possibly an interaction effect of both of these factors. (5) Window or facade extent.—Klem et al. (2009), Borden et al. (2010), Hager et al. (2013), and Ocampo-Pefiuela et al. (2016) reported increased collision fatalities at buildings with larger reflective fagades or higher proportions of fagades composed of M windows. However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship between fatalities found and proportion of fagade that was glazed. E M V (6) Size of window. —According to Kahle et al. (2016), collision rates were higher on L_ large -pane windows compared to small -pane windows. (7) Type of glass.—Klem et al. (2009) found that collision fatalities associated with the type of glass used on buildings. Otherwise, little attention has been directed towards the types of glass in buildings. (8) Lighting. —Parkins et al. (2015) found that light emission from buildings correlated positively with percent glass on the facade, suggesting that lighting is linked to the extent of windows. Zink and Eckles (2010) reported fatality reductions, including an 80% reduction at a Chicago high-rise, upon the initiation of the Lights -out Program. However, Zink and Eckles (2010) provided no information on their search effort, such as the number of searches or search interval or search area around each building. (9) Height of structure. —I found little if any hypothesis -testing related to building height, including whether another suite of factors might relate to collision victims of high-rises. Are migrants more commonly the victims of high-rises or of smaller buildings? (1o) Orientation of fagade.—Some studies tested fagade orientation, but not convincingly. Confounding factors such as the extent and types of windows would require large sample sizes of collision victims to parse out the variation so that some portion of it could be attributed to orientation of fagade. Whether certain orientations cause disproportionately stronger or more realistic -appearing reflections ought to be testable through measurement, but counting dead birds under fagades of different orientations would help. (11) Structural layout. —Bird -safe building guidelines have illustrated examples of structural layouts associated with high rates of bird -window collisions, but little attention has been directed towards hazardous structural layouts in the scientific literature. An exception was Johnson and Hudson (1976), who found high collision 11 Packet Pg. 166 5.1.e rates at 3 stories of glassed -in walkways atop an open breezeway, located on a break in slope with trees on one side of the structure and open sky on the other, Washington State University. (12) Context in urban -rural gradient. —Numbers of fatalities found in monitoring have associated negatively with increasing developed area surrounding the building (Hager et al. 2013), and positively with more rural settings (Kummer et al. 2oi6a). (13) Height, structure and extent of vegetation near building. —Correlations have sometimes been found between collision rates and the presence or extent of vegetation near windows (Hager et al. 20o8, Borden et al. 2010, Kummer et al. 2o16a, Ocampo- o Pefiuela et al. 2016). However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship x between fatalities found and vegetation cover near the building. In my experience, what probably matters most is the distance from the building that vegetation occurs. If the E vegetation that is used by birds is very close to a glass facade, then birds coming from that glass will be less likely to attain sufficient speed upon arrival at the fagade to result L in a fatal injury. Too far away and there is probably no relationship. But 30 to 50 In away, birds alighting from vegetation can attain lethal speeds by the time they arrive at J the windows. (14) Presence of birdfeeders.—Dunn (1993) reported a weak correlation (r = 0.13, P < 0.001) between number of birds killed by home windows and the number of birds counted at feeders. However, Kummer and Bayne (2015) found that experimental installment of birdfeeders at homes increased bird collisions with windows 1.84-fold. (15) Relative abundance. —Collision rates have often been assumed to increase with local density or relative abundance (Klem 1989), and positive correlations have been measured (Dunn 1993, Hager et al. 2008). However, Hager and Craig (2014) found a negative correlation between fatality rates and relative abundance near buildings. (16) Season of the year. —Borden et al. (2010) found go% of collision fatalities during spring and fall migration periods. The significance of this finding is magnified by 7-day carcass persistence rates of 0.45 and 0.35 in spring and fall, rates which were considerably lower than during winter and summer (Hager et al. 2012). In other words, the concentration of fatalities during migration seasons would increase after applying seasonally -explicit adjustments for carcass persistence. Fatalities caused by collisions into the glass facades of the project's building would likely be concentrated in fall and spring migration periods. (17) Ecology, demography and behavior.—Klem (1989) noted that certain types of birds were not found as common window -caused fatalities, including soaring hawks and waterbirds. Cusa et al. (2015) found that species colliding with buildings surrounded by higher levels of urban greenery were foliage gleaners, and species colliding with buildings surrounded by higher levels of urbanization were ground foragers. Sabo et al. (2016) found no difference in age class, but did find that migrants are more susceptible to collision than resident birds. 12 Packet Pg. 167 5.1.e (18) Predatory attacks. —Panic flights caused by raptors were mentioned in 16% of window strike reports in Dunn's (1993) study. I have witnessed Cooper's hawks chasing birds into windows, including house finches next door to my home and a northern mocking bird chased directly into my office window. Predatory birds likely to collide with the project's windows would include Peregrine falcon, red -shouldered hawk, Cooper's hawk, and sharp -shinned hawk. (19) Aggressive social interactions. —I found no hypothesis -testing of the roles of aggressive social interactions in the literature other than the occasional anecdotal account of birds attacking their self-images reflected from windows. However, I have o witnessed birds chasing each other and sometimes these chases resulting in one of the x birds hitting a window. E Window Collision Solutions Given the magnitude of bird -window collision impacts, there are obviously great opportunities for reducing and minimizing these impacts going forward. Existing structures can be modified or retrofitted to reduce impacts, and proposed new structures can be more carefully sited, designed, and managed to minimize impacts. However, the costs of some of these measures can be high and can vary greatly, but most importantly the efficacies of many of these measures remain uncertain. Both the costs and effectiveness of all of these measures can be better understood through experimentation and careful scientific investigation. Post -construction fatality monitoring should be an essential feature of any new building project. Below is a listing of mitigation options, along with some notes and findings from the literature. Any new project should be informed by preconstruction surveys of daytime and nocturnal flight activity. Such surveys can reveal the one or more facades facing the prevailing approach direction of birds, and these revelations can help prioritize where certain types of mitigation can be targeted. It is critical to formulate effective measures prior to construction, because post -construction options will be limited, likely more expensive, and probably less effective. (1) Retrofitting to reduce impacts (1A) Marking windows (1B) Managing outdoor landscape vegetation (1C) Managing indoor landscape vegetation (1D) Managing nocturnal lighting (1A) Marking windows. —Whereas Klem (199o) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Penuela et al. (2o16) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings — the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. 13 Packet Pg. 168 5.1.e (2016) added external window shades to some windowed facades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; R6ssler et al. 2015). Following up on the results of Johnson and Hudson (1976), I decided to mark windows of my home, where I have documented 5 bird collision fatalities between the time I moved in and 6 years later. I marked my windows with decals delivered to me via US Postal Service from a commercial vendor. I have documented no fatalities at my windows during the 8 years hence. On 8 December 2018, I photographed a ruby - crowned kinglet pulling up short of my window (Figure 3), right at one of my installed markers. In my assessment, markers can be effective in some situations. Figure 3. Ruby -crowned kinglet puts on the brakes in front of a decal I applied to mark windows of my home, 8 December 2018. This window killed birds prior to marking, but I have found no window collision victims since marking the windows. Windows with attractive built-in marking are commercially available. (2) Siting and Designing to minimize impacts (2A) Deciding on location of structure (213) Deciding on facade and orientation (2C) Selecting type and sizes of windows (2D) Designing to minimize transparency through two parallel fagades (2E) Designing to minimize views of interior plants (2F) Landscaping to increase distances between windows and trees and shrubs (3) Monitoring for adaptive management to reduce impacts (3A) Systematic monitoring for fatalities to identify seasonal and spatial patterns (3B) Adjust light management, window marking and other measures as needed. Guidelines on Building Design If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum adhere to available guidelines on building design intended to minimize collision hazards to birds. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San 14 a� 0 x 2 �L E U Packet Pg. 169 5.1.e Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird -collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department's (2o11) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced. Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain effectiveness, and even if these measures o are effective, they will not reduce collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess x effectiveness and to quantify post -construction fatalities is to monitor the project for fatalities. E M CUMULATIVE IMPACTS An EIR is needed to identity past, ongoing and anticipated future projects that contribute cumulatively to bird -window collision fatalities in Dublin. An estimate is needed of the cumulative extent of glass windows and curtain walls. This estimate is needed because it can be used to estimate or predict the number of annual deaths of birds colliding with windows in Dublin. The cumulative impact needs to be understood so that appropriate mitigation can be formulated to minimize, reduce, rectify and offset the impact. A project -specific EIR needs to be prepared to provide such an analysis. MITIGATION Based on City of Dublin (2o1o) and the environmental documentaiton thus far presented in support of the Cambria Hotel Project, the public and City of Dublin's decision -makers remain uninformed about avian use of the project site and about the potential effects of bird -window collisions that would be caused by the project. City of Dublin inadequately informs the public about how avian use of the site can potentially transform avian susceptibility to window collisions into avian vulnerability in the face of the structures built as part of the project. Surveys are needed to learn how many of each bird species fly through the area, and at what times of day (and night), and at what heights above ground and under what circumstances. Biologists familiar with bird flight behaviors need to survey for birds on the project site. Nocturnal surveys can be performed using a thermal -imaging camera, although many of the birds would not be identifiable to species during nocturnal surveys. Such surveys would inform of collision risk, and could inform mitigation strategies involving interior light management and design modifications to facades facing the prevailing approach directions of migrating birds. Transparency and reflectance increase collision risk, but there are materials available to minimize the effects of transparency and reflectance, including the glass itself. Landscaping around buildings can also affect collision risk, but risks can be minimized 15 Packet Pg. 170 5.1.e by carefully planning the landscaping. Interior lighting also increases risk to nocturnal migrants, but the effects of interior lighting is readily mitigated by minimizing use of lights as well as the lighting of any interior landscaping. I recommend consulting available guidelines on minimizing impacts to wildlife caused by windows. For example, the American Bird Conservancy produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). x° In addition to measures for minimizing wind collision impacts, I recommend fatality L E monitoring around the building's perimeter. Such monitoring should be scientific, adhering to standards developed for fatality monitoring in other window collision L studies and along electrical circuits and at wind projects. Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Most of the wildlife injuries will likely be caused by window collisions. But the project's impacts can also be offset by funding the treatment of injuries to animals caused by other buildings, electric lines, cars, and cats. Thank you for your attention, Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. REFERENCES CITED Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): eo178667. https://doi.org/lo.1g71/journal.pone.ol78667 Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird -window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52• Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in bird - window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367• 16 Packet Pg. 171 5.1.e Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G. J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human -related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-o80211 City of Dublin. 2010. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH * 20100022005, Dublin, California. Cusa M, Jackson DA, Mesure M. 2015. Window collisions by migratory bird species: urban geographical patterns and habitat associations. Urban Ecosystems 18(4):1-20. DOI 10.1007/s11252-015-0459-3• a� Dunn, E. H. 1993• Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal x° of Field Ornithology 64:302-309. E Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470• Hager, S. B, and M. E. Craig. 2014. Bird -window collisions in the summer breeding season. PeerJ 2:e46o DOI 10.7717/peerJ.460. Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564• Hager, S. B., B. J. Cosentino, and K. J. McKay. 2012. Scavenging effects persistence of avian carcasses resulting from window collisions in an urban landscape. Journal of Field Ornithology 83:203-211. Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013. Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird -window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371• doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371 Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed -in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107. Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird -window collisions at a west -coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0144600. Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird -window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620. Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention. Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128. 17 Packet Pg. 172 5.1.e Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird -window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321. Klem, D., Jr. 2010. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of bird mortality on earth. Pages 244-251 in Proc. Fourth Int. Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird -glass collisions. Unpublished report. Mem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird -window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology x° 125:406-411. E Mem, D. Jr., C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz, Y. Gelb and P. G. Saenger. 2009. Architectural and landscape risk factors associated with bird -glass collisions in an urban environment. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:126-134. Kummer J. A., and E. M. Bayne. 2015. Bird feeders and their effects on bird -window collisions at residential houses. Avian Conservation and Ecology 10(2):6 DOI 10.5751/ACE-00787-100206. Kummer, J. A., E. M. Bayne, and C. S. Machtans. 2016. Use of citizen science to identify factors affecting bird -window collision risk at houses. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 118:624-639. DOI: 10.165o/CONDOR-16-26.1 Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird —building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.165o/CONDOR-13-090.1 Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/1o.57�1/ACE-oo568-080206 Ocampo-Penuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle. 2016. Patterns of bird -window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus. PeerJ4:e1652;DOI1o.7717/peerj.1652 O'Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149• Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y. Gelb. 2007. Bird -safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York. Overing, R. 1938. High mortality at the Washington Monument. The Auk 55:679• 18 Packet Pg. 173 5.1.e Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird —building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94• Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE. Rossler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent bird - window collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535-541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog- 2015-0057 0 x Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian 2 density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI E 10.7717/peerj.2170 San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird -safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California. Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018. Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird -window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717J- peerj-4,562 Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird -friendly building design, end Ed., American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia. Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California. Smallwood, K.S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison. 1999• Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435• Smallwood, K.S., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Keckler, C. Bailey, and K. Brown. 2001. Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 36:40-49. Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1-19. Zink, R. M., and J. Eckles. 2010. Twin cities bird -building collisions: a status update on "Project Birdsafe." The Loon 82:34-37• 19 Packet Pg. 174 5.1.e Kenneth Shawn Smallwood Curriculum Vitae 3108 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Phone (530) 756-4598 Cell (530) 601-6857 pumakdcn.org Ecologist Expertise Born May 3, 1963 in Sacramento, California. Married, father of two. • Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human o industry, infrastructure, and activities; L • Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful E ecological patterns that can inform management decisions. v Education Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990. M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987. B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985. Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981. Experience • 443 professional publications, including: • 80 peer reviewed publications • 24 in non -reviewed proceedings • 337 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews • 8 in mass media outlets • 84 public presentations of research results at meetings • Reviewed many professional papers and reports • Testified in 4 court cases. Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007. Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995. Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The five -member committee investigated the causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC 1 Packet Pg. 175 5.1.e Smallwood CV 2 reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities. Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence -Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife. Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red -legged frog, California clapper rail, western; burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; _ Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach. v Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Taught Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation (twice), Mammalogy, Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab. Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines. Systems Ecologist, 1996 to present, Consulting in the Public Interest, www.cipi.com. Member of a multi -disciplinary consortium of scientists facilitating large-scale, environmental planning projects and litigation. We provide risk assessments, assessments of management practices, and expert witness testimony. Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society --Western Section, 1999-2001. Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding. Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD's program on integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas, using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS. Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater across a large landscape. Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Headed NESN's efforts to inform academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws pertaining to special -status species. Also testified at public hearings on behalf of environmental groups and endangered species. Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to Packet Pg. 176 5.1.e Smallwood CV 3 determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red -legged frogs in Santa Clara County, California. Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning. Developed quantitative assessment of land units for their conservation and restoration opportunities, using the ecological resource requirements of 29 special -status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration. Post -Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis. Under the mentorship of Dr. Shu Geng, studied landscape and management effects on temporal; and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and = Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Also managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in c° L California agriculture, and assisted with a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California. v Work experience in graduate school: Co -taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard Coss's course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E. Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing and implementing a statewide mountain lion track count for long-term monitoring of numbers and distribution. Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers. Projects Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map -based collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies (principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue. Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built. Planning for additional repowering projects is underway. Test avian safety of new mixer -ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a before - after, control -impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as F1oDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a Packet Pg. 177 5.1.e Smallwood CV 4 $718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission's Public Interest Energy Research program and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances. Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines at the world's most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure; management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions. _ Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird L electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at v 10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports. L Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface -deposited radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars. Hanford Nuclear Reservation Liti ag tion. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review. Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas -fired power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below). Protocol -level survey. special -status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red -legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt -nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson's hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special -status species. Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the Packet Pg. 178 5.1.e Smallwood CV decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population. Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow -billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post -West Nile Virus epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow -billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV. Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1- day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and; consultants with HCP experience. We guest -edited a Proceedings published in Environmental = Management. c° L E Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate v vegetation complexes and locations of special -status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis L Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of as Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits. J GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star -thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County. Mercury effects on Red -legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red -legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams. Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a "properly functioning HCP." Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson's hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc. Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China. Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the US and China. Packet Pg. 179 5.1.e Smallwood CV 6 Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the County from the perspective of 29 special -status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies. Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black -tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected; quadrats. M Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and L E initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing v cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, L the official Indonesian language. Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post -graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards. Agricultural energy use and Tulare County_groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California. Pocket gopher damage in forest clear -cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest -ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear -cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California. Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards. Packet Pg. 180 Smallwood CV 7 5.1.e Reuresentative Clients/Funders Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker National Renewable Energy Lab Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation Altamont Winds LLC Law Offices of Berger & Montague Comstocks Business (magazine) Lozeau I Drury LLP BioResource Consultants Law Offices of Roy Haber Tierra Data Law Offices of Edward MacDonald Black and Veatch Law Office of John Gabrielli Law Office of Bill Kopper Law Office of Donald B. Mooney Law Office of Veneruso & Moncharsh Law Office of Steven Thompson Law Office of Brian Gaffney California Wildlife Federation Defenders of Wildlife Sierra Club National Endangered Species Network Spirit of the Sage Council The Humane Society Hagens Berman LLP Environmental Protection Information Center Goldberg, Kamin & Garvin, Attorneys at Law Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE) Seatuck Environmental Association Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. Save Our Scenic Area Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound Friends of the Swainson's Hawk Alameda Creek Alliance Center for Biological Diversity California Native Plant Society Endangered Wildlife Trust and BirdLife South Africa AquAlliance Oregon Natural Desert Association Save Our Sound G3 Energy and Pattern Energy Emerald Farms Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Southern California Edison Co. Georgia-Pacific Timber Co. Northern Territories Inc. David Magney Environmental Consulting Wildlife History Foundation NextEra Energy Resources, LLC F1oDesign Wind Turbine EDF Renewables Terry Preston, Wildlife Ecology Research Center EcoStat, Inc. US Navy US Department of Agriculture US Forest Service US Fish & Wildlife Service US Department of Justice California Energy Commission California Office of the Attorney General California Department of Fish & Wildlife California Department of Transportation California Department of Forestry California Department of Food & Agriculture Ventura County Counsel County of Yolo Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District East Bay Regional Park District County of Alameda Don & LaNelle Silverstien Seventh Day Adventist Church Escuela de la Raza Unida Susan Pelican and Howard Beeman Residents Against Inconsistent Development, Inc Bob Sarvey Mike Boyd Hillcroft Neighborhood Fund Joint Labor Management Committee, Retail Food Industry Lisa Rocca Kevin Jackson Dawn Stover and Jay Letto Nancy Havassy Catherine Portman (for Brenda Cedarblade) Ventus Environmental Solutions, Inc. Panorama Environmental, Inc. Adams Broadwell Professional Corporation as 0 x E M 0 Packet Pg. 181 Smallwood CV 8 Representative special -status species experience Common name Species name Description Field experience California red -legged frog Rana aurora draytonii Protocol searches; Many detections Foothill yellow -legged frog Rana boylii Presence surveys; Many detections Western spadefoot Spea hammondii Presence surveys; Few detections California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense Protocol searches; Many detections Coast range newt Taricha torosa torosa Searches and multiple detections Blunt -nosed leopard lizard Gambelia sila Detected in San Luis Obispo County California horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum frontale Searches; Many detections Western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata Searches; Many detections San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica Protocol searches; detections Sumatran tiger Panthera tigris Research in Sumatra Mountain lion Puma concolor californicus Research and publications Point Arena mountain beaver Aplodontia rufa nigra Remote camera operation Giant kangaroo rat Dipodomys ingens Detected in Cholame Valley San Joaquin kangaroo rat Dipodomys nitratoides Research, conservation at NAS Lemoore Monterey dusky -footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes luciana Non -target captures and mapping of dens Salt marsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris Habitat assessment, monitoring Salinas harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotus Captures; habitat assessment California clapper rail Golden eagle Swainson's hawk Northern harrier White-tailed kite Loggerhead shrike Least Bell's vireo Willow flycatcher Burrowing owl Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Analytical distichlus Rallus longirostris Aquila chrysaetos Buteo swainsoni Circus cyaeneus Elanus leucurus Lanius ludovicianus Vireo bellii pusillus Empidonax traillii extimus Athene cunicularia hypugia Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Surveys and detections Research in Altamont Pass Research in Sacramento Valley Research and publication Research and publication Research in Sacramento Valley Detected in Monterey County Research at Sierra Nevada breeding sites Research at multiple locations Research and publication Arroyo southwestern toad Bufo microscaphus californicus Research and report. Giant garter snake Thamnophis gigas Research and publication Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Research and publication Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis Research and reports Alameda whipsnake Masticophis lateralis Expert testimony euryxanthus as 0 x M 0 Packet Pg. 182 5.1.e Smallwood CV 9 Peer Reviewed Publications Smallwood, K. S. In press. The challenges of repowering. Proceedings from the Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, March 2015, Berlin, Germany. Springer. May, R., A.B. Gill, J. K6ppel, R.H.W. Langston, M. Reichenbach, M. Scheidat, S. Smallwood and C.C. Voigt. In press. Future research directions. Proceedings from the Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, March 2015, Berlin, Germany. Springer. Smallwood, K.S. 2016. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms: conflicts and solutions. Pelagic Publishing. In press; 0 x Smallwood, K.S., L. Neher, and D.A. Bell. 2016. Siting to Minimize Raptor Collisions: an c° L example from the Repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife E and Wind Farms: conflicts and solutions. Pelagic Publishing. In press v Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human —Wildlife Interactions 10(1): 7-18. Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S. Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237. Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Mete, A., N. Stephenson, K. Rogers, M. G. Hawkins, M. Sadar, D. Guzman, D. A. Bell, J. Shipman, A. Wells, K. S. Smallwood, and J. Foley. 2014. Emergence of Knemidocoptic mange in wild Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in California. Emerging Infectious Diseases 20(10):1716- 1718. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Introduction: Wind -energy development and wildlife conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37: 3-4. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Comparing bird and bat fatality -rate estimates among North American wind -energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:19-33. + Online Supplemental Material. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting Burrowing Owl Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin: 37:787-795. Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, B. Karas, and S. A. Snyder. 2013. Response to Huso and Erickson Comments on Novel Scavenger Removal Trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 216-225. Bell, D. A., and K. S. Smallwood. 2010. Birds of prey remain at risk. Science 330:913. Packet Pg. 183 5.1.e Smallwood CV 10 Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, S. A. Snyder, and J. E. DiDonato. 2010. Novel scavenger removal trials increase estimates of wind turbine -caused avian fatality rates. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 1089-1097 + Online Supplemental Material. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2009. Map -based repowering and reorganization of a wind resource area to minimize burrowing owl and other bird fatalities. Energies 2009(2):915- 943. http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/915 Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2009. Impacts of West Nile Virus Epizootic on Yellow -Billed Magpie, American Crow, and other Birds in the Sacramento Valley, California. The Condor; 111:247-254. _ L Smallwood, K. S., L. Rugge, and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Influence of Behavior on Bird Mortality in Wind Energy Developments: The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of (a Wildlife Management 73:1082-1098. L Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2009. Avian and Bat Fatality Rates at Old -Generation and Repowered Wind Turbines in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1062-1071. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Wind power company compliance with mitigation plans in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Environmental & Energy Law Policy Journal 2(2):229-285. Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander. 2008. Bird Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:215-223. Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Estimating wind turbine -caused bird mortality. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2781-2791. Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander, M. L. Morrison, and L. M. Rugge. 2007. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1513- 1524. Cain, J. W. III, K. S. Smallwood, M. L. Morrison, and H. L. Loffland. 2005. Influence of mammal activity on nesting success of Passerines. J. Wildlife Management 70:522-531. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California. Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and L. S. Hall. 2002. Creating habitat through plant relocation: Lessons from Valley elderberry longhorn beetle mitigation. Ecological Restoration 21: 95-100. Zhang, M., K. S. Smallwood, and E. Anderson. 2002. Relating indicators of ecological health and integrity to assess risks to sustainable agriculture and native biota. Pages 757-768 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA. Packet Pg. 184 5.1.e Smallwood CV 11 Wilcox, B. A., K. S. Smallwood, and J. A. Kahn. 2002. Toward a forest Capital Index. Pages 285- 298 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. The allometry of density within the space used by populations of Mammalian Carnivores. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1634-1640. Smallwood, K.S., and T.R. Smith. 2001. Study design and interpretation of Sorex density estimates. Annales Zoologi Fennici 38:141-161. Smallwood, K.S., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Keckler, C. Bailey, and K. Brown. 2001. Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Transactions = of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 36:40-49. E Geng, S., Yixing Zhou, Minghua Zhang, and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2001. A Sustainable Agro- v ecological Solution to Water Shortage in North China Plain (Huabei Plain). Environmental L Planning and Management 44:345-355. Smallwood, K. Shawn, Lourdes Rugge, Stacia Hoover, Michael L. Morrison, Carl Thelander. 2001 Intra- and inter -turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass. Pages 23-37 in S. S. Schwartz, ed., Proceedings of the National Avian -Wind Power Planning Meeting IV. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C. Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and M. Zhang. 2001. Comparing pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) density in alfalfa stands to assess management and conservation goals in northern California. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 87: 93-109. Smallwood, K. S. 2001. Linking habitat restoration to meaningful units of animal demography Restoration Ecology 9:253-261. Smallwood, K.S. 2000. A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Environmental Management 26, Supplement 1:23-35. Smallwood, K.S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435. Smallwood, K.S. 1999. Scale domains of abundance among species of Mammalian Carnivora. Environmental Conservation 26:102-111. Smallwood, K.S. 1999. Suggested study attributes for making useful population density estimates. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 35: 76-82. Smallwood, K.S. and M.L. Morrison. 1999. Estimating burrow volume and excavation rate of pocket gophers (Geomyidae). Southwestern Naturalist 44:173-183. Smallwood, K.S. and M.L. Morrison. 1999. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Naturalist 44:73-82. Packet Pg. 185 5.1.e Smallwood CV 12 Smallwood, K.S. 1999. Abating pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) to regenerate forests in clearcuts. Environmental Conservation 26:59-65. Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Patterns of black bear abundance. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 34:32-38. Smallwood, K.S. 1998. On the evidence needed for listing northern goshawks (Accipter gentilis) under the Endangered Species Act: a reply to Kennedy. J. Raptor Research 32:323-329. Smallwood, K.S., B. Wilcox, R. Leidy, and K. Yarris. 1998. Indicators assessment for Habitat Conservation Plan of Yolo County, California, USA. Environmental Management 22: 947-958. 6 0 x Smallwood, K.S., M.L. Morrison, and J. Beyea. 1998. Animal burrowing attributes affecting c° L hazardous waste management. Environmental Management 22: 831-847. M 0 Smallwood, K.S, and C.M. Schonewald. 1998. Study design and interpretation for mammalian L carnivore density estimates. Oecologia 113:474-491. Zhang, M., S. Geng, and K.S. Smallwood. 1998. Nitrate contamination in groundwater of Tulare County, California. Ambio 27(3):170-174. Smallwood, K.S. and M.L. Morrison. 1997. Animal burrowing in the waste management zone of Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Proceedings of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society Meeting 33:88-97. Morrison, M.L., K.S. Smallwood, and J. Beyea. 1997. Monitoring the dispersal of contaminants by wildlife at nuclear weapons production and waste storage facilities. The Environmentalist 17:289-295. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Interpreting puma (Puma concolor) density estimates for theory and management. Environmental Conservation 24(3):283-289. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Managing vertebrates in cover crops: a first study. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 11:155-160. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1997. Multi -scale influences of gophers on alfalfa yield and quality. Field Crops Research 49:159-168. Smallwood, K.S. and C. Schonewald. 1996. Scaling population density and spatial pattern for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 105:329-335. Smallwood, K.S., G. Jones, and C. Schonewald. 1996. Spatial scaling of allometry for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 107:588-594. Van Vuren, D. and K.S. Smallwood. 1996. Ecological management of vertebrate pests in agricultural systems. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 13:41-64. Smallwood, K.S., B.J. Nakamoto, and S. Geng. 1996. Association analysis of raptors on an Packet Pg. 186 5.1.e Smallwood CV 13 agricultural landscape. Pages 177-190 in D.M. Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London. Erichsen, A.L., K.S. Smallwood, A.M. Commandatore, D.M. Fry, and B. Wilson. 1996. White- tailed Kite movement and nesting patterns in an agricultural landscape. Pages 166-176 in D.M. Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London. Smallwood, K.S. 1995. Scaling Swainson's hawk population density for assessing habitat -use across an agricultural landscape. J. Raptor Research 29:172-178. as Smallwood, K.S. and W.A. Erickson. 1995. Estimating gopher populations and their abatement in = forest plantations. Forest Science 41:284-296. E Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1995. A track count for estimating mountain lion Felis v concolor californica population trend. Biological Conservation 71:251-259 L Smallwood, K.S. 1994. Site invasibility by exotic birds and mammals. Biological Conservation 69:251-259. Smallwood, K.S. 1994. Trends in California mountain lion populations. Southwestern Naturalist 39:67-72. Smallwood, K.S. 1993. Understanding ecological pattern and process by association and order. Acta Oecologica 14(3):443-462. Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1993. A rigorous technique for identifying individual mountain lions Felis concolor by their tracks. Biological Conservation 65:51-59. Smallwood, K.S. 1993. Mountain lion vocalizations and hunting behavior. The Southwestern Naturalist 38:65-67. Smallwood, K.S. and T.P. Salmon. 1992. A rating system for potential exotic vertebrate pests Biological Conservation 62:149-159. Smallwood, K.S. 1990. Turbulence and the ecology of invading species. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Davis. Peer -reviewed Reports Sinclair, K. and E. DeGeorge. 2016. Framework for Testing the Effectiveness of Bat and Eagle Impact -Reduction Strategies at Wind Energy Projects. S. Smallwood, M. Schirmacher, and M. Morrison, eds., Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-65624, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado. Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Bird and Bat Impacts and Behaviors at Old Wind Turbines at Forebay, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report CEC-500-2016-XXX, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research program, Sacramento, California. In press. Packet Pg. 187 5.1.e Smallwood CV 14 Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Comparing Utilization Data for Siting New Wind Power Generation. Report to California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research program. In Press. Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2014. Final 2013-2014 Annual Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy; Resources, Livermore, California. _ L Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, and B. Karas. 2013. Final 2012-2013 Annual Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, v California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p274 ventus vasco_winds _2012_13 avian_ L bat monitoring report_ year_l.pdf' Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, D. Bell, J. DiDonato, B. Karas, S. Snyder, and S. Lopez. 2009. Range Management Practices to Reduce Wind Turbine Impacts on Burrowing Owls and Other Raptors in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research — Environmental Area, Contract No. CEC-500-2008-080. Sacramento, California. 183 pp. http://www.energ_y.ca.gov/ 2008publications/CEC-500-2008-080/CEC-500-2008-080.PDF Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2009. Map -Based Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Based on Burrowing Owl Burrows, Raptor Flights, and Collisions with Wind Turbines. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research — Environmental Area, Contract No. CEC-500-2009-065. Sacramento, California. 63 pp. http://www.energy.ca. gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-065/CEC-500-2009-065.PDF Smallwood, K. S., K. Hunting, L. Neher, L. Spiegel and M. Yee 2007. Indicating Threats to Birds Posed by New Wind Power Projects in California. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research — Environmental Area, Contract No. Pending. Sacramento, California. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2005. Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, March 1998 — September 2001 Final Report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-36973. Golden, Colorado. 410 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2004. Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research — Environmental Area, Contract No. 500-01-019. Sacramento, California. 531 pp. http://www.energy.caagov/reports/500-04-052/2004-08-09 500-04-052.PDF Thelander, C.G. S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2003. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Period of Performance: March 1998December 2000. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-33829. U.S. Department of Packet Pg. 188 5.1.e Smallwood CV 15 Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. 86 pp. Thelander, C.G., S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2001. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Wind Resource Area — a progress report. Proceedings of the American Wind Energy Association, Washington D.C. 16 pp. Non -Peer Reviewed Publications Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Methods manual for assessing wind farm impacts to birds. Bird Conservation Series 26, Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo. T. Ura, ed., in English with Japanese translation by T. Kurosawa. 90 pp.; 0 x Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mitigation in U.S. Wind Farms. Pages 68-76 in H. H6tker (Ed.), Birds of c° �L Prey and Wind Farms: Analysis of problems and possible solutions. Documentation of an International Workshop in Berlin, 21 st and 22nd October 2008. Michael-Otto-Instiut im NABU, v Goosstroot 1, 24861 Bergenhusen, Germany. http://bergenhusen.nabu.de/forschung/ reg ifvoegel/ L Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Notes and recommendations on wildlife impacts caused by Japan's wind power development. Pages 242-245 in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo. Thelander, C.G. and S. Smallwood. 2007. The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area's Effects on Birds: A Case History. Pages 25-46 in Manuela de Lucas, Guyonne F.E. Janss, Miguel Ferrer Editors, Birds and Wind Farms: risk assessment and mitigation. Madrid: Quercus. Neher, L. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Forecasting and minimizing avian mortality in siting wind turbines. Energy Currents. Fall Issue. ESRI, Inc., Redlands, California. Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Laying plans for a hydrogen highway. Comstock's Business, August 2004:18-20, 22, 24-26. Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Refined conundrum: California consumers demand more oil while opposing refinery development. Comstock's Business, November 2004:26-27, 29-30. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of "The Atlas of Endangered Species." By Richard Mackay. Environmental Conservation 30:210-211. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of "The Endangered Species Act. History, Conservation, and Public Policy." By Brian Czech And Paul B. Krausman. Environmental Conservation 29: 269- 270. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) burrow volume. Abstract in Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Abstract in Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of Packet Pg. 189 5.1.e Smallwood CV 16 Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Animal burrowing parameters influencing toxic waste management. Abstract in Proceedings of Meeting, Western Section of the Wildlife Society. Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Abstract, page 93 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp. Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed. Abstract, page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion; Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp. _ L Smallwood, K.S, and M. Grigione. 1997. Photographic recording of mountain lion tracks. Pages 75-75 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California v Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp. L Smallwood, K.S., B. Wilcox, and J. Karr. 1995. An approach to scaling fragmentation effects. Brief 8, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability — The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129-0075. Wilcox, B., and K.S. Smallwood. 1995. Ecosystem indicators model overview. Brief 2, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability — The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129- 0075. EIP Associates. 1996. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Yolo County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California. Geng, S., K.S. Smallwood, and M. Zhang. 1995. Sustainable agriculture and agricultural sustainability. Proc. 7th International Congress SABRAO, 2nd Industrial Symp. WSAA. Taipei, Taiwan. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1994. Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Pages 454-464 in W. Dehai, ed., Proc. International Conference on Integrated Resource Management for Sustainable Agriculture. Beijing Agricultural University, Beijing, China. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium 23:105-8. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa. California Alfalfa Symposium 23:86-89. Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1992. The use of track counts for mountain lion population census. Pages 59-67 in C. Braun, ed. Mountain lion -Human Interaction Symposium and Workshop. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins. Packet Pg. 190 Smallwood CV 17 Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Pages 58-63 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Techniques for monitoring mountain lion population levels. Pages 69-71 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. Reports to or by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (Note: all documents linked to SRC website have since been removed by Alameda County) a� Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Data Needed in Support of Repowering in the Altamont Pass WRA. _ http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p284_smallwood_ data needed_ in support_ of_repowering_ in the altamont pass wra.pdf E M Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Long -Term Trends in Fatality Rates of Birds and Bats in the Altamont L Pass Wind Resource Area, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/r68_smallwood as altamont fatality rates longterm.pdf J y Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Inter -annual Fatality rates of Target Raptor Species from 1999 through 2012 in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. http://www.altamontsre.org/alt_doc/p268_ Smallwood inter annual comparison of fatality_ rates_1999 2012.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2012. General Protocol for Performing Detection Trials in the F1oDesign Study of the Safety of a Closed -bladed Wind Turbine. http://www.altamontsre.org/alt_doc/p246_ smallwood flodesign detection trial protocol.pdf Smallwood, K. S.,1. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Burrowing owl distribution and abundance study through two breeding seasons and intervening non -breeding period in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p245_smallwood_et_al_ burrowing owl density 2012.pdf Smallwood, K. S 2012. Draft study design for testing collision risk of Flodesign wind turbine in former AES Seawest wind projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p238_smallwood_floeesign draft _study design april_2012 Smallwood, L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Winter 2012 update on burrowing owl distribution and abundance study in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. http://www. altamontsrc.or survey et_ al_ winter owl et_ al_ winter owl_survey update.pdf Smallwood, S. 2012. Status of avian utilization data collected in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, 2005-2011. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p231_smallwood_apwra use data 2005_2011.pdf Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Monitoring Burrow Use of Wintering Burrowing Owls. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p229_smallwood et al progress_ monitoring_ Packet Pg. 191 5.1.e Smallwood CV V] burrowing owl_ burrow_use.pdf Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Nesting Burrowing Owl Distribution and Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p228_smallwood_et al for _nextera_burrowing owl_distri bution_and _abundance _study.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft Study Design for Testing Collision Risk of Flodesign Wind Turbine in Patterson Pass Wind Farm in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). httn://www.altamontsrc.oriz/alt doc/n100 src document list with reference numbers.ndf as Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Sampling Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource = Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p205_smallwood_neher progress on sampling c° L _burrowing owls_ across_apwra.pdf M Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Proposal to Sample Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind L Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/pl98_smallwood proposal to sample_ burrowing owls_ across_apwra.pdf J Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on APWRA Monitoring Program Update. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/pl91 smallwood comments_ on_apwra_monitoring progra m update.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Inter -turbine Comparisons of Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p189 smallwood_report _of apwra fatality rate patterns.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of the December 2010 Draft of M-21: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Bird Collision Study. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p190_smallwood review of december 2010 monitoring report.pdf Alameda County SRC (Shawn Smallwood, Jim Estep, Sue Orloff, Joanna Burger, and Julie Yee), Comments on the Notice of Preparation for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report on Revised CUPs for Wind Turbines in the Alameda County portion of the Altamont Pass. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p183_src_integrated_comments_on_nop.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of Monitoring Implementation Plan. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p180_src_comments_ on dip.pdf Burger, J., J. Estep, S. Orloff, S. Smallwood, and J. Yee. 2010. SRC Comments on CaIWEA Research Plan. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/p174_smallwood_ review_ of calwea_ removal study plan.pdf Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). SRC Comments on Monitoring Team's Draft Study Plan for Future Monitoring. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/pl68_src_ comments_ on_m53_mt_draft _study plan for fu ture monitoring.pdf Packet Pg. 192 5.1.e Smallwood CV 19 Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Second Review of American Kestrel -Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team's M21 for the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p171_smallwood kb removal rates follow up.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Assessment of Three Proposed Adaptive Management Plans for Reducing Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_ do%161 Smallwood assessment of amps.pdf Smallwood, K. S. and J. Estep. 2010. Report of Additional Wind Turbine Hazard Ratings in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area by Two Members of the Alameda County Scientific; Review Committee. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/053 smallwood estep additional = hazard_ratings.pdf c° L E Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Alternatives to Improve the Efficiency of the Monitoring Program. (a http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/pl58 smallwood response_ to memo on_monitoringosts L Smallwood, S. 2010. Summary of Alameda County SRC Recommendations and Concerns and Subsequent Actions. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p147_smallwood_ summary_ of src_ recommendations _and _concerns _ 1 11 _ 10.pdf Smallwood, S. 2010. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule. http://www.altamontsrc.oriz/alt doc/pl48 smallwood progress of avian wildlife protection p rogram_1 11_10.pdf Smallwood, S. 2010. Old -Generation Wind Turbines Rated for Raptor Collision Hazard by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee in 2010, an Update on those Rated in 2007, and an Update on Tier Rankings. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p155_smallwood_src_ turbine_ ratings_ and status.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of American Kestrel -Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team's M21 for the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.or_/g_alt_doc/pl54_smallwood_ kb_ removal_ rates_041610.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area 1998-2009 P145 Smallwood Fatality Monitoring Results 12-31-09. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on Revised M-21: Report on Fatality Monitoring in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. P 144 SRC Comments on 2009 Draft Monitoring Report M21. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p129_smallwood search_ interval_ summaries _sppplemental_to m39.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Smallwood's review of M32. Alameda County SRC document P-111. 6 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/plll smallwoods_review _of m32.12df Packet Pg. 193 5.1.e Smallwood CV f►Q Smallwood, K. S. 2009. 3rd Year Review of 16 Conditional Use Permits for Windworks, Inc. and Altamont Infrastructure Company, LLC. Comment letter to East County Board of Zoning Adjustments. 10 pp + 2 attachments. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Weighing Remaining Workload of Alameda County SRC against Proposed Budget Cap. Alameda County SRC document not assigned. 3 pp. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2008. SRC Comments on August 2008 Fatality Monitoring Report, M21. Alameda County SRC document P-107. 21 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p107_smallwood_ review_ ofjuly 2008_ ; monitoring report_m2l.pdf = L Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Burrowing Owl Carcass Distribution around Wind Turbines. Alameda E County SRC document 106. 8 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.or /g/alt_doc/p106_smallwood_ M burrowing owl carcass_ distribution around wind turbines.pdf L Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Assessment of Relocation/Removal of Altamont Pass Wind Turbines Rated as Hazardous by the Alameda County SRC. Alameda County SRC document P-103. 10 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p103_assessment_of src_recommendations _to relocate rated turbines.pdf Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2008. Summary of wind turbine -free ridgelines within and around the APWRA. Alameda County SRC document P-102.4 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_ doc/p 102_smallwood_neher wind_ turbine_ free_ rid elg ines.pdf Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2008. Comparison of Mortality Estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area when Restricted to Recent Fatalities. Alameda County SRC document P- 101. 14 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/pl01_smallwood_karas_mortality_ restricted_ to_recent.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2008. On the Misapplication of Mortality Adjustment Terms to Fatalities Missed During one Search and Found Later. Alameda County SRC document P-97. 3 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p97_double_counting of missed_fatalities.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Relative abundance of raptors outside the APWRA. Alameda County SRC document P-88. 6 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p88_smallwood_relative_ abundance of birds_offsite.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Alameda County SRC document P-76. 19 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p76_ mortality estimates _apwra_2005_07.pdf Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2010. Guidelines for siting wind turbines recommended for relocation to minimize potential collision - related mortality of four focal raptor species in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Alameda County SRC document P-70. P70 SRC Hazardous Turbine Relocation Guidelines Packet Pg. 194 5.1.e Smallwood CV 21 Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 11, 2007. SRC selection of dangerous wind turbines. Alameda County SRC document P-67. 8 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.oriz/alt_doc/p67_src_ turbine_ selection_ 12_11_07.pdf Smallwood, S. October 6, 2007. Smallwood's Answers to Audubon's Queries about the SRC's Recommended Four Month Winter Shutdown of Wind Turbines in the Altamont Pass. Alameda County SRC document P-23. 7 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/s23_ss_answers_to_ audubons_queries _on winter shutdown recommendation.pdf Smallwood, K. S. October 1, 2007. Dissenting Opinion on Recommendation to Approve of the AWI Blade Painting Study. Alameda County SRC document P-60. 4 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/n60 smallwood dissenting opinion awi blade painting st = udy 10_2 07.pdf E Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Effects of Monitoring Duration and Inter -Annual Variability on v Precision of Wind -Turbine Caused Mortality Estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource L Area, California. SRC Document P44, 16 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p44_ as smallwood_effects _of monitoring period_ and variability 7 26_07.pdf J Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Memo: Opinion of some SRC members that the period over which post -management mortality will be estimated remains undefined. SRC Document P43, 5 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p43_smallwood_ on monitoring period _7_26 07.pdf Smallwood, K. S. July 19, 2007. Smallwood's response to P24G. SRC Document P41, 4 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p41_smallwood_response to p24_docs.pdf Smallwood, K. S. April 23, 2007. New Information Regarding Alameda County SRC Decision of 11 April 2007 to Grant FPLE Credits for Removing and Relocating Wind Turbines in 2004. SRC Document P26, 12 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p26_new_information_on_ fple_credits.pdf Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, and J. Burger [J. Yee abstained]). April 17, 2007. SRC Statement in Support of the Monitoring Program Scope and Budget. 1pp. Smallwood, K. S. April 15, 2007. Verification of Tier 1 & 2 Wind Turbine Shutdowns and Relocations. SRC Document P22, 5 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/altdoc/p22 verification_ to tier shutdowns _smallwood_4 15_07.pdf Smallwood, S. April 15, 2007. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule. 4 pp. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). April 3, 2007. Alameda County Scientific Review Committee Replies to the Parties' Responses to its Queries and to Comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document 520, http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/alt settlement/s20 src_replies _to parties_ answers _04_03_ 07.pdf. 12 pp. Smallwood, S. March 19, 2007. Estimated Effects of Full Winter Shutdown and Removal of Tier I & II Turbines. SRC Document 519, http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/alt settlement/s19_ Packet Pg. 195 5.1.e Smallwood CV 22 smallwood_ estimated _ effects_ shutdown_ and tier 1 2 removal_3 19_07.pdf. 1 pp. Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Smallwood's Replies to the Parties' Responses to Queries from the SRC and Comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document S 16, http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/alt settlement/s16_smallwoods_ replies_ to parties_respons e_3_9_07.pdf. 9 pp. Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Estimated Effects of Proposed Measures to be Applied to 2,500 Wind Turbines in the APWRA Fatality Monitoring Plan. SRC Document S 15, htta://www.altamontsrc.ora/alt doc/alt settlement/s15 smallwood estimated effects nroaosed _measures _3_8_07.pdf. 2 pp.; 0 x Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). February 7, 2007. Analysis of Monitoring Program in Context of 1/1//2007 Settlement Agreement. 7 pp. c.� Smallwood, S. January 8, 2007. Smallwood's Concerns over the Agreement to Settle the CEQA L Challenges. SRC Document S5, http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/alt settlement/s5_ — as smallwood_on proposed_ settlement_agreement.rtf. 5 pp. J Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 19, 2006. Altamont Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Recommendations to the County on the Avian Monitoring Team Consultants' Budget and Organization. 3 pp. Reports to Clients Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2016. Mitigating golden eagle impacts from repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area and expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir. Report to East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Conservancy and Contra Costa Water District. Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Report of Altamont Pass research as Vasco Winds mitigation. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon Society, East Bay Regional Park District. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions at Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Ogin, Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015a. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions at Golden Hills Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015b. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions at Golden Hills North Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015c. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions at the Patterson Pass Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to EDF Packet Pg. 196 5.1.e Smallwood CV 23 Renewable Energy, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2014. Early Assessment of Wind Turbine Layout in Summit Wind Project. Report to Altamont Winds LLC, Tracy, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Review of Avian Use Survey Report for the Longboat Solar Project. Report to EDF Renewable Energy, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Information Needed for Solar Project Impacts Assessment and Mitigation Planning. Report to Panorama Environmental, Inc., San Francisco, California. as Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, _ California: Report of Progress for the period 2006-2014. Report to East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. E M 0 Smallwood, K. S. 2013. First -year estimates of bird and bat fatality rates at old wind turbines, L Forebay areas of Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to F1oDesign in support of EIR. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/deir/p278_smallwood_first annual report _of turbine_expe J riment_forebay_pdf Smallwood, K. S. and W. Pearson. 2013. Neotropical Bird Monitoring of Burrowing Owls (Athene cunicularia), Naval Air Station Lemoore, California. Tierra Data, Inc. report to Naval Air Station Lemoore. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Winter Surveys for San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) and burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) within Air Operations at Naval Air Station, Lemoore. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. and Naval Air Station Lemoore. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2013. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2012 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2012). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2012. Fatality Rate Estimates at the Vantage Wind Energy Project, Year One. Unpublished report to Ventus Environmental, Portland, Oregon. 19 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2012. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions at North Sky River. Unpublished report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC. 19 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: Report of Progress for the Period 2006-2011. Report to East Bay Regional Park District. 12 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2011 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2011). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 75 pp. Packet Pg. 197 5.1.e Smallwood CV 24 Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft Study Design for Testing Collision Risk of F1oDesign Wind Turbine in Patterson Pass, Santa Clara, and Former AES Seawest Wind Projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). Report to F1oDesign, Inc. 11 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Comments on Marbled Murrelet Collision Model for the Radar Ridge Wind Resource Area. Unpublished report to EcoStat, Inc., and ultimately to US Fish and Wildlife Service. 17 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Avian Fatality Rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2011. Report to Pattern Energy. 10 pp. as Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2011. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor = Collisions at Tres Vaqueros, Contra Costa County, California. Report to Pattern Energy. 13 pp. c° L E Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) v Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2010 L Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2010). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, as Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 68 pp. J Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Wind Energy Development and Avian Issues in the Altamont Pass, California. Report to Black & Veatch. 9 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Draft Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. 39 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions at Vasco Winds. Unpublished report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, Livermore, California. 32 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Baseline Avian and Bat Fatality Rates at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. 41 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2010. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2009 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2009). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 86 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammal surveys at naval outlying landing field Imperial Beach, California, August 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 5 pp Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammals and other Wildlife Observed at Proposed Site of Amargosa Solar Power Project, Spring 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 13 pp Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Avian Fatality Rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2009. Report to members of the Contra Costa County Technical Advisory Committee on the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project. 8 pp. Packet Pg. 198 5.1.e Smallwood CV 25 Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Repowering the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area more than Doubles Energy Generation While Substantially Reducing Bird Fatalities. Report prepared on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 2 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Surveys to Detect Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and California Black Rail at Installation Restoration Site 30, Military Ocean Terminal Concord, California: March -April 2009. Report to Insight Environmental, Engineering, and Construction, Inc., Sacramento, California. 6 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Avian and Bat Mortality at the Big Horn Wind Energy Project, Klickitat County, Washington. Unpublished report to Friends of Skamania County. 7 pp. _ L Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, E California: report of progress for the period 2006-2008. Unpublished report to East Bay v Regional Park District. 5 pp. L Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2008 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2008). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 84 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Habitat Assessment for California Red -Legged Frog at Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 48 PP. Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto 2008. Impact of 2005 and 2006 West Nile Virus on Yellow - billed Magpie and American Crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. 22 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project (IR Site #2), San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California: Re -Vegetation Monitoring. Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement — N68711-04LT-A0045. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 10 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Burrowing owls at Dixon Naval Radio Transmitter Facility. Report to U.S. Navy. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 28 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2007 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2007). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 69 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. A Monitoring Effort to Detect the Presence of the Federally Listed Species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and Wetland Habitat Assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, Packet Pg. 199 5.1.e Smallwood CV P� California. Installation Restoration (IR) Site 30, Final Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement — N68711-05LT-A0001. U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California. 8 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2006 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2006). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Daly City, California. 165 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2006. Response to third review of Smallwood and Thelander (2004). Report to California Institute for Energy and Environment, University of California, Oakland, CA. 139 pp. _ L Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Biological effects of repowering a portion of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California: The Diablo Winds Energy Project. Report to Altamont Working (a Group. Available from Shawn Smallwood, puma(a�yolo.com . 34 pp. L Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Impact of 2005 West Nile Virus on Yellow -billed Magpie and American Crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. Report to Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, Elk Grove, CA. 38 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2005 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2005). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 160 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California tiger salamander and California red -legged frog at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter agreements N68711- 04LT-AO042 and N68711-04LT-A0044, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 60 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Sampling for rails, Spring 2006, Installation Restoration (IR) Site 1. Letter Agreement — N68711-051t-A0001, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 9 pp. Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2006. Final Report: Station -wide Wildlife Survey, Naval Air Station, Lemoore. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 20 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California: Re -vegetation Monitoring. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Packet Pg. 200 5.1.e Smallwood CV 27 Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 8 pp. Dorin, Melinda, Linda Spiegel and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2005. Response to public comments on the staff report entitled Assessment of Avian Mortality from Collisions and Electrocutions (CEC-700-2005-015) (Avian White Paper) written in support of the 2005 Environmental Performance Report and the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission, Sacramento. 205 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2005. Estimating combined effects of selective turbine removal and winter -time shutdown of half the wind turbines. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 23. 1 p. as Erickson, W. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Avian and Bat Monitoring Plan for the Buena Vista Wind = Energy Project Contra Costa County, California. Unpubl. report to Contra Costa County, Antioch, California. 22 pp. M 0 Lamphier-Gregory, West Inc., Shawn Smallwood, Jones & Stokes Associates, Illingworth & L Rodkin Inc. and Environmental Vision. 2005. Environmental Impact Report for the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, LP# 022005. County of Contra Costa Community Development J Department, Martinez, California. d Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Targeted Sampling for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, Fall 2005 Installation Restoration (IR) Site 30. Letter Agreement — N68711-051t-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp. Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter Agreement — N68711-051t-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 5 pp. Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. Skaggs Island waste and contaminated soil removal projects, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California. Report to the U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2004. 2004 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 134 pp - Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005a. Assessment To Support An Adaptive Management Plan For The APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 19 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005b. Partial Re -assessment of An Adaptive Management Plan For The APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, March 25. 48 pp. Packet Pg. 201 5.1.e Smallwood CV 28 Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005c. Combining biology -based and policy -based tiers of priority for determining wind turbine relocation/shutdown to reduce bird fatalities in the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 1. 9 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2004. Alternative plan to implement mitigation measures in APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 8 pp. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2005. Repowering the APWRA: Forecasting and minimizing avian mortality without significant loss of power generation. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy -Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2005-005. 21 pp. [Reprinted (in Japanese) in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and; Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo.] _ L Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore. E Report to U.S. Navy. 4 pp. v Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rails and wetland habitat assessment at Pier 4 of the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter Agreement N68711-04LT-A0002. 8 pp. + 2 pp. of photo plates. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2003 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 56 pp + 58 figures. Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Comparison of Biological Impacts of the No Project and Partial Underground Alternatives presented in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Jefferson -Martin 230 kV Transmission Line. Report to California Public Utilities Commission. 20 pp. Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2003. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore. Report to U.S. Navy. 6 pp. + 7 photos + 1 map. Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the Tesla Power Project. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 32 pp. Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2002 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 45 pp. + 36 figures. Smallwood, K. S., Michael L. Morrison and Carl G. Thelander 2002. Study plan to test the effectiveness of aerial markers at reducing avian mortality due to collisions with transmission lines: A report to Pacific Gas & Electric Company. 10 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2002. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the Packet Pg. 202 5.1.e Smallwood CV 29 East Altamont Energy Center. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 26 pp. Thelander, Carl G., K. Shawn Smallwood, and Christopher Costello. 2002 Rating Distribution Poles for Threat of Raptor Electrocution and Priority Retrofit: Developing a Predictive Model. Report to Southern California Edison Company. 30 pp. Smallwood, K. S., M. Robison, and C. Thelander. 2002. Draft Natural Environment Study, Prunedale Highway 101 Project. California Department of Transportation, San Luis Obispo, California. 120 pp. as Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Assessment of ecological integrity and restoration potential of = Beeman/Pelican Farm. Draft Report to Howard Beeman, Woodland, California. 14 pp. c° L E Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) v Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress L report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 29 pp. + 19 figures. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Rocky Flats visit, April 0 through 6th, 2001. Report to Berger & Montaque, P.C. 16 pp. with 61 color plates. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. in the matter of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's rejection of Seatuck Environmental Association's proposal to operate an education center on Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge. Submitted to Seatuck Environmental Association in two parts, totaling 7 pp. Magney, D., and K.S. Smallwood. 2001. Maranatha High School CEQA critique. Comment letter submitted to Tamara & Efren Compean, 16 pp. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Preliminary Comments on the Proposed Blythe Energy Project. Submitted to California Energy Commission on March 15 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 14 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and D. Mangey. 2001. Comments on the Newhall Ranch November 2000 Administrative Draft EIR. Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 68 pp. Magney, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Newhall Ranch Notice of Preparation Submittal. Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding our recommended scope of work for the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 17 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Contra Costa Power Plant Unit 8 Project. Submitted to California Energy Commission on November 30 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 4 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the California Energy Commission's Final Staff Assessment of the MEC. Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 8 pp. Packet Pg. 203 5.1.e Smallwood CV 30 Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Biological Resources Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Plan (BRMIMP). Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 9 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Metcalf Energy Center. Submitted to California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 11 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Preliminary report of reconnaissance surveys near the TRW plant south of Phoenix, Arizona, March 27-29. Report prepared for Hagens, Berman & Mitchell, Attorneys at; Law, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp. _ L Morrison, M.L., K.S. Smallwood, and M. Robison. 2001. Draft Natural Environment Study for Highway 46 compliance with CEQA/NEPA. Report to the California Department of v Transportation. 75 pp. L Morrison, M.L., and K.S. Smallwood. 1999. NTI plan evaluation and comments. Exhibit C in W.D. Carrier, M.L. Morrison, K.S. Smallwood, and Vail Engineering. Recommendations for NBHCP land acquisition and enhancement strategies. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento. Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Estimation of impacts due to dredging of a shipping channel through Humboldt Bay, California. Court Declaration prepared on behalf of EPIC. Smallwood, K. S. 1998. 1998 California Mountain Lion Track Count. Report to the Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 5 pages. Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Draft report of a visit to a paint sludge dump site near Ridgewood, New Jersey, February 26th, 1998. Unpublished report to Consulting in the Public Interest. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Science missing in the "no surprises" policy. Commissioned by National Endangered Species Network and Spirit of the Sage Council, Pasadena, California. Smallwood, K.S. and M.L. Morrison. 1997. Alternate mitigation strategy for incidental take of giant garter snake and Swainson's hawk as part of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. Pages 6-9 and iii illustrations in W.D. Carrier, K.S. Smallwood and M.L. Morrison, Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan: Narrow channel marsh alternative wetland mitigation. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento. Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket gopher burrowing characteristics. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C., Philadelphia. (peer reviewed). Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Assessment of plutonium releases from Hanford buried waste sites. Report Number 9, Consulting in the Public Interest, 53 Clinton Street, Lambertville, New Jersey, 08530. Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Soil Bioturbation and Wind Affect Fate of Hazardous Materials that were Packet Pg. 204 5.1.e Smallwood CV 31 Released at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia. Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Second assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket gopher burrowing characteristics and other relevant wildlife observations. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C., Philadelphia. Smallwood, K.S., and R. Leidy. 1996. Wildlife and Their Management Under the Martell SYP. Report to Georgia Pacific, Corporation, Martel, CA. 30 pp. EIP Associates. 1995. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan Biological Resources Report. Yolo County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California.; 0 x Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1995. Analysis of the 1987 California Farm Cost Survey and c° L recommendations for future survey. Program on Workable Energy Regulation, University -wide Energy Research Group, University of California. v Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and W. Idzerda. 1992. Final report to PG&E: Analysis of the 1987 California Farm Cost Survey and recommendations for future survey. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Ramon, California. 24 pp. Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1987. Methods Manual — A statewide mountain lion population index technique. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Salmon, T.P. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Final Report — Evaluating exotic vertebrates as pests to California agriculture. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento. Smallwood, K.S. and W. A. Erickson (written under supervision of W.E. Howard, R.E. Marsh, and R.J. Laacke). 1990. Environmental exposure and fate of multi -kill strychnine gopher baits. Final Report to USDA Forest Service NAPIAP, Cooperative Agreement PSW-89-00 I OCA. Fitzhugh, E.L., K.S. Smallwood, and R. Gross. 1985. Mountain lion track count, Marin County, 1985. Report on file at Wildlife Extension, University of California, Davis. Comments on Environmental Documents I was retained or commissioned to comment on environmental planning and review documents, including: • Comments on proposed rule for incidental eagle take (2016, 49 pp); • Revised Draft Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan of 2015 (2016, 18 pp); • Supplementary Reply Witness Statement Amherst Island Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 38 pp); • Witness Statement on Amherst Island Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 31 pp); • Second Reply Witness Statement on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 6 pp); • Reply Witness Statement on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 10 pp); • Witness Statement on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 9 pp); • Proposed Section 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians DEIS (2015, 9 pp); Packet Pg. 205 Smallwood CV 32 • Replies to comments 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians FEIS (2015, 6 pp); • Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Project DEIR (2015, 9 pp); • West Valley Logistics Center Specific Plan DEIR(2015, 10 pp); • World Logistic Center Specific Plan FEIR (2015, 12 pp); • Bay Delta Conservation Plan EIR/EIS (2014, 21 pp); • Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 32 pp); • Response to Comments on the Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 15 pp); • Addison and Rising Tree Wind Energy Project FEIR (2014, 12 pp); • Alta East Wind Energy Project FEIS (2013, 23 pp); • Blythe Solar Power Project Staff Assessment, California Energy Commission (2013, 16 pp); _ • Clearwater and Yakima Solar Projects DEIR (2013, 9 pp); • Cuyama Solar Project DEIR (2014, 19 pp); E • Draft Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) EIR/EIS (2015, 49 pp); t� • Kingbird Solar Photovoltaic Project EIR (2013, 19 pp); • Lucerne Valley Solar Project Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013, 12 pp); J • Palen Solar Electric Generating System Final Staff Assessment of California Energy Commission, (2014, 20 pp); • Rebuttal testimony on Palen Solar Energy Generating System (2014, 9 pp); • Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 32 pp); • Response to Comments on the Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 15 pp); • Soitec Solar Development Project Draft PEIR (2014, 18 pp); • Comment on the Biological Opinion (08ESMF-00-2012-F-0387) of Oakland Zoo expansion on Alameda whipsnake and California red -legged frog (2014; 3 pp); • West Antelope Solar Energy Project Initial Study and Negative Declaration (2013, 18 pp); • Willow Springs Solar Photovoltaic Project DEIR (2015, 28 pp); • Alameda Creek Bridge Replacement Project DEIR (2015, 10 pp); • Declaration on Tule Wind project FEIR/FEIS (2013; 24 pp); • Sunlight Partners LANDPRO Solar Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013; 11 pp); • Declaration in opposition to BLM fracking (2013; 5 pp); • Rosamond Solar Project Addendum EIR (2013; 13 pp); • Pioneer Green Solar Project EIR (2013; 13 pp); • Reply to Staff Responses to Comments on Soccer Center Solar Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013; 6 pp); • Soccer Center Solar Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013; 10 pp); • Plainview Solar Works Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013; 10 pp); • Reply to the County Staff s Responses on comments to Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 10 pp); • Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 13 pp); • FRV Orion Solar Project DEIR (PP12232) (2013; 9 pp); • Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (3013; 6 pp); • Reply to Staff Responses to Comments on Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (2013; 8 pp); • FEIS prepared for Alta East Wind Project (2013; 23 pp); Packet Pg. 206 5.1.e Smallwood CV 33 • Metropolitan Air Park DEIR, City of San Diego (2013; ); • Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Map and Rezoning Project DEIR (2013; 9 pp); • Analysis of Biological Assessment of Oakland Zoo Expansion Impacts on Alameda Whipsnake (2013; 10 pp); • Declaration on Campo Verde Solar project FEIR (2013; 1 1pp); • Neg Dec comments on Davis Sewer Trunk Rehabilitation (2013; 8 pp); • Declaration on North Steens Transmission Line FEIS (2012; 62 pp); • City of Lancaster Revised Initial Study for Conditional Use Permits 12-08 and 12-09, Summer Solar and Springtime Solar Projects (2012; 8 pp); • J&J Ranch, 24 Adobe Lane Environmental Review (2012; 14 pp); • Reply to the County Staff s Responses on comments to Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal Project and the Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 8 pp); • Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal Project and the Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 9 pp); • Desert Harvest Solar Project EIS (2012; 15 pp); • Solar Gen 2 Array Project DEIR (2012; 16 pp); • Ocotillo Sol Project EIS (2012; 4 pp); • Beacon Photovoltaic Project DEIR (2012; 5 pp); • Declaration on Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration for the Butte Water District 2012 Water Transfer Program (2012; 11 pp); • Mount Signal and Calexico Solar Farm Projects DEIR (2011; 16 pp); • City of Elk Grove Sphere of Influence EIR (2011; 28 pp); • Comment on Sutter Landing Park Solar Photovoltaic Project MND (2011; 9 pp); • Statement of Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. Regarding Proposed Rabik/Gudath Project, 22611 Coleman Valley Road, Bodega Bay (CPN 10-0002) (2011; 4 pp); • Declaration of K. Shawn Smallwood on Biological Impacts of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) (2011; 9 pp); • Comments on Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (2011; 13 pp); • Comments on Draft EIR/EA for Niles Canyon Safety Improvement Project (2011; 16 pp); • Declaration of K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., on Biological Impacts of the Route 84 Safety Improvement Project (2011; 7 pp); • Rebuttal Testimony of Witness #22, K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D, on Behalf of Intervenors Friends of The Columbia Gorge & Save Our Scenic Area (2010; 6 pp); • Prefiled Direct Testimony of Witness #22, K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D, on Behalf of Intervenors Friends of the Columbia Gorge & Save Our Scenic Area. Comments on Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Power Project DEIS, Skamania County, Washington (2010; 41 pp); • Evaluation of Klickitat County's Decisions on the Windy Flats West Wind Energy Project (2010; 17 pp); • St. John's Church Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (2010; 14 pp.); • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Results Radio Zone File #2009-001 (2010; 20 pp); • Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report (2010;12 pp); • Answers to Questions on 33% RPS Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results Report (2009: 9 pp); • SEPA Determination of Non -significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania a 0 x E M 0 Packet Pg. 207 5.1.e Smallwood CV 34 County, Washington. Second Declaration to Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. and Save Our Scenic Area (Dec 2008; 17 pp); • Comments on Draft IA Summary Report to CAISO (2008; 10 pp); • County of Placer's Categorical Exemption of Hilton Manor Project (2009; 9 pp); • Protest of CARE to Amendment to the Power Purchase and Sale Agreement for Procurement of Eligible Renewable Energy Resources Between Hatchet Ridge Wind LLC and PG&E (2009; 3 pp); • Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project EIR/EIS (2009; 142 pp); • Delta Shores Project EIR, south Sacramento (2009; 11 pp + addendum 2 pp); • Declaration of Shawn Smallwood in Support of Care's Petition to Modify D.07-09-040 c (2008; 3 pp); o • The Public Utility Commission's Implementation Analysis December 16 Workshop for the M Governor's Executive Order 5-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 0 2020 (2008; 9 pp); M • The Public Utility Commission's Implementation Analysis Draft Work Plan for the v Governor's Executive Order 5-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by? L 2020 (2008; 11 pp); _J • Draft I Summary Report to California Independent System Operator for Planning Reserve Margins (PRM) Study (2008; 7 pp.); E • SEPA Determination of Non -significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania v County, Washington. Declaration to Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. and Q Save Our Scenic Area (Sep 2008; 16 pp); • California Energy Commission's Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Colusa Generating J Station (2007; 24 pp); Z • Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (2008: x° 66 pp); 42 • Replies to Response to Comments Re: Regional University Specific Plan Environmental E Impact Report (2008; 20 pp); U • Regional University Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (2008: 33 pp.); N • Clark Precast, LLC's "Sugarland" project, Negative Declaration (2008: 15 pp.); c • Cape Wind Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2008; 157 pp.); 0 o • Yuba Highlands Specific Plan (or Area Plan) Environmental Impact Report (2006; 37 pp.); cm L6 • Replies to responses to comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration of the proposed Mining Permit (MIN 04-01) and Modification of Use Permit 96-02 at North Table Mountain (2006; 5 pp); • Mitigated Negative Declaration of the proposed Mining Permit (MIN 04-01) and Modification of Use Permit 96-02 at North Table Mountain (2006; 15 pp); • Windy Point Wind Farm Environmental Review and EIS (2006; 14 pp and 36 Powerpoint slides in reply to responses to comments); • Shiloh I Wind Power Project EIR (2005; 18 pp); • Buena Vista Wind Energy Project Notice of Preparation of EIR (2004; 15 pp); • Negative Declaration of the proposed Callahan Estates Subdivision (2004; 11 pp); • Negative Declaration of the proposed Winters Highlands Subdivision (2004; 9 pp); • Negative Declaration of the proposed Winters Highlands Subdivision (2004; 13 pp); • Negative Declaration of the proposed Creekside Highlands Project, Tract 7270 (2004; 21 Packet Pg. 208 Smallwood CV 35 5.1.e pp); • On the petition California Fish and Game Commission to list the Burrowing Owl as threatened or endangered (2003; 10 pp); • Conditional Use Permit renewals from Alameda County for wind turbine operations in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (2003; 41 pp); • UC Davis Long Range Development Plan of 2003, particularly with regard to the Neighborhood Master Plan (2003; 23 pp); • Anderson Marketplace Draft Environmental Impact Report (2003: 18 pp + 3 plates of photos); • Negative Declaration of the proposed expansion of Temple B'nai Tikyah (2003: 6 pp); c • Antonio Mountain Ranch Specific Plan Public Draft EIR (2002: 23 pp); as o • Response to testimony of experts at the East Altamont Energy Center evidentiary hearing on M biological resources (2002: 9 pp); • Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, The Promenade (2002: 7 pp); v • Recirculated Initial Study for Calpine's proposed Pajaro Valley Energy Center (2002: 3 pp); L • UC Merced -- Declaration of Dr. Shawn Smallwood in support of petitioner's application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (2002: 5 pp); _J • Replies to response to comments in Final Environmental Impact Report, Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision (2003: 22 pp); E E • Draft Environmental Impact Report, Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision (2002: 19 pp + 8 v photos on 4 plates); z • California Energy Commission Staff Report on GWF Tracy Peaker Project (2002: 17 pp + 3 photos; follow-up report of 3 pp); J • Initial Study and Negative Declaration, Silver Bend Apartments, Placer County (2002: 13 0 pp); _ • UC Merced Long-range Development Plan DEIR and UC Merced Community Plan DEIR 02 (2001: 26 pp); E • Initial Study, Colusa County Power Plant (2001: 6 pp); • Comments on Proposed Dog Park at Catlin Park, Folsom, California (2001: 5 pp + 4 photos); • Pacific Lumber Co. (Headwaters) Habitat Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Report (1998: 28 pp); • Final Environmental Impact Report/Statement for Issuance of Take authorization for listed species within the MSCP planning area in San Diego County, California (Fed. Reg. 62 (60): 14938, San Diego Multi -Species Conservation Program) (1997: 10 pp); • Permit (PRT-823773) Amendment for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, Sacramento, CA (Fed. Reg. 63 (101): 29020-29021) (1998); • Draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas). (Fed. Reg. 64(176): 49497-49498) (1999: 8 pp); • Review of the Draft Recovery Plan for the Arroyo Southwestern Toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus) (1998); • Ballona West Bluffs Project Environmental Impact Report (1999: oral presentation); • California Board of Forestry's proposed amended Forest Practices Rules (1999); • Negative Declaration for the Sunset Skyranch Airport Use Permit (1999); • Calpine and Bechtel Corporations' Biological Resources Implementation and Monitoring Packet Pg. 209 Smallwood CV 36 Program (BRMIMP) for the Metcalf Energy Center (2000: 10 pp); • California Energy Commission's Final Staff Assessment of the proposed Metcalf Energy Center (2000); • US Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 consultation with the California Energy Commission regarding Calpine and Bechtel Corporations' Metcalf Energy Center (2000: 4 pp); • California Energy Commission's Preliminary Staff Assessment of the proposed Metcalf Energy Center (2000: 11 pp); • Site -specific management plans for the Natomas Basin Conservancy's mitigation lands, prepared by Wildlands, Inc. (2000: 7 pp); • Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood in Spirit of the Sage Council, et al. (Plaintiffs) vs. Bruce -- Babbitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Defendants), Injuries caused by o the No Surprises policy and final rule which codifies that policy (1999: 9 pp). _ L Comments on other Environmental Review Documents: E M 0 • Proposed Regulation for California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 (2015: 12 pp); • Statement of Overriding Considerations related to extending Altamont Winds, Inc.'s Conditional Use Permit PLN2014-00028 (2015; 8 pp); • Draft Program Level EIR for Covell Village (2005; 19 pp); • Bureau of Land Management Wind Energy Programmatic EIS Scoping document (2003: 7 pp.); • NEPA Environmental Analysis for Biosafety Level 4 National Biocontainment Laboratory (NBL) at UC Davis (2003: 7 pp); • Notice of Preparation of UC Merced Community and Area Plan EIR, on behalf of The Wildlife Society —Western Section (2001: 8 pp.); • Preliminary Draft Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan (2001; 2 letters totaling 35 pp.); • Merced County General Plan Revision, notice of Negative Declaration (2001: 2 pp.); • Notice of Preparation of Campus Parkway EIR/EIS (2001: 7 pp.); • Draft Recovery Plan for the bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Range (Ovis candensis) (2000); • Draft Recovery Plan for the California Red -legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii), on behalf of The Wildlife Society —Western Section (2000: 10 pp.); • Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Statement, on behalf of The Wildlife Society —Western Section (2000: 7 pp.); • State Water Project Supplemental Water Purchase Program, Draft Program EIR (1997); • Davis General Plan Update EIR (2000); • Turn of the Century EIR (1999: 10 pp); • Proposed termination of Critical Habitat Designation under the Endangered Species Act (Fed. Reg. 64(113): 31871-31874) (1999); • NOA Draft Addendum to the Final Handbook for Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permitting Process, termed the HCP 5-Point Policy Plan (Fed. Reg. 64(45): 11485 - 11490) (1999; 2 pp + attachments); • Covell Center Project EIR and EIR Supplement (1997). Position Statements I prepared the following position statements for the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, and one for nearly 200 scientists: Packet Pg. 210 5.1.e Smallwood CV 37 • Recommended that the California Department of Fish and Game prioritize the extermination of the introduced southern water snake in northern California. The Wildlife Society -- Western Section (2001); • Recommended that The Wildlife Society —Western Section appoint or recommend members of the independent scientific review panel for the UC Merced environmental review process (2001); • Opposed the siting of the University of California's 10th campus on a sensitive vernal pool/grassland complex east of Merced. The Wildlife Society --Western Section (2000); • Opposed the legalization of ferret ownership in California. The Wildlife Society --Western Section (2000); ,. • Opposed the Proposed "No Surprises," "Safe Harbor," and "Candidate Conservation c Agreement" rules, including permit -shield protection provisions (Fed. Reg. Vol. 62, No. 103, pp. 29091-29098 and No. 113, pp. 32189-32194). This statement was signed by 188 scientists and went to the responsible federal agencies, as well as to the U.S. Senate and E House of Representatives. 0 Posters at Professional Meetings Leyvas, E. and K. S. Smallwood. 2015. Rehabilitating injured animals to offset and rectify wind project impacts. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015. Smallwood, K. S., J. Mount, S. Standish, E. Leyvas, D. Bell, E. Walther, B. Karas. 2015. Integrated detection trials to improve the accuracy of fatality rate estimates at wind projects. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015. Smallwood, K. S. and C. G. Thelander. 2005. Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research in the Altamont Pass WRA. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005. Neher, L., L. Wilder, J. Woo, L. Spiegel, D. Yen-Nakafugi, and K.S. Smallwood. 2005. Bird's eye view on California wind. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005. Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander and L. Spiegel. 2003. Toward a predictive model of avian fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Windpower 2003 Conference and Convention, Austin, Texas. Smallwood, K.S. and Eva Butler. 2002. Pocket Gopher Response to Yellow Star -thistle Eradication as part of Grassland Restoration at Decommissioned Mather Air Force Base, Sacramento County, California. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station. Smallwood, K.S. and Michael L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station. Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Third Mountain Lion Workshop, Prescott, AZ. Packet Pg. 211 5.1.e Smallwood CV Smith, T. R. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Effects of study area size, location, season, and allometry on reported Sorex shrew densities. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society. Presentations at Professional Meetings and Seminars Mitigation of Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Sacramento, California, 6 November 2015. From burrows to behavior: Research and management for burrowing owls in a diverse landscape. California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, 24 October 2015, San Jose, California. as The Challenges of repowering. Keynote presentation at Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife = Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 10 March 2015. E Research Highlights Altamont Pass 2011-2015. Scientific Review Committee, Oakland, California, v 8 July 2015. L Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. US Fish and Wildlife Service Golden Eagle Working Group, Sacramento, California, 8 January 2015. Evaluation of nest boxes as a burrowing owl conservation strategy. Sacramento Chapter of the Western Section, The Wildlife Society. Sacramento, California, 26 August 2013. Predicting collision hazard zones to guide repowering of the Altamont Pass. Conference on wind power and environmental impacts. Stockholm, Sweden, 5-7 February 2013. Impacts of Wind Turbines on Wildlife. California Council for Wildlife Rehabilitators, Yosemite, California, 12 November 2012. Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats. Madrone Audubon Society, Santa Rosa, California, 20 February 2012. Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. California Energy Commission Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. California Energy Commission Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Alameda County Scientific Review Committee meeting, 17 February 2011 Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim, Norway, 3 May 2011. Update on Wildlife Impacts in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife Society —Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife Packet Pg. 212 5.1.e Smallwood CV 39 Society - Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011. Wildlife mortality caused by wind turbine collisions. Ecological Society of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 6 August 2010. Map -based repowering and reorganization of a wind farm to minimize burrowing owl fatalities. California burrowing Owl Consortium Meeting, Livermore, California, 6 February 2010. Environmental barriers to wind power. Getting Real About Renewables: Economic and Environmental Barriers to Biofuels and Wind Energy. A symposium sponsored by the Environmental & Energy Law & Policy Journal, University of Houston Law Center, Houston, 23 6 February 2007. _ Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind L E farms. Meeting with Japan Ministry of the Environment and Japan Ministry of the Economy, Wild v Bird Society of Japan, and other NGOs Tokyo, Japan, 9 November 2006. L Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind farms. Symposium on bird collisions with wind turbines. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 4 November 2006. Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework. California Society for Ecological Restoration (SERCAL) 13th Annual Conference, UC Santa Barbara, 27 October 2006. Fatality associations as the basis for predictive models of fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. EEI/APLIC/PIER Workshop, 2006 Biologist Task Force and Avian Interaction with Electric Facilities Meeting, Pleasanton, California, 28 April 2006. Burrowing owl burrows and wind turbine collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, February 8, 2006. Mitigation at wind farms. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts. American Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006. Incorporating data from the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) system into an impact assessment tool for birds near wind farms. Shawn Smallwood, Kevin Hunting, Marcus Yee, Linda Spiegel, Monica Parisi. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts. American Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006. Toward indicating threats to birds by California's new wind farms. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, May 26, 2005. Avian collisions in the Altamont Pass. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, May 26, 2005. Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. EPRI Environmental Sector Council, Monterey, California, February 17, 2005. Packet Pg. 213 5.1.e Smallwood CV 40 Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society —Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19, 2005. Associations between avian fatalities and attributes of electric distribution poles in California. The Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19, 2005. Minimizing avian mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. UC Davis Wind Energy Collaborative Forum, Palm Springs, California, December 14, 2004. as Selecting electric distribution poles for priority retrofitting to reduce raptor mortality. Raptor = Research Foundation Meeting, Bakersfield, California, November 10, 2004. 1 E Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework. v Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration, South Lake Tahoe, California, October L 16, 2004. Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research at the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area in California. The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Calgary, Canada, September 2004. The ecology and impacts of power generation at Altamont Pass. Sacramento Petroleum Association, Sacramento, California, August 18, 2004. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, Hayward, California, February 7, 2004. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl Symposium, Sacramento, November 2, 2003. Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Washington, D.C., November 17, 2003. Raptor Behavior at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003. Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003. California mountain lions. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biology, California State University, Sacramento, November, 2000. Intra- and inter -turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Carmel, California, May, 2000. Using a Geographic Positioning System (GPS) to map wildlife and habitat. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000. Packet Pg. 214 5.1.e Smallwood CV 41 Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000. The indicators framework applied to ecological restoration in Yolo County, California. Society for Ecological Restoration, September 25, 1999. Ecological restoration in the context of animal social units and their habitat areas. Society for Ecological Restoration, September 24, 1999. Relating Indicators of Ecological Health and Integrity to Assess Risks to Sustainable Agriculture and Native Biota. International Conference on Ecosystem Health, August 16, 1999. 6 0 x A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Southern California Edison, Co. and California Energy Commission, March 4-5, 1999. E M c� Mountain lion track counts in California: Implications for Management. Ecological & L Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Sacramento, November 4, 1998. J "No Surprises" -- Lack of science in the HCP process. California Native Plant Society Annual Conservation Conference, The Presidio, San Francisco, September 7, 1997. In Your Interest. A half hour weekly show aired on Channel 10 Television, Sacramento. In this episode, I served on a panel of experts discussing problems with the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. Aired August 31, 1997. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 44th Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997. Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 44th Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997. Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop, San Diego, February 27, 1996. Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop, San Diego, February 27, 1996. Small animal control. Session moderator and speaker at the California Farm Conference, Sacramento, California, Feb. 28, 1995. Small animal control. Ecological Farming Conference, Asylomar, California, Jan. 28, 1995. Habitat associations of the Swainson's Hawk in the Sacramento Valley's agricultural landscape. 1994 Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Flagstaff, Arizona. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Seed Industry Conference, Woodland, California, May 4, 1994. Packet Pg. 215 5.1.e Smallwood CV Cyl Habitats and vertebrate pests: impacts and management. Managing Farmland to Bring Back Game Birds and Wildlife to the Central Valley. Yolo County Resource Conservation District, U.C. Davis, February 19, 1994. Management of gophers and alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Orland Alfalfa Production Meeting and Sacramento Valley Alfalfa Production Meeting, February 1 and 2, 1994. Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology Seminar Series: Recent Advances in Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, U.C. Davis, Dec. 6, 1993. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium, Fresno, California, Dec. 9, 1993.; 0 x Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa. California Alfalfa Symposium, Fresno, California, Dec. 8, 1993. E c.� Association analysis of raptors in a farming landscape. Plenary speaker at Raptor Research L Foundation Meeting, Charlotte, North Carolina, Nov. 6, 1993. Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Plenary speaker, International Conference on Integrated Resource Management and Sustainable Agriculture, Beijing, China, Sept. 11, 1993. Landscape Ecology Study of Pocket Gophers in Alfalfa. Alfalfa Field Day, U.C. Davis, July 1993 Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Spatial Data Analysis Colloquium, U.C. Davis, August 6, 1993. Sound stewardship of wildlife. Veterinary Medicine Seminar: Ethics of Animal Use, U.C. Davis. May 1993. Landscape ecology study of pocket gophers in alfalfa. Five County Grower's Meeting, Tracy, California. February 1993. Turbulence and the community organizers: The role of invading species in ordering a turbulent system, and the factors for invasion success. Ecology Graduate Student Association Colloquium, U.C. Davis. May 1990. Evaluation of exotic vertebrate pests. Fourteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference, Sacramento, California. March 1990. Analytical methods for predicting success of mammal introductions to North America. The Western Section of the Wildlife Society, Hilo, Hawaii. February 1988. A state-wide mountain lion track survey. Sacramento County Dept Parks and Recreation. April 1986. The mountain lion in California. Davis Chapter of the Audubon Society. October 1985. Ecology Graduate Student Seminars, U.C. Davis, 1985-1990: Social behavior of the mountain lion; Packet Pg. 216 5.1.e Smallwood CV 43 Mountain lion control; Political status of the mountain lion in California. Other forms of Participation at Professional Meetings • Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Berlin, Germany, March 2015. • Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Stockholm, Sweden, February 2013. • Workshop co -presenter at Birds & Wind Energy Specialist Group (BAWESG) Information c sharing week, Bird specialist studies for proposed wind energy facilities in South Africa, _ Endangered Wildlife Trust, Darling, South Africa, 3-7 October 2011. I E • Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim, 0 Norway, 2-5 May 2011. • Chair of Animal Damage Management Session, The Wildlife Society, Annual Meeting, Reno, Nevada, September 26, 2001. • Chair of Technical Session: Human communities and ecosystem health: Comparing perspectives and making connection. Managing for Ecosystem Health, International Congress on Ecosystem Health, Sacramento, CA August 15-20, 1999. • Student Awards Committee, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000. • Student Mentor, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000. Packet Pg. 217 5.1.e Smallwood CV 11EI Printed Mass Media Smallwood, K.S., D. Mooney, and M. McGuinness. 2003. We must stop the UCD biolab now. Op - Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Spring Lake threatens Davis. Op -Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Smallwood, K.S. Summer, 2001. Mitigation of habitation. The Flatlander, Davis, California. Entrikan, R.K. and K.S. Smallwood. 2000. Measure O: Flawed law would lock in new taxes. Op -Ed to the Davis Enterprise.; 0 x Smallwood, K.S. 2000. Davis delegation lobbies Congress for Wildlife conservation. Op -Ed to the c° L Davis Enterprise. M 0 Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Davis Visions. The Flatlander, Davis, California. L Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Last grab for Yolo's land and water. The Flatlander, Davis, California. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. The Yolo County HCP. Op -Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Radio/Television PBS News Hour, FOX News, Energy in America: Dead Birds Unintended Consequence of Wind Power Development, August 2011. KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Mountain lion attacks (with guest Professor Richard Coss). 23 April 2009; KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Wind farm Rio Vista Renewable Power. 4 September 2008; KQED QUEST Episode #111. Bird collisions with wind turbines. 2007; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. December 27, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. May 3, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. February 8, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick & Shawn Smallwood), California Energy Crisis: 1 hour. Jan. 25, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Headwaters Forest HCP: 1 hour. 1998; Davis Cable Channel (host Gerald Heffernon), Burrowing owls in Davis: half hour. June, 2000; Packet Pg. 218 Smallwood CV 45 5.1.e Davis Cable Channel (hosted by Davis League of Women Voters), Measure O debate: 1 hour. October, 2000; KXTV 10, In Your Interest, The Endangered Species Act: half hour. 1997. Reviews of Journal Papers (Scientific journals for whom I've provided peer review) Journal Journal American Naturalist Journal of Animal Ecology Journal of Wildlife Management Western North American Naturalist Auk Journal of Raptor Research Biological Conservation National Renewable Energy Lab reports Canadian Journal of Zoology Oikos Ecosystem Health The Prairie Naturalist Environmental Conservation Restoration Ecology Environmental Management Southwestern Naturalist Functional Ecology The Wildlife Society —Western Section Trans. Journal of Zoology London Proc. Int. Congress on Managing for Ecosystem Health Journal of Applied Ecology Transactions in GIS Ecology Tropical Ecology Biological Control The Condor Committees • Scientific Review Committee, Alameda County, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area • Ph.D. Thesis Committee, Steve Anderson, University of California, Davis • MS Thesis Committee, Marcus Yee, California State University, Sacramento Other Professional Activities or Products Testified in Federal Court in Denver during 2005 over the fate of radio -nuclides in the soil at Rocky Flats Plant after exposure to burrowing animals. My clients won a judgment of $553,000,000. I have also testified in many other cases of litigation under CEQA, NEPA, the Warren-Alquist Act, and other environmental laws. My clients won most of the cases for which I testified. Testified before Environmental Review Tribunals in Ontario, Canada regarding proposed White Pines and Amherst Island Wind Energy projects. Testified in Skamania County Hearing in 2009 on the potential impacts of zoning the County for development of wind farms and hazardous waste facilities. Testified in deposition in 2007 in the case of O'Dell et al. vs. FPL Energy in Houston, Texas. as 0 x 0 �L E M 0 Packet Pg. 219 5.1.e Smallwood CV 46 Testified in Klickitat County Hearing in 2006 on the potential impacts of the Windy Point Wind Farm. Memberships in Professional Societies The Wildlife Society Raptor Research Foundation Honors and Awards Fulbright Research Fellowship to Indonesia, 1987 J.G. Boswell Full Academic Scholarship, 1981 college of choice; Certificate of Appreciation, The Wildlife Society —Western Section, 2000, 2001 = Northern California Athletic Association Most Valuable Cross Country Runner, 1984 American Legion Award, Corcoran High School, 1981, and John Muir Junior High, 1977 E CIF Section Champion, Cross Country in 1978 v CIF Section Champion, Track & Field 2 mile run in 1981 L National Junior Record, 20 kilometer run, 1982 National Age Group Record, 1500 meter run, 1978 aD y Community Activities District 64 Little League Umpire, 2003-2007 Dixon Little League Umpire, 2006-07 Davis Little League Chief Umpire and Board member, 2004-2005 Davis Little League Safety Officer, 2004-2005 Davis Little League Certified Umpire, 2002-2004 Davis Little League Scorekeeper, 2002 Davis Visioning Group member Petitioner for Writ of Mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act against City of Woodland decision to approve the Spring Lake Specific Plan, 2002 Served on campaign committees for City Council candidates Packet Pg. 220 5.1.e Exhibit C J d O 2 R �L E U N 1* O O N O N ui r-i C d E L V R r a Packet Pg. 221 5.1.e S��� Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com a� Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD o (310) 795-2335 = prosenfeld@swape.com March 25, 2020 E M U Paige Fennie Lozeau I Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94612 Subject: Comments on the Cambria Hotel Project (PLPA-2019-00020, -44) Dear Ms. Fennie, We have reviewed the March 2020 Hearing Notice for the Cambria Hotel Project ("Project") located in the City of Dublin ("City"). The Project proposes to construct a 138-room hotel, totaling 89,700-SF, and two stories of podium parking, totaling 277 spaces, on the 0.91-acre site. Our review concludes that the Hearing Notice fails to adequately evaluate the Project's hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An updated CEQA analysis should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the surrounding environment. As a result of our findings, the proposed Proiect does not qualify for an exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and 14 Cal. Code of Regs. 1500 et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines") per § 15182 and, therefore, a full CEQA analysis must be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the Proiect may have on the surrounding environment. We recommend that the City prepare an Initial Study with a health risk assessment V HRA") as required under the Commerce Municipal Code ("CMC" or "Code"). Packet Pg. 222 5.1.e Hazards and Hazardous Materials Inadequate Analysis of Impacts No Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the Project site. The preparation of a Phase I ESA is a common practice in CEQA proceedings. Phase I ESAs are routinely included in CEQA documentation to identify hazardous waste issues that may pose a risk to the public, workers, or the environment, and which may require further investigation, including environmental sampling and cleanup. The lack of a Phase I ESA for the Project is inconsistent with mitigation included in the 2010 Downtown _ Dublin Specific Plan which states: 0 x MM 3.4-2: Future development or substantial redevelopment within the project area shall `° �L prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to determine whether or not a particular E M development site contains any hazardous materials as a result of historic contamination within v the project area subject to review and approval by the City of Dublin. a, Standards for performing a Phase I ESA have been established by the US EPA and the American Society for Testing and Materials Standards (ASTM).' Phase I ESAs are conducted to identify conditions indicative of releases of hazardous substances and include: • a review of all known sites in the vicinity of the subject property that are on regulatory agency databases undergoing assessment or cleanup activities; • an inspection; • interviews with people knowledgeable about the property; and • recommendations for further actions to address potential hazards. Phase I ESAs conclude with the identification of any "recognized environmental conditions" (RECs) and recommendations to address such conditions. A REC is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. If RECs are identified, then a Phase II ESA generally follows, which includes the collection of soil, soil vapor and groundwater samples, as necessary, to identify the extent of contamination and the need for cleanup to reduce exposure potential to the public. Consistent with professional due diligence procedures commonly used in CEQA matters, a Phase I ESA, completed by a licensed environmental professional is necessary for inclusion in an EIR to identify recognized environmental conditions, if any, at the proposed Project site. A Phase II ESA should be conducted if the Phase I indicates a recognized environmental condition. Any contamination that is identified above regulatory screening levels, including California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's Soil Screening Numbers', should be further evaluated and cleaned up, if necessary, in 1 http://www.astm.org/Standards/El527.htm ' http://oehha.ca.gov/risk/chhsltable.html 2 Packet Pg. 223 5.1.e coordination with the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Air Quality Incorrect Reliance on Exemption per CEQA Guidelines § 15182 The Hearing Notice claims that the Project is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15182 as a result of consistency with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan ("DDSP"). However, this is incorrect for several reasons. First, according to CEQA Guidelines § 15182(a), 0 x "Certain residential, commercial and mixed -use projects that are consistent with a specific plan co L adopted pursuant to Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8 of the Government Code are exempt E from CEQA" However, review of the Hearing Notice and DDSP reveals that the Project is not exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15182, as it fails to comply with the DDSP, as demonstrated below. Incorrect Reliance on the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Review of the April 2010 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DDSP DEIR") reveals that the proposed Project is not consistent. Specifically, according to the DDSP DEIR, "Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, and agency and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. For purposes of this EIR and based on the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project must satisfy the following standards to be consistent with the BAAQMD's 2005 Ozone Strategy and thus result in a less than significant impact: 1) Consistency with the population and vehicle miles traveled assumptions in the Clean Air Plan; and 2) Consistency With Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measures; • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)" (DDSP, p. 3-30). Furthermore, according to the DDSP DEIR, "[F]uture individual projects under the DDSP would be subject to new project -level emission thresholds in the BAAQMD Draft CEQA Guidelines, if adopted. Through the environmental review process for individual projects, additional mitigation may also be required to further reduce emissions and potential impacts on a project -by -project basis. In addition, future 3 Packet Pg. 224 5.1.e development within the project area would be required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings)" (DDSP, pp. 68). Thus, the proposed Project is not consistent with the DDSP for several reasons. As a result, the Project does not qualify for an exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15182. First, the Hearing Notice fails to compare the proposed Project's projected emissions with the BAAQMD's project -level emissions threshold, as is required by the DDSP DEIR. As adopted in 2010 and since updated in 2017, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, as well as the DDSP DEIR, require proposed Projects to compare their expected emissions to the relevant thresholds of significance.3 Thus, the ^ Hearing Notice fails to compare project -level air quality emissions to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, as a� o adopted. This is incorrect and as a result, the proposed Project is not consistent with the DDSP. By failing x co �L to compare the Project's estimated emissions to the relevant BAAQMD thresholds, the Hearing Notice E fails to demonstrate consistency with the DDSP DEIR and does not qualify for an exemption pursuant to U CEQA Guidelines § 15182. L Second, the Hearing Notice fails to compare project -level air quality emissions to the BAAQMD 2005 Ozone Strategy.' This is incorrect and as a result, the proposed Project is not consistent with the DDSP. Without an evaluation of the Project's compliance with the 2005 Ozone Strategy, the Hearing Notice fails to demonstrate compliance with the DDSP DEIR and does not qualify for an exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15182. Third, the Hearing Notice fails to compare project -level air quality emissions to the Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measures.' This is incorrect and as a result, the proposed Project is not consistent with the DDSP. Without an evaluation of the Project's compliance with the Clean Air Plan, the Hearing Notice fails to demonstrate compliance with the DDSP DEIR and does not qualify for an exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15182. Fourth, the Hearing Notice fails to address Project -specific mitigation or BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings), as required by the DDSP DEIR. As a result, the proposed Project is inconsistent with the DDSP and does not qualify for an exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15182. Finally, the proposed Project may be inconsistent with the Downtown Core Specific Plan ("DCSP"), the West Dublin BART Specific Plan ("WDBSP"), and the Village Parkway Specific Plan ("VPSP"), as these plans only allow for the additional development of 150 hotel rooms, as indicated by the DDSP DEIR (p. 3- 100). Review of the City of Dublin Development Projects website demonstrates that the City proposes to 3 "California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines." BAAQMD, adopted 2010, updated May 2017 , available at: https://www.baaamd.Rov/—/media/files/r)lanninE-and-research/ceaa/ceaa Ruidelines mav2017 pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 2-2, Table 2-1. "'Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy." BAAQMD, Volume 1, January 2006, available at: https://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2005-ozone- strategy/adoptedfinal voll.pdf. S "Final Clean Air Plan." BAAQMD, April 2017, available at: https://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/planning-and- research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a -proposed-final-cap-vol-l-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 5/11, Table 5-2. 4 Packet Pg. 225 5.1.e construct a 120-room hotel, the Tru Hotel, a 129-room hotel, the Element Hotel, and a 198-room hotel, the Westin Hotel.' Thus, when considered in conjunction with these other projects, the proposed Project is inconsistent with the additional 150-room hotel development limit indicated by the DDSP DEIR. As a result, the proposed Project is inconsistent with the DDSP DEIR and does not qualify for an exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15182. SWAPE Analysis Indicates Significant Air Pollutant Emissions In an effort to accurately determine the proposed Project's construction and operational emissions, we prepared a SWAPE CaIEEMod model for the Project, using the Project -specific information provided by the Hearing Notice. We included the land use types and sizes as indicated and left all other values as +; 0 defaults. _ 0 �L Our updated analysis demonstrates that the Project's construction -related VOC emissions exceed the 54 E pounds per day (Ibs/day) threshold set by the BAAQMD (see table below).' Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (Ibs/day) Model VOC/ROG SWAPE 54.8 BAAQMD Regional Threshold (Ibs/day) 54 Threshold Exceeded? Yes When modeled, the Project's construction -related VOC emissions exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 54 Ibs/day. Our model demonstrates that the Project would result in a potentially significant air quality impact that was not previously identified or addressed in the Hearing Notice. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to include an updated air pollution model and analysis to adequately estimate the Project's construction and operational emissions and incorporate mitigation to reduce these emissions to a less than significant level. Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated Review of the Hearing Notice demonstrates that the proposed Project failed to evaluate or mention the potential health risk impacts associated with Project activities. Without a quantified health risk assessment ("HRA"), we cannot verify that Project -related impacts are less than significant. This is incorrect for several reasons. First, by failing to conduct an HRA for residential sensitive receptors located nearby the Project site, the Project is not consistent with the DDSP DEIR. Specifically, according to the DDSP DEIR, "Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, and agency and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:... ' Found at:.https://dubiin-development.icitywork.com/ "California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines." BAAQMD, adopted 2010, updated May 2017 , available at: https://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/planning-and-research/cega/cega guidelines may2017- pdf.pdf?la=en, P. 2-2, Table 2-1. 5 Packet Pg. 226 5.1.e • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations" (DDSP, p. 3-30). As the Project documents fail to mention or evaluate the excess health risk impacts on nearby residential sensitive receptors to the Project site, the Project is not consistent with the DDSP. Thus, the Project does not qualify for an exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15182. Second, by failing to prepare a construction or operational HRA for existing sensitive receptors, the Project is inconsistent with recommendations set forth by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA"), the organization responsible for providing recommendations for health risk assessments in California. In February of 2015, OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment a� Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, which was formally adopted in March of 2015.' This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of M .L an HRA. Construction of the Project will produce emissions of diesel particulate matter ("DPM"), a E human carcinogen, through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment. The OEHHA document recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors.' Although the Project documents fail to disclose the anticipated duration of construction, we can reasonably assume that it will last over two months, given the Project will require site preparation, grading, building construction and architectural coating for the new buildings, and m E paving throughout the site. Furthermore, once construction of the Project is complete, the Project will E 0 operate for a long period of time. During operation, the Project will generate vehicle and truck trips, v Q which will produce additional exhaust emissions, thus continuing to expose nearby sensitive receptors Z I to emissions. The OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than six :i months should be evaluated for the duration of the project, and recommends that an exposure duration ar of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident = ("MEIR").10 Even though the Project documents fail to provide the expected lifetime of the Project, we •!2 can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, we E recommend that health risk impacts from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 30-year exposure v duration exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA. Therefore, per OEHHA le le guidelines, we recommend that health risk impacts from Project construction and operation be c evaluated in a CEQA analysis. c Finally, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction and operation, the Project fails to compare the excess health risk to the BAAQMD's specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million.11 Thus, the Project cannot conclude a less than significant health risk impact resulting from Project construction and operation without quantifying the Project's excess cancer risk to compare to the proper threshold, as recommended by the lead agency for the Project. ' OEHHA (February 2015) Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, http://bit.ly/2sAKySW. ' Ibid, p. 8-18. 10 Ibid., p. 8-6, 8-15 11 CITATION 11 Packet Pg. 227 5.1.e Screening -Level Analysis Demonstrates Significant Impacts In an effort to demonstrate the potential risk posed by the Project to nearby sensitive receptors, we prepared a simple screening -level HRA. The results of our assessment, as described below, demonstrate that construction and operational DPM emissions may result in a potentially significant health risk impact that was not previously identified or evaluated by the Hearing Notice. In order to conduct our screening level risk assessment, we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening -level air quality dispersion model.12The model replaced SCREEN3, which is included in OEHHA13 and California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)14 guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments ("HRSAs"). A Level 2 2 0 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site -specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind = concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling E approach is required prior to approval of the Project. v We prepared a SWAPE CaIEEMod model for the Project, using the Project -specific information provided by the Hearing Notice. We included the land use types and sizes as indicated and left all other values as defaults. Utilizing this model, we prepared a preliminary health risk screening assessment of the Project's construction and operational impacts to sensitive receptors using the annual emissions estimates from SWAPE's air model. Review of Google Earth demonstrates that the nearest sensitive receptor is located less than 50 meters west of the Project site. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we used a residential exposure duration of 30 years, starting from the third trimester of pregnancy. We also assumed that construction and operation of the Project would occur sequentially, with no gaps between each Project phase. Our calculated annual emissions indicate that construction activities will generate approximately 249 pounds of DPM over a 416-day default construction period. The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emissions rate to simulate maximum downwind concentrations from point, area, and volume emissions sources. To account for the variability in construction equipment usage over the many phases of Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate for construction by the following equation. grams 249.2 Ibs 453.6 grams 1 day 1 hour / Emission Rate ( ) = x x x � 0.00315 9 s second 416 days lb 24 hours 3,600 seconds Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00315 grams per second (g/s). Subtracting the 416-day construction duration from the total residential exposure duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the MEIR would be exposed to the Project's operational DPM emissions for an additional 28.86 years approximately. The operational CaIEEMod model's annual 12 "AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model," USEPA, April 11, 2011, available at htto://www.eoa.eov/ttn/scram/euidance/clarification/20110411 AERSCREEN Release Memo.odf 13 "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf. 14 "Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects," CAPCOA, July 2009, available at: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA HRA LU Guidelines 8-6-09.pdf 7 Packet Pg. 228 5.1.e emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 44 pounds of DPM per year. Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM emission rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation. grams 43.8 lbs 453.6 grams 1 day 1 hour / Emission Rate ( )= x x x 0.00063 9 S second 365 days lb 24 hours 3,600 seconds Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.00063 g/s. Construction and operational activity was simulated as a 0.91-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with dimensions of 102 meters by 36 meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of exhaust stacks on construction equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model -default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single -hour DPM concentrations from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single -hour concentration by 10%.15 As previously stated, there are residential receptors located approximately 50 meters from the Project boundary. The single -hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 18.74 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 50 meters downwind. Multiplying this single -hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 1.874 µg/m3 for Project construction at the nearest residential sensitive receptor. For Project operation, the single -hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 3.75 11g/m3 DPM at approximately 50 meters downwind. Multiplying this single -hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.375 µg/m3 for Project operation at the nearest residential sensitive receptor. We calculated the excess cancer risk to the residential receptors located closest to the Project site using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA and the BAAQMD. Consistent with the CalEEMod default construction schedule for the Project, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 0.89 years of the infantile stage of life (0 — 2 years). The annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the remainder of the infantile stage of life (2 —16 years), child stage of life (2 —16 years) and adult stage of life (16 — 30 years). Consistent with OEHHA and BAAQMD guidance, we used Age Sensitivity Factors ("ASFs") to account for the heightened " "Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised." EPA, 1992, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019 OCR.pdf; see also "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p. 4-36. N a� 0 x �L E U Packet Pg. 229 5.1.e susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution.16, "According to the most updated guidance, quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the third trimester of pregnancy and during the first two years of life (infant) and should be multiplied by a factor of three during the child stage of life (2 to 16 years). Furthermore, in accordance with guidance set forth by OEHHA, we used the 951h percentile breathing rates for infants.18 Finally, according to BAAQMD guidance, we used a Fraction of Time At Home ("FAH") value of 0.85 for the 3rd trimester and infant receptors, 0.72 for child receptors, and 0.73 for the adult receptors.19 We used a cancer potency factor of 1.1 (mg/kg-day)-1 and an averaging time of 25,550 days. Consistent with OEHHA guidance, exposure to the sensitive receptor was assumed to begin in the third trimester to provide the most conservative estimate of air quality hazards. The results of our calculations are shown below. o The Closest Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor '`-�° Breathing Cancer Risk Cancer E Duration Concentration �? Activity Rate (L/kg- without ASF Risk with (years) (ug/m3) day) ASFs* ASFs*; Construction 0.25 1.874 361 2.2E-06 10 2.2E-05 J 3rd 3rd Trimester 0.25 2.2E-06 Trimester 2.2E-05 E Duration Exposure U Construction 0.89 1.874 1090 2.3E-05 10 2.3E-04 z Operation 1.11 0.375 1090 5.8E-06 10 5.8E-05 2 J Infant Exposure Infant ' 2.00 2.9E-05 2.9E-04 Z Duration Exposure o Operation 14.00 0.375 572 3.3E-05 3 9.8E-05 x •L Child Exposure Child 14.00 3.3E-05 9.8E-05 E Duration Exposure v Operation 14.00 0.375 261 1.5E-05 1 1.5E-05 N Adult Exposure Adult o 14.00 1.5E-05 1.5E-05 0 Duration Exposure N 0 N L6 C d 16 "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 17 "California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines." BAAQMD, May 2017, available at: http://www.baagmd.gov/-/media/files/planning-and-research/cega/cega guidelines may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 5-15. 18 "Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics'Hot Spots' Information and Assessment Act," June 5, 2015, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab2588-risk-assessment-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 19. "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf 19 "Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Guidelines." BAAQMD, January 2016, available at: htto://www.baaamd.eov/-/media/files/olannine-and-research/rules-and-rees/workshops/2016/ree-2-5/hra- uidelines clean man 2016-pdf.pdf?la=en p] Packet Pg. 230 5.1.e Lifetime Exposure 30.00 Duration Lifetime 7.9E-05 Exposure 4.3E-04 * We, along with CARB and BAAQMD, recommend using the more updated and health protective 2015 OEHHA guidance, which includes ASFs. As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risk to adults, children, infants, and during the 3rd trimester of pregnancy at the closest residential receptor located approximately 50 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, utilizing age sensitivity factors, are approximately 15, 98, 290, and 22 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years), utilizing age sensitivity factors, is approximately 430 in one million. The infant, child, and lifetime cancer risks all exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified. Utilizing age sensitivity factors is the most conservative, health -protective analysis according to the most recent guidance by OEHHA and recommendations from the air district. Results without age sensitivity factors are presented in the table above, although we do not recommend utilizing these values for health risk analysis. Regardless, the excess cancer risk posed to adults, children, infants, and during the third trimester of pregnancy at the maximally exposed residential receptor, located approximately 50 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, without age sensitivity factors, are approximately 15, 33, 29, and 2.2 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) at the maximally exposed residential receptor, without age sensitivity factors, is approximately 79 in one million. The child and lifetime cancer risks, without age sensitivity factors, exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified. While we recommend the use of age sensitivity factors, health risk impacts exceed the BAAQMD threshold regardless. An agency must include an analysis of health risks that connects the Project's air emissions with the health risk posed by those emissions. Our analysis represents a screening -level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. 20 The purpose of the screening -level construction HRA shown above is to demonstrate the link between the proposed Project's emissions and the potential health risk. Our screening -level HRA demonstrates that construction of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, when correct exposure assumptions and up- to-date, applicable guidance are used. Therefore, since our screening -level construction HRA indicates a potentially significant impact, the City should prepare a CEQA analysis with a revised HRA which makes a reasonable effort to connect the Project's air quality emissions and the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors. Thus, the City should prepare an updated, quantified air pollution model as well as an updated, quantified refined health risk assessment which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation. 20 "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 1-5 10 Packet Pg. 231 5.1.e Failure to Consider Impacts from Nearby Projects Furthermore, the Hearing Notice fails to evaluate the cumulative health risk posed to nearby sensitive receptors. Additionally, the DDSP DEIR failed to evaluate the health risk posed to nearby sensitive receptors as a result of construction and operation of the entire Specific Plan area. As a result, the cumulative risk posed to the nearest sensitive receptor to the proposed Project in conjunction with the surrounding existing and foreseeable sources of toxic air contaminants ("TACs") is unknown. Therefore, the proposed Project may result in a significant health risk impact that has not been evaluated by the Hearing Notice or the DDSP DEIR. According to CEQA Guidelines § 15355, "'Cumulative impacts"' refers to two or more individual effects +; 0 which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other x environmental impacts".21 CEQA Guidelines § 15064(h)(1) goes onto say, E "The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, r and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from J individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time".Zz Thus, in addition to the Project's individual health risk impact significance, the proposed Project may also result in a cumulatively considerable impact when considered in conjunction with the construction and operation of nearby proposed projects. For example, the City of Dublin proposes to construct several other projects near the site, including: the proposed Corrie Center SDR (Office Building), the proposed Saint Patrick Way SDR, the proposed Fountainhead Montessori, the proposed building at 7505 Dublin Boulevard SDR, as well as the proposed Randeri 7400 Amador Valley Boulevard SDR. In addition, the Project site is located in close proximity to several existing projects, including: the Holiday Inn Hotel, a Shell gas station, a Chevron gas station, Xpress Dry Cleaners, O'Reilly Auto Parts, Dublin Collision Repair auto body shop, Kelly -Moore Paints, as well as several schools and residential apartment and condo buildings. Therefore, construction and operation of the Cambria Hotel Project will occur in conjunction with the construction and operation of these other proposed and existing projects. Per CEQA Guidance, the cancer risk associated with these existing sources should be quantified and assessed with the lifetime cancer risk of the Project. Failure to quantify the cumulative risk leads to an underestimation of the actual risk posed to the nearby sensitive receptors. Prior to Project Approval, the cumulative health risk should be evaluated and compared to BAAQMD thresholds in a project -specific EIR. ""CEQA Guidelines for Cumulative and Indirect Impacts." California Department of Transportation, March, 2016, available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/cumulative guidance/cega guidelines.htm 22 "CEQA Guidelines for Cumulative and Indirect Impacts." California Department of Transportation, March, 2014, available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/cumulative guidance/cega guidelines.htm 11 Packet Pg. 232 5.1.e Greenhouse Gas Failure to Adequately Evaluate the Project's Greenhouse Gas Impacts As previously discussed, the proposed Project incorrectly claims exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15182. However, the Project fails to demonstrate compliance with the DDSP, as stated in the Hearing Notice. Specifically, according to the DDSP DEIR, "Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, and agency and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:... • Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant ar impact on the environment. For the purposes of this EIR, a significant impact will result if a = Specific Plan conflicts with or obstructs the implementation of greenhouse gas reduction •`—�° measures under AB 32; and/or conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation E adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases" (DDSP, p. 3-30). v The DDSP DEIR goes on to state, "Future projects within the City, including within the project area, would be reviewed on a project -by -project basis to ensure their compliance with the City's policies and to determine if any impacts would occur beyond those already identified in this EIR" (DDSP, pp. 78). Thus, the Project fails to demonstrate compliance with the DDSP for several reasons. First, the Project documents fail to demonstrate that the Project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Without an evaluation of the proposed Project's greenhouse gas impacts we are unable to verify that the proposed Project will not result in a significant impact. Rather, our analysis, detailed below, indicates that the proposed Project may result in a significant GHG impact not previously identified or addressed in the Hearing Notice or DDSP. Second, AB 32 is outdated and no longer applies to the Project. As AB 32 only contained reduction goals through 2020, it does not apply to the proposed Project, that is not expected to begin construction until at least mid-2020.23 Without any further reduction goals beyond 2020, this does not apply to the proposed Project. Third, the Project fails to conduct a project -specific GHG analysis evaluating applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses. As a result, we cannot verify that the Project has less than significant GHG impacts. Thus, we recommend that the Project not be approved until further analysis and potential mitigation measures are evaluated and disclosed for the Project. 23 "Assembly Bill No. 32." available at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab 0001- 0050/ab 32 bill 20060927 chaptered.pdf, p. 89. 12 Packet Pg. 233 5.1.e Screening Level Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant GHG Impact Applicable thresholds and modeling demonstrate that the proposed Project may result in a potentially significant GHG impact not previously identified or addressed by the Hearing Notice. The CalEEMod output files, modeled by SWAPE utilizing Project -specific information as disclosed in the Hearing Notice, quantify the Project's emissions, which include approximately 380 MT CO2e/year of total construction emissions (sum of emissions from 2020 and 2021) and approximately 1,570 MT CO2e/year of annual operational emissions (sum of area, energy, mobile, waste, and water -related emissions). When we compare the Project's GHG emissions, including construction emissions amortized over 30 years and operational emissions, to the BAAQMD bright -line threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e/year,24 we find that the Project's GHG emissions exceed the threshold (see table below). Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Proposed Project Phase Project (MT CO2e/year) Construction (amortized over 30 years) 12.65 Area 0.0079 Energy 579.46 Mobile 941.52 Waste 37.99 Water 10.7 Total 1,582.33 Threshold 1,100 Exceed? Yes As demonstrated in the table below, the proposed Project would generate approximately 1,582 MT CO2e/year, which exceeds the BAAQMD's 1,100 MT CO2e/year threshold. Hence, a service population analysis is warranted. According to CAPCOA's CEQA & Climate Change report, service population is defined as "the sum of the number of residents and the number of jobs supported by the project.1125 Review of the DDSP EIR demonstratres that Retail/Office land uses, including "[s]hopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and professional offices, motels, service stations, and auto part sales," are expected to have an employee density of 200 to 450-SF per employee. Thus, conservatively assuming 450-SF per employee, the Project would result in approximately 199 new jobs. As the Project does not propose any residential land uses, we assumed that the Project will not result in any new residents. Thus, the Project is estimated to have a service population of 199.21 When dividing the Project's GHG emissions by a service population value of 199 people, we find that the Project would emit 24 "California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines." BAAQMD, May 2017, available at: http://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/planning-and-research/cega/cega guidelines may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 2-4. 2s CAPCOA (Jan. 2008) CEQA & Climate Change, p. 71-72, http://www.capcoa.org/wp- content/u p loads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Pa per. pdf. 2e Calculated: (199 employees) + (0 residents) = (199 service population). 13 a� 0 x 2 E U Packet Pg. 234 5.1.e approximately 8 MT CO2e/SP/year.27 The BAAQMD regularly utilizes a substantial progress population efficiency target goal of 2.6 MT CO2e/SP/year for target year 2030.21 Using this threshold, we find that the Project would result in a potentially significant GHG impact (see table below). SWAPE Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Phase Proposed Project (MT CO2e/year) Annual Emissions 1,582.33 Service Population 199 Service Population Efficiency 7.95 Threshold Exceed? 2.6 Yes As the table above demonstrates, when correct input parameters are used to model Project emissions, the Project's total GHG emissions exceed the "Substantial Progress" efficiency threshold for 2030 of 2.6 MT CO2e/SP/year, thus resulting in a significant impact not previously assessed or identified in the Hearing Notice. As a result, an updated GHG analysis should be prepared in a Project -specific EIR and additional mitigation should be incorporated into the Project. Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Construction Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that, when Project activities are modeled, construction emissions would result in potentially significant impacts. Therefore, additional mitigation measures must be identified and incorporated in an updated EIR to reduce these emissions to a less than significant level. Additional mitigation measures can be found in CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, which attempt to reduce GHG levels, as well as reduce criteria air pollutants such as particulate matter and N0'.29 DPM and NO,, are a byproduct of diesel fuel combustion and are emitted by on -road vehicles and by off -road construction equipment. Mitigation for criteria pollutant emissions should include consideration of the following measures in an effort to reduce construction emissions." 2' Calculated: (1,582.33 MT CO2e/year) / (199 service population) = (7.95 MT CO2e/SP/year). 28 "Final White Paper Beyond 2020 and Newhall." Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), October 2016, available at: https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016 Final White Paper.pdf, p. 40; see also Santa Clara University Housing Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment, October 2019, available at: https://www.sanaoseca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=45718; see also Facebook Campus Expansion Project Draft Environmental Impact Report, City of Menlo Park, May 2016, available at: httos://www.menlor)ark.ore/DocumentCenter/View/10286/ChO3-05 GHG Draft-EIR?bidld= 2'http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf '0 For measures to reduce operational DPM emissions, see section titled "Additional Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Operational Emissions" on p. 25 of this letter. These measures would effectively reduce operational VOC and NOx emissions, DPM emissions, as well as GHG emissions. 14 Packet Pg. 235 5.1.e Require Implementation of Diesel Control Measures The Northeast Diesel Collaborative (NEDC) is a regionally coordinated initiative to reduce diesel emissions, improve public health, and promote clean diesel technology. The NEDC recommends that contracts for all construction projects require the following diesel control measures: " • All diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days must be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85 percent. • All diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra -low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend32 approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 parts per million (ppm) or less. 0 x Repower or Replace Older Construction Equipment Engines •`—�° The NEDC recognizes that availability of equipment that meets the EPA's newer standards is limited.33 E Due to this limitation, the NEDC proposes actions that can be taken to reduce emissions from existing �? equipment in the Best Practices for Clean Diesel Construction report.34 These actions include but are not r limited to: �? • Repowering equipment (i.e. replacing older engines with newer, cleaner engines and leaving the body of the equipment intact). Engine repower may be a cost-effective emissions reduction strategy when a vehicle or machine has a long useful life and the cost of the engine does not approach the cost of the entire vehicle or machine. Examples of good potential replacement candidates include marine vessels, locomotives, and large construction machines.35 Older diesel vehicles or machines can be repowered with newer diesel engines or in some cases with engines that operate on alternative fuels. The original engine is taken out of service and a new engine with reduced emission characteristics is installed. Significant emission reductions can be achieved, depending on the newer engine and the vehicle or machine's ability to accept a more modern engine and emission control system. It should be noted, however, that newer engines or higher tier engines are not necessarily cleaner engines, so it is important that the Project Applicant check the actual emission standard level of the current (existing) and new engines to ensure the repower product is reducing emissions for DPM.46 • Replacement of older equipment with equipment meeting the latest emission standards. " Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available at:http://www2.eoa.eov/sites/prod uction/files/2015-09/documents/nedc- mode l -contra ct-seocification. pdf az Biodiesel lends are only to be used in conjunction with the technologies which have been verified for use with biodiesel blends and are subject to the following requirements: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/reg/biodieselcompliance.pdf llhttp://northeastdiesel.org/pdf/BestPractices4CIeanDieselConstructionAug2012.pdf 14http://northeastdiesel.org/pdf/BestPractices4CIeanDieselConstructionAug2012.pdf "Repair, Rebuild, and Repower, EPA, available at:https://www.epa.gov/verified-diesel-tech/learn-about-verified- technologies-clean-diesel#repair "Diesel Emissions Reduction Program (DERA): Technologies, Fleets and Projects Information, available at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/420P11001. pdf 15 Packet Pg. 236 5.1.e Engine replacement can include substituting a cleaner highway engine for a nonroad engine. Diesel equipment may also be replaced with other technologies or fuels. Examples include hybrid switcher locomotives, electric cranes, LNG, CNG, LPG or propane yard tractors, forklifts or loaders. Replacements using natural gas may require changes to fueling infrastructure.37 Replacements often require some re -engineering work due to differences in size and configuration. Typically, there are benefits in fuel efficiency, reliability, warranty, and maintenance costs.38 Install Retrofit Devices on Existing Construction Equipment PM emissions from alternatively -fueled construction equipment can be further reduced by installing retrofit devices on existing and/or new equipment. The most common retrofit technologies are retrofit devices for engine exhaust after -treatment. These devices are installed in the exhaust system to reduce = emissions and should not impact engine or vehicle operation. 39 It should be noted that actual emissions 2 reductions and costs will depend on specific manufacturers, technologies and applications. E U Use Electric and Hybrid Construction Equipment CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures40 report also proposes the use of electric and/or hybrid construction equipment to mitigate DPM emissions. When construction equipment is r c powered by grid electricity rather than fossil fuel, direct emissions from fuel combustion are replaced m E with indirect emissions associated with the electricity used to power the equipment. Furthermore, when E construction equipment is powered by hybrid -electric drives, emissions from fuel combustion are also U greatly reduced. Electric construction equipment is available commercially from companies such as Peterson Pacific Corporation,41 which specialize in the mechanical processing equipment like grinders :i and shredders. Construction equipment powered by hybrid -electric drives is also commercially available from companies such as Caterpillar.42 For example, Caterpillar reports that during an 8-hour shift, its = D7E hybrid dozer burns 19.5 percent fewer gallons of fuel than a conventional dozer while achieving a f° •L 10.3 percent increase in productivity. The D7E model burns 6.2 gallons per hour compared to a E conventional dozer which burns 7.7 gallons per hour.43 Fuel usage and savings are dependent on the ci le make and model of the construction equipment used. The Project Applicant should calculate project- N le specific savings and provide manufacturer specifications indicating fuel burned per hour. c 3' Alternative Fuel Conversion, EPA, available at: https://www3.epa.gov/otag/consumer/fuels/altfuels/altfuels.htm#fact 38 Cleaner Fuels, EPA, available at:https://www.epa.gov/verified-diesel-tech/learn-about-verified-technologies- clean-diesel#cleaner 39 Retrofit Technologies, EPA, available at:https://www.epa.gov/verified-diesel-tech/learn-about-verified- technologies-clean-diesel#retrofit 40http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf 41 Peterson Electric Grinders Brochure, available at:http://www.petersoncorp.com/wp- content/uploads/peterson electric grindersl.pdf 4' Electric Power Products, available at:http://www.cat.com/en US/products/new/power-systems/electric-power- generation.html 43http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf 16 Packet Pg. 237 5.1.e Implement a Construction Vehicle Inventory Tracking System CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures44 report recommends that the Project Applicant provide a detailed plan that discusses a construction vehicle inventory tracking system to ensure compliances with construction mitigation measures. The system should include strategies such as requiring engine run time meters on equipment, documenting the serial number, horsepower, manufacture age, fuel, etc. of all onsite equipment and daily logging of the operating hours of the equipment. Specifically, for each on -road construction vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator, the contractor should submit to the developer's representative a report prior to bringing said equipment on site that includes:" • Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, o engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number. _ 2 • The type of emission control technology installed, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, and EPA/CARB verification number/level. v • The Certification Statement46 signed and printed on the contractor's letterhead. Furthermore, the contractor should submit to the developer's representative a monthly report that, for each on -road construction vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes: 47 • Hour -meter readings on arrival on -site, the first and last day of every month, and on off -site date. • Any problems with the equipment or emission controls. • Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify: o Source of supply o Quantity of fuel o Quality of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight) In addition to these measures, we also recommend that the Project implement the following mitigation measures, called "Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices,"48 that are recommended by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD): 1. The project representative shall submit to the lead agency a comprehensive inventory of all off - road construction equipment, equal to or greater than 50 horsepower, that will be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours during any portion of the construction project. • The inventory shall include the horsepower rating, engine model year, and projected hours of use for each piece of equipment. 44httD://www.capcoa.ore/wD-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Resort-9-14-Fina1.Ddf 41 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-sepcification. Of 46 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-sepcification.pdf The NEDC Model Certification Statement can be found in Appendix A. 4' Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-sepcification. Of 48http://www.airguality.org/cega/Ch3EnhancedExhaustControl 10-2013.pdf 17 Packet Pg. 238 5.1.e • The project representative shall provide the anticipated construction timeline including start date, and name and phone number of the project manager and on -site foreman. • This information shall be submitted at least 4 business days prior to the use of subject heavy-duty off -road equipment. • The inventory shall be updated and submitted monthly throughout the duration of the project, except that an inventory shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. 2. The project representative shall provide a plan for approval by the lead agency demonstrating that the heavy-duty off -road vehicles (50 horsepower or more) to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet- 0 average 20% NOX reduction and 45% particulate reduction compared to the most recent California Air Resources Board (ARB) fleet average. • This plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the equipment inventory. v • Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low - emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after -treatment a� products, and/or other options as they become available. • The District's Construction Mitigation Calculator can be used to identify an equipment fleet that achieves this reduction. 3. The project representative shall ensure that emissions from all off -road diesel -powered equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40% opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. • Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be repaired immediately. Non -compliant equipment will be documented and a summary provided to the lead agency monthly. • A visual survey of all in -operation equipment shall be made at least weekly. • A monthly summary of the visual survey results shall be submitted throughout the duration of the project, except that the monthly summary shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. The monthly summary shall include the quantity and type of vehicles surveyed as well as the dates of each survey. 4. The District and/or other officials may conduct periodic site inspections to determine compliance. Nothing in this mitigation shall supersede other District, state or federal rules or regulations. Use of Spray Equipment with Greater Transfer Efficiencies Various coatings and adhesives are required to be applied by specified methods such as electrostatic spray, high -volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray, roll coater, flow coater, dip coater, etc. in order to maximize the transfer efficiency. Transfer efficiency is typically defined as the ratio of the weight of coating solids adhering to an object to the total weight of coating solids used in the application process, expressed as a percentage. When it comes to spray applications, the rules typically require the use of Im. Packet Pg. 239 5.1.e either electrostatic spray equipment or HVLP spray equipment. The SCAQMD is now able to certify HVLP spray applicators and other application technologies at efficiency rates of 65 percent or greater.49 These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower -emitting equipment into the Project's construction fleet, which subsequently reduces construction emissions. A revised EIR should be prepared to include additional mitigation measures, as well as include an updated air quality assessment to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce construction emissions. Furthermore, the updated EIR should demonstrate commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval to ensure that the Project's construction -related emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible. o x Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Operational Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project's air quality and GHG emissions may result in potentially E significant impacts. In an effort to reduce the Project's operational emissions, we identified several v mitigation measures that are applicable to the Project. Feasible mitigation measures can be found in ar CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, which attempt to reduce GHG levels, as _J well as criteria air pollutants, such as particulate matter emissions.50 Therefore, to reduce the Project's m operational emissions, consideration of the following measures should be made: E • Integrate affordable and below market rate housing • Energy -related mitigation: o Install programmable thermostat timers o Establish onsite renewable energy systems, including solar power and wind power o Limit outdoor lighting requirements o Reduce unnecessary outdoor lighting by utilizing design features such as limiting the hours of operation of outdoor lighting. o Provide education on energy efficiency to residents, customers, and/or tenants. Provide information on energy management services for large energy users. o Meet "reach" goals for building energy efficiency and renewable energy use. o Limit the use of outdoor lighting to only that needed for safety and security purposes o Require use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters. o Include energy storage where appropriate to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use. o Prohibit gas powered landscape equipment and implement electric yard equipment compatibility • Transportation -related mitigation: o Provide EV parking o Require residential area parking permits o Implement ride -sharing, vanpool, shuttle, bike -sharing programs 49 http://www.agmd.gov/home/permits/spray-equipment-transfer-efficiency so http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf 19 Packet Pg. 240 5.1.e o Provide bike parking near transit o Provide local shuttles o Implement area or cordon pricing o Install a park -and -ride lot • Water -related mitigation: o Install an infiltration basin to provide an opportunity for 100% of the storm water to infiltrate on -site. o Install a system to reutilize gray water o Use locally -sourced water supply o Plant native and drought -resistant trees and vegetation N 0 x • Develop and follow a "green streets guide" that requires: 2 o Use of minimal amounts of concrete and asphalt; E o Use of groundcovers rather than pavement to reduce heat reflection.51 �? • Implement Project design features such as: o Shade HVAC equipment from direct sunlight; o Install high-albedo white thermoplastic polyolefin roof membrane; o Install formaldehyde -free insulation; and o Use recycled -content gypsum board. o Require all buildings to become "LEED" and "WELL" certified. • Plant low-VOC emitting shade trees, e.g., in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. Finally, the Kimball Business Park Project Final Environmental Impact Report includes various feasible mitigation measures that would reduce on -site area emissions that are applicable to the proposed Project's retail land use, and include, but are not limited to:51 • Increase in insulation such that heat transfer and thermal bridging is minimized. • Limit air leakage through the structure and/or within the heating and cooling distribution system. • Installation of dual -paned or other energy efficient windows. • Installation of automatic devices to turn off lights where they are not needed. These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower -emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduces emissions released during Project operation. An updated EIR should be prepared to include additional mitigation measures, as well as include an updated air quality analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The EIR also should demonstrate commitment to the sl Cool Houston Plan; http://www.harcresearch.org/sites/default/files/documents/projects/CoolHoustonPlan O.pdf 51 Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Kimball Business Park Project Final Environmental Impact Report, July 2016. 20 Packet Pg. 241 5.1.e implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project's significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible. SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was +; reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or 0 x otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by 0 third parties. E U Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. 21 Packet Pg. 242 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Page 1 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Cambria Hotel Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 277.00 + Space ; 2.49 110,800.00 i 0 -----------------------------_------------------------------_------------------------------------------- ------------------E-------------- Hotel 138.00 Room 0.91 89,700.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 63 Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2022 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2Intensity 641.35 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use - According to Project documents. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblLandUse Land UseSquareFeet 200,376.00 89,700.00 -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------ tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.60 0.91 2.0 Emissions Summary Packet Pg. 243 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction Page 2 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Year tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 2020 •1 0.2706 1 2.5346 1 2.0421 1 4.2600e- 1 0.1487 1 0.1246 1 0.2733 1 0.0593 1 0.1168 0.1761 0.0000 1 377.7093 1 377.7093 1 0.0696 1 0.0000 379.4499 003 • 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1- 1 I 1 2021 •1 0.5707 1 0.7361 1 0.7047 1 1.4700e- 1 0.0286 1 0.0347 1 0.0633 1 7.7600e- 1 0.0326 0.0404 0.0000 1 129.9392 1 129.9392 1 0.0231 1 0.0000 130.5174 003 1 1 I 1 003 '1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I • 1 I I 1 I Maximum 0.5707 2.5346 2.0421 4.2600e- 0.1487 0.1246 0.2733 0.0593 0.1168 0.1761 0.0000 377.7093 377.7093 0.0696 0.0000 379.4499 003 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Year tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 2020 •1 0.2706 I 2.5346 I 2.0421 14.2600e- 1 0.1487 I 0.1246 1 0.2733 I 0.0593 1 0.1168 0.1761 � 0.0000 1 377.7090 1377.7090 I 0.0696 1 0.0000 1 379.4496 003 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 ;� I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I • 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 2021 0.5707 1 0.7361 I 0.7047 1 1.4700e- 1 0.0286 I 0.0347 I 0.0633 17.7600e- I 0.0326 0.0404 � 0.0000 i 129.9391 1129.9391 I 0.0231 1 0.0000 i 130.5173 I 1 I 003 1 1 I 1 003 1 '1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I • 1 I 1 1 Maximum 0.5707 2.5346 2.0421 4.2600e- 0.1487 0.1246 0.2733 0.0593 0.1168 0.1761 0.0000 377.7090 377.7090 0.0696 0.0000 379.4496 11 003 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction Packet Pg. 244 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 31 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 3-23-2020 6-22-2020 1.0127 1.0127 2 6-23-2020 9-22-2020 0.8464 0.8464 3 9-23-2020 12-22-2020 0.8402 0.8402 4 12-23-2020 3-22-2021 0.7619 0.7619 5 3-23-2021 6-22-2021 0.6118 0.6118 Highest 1.0127 1.0127 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 0.4069 i 3.000Oe- i 3.8200e- 0.0000 1.000Oe- i 1.000Oe- i i 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- � 0.0000 i 7.4200e- i 7.4200e- i 2.000Oe- i 0.0000 � 7.9000e- '� 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 i 003 Energy •i 0.0177 i 0.1605 i 0.1349 i 9.6000e- 0.0122 i 0.0122 i i 0.0122 0.0122 0.0000 i 576.8432 576.8432 i 0.0215 6.9700e- 579.4572 004 003 Mobile •1 0.2729 i 1.8048 i 2.7635 i 0.0102 0.7704 9.7000e- i 0.7801 i 0.2071 i 9.1100e- 0.2162 0.0000 1 940.4381 940.4381 i 0.0435 0.0000 941.5244 003 003 . 1 i Waste 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 15.3360 i 0.0000 i 15.3360 i 0.9063 i 0.0000 37.9942 Water •1 i � i � � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 1.1106 i 5.9064 7.0170 i 0.1143 2.7500e- 10.6945 003 i Total 0.6975 1.9654 2.9022 0.0112 0.7704 0.0219 0.7923 0.2071 0.0213 0.2284 16.4466 1,523.195 1,539.641 1.0857 9.7200e- 1,569.678 11 1 6 003 1 Packet Pg. 245 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational Page 4 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 1777Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 0.4069 i 3.000Oe- 3.8200e- i 0.0000 1.000Oe- i 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 i 7.4200e- � 7.4200e- i 2.000Oe- 0.0000 7.9000e- '� 1 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 i 003 %- - - - - --- - - - - --- - - - - --- - - - - --- - - - - --- - - - - --- - - - - --- - - - - ---- - - - - -- - -- - ------- - - - - --- - - - - --------- * - - - -- Energy •i 0.0177 i 0.1605 � 0.1349 i 9.6000e- � � 0.0122 i 0.0122 � i 0.0122 0.0122 � 0.0000 i 576.8432 � 576.8432 i 0.0215 � 6.9700e- � 579.4572 000 004 003 Mobile •i 0.2729 i 1.8048 2.7635 i 0.0102 � 0.7704 9.7000e- i 0.7801 0.2071 i 9.1100e- 0.2162 0.0000 i 940.4381 940.4381 i 0.0435 0.0000 1 941.5244 003 003 Waste •1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 15.3360 i 0.0000 15.3360 i 0.9063 1 0.0000 1 37.9942 Water •i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • 1.1106 i 5.9064 7.0170 i 0.1143 2.7500e- 10.6945 003 Total 0.6975 1.9654 2.9022 0.0112 0.7704 0.0219 0.7923 0.2071 0.0213 0.2284 16.4466 1,523.195 1.0857 9.7200e- 1,569.678 11 1 17,539.641 6 003 1 1 1 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Packet Pg. 246 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 31 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 ;Demolition +Demolition 13/23/2020 :4/17/2020 5: 20: + i 2 :Site Preparation +Site Preparation 14/18/2020 :4/24/2020 5: 5: + i 3 :Grading +Grading 14/25/2020 :5/6/2020 5: 8: + i 4 :Building Construction +Building Construction 15/7/2020 :3/24/2021 5: 230: + i 5 :Paving +Paving 13/25/2021 :4/19/2021 5: 18: + i 6 •Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating 4/20/2021 5/13/2021 5. 18, Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 4 Acres of Paving: 2.49 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 134,550; Non -Residential Outdoor: 44,850; Striped Parking Area: 6,648 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment Packet Pg. 247 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ; 8.001 81 : 0.73 -------------------------- �- - -------------------------- ----------- Demolition +Excavators ; 3 8.001 158, 0.38 + _ i _ Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 21 8.001 247: 0.40 -----------------------------a _ i - - - -------------------------- ----------- Site Preparation +Rubber Tired Dozers ; 3 8.001 247, 0.40 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 41 8.001 97, 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Excavators ; 1 8.001 158, 0.38 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Graders ; 1 8.001 187, 0.41 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1 8.001 247, 0.40 ---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------i ------ - - - - --------------- ----------- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 31 8.001 97, 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Cranes ; 1 7.001 231, 0.29 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Forklifts ; 31 8.001 89, 0.20 ----------------------------a- 1 -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Generator Sets ; 1 8.001 84, 0.74 + _ __ i i _ Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 31 7.001 _ 97, 0.37 a i - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Welders ; 1 8.001 __ 46, 0.45 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Paving 'Cement and Mortar Mixers ; 21 6.001 9. 0.56 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving +Pavers ; 1 8.001 130, 0.42 --------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Paving Equipment ; 21 6.001 132, 0.36 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Rollers ; 2 6.001 80, 0.38 --------------------------- ------------- ----------- Paving +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1 8.001 97, 0.37 ---------------------------- --------------------------*-----------------f------------ r------------- ----------- Architectural Coating :Air Compressors 1 6.00: 78: 0.48 Trips and VMT Packet Pg. 248 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM Phase Name I Offroad Equipment I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Vehicle I Vendor I Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition A A 6; 15.00 0.001 0.00; 10.80: 7.30; 20.00;LD_Mix IHDT_Mix EHHDT Site Preparation --------------= 7; i--------------------;---------- 18.00- i 0.001 0.00: ---------- 10.80: , 7.30; -- = 20.00;LD_Mix i----------T---------- EHDT_Mix EHHDT --------------- ° Grading -------------; 6; 15.00: --------i 0.00: 0.00: --------------------------------- 10.80: 7.30; 20.00;LD_Mix ----------' iHDT_Mix -------- EHHDT ----------------° �- Building Construction -------------=---------------''''-, 9; i------------ 84.00- I --------i 33.00: �- 0.00: ---------' --------- '- 10.80: 1---------_-------------�----------' 7.30; 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -------- THHDT �- Paving 8; i------------ 20.00: 0.001 ,- 0.00: - 10.80: 7.30; 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix *- EHHDT Architectural Coating ; 1; 17.00, 0.00, 0.00, 10.80, 7.30, 20.00 LID _Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.0331 , 0.3320 , 0.2175 , 3.9000e- , , 0.0166 , 0.0166 , , 0.0154 ; 0.0154 0.0000 i 33.9986 , 33.9986 , 9.6000e- , 0.0000 34.2386 i •� � � � 004 003 Total 0.0331 0.3320 0.2175 3.9000e- 0.0166 0.0166 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 33.9986 33.9986 9.6000e- 0.0000 34.2386 004 003 Packet Pg. 249 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.2 Demolition - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Page 8 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 5.2000e- 3.8000e- 3.9200e- 1.000Oe- 1.1900e- 1.000Oe- 1.1900e- 3.2000e- 1.000Oe- 3.2000e- 0.0000 i 1.0543 1.0543 3.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.0550 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 5.2000e- 3.8000e- 3.9200e- 1.0000e- 1.1900e- 1.000Oe- 1.1900e- 3.2000e- 1.000Oe- 3.2000e- 0.0000 1.0543 1.0543 3.0007 0.0000 1.0550 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.0331 i 0.3320 i 0.2175 3.9000e- 0.0166 0.0166 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 i 33.9986 33.9986 9.6000e- i 0.0000 i 34.2385 004 003 Total 0.0331 0.3320 0.2175 3.9000e- 0.0166 0.0166 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 33.9986 33.9986 9.6000e- 0.0000 34.2385 004 003 Packet Pg. 250 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.2 Demolition - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Page 9 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 -------------------------------------------'------------------------ --+-------------'---------------------- Worker •i 5.2000e- 3.8000e- 3.9200e- 1.00OOe- 1.1900e- 1.00OOe- 1.1900e- 3.2000e- 1.00OOe- 3.2000e- 0.0000 i 1.0543 1.0543 3.00OOe- 0.0000 i 1.0550 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 5.2000e- 3.8000e- 3.9200e- 1.00OOe- 1.1900e- 1.00OOe- 1.1900e- 3.2000e- 1.00OOe- 3.2000e- 0.0000 1.0543 1.0543 3.00O7 0.0000 1.0550 11 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •i 0.0452 0.0000 0.0452 i 0.0248 0.0000 0.0248 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0102 0.1060 0.0538 1.00OOe- 5.4900e- 5.4900e- 5.0500e- 5.0500e- 0.0000 i 8.3577 8.3577 2.7000e- 0.0000 i 8.4253 i i i 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 0.0102 0.1060 0.0538 1.00OOe- 0.0452 5.4900e- 0.0507 0.0248 5.0500e- 0.0299 0.0000 8.3577 8.3577 2.7000e- 0.0000 8.4253 004 003 003 003 Packet Pg. 251 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Page 10 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 1.6000e- i 1.1000e- i 1.1800e- 0.0000 i 3.6000e- 0.0000 3.6000e- i 9.000Oe- 0.0000 1.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.3163 0.3163 1.000Oe- i 0.0000 i 0.3165 004 004 003 004 004 005 004 005 Total 1.6000e- 1.1000e- 1.1800e- 0.0000 3.6000e- 0.0000 3.6000e- 9.000Oe- 0.0000 1.000Oe- 0.0000 0.3163 0.3163 1.000Oe- 0.0000 0.3165 004 004 003 004 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 0.0452 0.0000 0.0452 i 0.0248 0.0000 0.0248 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0102 0.1060 0.0538 1.000Oe- 5.4900e- 5.4900e- 5.0500e- 5.0500e- 0.0000 i 8.3577 8.3577 2.7000e- 0.0000 i 8.4252 i i i 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 0.0102 0.1060 0.0538 1.000Oe- 0.0452 5.4900e- 0.0507 0.0248 5.0500e- 0.0299 0.0000 8.3577 8.3577 2.7000e- 0.0000 8.4252 004 003 003 003 Packet Pg. 252 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Page 11 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 1.6000e- i 1.1000e- i 1.1800e- 0.0000 i 3.6000e- 0.0000 3.6000e- i 9.00OOe- 0.0000 1.00OOe- 0.0000 i 0.3163 0.3163 1.00OOe- i 0.0000 i 0.3165 004 004 003 004 004 005 004 005 Total 1.6000e- 1.1000e- 1.1800e- 0.0000 3.6000e- 0.0000 3.6000e- 9.00OOe- 0.0000 1.00OOe- 0.0000 0.3163 0.3163 1.00OOe- 0.0000 0.3165 004 004 003 004 004 005 004 005 3.4 Grading - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 0.0262 0.0000 0.0262 i 0.0135 0.0000 0.0135 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 9.7200e- 0.1055 0.0642 1.2000e- 5.0900e- 5.0900e- 4.6900e- 4.6900e- 0.0000 i 10.4235 10.4235 3.3700e- 0.0000 i 10.5078 i i i 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 9.7200e- 0.1055 0.0642 1.2000e- 0.0262 5.0900e- 0.0313 0.0135 4.6900e- 0.0182 0.0000 10.4235 10.4235 3.3700e- 0.0000 10.5078 003 004 003 003 003 Packet Pg. 253 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.4 Grading - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Page 12 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 2.1000e- i 1.5000e- i 1.5700e- 0.0000 i 4.7000e- 0.0000 4.8000e- i 1.3000e- 0.0000 1.3000e- 0.0000 i 0.4217 0.4217 � 1.000Oe- i 0.0000 i 0.4220 004 004 003 004 004 004 004 005 Total 2.1000e- 1.5000e- 1.5700e- 0.0000 4.7000e- 0.0000 4.8000e- 1.3000e- 0.0000 1.3000e- 0.0000 0.4217 0.4217 1.000Oe- 0.0000 0.4220 11 004 004 003 004 004 004 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 i i i i 0.0262 i 0.0000 0.0262 0.0135 i 0.0000 0.0135 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 9.7200e- 0.1055 0.0642 1.2000e- 5.0900e- 5.0900e- 4.6900e- 4.6900e- 0.0000 i 10.4235 10.4235 3.3700e- 0.0000 i 10.5078 i i i 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 9.7200e- 0.1055 0.0642 1.2000e- 0.0262 5.0900e- 0.0313 0.0135 4.6900e- 0.0182 0.0000 10.4235 10.4235 3.3700e- 0.0000 10.5078 003 004 003 003 003 Packet Pg. 254 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.4 Grading - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Page 13 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 2.1000e- i 1.5000e- i 1.5700e- 0.0000 i 4.7000e- 0.0000 4.8000e- i 1.3000e- 0.0000 1.3000e- 0.0000 i 0.4217 0.4217 � 1.000Oe- i 0.0000 i 0.4220 004 004 003 004 004 004 004 005 Total 2.1000e- 1.5000e- 1.5700e- 0.0000 4.7000e- 0.0000 4.8000e- 1.3000e- 0.0000 1.3000e- 0.0000 0.4217 0.4217 1.000Oe- 0.0000 0.4220 11 004 004 003 004 004 004 004 005 3.5 Building Construction - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.1813 i 1.6404 i 1.4406 2.3000e- i i 0.0955 i 0.0955 0.0898 0.0898 0.0000 i 198.0265 198.0265 0.0483 i 0.0000 i 199.2343 003 Total 0.1813 1.6404 1.4406 2.3000e- 0.0955 0.0955 0.0898 0.0898 0.0000 198.0265 198.0265 0.0483 0.0000 199.2343 003 Packet Pg. 255 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.5 Building Construction - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Page 14 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 -------------------------------------------'----------------------- --+ ----�-------------'-------------- Vendor •i 0.0106 0.3317 0.0715 7.8000e- 0.0185 1.5400e- 0.0201 5.3600e- 1.4700e- 6.8300e- � 0.0000 i 74.6316 74.6316 4.2900e- 0.0000 i 74.7389 i i � i � � i � � � i '� 004 003 003 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.0248 0.0183 0.1879 5.6000e- 0.0568 3.9000e- 0.0572 0.0151 3.6000e- 0.0155 0.0000 i 50.4791 50.4791 1.3000e- 0.0000 i 50.5117 i i i i i 004 004 004 . 003 i Total 0.0354 0.3500 0.2594 1.3400e- 0.0753 1.9300e- 0.0773 0.0205 1.8300e- 125.1107 125.1107 5.5907 0.0000 125.2505 003 003 003 [-377000 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.1813 i 1.6404 1.4405 2.3000e- 0.0955 0.0955 0.0898 0.0898 0.0000 i 198.0263 i 198.0263 0.0483 i 0.0000 i 199.2341 003 i i i i i • i i i i Total 0.1813 1.6404 1.4405 2.3000e- 0.0955 0.0955 0.0898 0.0898 0.0000 198.0263 198.0263 0.0483 0.0000 199.2341 003 Packet Pg. 256 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.5 Building Construction - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Page 15 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 -------------------------------------------'----------------------- --+-------------'-------------- Vendor •i 0.0106 0.3317 0.0715 7.8000e- 0.0185 1.5400e- 0.0201 5.3600e- 1.4700e- 6.8300e- � 0.0000 i 74.6316 74.6316 4.2900e- 0.0000 i 74.7389 i i � i � � i � � � i '� 004 003 003 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.0248 0.0183 0.1879 5.6000e- 0.0568 3.9000e- 0.0572 0.0151 3.6000e- 0.0155 0.0000 i 50.4791 50.4791 1.3000e- 0.0000 i 50.5117 i i i i i 004 004 004 . 003 i Total 0.0354 0.3500 0.2594 1.3400e- 0.0753 1.9300e- 0.0773 0.0205 1.8300e- 125.1107 125.1107 5.5907 0.0000 125.2505 003 003 003 [777000 003 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.0561 i 0.5143 i 0.4890 i 7.9000e- i i 0.0283 0.0283 0.0266 0.0266 0.0000 i 68.3330 68.3330 0.0165 i 0.0000 i 68.7451 004 i i i i • i i i i Total 0.0561 0.5143 0.4890 7.9000e- 0.0283 0.0283 0.0266 0.0266 0.0000 68.3330 68.3330 0.0165 0.0000 68.7451 11 1 004 1 Packet Pg. 257 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Page 16 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 3.0100e- 0.1041 0.0221 2.7000e- 6.3900e- 2.2000e- 6.6100e- 1.8500e- 2.1000e- 2.0600e- � 0.0000 i 25.5028 25.5028 1.4000e- 0.0000 i 25.5379 i i � i � � i � � � i 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 i Worker •i 7.9100e- 5.6400e- 0.0591 1.9000e- 0.0196 1.3000e- 0.0197 5.2100e- 1.2000e- 5.3300e- 0.0000 i 16.8126 16.8126 4.000Oe- 0.0000 i 16.8226 i i i i i 003 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 i Total 0.0109 0.1098 0.0811 4.6000e- 0.0260 3.5000e- 0.0263 7.0600e- 3.3000e- 7.3900e- 0.0000 42.3154 42.3154 1.8000e- 0.0000 42.3605 004 004 003 004 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.0561 i 0.5143 i 0.4890 7.9000e- 0.0283 0.0283 0.0266 0.0266 0.0000 i 68.3329 68.3329 0.0165 i 0.0000 i 68.7451 004 i i i i • i i i i Total 0.0561 0.5143 0.4890 7.9000e- 0.0283 0.0283 0.0266 0.0266 0.0000 68.3329 68.3329 0.0165 0.0000 68.7451 11 1 004 1 Packet Pg. 258 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Page 17 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 3.0100e- 0.1041 0.0221 2.7000e- 6.3900e- 2.2000e- 6.6100e- 1.8500e- 2.1000e- 2.0600e- � 0.0000 i 25.5028 25.5028 1.4000e- 0.0000 i 25.5379 i i � i � � i � � � i '1 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 i '1 Worker •i 7.9100e- 5.6400e- 0.0591 1.9000e- 0.0196 1.3000e- 0.0197 5.2100e- 1.2000e- 5.3300e- 0.0000 i 16.8126 16.8126 4.000Oe- 0.0000 i 16.8226 i i i i i 003 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 i Total 0.0109 0.1098 0.0811 4.6000e- 0.0260 3.5000e- 0.0263 7.0600e- 3.3000e- 7.3900e- 0.0000 42.3154 42.3154 1.8007 0.0000 42.3605 004 004 003 004 003 003 3.6 Paving - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 9.8500e- 0.0976 0.1103 1.7000e- 5.2100e- 5.2100e- 4.8100e- 4.8100e- 0.0000 i 14.7336 14.7336 4.6300e- 0.0000 i 14.8493 i i i •� 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 9.8500e- 0.0976 0.1103 1.7000e- 5.2100e- 5.2100e- 4.8100e- 4.8100e- 0.0000 14.7336 14.7336 4.6300e- 0.0000 14.8493 003 004 003 1 003 003 003 003 Packet Pg. 259 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.6 Paving - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Page 18 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 5.7000e- 4.1000e- 4.2900e- 1.000Oe- 1.4200e- 1.000Oe- 1.4300e- 3.8000e- 1.000Oe- 3.9000e- 0.0000 i 1.2213 1.2213 3.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.2220 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 5.7000e- 4.1000e- 4.2900e- 1.000Oe- 1.4200e- 1.000Oe- 1.4300e- 3.8000e- 1.000Oe- 3.9000e- 0.0000 1.2213 1.2213 3.0007 0.0000 1.2220 11 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 9.8500e- 0.0976 0.1103 1.7000e- 5.2100e- 5.2100e- 4.8100e- 4.8100e- 0.0000 i 14.7335 14.7335 4.6300e- 0.0000 i 14.8493 i i i •� 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 9.8500e- 0.0976 0.1103 1.7000e- 5.2100e- 5.2100e- 4.8100e- 4.8100e- 0.0000 14.7335 14.7335 4.6300e- 0.0000 11 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 M Packet Pg. 260 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.6 Paving - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Page 19 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 5.7000e- 4.1000e- 4.2900e- 1.00OOe- 1.4200e- 1.00OOe- 1.4300e- 3.8000e- 1.00OOe- 3.9000e- 0.0000 i 1.2213 1.2213 3.00OOe- 0.0000 i 1.2220 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 5.7000e- 4.1000e- 4.2900e- 1.00OOe- 1.4200e- 1.00OOe- 1.4300e- 3.8000e- 1.00OOe- 3.9000e- 0.0000 1.2213 1.2213 3.00O7 0.0000 1.2220 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating •i 0.4908 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 1.9700e- 0.0137 0.0164 3.00OOe- 8.5000e- 8.5000e- 8.5000e- 8.5OOOe- 0.0000 i 2.2979 2.2979 1.6000e- 0.0000 i 2.3019 i i i 003 005 004 004 004 004 . 004 i Total 0.4928 0.0137 0.0164 3.00OOe- 8.5000e- 8.5000e- 8.5000e- 8.5000e- 0.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.6000e- 0.0000 2.3019 005 004 004 004 004 004 Packet Pg. 261 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Page 20 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 4.9000e- 3.5000e- 3.6500e- 1.000Oe- 1.2100e- 1.000Oe- 1.2200e- 3.2000e- 1.000Oe- 3.3000e- 0.0000 i 1.0381 1.0381 2.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.0387 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 4.9000e- 3.5000e- 3.6500e- 1.0000e- 1.2100e- 1.000Oe- 1.2200e- 3.2000e- 1.000Oe- 3.3000e- 0.0000 1.0381 1.0381 2.000Oe- 0.0000 1.0387 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating •i 0.4908 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •1 1.9700e- 0.0137 0.0164 3.000Oe- 8.5000e- 8.5000e- 8.5000e- 8.5000e- 0.0000 i 2.2979 2.2979 1.6000e- 0.0000 i 2.3019 i i i 003 005 004 004 004 004 . 004 i Total 0.4928 0.0137 0.0164 3.000Oe- 8.5000e- 8.5000e- 8.5000e- 8.5000e- 0.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.6000e- 0.0000 2.3019 005 004 004 004 004 004 Packet Pg. 262 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Page 21 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 4.9000e- 3.5000e- 3.6500e- 1.00OOe- 1.2100e- 1.00OOe- 1.2200e- 3.2000e- 1.00OOe- 3.3000e- 0.0000 i 1.0381 1.0381 2.00OOe- 0.0000 i 1.0387 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 4.9000e- 3.5000e- 3.6500e- 1.00OOe- 1.2100e- 1.00OOe- 1.2200e- 3.2000e- 1.00OOe- 3.3000e- 0.0000 1.0381 1.0381 2.00OOe- 0.0000 1.0387 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Packet Pg. 263 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 31 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 0.2729 i 1.8048 i 2.7635 i 0.0102 i 0.7704 i 9.7000e- 0.7801 0.2071 � 9.1100e- 0.2162 0.0000 i 940.4381 i 940.4381 i 0.0435 i 0.0000 i 941.5244 003 003 Unmitigated 0.2729 1.8048 2.7635 0.0102 0.7704 9.7000e- • 0.7801 - 0.2071 9.1100e- 0.2162 0.0000 940.4381 • 940.4381 • 0.0435 - 0.0000 941.5244 003 003 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 ................................................... -------------------- -----------------------:-------------------------- Hotel ; 1,127.46 1,130.22 821.10 2,059,693 2,059,693 Total 1,127.46 1,130.22 821.10 2,059,693 2,059,693 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass -by Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 ........................ r----------rt---------T----------,i•------------------r--------t---------------------------------- Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 ----------------- 38 4 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.560371r 0.039285; 0.190378; 0.108244; 0.016023; 0.005202; 0.023981; 0.045200; 0.002184; 0.002561; 0.005524; 0.0003261 0.000721 Hotel 0.560371 • 0.039285 , 0.190378 , 0.108244 , 0.016023 , 0.005202 , 0.023981 , 0.045200 , 0.002184 , 0.002561 , 0.005524 , 0.000326 , 0.000721 Packet Pg. 264 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 5.0 Energy Detail Page 23 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM Historical Energy Use: N ar 0 x 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy L E U L ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr I I 1 Electricity •1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 0.0000 1 1 1 0.0000 1 1 I 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 1 1 I 1 402.0795 1402.0795 0.0182 1 3.7600e- 403.6550 Mitigated 003 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 Electricity •1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 0.0000 1 I 1 0.0000 1 1 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 11 I 1 402.0795 402.0795 0.0182 1 3.7600e- i 403.6550 1 Unmitigated 003 I ry -- I T I I I NaturalGas •1 0.0177 1 0.1605 1 0.1349 19.6000e- I I 1 1 0.0122 I I 1 0.0122 1 I I 0.0122 0.0122 0.0000 I I I 1 174.7636 1174.7636 1 3.3500e- 1 3.2000e- 175.8022 Mitigated 004 I I I I I . 1 I I 1 I 1 003 003 • I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 , 1 1 I 1 NaturalGas 0.0177 0.1605 0.1349 9.6000e- - 0.0122 0.0122 - 0.0122 0.0122 0.0000 174.7636 174.7636 3.3500e- - 3.2000e- 175.8022 Unmitigated 004 003 003 Packet Pg. 265 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated Page 24 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 IPM2.5Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I I Enclosed Parking 1 0 •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 with Elevator 1 'I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 • I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I- I I I Hotel 3.27495e •I 0.0177 I 0.1605 I 0.1349 19.6000e- I I 0.0122 I 0.0122 I I 0.0122 0.0122 0.0000 I 174.7636 1174.7636 13.3500e- 13.2000e- i 175.8022 I +006 004 I I I 1 1 . I 1 I 003 1 003 I 1 'I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 • I I I I 1 Total 0.0177 0.1605 0.1349 9.6000e- 0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0000 174.7636 174.7636 3.3500e- 3.2000e- 175.8022 004 003 003 Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I Enclosed Parking � 0 �I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 with Elevator I 1 .I I I I I I I 1 1 • I I I Hotel 3.27495e �I 0.0177 1 0.1605 I 0.1349 19.6000e- I I 0.0122 1 0.0122 1 I 0.0122 0.0122 0.0000 I 174.7636 1174.7636 1 3.3500e- 1 3.2000e- i 175.8022 1 +006 004 I I I 1 1 . I I 003 I 003 I 1 . I 1 I I I I 1 1 • I I I I Total 0.0177 0.1605 0.1349 9.6000e- 0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0000 174.7636 174.7636 3.3500e- 3.2000e- 175.8022 11 004 003 003 Packet Pg. 266 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use I I Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Enclosed Parking 1 649288 •i 188.8853 i 8.5400e- 1.7700e- 1 189.6254 with Elevator i ;� i 003 003 • -J-------J------- ---------------it----- Hotel 732849 -1 213.1942 i 9.6400e- 1.9900e- 214.0295 003 i 003 Total 402.0795 0.0182 3.7600e- 403.6550 003 Mitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use I I Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Enclosed Parking 649288 •i 188.8853 i 8.5400e- 1.7700e- 1 189.6254 with Elevator 003 003 Hotel 732849 •i 213.1942 i 9.6400e- i 1.9900e- 214.0295 003 003 Total 402.0795 0.0182 3.7600e- 403.6550 003 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Page 25 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM Packet Pg. 267 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 31 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total I Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 0.4069 i 3.000Oe- i 3.8200e- i 0.0000 1.000Oe- i 1.000Oe- i i 1.000Oe- � 1.000Oe- • 0.0000 i 7.4200e- i 7.4200e- i 2.000Oe- i 0.0000 � 7.9000e- �� 005 003 005 005 005 005 ; 003 003 005 i 003 Unmitigated 0.4069 - 3.000Oe- 3.8200e- 0.0000 - 1.000Oe- - 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 7.4200e- 7.4200e- - 2.000Oe- 0.0000 7.9000e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •i 0.0491 i i i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating . Consumer •1 0.3575 i i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products •� . i ---- ----•i----------------------------------------------- -- j----- ---- ------------- +------ i----- -- ---- ------ ----- j----- -- *---- - Landscaping •i 3.6000e- i 3.000Oe- i 3.8200e- 0.0000 i i 1.000Oe- i 1.000Oe- i i 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 i 7.4200e- i 7.4200e- i 2.000Oe- i 0.0000 7.9000e- '� 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 i 003 Total 0.4069 3.000Oe- 3.8200e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 7.4200e- 7.4200e- 2.000Oe- 0.0000 7.9000e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003 Packet Pg. 268 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated Page 27 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •i 0.0491 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 Coating '� Consumer •i 0.3575 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 Products Landscaping •i 3.6000e- 3.000Oe- 3.8200e- 0.0000 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 i 7.4200e- 7.4200e- 2.000Oe- 0.0000 7.9000e- i i i i '� 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 i 003 Total 0.4069 3.000Oe- 3.8200e- 0.0000 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 7.4200e- 7.4200e- 2.000Oe- 0.0000 7.- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 0073 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Packet Pg. 269 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 31 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated •1 7.0170 i 0.1143 i 2.7500e- i 10.6945 003 i - - - - - - - - - - - % --------------4------------------------------* - - - - - - - Unmitigated 7.0170 - 0.1143 2.7500e- 10.6945 003 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Enclosed Parking 0/0 ■i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 with Elevator ; ---------- ------- ------- Hotel 3.50061 / ■i 7.0170 0.1143 2.7500e- 10.6945 0.388957 ;i 003 Total 7.0170 0.1143 2.7500e- 10.6945 003 Packet Pg. 270 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use I Land Use Mgal MT/yr Enclosed Parking 0/0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 with Elevator i •� • --------'------- Hotel 3.50061 / •i 7.0170 0.1143 2.7500e- i 10.6945 0.388957 'i 003 Total 7.0170 0.1143 2.7500e- 10.6945 003 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Category/Year Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e MT/yr Mitigated •i 15.3360 i 0.9063 i 0.0000 37.9942 -----------e�- 4-------------F.............. ---- - -------------- Unmitigated 15.3360 0.9063 0.0000 37.9942 Page 29 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM Packet Pg. 271 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed I Land Use tons MT/yr Enclosed Parking 0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 with Elevator •� i Hotel i 75.55 •i 15.3360 0.9063 0.0000 i 37.9942 Total 15.3360 j 0.9063 j 0.0000 37.9942 Mitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Enclosed Parking 0 .i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 with Elevator Hotel 75.55 �i 15.3360 0.9063 i 0.0000 i 37.9942 Total 15.3360 0.9063 0.0000 37.9942 9.0 Operational Offroad Page 30 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Packet Pg. 272 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 10.0 Stationary Equipment Page 31 of 31 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PM Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type E Boilers U Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type L r d J User Defined Equipment m Equipment Type Number E O U Q 11.0 Vegetation J Packet Pg. 273 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Page 1 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer Cambria Hotel Alameda County, Summer Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 277.00 + Space ; 2.49 110,800.00 i 0 -----------------------------_------------------------------_------------------------------------------- ------------------E-------------- Hotel 138.00 Room 0.91 89,700.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 63 Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2022 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2Intensity 641.35 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use - According to Project documents. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblLandUse Land UseSquareFeet 200,376.00 89,700.00 -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------ tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.60 0.91 2.0 Emissions Summary Packet Pg. 274 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Year lb/day lb/day I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 2020 •1 4.1423 1 42.4579 1 22.1811 1 0.0432 1 18.2141 1 2.1984 1 20.4125 1 9.9699 1 2.0225 � 11.9924 0.0000 1 4,228.196 1 4,228.196 1 1.1957 1 0.0000 14,245.547 4 1 4 I 1 1 3 '1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I • 1 1 I 1 1 2021 •1 54.8141 1 21.0961 1 19.4579 1 0.0429 1 0.9136 1 0.9704 1 1.8840 1 0.2474 1 0.9123 1.1598 0.0000 14,194.81714,194.8171 0.6822 1 0.0000 14,211.8717 4 I 4 I 1 1 '1 I I I 1 1 I I I • 1 I I I 1 Maximum 54.8141 42.4579 22.1811 0.0432 18.2141 2.1984 20.4125 9.9699 2.0225 11.9924 0.0000 4,228.196 4,228.196 1.1957 0.0000 4,245.541 4 4 3 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Year lb/day lb/day I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 2020 •1 4.1423 1 42.4579 1 22.1811 1 0.0432 1 18.2141 1 2.1984 1 20.4125 1 9.9699 1 2.0225 11.9924 � 0.0000 1 4,228.196 1 4,228.196 1 1.1957 1 0.0000 14,245.541 4 1 4 I 1 1 3 ;� I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 • 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 2021 54.8141 1 21.0961 1 19.4579 1 0.0429 1 0.9136 1 0.9704 1 1.8840 1 0.2474 1 0.9123 � 1.1598 � 0.0000 i 4,194.817 1 4,194.817 1 0.6822 1 0.0000 14,211.8717 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 4 1 4 I 1 1 '1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 Maximum 54.8141 42.4579 22.1811 0.0432 18.2141 2.1984 20.4125 9.9699 2.0225 177000 4,228.196 4,228.196 1.1957 0.0000 4,245.541 11 4 4 3 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction Packet Pg. 275 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Page 3 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 2.2317 i 3.9000e- i 0.0424 i 0.0000 1.5000e- i 1.5000e- i i 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 0.0908 0.0908 i 2.4000e- 0.0968 i 004 004 i 004 004 004 004 � � ---- ----.-------j------- j------- j------- j------- j------- j------- j------- j--------I-------_-------------- --------------�-------*------- Energy •i 0.0968 i 0.8797 i 0.7389 i 5.2800e- � � 0.0669 i 0.0669 i i 0.0669 0.0669 � i 1,055.583 i 1,055.583 i 0.0202 � 0.0194 1 1,061.856 003 i i i i i 2 i 2 i i i 0 ------------i------- j------- j------- j------- j------- j------- j------- j------- j ---------------_-------i------- -------------- -------*------- Mobile i 1.8063 i 10.1364 i 16.1348 0.0616 i 4.5812 i 0.0554 i 4.6366 i 1.2275 i 0.0520 1.2795 :-6,263.451 i 6,263.451 i 0.2705 i 1 6,270.213 0 i 0 i i Total 4.1348 11.0164 16.9162 0.0669 4.5812 0.1224 4.7036 1.2275 0.1190 1.3465 7,319.125 7,319.125 0.2910 0.0194 7,332.166 0 0 5 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Category lb/day lb/day Area 2.2317 3.9000e- 0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 0.0908 0.0908 2.4000e- 0.0968 �� i i i � i i 004 004 004 004 004 , 004 i ------------------------------------'------------------------------------ -----------------------------------*------- Energy �� 0.0968 i 0.8797 0.7389 i 5.2800e- 0.0669 i 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 � i 1,055.583 1,055.583 i 0.0202 0.0194 i 1,061.856 003 i i i i i 2 i 2 i i i 0 Mobile �� 1.8063 i 10.1364 16.1348 i 0.0616 4.5812 0.0554 i 4.6366 1.2275 i 0.0520 1.2795 � i 6,263.451 6,263.451 i 0.2705 6,270.213 i i i i i i i i 0 i 0 7 Total 4.1348 11.0164 16.9162 0.0669 4.5812 0.1224 4.7036 1.2275 0.1190 1.3465 7,319.125 7,319.125 0.2910 0.0194 7,332.166 11 0 0 j 5 Packet Pg. 276 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 26 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 •Demolition !Demolition !3/23/2020 14/17/2020 5 20: i i 2 Site Preparation +Site Preparation !4/18/2020 i4/24/2020 5: 5: i i 3 •Grading +Grading !4/25/2020 i5/6/2020 5: 8: i i 4 •Building Construction +Building Construction 15/7/2020 i3/24/2021 5 230: i i 5 :Paving +Paving !3/25/2021 i4/19/2021 5 18: + I i 6 -Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating -4/20/2021 -5/13/2021 5, 18- Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 4 Acres of Paving: 2.49 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 134,550; Non -Residential Outdoor: 44,850; Striped Parking Area: 6,648 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment Packet Pg. 277 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ; 8.001 81 : 0.73 -------------------------- �- - -------------------------- ----------- Demolition +Excavators ; 3 8.001 158, 0.38 + _ i _ Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 21 8.001 247: 0.40 -----------------------------a _ i - - - -------------------------- ----------- Site Preparation +Rubber Tired Dozers ; 3 8.001 247, 0.40 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 41 8.001 97, 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Excavators ; 1 8.001 158, 0.38 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Graders ; 1 8.001 187, 0.41 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1 8.001 247, 0.40 ---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------i ------ - - - - --------------- ----------- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 31 8.001 97, 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Cranes ; 1 7.001 231, 0.29 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Forklifts ; 31 8.001 89, 0.20 ----------------------------a- 1 -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Generator Sets ; 1 8.001 84, 0.74 + _ __ i i _ Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 31 7.001 _ 97, 0.37 a i - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Welders ; 1 8.001 __ 46, 0.45 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Paving 'Cement and Mortar Mixers ; 21 6.001 9. 0.56 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving +Pavers ; 1 8.001 130, 0.42 --------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Paving Equipment ; 21 6.001 132, 0.36 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Rollers ; 2 6.001 80, 0.38 --------------------------- ------------- ----------- Paving +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1 8.001 97, 0.37 ---------------------------- --------------------------*-----------------f------------ r------------- ----------- Architectural Coating :Air Compressors 1 6.00: 78: 0.48 Trips and VMT Packet Pg. 278 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 26 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer Phase Name I Offroad Equipment I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Vehicle I Vendor I Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition 6; 15.00; 0.001 0.00; 10.80; 7.30; 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix (HHDT Site Preparation ------------- -= 7; i--------------------;---------- 18.00- i 0.001 0.00: ---------- 10.80; , 7.30; -- = ------------i--------------------- 20.00;LD_Mix EHDT_Mix HHDT --------------- ° Grading A -------------; 6; 15.00: --------i 0.001 0.00: --------------------------------- 10.80; 7.30; 20.00;LD_Mix ----------' iHDT_Mix -------- EHHDT ----------------° �- Building Construction -------------=---------------''''-, 9; i------------ 84.00- I --------i 33.001 �- 0.00: ---------' --------- '- 10.80; 1-----------------------�----------' 7.30; 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -------- THHDT ----------------° r- Paving -------------=--------------------, 8; i------------ 20.00: --------i 0.001 ,- 0.00: ---------' --------- �- 10.80; ------------------------ 7.30; 20.00;1-D_Mix ----------' iHDT_Mix --''---- EHHDT Architectural Coating ; 1; 17.00, 0.00, 0.00, 10.80, 7.30, 20.00 LID _Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road 3.3121 , 33.2010 , 21.7532 , 0.0388 , , 1.6587 , 1.6587 , , 1.5419 ; 1.5419 3,747.704 , 3,747.704 , 1.0580 , i 3,774.153 g i 9 6 Total 3.3121 33.2010 21.7532 0.0388 1.6587 1.6587 1.5419 1.5419 3,747.704 3,747.704 1.0580 3,774.153 9 9 6 Packet Pg. 279 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.2 Demolition - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Page 7 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0549 i 0.0338 i 0.4279 1.2600e- i 0.1232 8.2000e- 0.1240 i 0.0327 7.6000e- 0.0334 125.3043 125.3043 3.2100e- i i 125.3845 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0549 0.0338 0.4279 1.2600e- 0.1232 8.2000e- 0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e- 0.0334 125.3043 125.3043 3.21077 125.3845 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 3.3121 i 33.2010 i 21.7532 0.0388 1.6587 1.6587 1.5419 1.5419 0.0000 i 3,747.704 3,747.704 1.0580 3,774.153 9 i 9 i 6 Total 3.3121 33.2010 21.7532 0.0388 1.6587 1.6587 1.5419 1.5419 0.0000 3,747.704 3,747.704 1.0580 3,774.153 9 9 6 Packet Pg. 280 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.2 Demolition - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Page 8 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 • Worker •i 0.0549 i 0.0338 i 0.4279 1.2600e- i 0.1232 8.2000e- 0.1240 i 0.0327 7.6000e- 0.0334 125.3043 125.3043 3.2100e- i i 125.3845 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0549 0.0338 0.4279 1.2600e- 0.1232 8.2000e- 0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e- 0.0334 125.3043 125.3043 3.21077 125.3845 003 004 004 003 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i 18.0663 0.0000 i 18.0663 i 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.0765 i 42.4173 i 21.5136 0.0380 i 2.1974 2.1974 i 2.0216 2.0216 i 3,685.101 3,685.101 1.19............. i 3,714.897 '� i i i i i i i i • 6 i 6 i i i 5 Total 4.0765 42.4173 21.5136 0.0380 18.0663 2.1974 20.2637 9.9307 2.0216 11.9523 3,685.101 3,685.101 1.1918 3,714.897 6 6 5 Packet Pg. 281 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Page 9 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 • --------------- Worker •i 0.0659 i 0.0405 i 0.5135 1.5100e- i 0.1479 9.9000e- 0.1489 i 0.0392 9.1000e- 0.0401 150.3651 150.3651 3.8500e- i i 150.4614 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0659 0.0405 0.5135 1.5100e- 0.1479 9.9000e- 0.1489 0.0392 9.1000e- 0.0401 150.3651 150.3651 3.85077 150.4614 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i 18.0663 0.0000 i 18.0663 i 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.0765 i 42.4173 i 21.5136 0.0380 2.1974 2.1974 2.0216 2.0216 0.0000 i 3,685.101 3,685.101 1.1918 i i 3,714.897 '� i i i i i i i i i i i • 6 6 i 5 Total 4.0765 42.4173 21.5136 0.0380 18.0663 2.1974 20.2637 9.9307 2.0216 11.9523 0.0000 3,685.101 3,685.101 1.1918 3,714.897 6 6 5 Packet Pg. 282 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Page 10 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 • --------------- Worker •i 0.0659 i 0.0405 i 0.5135 1.5100e- i 0.1479 9.9000e- 0.1489 i 0.0392 9.1000e- 0.0401 150.3651 150.3651 3.8500e- i i 150.4614 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0659 0.0405 0.5135 1.5100e- 0.1479 9.9000e- 0.1489 0.0392 9.1000e- 0.0401 150.3651 150.3651 3.85077 150.4614 003 004 004 003 3.4 Grading - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 i 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 2.4288 i 26.3859 i 16.0530 0.0297 i 1.2734 1.2734 i 1.1716 1.1716 i 2,872.485 2,872.485 0.9290 2,895.710 '� i i i i i i i i • 1 i 1 i 6 Total 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 6.5523 1.2734 7.8258 3.3675 1.1716 4.5390 2,872.485 2,872.485 0.9290 2,895.710 1 1 6 Packet Pg. 283 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.4 Grading - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Page 11 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 • --------------- Worker •i 0.0549 i 0.0338 i 0.4279 1.2600e- i 0.1232 8.2000e- 0.1240 i 0.0327 7.6000e- 0.0334 125.3043 125.3043 3.2100e- i i 125.3845 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0549 0.0338 0.4279 1.2600e- 0.1232 8.2000e- 0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e- 0.0334 125.3043 125.3043 3.21077 125.3845 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 i 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 2.4288 i 26.3859 i 16.0530 0.0297 1.2734 1.2734 1.1716 1.1716 0.0000 i 2,872.485 2,872.485 0.9290 i i 2,895.710 '� i i i i i i i i • 1 i 1 i 6 Total 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 6.5523 1.2734 7.8258 3.3675 1.1716 4.5390 0.0000 2,872.485 2,872.485 0.9290 2,895.710 1 1 6 Packet Pg. 284 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.4 Grading - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Page 12 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0549 i 0.0338 i 0.4279 1.2600e- i 0.1232 8.2000e- 0.1240 i 0.0327 7.6000e- 0.0334 125.3043 125.3043 3.2100e- i i 125.3845 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0549 0.0338 0.4279 1.2600e- 0.1232 8.2000e- 0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e- 0.0334 125.3043 125.3043 3.21077 125.3845 003 004 004 003 3.5 Building Construction - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 2.1198 i 19.1860 i 16.8485 0.0269 i i 1.1171 i 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 2,553.063 2,553.063 0.6229 i i 2,568.634 1 i 1 i 5 Total 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 2,553.063 2,553.063 0.6229 2,568.634 1 1 5 Packet Pg. 285 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.5 Building Construction - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Page 13 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.1214 i 3.8350 i 0.7788 � 9.2200e- i 0.2236 � 0.0179 � 0.2415 i 0.0644 � 0.0171 0.0815 � i 973.4295 � 973.4295 � 0.0530 i i 974.7534 '� 003 Worker •i 0.3073 i 0.1891 i 2.3962 7.0400e- i 0.6900 4.6100e- 0.6947 i 0.1830 4.2500e- 0.1873 i 701.7038 701.7038 0.0180 i i 702.1534 003 003 003 i Total 0.4287 4.0241 3.1750 0.0163 0.9136 0.0225 0.9361 0.2474 0.0214 0.2688 1,675.133 1,675.133 0.0709 1,676.906 3 3 8 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 2.1198 i 19.1860 i 16.8485 0.0269 i i 1.1171 i 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 0.0000 i 2,553.063 2,553.063 0.6229 i i 2,568.634 '� i i i i i i i 1 i 1 i 5 • Total 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 2,553.063 2,553.063 0.6229 2,568.634 [737000 1 1 5 Packet Pg. 286 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.5 Building Construction - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Page 14 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.1214 i 3.8350 i 0.7788 � 9.2200e- i 0.2236 � 0.0179 � 0.2415 i 0.0644 � 0.0171 0.0815 � i 973.4295 � 973.4295 � 0.0530 i i 974.7534 '� 003 Worker •i 0.3073 i 0.1891 i 2.3962 7.0400e- i 0.6900 4.6100e- 0.6947 i 0.1830 4.2500e- 0.1873 i 701.7038 701.7038 0.0180 i i 702.1534 003 003 003 i Total 0.4287 4.0241 3.1750 0.0163 0.9136 0.0225 0.9361 0.2474 0.0214 0.2688 1,675.133 1,675.133 0.0709 1,676.906 3 3 8 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.9009 i 17.4321 i 16.5752 0.0269 i i 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 i 2,553.363 0.6160 2,568.764 '� i i i i i i • 9 i 9 i 3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 2,553.363 0.6160 2,568.764 j j j j 9 9 3 Packet Pg. 287 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Page 15 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0998 i 3.4953 i 0.6946 � 9.1300e- i 0.2236 � 7.2600e- � 0.2309 i 0.0644 � 6.9500e- 0.0713 964.0964 964.0964 0.0501 i i 965.3482 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.2838 i 0.1687 i 2.1882 6.8000e- i 0.6900 4.4600e- 0.6945 i 0.1830 4.1100e- 0.1871 i 677.3571 677.3571 0.0161 i i 677.7593 003 003 003 i Total 0.3836 3.6640 2.8827 0.0159 0.9136 0.0117 0.9254 0.2474 0.0111 1,641.453 0.0662 [7771,641.453 5 5 1 17.643.107 5 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.9009 i 17.4321 i 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 i 2,553.363 i 2,553.363 0.6160 2,568.764 '� i i i i i i • 9 i 9 i 3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 2,553.363 2,553.363 0.6160 2,568.764 j j j j [777000 9 9 3 Packet Pg. 288 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Page 16 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0998 i 3.4953 i 0.6946 � 9.1300e- i 0.2236 � 7.2600e- � 0.2309 i 0.0644 � 6.9500e- 0.0713 � i 964.0964 � 964.0964 � 0.0501 i i 965.3482 '� 003 003 003 i • Worker •i 0.2838 i 0.1687 i 2.1882 6.8000e- i 0.6900 4.4600e- 0.6945 i 0.1830 4.1100e- 0.1871 677.3571 677.3571 0.0161 i i 677.7593 003 003 003 i Total 0.3836 3.6640 2.8827 0.0159 0.9136 0.0117 0.9254 0.2474 0.0111 0.2585 1,641.453 1,641.453 0.0662 1,643.107 5 5 5 3.6 Paving - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.0940 i 10.8399 i 12.2603 0.0189 0.5788 0.5788 0.5342 0.5342 1,804.552 1,804.552 0.5670 i i 1,818.727 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 1.0940 10.8399 12.2603 0.0189 0.5788 0.5788 0.5342 777 1,804.552 1,804.552 0.5670 1718.727 3 3 0 Packet Pg. 289 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.6 Paving - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Page 17 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 • --------------- Worker •i 0.0676 i 0.0402 i 0.5210 1.6200e- i 0.1643 1.0600e- 0.1654 i 0.0436 9.8000e- 0.0446 161.2755 � 161.2755 3.8300e- i i 161.3713 003 003 004 003 i Total 0.0676 0.0402 0.5210 1.6200e- 0.1643 1.0600e- 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 0.0446 161.2755 161.2755 3.83077 161.3713 003 003 004 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.0940 i 10.8399 i 12.2603 0.0189 0.5788 0.5788 0.5342 0.5342 0.0000 i 1,804.552 1,804.552 0.5670 i i 1,818.727 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 1.0940 10.8399 12.2603 0.0189 0.5788 0.5788 0.5342 0.5342 0.0000 1,804.552 1,804.552 0.5670 1718.727 3 3 0 Packet Pg. 290 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.6 Paving - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Page 18 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 • --------------- Worker •i 0.0676 i 0.0402 i 0.5210 1.6200e- i 0.1643 1.0600e- 0.1654 i 0.0436 9.8000e- 0.0446 161.2755 � 161.2755 3.8300e- i i 161.3713 003 003 004 003 i Total 0.0676 0.0402 0.5210 1.6200e- 0.1643 1.0600e- 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 0.0446 161.2755 161.2755 3.8300e- 161.3713 003 003 004 003 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •i 54.5377 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.2189 i 1.5268 i 1.8176 2.9700e- 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 i i 281.9309 003 i i i i i • i i i i Total 54.7566 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e- 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 003 Packet Pg. 291 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Page 19 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 • --------------- Worker •i 0.0574 i 0.0341 i 0.4428 1.3800e- i 0.1397 9.000Oe- 0.1406 i 0.0370 8.3000e- 0.0379 137.0842 137.0842 3.2600e- i i 137.1656 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0574 0.0341 0.4428 1.3800e- 0.1397 9.000Oe- 0.1406 0.0370 8.3000e- 0.0379 137.0842 137.0842 3.26077 137.1656 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •i 54.5377 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •1 0.2189 i 1.5268 i 1.8176 2.9700e- 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0000 i 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 i i 281.9309 003 i i i i i • i i i i Total 54.7566 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e- 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 11 003 Packet Pg. 292 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Page 20 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0574 i 0.0341 i 0.4428 1.3800e- i 0.1397 9.00OOe- 0.1406 i 0.0370 8.3000e- 0.0379 137.0842 137.0842 3.2600e- i i 137.1656 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0574 0.0341 0.4428 1.3800e- 0.1397 9.00OOe- 0.1406 0.0370 8.3000e- 0.0379 137.0842 137.0842 3.2600e- 137.1656 003 004 004 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Packet Pg. 293 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 26 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 1.8063 10.1364 16.1348 0.0616 4.5812 0.0554 4.6366 1.2275 0.0520 1.2795 6,263.451 6,263.451 0.2705 1 6,270.213 i i � '� i i i i i i i i i i i i • 0 i 0 i i i 7 - - - - - - - - - -3-------------- i------------------------------ }--------------+----------------------------- --------------- --------------- } - ---- * - - - - - - - + - - - --------------- I--------------- --------------- 4---------------- - - - - - - - Unmitigated 1.8063 10.1364 16.1348 0.0616 4.5812 0.0554 4.6366 1.2275 0.0520 1.2795 6,263.451 • 6,263.451 • 0.2705 6,270.213 0 0 7 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 ................................................... -------------------- -----------------------:-------------------------- Hotel ; 1,127.46 1,130.22 821.10 2,059,693 2,059,693 Total 1,127.46 1,130.22 821.10 2,059,693 2,059,693 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass -by Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 ........................ r----------rt---------T----------,i•------------------r--------t---------------------------------- Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 ----------------- 38 4 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.560371r 0.039285; 0.190378; 0.108244; 0.016023; 0.005202; 0.023981; 0.045200; 0.002184; 0.002561; 0.005524; 0.0003261 0.000721 Hotel 0.560371 • 0.039285 , 0.190378 , 0.108244 , 0.016023 , 0.005202 , 0.023981 , 0.045200 , 0.002184 , 0.002561 , 0.005524 , 0.000326 , 0.000721 Packet Pg. 294 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 5.0 Energy Detail Page 22 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM Historical Energy Use: N ar 0 x 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy L E U L ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 JPM2.5-rotal Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas •i 0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e- 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583 1,055.583 0.0202 0.0194 1 1,061.856 i i Mitigated 003 i � . i 2 2 i i 0 - - - - - - - - - - --------------- F----------------------------- F--------------+----------------------------- --------------- --------------- F--------------* - - - - - - - + - - - - - - --------------- --------------- F--------------4---------------- - - - - - - - NaturalGas 0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e- - 0.0669 0.0669 - 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583 • 1,055.583 • 0.0202 - 0.0194 1,061.856 Unmitigated 003 2 2 0 Packet Pg. 295 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated Page 23 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 IPM2.5Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I I Enclosed Parking 1 0 •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 with Elevator 'I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 • I I I I Hotel 8972.46 •I 0.0968 I 0.8797 I 0.7389 15.2800e- I I 0.0669 I 0.0669 I I 0.0669 0.0669 • 11,055.583 11,055.583 I 0.0202 I 0.0194 1,061.856 003 I I I 1 1 ; I 2 1 2 I I 1 0 1 'I I 1 I I I I 1 1 • I I I I I Total 0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e- 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583 1,055.583 0.0202 0.0194 1,061.856 003 2 2 0 Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I Enclosed Parking � 0 �I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 0.0000 � I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 with Elevator I • I I I ---- * ------ r �l I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I Hotel 8.97246 �I 0.0968 I 0.8797 I 0.7389 15.2800e- I I 0.0669 1 0.0669 1 I 0.0669 0.0669 11,055.583 11,055.583 1 0.0202 I 0.0194 1,061.856 1 1 •I I I 1 003 I I I 1 1 • 1 2 1 2 I I I 0 Total 0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e- 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583 1,055.583 0.0202 0.0194 1,061.856 003 2 2 0 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Packet Pg. 296 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 26 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 177Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 2.2317 i 3.9000e- i 0.0424 i 0.0000 1.5000e- i 1.5000e- i i 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 0.0908 i 0.0908 i 2.4000e- i i 0.0968 004 004 004 004 004 . 004 i Unmitigated 2.2317 - 3.9000e- 0.0424 0.0000 - 1.5000e- - 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 0.0908 0.0908 - 2.4000e- 0.0968 004 004 004 004 004 004 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 0.2690 i i i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 i � 0.0000 0.0000 � Coating Consumer •i 1.9588 i i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Products •� . i Landscaping •i 3.9500e- i 3.9000e- i 0.0424 � 0.0000 i i 1.5000e- i 1.5000e- i i 1.5000e- 1.5000e- � i 0.0908 i 0.0908 i 2.4000e- i � 0.0968 003 004 004 004 004 004 004 i Total 2.2317 3.9000e- 0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 0.0908 0.0908 2.4000e- 0.0968 004 004 004 004 004 004 Packet Pg. 297 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated Page 25 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust Bio- C:O NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I IPM2.5-rotal Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 0.2690 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � i 0.0000 0.0000 i � 0.0000 i � � 0.0000 Coating '� � Consumer •1 1.9588 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � i � 0.0000 0.0000 Products Landscaping •i 3.9500e- 3.9000e- 0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 0.0908 0.0908 2.4000e- � 0.0968 i i i � i i � 003 004 004 004 004 004 004 i Total 2.2317 3.9000e- 0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 0.0908 0.0908 0e 2.400- 0.0968 004 004 004 004 004 004 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Packet Pg. 298 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 26 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PM Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers a� 0 Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type = R L User Defined Equipment E �a Equipment Type Number V L d 11.0 Vegetation a� E Packet Pg. 299 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Page 1 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Cambria Hotel Alameda County, Winter Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 277.00 + Space ; 2.49 110,800.00 i 0 -----------------------------_------------------------------_------------------------------------------- ------------------E-------------- Hotel 138.00 Room 0.91 89,700.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 63 Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2022 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2Intensity 641.35 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use - According to Project documents. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblLandUse Land UseSquareFeet 200,376.00 89,700.00 -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------ tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.60 0.91 2.0 Emissions Summary Packet Pg. 300 5.1.e CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction Page 2 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Year lb/day lb/day I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 2020 •1 4.1452 1 42.4677 I 22.1572 1 0.0424 1 18.2141 1 2.1984 1 20.4125 1 9.9699 1 2.0225 11.9924 0.0000 1 4,145.458 1 4,145.458 1 1.1955 1 0.0000 � 4,162.909 0 I 0 I 1 1 9 '1 I I I I 1 I 1 I • 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1- 1 I 1 2021 •1 54.8165 1 21.1629 1 19.4425 1 0.0421 1 0.9136 1 0.9706 1 1.8842 1 0.2474 1 0.9126 1.1600 0.0000 1 4,114.250 14,114.25061 0.6863 1 0.0000 � 4,131.408 6 I I 1 I 1 '1 I I I 1 1 I I I • 1 I I I I Maximum 54.8165 42.4677 22.1572 0.0424 18.2141 2.1984 20.4125 9.9699 2.0225 11.9924 0.0000 4,145.458 4,145.458 1.1955 0.0000 4,162.909 0 0 9 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Year lb/day lb/day I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 2020 •1 4.1452 I 42.4677 1 22.1572 I 0.0424 1 18.2141 1 2.1984 1 20.4125 1 9.9699 1 2.0225 11.9924 � 0.0000 1 4,145.458 1 4,145.458 I 1.1955 1 0.0000 i 4,162.909 0 1 0 I 1 I 9 ;� I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 • I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 2021 :: 54.8165 I 21.1629 1 19.4425 I 0.0421 1 0.9136 1 0.9706 1 1.8842 1 0.2474 1 0.9126 1.1600 � 0.0000 i 4,114.250614,114.25061 0.6863 1 0.0000 i 4,131.408 '1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 Maximum 54.8165 42.4677 22.1572 0.0424 18.2141 2.1984 20.4125 9.9699 2.0225 177000 4,145.458 4,145.458 1.1955 0.0000 4,162.909 11 0 0 9 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction Packet Pg. 301 5.1.e CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Page 3 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 2.2317 i 3.9000e- i 0.0424 i 0.0000 1.5000e- i 1.5000e- i i 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 0.0908 0.0908 i 2.4000e- 0.0968 i 004 004 i 004 004 004 004 � � ---- ----.-------j------- j------- j------- j------- j------- j------- j------- j--------I-------_-------------- -----------------------*------- Energy •i 0.0968 i 0.8797 i 0.7389 i 5.2800e- 0.0669 i 0.0669 i i 0.0669 0.0669 � i 1,055.583 i 1,055.583 i 0.0202 0.0194 1 1,061.856 003 i i i i i 2 i 2 i i i 0 ------------i------- j------- j------- j------- j------- j------- j------- j------- j ---------------_-------i------- -------------- -------*------- Mobile i 1.5468 i 10.4269 i 16.7635 � 0.0577 i 4.5812 i 0.0560 i 4.6372 i 1.2275 i 0.0526 1.2801 � :-5,870.178 i 5,870.178 i 0.2859 5,877.326 8 i 8 i i Total 3.8753 11.3069 17.5448 0.0630 4.5812 0.1230 4.7042 1.2275 0.1196 1.3471 6,925.852 6,925.852 0.3064 0.0194 6,939.279 11 9 9 5 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Category lb/day lb/day Area 2.2317 3.9000e- 0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 0.0908 0.0908 2.4000e- 0.0968 �� i i i � i i 004 004 004 004 004 , 004 i ------------------------------------'------------------------------------ -----------------------------------*------- Energy �� 0.0968 i 0.8797 0.7389 i 5.2800e- 0.0669 i 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 � 1,055.583 1,055.583 i 0.0202 0.0194 i 1,061.856 i 003 , 2 2 i 0 --------------- Mobile �� 1.5468 i 10.4269 � 16.7635 i 0.0577 � 4.5812 � 0.0560 i 4.6372 � 1.2275 i 0.0526 1.2801 � i 5,870.178 5,870.178 i 0.2859 5,877.326 8 8 i 7 Total 3.8753 11.3069 17.5448 0.0630 4.5812 0.1230 4.7042 1.2275 0.1196 6,925.852 0.3064 0.0194 6,939.279 11 177T6,925.852 9 9 j 5 Packet Pg. 302 5.1.e CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 26 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 •Demolition !Demolition !3/23/2020 14/17/2020 5 20: i i 2 Site Preparation +Site Preparation !4/18/2020 i4/24/2020 5: 5: i i 3 •Grading +Grading !4/25/2020 i5/6/2020 5: 8: i i 4 •Building Construction +Building Construction 15/7/2020 i3/24/2021 5 230: i i 5 :Paving +Paving !3/25/2021 i4/19/2021 5 18: + I i 6 -Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating -4/20/2021 -5/13/2021 5, 18- Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 4 Acres of Paving: 2.49 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 134,550; Non -Residential Outdoor: 44,850; Striped Parking Area: 6,648 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment Packet Pg. 303 5.1.e CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ; 8.001 81 : 0.73 -------------------------- �- - -------------------------- ----------- Demolition +Excavators ; 3 8.001 158, 0.38 + _ i _ Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 21 8.001 247: 0.40 -----------------------------a _ i - - - -------------------------- ----------- Site Preparation +Rubber Tired Dozers ; 3 8.001 247, 0.40 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 41 8.001 97, 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Excavators ; 1 8.001 158, 0.38 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Graders ; 1 8.001 187, 0.41 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1 8.001 247, 0.40 ---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------i ------ - - - - --------------- ----------- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 31 8.001 97, 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Cranes ; 1 7.001 231, 0.29 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Forklifts ; 31 8.001 89, 0.20 1 �- ------------------- ------------------ Building Construction 'Generator Sets ; 1 8.001 84, 0.74 + _ __ i i _ Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 31 7.001 _ 97, 0.37 a i - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Welders ; 1 8.001 __ 46, 0.45 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Paving 'Cement and Mortar Mixers ; 21 6.001 9. 0.56 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving +Pavers ; 1 8.001 130, 0.42 --------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Paving Equipment ; 21 6.001 132, 0.36 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Rollers ; 2 6.001 80, 0.38 --------------------------- ------------- ----------- Paving +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1 8.001 97, 0.37 ---------------------------- --------------------------*-----------------f------------ r------------- ----------- Architectural Coating :Air Compressors 1 6.00: 78: 0.48 Trips and VMT Packet Pg. 304 5.1.e CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM Phase Name I Offroad Equipment I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Vehicle I Vendor I Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition 6; 15.00; 0.001 0.00; 10.80; 7.30; 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix IHHDT Site Preparation ------------- -= 7; i--------------------;---------- 18.00- i 0.001 0.00: ---------- 10.80; , 7.30; -- = ------------i--------------------- 20.00;LD_Mix IHDT_Mix HHDT --------------- ° Grading A -------------; 6; 15.00: --------i 0.001 0.00: --------------------------------- 10.80; 7.30; 20.00;LD_Mix ----------' iHDT_Mix -------- IHHDT ----------------° �- Building Construction -------------=---------------''''-, 9; i------------ 84.00- I --------i 33.001 �- 0.00: ---------' --------- '- 10.80; 1-----------------------�----------' 7.30; 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -------- THHDT ----------------° r- Paving -------------=--------------------, 8; i------------ 20.00: --------i 0.001 ,- 0.00: ---------' --------- �- 10.80; ------------------------ 7.30; 20.00;1-D_Mix ----------' iHDT_Mix --''---- IHHDT Architectural Coating ; 1; 17.00, 0.00, 0.00, 10.80, 7.30, 20.00 LID _Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road 3.3121 , 33.2010 , 21.7532 , 0.0388 , , 1.6587 , 1.6587 , , 1.5419 ; 1.5419 3,747.704 , 3,747.704 , 1.0580 , i 3,774.153 g i 9 6 Total 3.3121 33.2010 21.7532 0.0388 1.6587 1.6587 1.5419 1.5419 3,747.704 3,747.704 1.0580 3,774.153 9 9 6 Packet Pg. 305 5.1.e CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.2 Demolition - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Page 7 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor -1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0572 i 0.0420 i 0.4040 � 1.1600e- i 0.1232 � 8.2000e- � 0.1240 i 0.0327 � 7.6000e- 0.0334 � i 115.3063 � 115.3063 � 3.0100e- i i 115.3815 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0572 0.0420 0.4040 1.1600e- 0.1232 8.2000e- 0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e- 0.0334 115.3063 115.3063 3.0100e- 115.3815 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 3.3121 i 33.2010 i 21.7532 0.0388 1.6587 1.6587 1.5419 1.5419 0.0000 i 3,747.704 3,747.704 1.0580 3,774.153 9 i 9 i 6 Total 3.3121 33.2010 21.7532 0.0388 1.6587 1.6587 1.5419 1.5419 0.0000 3,747.704 3,747.704 1.0580 3,774.153 9 9 6 Packet Pg. 306 5.1.e CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.2 Demolition - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Page 8 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0572 i 0.0420 i 0.4040 � 1.1600e- i 0.1232 � 8.2000e- � 0.1240 i 0.0327 � 7.6000e- 0.0334 � i 115.3063 � 115.3063 � 3.0100e- i i 115.3815 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0572 0.0420 0.4040 1.1600e- 0.1232 8.2000e- 0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e- 0.0334 115.3063 115.3063 3.0100e- 115.3815 003 004 004 003 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i 18.0663 0.0000 i 18.0663 i 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.0765 i 42.4173 i 21.5136 0.0380 i 2.1974 2.1974 i 2.0216 2.0216 i 3,685.101 3,685.101 1.19............. i 3,714.897 '� i i i i i i i i • 6 i 6 i i i 5 Total 4.0765 42.4173 21.5136 0.0380 18.0663 2.1974 20.2637 9.9307 2.0216 11.9523 3,685.101 3,685.101 1.1918 3,714.897 6 6 5 Packet Pg. 307 5.1.e CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Page 9 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 • --------------- Worker •i 0.0687 i 0.0504 i 0.4849 1.3900e- i 0.1479 9.9000e- 0.1489 i 0.0392 9.1000e- 0.0401 138.3675 138.3675 3.6100e- i i 138.4578 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0687 0.0504 0.4849 1.3900e- 0.1479 9.9000e- 0.1489 0.0392 9.1000e- 0.0401 138.3675 138.3675 3.61077 138.4578 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i 18.0663 0.0000 i 18.0663 i 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.0765 i 42.4173 i 21.5136 0.0380 2.1974 2.1974 2.0216 2.0216 0.0000 i 3,685.101 3,685.101 1.1918 i i 3,714.897 '� i i i i i i i i i i i • 6 6 i 5 Total 4.0765 42.4173 21.5136 0.0380 18.0663 2.1974 20.2637 9.9307 2.0216 11.9523 0.0000 3,685.101 3,685.101 1.1918 3,714.897 6 6 5 Packet Pg. 308 5.1.e CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Page 10 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 • --------------- Worker •i 0.0687 i 0.0504 i 0.4849 1.3900e- i 0.1479 9.9000e- 0.1489 i 0.0392 9.1000e- 0.0401 138.3675 138.3675 3.6100e- i i 138.4578 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0687 0.0504 0.4849 1.3900e- 0.1479 9.9000e- 0.1489 0.0392 9.1000e- 0.0401 138.3675 138.3675 3.61077 138.4578 003 004 004 003 3.4 Grading - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 i 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 2.4288 i 26.3859 i 16.0530 0.0297 i 1.2734 1.2734 i 1.1716 1.1716 i 2,872.485 2,872.485 0.9290 2,895.710 '� i i i i i i i i • 1 i 1 i 6 Total 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 6.5523 1.2734 7.8258 3.3675 1.1716 4.5390 2,872.485 2,872.485 0.9290 2,895.710 1 1 6 Packet Pg. 309 5.1.e CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.4 Grading - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Page 11 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 • Worker •i 0.0572 i 0.0420 i 0.4040 1.1600e- i 0.1232 8.2000e- 0.1240 i 0.0327 7.6000e- 0.0334 115.3063 115.3063 3.0100e- i i 115.3815 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0572 0.0420 0.4040 1.1600e- 0.1232 8.2000e- 0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e- 0.0334 115.3063 115.3063 3.01077 115.3815 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 i 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 2.4288 i 26.3859 i 16.0530 0.0297 1.2734 1.2734 1.1716 1.1716 0.0000 i 2,872.485 2,872.485 0.9290 i i 2,895.710 '� i i i i i i i i • 1 i 1 i 6 Total 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 6.5523 1.2734 7.8258 3.3675 1.1716 4.5390 0.0000 2,872.485 2,872.485 0.9290 2,895.710 1 1 6 Packet Pg. 310 5.1.e CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.4 Grading - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Page 12 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0572 i 0.0420 i 0.4040 � 1.1600e- i 0.1232 � 8.2000e- � 0.1240 i 0.0327 � 7.6000e- 0.0334 � i 115.3063 � 115.3063 � 3.0100e- i i 115.3815 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0572 0.0420 0.4040 1.1600e- 0.1232 8.2000e- 0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e- 0.0334 115.3063 115.3063 3.0100e- 115.3815 003 004 004 003 3.5 Building Construction - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 2.1198 i 19.1860 i 16.8485 0.0269 i i 1.1171 i 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 2,553.063 2,553.063 0.6229 i i 2,568.634 1 i 1 i 5 Total 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 2,553.063 2,553.063 0.6229 2,568.634 1 1 5 Packet Pg. 311 5.1.e CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.5 Building Construction - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Page 13 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.1276 i 3.8725 i 0.9016 � 8.9700e- i 0.2236 � 0.0182 � 0.2418 i 0.0644 � 0.0174 0.0818 � i 946.6798 � 946.6798 � 0.0584 i i 948.1390 '� 003 Worker •i 0.3206 i 0.2352 i 2.2626 6.4800e- i 0.6900 4.6100e- 0.6947 i 0.1830 4.2500e- 0.1873 i 645.7151 645.7151 0.0169 i i 646.1365 003 003 003 i Total 0.4482 4.1077 3.1643 0.0155 0.9136 0.0228 0.9364 0.2474 0.0216 0.2690 1,592.395 1,592.395 0.0752 1,594.275 0 0 5 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 2.1198 i 19.1860 i 16.8485 0.0269 i i 1.1171 i 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 0.0000 i 2,553.063 2,553.063 0.6229 i i 2,568.634 '� i i i i i i i 1 i 1 i 5 • Total 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 2,553.063 2,553.063 0.6229 2,568.634 [737000 1 1 5 Packet Pg. 312 5.1.e CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.5 Building Construction - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Page 14 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.1276 i 3.8725 i 0.9016 � 8.9700e- i 0.2236 � 0.0182 � 0.2418 i 0.0644 � 0.0174 0.0818 � i 946.6798 � 946.6798 � 0.0584 i i 948.1390 '� 003 Worker •i 0.3206 i 0.2352 i 2.2626 6.4800e- i 0.6900 4.6100e- 0.6947 i 0.1830 4.2500e- 0.1873 i 645.7151 645.7151 0.0169 i i 646.1365 003 003 003 i Total 0.4482 4.1077 3.1643 0.0155 0.9136 0.0228 0.9364 0.2474 0.0216 0.2690 1,592.395 1,592.395 0.0752 1,594.275 0 0 5 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.9009 i 17.4321 i 16.5752 0.0269 i i 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 i 2,553.363 0.6160 2,568.764 '� i i i i i i • 9 i 9 i 3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 2,553.363 0.6160 2,568.764 j j j j 9 9 3 Packet Pg. 313 5.1.e CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Page 15 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.1056 i 3.5210 i 0.8085 � 8.8800e- i 0.2236 � 7.4900e- � 0.2311 i 0.0644 � 7.1700e- 0.0716 � i 937.5716 � 937.5716 � 0.0553 i i 938.9527 '� 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.2960 i 0.2098 i 2.0588 6.2500e- i 0.6900 4.4600e- 0.6945 i 0.1830 4.1100e- 0.1871 623.3152 623.3152 0.0150 i i 623.6911 003 003 003 i Total 0.4016 3.7308 2.8673 0.0151 0.9136 0.0120 0.9256 0.2474 0.0113 0.2587 1,560.886 1,560.886 0.0703 1,562.643 7 7 8 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.9009 i 17.4321 i 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 i 2,553.363 i 2,553.363 0.6160 2,568.764 '� i i i i i i • 9 i 9 i 3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 2,553.363 2,553.363 0.6160 2,568.764 j j j j [777000 9 9 3 Packet Pg. 314 5.1.e CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Page 16 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.1056 i 3.5210 i 0.8085 � 8.8800e- i 0.2236 � 7.4900e- � 0.2311 i 0.0644 � 7.1700e- 0.0716 � i 937.5716 � 937.5716 � 0.0553 i i 938.9527 '� 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.2960 i 0.2098 i 2.0588 6.2500e- i 0.6900 4.4600e- 0.6945 i 0.1830 4.1100e- 0.1871 623.3152 623.3152 0.0150 i i 623.6911 003 003 003 i Total 0.4016 3.7308 2.8673 0.0151 0.9136 0.0120 0.9256 0.2474 0.0113 0.2587 1,560.886 1,560.886 0.0703 1,562.643 7 7 8 3.6 Paving - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.0940 i 10.8399 i 12.2603 0.0189 0.5788 0.5788 0.5342 0.5342 1,804.552 1,804.552 0.5670 i i 1,818.727 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 1.0940 10.8399 12.2603 0.0189 0.5788 0.5788 0.5342 777 1,804.552 1,804.552 0.5670 1718.727 3 3 0 Packet Pg. 315 5.1.e CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.6 Paving - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Page 17 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0705 i 0.0499 i 0.4902 1.4900e- i 0.1643 1.0600e- 0.1654 i 0.0436 9.8000e- 0.0446 148.4084 148.4084 3.5800e- i i 148.4979 003 003 004 003 i Total 0.0705 0.0499 0.4902 1.4900e- 0.1643 1.0600e- 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 0.0446 148.4084 148.4084 3.5800e- 148,4979 003 003 004 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.0940 i 10.8399 i 12.2603 0.0189 0.5788 0.5788 0.5342 0.5342 0.0000 i 1,804.552 1,804.552 0.5670 i i 1,818.727 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 1.0940 10.8399 12.2603 0.0189 0.5788 0.5788 0.5342 0.5342 0.0000 1,804.552 1,804.552 0.5670 1718.727 3 3 0 Packet Pg. 316 5.1.e CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.6 Paving - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Page 18 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 • --------------- Worker •i 0.0705 i 0.0499 i 0.4902 1.4900e- i 0.1643 1.0600e- 0.1654 i 0.0436 9.8000e- 0.0446 148.4084 148.4084 3.5800e- i i 148.4979 003 003 004 003 i Total 0.0705 0.0499 0.4902 1.4900e- 0.1643 1.0600e- 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 0.0446 148.4084 148.4084 3.58077 148.4979 003 003 004 003 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •i 54.5377 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.2189 i 1.5268 i 1.8176 2.9700e- 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 i i 281.9309 003 i i i i i • i i i i Total 54.7566 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e- 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 003 Packet Pg. 317 5.1.e CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Page 19 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0599 i 0.0425 i 0.4167 1.2700e- i 0.1397 9.000Oe- 0.1406 i 0.0370 8.3000e- 0.0379 126.1471 � 126.1471 3.0400e- i i 126.2232 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0599 0.0425 0.4167 1.2700e- 0.1397 9.000Oe- 0.1406 0.0370 8.3000e- 0.0379 126.1471 126.1471 3.04077 126.2232 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •i 54.5377 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •1 0.2189 i 1.5268 i 1.8176 2.9700e- 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0000 i 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 i i 281.9309 003 i i i i i • i i i i Total 54.7566 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e- 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 11 003 Packet Pg. 318 5.1.e CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Page 20 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0599 i 0.0425 i 0.4167 � 1.2700e- i 0.1397 � 9.00OOe- � 0.1406 i 0.0370 � 8.3000e- 0.0379 � i 126.1471 � 126.1471 � 3.0400e- i i 126.2232 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0599 0.0425 0.4167 1.2700e- 0.1397 9.00OOe- 0.1406 0.0370 8.3000e- 0.0379 126.1471 126.1471 3.0400e- 126.2232 003 004 004 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Packet Pg. 319 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 26 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 1.5468 10.4269 16.7635 � 0.0577 i 4.5812 � 0.0560 4.6372 i 1.2275 i 0.0526 1.2801 5,870.178 � 5,870.178 i 0.2859 i 1 5,877.326 '� i i i i i i i i • 8 i 8 i i i 7 - - - - - - - - - -3-------------- i------------------------------ }--------------+----------------------------- --------------- --------------- } - ---- * - - - - - - - + - - - --------------- I--------------- --------------- 4---------------- - - - - - - - Unmitigated 1.5468 10.4269 16.7635 0.0577 4.5812 0.0560 4.6372 1.2275 0.0526 1.2801 5,870.178 • 5,870.178 • 0.2859 5,877.326 8 8 7 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 ................................................... -------------------- -----------------------:-------------------------- Hotel ; 1,127.46 1,130.22 821.10 2,059,693 2,059,693 Total 1,127.46 1,130.22 821.10 2,059,693 2,059,693 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass -by Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 ........................ r----------rt---------T----------,i•------------------r--------t---------------------------------- Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 ----------------- 38 4 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.560371r 0.039285; 0.190378; 0.108244; 0.016023; 0.005202; 0.023981; 0.045200; 0.002184; 0.002561; 0.005524; 0.0003261 0.000721 Hotel 0.560371 • 0.039285 , 0.190378 , 0.108244 , 0.016023 , 0.005202 , 0.023981 , 0.045200 , 0.002184 , 0.002561 , 0.005524 , 0.000326 , 0.000721 Packet Pg. 320 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 5.0 Energy Detail Page 22 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM Historical Energy Use: N ar 0 x 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy L E U L ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day NaturalGas •i 0.0968 i 0.8797 i 0.7389 5.2800e- i i 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583 11,055.583 1 0.0202 i 0.0194 1 1,061.856 Mitigated 003 . i 2 2 i 0 NaturalGas 0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e- - 0.0669 0.0669 - 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583 • 1,055.583 • 0.0202 - 0.0194 1,061.856 Unmitigated 003 2 2 0 Packet Pg. 321 5.1.e CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated Page 23 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 IPM2.5Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I I Enclosed Parking 1 0 •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 with Elevator 'I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 • I I I I Hotel 8972.46 •I 0.0968 I 0.8797 I 0.7389 15.2800e- I I 0.0669 I 0.0669 I I 0.0669 0.0669 • 11,055.583 11,055.583 I 0.0202 I 0.0194 1,061.856 003 I I I 1 1 ; I 2 1 2 I I 1 0 1 'I I 1 I I I I 1 1 • I I I I I Total 0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e- 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583 1,055.583 0.0202 0.0194 1,061.856 003 2 2 0 Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I Enclosed Parking � 0 �I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 0.0000 � I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 with Elevator I • I I I ---- * ------ r �l I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I Hotel 8.97246 �I 0.0968 I 0.8797 I 0.7389 15.2800e- I I 0.0669 1 0.0669 1 I 0.0669 0.0669 11,055.583 11,055.583 1 0.0202 I 0.0194 1,061.856 1 1 •I I I 1 003 I I I 1 1 • 1 2 1 2 I I I 0 Total 0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e- 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583 1,055.583 0.0202 0.0194 1,061.856 003 2 2 0 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Packet Pg. 322 5.1.e CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 26 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total I Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 177Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 2.2317 i 3.9000e- i 0.0424 i 0.0000 1.5000e- i 1.5000e- i i 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 0.0908 i 0.0908 i 2.4000e- i i 0.0968 004 004 004 004 004 . 004 i Unmitigated 2.2317 - 3.9000e- 0.0424 0.0000 - 1.5000e- - 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 0.0908 0.0908 - 2.4000e- 0.0968 004 004 004 004 004 004 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 0.2690 i i i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 i � 0.0000 0.0000 � Coating Consumer •i 1.9588 i i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Products •� . i Landscaping •i 3.9500e- i 3.9000e- i 0.0424 � 0.0000 i i 1.5000e- i 1.5000e- i i 1.5000e- 1.5000e- � i 0.0908 i 0.0908 i 2.4000e- i � 0.0968 003 004 004 004 004 004 004 i Total 2.2317 3.9000e- 0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 0.0908 0.0908 2.4000e- 0.0968 004 004 004 004 004 004 Packet Pg. 323 5.1.e CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated Page 25 of 26 Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust Bio- C:O NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I IPM2.5-rotal Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 0.2690 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � i 0.0000 0.0000 i � 0.0000 i � � 0.0000 Coating '� � Consumer •1 1.9588 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � i � 0.0000 0.0000 Products Landscaping •i 3.9500e- 3.9000e- 0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 0.0908 0.0908 2.4000e- � 0.0968 i i i � i i � 003 004 004 004 004 004 004 i Total 2.2317 3.9000e- 0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 1.5000e- 0.0908 0.0908 0e 2.400- 0.0968 004 004 004 004 004 004 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Packet Pg. 324 5.1.e CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 26 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PM Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers a� 0 Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type = R L User Defined Equipment E �a Equipment Type Number V L d 11.0 Vegetation a� E Packet Pg. 325 5.1.e Start date and time 03/23/20 14:33:11 AERSCREEN 16216 CambriaHotel Construction CambriaHotel Construction ----------------- DATA ENTRY VALIDATION ----------------- METRIC ENGLISH ** AREADATA ** --------------- Emission Rate: 0.315E-02 g/s Area Height: 3.00 meters Area Source Length: 102.00 meters Area Source Width: Vertical Dimension: Model Mode: Population: Dist to Ambient Air: ** BUILDING DATA ** 36.00 meters 1.50 meters URBAN 60939 0.250E-01 lb/hr 9.84 feet 334.65 feet 118.11 feet 4.92 feet 1.0 meters 3. feet Packet Pg. 326 5.1.e No Building Downwash Parameters ** TERRAIN DATA ** No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters Probe distance: 5000. meters No flagpole receptors No discrete receptors used ** FUMIGATION DATA ** No fumigation requested ** METEOROLOGY DATA ** 0.0 feet 16404. feet Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K -9.7 / 98.3 Deg F Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Packet Pg. 327 5.1.e Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters Dominant Surface Profile: Urban Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted DEBUG OPTION ON AERSCREEN output file: 2020.03.23 CambriaHotel AERSCREEN Construction.out *** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run ************************************************** SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET Obtaining surface characteristics... Packet Pg. 328 5.1.e Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture Season Albedo Bo zo Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000 Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000 Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000 a� 0 Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000 = 0 �L E U Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe FLOWSECTOR started 03/23/20 14:34:09 ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Winter Processing surface roughness sector 1 Packet Pg. 329 5.1.e ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Packet Pg. 330 5.1.e ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Spring Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 Packet Pg. 331 5.1.e AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15 Packet Pg. 332 5.1.e ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 a� 0 x 0 L AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20 E 0 U ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Summer Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Packet Pg. 333 5.1.e ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Packet Pg. 334 5.1.e ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Autumn Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 Packet Pg. 335 5.1.e AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20 Packet Pg. 336 5.1.e ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** FLOWSECTOR ended 03/23/20 14:34:15 REFINE started 03/23/20 14:34:15 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** REFINE ended 03/23/20 14:34:17 ********************************************** AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warnings Check log file for details *********************************************** Ending date and time 03/23/20 14:34:19 Packet Pg. 337 5.1.e Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-0 LEN ZO BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT 0.14634E+02 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17065E+02 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18744E+02 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 a� 0 * 0.18855E+02 52.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 = -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 L 310.0 2.0 E 0.10602E+02 75.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 L 310.0 2.0 0.66920E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 r 310.0 2.0 E 0.47640E+01 125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 v 310.0 2.0 z 0.36386E+01 150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 D J -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29086E+01 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 = -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 •L 310.0 2.0 0.24025E+01 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 U -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 N 1* 0.20319E+01 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 c -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 310.0 2.0 N Sri 0.17521E+01 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 w -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 a0i 310.0 2.0 0.15320E+01 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 Q 310.0 2.0 0.13565E+01 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12131E+01 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10944E+01 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 Packet Pg. 338 5.1.e 0.99422E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90893E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.83573E+00 425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.77220E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 a� 0 310.0 2.0 = 0.71671E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 E 310.0 2.0 0.66785E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62454E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 E 310.0 2.0 0 0 0.58593E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 v -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 z 310.0 2.0 D J 0.55117E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 310.0 2.0 = 0.51984E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 f° �L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 v 0.49139E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 N 1* 310.0 2.0 c 0.46548E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 N ui 310.0 2.0 w 0.44185E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 aa) -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42022E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 Q -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40149E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38319E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36629E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 Packet Pg. 339 5.1.e -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35063E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33610E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32259E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30999E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 a� 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 = 310.0 2.0 L 0.29821E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 L 0.28719E+00 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 r 0.27686E+00 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 E -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 0 310.0 2.0 v 0.26715E+00 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 z -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 2 J 310.0 2.0 0.25802E+00 1000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 = 310.0 2.0 •L 0.24941E+00 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 v 310.0 2.0 N 0.24130E+00 1050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 1* -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 c 310.0 2.0 0 0.23362E+00 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 ui -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 w 310.0 2.0 a0i 0.22637E+00 1100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Q 0.21949E+00 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21296E+00 1150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20677E+00 1175.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Packet Pg. 340 5.1.e 0.20088E+00 1200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19527E+00 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18994E+00 1250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18484E+00 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 a� 0 0.17999E+00 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 = -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 L 310.0 2.0 E 0.17534E+00 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 L 310.0 2.0 0.17090E+00 1350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 r 310.0 2.0 0.16666E+00 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 v 310.0 2.0 z 0.16259E+00 1400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 D J -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15869E+00 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 = -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 •L 310.0 2.0 0.15495E+00 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 U -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 N 1* 0.15136E+00 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 c -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 310.0 2.0 N Sri 0.14791E+00 1500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 w -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 a0i 310.0 2.0 0.14459E+00 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 Q 310.0 2.0 0.14141E+00 1550.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13834E+00 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13538E+00 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 Packet Pg. 341 5.1.e 0.13254E+00 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12979E+00 1650.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12715E+00 1675.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12459E+00 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 a� 0 310.0 2.0 = 0.12212E+00 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 E 310.0 2.0 0.11974E+00 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11743E+00 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 E 310.0 2.0 0 0 0.11520E+00 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 v -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 z 310.0 2.0 D J 0.11304E+00 1825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 310.0 2.0 = 0.11096E+00 1850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 f° �L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 v 0.10893E+00 1875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 N 1* 310.0 2.0 c 0.10698E+00 1900.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 N ui 310.0 2.0 w 0.10508E+00 1925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 aa) -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10323E+00 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 Q -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10145E+00 1975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99716E-01 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.98034E-01 2025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 Packet Pg. 342 5.1.e -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.96399E-01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.94812E-01 2075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.93270E-01 2100.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.91770E-01 2125.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 a� 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 = 310.0 2.0 L 0.90311E-01 2150.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 L 0.88893E-01 2175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 r 0.87512E-01 2200.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 E -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 0 310.0 2.0 v 0.86168E-01 2224.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 z -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 2 J 310.0 2.0 0.84860E-01 2250.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 = 310.0 2.0 •L 0.83585E-01 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 v 310.0 2.0 N 0.82343E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 1* -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 c 310.0 2.0 0 0.81133E-01 2325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 ui -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 w 310.0 2.0 a0i 0.79954E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Q 0.78804E-01 2375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.77682E-01 2400.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76587E-01 2425.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Packet Pg. 343 5.1.e 0.75519E-01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74477E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.73459E-01 2500.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72465E-01 2525.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 a� 0 0.71494E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 = -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 L 310.0 2.0 E 0.70545E-01 2575.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 L 310.0 2.0 0.69618E-01 2600.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 r 310.0 2.0 0.68712E-01 2625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 v 310.0 2.0 z 0.67826E-01 2650.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 D J -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.66960E-01 2675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 = -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 •L 310.0 2.0 0.66113E-01 2700.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 U -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 N 1* 0.65284E-01 2725.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 c -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 310.0 2.0 N Sri 0.64473E-01 2750.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 w -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 a0i 310.0 2.0 0.63679E-01 2775.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 Q 310.0 2.0 0.62902E-01 2800.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62141E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61396E-01 2850.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 Packet Pg. 344 5.1.e 0.60667E-01 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59952E-01 2900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59252E-01 2925.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58566E-01 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 a� 0 310.0 2.0 = 0.57893E-01 2975.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 E 310.0 2.0 0.57234E-01 3000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56587E-01 3025.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 E 310.0 2.0 0 0 0.55953E-01 3050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 v -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 z 310.0 2.0 D J 0.55332E-01 3075.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 310.0 2.0 = 0.54722E-01 3100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 f° �L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 v 0.54124E-01 3125.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 N 1* 310.0 2.0 c 0.53537E-01 3150.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 N ui 310.0 2.0 w 0.52961E-01 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 aa) -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52395E-01 3200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 Q -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51840E-01 3225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51295E-01 3250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50760E-01 3275.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 Packet Pg. 345 5.1.e -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50235E-01 3300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49719E-01 3325.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49212E-01 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48714E-01 3375.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 a� 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 = 310.0 2.0 L 0.48224E-01 3400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 L 0.47743E-01 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 r 0.47270E-01 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 E -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 0 310.0 2.0 v 0.46806E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 z -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 2 J 310.0 2.0 0.46349E-01 3500.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 = 310.0 2.0 •L 0.45899E-01 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 v 310.0 2.0 N 0.45458E-01 3550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 1* -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 c 310.0 2.0 0 0.45023E-01 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 ui -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 w 310.0 2.0 a0i 0.44596E-01 3600.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Q 0.44176E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43762E-01 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43356E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Packet Pg. 346 5.1.e 0.42955E-01 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42561E-01 3725.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42174E-01 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41792E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 a� 0 0.41416E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 = -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 L 310.0 2.0 E 0.41046E-01 3825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 L 310.0 2.0 0.40682E-01 3849.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 r 310.0 2.0 0.40323E-01 3875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 v 310.0 2.0 z 0.39970E-01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 D J -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39622E-01 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 = -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 •L 310.0 2.0 0.39280E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 U -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 N 1* 0.38942E-01 3975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 c -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 310.0 2.0 N Sri 0.38610E-01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 w -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 a0i 310.0 2.0 0.38282E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 Q 310.0 2.0 0.37959E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37641E-01 4075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37327E-01 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 Packet Pg. 347 5.1.e 0.37018E-01 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36713E-01 4150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36413E-01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36117E-01 4200.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 a� 0 310.0 2.0 = 0.35825E-01 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 E 310.0 2.0 0.35537E-01 4250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35253E-01 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 E 310.0 2.0 0 0 0.34973E-01 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 v -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 z 310.0 2.0 D J 0.34697E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 310.0 2.0 = 0.34424E-01 4350.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 f° �L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 v 0.34155E-01 4375.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 N 1* 310.0 2.0 c 0.33890E-01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 N ui 310.0 2.0 w 0.33629E-01 4425.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 aa) -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33370E-01 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 Q -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33116E-01 4475.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32864E-01 4500.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32616E-01 4525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 Packet Pg. 348 5.1.e -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32371E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32130E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31891E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31655E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 a� 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 = 310.0 2.0 L 0.31423E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 L 0.31193E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 r 0.30966E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 E -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 0 310.0 2.0 v 0.30743E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 z -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 2 J 310.0 2.0 0.30522E-01 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 = 310.0 2.0 •L 0.30303E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 v 310.0 2.0 N 0.30088E-01 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 1* -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 c 310.0 2.0 0 0.29874E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 ui -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 w 310.0 2.0 a0i 0.29664E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Q 0.29456E-01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29251E-01 4900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29048E-01 4925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Packet Pg. 349 5.1.e 0.28848E-01 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28649E-01 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28454E-01 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Packet Pg. 350 5.1.e Start date and time 03/23/20 14:35:04 AERSCREEN 16216 CambriaHotel_Operation CambriaHotel_Operation ----------------- DATA ENTRY VALIDATION ----------------- METRIC ENGLISH ** AREADATA ** --------------- Emission Rate: 0.630E-03 g/s Area Height: 3.00 meters Area Source Length: 102.00 meters Area Source Width: Vertical Dimension: Model Mode: Population: Dist to Ambient Air: ** BUILDING DATA ** 36.00 meters 1.50 meters URBAN 60939 0.500E-02 lb/hr 9.84 feet 334.65 feet 118.11 feet 4.92 feet 1.0 meters 3. feet Packet Pg. 351 5.1.e No Building Downwash Parameters ** TERRAIN DATA ** No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters Probe distance: 5000. meters No flagpole receptors No discrete receptors used ** FUMIGATION DATA ** No fumigation requested ** METEOROLOGY DATA ** 0.0 feet 16404. feet Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K -9.7 / 98.3 Deg F Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Packet Pg. 352 5.1.e Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters Dominant Surface Profile: Urban Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted DEBUG OPTION ON AERSCREEN output file: 2020.03.23_CambriaHotel_AERSCREEN_Operation.out *** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run ************************************************** SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET Obtaining surface characteristics... Packet Pg. 353 5.1.e Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture Season Albedo Bo zo Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000 Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000 Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000 a� 0 Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000 = 0 �L E U Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe FLOWSECTOR started 03/23/20 14:35:57 ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Winter Processing surface roughness sector 1 Packet Pg. 354 5.1.e ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Packet Pg. 355 5.1.e ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Spring Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 Packet Pg. 356 5.1.e AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15 Packet Pg. 357 5.1.e ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 a� 0 x 0 L AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20 E 0 U ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Summer Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Packet Pg. 358 5.1.e ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Packet Pg. 359 5.1.e ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Autumn Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 Packet Pg. 360 5.1.e AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20 Packet Pg. 361 5.1.e ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** FLOWSECTOR ended 03/23/20 14:36:04 REFINE started 03/23/20 14:36:04 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** REFINE ended 03/23/20 14:36:05 ********************************************** AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warnings Check log file for details *********************************************** Ending date and time 03/23/20 14:36:07 Packet Pg. 362 5.1.e Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-0 LEN ZO BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT 0.29274E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34138E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37496E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 a� 0 * 0.37719E+01 52.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 = -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 L 310.0 2.0 E 0.21209E+01 75.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 L 310.0 2.0 0.13387E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 r 310.0 2.0 E 0.95302E+00 125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 v 310.0 2.0 z 0.72789E+00 150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 D J -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58186E+00 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 = -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 •L 310.0 2.0 0.48060E+00 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 U -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 N 1* 0.40648E+00 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 c -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 310.0 2.0 N Sri 0.35050E+00 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 w -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 a0i 310.0 2.0 0.30648E+00 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 Q 310.0 2.0 0.27136E+00 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24268E+00 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21894E+00 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 Packet Pg. 363 5.1.e 0.19889E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18183E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16718E+00 425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15448E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 a� 0 310.0 2.0 = 0.14337E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 E 310.0 2.0 0.13360E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12494E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 E 310.0 2.0 0 0 0.11721E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 v -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 z 310.0 2.0 D J 0.11026E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 310.0 2.0 = 0.10399E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 f° �L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 v 0.98301E-01 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 N 1* 310.0 2.0 c 0.93117E-01 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 N ui 310.0 2.0 w 0.88390E-01 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 aa) -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.84063E-01 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 Q -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80317E-01 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76656E-01 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.73275E-01 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 Packet Pg. 364 5.1.e -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.70143E-01 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.67237E-01 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64533E-01 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62011E-01 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 a� 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 = 310.0 2.0 L 0.59656E-01 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 L 0.57452E-01 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 r 0.55384E-01 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 E -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 0 310.0 2.0 v 0.53443E-01 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 z -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 2 J 310.0 2.0 0.51616E-01 1000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 = 310.0 2.0 •L 0.49895E-01 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 v 310.0 2.0 N 0.48271E-01 1050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 1* -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 c 310.0 2.0 0 0.46735E-01 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 ui -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 w 310.0 2.0 a0i 0.45284E-01 1100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Q 0.43908E-01 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42603E-01 1149.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41364E-01 1175.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Packet Pg. 365 5.1.e 0.40185E-01 1200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39064E-01 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37996E-01 1250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36977E-01 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 a� 0 0.36006E-01 1300.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 = -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 L 310.0 2.0 E 0.35077E-01 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 L 310.0 2.0 0.34189E-01 1350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 r 310.0 2.0 0.33339E-01 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 v 310.0 2.0 z 0.32525E-01 1400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 D J -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31745E-01 1425.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 = -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 •L 310.0 2.0 0.30997E-01 1450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 U -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 N 1* 0.30279E-01 1475.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 c -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 310.0 2.0 N Sri 0.29589E-01 1500.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 w -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 a0i 310.0 2.0 0.28926E-01 1525.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 Q 310.0 2.0 0.28288E-01 1550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27674E-01 1575.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27083E-01 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 Packet Pg. 366 5.1.e 0.26514E-01 1625.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25965E-01 1650.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25435E-01 1675.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24924E-01 1700.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 a� 0 310.0 2.0 = 0.24430E-01 1725.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 E 310.0 2.0 0.23953E-01 1750.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23492E-01 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 E 310.0 2.0 0 0 0.23046E-01 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 v -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 z 310.0 2.0 D J 0.22614E-01 1825.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 310.0 2.0 = 0.22197E-01 1850.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 f° �L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 v 0.21792E-01 1875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 N 1* 310.0 2.0 c 0.21400E-01 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 N ui 310.0 2.0 w 0.21020E-01 1924.99 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 aa) -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20652E-01 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 Q -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20295E-01 1975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19948E-01 2000.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19611E-01 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 Packet Pg. 367 5.1.e -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19284E-01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18967E-01 2075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18658E-01 2100.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18358E-01 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 a� 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 = 310.0 2.0 L 0.18066E-01 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 L 0.17783E-01 2175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 r 0.17507E-01 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 E -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 0 310.0 2.0 v 0.17238E-01 2225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 z -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 2 J 310.0 2.0 0.16976E-01 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 = 310.0 2.0 •L 0.16721E-01 2275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 v 310.0 2.0 N 0.16472E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 1* -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 c 310.0 2.0 0 0.16230E-01 2325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 ui -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 w 310.0 2.0 a0i 0.15995E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Q 0.15764E-01 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15540E-01 2400.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15321E-01 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Packet Pg. 368 5.1.e 0.15107E-01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14899E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14695E-01 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14496E-01 2525.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 a� 0 0.14302E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 = -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 L 310.0 2.0 E 0.14112E-01 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 L 310.0 2.0 0.13927E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 r 310.0 2.0 0.13746E-01 2625.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 v 310.0 2.0 z 0.13568E-01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 D J -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13395E-01 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 = -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 •L 310.0 2.0 0.13226E-01 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 U -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 N 1* 0.13060E-01 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 c -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 310.0 2.0 N Sri 0.12898E-01 2750.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 w -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 a0i 310.0 2.0 0.12739E-01 2775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 Q 310.0 2.0 0.12583E-01 2800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12431E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12282E-01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 Packet Pg. 369 5.1.e 0.12136E-01 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11993E-01 2900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11853E-01 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11716E-01 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 a� 0 310.0 2.0 = 0.11581E-01 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 E 310.0 2.0 0.11449E-01 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11320E-01 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 E 310.0 2.0 0 0 0.11193E-01 3050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 v -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 z 310.0 2.0 D J 0.11069E-01 3075.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 310.0 2.0 = 0.10947E-01 3100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 f° �L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 v 0.10827E-01 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 N 1* 310.0 2.0 c 0.10710E-01 3150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 N ui 310.0 2.0 w 0.10595E-01 3175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 aa) -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10482E-01 3200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 Q -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10371E-01 3225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10262E-01 3250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10154E-01 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 Packet Pg. 370 5.1.e -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10049E-01 3300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99461E-02 3325.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.98446E-02 3350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.97450E-02 3375.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 a� 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 = 310.0 2.0 L 0.96471E-02 3400.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 L 0.95508E-02 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 r 0.94562E-02 3450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 E -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 0 310.0 2.0 v 0.93633E-02 3475.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 z -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 2 J 310.0 2.0 0.92719E-02 3500.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 = 310.0 2.0 •L 0.91820E-02 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 v 310.0 2.0 N 0.90937E-02 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 1* -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 c 310.0 2.0 0 0.90068E-02 3575.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 ui -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 w 310.0 2.0 a0i 0.89213E-02 3600.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Q 0.88372E-02 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.87545E-02 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.86731E-02 3675.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Packet Pg. 371 5.1.e 0.85931E-02 3700.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.85143E-02 3724.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.84367E-02 3750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.83603E-02 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 a� 0 0.82852E-02 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 = -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 L 310.0 2.0 E 0.82112E-02 3825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 L 310.0 2.0 0.81383E-02 3849.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 r 310.0 2.0 0.80666E-02 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 v 310.0 2.0 z 0.79959E-02 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 D J -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79263E-02 3925.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 = -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 •L 310.0 2.0 0.78578E-02 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 U -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 N 1* 0.77902E-02 3975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 c -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 310.0 2.0 N Sri 0.77237E-02 4000.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 w -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 a0i 310.0 2.0 0.76582E-02 4025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 Q 310.0 2.0 0.75936E-02 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75299E-02 4075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74672E-02 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 Packet Pg. 372 5.1.e 0.74053E-02 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.73444E-02 4149.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72843E-02 4175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72250E-02 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 a� 0 310.0 2.0 = 0.71666E-02 4225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 E 310.0 2.0 0.71090E-02 4250.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.70522E-02 4275.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 E 310.0 2.0 0 0 0.69962E-02 4300.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 v -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 z 310.0 2.0 D J 0.69409E-02 4325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 310.0 2.0 = 0.68864E-02 4350.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 f° �L -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 v 0.68326E-02 4375.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 N 1* 310.0 2.0 c 0.67796E-02 4400.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 N ui 310.0 2.0 w 0.67273E-02 4425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 aa) -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.66756E-02 4449.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 Q -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.66247E-02 4475.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.65744E-02 4500.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.65247E-02 4525.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 Packet Pg. 373 5.1.e -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64757E-02 4550.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64274E-02 4575.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.63797E-02 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.63325E-02 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 a� 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 = 310.0 2.0 L 0.62860E-02 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 L 0.62401E-02 4675.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 r 0.61947E-02 4700.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 E -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0 0 310.0 2.0 v 0.61499E-02 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 z -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 2 J 310.0 2.0 0.61057E-02 4750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 0 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 = 310.0 2.0 •L 0.60620E-02 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 v 310.0 2.0 N 0.60189E-02 4800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 1* -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 c 310.0 2.0 0 0.59763E-02 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 ui -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 w 310.0 2.0 a0i 0.59342E-02 4850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Q 0.58926E-02 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58515E-02 4900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58110E-02 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Packet Pg. 374 5.1.e 0.57708E-02 4950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57312E-02 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56921E-02 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Packet Pg. 375 5.1.e I+ Technical ConsuRation. Data Analysis and SWAPE LiligakionSupportfor the Enxiroment Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP 1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa Santa Monica, California 90401 Tel: (949) 887-9013 Email: mhagemann@swape.com Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Industrial Stormwater Compliance = Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert E CEQA Review V Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques. Positions Matt has held include: • Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 — present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 — 2014; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); Packet Pg. 376 5.1.e • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001- 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989- 1998); • Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 - 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 - 1998); • Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990-1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986-1998); and • Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984-1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt's responsibilities have included: 0 _ 2 • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water E resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic v hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and J implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. E • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. E • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former �j Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA. Q z • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications J for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. _ • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in 2 �L Southern California drinking water wells. E • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the tj review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas N stations throughout California. o • Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt's duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 2 Packet Pg. 377 5.1.e Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production -related contamination in Mississippi. Lead author for a multi -volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. 3 Packet Pg. 378 5.1.e • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the o discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including M Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business 0 institutions including the Orange County Business Council. M V Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. 4 Packet Pg. 379 5.1.e Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service -wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed -scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high -levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation- wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi -Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy -making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 m 0 x c� �L E M V Packet Pg. 380 Geology With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. m As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later x listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern c° �L Oregon. Duties included the following: E M • Supervised year -long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. U • Conducted aquifer tests. • Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. Packet Pg. 381 5.1.e Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy = of Sciences, Irvine, CA. c° �L E Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a M V tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. L Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter -Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. Packet Pg. 382 5.1.e Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. 0 x VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft c° �L Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. E M V Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 0 Packet Pg. 383 5.1.e Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009- 2011. II Packet Pg. 384 5.1.e SWAPETechnical Consultation, data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Mobil: (310) 795-2335 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email: prosenfeldng,swape.com Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education 0 Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on VOC filtration. _ M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics. B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment. E M V Professional Experience: L Dr. Rosenfeld is the Co -Founder and Principal Environmental Chemist at Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE). His focus is the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, risk assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling, oil spills, boilers, incinerators and other industrial and agricultural sources relating to nuisance and personal injury. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources as they relate to human and ecological health. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing petroleum, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, PCBs, PAHs, dioxins, furans, volatile organics, semi -volatile organics, perchlorate, heavy metals, asbestos, PFOA, unusual polymers, MtBE, fuel oxygenates and odor. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated greenhouse gas emissions using various modeling programs recommended by California Air Quality Management Districts. Professional History: Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex HZO Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 — 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 — 1999; Scientist James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Bureau of Land Management, Kremmling Colorado 1990; Scientist October 2015 Rosenfeld CV Packet Pg. 385 Publications: Chen, J. A., Zapata, A R., Sutherland, A. J., Molmen, D. R,. Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632. Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. m Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and C x Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL. M Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113-125. E Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and U Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal L of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46. y Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530. Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197. Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357. Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344. Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing, Rosenfeld P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (Mel) (2007). Anatomy of an Odor Wheel. Water Science and Technology. Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J.J.J., Hensley A.R., Suffet, I.H. (Mel) (2007). The use of an odor wheel classification for evaluation of human health risk criteria for compost facilities. Water Science And Technology. October 2015 2 Rosenfeld CV Packet Pg. 386 5.1.e Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178. Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor -Quality -Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation's Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178. m Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from = Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315. M L Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using E High -Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management U Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS-6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor. Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262. Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California. October 2015 3 Rosenfeld CV Packet Pg. 387 Presentations: Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA. Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom -Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom -Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. p x Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) 2 Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United M States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted V from Tuscon, AZ. 0 Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States" Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution AVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23Yd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium -Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23"d Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23'd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 — 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants — DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. October 2015 4 Rosenfeld CV Packet Pg. 388 5.1.e Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. Mealey's C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA c Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California. _ 2 Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey's Groundwater .0 Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California. E V Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related c E Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. E Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. C V Q Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Z Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and J Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. m Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability = and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental M Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois. E Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. M U Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona. N 0 Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. o Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ. o N Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. `.6 Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, m California. E Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. October 2015 5 Rosenfeld CV Packet Pg. 389 5.1.e Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High -Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a c Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from = Indianapolis, Maryland. �c� L Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water E Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. 0 Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted L from Ocean Shores, California. Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery c E Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. E 0 U Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Q Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High -Carbon Wood -Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Z Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue J Washington. m Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil = Science Society ofAmerica. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah. M Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from L E Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington. U N Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from c Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington. o N O Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur N Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High -Carbon Wood -Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th `.n Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue m Washington. E s Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Q Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. October 2015 6 Rosenfeld CV Packet Pg. 390 Teaching Experience: UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants. National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks. National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites. 0 California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San = Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design. •`-L° UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation V Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation. 0 University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability. U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10. Academic Grants Awarded: California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment. Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001. Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University. Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000. King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998. Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997. James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round -up. 1996. United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995. Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993. October 2015 7 Rosenfeld CV Packet Pg. 391 5.1.e Deposition and/or Trial Testimony: In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115 Rosenfeld Deposition, September, 2015 In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187 Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al. Civil Action NO. 14-C-30000 Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015 In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward DeRuyter, Defendants Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980 Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015 In the Circuit Court of the 17`h Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant. Case Number CACE07030358 (26) Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014 In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-0 1 152-C Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014 In the County Court of Dallas County Texas Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant. Case Number cc- 11-01650-E Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio October 2015 0 Rosenfeld CV m 0 x 2 E M V Packet Pg. 392 5.1.e John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas for the Second Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, County of Aiken David Anderson, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Norfolk Southern Corporation, et al., Defendants. Case Number: 2007-CP-02-1584 In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076 Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010 In the Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana Roger Price, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Roy O. Martin, L.P., et al., Defendants. Civil Suit Number 224,041 Division G Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2008 In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants. Case Number 2:07CV 1052 Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009 In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Carolyn Baker, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Chevron Oil Company, et al., Defendants. Case Number 1:05 CV 227 Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2008 In the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana Craig Steven Arabie, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants. Case Number 07-2738 G In the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana Leon B. Brydels, Plaintiffs, vs. Conoco, Inc., et al., Defendants. Case Number 2004-6941 Division A In the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 153`d Judicial District Linda Faust, Plaintiff, vs. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company, Witco Chemical Corporation A/K/A Witco Corporation, Solvents and Chemicals, Inc. and Koppers Industries, Inc., Defendants. Case Number 153-212928-05 Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2006, October 2007 Rosenfeld Trial: January 2008 In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino Leroy Allen, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Nutro Products, Inc., a California Corporation and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants. John Loney, Plaintiff, vs. James H. Didion, Sr.; Nutro Products, Inc.; DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. Case Number VCVVSO44671 Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2009 Rosenfeld Trial: March 2010 In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant. Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010, June 2011 October 2015 0 Rosenfeld CV m 0 x M E M V Packet Pg. 393 5.1.e In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles Leslie Hensley and Rick Hensley, Plaintiffs, vs. Peter T. Hoss, as trustee on behalf of the Cone Fee Trust; Plains Exploration & Production Company, a Delaware corporation; Rayne Water Conditioning, Inc., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants. Case Number SC094173 Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2008, October 2008 In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Barbara, Santa Maria Branch Clifford and Shirley Adelhelm, et al., all individually, Plaintiffs, vs. Unocal Corporation, a Delaware c Corporation; Union Oil Company of California, a California corporation; Chevron Corporation, a = California corporation; ConocoPhillips, a Texas corporation; Kerr-McGee Corporation, an Oklahoma M corporation; and DOES 1 though 100, Defendants. Case Number 1229251 (Consolidated with case number 1231299) E Rosenfeld Deposition: January 2008 0 In the United States District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas, Eastern District of Arkansas Harry Stephens Farms, Inc, and Harry Stephens, individual and as managing partner of Stephens Partnership, Plaintiffs, vs. Helena Chemical Company, and Exxon Mobil Corp., successor to Mobil Chemical Co., Defendants. Case Number 2:06-CV-00166 JMM (Consolidated with case number 4:07CV00278 JMM) Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010 In the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division Rhonda Brasel, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Weyerhaeuser Company and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants. Civil Action Number 07-4037 Rosenfeld Deposition: March 2010 Rosenfeld Trial: October 2010 In the District Court of Texas 216t Judicial District of Burleson County Dennis Davis, Plaintiff, vs. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company, Defendant. Case Number 25,151 Rosenfeld Trial: May 2009 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant. Case 3: 1 0-cv-00622 Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013 In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013 October 2015 v Rosenfeld CV Packet Pg. 394 5.1.e Exhibit D J Q Packet Pg. 395 5.1.e SMITH L-NGINF..F,RING & MANAGEMENT March 24, 2020 Mr. Richard Drury Lozeau Drury 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94612 Subject: Cambria Hotel Project, Dublin P20004 Dear Mr. Drury: At your request, I have reviewed the proposal to approve the 138 room hotel and 2 levels of parking to be shared with an adjacent existing office building (the "Project") under exemption under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines § 15182 and the presumption that impacts of the proposed Project were disclosed and mitigated in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (the "DDSP DEIR"). My review is specific to the Traffic and Circulation. My qualifications to perform this review include registration as a Civil and Traffic Engineer in California and over 50 years professional consulting engineering practice in the traffic and transportation industry. I have both prepared and performed adequacy reviews of numerous transportation and circulation sections of environmental impact reports prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act. My professional resume is attached. Findings of my review are summarized below. The Conditions for Approving the Project Without CEQA Review Are Not Met The Project, at least arguably, meets the conditions for eligibility for CEQA exemption under Guidelines §15182 with one exception. Guidelines § 15182 provide that to qualify for said exemption, none of the conditions defined in I RAII'IC •- I-It:ANSPORTAIION • AIANAGIi1IGN-I- >311 Lowre Road. Union Citv, CA 94587 tel: 510.489.9477 1- x: 510.489.947ti Packet Pg. 396 5.1.e Mr. Richard Drury March 24, 2020 Page 2 Guidelines § 15162 can prevail. However, there is substantial evidence that the conditions of "changed circumstances" as defined in Guidelines § 15162 exist with regard to traffic and circulation The Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the DDSP DEIR was circulated in February, 2010. The DEIR for the DDSP was circulated in September, 2010. The DDSP FEIR was certified and the DDSP was incorporated into the Dublin General Plan by update on July 22, 2011. The DDSP Traffic and Circulation analysis relies on an existing traffic data base going back to 2008 and its impact and mitigation findings are based on forecasts of Near Term traffic to 2015 and Cumulative traffic to year 2035. The 2015 analysis is based on existing traffic counts, estimated traffic from a = limited set of entitled projects, 6 within the Project area itself, 4 elsewhere in Dublin 2 and 3 others in nearby areas of Pleasanton and San Ramon, the Project itself, and an estimate of regional traffic growth through the Project study area to 2015. The M 2035 analysis is estimated from Project generated traffic and general plan based U modeled traffic estimates for the area. N The problem with the DEIR analyses is that many additional major projects have been approved in Dublin alone since 2010, many of them not on the entitled projects list in the DEIR and many of them requiring General Plan Amendments, so not reflected in either the 2015 or 2035 analyses. In fact, there have been a total of 12 development projects requiring General Plan Amendments approved in Dublin between 2010 and 2018; the statistics for 2019 and beyond have not yet been posted on the City web site. This is to say nothing of major nearby project approvals in adjacent cities such as the Costco project on Johnson Drive in Pleasanton or pipeline projects in the planning process within Dublin. For example, The Boulevard, a project in Dublin formerly known as Dublin Crossings, involves development of up to 1995 residential dwelling units and supporting facilities on a portion of the former Camp Parks military reservation that was approved under a 6-2-15 General Plan Amendment after a planning process of several years. It appears that no traffic from this significant project, that according to its own EIR would generate 22047 net daily and 2393 net PM peak hour trips', was considered in the DDSP EIR, since development of the Camp Parks property was not reflected in the General Plan or specific area plans previously. The Boulevard (Dublin Crossing). The City may argue that The Boulevard (Dublin Crossings ) project was not a certainty when the NOP for the DDSP EIR was issued, and therefore did not need to be considered in the DDSP EIR. But that is exactly the point. The Boulevard and other projects like it that were insufficiently certain or unknown at the time the DDSP EIR was prepared but that are now approved and in some cases are under construction or partially completed and occupied constitute changed circumstances that would likely increase traffic impacts or their severity over the disclosures in the DDSP EIR. ' See Dublin Crossings Specific Plan Draft EIR, Table 3.12-7. I RAI IIC • -I- R A N S P O R T A I ION • M A N A G Ii 1I L N -I- >311 Lowre Road. Union Citv, CA 94587 tel: 510.489.9477 1- x: 510.489.947ti Packet Pg. 397 5.1.e Mr. Richard Drury March 24, 2020 Page 3 The Dublin Kaiser Permanente Medical Complex, which was approved in 2016 by General Plan Amendment, is another significant example of a significant development in Dublin that was not considered in the DDSP EIR. The Kaiser project includes development of 470,000 square feet of medical office and commercial floor area that is currently in operation in 2020 and expansion to a medical complex of 1.150,000 square feet floor area by 2035. The Kaiser EIR projects that the 2020 phase of the project would generate 16.570 new daily and 1560 new PM peak hour trips while the 2035 stage of development would generate a total of 41,140 net new daily and 3,998 net new PM peak hour trips. a� The Dublin IKEA project constitutes a mixed situation. The project, 410,000 square = feet of commercial that includes a 317,000 square foot IKEA store would, according 2 �L to its EIR, generate 9,630 net new trips daily and 1,018 net new PM peak hour trips. The project was approved in November, 2018 but a General Plan Amendment envisioning an IKEA store on the site was approved considerably earlier, in 2005. What this means is that the IKEA project was not explicitly considered in the DDSP EIR near term (2015) analysis, to the extent that the General Plan Amendment was J representative of the actual IKEA project approved, it would have been reflected in the DDSP EIR 2035 analysis. The recently approved Costco project on Johnson Drive off Stoneridge Drive in Pleasanton includes an ultimate buildout of 246,440 square feet of general retail, 148,000 square feet of club retail with fueling (Costco), 27,550 square feet of general light industrial and a 150 room hotel. The project is estimated to generate 15,740 net new weekday trips and 743 weekday trips in the PM peak hour. The Zeiss Innovation project in Dublin, involving 433,090 square feet of purported Research and Development Buildings to support a work force of 1500 persons and parking totaling 1396 spaces, was approved based on a 2003 General Plan Amendment intended to permit a large Cisco Systems research and development project campus that never was built. Neither Zeiss nor the Cisco project was specifically considered in the DDSP EIR near term traffic analysis. Although the 2035 DDSP EIR traffic analysis may have reflected the 2003 Dublin General Plan Amendment involved, there is a subtlety to the Zeiss project that was probably not reflected. This is the fact that the employee density of the Zeiss project, 288.7 square feet of gross floor area per employee or 3.46 employees per thousand square feet of gross floor area is far more characteristic of "office" use than "research and development" which generally involves very large floor areas per employee. The key consideration is that, according to ITE Trip Generation, loth Edition, research and development use generates only .42 trips per thousand square feet of floor area in the AM peak hour of street traffic and .49 trips in the PM peak hour whereas office use generates 1.16 trips per thousand square feet of floor area in the AM peak hour of street traffic and 1.15 trips in the PM peak hour. In other words, what is being built at Zeiss is office and it generates 2.76 times more AM peak traffic and 2.35 times more PM peak I RAI IIC • -I- R A N S P O R T A I ION • M A N A G Ii 1I L N -I- >311 Lowre Road. Union Citv, CA 94587 tel: 510.489.9477 1- x: 510.489.947ti Packet Pg. 398 5.1.e Mr. Richard Drury March 24, 2020 Page 4 traffic than the R&D land use category under which it was approved and would have been considered in the DDSP EIR 2035 cumulative analysis. Other very large projects that have very large potential traffic consequences for Dublin and the Tri-Valley area but which are still in the planning/environmental review/approvals stage are the Grand View and At Dublin projects. The Grand View project is a 122 acre development that would construct up to approximately 2,392,000 square feet of retail/commercial/office use and 338 residential dwelling units on a site east of Fallon Road in Dublin. This project is still in the early planning stage but is clearly not reflected in either stage of traffic analysis in the DDSP EIR. The current At Dublin project has been scaled back to 566 residential units and 240,000 square feet of commercial. Environmental review has been completed and the project awaits Dublin City Council action on approvals. These major projects together with numerous nameless smaller projects not individually mentioned herein but which can be reviewed on the City web site at Dublin-development.icitywork.com, were clearly not considered or not fully considered in the DDSP EIR traffic analysis. Hence, there are changed conditions that preclude reliance on the DDSP EIR and exemption from further CEQA review under Guidelines § 15182 and § 15162. Conclusion Given these considerations, it is inappropriate for the Project to be approved under an exemption from CEQA review. A full EIR should be prepared. Sincerely, Smith Engineering & Management A California Corporation Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E. President Attachment 1 Resume of Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E. I RA I IC • I R NS110RTAI ICON • NIANAGLIILNI 0 x 2 U 5311 Lowry, Road. Union Cite, CA 94587 tel: 510.489.9477 111x: 310.489.9418 Packet Pg. 399 5.1.e Mr. Richard Drury March 24, 2020 Page 5 `,i.1I1 1'.N61N.'.LRl &Al tc;EivIE T FA DANI J, T. SMITH, Jr. 0 President = c� �L M EDUCA11M C) Bachelor of Ekgbwriag and Applied Scienu, TaLe Univers-tv, 1W hiasteroiScia ciL-TYampar[atim Rlanon?, 1:=Enp afCl fmma. BedWIE!y,19a s_ N PROMSIONAL REGISTRATION � J CaLi=mn:.a ND. 21913 (Cruil) Nm&No- 7M pmT) Urwkqgkm Na. 29337 (Crud) C Call:mna No. 938 (Irafdc) Amoco No. 22131(CK y PROFESSIONAL EXPERMNCE E Smitt Engnee .F a `damagMRM.:993lapresent. pte�ident. 0 V DKSAssaoames.1P7Pto-P93. Folmder, Vice PTmIdeetPrimalIramspartadamEgineer. Q Delam-CatLera: Gang, L?d8 to 19?9. SemrTrahyorUiri mPlmmr. Per9oo11 gXKMldes and piked Es —per --Ens melds Z Lihpfim Comsmlfiag- Pramidei conmlt bw kmtga600a and nTesr wimm te!s o m highway design, J transit design and traffir engnel� salters mrhadmg cmdemutiooi mmDhmg =k;par ==access Lsmes; traffic ' a[rddecis imt=ahkZ h-gla ray driign oQ tra is enghBmiag fictm land uii! ar�d dn%kgmml m>�s luwLvirrg aaem a[d iramparraibm impKis; pa&* and other haB-ir and =bparmtioc nnuer a. UzbmCerriderPiindimL-in-chmEg-forSlateR*ute(SR)102FeesrlllySix*.a 35-mdE freeway mipment sue. wrtb of Sx= min. ComsaLiaci oc I-280Inte<star-ETYmEkrCo t Progam, Sao F'ramdKo, an At Ells For completion of I-2K, dem Wlilac of Embaxadero fremay, substitute light rar3 amd [der rail prejerts. Ptnr:pa-ia{baCge SR 238 carridm 6eewavrexaressway dei`.ga•'eMdrom Eral srudf, H,pvaid (Calif) Progeny manager, Sacrameow Nmthea.st Area muld-modal iraesporraiioe cooridor shrdg. Tnmsportarinm plaaoa for I413N Rest Termmud Smdf, and Harbor DTwe Traffir Stedt- Part_aod, Oregm. Prajeu manager for kup of mirface of Waa3urard Candor =-, detroiL ldirtigan DLracled staff an ISO National Saawgi[ Corridor 5lradg (Saammemn San Francisco), US 101Sowen =reway operations study, SR P2 freeny aperalicm study. I-890 freeway opoationi, o*. SR 152 a.ignmeei itUdjEK Sa[rameow RTD light rod synm ;amdy, Tasnom Candor LET AA -EIS, Fremamr-Warm liprmgi BART euen�om planes SRs 7QW f --y altemam- midg, and Rsd-oM moray p 931 de p stay. Ares TrusporfstiM Plus. Ptmjpal-ia [tares for transaartadom evens of City of :435 Amg?JES General ?lan PramMork, ShRping oatioos Largest City Mo decades mw I I Nt ceelury. Pii�+en m magu liar the hansportaliam El of 3411� Bag des-elaameet in downbm Sao Francisco. Miss:an Pay in4 - " anion esf office;conmtezcel space, 8,500 dwelling umri, and comminrty iarilitiEs. Transportadom feahnei iechade re][cariam of ca® rail stariom; a deni:om o--MUNI-DletroLR^ a moltfmodal t=rMM& =m LR [os>mwoel rail and Lo[aL bus; removal of a grerter ma e]esatec freeRa�; rap;a[emgmt by me!'Y' 7alCas dI1G a L:bulei'ard; � iotiaoal mad�'ay whwark over[omuk=- comstrainis imposed b3' m internal ME basin; freeway iTmnues oral rail hofiries; and iomcept p1ms for 20.000 ;>>vcnared padcmjspacas. Prim[ipal.-hwhue for dmalabmi pram m arxommaeate P million gg5f of affiee,'oomtm»daL grogrit s LMMWarm H.elLew a (SCaih.). Prir:ripal4n-&NEE for E- acre_ 2 m-11on pf multi -use oomplm for FMC adp[enr 10 San lone �Kuz bmxil Aupaut Projert nwatger far iracsportatiom El ement of &DoxmEWD Cpool Area Pram =m tte stare goiwnm®mal [omralet4 and =m DaR-A)vin S aammmio REki,elopmew Plan. A ''KI 41 for Napa (CaLff.) C,eneral Plan arculadam Element and Doweiovm Riverfmmr Re9enk meni Play, no rr proeram for ammm om TGahmu Creek, on dom-imm-n irarTortaftn plan for San Mateo and refer zlopmew p;an for dawnmwo Mountain V ew (CaLf.), far iraffmc iRculaoon and safety plans forCalifwniacidesofDanis,-4miar_iHilandHawfard,amdforSalem Oregoc. i'll ....i.I':.:,i.Ll ,+rr'!..r..'.'-.t- L.. L04+-: -. I... ;'11 FltA1 1;1C • TRANS110K-rAT10N • N1ANAG1:MLN I i311 Low1v Road, Union Oita, CA 9458' tcl: 510.89.9$77 Lax: M0.489.94i5 Packet Pg. 400 5.1.e Mr. Richard Drury March 24, 2020 Page 6 Transportation Centers. Project manager for Daly City Intermodal Study which developed a $7 million surface bus terminal, traffic access, parking and pedestrian circulation improvements at the Daly City BART station plus development of functional plans for a new BART station at Cohna. Project manager for design of multi -modal terminal (commuter rail, light rail, bus) at Mission Bay, San Francisco. In Santa Clarita Long Range Transit Development Program, responsible for plan to relocate system's existing timed -transfer hub and development of three satellite transfer hubs. Performed airport ground transportation system evaluations for San Francisco International, Oakland International, Sea-Tac International, Oakland International, Los Angeles International, and San Diego Lindberg. Campus Transportation. Campus transportation planning assignments for UC Davis, UC Berkeley, UC Santa Cruz and UC San Francisco Medical Center campuses; San Francisco State University; University of San Francisco; and the University of Alaska and others. Also developed master plans for institutional campuses including medical centers, headquarters complexes and research & development facilities. Special Event Facilities. Evaluations and design studies for football/baseball stadiums, indoor sports arenas, horse and motor racing facilities, theme parks, fairgrounds and convention centers, ski complexes and destination resorts throughout western United States. Parking. Parking programs and facilities for large area plans and individual sites including downtowns, special event facilities, university and institutional campuses and other large site developments; numerous parking feasibility and operations studies for parking structures and surface facilities; also, resident preferential parking . Transportation System Management & Traffic Restraint. Project manager on FHWA program to develop techniques and guidelines for neighborhood street traffic limitation. Project manager for Berkeley, (Calif.), Neighborhood Traffic Study, pioneered application of traffic restraint techniques in the U.S. Developed residential traffic plans for Menlo Park, Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, Mill Valley, Oakland, Palo Alto, Piedmont, San Mateo County, Pasadena, Santa Ana and others. Participated in development of photo/radar speed enforcement device and experimented with speed humps. Co-author of Institute of Transportation Engineers reference publication on neighborhood traffic control. Bicycle Facilities. Project manager to develop an FHWA manual for bicycle facility design and planning, on bikeway plans for Del Mar, (Calif), the UC Davis and the City of Davis. Consultant to bikeway plans for Eugene, Oregon, Washington, D.C., Buffalo, New York, and Skokie, Illinois. Consultant to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for development of hydraulically efficient, bicycle safe drainage inlets. Consultant on FHWA research on effective retrofits of undercrossing and overcrossing structures for bicyclists, pedestrians, and handicapped. Institute of Transportation Engineers Transportation Research Board PUBLICATIONS AND AWARDS Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, with W. Homburger et al. Prentice Hall, 1989. Co -recipient, Progressive Architecture Citation, Mission Bay Master Plan, with I.M. Pei WRT Associated, 1984. Residential Traffic Management, State of the Art Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979. Improving The Residential Street Environment, with Donald Appleyard et al., U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979. Strategic Concepts in Residential Neighborhood Traffic Control, International Symposium on Traffic Control Systems, Berkeley, California, 1979. Planning and Design of Bicycle Facilities: Pitfalls and New Directions, Transportation Research Board, Research Record 570, 1976. Co -recipient, Progressive Architecture Award, Livable Urban Streets, San Francisco Bay Area and London, with Donald Appleyard, 1979. FRAFFIC • TRANtiI OK-rATION • MANAGENILN I O 2 M �L E M U d J r c m E E O U Q Z J d O 2 �L E M U It N 0 0 N 0 N Li c O E s Q i311 Lowry Road, Union Oita, CA 94587 tel: 510.489.9177 Lax: >10.189,9 4/5 Packet Pg. 401 5.1.f DUBLIN C A L i F 0 R N I A April 28, 2020 S B 343 Senate Bill 343 mandates supplemental materials that have been received by the Community Development Department that relate to an agenda item after the agenda packets have been distributed to the Planning Commission be available to the public. The attached documents were received in the Community Development Department's Office after distribution of the April 28, 2020, Planning Commission meeting agenda packet. Packet Pg. 402 Dublin CHAMBER OF COMMERCE April 28, 2020 Chair Janine Thalblum and Commissioner Members Planning Commission City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Planning Commission Regular Meeting - Item 5.1 Cambria Hotel Commissioner Thalblum and Planning Commissioners, 5.1.f 7080 Donlon Way, Suite 110 Dublin, California 94568 (925) 828-6200 fax: (925) 828-4247 info@dublinchamberofcommerce.org www.dublinchamberofcommerce.org The Dublin Chamber of Commerce is pleased to provide this letter to strongly support the Cambria Hotel project (PLPA-2019-00020, PLPA-2019-00044 and PLOC-2020-00053) and ask for approval by the City of Dublin Planning Commission and City Council. This redevelopment project will make a substantial contribution to the economic vitality of Downtown Dublin. To achieve City goals for the economy, the environment, housing and transportation, we need quality projects that will upgrade the community and provide the synergy to complete the vision of Downtown Dublin. We believe that all aspects of the Corrie Center and subsequent Cambria Hotel project should be enthusiastically embraced by the Planning Commission and City Council. We appreciate your consideration of this request and look forward to entitlement and advancement of this important project. Sincerely, J Ingeb -g /ouston President/CEO cc: Linda Smith, City Manager Jeff Baker, Community Development Director David Haubert, Mayor Kristie Wheeler, Assistant Community Development Arun Goel, Vice Mayor Director Jean Josey, Councilmember Hazel Wetherford, Economic Development Director Melissa Hernandez, Councilmember Amy Million, Principal Planner Shawn Kumagai, Councilmember a� 0 x 2 E �a W r a� E U 2 Q Packet Pg. 403 5.1.f Amy Million From: Lynda Hollingsworth <lyndahollingsworth@icloud.com> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 6:03 PM To: Amy Million Subject: Redwood tree removal Hello Amy, I have lived in Dublin for about 7 years and in the Bay Area for over 20 years. I have slowly watched more and more homes and businesses being built with desecration to the surrounding environment and open spaces. While I understand the need for community growth, and therefore the necessary removal of trees and other surrounding foliage, I find it saddening that you have approved the removal of such a beautiful set of trees near the 580 freeway off ramp. There are so few green trees around thanks to the build up of the community as before mentioned -to remove these trees is preposterous. They are a pleasant sight and don't at all impede the view of the huge building behind them. It is very visible already. The only way to make it easier to see would be to hang a flashing neon sign up on it. Also I believe those trees are home to nesting birds. Removal of those trees will cause the birds to have to leave their homes and make new nests. Please leave those trees where they are. They're one of the few glimpses of green goodness left in the area. Otherwise L W that parking lot and surrounding buildings just look like a concrete jungle to me. v Thank you for your consideration. Lynda Lamb Sent from my iPhone W r c m E r a Packet Pg. 404 5.1.f Amy Million From: DeeDee Nelson <deedee-nelson@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 7:01 AM To: Amy Million Subject: Redwood trees Please don't chop down the trees behind Hooters. They bring beautiful aesthetics when driving by. The style of buildings being built these days are eyesores. DeeDee Nelson a� r 0 x 2 �L E �W♦ V W C d E t V a Packet Pg. 405 5.1.f Amy Million From: FONTFAM - IMAP <fontfam@comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 11:02 AM To: Amy Million Cc: Dave Fontaine Subject: Redwood Trees I'm not a tree hugger nor opposed to change / development. However I do encourage you to revisit the removal of the redwoods on the corner of San Ramon rd and Dublin Blvd. Perhaps a plan to thin the trees by 1 or 2 will open up the views of the building the developer is seeking even tho it's just another multistory office. Or alternatively require the develop replant the property with twice as many mature trees bigger than 5 gal ). Of course preserving heritage Valley oaks is a priority as well. My 2 cents. Dave Fontaine. Sent from my phone. a� r 0 x 2 �L E W v W r c m E r a Packet Pg. 406 5.1.f Amy Million From: JOHN NECKAR <icgjneckar@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 3:59 PM To: Amy Million Cc: Anne Neckar; Jefff Baker Subject: Do not cut the redwoods trees by Hooters Please do not cut down the large Heritage trees on Amador Valley and Dublin Blvd by Hooters. This valley needs all the redwood trees it has and looking down at the valley the redwoods define the area. The new hotel can work them in. John. Neckar 11210 Rolling Hills Drive Dublin Ca Sent from my Wad a� r 0 x 2 �L E �to♦ V W a Packet Pg. 407 5.1.f Amy Million From: Joe Conger <jcong_88@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 9:25 AM To: Amy Million; shirley.lewandowski@att.net Cc: Linda Smith; Arun Goel; Shawn Kumagai; Jean Josey; Melissa Hernandez; David Haubert Subject: Re: Please save 9 Heritage Coastal Redwood Trees Dear Ms. Amy Million, Linda Smith, Arun Goel, Shawn Kumagai, Jean Josey, Melissa Hernandez, and David Hubert, I would also like to concur with my Neighbor Shirley Lewandowski that you need to put an extreme extra effort in rescinding all of your approvals on the removal of the 9 heritage redwood trees on San Ramon Blvd behind Hooters and the retail center for the following reasons: These are the California State Trees and a World's 7 Natural Wonder as well as part of the Heritage of Historic Downtown Dublin for way over 40 years and very hard to replace as you can plainly see if you drive down Dublin Blvd W toward the west and East for examples: The companies - Tri Valley Plastic Surgery and Center at the corner of 11860 Dublin Blvd and Donlon Way have built their business around and have kindly preserved these magnificent trees, as well as Burger King on the corner of Dublin Blvd and 6921 Regional Street a newer constructed business. Not only are these E trees important to the State of California and Dublin City, but they are also important to the visitors of our town and it's W residents that walk on the walkway under these trees that goes to the shopping malls in Dublin and Pleasanton v Shopping Center for they provide some shade during the hot summer months and give a resting place for these walkers ( N I'm being one of them ). They also provide homes for the wild life that fly and scurry around the area and a chance for N the outside visitors that do and will stay at the Holiday inn and the new proposed hotel for they can get a first hand look and touch of our National Wonder Tree. They will also provide shade, green beauty and softness for the newly proposed and construction of a brick and mortar hotel here which is most inevitable at this time. These trees also provide for a E E landmark to Dublin for they are one of the first things you see coming over the hill on highway 580 East and as you come v on the San Ramon Blvd Exit people know to Turn Left to get to Dublin. c, These are only a few of the major reasons to reconsider rescinding all your approvals of the destruction of these 3 beautiful natural trees and the natural beauty of Dublin along with it's Residents and future Visitors. Thank you in a - advance for your time and reconsideration. t° r c m Sincerely, E Joe Conger Q Dublin Resident On Wednesday, April 22, 2020, 06:22:05 AM PDT, <shiHey. lewandowski@att.net> wrote: Dear Ms. Million, Please rescind your approval of a permit given to Jerry Hunt for the removal of 9 heritage redwood trees behind the old Hooters restaurant on Dublin and San Ramon Boulevards. Under Dublin's heritage tree law these beautiful trees that are homes to nesting birds should be protected, not destroyed. We need to retain the natural look of our city with these trees as there are more than enough buildings exposed for residents to see. Our city is already becoming a concrete jungle. Permits like this continue to substantiate residents' concerns of the city's ongoing overdevelopment efforts resulting in the erosion of the natural look of our environment and the quality of our lives. Packet Pg. 408 5.1.f To think that in 13 days these trees are being removed to make room for and make visible a proposed future 6 story hotel is an absolute horrific injustice. I ask again that you rescind the removal permit and protect and preserve these majestic coastal redwoods that make the entrance onto the San Ramon and Dublin streets from the 580 freeway such a wonderfully natural and welcoming sight to see. Mother Nature and Dublin residents will appreciate your re- consideration. Sincerely, Shirley Lewandowski 32 year Dublin Resident Sent from Windows Mail W C d E t V a Packet Pg. 409 5.1.f Amy Million From: Kathy Blackburn <kathyblackburn@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 3:40 PM To: Amy Million Cc: murueta@ehsplanning.com Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Item 5.1 Dear Amy — I am writing to oppose the removal of the two 50-year-old trees on the site of the proposed Cambria Hotel and also the proposal for a six -story, box -like hotel on the site. This site is significant as it is the first impression of Dublin for visitors, sitting right off the 580/680 interchange, and it should be aesthetically consistent with the brand of the City. Further, the trees are legitimately part of the City's heritage and add measurably to the ambience of the community. Thank you, Kathy Blackburn Member, Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission 925-640-6700 a� r 0 x �L E W v W r a Packet Pg. 410 5.1.f Amy Million From: Steve Stone <stevems@pacbell.net> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 3:37 PM To: Amy Million Subject: Heritage Tree Removal Good Afternoon Amy. I previously wrote you to oppose the removal of seven trees in the Corrie Center project. You provided a prompt and professional response explaining the details, and I withdrew my objection. I was impressed by your professionalism in handling this case, as well as a follow up email you sent to all who had expressed interest. There is another call on Nextdoor to oppose the revised permit request to remove two trees. I want to state I am in favor of the revised plan and do not feel it should be denied. It appears the property owner has taken precautions and the city oversight is good. I hope my voice in favor of the revised application will be considered along with the expected opposition. I also hope that the city doesn't end up putting too many roadblocks up at the request of residents and cause the lot to remain as is by making it economically unfeasible to profitability develop. While I feel Dublin has been overbuilt, especially the East side (primarily too many homes) the planning of projects has been good. This project will improve the mostly vacant space and ideally provide added tax revenue without a significant impact on traffic. Sincerely, Steve Stone. a� r 0 x �L E W U 0 N CO N c a� E E 0 U 0 IL co r c m E r a Packet Pg. 411 5.1.f Amy Million From: Jeanne Smith <jsmith6455@aol.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 3:55 PM To: Amy Million Cc: murueta@ehsplanning.com; Jeanne Smith; rsmith02O8@aol.com Subject: Please Save the Two Heritage Trees at Dublin Hotel Project Subject: Saving Two Redwoods Numbers 51 and 52 Please do NOT remove, endanger, or threaten these two majestic redwood trees or their root systems where Jerry Hunt plans to build the Dublin Hotel. These two trees are beautiful, healthy, and lend a remarkable welcome to the visitors and residents of Dublin. We ask the Dublin City Planning Commissioners to: 1. Reject the Heritage Tree Removal Permit dated 04/23/2020 to cut down two of Dublin's Heritage Redwood Trees 2. Reject the Site Development Review Permit for the six -story Cambria Hotel. We ask that you protect our Golden Eagles and Grey Owls who roost and nest in California Coastal Redwood trees We ask that you protect our environment and quality of life: Preservation of the Coastal Redwoods "Counteracts pollution in our air... promotes the welfare of our community... and enhances the scenic beauty of our city." Please support Dublin's Pedestrian -Friendly Downtown by limiting the hotel to its original 3 or 4 stories with parking and impose an architectural design of the hotel which supports the quality of our Downtown now and in the future. Regards, Robert and Jeanne Smith (925-833-9131) Dublin Residents for over 37 years a� 0 x 2 �L E W U 0 N 00 N c a� E E 0 U v a co r c m E r a Packet Pg. 412 5.1.f Amy Million From: ronkoutz@gmail.com Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 4:13 PM To: Amy Million Subject: Redwoods at Dublin's southern San Ramon rd. Entrance//Buildings kept at original height Please do not remover the two redwoods per posed. These trees add along with the others a wonderful view coming into Dublin. Each tree forms a Matt of interwoven roots that help support their fellow redwoods. Sent from my Wad a� r 0 x 2 �L E �W♦ V W a Packet Pg. 413 5.1.f Amy Million From: Kathleen Heidenreich <n312kathy@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 4:10 PM To: Amy Million; murueta@ehsplanning.com Subject: Oppose Heritage Tree Removal My name is Kathleen Heidenreich. I am a resident and registered voter in Alameda County. I reside at 7973 Iglesia Drive Dublin. I adamantly oppose the removal of the Heritage trees on San Ramon Road and 1-580. Removal of one will destroy them all. I also oppose the construction of a hotel that is more than three stories. Sincerely, Kathleen Heidenreich 925-389-1413 Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone W r a z Packet Pg. 414 5.1.f Amy Million From: Meg Holtzapple <meghan.holtzapple@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 4:47 PM To: Amy Million Cc: murueta@ehsplanning.com Subject: Re: Heritage Tree Removal Permit at 7950 Dublin Blvd. UPDATE Hello Amy, I still oppose the removal of any of these trees for planning or construction purposes. Please reject the Heritage Tree Removal Permit dated 4/23/2020 to cut down two of the Heritage Redwood Trees. Furthermore, there should be a height restriction on the hotel being planned. Three stories is reasonable. Six is not. Can we please have an architectural design that is in keeping with a gateway area, and enhances the beauty of our area? This is the first thing people will see when exiting the freeway and enter our city! Seriously. Please reject the Site Development Review Permit for a six -story Cambria hotel. Regards, Meghan Holtzapple On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 10:39 AM Amy Million <Amy.MiIlion @dublin.ca.gov> wrote: Good morning, You are receiving this email because you have previously commented on the Heritage Tree Removal Permit (PLOC- 2019-00192) for the removal of nine Coast redwood trees at 7950 Dublin Boulevard. After consideration and hearing the concerns of the community, the Applicant has withdrawn this Heritage Tree Removal Application and Permit to remove the nine Coast redwood trees. Therefore, the Applicant is no longer authorized to remove the nine trees. If you were considering appealing this decision, it is no longer necessary. After withdrawing the original application, the Applicant submitted a new Heritage Tree Removal Application to remove two Coast redwood trees near the southeast corner of the property. This new request retains the seven heritage trees along San Ramon Road. The removal of the two identified trees is necessary to support the development of the Cambria Hotel project as the trees are located in the future bioretention area needed meet regulatory requirements for water drainage and treatment. The location of the two trees is shown in the attached site plan as #51 and #52 for your reference. The Planning Commission will consider the Heritage Tree Removal Permit as part of its consideration of the Cambria Hotel project on Tuesday, April 28t" at 7:00 p.m. Due to the "Shelter -in -Place" Order, the Public Hearing will be held as an online virtual meeting. Please visit https://dublin.ca.gov/83/Planning-Commission for details. a� r 0 x �L E W v W r c m E t M r a Packet Pg. 415 5.1.f Please contact me with any questions. Regards, Amy DELI CALIFORNIA THE NEW AMERICAN BACKYARD Amy E. Million Principal Planner City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 (925) 833-6610 1 (925) 833-6628 FAX amy.miIlion dublin.ca.gov I www.dublin.ca.gov Mission Statement: The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment, and fosters new opportunities. a� r 0 2 2 �L E W V W r a Packet Pg. 416 5.1.f Amy Million From: jaw61959 <jaw61959@att.net> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 4:48 PM To: Amy Million Cc: Michael Urueta Subject: RE: Tree removal Amy see change to my request to reject tree removal project of 4/23/2020. 1 meant to say please protect the Eagles and owls nesting places, by rejecting the removal of these trees. Thank you for your consideration. Judy Weber Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device r O 2 2 -------- Original message -------- From: jaw61959 <jaw61959@att.net> cEa Date: 4/27/20 4:03 PM (GMT-08:00) U To: amy.million@dublin.ca.gov c N Cc: murueta@eshplanning.com 00 N Subject: Tree removal 1* c a� E Amy, Please reject the tree removal project dated4/23/2020. Also reject the site development permit for the 6 story Cambria ) Hotel, limit it to 3/4 stories. Please also reject to protect the Eagles and Owl nesting in those trees. Thank you, a co Judy Weber E r a Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device 5 Packet Pg. 417 5.1.f Amy Million From: Liana deWit-Smith <smithcampers@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 5:03 PM To: Amy Million Cc: murueta@ehsplanning.com Subject: Planning Commission Meeting 4/28/2020 To the City of Dublin Planning Commissioners: Please reject the Heritage Tree Removal Permit dated 4/23/20 to cut down 2 of Dublin's Heritage Redwood Trees. One tree is over 90" inches in circumference, and the other is about 118". Plus, these magnificent Heritage trees appear to be approximately 55' - 65' feet tall and over 50 years old. We can't imagine having them cut down. They're in a cluster of four and their root balls are intertwined. By eliminating one or more of these trees, the rooting system could affect the other trees, and the result could kill the remaining California Coastal Redwood trees. Removing even one would cause a threat to all four of these trees as well as creating a hazard. While rejecting this application you will also be protecting our local wildlife; Golden Eagles and Grey Owls, who roost and nest in these magnificent trees. The quality of our lives and environment will suffer if they are allowed to be removed. The California Redwood trees counteract pollution in our air, promote the welfare of our community and enhance the scenic beauty of our city. Secondly, we also ask you reject the Site Development Review Permit for the six -story Cambria Hotel. The original city approval was for a three or four-story building. It has come to our attention that the scope has now changed to a six -story building that looks boxy and nothing like the vision of what Downtown Dublin is supposed to be. We ask you to oppose the plans to build a six -story hotel and to limit the hotel to its original 3 or 4 stories with parking and to impose an architectural design of the hotel which supports the quality of our Downtown now and in the future. Please consider the above requests to assist in supporting our desire to maintain and protect the quality of life and the environment our Dublin. Respectfully, Bruce and Liana Smith 11879 Bloomington Way aD r 0 x 2 •L E CU U 0 N co N c a� E E 0 U v a 6 r r_ 0 E w Q Packet Pg. 418 5.1.f Amy Million From: shirley.lewandowski@att.net Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 2:17 PM To: Amy Million Cc: Linda Smith; David Haubert; Arun Goel; Shawn Kumagai; Jean Josey; Melissa Hernandez; Jeff Baker Subject: 2 Heritage Coastal Redwoods are in danger! And more concrete? Hello Amy, Have you seen the grouping of four beautiful heritage redwoods of which two are being requested for removal at the Corrie Center area? I have gone to see them and they are healthy majestically tall trees that are used for nesting, rest and observation stops by golden eagles and grey owls. I can just imagine with a little bit of grooming away of fallen dried branches at their base, put 2-3 bench tables placed under or near them and you've created a nice little community area for hosting a fun family Sunday afternoon picnic in the spring, summer and fall. However, instead two of the redwoods may potentially be removed for the sake of accommodating the construction of a six story hotel. This would be detrimental to the welfare of the remaining two redwoods. I have studied the diagram of the drainage path the developers supposedly require for the hotel. In our age of advanced design technology and capability, that drainage path could certainly be rerouted so these majestic trees, all four, can stay in place together. The cost to reroute the drainage path would be a drop in the bucket in comparison to the overall cost of building a multimillion dollar 6 story hotel. I ask again for your consideration to help Mother Nature retain her presence in our city by not approving the new permit application to remove two of her glorious redwood trees. They are part of our city's heritage thus they are called and should be continually preserved as Heritage Trees. With regards to the proposed 6 story Cambria Hotel, the design of it doesn't blend or add with what we want aesthetically for a welcoming look for the entrance to our city nor mesh with the future friendly city downtown project. We are not in the land of pyramids where more concrete is appropriate. I implore upon City Planning, the Mayor and members of City Council to really focus on a more balanced and smart growth of our city with more innovative businessed being attracted in, retaining what we have left of open spaces and not allowing out of town developers continually erode away what remains of our city's town and country ambiance and environment. Please do not accept the proposal for the Cambria Hotel. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Lewandowski 32 year resident of Dublin a� 0 x 2 �L E �a U 0 N 00 N c a� E E 0 U 0 a co r c as E U 2 r a Packet Pg. 419 5.1.f Sent from Windows Mail a� r O x 2 �L �c E �to♦ V 0 N CO N C N E E O U v a co r c m E u 2 r a Packet Pg. 420 5.1.f Amy Million From: Thomas Knapp <tandlknapp@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 5:22 PM To: Amy Million Cc: murueta@eshplanning.com Subject: Additional Heritage Tree Removal Once again, I'm trying to figure out why redwood trees on this property are a target. First of all, I'd like to point out that there are 4 trees at the location in question, not 2. Let's make sure there are no understatements. This new group of redwoods are also a gorgeous grove that offers benefits like the reduction in air pollution and providing a natural habitat for Golden Eagles and Grey Owls. These trees, no less than the first group of trees targeted, promote the welfare of the community and enhance the scenic beauty of our city. Unless these trees are diseased, why is there sufficient grounds to remove them? They are Heritage Trees. It doesn't seem reasonable that the plans for this new development can't be modified to include them. These trees are visible from the Dublin Bowl property, and are grouped closely together in an out-of-the-way location, and there is plenty of space around them. Additionally, although I'm personally thrilled that Hooters is out of business, I'm not sure I see the need for another hotel on the property, particularly when Dublin already has a Holiday Inn Express (in close proximity), La Quinta Inn, Hyatt Place, and Extended Stay America —not to mention the hotels in Pleasanton (also in close proximity). Dublin has lost a variety of other businesses like Orchard Supply Hardware, Sports Authority, and Toys R Us, and I don't see another hotel filling that void. Perhaps the space would be better utilized by attracting a business we need but don't already have. W 0 x 0 �L �C E U 0 N 00 N c d E E 0 0 2 0 a In summary I would ask the planning commission to please reject the Heritage Tree Removal Permit dated co 4/23/20 to cut down 2 of Dublin's Heritage Redwood Trees (actually 4 trees —see lst paragraph above) and reject the Site Development Review Permit for the six -story Cambria Hotel, or at least limit the hotel to its E original 3 or 4 stories with parking and impose an architectural design of the hotel which supports the quality of 5 our Downtown now and in the future. Q Sincerely, Linda Knapp Dublin resident for 24 years. Packet Pg. 421 5.1.f Amy Million From: Michael Urueta <murueta@ehsplanning.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 5:29 PM To: Amy Million Subject: Saving Dublin's Heritage California's (Rare) Coastal Redwood Trees Attachments: Cal Coastal Redwoods in Dublin 2020 04 27jpg; California Coastal Redwoods 52 51 50 49 2020 04 27jpg Hello Amy, I wanted to formally inform you that I'm opposing the removal of the two California Coastal Redwoods on Jerry Hunt's proposed plans. The removal of Number 51 & 52 would cause all the trees that are entangled in a root ball to become a hazard. I spoke and met with Sean Mclaird Consulting Arborist of 30 years and his colleagues. a� Mr. Mclaird suggested that the approximately 50-year-old trees are solid, healthy, and maturing just fine. This cluster of four trees would create a hazard if even one of these trees were cut down. I'll send you the report once I get it. E In addition, the drainage system that is nearby has been here for decades and there doesn't appear to be any W v challenges with needing to remove these gorgeous trees. N See below for my letter. N Save our Heritage Redwood Trees, Reject 6 Story Cambria Hotel! Reject the Heritage Tree Removal Permit submitted by Jerry Hunt on April 23, 2020, to remove Coastal Redwood trees #51 and #52. Save Dublin's Heritage Redwood Trees!" Hello Amy and the City of Dublin, CA. a co r I wanted to start by thanking all of you who wrote in or called to the City to Oppose the cutting down of Nine California Coastal Giant Redwood trees. Over 60+ of you responded with a significant presence. E Jerry Hunt, the landowner, decided to withdrawal his permit and sent a letter to the city of Dublin, Amy Million asking Q her to cancel his application/approved permit. This eliminated the need to file an appeal to the city council. However, Mr. Hunt has now submitted a new Heritage Tree Removal application to cut down two of the redwoods (numbers 51 & 52). If you look on the site map, these two trees are the most significant and healthiest trees of the lot. One tree is over 90" inches in circumference, and the other is about 118". Plus, these magnificent Heritage trees appear to be approximately 55' - 65' feet tall and over 50 years old. I can't imagine having them cut down. They're in a cluster of four and the root ball is intertwined. removing even one would cause a threat to all four of these trees as well as creating a hazard. Please oppose Jerry Hunt's new request to have these two Heritage trees removed. If he is going to tear up the parking lot to erect a structure, he can move the pipes over a bit. By eliminating one or more of these trees, the rooting system could affect the other trees, and the result could kill the remaining California Coastal Redwood trees. The Planning Commission will approve or reject this removal permit tomorrow night (Tuesday). To be considered, your letter/message must be received by the city, by 4:00 pm on Tuesday (4/28). Send your message to Amy Million at amy.million@dublin.ca.gov and please cc me at murueta@ehsplanning.com 10 Packet Pg. 422 5.1.f Regarding the hotel project, Mr. Hunt is requesting a six -story building that looks boxy and nothing like the vision of what Downtown Dublin is supposed to be. Frankly, it looks very boxy and similar to County's building downtown. It would be nice to have this new building look like a beautiful resort, and this is going to be the first thing people will see when exiting the west Dublin freeway as they enter our city. I'm also asking you to oppose his plans to build a six -story hotel. Please ask the planning commissioners to: 1. Reject the Heritage Tree Removal Permit dated 4/23/20 to cut down 2 of Dublin's Heritage Redwood Trees; 2. Reject the Site Development Review Permit for the six -story Cambria Hotel. Protect: 1 Out Golden Eagles, Grey Owls who roost, nest in California Coastal Redwood trees. 2 Protect our environment & Quality of Life: Preservation of the Coastal Redwoods "Counteracts pollution in our air... promotes the welfare of our community... and enhances the scenic beauty of our city." Support: Dublin's Pedestrian -Friendly Downtown: Limit the hotel to its original 3 or 4 stories with parking and impose an architectural design of the hotel which supports the quality of our Downtown now and in the future. Tomorrow is the Dublin PlanningCommission meeting, where you can also sign u to speak. Space is limited so lease g, Y g p p p p r 0 = c_v get your letter to Amy and me immediately. Follow this link to instructions for how to view or speak at the meeting tomorrow night. Speaker cards will be available starting at 6:00 pm tomorrow. cEa U http://dublinca.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=1541 http://dublinca.igm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=14&ID=1525&lnline=True If you have any questions, please let me know. Kind Regards Michael Urueta, CHST 3 murueta@eshplanning.com a- 6 r c m Thank you for your time, E EHS PLANNING Q License: 32-0079391 General, 32-0105117 Construction CHST, Construction Health Safety Technician, Certified (925) 828 - 2700 Main Office New Training Center: 7660 Amador Valley Blvd., Suite D-1 Dublin, CA. 94568 info@ehsplanning.com www.ehsplanning.com Use our Promotional Discount Code for gear: https://www.keybak.com/discount/EHSPLANNING20 Like us on our social media: Subscribe and Share our videos for the latest updates. https://www.voutube.com/channel/UCo8AfIkLVt9DRuO3EIFoxVe?view as=subscriber https://www.instagram.com/ehsplanning/ https://twitter.com/ehsplanningcom https://www.facebook.com/EHS-Planning-100413641431400/ 11 Packet Pg. 423 5.1.f https://www.facebook.com/Active-Shooter-Awareness-Training-OSHA-Classes- 256942928296939/?modal=ad min todo tour CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information for the use by the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or the attachments are strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact me and destroy all copies of the communication and attachments. Thank you. a� r 0 x 2 �L E �W♦ V W a 12 Packet Pg. 424 5.1.f Amy Million From: Marty Kelly <mkellydublin@aol.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 7:33 PM To: Amy Million Cc: murueta@ehsplanning.com Subject: Tree removal Please reject the application to remove the redwood trees and the request to add extra floors to the hotel plan. Signed a concerned Dublin resident. Martin Kelly a� r 0 x 2 �L E �W♦ V W C d E t V a Packet Pg. 425 5.1.f Amy Million From: PEDRO SAENZ <pmsaenz@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 6:49 PM To: Amy Million Cc: murueta@ehsplanning.com Subject: Reject the Heritage Redwood Trees Removal Permit Our family opposes any permit to be approved to cut down any of Heritage Redwood Trees. Please reconsider, the permit submitted the by the landowner. I hope the land owner can review their plans and find an alternative. Cutting these trees comes with other consequences as other natural lives live near or within them. Respectfully, The Saenz Family aD r 0 x 2 •L E R U r Q Packet Pg. 426 5.1.f Amy Million From: Shirley Pence Corallo <s.corallo@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 7:46 PM To: Amy Million Cc: murueta@ehsplanning.com Subject: Reject Removal of #51-52 Trees + More I am asking the planning commission to do the following: 1. Reject the Heritage Tree Removal Permit dated 4/23/20 to cut down 2 of Dublin's Heritage Redwood Trees; 2. Reject the Site Development Review Permit for the six -story Cambria Hotel. Protect: 1 Out Golden Eagles, Grey Owls who roost, nest in California Coastal Redwood trees. 2 Protect our environment & Quality of Life: Preservation of the Coastal Redwoods "Counteracts pollution in our air... promotes the welfare of our community... and enhances the scenic beauty of our city." Support: Dublin's Pedestrian -Friendly Downtown: Limit the hotel to its original 3 or 4 stories with parking and impose an architectural design of the hotel which supports the quality of our Downtown now and in the future. Respectfully, Shirley Pence Corallo 8155 Brittany Dr Dublin 32+ year resident Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note9. W r a 3 Packet Pg. 427 5.1.f Amy Million From: Anne NecKar <a.neckar8@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 8:02 PM To: Amy Million Subject: Save the Redwoods on San Ramon Road Oh my gosh, I can't even believe anyone would consider removing any of the Redwwod trees Along the barren road of San Ramon Valley Blvd!! Really? With the drought and the warmer temperatures we need green! Anne Neckar West Dublin Resident a� r 0 x 2 �L E �W♦ V W C d E t V a Packet Pg. 428 5.1.f Amy Million From: Marlene Massetti <daveandpb@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 8:33 PM To: Amy Million Cc: Jeff Baker; City Council Subject: Cambria Hotel (PLPA-2019-00020, PLPA-2019-00044 and PLOC-2020-00053) Planning Commissioners: Thalblum, Kothari, Mittan, Benson, Wright, Greir & Plants: I urge the Commission to reject the Tree Removal Permit and the Site Development Review Permit for the Cambria Hotel. The City's Heritage Trees Ordinance was enacted to protect and preserve our oak, bay, cypress, maple and Redwood trees. In rendering your decision please consider each of the following criteria (from Dublin's ordinance) required for the removal of any Heritage Tree: 1. The condition of the tree or trees with respect to health, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services or public works projects; 2. The necessity to remove the tree or trees for reasonable development of the property; 3. The topography of the land and the effect of the removal of the tree on erosion, soil retention and diversion or increased flow of stream waters; 4. The number of trees existing in the neighborhood and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty and the general welfare of the city as a whole. Redwood trees (#51 & 52) are among the healthiest trees at this site; presenting no danger or interference with any utility or public works projects. They are not in close proximity to the proposed hotel; they are in the SE corner of the site. There is no necessity to remove them for development. The drainage ditch could be readily be relocated a few feet or yards from the two oldest Coastal Redwoods the applicant wants removed. Retaining our Heritage Redwood Trees is important to our City as few remain, particularly in Downtown Dublin. The "purpose and intent" of Dublin's Heritage Trees Ordinance is their preservation; they are "beneficial to the health and welfare of the citizens of this city in order to enhance the scenic beauty, increase property values, encourage quality development, prevent soil erosion, protect against flood hazards and the risk of landslides, counteract pollution in the air, and maintain the climatic balance within the city." Preserving and protecting these Redwoods is paramount. They are habitat to the Golden Eagles and Grey Owls that have been seen roosting, nesting in these Heritage trees that the Commission is now considering for removal. It would be unconscionable to cut down our Heritage Redwoods for this development and their removal arguably would not be justified under the purpose, intent and criteria established under Dublin's Heritage Trees Ordinance. Please consider the impact your approval of this application would have on our community; removing the largest, most majestic and healthiest trees here in our Downtown. aD r 0 x 2 •L E CU U 0 N co N r c a� E E 0 U v IL a� E w r Q Packet Pg. 429 5.1.f Please protect our Golden Eagles, Grey Owls, our environment and quality of life in Dublin by preserving these Redwood Heritage Trees. In regard to the Cambria development, the six story, 69' foot hotel would tower over the entire Downtown. It's height is not comparable to adjacent Downtown buildings at six stories and the hotel design is inconsistent with Dublin's General Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. Approving the hotel because it meets minimum requirements in the Transit District ignores the fact that the site development is the Gateway to Dublin's Downtown. Any development on/along this corner warrants careful and full consideration; the building will be seen as you enter Dublin's Downtown from all corners. The bar for development at this location should be set high for any NEW development. The height, design and aesthetics of the project should also be of the highest quality. The renderings of the Cambria Hotel, however, are not of the quality residents want; falling short as Pedestrian Friendly with its massive size and an aesthetic not envisioned by residents for our future Downtown. What is recommended by this Commission and approved by City Council will remain for decades in Dublin. I urge the Commission to Reject the Tree Removal Permit and the Site Development Permit for the Cambria Hotel. Marlene Massetti 7893 Barn Hollow Court aD 0 x 2 E CU U r Q Packet Pg. 430 5.1.f Amy Million From: Richard Guarienti <guari@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 10:34 PM To: Amy Million Cc: murueta@ehsplanning.com Subject: Re: Tree Removal and Hotel Project. Correction: I meant to say Petco, not Pet Smart in the second paragraph. Sorry if I confused you. > On Apr 27, 2020, at 9:04 PM, Richard Guarienti <guari@comcast.net> wrote: ' a� > Amy Million > Michael Urueta L > > 1. 1 have been made aware that there is a permit application to remove a couple heritage redwood trees near the W corner of San Ramon Rd. and Dublin Blvd. I ask that this permit application be rejected based on the need to maintain v our heritage trees, especially in a location that is an entry to the city. N > About 20 years ago, our citizens were successful in rejecting the planned removal of three trees on the northwest corner where Pet Smart was built. The argument was that they were diseased and would die soon. Well the trees thankfully are still there and provide a little beauty to that corner. The planned removal of the redwood trees would decrease not only the beauty of the corner, but not help retain the natural landscape that is necessary for a nice visual entry to the city. Please help save our redwoods! > 2. The proposal to revise the plan for a 3 - 4 story hotel at this location and allow a 6 story building should also be a rejected. This corner is near our historic district and the design of the building should reflect more of a boutique style t° r rather than a box six stories high. The entrance and exit locations in the city should be made as attractive as possible. This proposed revision will not add to the beauty of our downtown of the future. Please support our heritage and not E allow an increase of the proposed building height! ' a > Richard Guarienti > 8279 Rhoda Ave. > Dublin > 27 year resident Packet Pg. 431 5.1.f Amy Million From: Rich <2Duke@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 7:13 AM To: Amy Million Subject: Hotel and redwood trees My wife and I are opposed to the new Cambria hotel and removal of the redwood trees in Dublin,we have had enough growth in Dublin for now,Please consider how ughly our city is getting. Thank you Rich & Jan Atkins a� r 0 x 2 �L E �W♦ V W a Packet Pg. 432 5.1.f Amy Million From: Leonie Meima <Imeima@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 7:26 AM To: Amy Million Cc: murueta@ehsplanning.com; Arun Goel Subject: Cambria Hotel: Oppose Heritage Tree Removal Dear Ms. Million, Dublin can ill afford to loose another tree to a concrete building. We need to preserve what small pockets of the environment we still have in Dublin. Trees the size of the ones the developer of the Cambria Hotel proposes to remove cannot easily be replaced; they provide habitat "islands" for wildlife, remove pollutants from the air (important for those suffering from asthma and other lung diseases, especially since we are near the freeway), reduce CO2, and reduce the urban heat island effect. 0 x I propose the following: 2 �L E • Reduce the size of the proposed hotel so the trees do not need to be cut down U • Any hotel or other building should include a green roof (to offset the urban heat island effect) o • All parking must include solar panels • No paved parking; permeable parking only to recharge groundwater supplies when it rains Dublin is woefully behind the times with respect to environmental protections. You only need to look c E as far as Portland or Chicago for examples of more progressive environmental policies, which have E not deterred business growth, and in fact have enhanced the appeal of these cities to businesses and U citizens alike. Let's have Dublin move forward, not backward with environmental policies for development. a I oppose the removal of the heritage trees at the Cambria Hotel site. a� E Best regards, a Leonie Packet Pg. 433 5.1.f Amy Million From: evelyn quijano <evelyng225@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 7:37 AM To: Amy Million Subject: Cambria Hotel Planning Commissioners: Thalblum, Kothari, Mittan, Benson, Wright, Greir & Plants: Please reject the Tree Removal Permit and Site Development Review Permit for the Cambria Hotel. I have been a long time resident of Dublin (36 years) and have always appreciated the safety and beauty of the city. This is a request for you to reject the Cambria Hotel site development permit and the removal of the redwood trees (#51 & 52). I'm sure you're aware of the City's Heritage Trees Ordinance and will be guided by the criteria laid out in this ordinance. W In regard to the Cambria development, the height of the hotel is a concern, as it would tower over the downtown area. I live a walking distance to the proposed downtown Dublin and am looking forward to the completion/fruition of the plan. A hotel of this height and design would not be a positive 'entrance' to the area. E v Your action on these issues will affect Dublin for years to come. I urge you to reject the Tree Removal Permit and the Site Development Permit for the Cambria Hotel. Thank you and stay safe. Evelyn Quijano Homeowner 7794 Barn Hollow Ct. W r a Packet Pg. 434 5.1.f Amy Million From: Lynne Frye <lynnejfrye@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 8:48 AM To: Amy Million Cc: murueta@ehsplanning.com Subject: Reject Jerry Hunts Request Dublin council please reject any Heritage Coastal Redwood Tree Removal projects. Dublin needs to take a stand on keeping the Redwoods. These trees belong to history of Dublin and for the residents & visitors to enjoy. No Design should ever be approved if it includes tree removal. The Redwoods should be preserved and we should celebrate them for the Landmark Heritage that the trees provide. The trees counteract pollution, protect our wildlife and they provide well being & beauty of our community. Please protect All Trees reject any removal of Dublin's Heritage Trees. Thank you for respecting the History of Dublin Through our Landmark Heritage Trees These landmark heritage trees should be cared for as part of these projects not destroyed. Please protect them for the miracles they are as Part of our Dublin community natural beauty. We should symbolize & protect these trees as they reflect who we are as Dubliners Thank r You o x 2 Sent from my iPhone E W U W r a Packet Pg. 435 5.1.f Amy Million From: Janice Bagaw <janicebagaw@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 9:52 AM To: Amy Million Subject: Tree Removal Expansion Project Hello, As a citizen of Dublin for the past 15 years, I reject the Heritage Tree Removal proposal you are proposing to build a silly hotel. The City of Dublin has more than enough cracker box junk in town. I would like to preserve what open space/nature this city has left. Please DO NOT remove Tree#51 and Tree #52. I reject the proposal, and any other tree removal proposal. I respectfully ask that the planning commissioners: 1. Reject the Heritage Tree Removal Permit dated 4/23/20 to cut down 2 of Dublin's Heritage Redwood trees; 2. Reject the Site Development Review Permit for the 6 story (un-needed) Cambria hotel. Protect our golden eagles, grey owls, who roost and nest in California Coastal Redwood trees environment and the quality of life. Don't always make it about money. Please listen to the people for a change. Sincerely, Janice Bagaw 6406 Dijon Way Dublin, CA 94568 Protect our a� r 0 x 2 �L E W U 0 N 00 N c a� E E 0 U v 0 a co c m E U 2 r a Packet Pg. 436 5.1.f Amy Million From: KERRIE CHABOT <kerriechabot@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 9:59 AM To: Amy Million; mureta@ehsplanning.com Subject: Redwood Trees, Cambria hotel To Planning Commission and City Council, I do not support the removal of the 2 California Redwood Trees at the site of the proposed hotel. Sincerely, Kerrie Chabot, 21 year Dublin resident W a Packet Pg. 437 5.1.f Amy Million From: Chris <chris_p2@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 11:16 AM To: Amy Million Cc: Jeff Baker; City Council Subject: Cambria Hotel - PLPA-2019-00020 To: Planning Commissioners Thalbum, Kothari, Mittan, Benson, Wright, Greir and Plants Dear Sirs, Please reject the Tree Removal Permit for the site of the Cambria Hotel development. Please reject the Site Development Permit for the Cambria Hotel. Trees have been sacrificed in large numbers in close proximity to this site with the residential development on San Ramon Road adjacent to the Gas Station on the corner with Dublin Blvd. These Redwood trees can enhance the environment adjacent to the proposed hotel as an architectural feature with some adjustment to the site layout. The Redwood trees are within the Dublin City's Heritage Trees Ordinance and are healthy thereby representing no danger to the project nor the public. The existence of these trees encourages the presence of special birds like Golden Eagles and others and so add to the quality of the environment and the city. We would ask that special attention be given to the architecture of the hotel which is at a very significant entrance gateway position to the City of Dublin and thereby should in all respects enhance the City, the neighborhood and the lot. The project should in all cases provide an improvement to the City's infrastructure and its aesthetics should complement and improve the existing elements adjacent and its height should not be disproportionate, however with a height of 69' this will have a very significant visual impact. A pedestrian friendly downtown will be severely impacted by the presence of this massive structure. Thank you. Chris Page r 0 x �L E CU U 0 N 00 N r E 0 U v IL r E w a Packet Pg. 438 5.1.f Amy Million From: Steve Minniear <minniear@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 12:06 PM To: Planning Commission Cc: Amy Million Subject: Comments on Item 5.1. Cambria Hotel, Planning Commission Agenda for 4/28/2020 Meeting Hello, I would like to express my disapproval of the request under 5.1. Cambria Hotel (PLPA-2019- 00020, PLPA-2019-00044 and PLOC-2020-00053). This revised plan is significantly bigger than the original plan and would detrimentally affect the neighborhood and the proposed look and feel of downtown Dublin.. Please vote to scope it back to the original height and arrangement. Steve Minniear 11902 West Vomac Road Dublin, CA 94568 a� 0 x 2 �L E �W♦ V W a Packet Pg. 439 5.1.f Amy Million From: Gabrielle Marshall <gabisan@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 1:45 PM To: Amy Million Cc: murueta@ehsplanning.com Subject: comment on tree removal and expansion of project Dear Council member Million, I am writing to ask you to Reject the Heritage Tree Removal Permit submitted by Jerry Hunt on April 23, 2020, to remove Coastal Redwood trees #51 and #52. The trees are in a cluster of four and the root ball is intertwined. removing even one would cause a threat to all four of these trees as well as creating a hazard. Please oppose Jerry Hunt's new request to have these two Heritage trees removed. If he is CD going to tear up the parking lot to erect a structure, he can move the pipes over a bit. By eliminating one or more of these trees, the rooting system could affect the other trees, and 2 the result could kill the remaining California Coastal Redwood trees. w Regarding the hotel project, Mr. Hunt is requesting a six -story building that looks boxy and U nothing like the vision of what Downtown Dublin is supposed to be. Frankly, it looks very N boxy and similar to County's building downtown. It would be nice to have this new building N look like a beautiful resort, and this is going to be the first thing people will see when exiting the west Dublin freeway as they enter our city. I'm also asking you to oppose his plans to build a six -story hotel. c Please: v 1. Reject the Heritage Tree Removal Permit dated 4/23/20 to cut down 2 of Dublin's Heritage Redwood Trees; 2. Reject the Site Development Review Permit for the six -story Cambria Hotel. a Protect: 6 1 Out Golden Eagles, Grey Owls who roost, nest in California Coastal Redwood trees. 2 Protect our environment & Quality of Life: Preservation of the Coastal Redwoods "Counteracts pollution in our air... promotes the welfare of our community... and enhances the scenic beauty of our city." Support: Dublin's Pedestrian -Friendly Downtown: Q Limit the hotel to its original 3 or 4 stories with parking and impose an architectural design of the hotel which supports the quality of our Downtown now and in the future. Kind Regards, Gabrielle Marshall 7841 Canterbury Lane Dublin, CA 94568 'Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. " -- Theodor Seuss Geisel, aka Dr. Seuss Packet Pg. 440 5.1.f Amy Million From: Jeff Baker Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:12 PM To: Kristie Wheeler; Amy Million Subject: FW: hotel and trees From: K. Matthew Marshall <dbl00mat@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 12:38 PM To: Planning Commission<PlanningCommission @dublin.ca.gov> Subject: hotel and trees To the planning commission ar 0 x 2 �L Funny how this meeting to get rid of large beautiful redwood trees coincides with earth day, a central issue of which is cEa planting more trees. The emphasis should be on providing more trees and green spaces for air quality, soil retention, v shade, and homes for birds and other animals and not removing them for the convenience for developers. c In an area of high stress level, with traffic and high density housing, trees and green spaces provide residents with the opportunity to sit and calm emotions with the little green that is left for the people that live here. They also provide a healthier environment for clean air and water reducing illness. Also, the hotel itself is not at all an appealing structure. It looks like something that is constructed with little artistic t° consideration and very low budget. This at a place where people first come into Dublin and see how much the city cares about how the city looks. E t r a Development must happen only alongside consideration for a healthy environment. A hotel can co exist with trees. Developers are not going broke and need to put more thought into how a hotel can accommodate existing trees and a more pleasing architectural design. Marie Marshall Packet Pg. 441 5.1.f Amy Million From: Kevin Payne <krpayne@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:30 PM To: Amy Million Cc: murueta@ehsplanning.com; planningcommision@ci.dublin.ca.us Subject: Approve Jerry Hunt's Heritage Tree Request Planning Commission, Please approve the heritage tree removal requested by Jerry Hunt. Redwood trees are not a native to the Dublin area and were clearly planted as landscaping. Any modifications to the landscaping should be allowed as long as it adheres to Dublin city code which I believe it does in this case. Kevin Payne Dublin resident a� 0 x 2 �L E �W♦ V W a Packet Pg. 442 5.1.f Amy Million From: Dale and Jean Olds <deejolds@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:56 PM To: Amy Million Cc: murueta@ehsplanning.com Subject: Save the Coastal Redwoods! Dear Ms. Million, Please add my name to the growing list of those decrying the removal of two magnificent redwood trees on the property slated to be developed into a hotel at the intersection of San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard. These true Heritage Trees stand tall as evidence of Dublin's commitment to making our community a beautiful one. Over the 46 years that my husband and I have lived in Dublin, we've seen it grow from an unincorporated town, with nothing but gravel and sere -looking olive trees as "landscaping," into the = beautiful City that it has become. The transformation of an ugly suburb into a jewel in Alameda 2 County has come because of the City elders' commitment to making the outdoor environment one that feeds the soul of its citizens. At this time of year in particular, take a drive down San Ramon U Road or Village Parkway near the high school, and you will see the fruit of this careful planning. o Dublin is truly a Green City, in more ways than one! M And there is nothing so green and iconic as a redwood tree. I walked to these trees this afternoon, to feel their majesty, and I wondered why working around these trees could not be seen as an invigorating creative challenge to the architectural staff working on this development. Trees are so much more than impediments; they are homes to many creatures, landmarks, and emblems of the perseverance of life in times of impending climate disaster. I've learned that the redwood trees on this property have a common root system that would be 6 threatened for all the trees in the cluster, even if only two were removed. a� E Please reject this Heritage Tree Removal Permit [dated 4-23-20]. Please keep Dublin's growth consistent with the ideal of incorporating Nature as partner in making our community one that draws a people to live here, as well as and come to visit! Thank you for your consideration of my request. Sincerely, Jean Olds, 11722 Regio Drive, Dublin Packet Pg. 443 5.1.f Amy Million From: Jeff Baker Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:10 PM To: Kristie Wheeler; Amy Million Subject: FW: Public Comments Regarding Development at corner of San Ramon Valley Blvd & Dublin Blvd From: Nicholas Harvey <nick@bayarearedwood.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:20 PM To: Planning Commission<PlanningCommission @dublin.ca.gov> Subject: Public Comments Regarding Development at corner of San Ramon Valley Blvd & Dublin Blvd To whom it may concern, Several customers have brought this item to my attention, in particular, regarding the removal of redwood trees on this parcel as part of the redevelopment plan. While we always advocate for heritage trees like these redwood trees in question to be preserved, in the event they are cut down we would like to see them repurposed for their highest and best use i.e. timber products. To be abundantly clear, we are not advocating for the trees to come down; however, if they are we would like to be involved to ensure they are repurposed and do not end up in a landfill or burned at a cogeneration facility. We are a local tri-valley business which specializes in repurposing felled urban trees into timber products. I am writing to ensure this comment is taken into consideration, and I am glad to submit an official memo on Bay Area Redwood letterhead detailing this. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to the preservation of these redwood trees -- whether they are standing or as timber products. Nick Harvey Founder I BayAreaRedwood phone. (925) 421 - 0118 mobile (972) 765 - 3395 site: BayAreaRedwood. com ❑ ❑ ❑ Please do not print this email unless it is necessary. Every unprinted email helps the environment. a� r 0 x �L E W U 0 N 00 N c a� E E 0 U 0 a co r c m E t U 2 a Packet Pg. 444 5.1.f Amy Million From: Jeri Dawn Larsen <jdwlarsen@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:12 PM To: Amy Million Subject: Heritage * tree removal Please deny the request to destroy heritage trees numbers 51 and 52. 1 have been a Dublin resident since 1967. Our trees are one of the few bright spots in our town and help relieve its cookie cutter sameness. Thank you for considering this request. Jeri Dawn Larsen 11305 Rolling Hills Drive, Dublin Sent from my Whone a� r 0 x 2 �L E �to♦ V W a Packet Pg. 445 5.1.f Amy Million From: CHERYL SCRIMSHAW <ohbother@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:40 PM To: Amy Million Cc: murueta@ehsplanning.com Subject: Letter to Planning Commisioners to Reject the 6 Story Hotel and Removal of Redwood Trees To the Planning Commissioners, I have been a Dublin resident for close to 30 years now. One of the main reasons to locating to Dublin was the views of the hills all around. I am strongly objecting to the six -story Cambria Hotel project and the removal of the Redwood trees. Dublin does not need any building to be 6 stories. It is bad enough to see all these 3 - 4 stories being built which is taking away sunlight and views of the surrounding hills. Trees of this size plays a huge part in our echo system and the removal destroy the habitat of many. Please reject the proposal for the 6 stories and removal of the trees. Thank you, Cheryl Scrimshaw 7475 Burnham Way 0 x 2 E �W♦ V W a Packet Pg. 446 5.1.f Amy Million From: Ruth <ruth.ebert@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:44 PM To: Amy Million Cc: murueta@ehsplanning.com Just got email about cutting down two redwood trees, for a hotel! This is outrageous!! We don't need another hotel! W need to start waking up and stop destroying everything that gets in our way! Don't you get that when the trees go, the animals go. And eventually every thing gos! Is that really what you want our world to be? Think of the kids if nothing else. I know it's two trees. But two trees here, two trees there and what do you get? A very ugly and devastated world. But Dublin will get bragging rights with their new hotel. And money to waste on things like that monstrosity you call a water park. you'd think with all that's going right now, you'd care a little more about our world and think about saving it. Not helping to destroying it! I guess somethings never Chang's! Ruth Ebert Sent from my iPad a� r 0 x 2 �L E W U W r a Packet Pg. 447 5.1.f Amy Million From: Samina Khwaja <saminakhwaja@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:47 PM To: Amy Million Cc: murueta@ehsplanning.com Subject: Re: Heritage Tree Removal Permit submitted by Jerry Hunt on April 23, 2020, to remove Coastal Redwood trees #51 and #52 Dear Ms. Million, This letter is in regards to the planned removal of two large redwood trees in West Dublin. I understand that there is now a plan to remove two of these trees, however, I am again requesting that these trees please not be removed. To remove two large old redwoods in the middle of West Dublin for the creation of a new building r simply does not make sense. I believe a serious effort should be made by the builder to avoid = damaging any of these redwoods. It takes 50 years to grow a beautiful environmentally essential tree � •L that typically house many birds, and provides aesthetic beauty to our neighborhood. The trees also add character and value to our neighborhood, not to mention immunity and psychological wellbeing to our residents and visitors. In this time of incredible suffering for so many people, we need to preserve those things that give people emotional wellbeing. I again urge you to not remove these important trees! Please read this article to understand some of the research associated with the importance of trees There have even been associations with improved immunity, which is something essential at this time. Why Trees Can Make You Happier Why Trees Can Make You Happier Kesearui suyyests that being arOunu frees is good for our mental and social well-being. Sincerely, Samina Khwaja, M.D. r Q Packet Pg. 448 5.1.f Amy Million From: Anu Venkat <anu.koratagere@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:54 PM To: Amy Million; murueta@ehsplanning.com; smithcampers@comcast.net Subject: Objection to cutting of 2 of 9 trees Dublin Heritage Redwood Trees. To, Amy Million Principal Planner Dublin CA94568 We refer to your Public Notice inviting objections to cut/remove 2 of 9 trees. We strongly reject the Tree Removal permit dated 4.23.20 to cut down 2 of Dublin's Heritage Trees: 0 x 2 These are some of the few remaining Heritage Redwood trees and must be protected from such needless destruction. Dublin City's municipal code should put the design responsibility on the W developers to avoid harming any of the 9 trees. 0 N Redwood trees are always in clusters or groups called groves. N The strength of the tree is not in itself but it lies in the network of its roots. For every foot in height it grows vertically, the redwood tree sends its roots three times that distance outwards. And not E downwards. So if a tree is 200 feet tall, its roots are spread out 800 feet. So in the grove that we are E discussing all the 9 tree roots are intertwining with each other. So all the 9 trees are living as one 0 single organism. They are held by the strength of each other. So technically removal of 2 trees would •" damage or kill all the 9 Heritage Trees. a 2. Reject the site development review permit for six -story Cambria Hotel Project to protect a. 1. Our Golden Eagles, Grey Owls who roost, nest in these majestic redwood trees. 2. Protect our environment and quality of life. Preservation of the Redwood trees counteracts pollution in our air. 2 3. Limit the Hotel to 3 or 4 stories with parking space and impose a design of the Hotel a which supports the quality of our Downtown now and in the future. Thanking You Packet Pg. 449 5.1.f Amy Million From: J Gillengerten <gillengertenj@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:05 PM To: Amy Million Subject: Planning Commission Meeting tonight Dear Ms Million: I am writing in regards to the agenda item 5.1, the Cambria Hotel and the removal of two heritage trees. In regards to my concerns regarding the hotel: 1. The building is 6 stories tall. Does the current fire equipment serving West Dublin include equipment able to reach and rescue people from this new proposed building? I see on the 2. Do the current plans have access and a stable base to accommodate such equipment given that the hotel is landlocked? 3. The Calaveras Fault lies in very close proximity to this new construction. The agenda documents state that the top 4 stories are cantilevered over the parking bottom 2 stories. This creates a significant engineering challenge to prevent the open soft story parking levels from collapse in an earthquake. The Calaveras Fault is capable of producing a magnitude 7 earthquake. In regards to the heritage trees, I have two concerns. My concern in terms of the Cambria project is that there should be cv a cooperative way to protect these two trees given the benefit they will have in providing a beautiful and restful view E that outweighs the need to remove them. At this stage of the planning process, creative options to save the trees will W result in a win -win for the developer and the tree enthusiasts who live in West Dublin. v My second concern regarding heritage trees is in item 5.2. Am I correct in understanding that the only change is the N removal of a stated amount of the fee as $25? CO N Thank you, Jeanine Gillengerten E E 0 U Sent from my iPad 2 0 a W r c m E r a Packet Pg. 450 5.1.f Amy Million From: Patricia Burroughs <pmburroughs1 @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:18 PM To: Amy Million Cc: murueta@ehsplanning.com Subject: Comments on Heritage Tree Removal Permit & Cambria Hotel Dear Ms. Million, I am writing to you today as a concerned Dublin resident asking that the Planning Commission reject the Heritage Tree Removal Permit dated 4/23/20 which was submitted by Mr. Hunt. These trees provide critical habitat to species of special interest such as golden eagles as well as grey owls. The trees also provide aesthetic and health benefits to Dublin residents, serving as a much -needed installment of nature downtown and helping to clean our air. We don't want our downtown area to be nothing but bricks and mortar. Even this modified proposal to remove only two of the four trees in this particular stand is flawed. It is not safe to assume that two of the four trees could be extracted without harming the other two. Their mature root systems are undoubtedly intertwined, meaning that removal of two trees would inevitably kill the other two. I would earnestly ask the Committee to consider the serious ramifications of approving this unnecessary and undesirable plan to remove some of Dublin's most treasured flora. I would also ask the Commissioners to reject the Site Development Review Permit for the six -story Cambria Hotel and instead to only consider the original approval for a 3- or 4-story structure, in keeping with the vision for Dublin's downtown. Please share my comments with the Commissioners. I also grant my permission for my comments to be read during the 4/28/20 meeting. Sincerely, Patricia Burroughs 5587 N Dublin Ranch Dr. Dublin, CA 94568 (925) 548-3911 a� r 0 x �L E ca c� 0 N 00 N C a� E E 0 U 2 0 a co r c m E t r a Packet Pg. 451 5.1.f Amy Million From: Jeff Baker Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:20 PM To: Kristie Wheeler; Amy Million Subject: FW: Hotel on the corner of San Ramon Road From: Monique Thompson <jayandmonique1988@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 12:35 PM To: Planning Commission<PlanningCommission @dublin.ca.gov> Subject: Hotel on the corner of San Ramon Road Hello. a� Why build another hotel when there is one behind Earl Anthony's Dublin Bowl & next to The Outback Restaurant? It'll take business away from the other existing business. I believe building something else would be a better choice. What cv that is I haven't thought about that yet but 2 hotels in that location is not a wise choice. Please reconsider. W Thank you v Monique Thompson Dublin resident since 1989 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android W r a Packet Pg. 452 5.1.f Amy Million From: Lynne Frye <lynnejfrye@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:21 PM To: Amy Million Cc: murueta@ehsplanning.com Subject: Rejection of mr hunts second request Trees are family Removal of any will impact all don't allow this no approval rejection only please thxs All trees should be incorporated into the design of the project and developer is responsible for tree watering & maintenance. Sent from my Whone a� r 0 x 2 �L E �W♦ V W C d E t V a Packet Pg. 453 5.1.f Amy Million From: Tom Evans <offrampmusic@LIVE.COM> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:43 PM To: Amy Million Subject: comments on Cambria Hotel and the future of Dublin Hello Amy — I wanted to send to you my thoughts on this project and the planning process in Dublin. I hope to speak at the meeting tonight. Comments on Cambria Hotel (PLPA-2019-00020 & PLPA-2019-00044) Why did the Planning Commission make findings and determinations (Packet Pg. 21*) referencing public comment on a meeting that hadn't occurred yet? It makes it seems like public comment has no real effect and that the commission has already made up its mind. I notice the wording on p.22 that says the project "provides a high degree of design and landscaping to provide a unique, urban, contemporary-themed lodging opportunity." Why do the leaders in Dublin continue to lead us down an urban path? This is not an urban community. People live here to get away from the urban environment. 3. 1 am against granting a permit for this project unless Dublin has in place infrastructure to accommodate all of Dublin's existing building, and all future approved building. e.g. sewer, water, power lines, traffic accommodation, and emergency services Specifically, it is not enough to just collect a fee to offset future construction. We need to have real infrastructure to handle this future building expansion. Until that time, new permits should stop. This building is in a high seismic area. We are in a near fault zone by the Calaveras Fault. The illustration of the building shows large cantilevered sections of the building that are elevated and held up by relatively small columns. The structural design would have to severely limit the amount of drift sideways to keep those columns operational. This looks like a problem waiting to be designed. *Agenda packet for the April 28, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Sincerely, Tom Evans 7814 Alto Way Dublin, CA 94568 (925) 828-2118 Dublin resident for 34 years a� r 0 x �L E W U 0 N CO N c a� E E 0 U v B 0 a co r c m E .r r a Packet Pg. 454