HomeMy WebLinkAbout11. Exhibit A to Attachment 10 Draft EIRAt Dublin
Draft EIR – ERATA | October 2018
At Dublin
Draft EIR -- ERATA| October 2018
State Clearinghouse No. 2018012027
City of Dublin At Dublin
Table of Contents | Page i
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary 1
2 Introduction 2-1
3Project Description 3-1
4 Introduction to Environmental Analysis 4-1
5 Aesthetics 5-1
6Air Quality 6-1
7 Biological Resources 7-1
8 Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources 8-1
9 Geology & Soils 9-1
10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 10-1
11 Hazards & Hazardous Materials 11-1
12 Hydrology & Water Quality 12-1
13 Land Use & Planning 13-1
14 Noise & Vibration 14-1
15 Population & Housing 15-1
16 Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems 16-1
17 Transportation & Circulation 17-1
18 Energy Conservation 18-1
19 Alternatives 19-1
20 Other CEQA Considerations 20-1
21 EIR Preparers 21-1
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page ii | Table of Contents
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Appendices
A Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters
B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis (supporting technical
data)
C Biological Resources Assessment and Supporting Surveys
D Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration
E Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
F Preliminary Drainage Study
G Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan
H Noise Analysis (supporting technical data)
I Water Supply Assessment
J Transportation Impact Assessment (supporting technical data)
Appendices documents are available in electronic format and are posted on the City of Dublin
website at https://dublin-development.icitywork.com/
City of Dublin At Dublin
Table of Contents | Page iii
Draft EIR
10/23/18
List of Figures
Figure 3-1: Project Location
Figure 3-2: Surrounding Land Uses
Figure 3-3: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
Figure 3-4: Existing Zoning
Figure 3-5: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations
Figure 3-6: Illustrative Site Plan
Figures 3-7 (a-b): Project Renderings
Figure 3-8: Landscape Master Plan
Figure 3-9: Parks and Other Open Space
Figure 3-10: Vehicular Access and Circulation
Figure 3-11: Pedestrian Network Plan
Figure 3-12: Project Phasing
Figure 5-1: Location of Simulation Viewpoints
Figure 5-2: Simulation Viewpoint 1
Figure 5-3: Simulation Viewpoint 2
Figure 5-4a: Simulation Viewpoint 3
Figure 5-4b: Gateway Perspective View
Figure 5-5: Simulation Viewpoint 4
Figure 5-6: Simulation Viewpoint 5
Figure 7-1: Biological Communities on the Project Site
Figure 7-2: Special-Status Plant Species with Five Miles of the Project Site
Figure 7-3: Congdon’s Tarplant on the Project Site
Figure 7-4: Special-Status Wildlife Species within Five Miles of the Project Site
Figure 9-1: Soils on the Project Site
Figure 9-2: Regional Fault Zones
Figure 11-1: Livermore Municipal Airport Safety Compatibility Zones
Figure 12-1: Flood Hazard Areas
Figure 12-2: Preliminary Hydromodification Management Plan
Figure 12-3: Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan
Figure 19-1: Commercial Development Task Force Opportunity Sites
Note: All figures are presented at the end of their respective chapter.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page iv | Table of Contents
Draft EIR
10/23/18
List of Tables
Table 1-1: At Dublin Land Use Summary ....................................................................................... 2
Table ES-1: Summary of Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project .......................................... 8
Table 2-1: NOP Comment Letters ............................................................................................... 2-3
Table 3-1: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Anticipated Project Site Development ......................... 3-2
Table 3-2: At Dublin Land Use Summary .................................................................................... 3-4
Table 3-3: Grading Requirements (by Planning Area) .............................................................. 3-11
Table 5-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Aesthetics ................................... 5-17
Table 6-1: Current National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ....................................... 6-5
Table 6-2: Attainment Status of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin ...................................... 6-6
Table 6-3: Ambient Air Quality Data ............................................................................................ 6-7
Table 6-4: BAAQMD Significance Thresholds for Construction Emissions ............................... 6-17
Table 6-5: BAAQMD Significance Thresholds for Operational Emissions .................................6-18
Table 6-6: Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures................... 6-20
Table 6-7: Construction Air Emissions ...................................................................................... 6-26
Table 6-8: Project Buildout Operational Emissions – Un-Mitigated .......................................... 6-29
Table 6-9: Project Buildout Operational Emissions – Mitigated ................................................ 6-32
Table 6-10: Existing Permitted Stationary Sources within 1,000 Feet of the Project Boundary ... 6-
37
Table 6-11: Cumulative TAC Risk ............................................................................................... 6-40
Table 6-12: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Air Quality ................................ 6-43
Table 7-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Biological Resources .................. 7-23
Table 8-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Cultural Resources .................... 8-14
Table 9-1: Regional Faults and Seismicity ................................................................................... 9-3
Table 9-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Geology & Soils.......................... 9-14
Table 10-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases .......................................................................... 10-3
Table 10-2: City of Dublin CAP Reduction Goal Analysis ........................................................... 10-5
Table 10-3: Project Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................... 10-20
Table 10-4: Project Operation-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................... 10-20
Table 10-5: City of Dublin CAP Consistency Analysis - Operational Year 2030 ....................... 10-23
Table 10-6: City of Dublin CAP Consistency Analysis- Operational Year 2050 ........................ 10-25
City of Dublin At Dublin
Table of Contents | Page v
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 10-8: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures .................... 10-31
Table 10-9: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Greenhouse Gas Emissions ... 10-34
Table 11-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Hazards & Hazardous Materials 11-
14
Table 12-1: PA-1 Water Quality Boundary .............................................................................. 12-12
Table 12-2: PA-2a Water Quality Boundary ............................................................................. 12-12
Table 12-3: PA-2b Water Quality Boundary ............................................................................ 12-13
Table 12-4: PA-2c Water Quality Boundary ............................................................................. 12-13
Table 12-5: PA-3 Water Quality Boundary .............................................................................. 12-14
Table 12-6: PA-4 Water Quality Boundary .............................................................................. 12-14
Table 12-7: Stormwater Flows for a 15-Year Storm Event ...................................................... 12-16
Table 12-8: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Hydrology & Water Quality .... 12-20
Table 13-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Land Use & Planning ............... 13-8
Table 14-1: Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels ........................................................................... 14-2
Table 14-2: Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration ......................... 14-4
Table 14-3: Existing Noise Measurements ................................................................................ 14-5
Table 14-4: Existing Traffic Noise Levels ................................................................................... 14-6
Table 14-5: Significance of Changes in Operational Roadway Noise Exposure ......................... 14-8
Table 14-6: Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix .................................................................. 14-10
Table 14-7: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ...................................................... 14-15
Table 14-8: Project Construction Average Noise Levels .......................................................... 14-17
Table 14-9: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ................................................ 14-20
Table 14-10: Existing and Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels........................................ 14-21
Table 14-11: Near Term and Near Term Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels .............................. 14-23
Table 14-12: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Predicted Traffic Noise Levels .................. 14-31
Table 14-13: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Noise ...................................14-34
Table 15-1: City of Dublin and Alameda County Existing and Forecasted Population ............. 15-2
Table 15-2: Housing Units for City of Dublin and Alameda County .......................................... 15-2
Table 15-3: City of Dublin Regional Housing Needs Allocation ................................................. 15-3
Table 15-4: Additional Population Generated by Project ......................................................... 15-6
Table 15-5: Buildout Potential of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ........................................... 15-7
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page vi | Table of Contents
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 15-6: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Population & Housing ............. 15-7
Table 16-1: Alameda County Fire Department Stations in the City of Dublin ........................... 16-3
Table 16-2: Dublin School District Existing Student Capacity ................................................... 16-5
Table 16-3: Dublin Parks and Sport Facilities Existing Service Levels and Standards ............... 16-6
Table 16-4: City of Dublin Community Facilities ....................................................................... 16-7
Table 16-5: DSRSD Current and Projected Future Water Supplies............................................ 16-9
Table 16-6: Dublin Unified School District Student Generation Rates by Housing Type ....... 16-28
Table 16-7: Estimated Project Student Generation vs. DUSD Projections ............................ 16-29
Table 16-8: Community and Neighborhood Park Requirements ........................................... 16-32
Table 16-9: Project Potable Water Demand ............................................................................ 16-33
Table 16-10: Project Recycled Water Demand ........................................................................ 16-34
Table 16-11: Proposed Project Estimated Daily Solid Waste Generation ............................... 16-37
Table 16-12: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Public Services, Utilities & Service
Systems .................................................................................................................................... 16-39
Table 17- 1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria............................................ 17-9
Table 17- 2 Freeway Facilities LOS Criteria .............................................................................. 17-10
Table 17-3 Alameda CTC Roadway Segment LOS Criteria ....................................................... 17-10
Table 17- 4: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS without Project –
Weekday .................................................................................................................................. 17-23
Table 17- 5: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS without Project –
Saturday ................................................................................................................................... 17-26
Table 17- 6: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Freeway Segment LOS without Project ... 17-27
Table 17- 7: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Freeway Ramp LOS without Project ........ 17-28
Table 17- 8: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Ramp Metering Analysis without Project 17-29
Table 17- 9: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative SimTraffic Analysis without Project ......... 17-32
Table 17- 10: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative VMT Summary.......................................17-34
Table 17- 11: Proposed Project Trip Generation – Weekday ................................................. 17-46
Table 17- 12: Proposed Project Trip Generation – Saturday ................................................... 17-47
Table 17- 13: Project Driveway Lane Lengths Summary ......................................................... 17-49
Table 17- 14: Existing and Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday ........... 17-55
Table 17- 15: Existing and Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday ........... 17-58
Table 17- 16: Mitigated Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday .............. 17-59
City of Dublin At Dublin
Table of Contents | Page vii
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 17: Existing + Project Queuing Analysis ................................................................... 17-61
Table 17- 18: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Analysis .................................................... 17-64
Table 17- 19: Existing + Project Freeway Ramp Analysis ......................................................... 17-65
Table 17- 20: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Analysis........................................................ 17-66
Table 17- 21: Near-Term and Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday 17-71
Table 17- 22: Mitigated Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday ......... 17-74
Table 17- 23: Near-Term and Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday . 17-75
Table 17- 24: Mitigated Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday .......... 17-76
Table 17- 25: Near-Term + Project Queuing Analysis .............................................................. 17-77
Table 17- 26: Near-Term + Project Freeway Segment Analysis ............................................... 17-81
Table 17- 27: Near-Term + Project Freeway Ramp Analysis.................................................... 17-82
Table 17- 28: Near-term + Project Ramp Metering Analysis ................................................... 17-83
Table 17- 29: Cumulative and Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday ... 17-
91
Table 17- 30: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday ........ 17-94
Table 17- 31: Cumulative and Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday 17-95
Table 17- 32: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday ......... 17-97
Table 17- 33: Cumulative + Project Queuing Analysis ............................................................. 17-99
Table 17- 34: Cumulative + Project Freeway Segment Analysis ............................................ 17-103
Table 17- 35: Cumulative + Project Freeway Ramp Analysis ................................................. 17-104
Table 17- 36: Cumulative + Project Ramp Metering Analysis................................................ 17-105
Table 17- 37: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative SimTraffic Analysis with Project .......... 17-111
Table 17- 38: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Transportation and Circulation17-
116
Table 18-1: Electricity Consumption in Alameda County 2006-2016 ........................................ 18-4
Table 18-2: Natural Gas Consumption in Alameda County 2006-2016 .....................................18-5
Table 18-3: Automotive Fuel Consumption in Alameda County 2009-2019 ............................. 18-6
Table 18-4: Project Energy Consumption During Construction ............................................... 18-15
Table 18-5 Project Annual Energy Consumption During Operations ...................................... 18-19
City of Dublin At Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
1 Executive Summary
1.1 Purpose
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of Dublin for the At
Dublin development project (the project). The City of Dublin is the “public agency which has
the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving the project,” and as such is the “Lead
Agency” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as defined in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15367. CEQA requires the Lead Agency to consider the information contained in the
EIR prior to taking any discretionary action. This EIR is intended to serve as an informational
document to be considered by the City and other permitting agencies during deliberations on
the project.
This Executive Summary summarizes the requirements of the CEQA Statute and Guidelines,
provides an overview of the project and alternatives, outlines the potential impacts of the
project and the recommended mitigation measures, and discloses areas of controversy and
issues to be resolved.
1.2 Project Description
The 76.2-acre project site is generally bound by Tassajara Road, Interstate 580, Brannigan
Street and Gleason Drive. The project site is located in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP)
area and has Planned Development Zoning (Resolution No. 104-94) adopted with the EDSP.
The project site is surrounded by commercial uses to the west, southwest and southeast, a
public park to the northwest, and residential uses to the north, northwest and east.
The project applicant (Shea Properties, in partnership with SCS Development Company) is
proposing to amend the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to accommodate a
mixed-use development that would allow up to 454,500 square feet of commercial uses and up
to 680 residential units.
To accommodate the project, the applicant proposes to redistribute and simplify the six existing
land use designations to four land use designations organized in large blocks. As shown in Table
1-1: At Dublin Land Use Summary and Figure 1-1: At Dublin Land Use Plan, the proposed land
uses, from the south to the north are: General Commercial; Mixed-Use; Medium-High Density
Residential; and Medium Density Residential.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 1-2 | Executive Summary
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 1-1: At Dublin Land Use Summary
Land Use Designations Gross Acres Res. Units Du/Acre
Floor Area
Ratio
Commercial
sq. ft.
General Commercial 23.2 -- -- .4 370,000
Mixed-Use 16.1 300 -- .7 84,500
Medium-High Density Residential 14.1 200 14.2
Medium-Density Residential 23.5 180 7.7 -- --
Total 76.9 680 -- -- 454,500
Source: City of Dublin and Shea Properties, 2018.
1.3 Project Objectives
The following project objectives are identified:
Mix of Uses / Quality of Product
1.Provide a balanced mix of residential and commercial uses in the Eastern Extended
Planning Area that integrate into the existing urban systems and provide a safe and
attractive environment for living and working as encouraged by General Plan Policy
2.6.4.A.1.
2.Provide uses that meet the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan’s objective to have higher-
density housing, adjacent to commercial and employment opportunities.
3.Provide land uses and high-quality architecture that complement existing, adjacent land
uses and development.
Economic Growth
4.Have a positive contribution to the local economy through new capital investment, the
creation of new jobs, and the expansion of the tax base.
5.Add commercial, entertainment, and hotel uses that will have a synergy with existing
retail in the City.
6.Provide a mix of residential and commercial uses that achieves a financially feasible
project.
7.Provide a project that balances housing with job-creating uses.
8.Develop a project that supports the success of the commercial uses through careful site
planning and infrastructure design.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Housing
9.Add to the City’s housing diversity in compliance with Housing Element Program 10 and
General Plan Policy 2.6.1.A.1 by providing a range of housing products, including
apartments, townhomes, and small lot single-family detached homes.
10.Expand and improve the City’s housing supply by developing high-quality housing in a
portion of a City-designated Priority Development Area, which is a location planned for
growth under the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area.
11.Increase housing on the project site beyond what was initially planned under the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which will help in state-wide efforts to alleviate California’s
housing crisis.
Responsible Growth
12.Develop vacant and underutilized land in an urban area.
13.Locate commercial and residential uses where such uses can take advantage of existing
infrastructure and utilities.
14.Provide attractive, well-landscaped commercial uses close to Interstate 580 as a buffer
between the highway and residential uses and to further General Plan Policy 10.5.3.E.
15.Enhance the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard consistent with
General Plan Goal 10.6.2.
Connectivity
16.Complete existing infrastructure to support General Plan buildout conditions consistent
with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
17.Implement the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and enhance bicycle and
pedestrian safety by providing on-site and off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities that
link with existing facilities along Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive, and Dublin Boulevard.
18.Reconfigure block size and provide publicly accessible parkways, park corridors and
paths to improve pedestrian connectivity between residential and commercial uses.
19.Provide and improve pedestrian connections within the project and across adjacent
arterial streets to facilitate pedestrian activity between neighborhoods and within the
development.
1.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The project would result in the following significant unavoidable impacts:
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 1-4 | Executive Summary
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Air Quality. The project would cause construction impacts associated with the release of
nitrogen oxides (NOx) that would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Despite
implementation of MM AQ-2.2, construction-related NOx emissions would remain
significant and unavoidable. The project would also cause operational impacts
associated with the release of reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOx that would exceed
BAAQMD significance thresholds. Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.4, operational
emissions from ROG and NOx would remain significant and unavoidable. These impacts
would occur through cumulative conditions.
Near-Term + Project Traffic Conditions. The project would increase the critical delay
movement by more than six (6) seconds to the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard (#14). This intersection would also experience an increase in queuing due to
the project of more than 25 feet during the weekday AM and PM peak periods and the
weekend peak period. This intersection was determined to be over capacity with no
feasible mitigation available. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and
unavoidable.
In addition, there is a LOS impact at the intersection of Santa Rita Road / Las Positas
Boulevard (Int #18). The project adds 278 trips in the PM peak hour to an already
deficient intersection. Mitigation Measure TR-5.1 would improve the operations to an
acceptable LOS, however since this intersection is located in the City of Pleasanton, the
City of Dublin cannot guarantee the implementation of the mitigation and therefore it
remains significant and unavoidable.
In addition, there is a LOS impact at the intersection of El Charro Road / Stoneridge
Drive / Jack London Boulevard (Int #29). The project adds 70 trips in the PM peak hour
to an already deficient intersection. Mitigation Measure TR-2.1 would improve the
operations to an acceptable LOS, however since this intersection is located in the City of
LivermorePleasanton, the City of Dublin cannot guarantee the implementation of the
mitigation and therefore it remains significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative + Project Traffic Conditions. The project would contribute new trips to
facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels; namely, Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard (#14), Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (#18), El Charro Road / Jack
London Boulevard (#29), Project Driveway / Dublin Boulevard (#35). All feasible
mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts to levels better than without
project conditions; except for the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
(#14). No feasible mitigation is available for this intersection, similar to the Near-term +
Project conditions. In addition, Intersections #18 and #29 are located outside of the City
of Dublin, and therefore the implementation of the mitigations cannot be guaranteed.
Arterials. The project would contribute new trips to the already congested study
roadway segments along Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard. These arterials are
already over capacity in the future conditions and operate at LOS F based on average
City of Dublin At Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
travel speeds from the SimTraffic analysis. Since there are no feasible mitigations to
improve the average travel speeds to LOS D or better, the residual significance is
significant and unavoidable.
Freeways. The project would contribute new trips to the already congested project
study freeway segments from Dougherty Road to Airway Boulevard on I-580. These
segments are already over capacity and should be operating at LOS F because the
volumes for the westbound direction in the AM peak hour and the volumes for the
eastbound direction in the PM peak hour are constrained by downstream bottlenecks.
While the project would be required to pay their proportional share of traffic impact
fees, these freeway segments will continue to operate in an over capacity manner.
Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable.
Ramp Metering. The project would contribute new trips to the Hacienda Drive loop on-
ramp to EB I-580 in the PM peak, to the Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp to WB I-580 in
the AM peak, and to the El Charro Road loop on-ramp to EB I-580 in the PM peak. Each
of these on-ramps have queues that exceed the on-ramp storage and extend onto the
arterial with project traffic added. While the project would be required to pay their
proportional share of traffic impact fees, the improvements cannot be guaranteed since
it is under Caltrans jurisdiction. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and
unavoidable.
Congestion Management Program. The project would contribute new trips to
Congestion Management Program facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels
(freeways and major arterials). All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to
mitigate impacts; however, in certain cases, they would not fully mitigate the impact to
a level of less than significant. In other cases, no feasible mitigation is available.
Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable.
The EDSP EIR also included the impacts identified above as significant and unavoidable as
follows:
Air Quality. Project development as a result of dust deposition, construction
equipment emissions, mobile source emissions of ROf and NOx, and stationary
source emissions. (Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, E)
Traffic and Circulation. I-580 (Impact 3.3/B, E), intersection of Santa Rita Road and I-
580 EB Ramps (Impact 3.3/I), and the intersections of Dublin Boulevard and
Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3/M)
1.5 Summary of Project Alternatives
The following alternatives to the project are discussed in detail in Chapter 19 Alternatives:
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 1-6 | Executive Summary
Draft EIR
10/23/18
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would result in the project site remaining undeveloped for the
foreseeable future.
Reduced Residential Units Alternative
The Reduced Residential Units Alternative would reduce the number of residential units from
680 to 261, consistent with the existing number of units assumed in the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Alternative
The Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Alternative would allow development
consistent with existing planned land use designations and development densities as described
in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. This includes designations of
Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, Medium High Density Residential, High
Density Residential, and Public/Semi-Public. Most the site is designated General Commercial.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan assumed development of 261 residential units and 902,563
square feet of commercial.
Commercial Development Task Force Land Plan Alternative
The Commercial Development Task Force Land Plan Alternative would take into consideration
the recommendations from the Community Development Task Force Summary and Key
Recommendations Report dated July 2014. The General Commercial land south of Dublin
Boulevard (23 acres) would be developed with Office uses at 0.3 FAR = 300,564 sf. The
development proposed north of Dublin Boulevard would remain the same.
1.6 Areas of Controversy
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b), a summary section must address areas of
controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public, and it
must also address issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether
or how to mitigate the significant effects.
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the project was issued on January 17, 2018. The NOP
describing the original concept for the project and issues to be addressed in the EIR was
distributed to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties for a
30-day public review period extending from January 17, 2018 through February 19, 2018. The
NOP identified the potential for significant and insignificant impacts on the environment related
to the following topical areas:
Included for Detailed EIR Analysis
(Potentially Significant)
Excluded from Detailed EIR Analysis
(Insignificant)
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Agricultural and Forestry
Resources
City of Dublin At Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Included for Detailed EIR Analysis
(Potentially Significant)
Excluded from Detailed EIR Analysis
(Insignificant)
Biological Resources
Cultural & Tribal Resources
Energy
Geology & Soils
GHG Emissions & Energy Conservation
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology & Water Quality
Land Use & Planning
Noise and Vibration
Population & Housing
Public Services, Utilities, & Service
Systems
Transportation & Circulation
Mineral Resources
Additionally, a public scoping meeting was held on January 30, 2018 at the Dublin City Hall. A
summary of comments made are described in Section 2.2.2 Scoping Meeting, below.
1.7 Issues to be Resolved
Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the summary section of an EIR to identify
any "issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and how to mitigate
significant effects."
The following major issues will be resolved by the City of Dublin in its decision process:
Determine whether the EIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the
project;
Choose among alternatives;
Determine whether the recommended mitigation measures should be adopted or
modified; and
Determine whether additional mitigation measures need to be applied to the
project.
1.8 Public Review of the Draft EIR
Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City of Dublin filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the
State Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period (Public Resources Code,
Section 21161). Concurrent with the NOC, this Draft EIR has been distributed to responsible
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 1-8 | Executive Summary
Draft EIR
10/23/18
and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well
as all parties requesting a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code
21092(b)(3). During the public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices,
is available for review at the City of Dublin offices and the Dublin Library.
Agencies, organizations, and interested parties may comment on the Draft EIR during the 45-
day public review period. Written comments on this Draft EIR should be addressed to:
Ms. Amy Million, Principal Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Phone: (925) 833-6610
Fax: (925) 833-6628
Email: amy.million@dublin.ca.gov
Upon completion of the public review period, written responses to environmental issues raised
will be prepared and made available for review by the commenting agencies at least 10 days
prior to the public hearings before the Dublin Planning Commission and Dublin City Council, at
which the certification of the Final EIR will be considered. Comments received and the
responses to comments will be included as part of the record for consideration by decision
makers for the project.
1.9 Impacts of the Project
Table ES-1: Summary of Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project provides a summary of the
significant impacts of the project. The mitigation measures associated with each impact are to
be implemented by the applicant to reduce the environmental impacts to a less than significant
level, where possible. In accordance with CEQA, the impacts are classified as follows:
Class I – Significant and unavoidable impacts
Class II – Significant impacts that can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation
Table ES-1: Summary of Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
Aesthetics
Impact AES-4: Introduce new light and
glare to the project site and project
area (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control Plan
Impact AES-5: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable aesthetic
impacts (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control Plan
City of Dublin At Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1: Conflict with
implementation of San Francisco Bay
Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (Class I)
Significant and
Unavoidable
MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered
Construction Equipment
MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating
MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces
Impact AQ-2: Violates air quality
standard or contributes substantially
to an existing or projected air quality
violation (Class I)
Significant and
Unavoidable
MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered
Construction Equipment
MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating
MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces
Impact AQ-5: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable air quality
impacts. (Class I)
Significant and
Unavoidable
MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered
Construction Equipment
MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating
MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: Have a substantial
adverse effect on special-status plant
and wildlife species (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance
and Mitigation
MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and
Exclusion Measures
MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
Impact BIO-3: Have a substantial
adverse effect on wetlands or
jurisdictional features (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM BIO-3.1: Wetland Mitigation Plan
Impact BIO-6: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable impacts on
biological resources (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance
and Mitigation
MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and
Exclusion Measures
MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
MM BIO-3.1: Wetland Mitigation Plan
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CR-1: Cause a substantial
adverse change to a known
archeological resource (Class II).
Less than significant
with mitigation
MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological
Discovery During Construction
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 1-10 | Executive Summary
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
Impact CR-2: Directly impact a
paleontological resource or unique
geologic feature (Class II)
Less than significant
with mitigation
MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource
Monitoring
Impact CR-4: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable effects on
cultural resources (Class II)
Less than significant
with mitigation
MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological
Discovery During Construction
MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource
Monitoring
Geology & Soils
Impact GEO-1: Expose people or
structures to potential risk of loss or
injury associated with seismic hazards
(Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary
Geotechnical Exploration Recommendations
Impact GEO-2: Trigger or accelerate
substantial soil erosion or loss of
topsoil (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary
Geotechnical Exploration Recommendations
Impact GEO-3: Expose people or
structures to substantial safety risks
as a result of liquefaction (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary
Geotechnical Exploration Recommendations
Impact GEO-4: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable effects on
geology and soils (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary
Geotechnical Exploration Recommendations
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
No significant impacts identified.
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: Exposure to known
hazardous contaminants (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM HAZ- 1.1: Disposal of Deleterious
Materials.
Impact HAZ-4: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable impacts to
hazards and hazardous materials
(Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM HAZ- 1.1: Disposal of Deleterious
Materials.
Hydrology & Water Quality
No significant impacts identified.
Land Use & Planning
No significant impacts identified.
Noise & Vibration
Impact N-1: Cause a temporary or
periodic increase in ambient noise
levels during construction that would
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction
City of Dublin At Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
substantially disturb sensitive
receptors (Class II).
Impact N-3: Result in a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels (Class II).
Less than significant
with Mitigation
MM N-3.1: Noise Attenuation
Impact N-4: Result in a substantial
temporary increase in ambient noise
levels (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction
Impact N-6: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable impacts on
noise (Class II).
Less than significant
with Mitigation
MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction
MM N-3.1: Noise Attenuation
Population & Housing
No significant impacts identified.
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
No significant impacts identified.
Transportation & Circulation
Impact TR-1: Create a potentially
dangerous new intersection (Class II).
Less than significant
with mitigation
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design
Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
Impact TR-2: Increase travel delays at
study intersections in the Existing +
Project condition that exceed
established LOS standards (Class II).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements
to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack
London Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
Impact TR-3: Cause intersection
queues to operate below acceptable
levels under Existing + Project
conditions (Class II).
Less than significant
with mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements
to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements
to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.3: Existing + Project Improvements
to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.4: Existing + Project Improvements
to Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements
to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project
Driveway
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
Impact TR-4: Increase vehicle
densities along study freeway
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway
Segment Improvements
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 1-12 | Executive Summary
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
segments and ramps in the Existing +
Project condition that exceed
established LOS standards (Class I).
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
Impact TR-5: Increase travel delays at
study intersections in the Near-Term +
Project condition that exceed
established LOS standards (Class I and
II).
Less than significant
with mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-5.1: Near-Term + Project
Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las
Positas Boulevard
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements
to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack
London Boulevard
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design
Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
Impact TR-6: Cause intersection
queues to operate below acceptable
levels under Near-Term + Project
conditions (Class I and II).
Less than significant
with mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-6.1: Near-Term + Project
Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard
MM TR-6.2: Near-Term + Project
Improvements to Dublin Boulevard /
Brannigan Street
MM TR-6.3: Near-term + Project
Improvements to Tassajara Road / The Shops/
Project Driveway
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements
to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements
to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements
to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project
Driveway
Impact TR-7: Increase vehicle
densities along study freeway
segments and ramps in the Near-Term
+ Project conditions that exceed
established LOS standards (Class I
Impact).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-7.1: Near-Term + Project Ramp
Metering Improvements MM TR-4.1: Existing
+ Project Freeway Segment Improvements
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements
City of Dublin At Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
Impact TR-8: Increase travel delays at
study intersections in the Cumulative
+ Project conditions that exceed
established LOS standards (Class I and
II).
Less than significant
with mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-8.1: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin
Boulevard
MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Brannigan Street / Dublin
Boulevard
MM TR-8.3: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Fallon Road / Dublin
Boulevard
MM TR-8.4: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Keegan
Street
MM TR-8.5: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart
Street
MM TR-8.6: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las
Positas Boulevard
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design
Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements
to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack
London Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
Impact TR-9: Cause intersection
queues to operate below acceptable
levels under Cumulative + Project
conditions (Class I and II).
Less than significant
with mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-9.1: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Grafton
Street
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements
to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements
to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements
to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project
Driveway
MM TR-6.1: Near-Term + Project
Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 1-14 | Executive Summary
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
MM TR-6.2: Near-Term + Project
Improvements to Dublin Boulevard /
Brannigan Street
MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Brannigan Street / Dublin
Boulevard
Impact TR-10: Increase vehicle
densities along study freeway
segments and ramps in the
Cumulative + Project condition that
exceed established LOS standards
(Class I).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway
Segment Improvements
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements
MM TR-7.1: Near-Term + Project Ramp
Metering Improvements
Impact TR-11: Conflict with applicable
congestion management program for
designated roads, highway, or
freeways (Class I).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway
Segment Improvements
Impact TR-12: Conflict with adopted
policies, plans or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such
facilities (Class III).
Less than significant None required
Impact TR-13: Increase travel speeds
along roadways that exceed
established LOS standards (Class II ).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement
Design Features for the New Project
Intersection on Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
Energy Conservation
Impact ER-1: Encourage activities that
result in the use of large amounts of
fuel or energy, or use these resources
in a wasteful manner (Class III)
Less than Significant None required
1.9.1 Cumulative Impacts
Under the CEQA Guidelines, “a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a
result of the combination of the project evaluated in the environmental impact report (“EIR”)
together with other projects causing related impacts.” (14 Cal Code Regs §15130(a)(1)). This
City of Dublin At Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
EIR uses a “list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative
impacts.” (14 Cal Code Regs §15130(b)(1)(A)). Reasonably foreseeable projects that could
contribute to the cumulative effects scenario are described for each relevant resource as
described in this EIR.
The cumulative analysis concludes that the impacts of the project, when combined with
impacts from past, present, and reasonable future projects would create impacts that would be
considered cumulatively significant.
1.9.2 Growth-Inducing Effects
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines provides the following guidance regarding growth-
inducing impacts: a project is identified as growth inducing if it “could foster economic or
population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the
surrounding environment.” Growth inducing components of the project would relate to labor
requirements for construction. Employment would be unlikely to induce growth in the area.
1.9.3 Significant Irreversible Commitment of Resources
Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines defines an irreversible impact as an impact that uses
nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project. Irreversible
impacts can also result from permanent loss of habitat, damage caused by environmental
accidents associated with project construction, or operational resource use.
Construction of the project would necessitate some use and long-term conversion of
agricultural land and vegetation and habitat removal, and the development of the project
would therefore be considered a significant irretrievable commitment of habitat for threatened
and endangered species.
Buildout of the project would commit nonrenewable resources during project construction and
ongoing utility services during project operations. During project operations, oil, gas, and other
nonrenewable resources would be consumed. Therefore, an irreversible commitment of
nonrenewable resources would occur as a result of both short-term and long-term project
operations. Compliance with all applicable building codes, policies and goals, and the
mitigation measures identified in this EIR would ensure that all-natural resources are conserved
to the extent practical.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Introduction | Page 2-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
2Introduction
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to evaluate environmental impacts
associated with the At Dublin development project (the project) in the City of Dublin (State
Clearinghouse No. 2018012027).
The City of Dublin is the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving the
project, and as such is the Lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15367. CEQA requires the
Lead Agency to consider the information contained in the EIR prior to taking any discretionary
action. This EIR is intended to serve as an informational document to be considered by the City
of Dublin and other permitting agencies during their respective processing of permits for the
project.
2.1 Purpose and Authority
This Draft EIR is being analyzed at a project level by the City of Dublin to assess the potential
environmental impacts that may arise in connection with actions related to implementation of
the project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, the City of Dublin is the lead agency
for the project and has discretionary authority over the project and project approvals. The
Draft EIR is intended to address all public infrastructure improvements and all future
development that are within the parameters of the project.
CEQA requires that an EIR contain, at a minimum, certain specific elements. These elements
are contained in this Draft EIR and include:
Table of Contents
Introduction
Executive Summary
Project Description
Environmental Setting, Significant Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cumulative Impacts
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Growth-Inducing Impacts
Effects Found not to be Significant
Areas of Known Controversy
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-2 | Introduction
Draft EIR
10/23/18
2.1.1 Lead Agency Determination
The City of Dublin is designated as the lead agency for the project. CEQA Guidelines Section
15367 defines the lead agency as “…the public agency, which has the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a project.” Other public agencies may use this Draft EIR in the
decision-making or permit process and consider the information in this Draft EIR along with
other information that may be presented during the CEQA process.
This Draft EIR was prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., an environmental consulting
firm. Prior to public review, it was extensively reviewed and evaluated by the City of Dublin.
This Draft EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Dublin as required
by CEQA. Lists of organizations and persons consulted and the report preparation personnel
are provided in the references section at the end of each environmental resource analyzed.
2.1.2 Responsible and Trustee Agencies
Other agencies in addition to the City of Dublin will serve as Responsible and Trustee Agencies,
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 and Section 15386, respectively. This Draft EIR will
provide environmental information to these agencies and other public agencies, which may be
required to grant approvals or coordinate with other agencies, as part of project
implementation. These agencies may include but are not limited to the following:
California Department of Transportation
Bay Area Rapid Transit District
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Region
County of Alameda
Dublin Unified School District
Dublin-San Ramon Services District
Zone 7 Water Agency
Actions that are necessary to implement the project that must be taken by other agencies are:
Issuance of Encroachment Permits (Caltrans, County of Alameda)
2.2 Scope of the EIR
2.2.1 Notice of Preparation
This Draft EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the project. The City of Dublin
issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the project on January 19, 2018, which circulated
between January 19, 2018 and February 19, 2018, for the statutory 30-day public review
City of Dublin At Dublin
Introduction | Page 2-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
period. The scope of this Draft EIR includes the potential environmental impacts identified in
the NOP and issues raised by agencies and the public in response to the NOP.
Four comment letters were received in response to the NOP. These letters are shown in Table
2-1: NOP Comment Letters and provided in Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Comment
Letters.
Table 2-1: NOP Comment Letters
Affiliation Signatory Date Summary of Relevant Comments
State
Native American Heritage
Commission
Frank Lienert, Associate
Governmental Program
Analyst
January 31,
2018
Consultation with California Native
American tribes.
Department of
Transportation (Caltrans)
Patricia Maurice, District
Branch Chief
February 20,
2018
Extend a Priority Development Area
(PDA) designation to the entire project
site.
Include a transportation demand
management program to reduce
vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Analyze VMT as part of the travel
demand analysis.
Identification of applicable
transportation impact fees for public
transportation improvements.
Encroachment permit requirements
for work within Caltrans right-of-way.
Individuals
Sunil Dasanagadde January 30,
2018
Construct a second high school before
any additional housing.
Y. Keith & Naoko
Takenakla
February 8,
2018
Decrease in property values
Too many residential units / balance of
land uses
2.2.2 Scoping Meeting
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City of Dublin held a public scoping
meeting for the project on January 30, 2018 at Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA.
Approximately 25 members of the public attended the meeting, including a representative of
the applicant team. A summary of their comments are as follows:
Consider the following as Alternatives in the EIR and/or alternatives to the Project:
o Existing PD Zoning
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-4 | Introduction
Draft EIR
10/23/18
o A school; specifically, a high school
o Office uses in addition to the proposed retail uses
o A combination of a school and residential (closer to the existing assumption in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan of 261residental units)
o Commercial uses only – no residential
Carefully consider the assumptions uses to estimate the number of school children
the project would create, especially as it relates to type of units.
A general question on what the project benefits are to the City of Dublin
School overcrowding is a public health and safety concern
Pause project for a couple years to allow time for the (high school) school
overcrowding issue to be resolved
Evaluate impacts to City resources and budget because of the project (i.e. police,
fire, etc.)
Consider the Dublin Unified School District EIR for the proposed expansion of the
existing high school
Traffic Impacts:
o Evaluate the elimination of Northside Drive and the shift in truck traffic into Lowe’s
o Evaluate the left turn from Gleason Drive
2.2.3 Environmental Issues Significant Determination
The NOP identified the potential for significant and insignificant impacts on the environment
related to the following topical areas:
City of Dublin At Dublin
Introduction | Page 2-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Included for Detailed EIR Analysis
(Potentially Significant)
Excluded from Detailed EIR Analysis
(Insignificant)
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural & Tribal Resources
Energy
Geology & Soils
GHG Emissions & Energy Conservation
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology & Water Quality
Land Use & Planning
Noise and Vibration
Population & Housing
Public Services, Utilities, & Service
Systems
Transportation & Circulation
Agricultural and Forestry
Resources
Mineral Resources
2.3 Required Permits and Approvals
Discretionary approvals and permits and authorizations required by the City of Dublin for
implementation of the project. The project would require the following discretionary
approvals:
EIR Certification
General Plan Amendment
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Planned Development Rezone (Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans)
Site Development Review
Vesting Tentative Map
Street Vacation (Northside Drive)
Development Agreement
Master Sign Program/Site Development Review
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-6 | Introduction
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Subsequent ministerial actions would be required for the implementation of the project
including issuance of building permits, grading, encroachment and site improvements.
In addition, the project applicant and the City of Dublin may negotiate and enter into a project-
level Development Agreement.
2.4 Documents Incorporated by Reference
As permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, this Draft EIR has referenced several technical
studies, analyses, and previously certified environmental documentation. Information from the
documents, which have been incorporated by reference, has been briefly summarized in the
appropriate section(s). The relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced
document and the Draft EIR has also been described. The documents and other sources that
have been used in the preparation of this Draft EIR include but are not limited to:
City of Dublin, General Plan 1985, as amended 2017
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 1994 updated 2016
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment EIR 1993
City of Dublin, Dublin Municipal Code as amended
City of Dublin, Streetscape Master Plan 2005
Dublin-San Ramon Services District, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards 1996
These documents are specifically identified in the respective references sections of this Draft
EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(b), the General Plan, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, Municipal Code, and the referenced documents and other sources used in the
preparation of the Draft EIR are available for review at the City of Dublin Community
Development Department.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Introduction | Page 2-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
2.5 Documents Prepared for the Project
The following technical studies and analyses were prepared for the project:
Appendix Title
B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (technical data)
C Biological Resources Assessment
D Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration
E Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
F Preliminary Drainage Study
G Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan
H Noise Analysis (technical data)
I Water Supply Assessment
J Transportation Impact Assessment (technical data)
2.6 EIR Organization
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15120(c), this EIR contains the information and
analysis required by Sections 15122 through 15131. Each of the required elements is covered
in one of the EIR chapters and appendices, organized as follows.
Executive Summary. A summary description of the project, the alternatives, their respective
environmental impacts and the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
Introduction. A discussion of the background, purpose and need for the project, briefly
describing the project, and outlining the public agency use of the EIR.
Project Description. Detailed description of the project.
Environmental Analysis: A comprehensive analysis and assessment of impacts and mitigation
measures for the project. This section is divided into separate chapters for each environmental
resource and contains the environmental settings and impacts of the project. A description of
the approach to cumulative impacts analysis is presented in Chapter 4: Introduction to
Environmental Analysis, and cumulative impacts are at the end of each environmental resource.
Alternatives. This chapter includes a description of the alternatives evaluation process, as well
as a description of alternatives considered but eliminated from further analysis and the
rationale thereof. This section also includes an analysis and assessment of impacts for
alternatives retained, including the No Project Alternative.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-8 | Introduction
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Other CEQA Considerations. A discussion of growth-inducing effects, long-term implications of
the project, and significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the project is
implemented.
EIR Preparers
Appendices
Copies of project-related appendices are available on the City of Dublin’s website at:
https://dublin-development.icitywork.com/
2.7 Review of the Draft EIR
Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City of Dublin filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the
State Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period (Public Resources Code,
Section 21161). Concurrent with the NOC, this Draft EIR has been distributed to responsible
and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well
as all parties requesting a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code
21092(b)(3). During the public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices,
is available for review at the City of Dublin, Dublin Library and the City of Dublin website.
Agencies, organizations, and interested parties may comment on the Draft EIR during the 45-
day public review period. Written comments on this Draft EIR should be addressed to:
Ms. Amy Million, Principal Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Phone: (925) 833-6610
Fax: (925) 833-6628
Email: amy.million@dublin.ca.gov
Upon completion of the public review period, written responses to all significant environmental
issues raised will be prepared and made available for review by the commenting agencies at
least 10 days prior to the public hearings on the project, at which the certification of the Final
EIR will be considered. Comments received and the responses to comments will be included as
part of the record for consideration by decision makers for the project.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Project Description | Page 3-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
3 Project Description
3.1 Project Location and Setting
3.1.1 Location
As shown in Figure 3-1: Project Location, the approximate 77.7 gross acre project site is in the
City of Dublin, Alameda County, north of Interstate 580 and between Tassajara Road and
Brannigan Street. The project site is located on the Livermore, California, United States
Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map Township 2S, Range 1E, and Section
33 (northern portion) and Township 3S, Range 1E, and Section 4 (southern portion).
3.1.2 Existing Setting
The project site is vacant land and is generally flat with a slight slope from a higher elevation at
the northerly boundary to a slightly lower elevation towards the southerly boundary. At one
time the property was used for agricultural purposes and has remained vacant (except for
temporary seasonal uses) with low lying native and non-native grasses turned periodically
complying with the City of Dublin’s vegetation management regulations. A small group of trees
and shrubs is located near the corner of Tassajara Road and Central Parkway.
3.1.3 Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is surrounded by commercial and office uses to the southwest and
southeast and residential uses to the northwest and northeast as shown in Figure 3-2:
Surrounding Land Uses. Single family medium density residential uses are located to the north.
A broad mix of land uses are located to the east including multi-family residential, general
commercial, and a vacant parcel at the southeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan
Street. Interstate 580 and the City of Pleasanton are located south of the project site. Medium
density residential, parks/public recreation, general commercial, and campus office uses are
located to the west.
3.1.4 Existing Plans and Zoning
Dublin General Plan
Most of the project site is designated General Commercial with varying densities of residential
along Brannigan Street and Gleason Drive. As shown in Figure 3-3: Existing General Plan Land
Use Designations, the southern and western portions of the project site are designated General
Commercial. The northern and eastern portions of the project site are designated Medium
Density Residential, Public/Semi-Public, Medium-High Density Residential, and Neighborhood
Commercial.
The following General Plan land use designations surround the project site: Medium Density
Residential to the north; Medium Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential, High
Density Residential, General Commercial, and General Commercial/Campus Office to the east;
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 3-2 | Project Description
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Medium Density Residential, and Parks/Public Recreation and General Commercial and Campus
Office to the west.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying an
Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
(EDSP EIR, SCH #91103064). The certified EDSP EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and Responses to
Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum to the EDSP EIR dated May 4, 1993,
assessing a reduced development project alternative. The City Council adopted Resolution No.
53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for the reduced area alternative
on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994, the City Council adopted a second Addendum updating
wastewater disposal plans for eastern Dublin. The EDSP EIR evaluated the potential
environmental effects of urbanizing eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30-year period. Since
certification of the EDSP EIR, many implementing projects have been proposed, relying to
various degrees on the certified EDSP EIR.
As part of the certification of the EDSP EIR, the Dublin City Council adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: cumulative traffic, extension of certain
community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), growth inducement, regional
air quality, noise and aesthetics.
In 2005, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) was amended to expand the boundaries
eastward to encompass the Fallon Village development. Following the 2005 amendment, the
buildout potential of the EDSP is 32,023 residents, 13,913 dwelling units, and 29,424 jobs.
As described in Table 3-1: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Anticipated Project Site Development
below, the EDSP anticipated development of 261 residential units and 902,563 square feet of
commercial on the project site.
Table 3-1: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Anticipated Project Site Development
Land Use Designation Acres 1 Residential Units
Commercial Square
Footage
General Commercial 60.3 -- 846,153
Neighborhood Commercial 3.7 -- 56,410
Medium Density Residential 4.3 43
Medium-High Density Residential 5.3 106
High Density Residential 3.2 112
Public / Semi – Public 3.3 --
Total 80.1 261 902,563
Notes:
(1) Acreages shown are approximate and were based on information available at the time the Specific Plan was adopted
Source: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, 1993, as amended.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Project Description | Page 3-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Zoning
As shown in Figure 3-4: Existing Zoning, the project site is zoned Planned Development (PD)
Resolution No. 104-94 as part of the EDSP. The purpose of the PD zone is to:
A. Establish a Planned Development Zoning District through which one or more properties
are planned as a unit with development standards tailored to the site.
B. Provide maximum flexibility and diversification in the development of property.
C. Maintain consistency with, and implement the provisions of, the Dublin General Plan
and applicable Specific Plans.
D. Protect the integrity and character of both residential and non-residential areas of the
City.
E. Encourage efficient use of land for preservation of sensitive environmental areas such as
open space areas and topographic features.
F. Provide for effective development of public facilities and services for the site.
G. Encourage use of design features to achieve development that is compatible with the
area.
H. Allow for creative and imaginative design that will promote amenities beyond those
expected in conventional developments.
3.1.5 Airport Planning Designations
Most of the project site, excluding the most northerly portion, is located with the Airport
Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District. This area is designated as an area in which current
or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety and/or airspace protection factors may affect
land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The AIA is a designation by the Alameda
County Airport Land Use Commission.
The same portion of the project site is also located within Land Use Compatibility Zone 7 of the
Livermore Municipal Airport, as established in the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan. See Figure 11-1: Livermore Municipal Airport Safety Compatibility Zones in
Chapter 11: Hazards & Hazardous Materials
3.2 Project Development Components
The project is a mixed-use development that would allow up to 454,500 square feet of
commercial uses and up to 680 residential units. The project would require an amendment to
the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to modify the existing General Plan land use
designations.
To accommodate the project, the applicant proposes to redistribute and simplify the six existing
General Plan land use designations to four, organized into four Planning Areas (PAs). As shown
in Figure 3-5: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations, the proposed land use
designations are consistent with the land use patterns of the surrounding properties. As shown
in Table 3-2: At Dublin Land Use Summary, the proposed new General Plan land use
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 3-4 | Project Description
Draft EIR
10/23/18
designations, from the south to the north, are: General Commercial; Mixed Use; Medium-High
Density Residential and Medium Density Residential.
Table 3-2: At Dublin Land Use Summary
Land Use Designations Gross Acres Res. Units Du/Acre
Floor Area
Ratio
Commercial
sq. ft.
General Commercial 23.7
2 -- -- .4 370,000
Mixed-Use 16.2 300 -- .7 84,500
Medium-High Density Residential 14.0 200
14.3 --
Medium-Density Residential 23.8 180 7.6 -- --
Total 76.9 680 -- -- 454,500
1.Gross residential acreage shall be determined by calculating the area of the site and by adding one-half of the area of abutting
streets, provided that the street width used for calculation shall not be less than 25 feet or more than 50 feet. Public or private
streets within the boundaries of the site, as well as streets abutting the site, shall be calculated within the gross acreage total.
2. Gross acreage includes gross area of PA 1 and Northside Drive (1.6 ac) to be vacated and included in PA 1 project area
Source: City of Dublin, 2018.
3.3 Project Objectives
Section 15124 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a clearly written statement of objectives be
presented in an EIR to help lead agencies develop a reasonable range of alternatives, and to aid
the decision makers in preparing findings of significant effects or a statement of overriding
considerations, as necessary.
The following project objectives are identified:
Mix of Uses / Quality of Product
1.Provide a balanced mix of residential and commercial uses in the Eastern Extended
Planning Area that integrate into the existing urban systems and provide a safe and
attractive environment for living and working as encouraged by General Plan Policy
2.6.4.A.1.
2.Provide uses that meet the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan’s objective to have higher-
density housing, adjacent to commercial and employment opportunities.
3.Provide land uses and high-quality architecture that complement existing, adjacent land
uses and development.
Economic Growth
4.Have a positive contribution to the local economy through new capital investment, the
creation of new jobs, and the expansion of the tax base.
5.Add commercial, entertainment, and hotel uses that will have a synergy with existing
retail in the City.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Project Description | Page 3-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
6.Provide a mix of residential and commercial uses that achieves a financially feasible
project.
7.Provide a project that balances housing with job-creating uses.
8.Develop a project that supports the success of the commercial uses through careful site
planning and infrastructure design.
Housing
9.Add to the City’s housing diversity in compliance with Housing Element Program 10 and
General Plan Policy 2.6.1.A.1 by providing a range of housing products, including
apartments, townhomes, and small lot single-family detached homes.
10.Expand and improve the City’s housing supply by developing high-quality housing in a
portion of a City-designated Priority Development Area, which is a location planned for
growth under the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area.
11.Increase housing on the project site beyond what was initially planned under the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which will help in state-wide efforts to alleviate California’s
housing crisis.
Responsible Growth
12.Develop vacant and underutilized land in an urban area.
13.Locate commercial and residential uses where such uses can take advantage of existing
infrastructure and utilities.
14.Provide attractive, well-landscaped commercial uses close to Interstate 580 as a buffer
between the highway and residential uses and to further General Plan Policy 10.5.3.E.
15.Enhance the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard consistent with
General Plan Goal 10.6.2.
Connectivity
16.Complete existing infrastructure to support General Plan buildout conditions consistent
with the East Dublin Specific Plan.
17.Implement the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and enhance bicycle and
pedestrian safety by providing on-site and off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities that
link with existing facilities along Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive, and Dublin Boulevard.
18.Reconfigure block size and provide publicly accessible parkways, park corridors and
paths to improve pedestrian connectivity between residential and commercial uses.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 3-6 | Project Description
Draft EIR
10/23/18
19.Provide and improve pedestrian connections within the project and across adjacent
arterial streets to facilitate pedestrian activity between neighborhoods and within the
development.
3.4 Land Uses
A conceptual illustration of proposed land uses is shown in Figure 3-6: Illustrative Site Plan.
Renderings of the various land uses are shown in Figures 3-7a-b: Project Renderings. These
land uses are described below, according to the respective proposed General Plan land use
designations.
3.4.1 General Commercial
General Commercial is proposed for approximately 23.7 gross acres on the southerly portion of
the project site within PA 1, south of Dublin Boulevard and north of Interstate 580. The
permitted floor area ratio (FAR) is .20 to .60. Allowable uses include regional- and community-
serving retail, service, and office uses.
PA-1 would include one or two hotels with up to 240 rooms (maximum 74 feet in height),
approximately 215,000 square feet of retail uses, and approximately 3,000 square feet of
community uses for a total of up to 370,000 square feet of commercial uses.
3.4.2 Mixed-Use
Mixed-Use is proposed for approximately 16.2 gross acres in the central portion of the project
site, comprised of PA-2a and PA-2b, north of Dublin Boulevard. The Mixed-Use designation
provides for the combination of medium density residential housing and commercial uses with
an allowable FAR of 0.30 to 1.0.
The total amount of commercial uses in the Mixed-Use PA-2 would be no more than 84,500
square feet.
PA-2a would contain commercial uses including a theater, specialty restaurants, and general
retail uses. PA-2b would contain a five and a half-story, approximately 362,772 square-foot
(272,000 net rentable square feet) apartment building with up to 300 residential units
surrounding a parking garage. The parking garage would be a shared-use facility for both the
residents and retail users. Some portions of the ground floor would contain retail uses up to
8,000 square feet, as well as amenities such as a club room and gym for the apartment
residents.
3.4.3 Medium-High Density Residential
Medium-High Density Residential is proposed for approximately 14.0 gross acres in the central
portion of the project site in PA-2c, south of Central Parkway. The permitted units per gross
City of Dublin At Dublin
Project Description | Page 3-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
residential acre are 14.1-25.0. Housing within PA-2c would consist of up to 200 townhomes.
Also included with Medium-High Density land use are public park and private open space.
3.4.4 Medium-Density Residential
Medium-Density Residential is proposed for approximately 23.8 gross acres on the northerly
portion of the project site within PA-3 and PA-4. The permitted units per gross residential acre
are 6.1 to 14.0. Housing within PA-3 and PA-4 would consist of up to 180 small lot single-family
detached units. Also included are parks and other private open space.
3.4.5 Parks and Open Space
Private Open Space
As shown in Figure 3-8: Landscape Master Plan, project development would include privately-
owned plazas, paseos, and gardens located throughout each of the planning areas. These open
space areas, together with the public open space areas described below, would connect the
commercial areas to the residential area and connect the project site to surrounding
neighborhoods and nearby Emerald Glen Park.
The commercial uses within PA-1 would incorporate public plazas with furniture, planting and
lighting. All plaza will be publicly accessible and privately owned and maintained by a
commercial association.
The project envisions a market plaza (the “Porch”) a village green (the “Side Yard”) and multi-
use residential promenade and picnic areas (the “Commons”) which would serve as gathering
places for community events such as outdoor fairs, community table events, live performances
and seasonal venues. 3.3 acres of publicly accessible improved open space envisioned as a
linear park would terminate at the Side Yard. The Side Yard and Commons would be located
centrally within the project, primarily within PA-2c, and function as versatile common outdoor
spaces.
Within PA-2a, the project would provide a privately-owned open space market plaza (the
“Porch”), which is a more urban commercial venue than the “Side Yard”, which is described in
the Public Open Space section below. The Porch would include publicly accessible plazas and a
central gathering area. The Porch, estimated to be 1.19 acres, is designed for passive use with
outdoor seating as its primary function, but also able to be used for outdoor events.
PA-3 would include an approximately 0.85-acre central linear paseo connecting the single-
family residential communities to the Side Yard and Porch. In addition, the residential
communities in PA-3 and -4 would be surrounded by an approximately 1.05- acre greenbelt.
Walls would be interior to the greenbelt to enhance the open space features and connectivity
of the project to the community. The linear paseo and greenbelt would be owned and
maintained by the homeowners’ association. The apartments will provide amenities for its
residents, both within passive and active spaces. The total common useable outdoor space is
approximately 70,520 sf (inclusive of the two roof decks with a combined area of 1,500 sf). The
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 3-8 | Project Description
Draft EIR
10/23/18
apartment proposed common space accounts for 30.4% of net site area. These areas would be
maintained by the apartment owner.
Public Parks & Open Space
As shown in Figure 3-9: Parks & Other Open Space, the project would include both public parks
and private – publicly accessible parks. These park areas would be designed and constructed by
the applicant.
The public open space includes the “Neighborhood Square” in PA-2a and PA-2c, which would be
comprised of a linear park (approximately 1.85 acres) that would terminate in an approximately
0.68 green (the “Side Yard”), for a total of approximately 2.53 acres. The Neighborhood Square
would include a multi-use promenade and picnic areas that would serve as gathering places for
community events such as outdoor fairs, community table events, live performances and
seasonal venues. The Side Yard would be centrally located within the project and function as a
versatile common outdoor space.
The project’s public open spaces also would include a meeting space (the “Community
Facility”), which is planned within PA-1 (approximately 0.20 acres) and would accommodate
indoor and outdoor events, such as weddings and other gatherings. It is planned that both the
Neighborhood Square and Community Facility would be improved by the developer and
dedicated to the City.
3.5 Site Access and Circulation
3.5.1 Vehicular Circulation
As shown in Figure 3-10: Vehicular Access and Circulation, the project would contain several
ingress/egress access points from public roadways. Private streets would be incorporated into
the project to allow for access to the interior residential, commercial and mixed-use
developments. Due to the lower traffic volumes and limited vehicular access, private streets
would be designed with a narrower profile and where the blocks are short and would have low
traffic volumes, may not include features typically associated with public streets including
sidewalks and on-street parking. All internal streets and roadways would be privately owned
and maintained by the respective owner association.
3.5.2 Off-site Roadway Improvements
The project site is surrounded by public roadways which would be improved as follows:
Tassajara Road – Improve approximately 33 feet of right-of-way along the east edge,
completing the outside travel lane(s), Class II bike lane, and approximately 13-foot wide
parkways inclusive of an approximately 6-foot wide sidewalk. These improvements are
intended to complete Tassajara Road to its future General Plan build-out condition. The
improvements would vary between intersections to accommodate turn lane requirements. The
project would add the 4th leg (east leg) and subsequent lanes and movements into and out of
City of Dublin At Dublin
Project Description | Page 3-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
this leg to the existing intersection of Tassajara Road and The Shops. The project also proposes
to add a right-in/right-out driveway along the east side of Tassajara Road between Dublin
Boulevard and The Shops.
Dublin Boulevard – Improve approximately 44 feet of right-of-way along the north edge and
approximately 32 feet wide along the south edge (for a total right-of-way width of up to 177
feet), completing the outside travel lane(s), Class II bike lane, and approximately 14-foot wide
parkways inclusive of an approximately 8-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of the roadway.
These improvements would complete Dublin Boulevard to its General Plan build-out condition.
The improvements would vary between intersections to accommodate turn lane requirements.
Additionally, the project would introduce a new signalized intersection on Dublin Boulevard,
between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. This intersection would modify the existing
raised median on Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. In addition,
the westbound left turn lanes at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road would
likely be modified due to the new intersection, as well as the eastbound left turn lane for the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan Street and new westbound left turn land into
the project. A second eastbound left turn lane at Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan Street has
been added City assumed improvements. These turn lanes will likely be shortened to fit the
new traffic signal. Pedestrian crosswalks are also proposed at the new traffic signal crossing
northbound and southbound across Dublin Boulevard.
Central Parkway – Expand the right-of-way to a width of up to 109 feet to accommodate the
completion of the outside travel lane in each direction, Class II bike lane, on-street parking, and
parkways inclusive of an approximately 8-foot wide sidewalk on the south side and an
approximately 10-foot wide multi-use trail on the north side. These improvements would
complete Central Parkway to its General Plan build-out condition. The project also includes a
proposed mid-block pedestrian crossing on Central Parkway. The project proposes two right-
in/right-out driveways on the south side of Central Parkway, one approximately 200 feet east of
Tassajara Road and the other approximately 200 feet west of Brannigan Street. In addition, a
right-in/right-out driveway is proposed on the north side of Central Expressway, approximately
200 feet west of Brannigan Street.
Gleason Drive – Expand the right-of-way to a width of up to 123.5 feet to accommodate an
approximately 11-foot wide travel lane in each direction, Class II bike lane, and parkways
inclusive of an approximately 6-foot sidewalk on the south side and 8-foot Class I shared use
path on the north side. These improvements would complete Gleason Drive to its General Plan
build-out condition. The project proposes a right-in/right-out driveway on the north side of
Gleason Drive, approximately 200 feet west of Brannigan Street.
Brannigan Street – Expand the right-of-way to a width of up to 80 feet to accommodate on-
street parking and an approximately 12-foot wide parkway inclusive of an approximately 6-foot
wide sidewalk. These improvements would complete Brannigan Street to its General Plan
build-out condition. The project proposes to add the 4th leg (west leg) at the intersection of
Brannigan Street and Aviano Way. The eastbound approach at this intersection would be stop-
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 3-10 | Project Description
Draft EIR
10/23/18
controlled with a shared left-right turn lane. In addition, the project proposes to add the 4th
leg (west leg) at the intersection of Brannigan Street and Finnian Way. The eastbound
approach at this intersection would be stop-controlled with a shared left-right turn lane. The
project proposes to add two additional driveways on Brannigan Street, south of Dublin
Boulevard, one approximately 200 feet south of Dublin Boulevard, another approximately 350
feet south of Dublin Boulevard, and one driveway at the existing bend along Brannigan Street.
Off-site improvements would complete these segments to their designed build-out condition,
tying into the existing adjacent improved roadways and parkways. In addition to the above,
Northside Drive (both on and off the project site) would be vacated and become private road
over which the respective easements would be granted for public utilities and to the City to
access the water treatment facility. It is anticipated that vacation would occur based on the
General Vacation Procedure in the Streets and Highways Code (8320-8325).
3.5.3 Bicycles, and Pedestrians
The public roadways surrounding the project site would be completed in accordance with the
City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, including the incorporation of Class II bike lanes along
Dublin Boulevard and westbound on Central Parkway.
As shown in Figure 3-11: Pedestrian Network Plan, the project would construct multi-use
pathways, sidewalks, and walkways, for a total of approximately 8.8 miles. Walkways would
extend along the perimeter of the project, providing connections to existing pedestrian
network. In addition, the project would add a mid-block pedestrian crossing on Central
Parkway.
3.5.4 Public Transit
Bus stops suitable for use by Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) would be
constructed on the project frontage streets of Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive, Central Parkway
and Dublin Boulevard.
3.6 Site Preparation and Infrastructure Improvements
3.6.1 Grading
As shown in Table 3-3: Grading Requirements (by Planning Area), the project would require an
estimated 433,000 cubic yards of cut and 526,600 cubic yards of fill for a net import of
approximately 93,600 cubic yards of soil. Excess fill would be utilized on-site to minimize the
import of soils. PA-1 would require the majority of imported soils, PA-2 would generate some
soils export, and PA-3 and PA-4 would require some minor import of soils. The imported soils
would originate from available borrow sites, likely within the Tri-Valley area.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Project Description | Page 3-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 3-3: Grading Requirements (by Planning Area)
Planning Area Cut (CY) Fill (CY)
PA – 1 124,700 238,000
PA - 2A 60,800 35,800
PA – 2B 34,500 36,900
PA – 2C 77,900 74,300
PA-3 113,900 130,800
PA-4 21,200 10,800
Total 433,000 526,600
Net Import -- 93,600
CY – Cubic Yards
Source: RJA, Preliminary Grading Plan, May 2018
3.6.2 Water
The project site is located within the boundaries of the Dublin-San Ramon Services District
(DSRSD), which serves the City of Dublin with potable water and non-potable recycled water.
The project would connect to existing underground potable and non-potable recycled DSRSD
water lines located within the right-of-way of the adjacent roadways. Multiple connections
would be provided for the purposes of achieving a “looped system.”
Potable water would be used for domestic use, while non-potable recycled/reclaimed water
would be used primarily for landscape irrigation.
3.6.3 Wastewater
The project site is located within the boundaries of DSRSD, which serves the City of Dublin with
potable water. The project would connect to existing underground DSRSD sewer lines located
within the right-of-way of the adjacent roadways. Multiple laterals would connect the project
to the sewer line.
3.6.4 Stormwater Management
An on-site storm drainage system would be installed that would collect and convey runoff and
ultimately discharge it to the City of Dublin’s municipal storm drainage system. Drainage for
the project site has been designed to maintain the existing watershed drainage pattern to the
extent feasible, and avoid any impact to downstream watersheds by reducing the post
development runoff for the site to the predevelopment condition, consistent with Municipal
Regional Permit requirements as defined by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 3-12 | Project Description
Draft EIR
10/23/18
3.6.5 Dry Utilities
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) would serve the project with electricity and natural
gas. Effective June 2018, commercial businesses have the option to choose between electricity
from PG&E or East Bay Clean Energy (EBCE), a new community choice aggregation joint powers
authority recently formed and offering service in most of Alameda County. Electricity from
EBCE will be available to residents in the fall of 2018. Residents and commercial businesses will
be automatically enrolled in EBCE with the opportunity to opt out for those who want to
continue to receive their service from PG&E.
3.7 Additionally, portions of the project would include the use of solar
power/photovoltaics. The project would also incorporate electric vehicle
(EV) charging stations for the commercial areas and the apartments.
Project Construction and Phasing
Project construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, paving,
building construction, and architectural coating. As shown in Figure 3-12: Project Phasing, the
project is anticipated to be completed in two phases over a construction period of
approximately five years. The first phase would include PA-2. The second phase is broken up
into two sub-phases: Phase 2A: comprised of the northern portion of PA-1 and PA-3, Phase 2B
comprised of the southern portion of PA-1and PA-4.
The project would utilize an average of 125 workers a year and would generate approximately
458 daily trips, based on 3.05 daily trips per worker, with a 20 percent increase to account for
material deliveries, and other trips not directly related to site workers.
3.8 References
City of Dublin. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, adopted October 7, 2014.
City of Dublin. City of Dublin General Plan, 1985 amended 2017.
City of Dublin. City of Dublin Municipal Code as amended
City of Dublin. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan1994 amended 2016.
Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar. Preliminary Drainage Study, At Dublin, City of Dublin, Alameda County,
California, October 10, 2017.
Shea Properties. General Plan / Specific Plan Amendment Planned Development – Stage 1
Submittal and Project Narrative, October 12, 2017 as amended by subsequent application
materials.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Introduction to Environmental Analysis| Page 4-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
4 Introduction to Environmental Analysis
4.1 Environmental Assessment Methodology
The environmental resource analysis below (by chapter) describes the potential environmental
impacts associated with the construction and operation of the project. This analysis considers
the comments submitted during the scoping process (see Appendix A: Notice of Preparation
and Comment Letters). References to data and/or technical studies are listed at the end of
each chapter.
4.1.1 Methodology
The methodology used to determine impacts consists of three key components, summarized
below.
Environmental Setting. The environmental setting describes existing conditions in the project
site that may change as a result of the construction and operation of the project. Pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines (Section 15125(a)), the environmental setting used for the impact analysis
reflects the conditions at the time of the issuance of the Notice of Preparation.
Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards. Each issue area includes a description of current
public policies, regulations, programs, and standards that apply to the project.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation. This section evaluates the environmental impacts
(including cumulative impacts) of the project based on predetermined, specific significance
criteria. In determining the significance of impacts, the assessment considers the ability of
existing regulations and other public agency requirements to reduce impacts. If an adverse
impact is potentially significant despite existing regulations and requirements, mitigation
measures are proposed to reduce or avoid the impact, where feasible. Mitigation measures are
required only for significant adverse impacts. Once impacts and mitigation measures, as
applicable, are presented, the “level of significance after mitigation” is determined.
4.1.2 Impact Significance
While the criteria for determining whether an impact is significant are unique to each issue
area, a uniform classification of impacts is used in this EIR. Each impact is categorized based on
the following definitions:
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures
Class III: Adverse impact; but less than significant, so mitigation is not normally recommended
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 4-2 | Introduction to Environmental Analysis
Draft EIR
10/23/18
No impact.
4.1.3 Mitigation Measures
Where potentially significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures are identified. Each
mitigation measure defines the specific requirements to reduce impacts and defines the
timeframe, responsible party, and the mitigation monitoring requirement, if applicable.
Note that due to the location of the proposed uses on the project site, some mitigation
measures apply only to one portion (commercial development, mixed use or residential
development) of the project. Each mitigation measure indicates whether it applies to specific
planning areas, the commercial development, mixed use, residential development or all
components of the project.
4.1.4 Mitigation Monitoring
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 establishes two distinct requirements for agencies
involved in the CEQA process. Subdivisions (a) and (b) of the section relate to mitigation
monitoring and reporting, and the obligation to mitigate significant effects where possible.
Pursuant to subdivision (a), whenever a public agency completes an EIR and makes a finding
pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code taking responsibility for mitigation
identified in the EIR, the agency must adopt a program of monitoring or reporting which will
ensure that mitigation measures are complied with during implementation of the project.
4.2 Effects Not Found to Be Significant
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines §15128, “An EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating
the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be
significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR.” This chapter of the Draft EIR
describes the resource areas which were found not to pose any potentially significant effects.
Based on the scope of the project, comment letters in response to the NOP, site visits, review of
project applicant materials and technical reports, and additional background research on the
construction and operational features of the project, the following resource topics were found
to not have impacts that would be considered potentially significant. These topics, therefore,
are not subject to further detailed analysis in the EIR.
4.2.1 Agricultural Resources
The project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance by the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). It is
designated as Grazing Land, land which the existing vegetation is suited to livestock grazing. No
Williamson Act contract applies to the project site. The project site does not currently comprise
agricultural or forestry uses, and it is designated for a mix of residential and commercial uses
pursuant to the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. There would be
no impact to agricultural and forestry resources.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Introduction to Environmental Analysis| Page 4-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
4.2.2 Mineral Resources
The project site lies within Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1), as mapped by the California
Department of Mines and Geology (DMG). MRZ-1 zones are “areas where adequate
information indicates that no significant mineral despots are present, or where it is judged that
little likelihood exits for their presence”. The project site is not a mineral resource recovery site
and therefore there would be no impact to mineral resources.
4.3 Cumulative Impacts
4.3.1 CEQA Requirements
Under the CEQA Guidelines, “a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a
result of the combination of the project evaluated in the environmental impact report (“EIR”)
together with other projects causing related impacts” (14 CCR §15130(a)(1)). CEQA PRC §21000
et seq., an EIR must discuss cumulative impacts if the incremental effect of a project, combined
with the effects of other projects is “cumulatively considerable” (14 CCR §15130(a)). Such
incremental effects are to be “viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (14 CCR
§15164(b)(1)). Together, these projects compose the cumulative scenario which forms the
basis of the cumulative impact analysis.
Cumulative Impact Analysis Methodology
The area within which a cumulative effect can occur varies by resource. For example, air quality
impacts generally affect a large area (such as the regional Air Basin), while traffic impacts are
typically more localized. For this reason, the geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative
impacts is identified for each resource area in the following chapters.
The analysis of cumulative effects considers a number of variables, including geographic
(spatial) limits, time (temporal) limits, and the characteristics of the resource being evaluated.
The geographic scope of each analysis is based on the topography surrounding the project site
and the natural boundaries of the resource affected, rather than jurisdictional boundaries. The
geographic scope of cumulative effects will often extend beyond the scope of the direct effects,
but not beyond the scope of the direct and indirect effects of the project.
In addition, future projects that comprise the cumulative condition each have their own
implementation schedule, which may or may not coincide or overlap with the project’s
schedule. This is a consideration for short-term impacts from the project. However, to be
conservative, the cumulative analysis assumes that all projects in the cumulative scenario are
built and operating during the operating lifetime of the project.
4.4 References
CA Department of Conservation, 2018. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Accessed
at http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 4-4 | Introduction to Environmental Analysis
Draft EIR
10/23/18
CA Department of Mines and Geology, 2018. California Geological Survey. Accessed at
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
5 Aesthetics
5.1 Introduction
This section describes effects on aesthetics that would be caused by implementation of the
project. Information used to prepare this section came from the following resources:
City of Dublin, General Plan, 1985 as amended 2017
City of Dublin,Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Final EIR, 1994 updated 2016
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Standards and Guidelines, 1996
Project application and related materials
Site Photos
The study area, also known as the viewshed, is defined as the area from which the project
would be seen both on and immediately surrounding the project site. The current condition
and quality of aesthetic resources within the study area were used as the baseline against
which to compare potential aesthetic impacts of the project.
The approach used to evaluate the existing aesthetics conditions consisted of the following
steps:
Reviewing the project application including site plans and elevations, landscape
plans, etc.;
Establishing several representative key viewpoints (KVPs) and photographing the
project site from those viewpoints;
Conducting visual field analyses of the project site and surroundings from the
representative KVPs; and
Utilizing visual simulations from the KVPs to help characterize the level of impact.
5.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, no comments regarding aesthetics
were raised.
5.3 Determination of Existing Visual Quality
KVPs are selected to be representative of the most critical locations from which the project
would be seen. They are selected based on their usefulness in evaluating existing landscapes
and potential impacts on aesthetics with various levels of viewer sensitivity, in different
landscape types and terrain, and from various vantage points. Locations typically considered
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 5-2 | Aesthetics
Draft EIR
10/23/18
for the establishment of KVPs include those: 1) along major or significant travel corridors, 2)
along local roads, 3) along recreational access off-highway vehicle roads and trails, 4) at key
vista points, 5) from publicly accessible vantage points within designated wilderness or other
protected areas, and 6) from locations that provide good examples of the existing landscape
context and viewing conditions.
When analyzing existing aesthetic conditions, the elements of visual quality, viewer concern,
visibility, number of viewers, and duration of view are considered. These parameters are then
factored into an overall rating of viewer sensitivity.
5.4 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on aesthetic conditions in the study area. The current
condition and quality of aesthetic resources was used as the baseline against which to compare
potential impacts of the project.
5.4.1 Regional Landscape
The City of Dublin is located on 14.59 square miles in Eastern Alameda County within the Tri-
Valley Region. The City is approximately 35 miles east of San Francisco and is generally bound
by the City of San Ramon to the north, the City of Livermore to the east, Interstate 580 and the
City of Pleasanton to the south, and the City of Castro Valley and the East Bay Hills to the west.
5.4.2 Project Site
The project site is located approximately four miles east of downtown Dublin, within the
southeastern portion of the City. The property is bordered by single-family residences to the
north, multi-family residential and commercial uses to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, and
Emerald Glen Park along with commercial, residential and campus office uses to the west along
Tassajara Road.
The site is vacant, with the exception of occasional seasonal uses, and was previously utilized
for agricultural purposes. The terrain is generally flat with a slight slope from the north to the
south. The majority of vegetation found on-site is low lying native and nonnative grasses that
are turned periodically for the purposes of weed abatement. A small group of trees and shrubs
is located near the corner of Tassajara Road and Central Parkway. No grading for development
purposes has occurred to date.
5.4.3 Scenic Routes
Interstate 580 was designated as a Scenic Route by the County of Alameda in 1966 (the City of
Dublin was incorporated in 1982 and recognized this scenic route designation). Tassajara Road
is designated as a scenic corridor within Alameda County.
The EDSP maintains that “it is critical that views of major ridgelands be maintained from the
scenic corridors.” The City of Dublin General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways Element
City of Dublin At Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
states that scenic routes “are the places from which people traveling through Dublin gain their
impression of the City; therefore, it is important that the quality of views be protected.”
5.4.4 Light and Glare
There are no existing sources of light and glare on the project site. Adjacent sources of light
and glare include streetlights on the adjacent roadways and nearby commercial and residential
land uses.
5.5 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
5.5.1 Federal
None applicable.
5.5.2 State
CA Scenic Highway Program
In 1963, the California Legislature established the State’s Scenic Highway Program, which is
intended to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from changes that would diminish
the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. The state laws governing the Scenic Highway
Program are found in the Streets and Highways Code, Section 260 et seq.
The State Scenic Highways program, established by the Streets and Highways Code, is
administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The State Scenic
Highway System includes highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic highways or
have been designated as such.
A scenic corridor is the land generally adjacent to and visible from the highway and is identified
using a motorist’s line of vision. The corridor protection program seeks to encourage quality
development that does not degrade the scenic value of the corridor. Minimum requirements
for scenic corridor protection include:
Regulation of land use and density of development
Detailed land and site planning
Control of outdoor advertising (including a ban on billboards)
Careful attention to and control of earthmoving and landscaping
Careful attention to design and appearance of structures and equipment
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 5-4 | Aesthetics
Draft EIR
10/23/18
5.5.3 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin’s General Plan contains the following goals, policies and implementation
measures as they relate to aesthetic resources:
Goal 10.5.2: Promote a positive regional identity of the City.
Policy 10.5.3.A: Incorporate distinctive design features along regional corridors that reinforce a
positive image of Dublin. Both within the right-of-way and on adjacent private development,
utilize features such as gateway elements, street trees, median planting, special lighting,
separated and ample sidewalks, crosswalks, seating, special signs, street names, landscape,
decorative paving patterns, and public art. Consider undergrounding utilities along these
roadways.
Policy 10.5.3.B: Maintain views through development to distant vistas (i.e. foothills) and view
corridors along regional corridors, wherever feasible.
Policy 10.5.3.C: Incorporate visual screening techniques such as berms, dense and/or fast-
growing landscaping, and appropriately designed fencing where feasible, to ensure that visually
challenging features, such as parking lots, loading docks, storage areas, etc. are visually
attractive as seen from regional corridors.
Policy 10.5.3.D: Provide landscaping and articulated design to soften the visual appearance of
existing and new walls and fences that are adjacent to regional corridors, wherever feasible.
Policy 10.5.3.E: Encourage attractive and high-quality landscaping along the edge of the
freeways and development surrounding on- and off-ramps to provide softer and more
attractive views both to and from the freeways. Landscaping on private property should
complement the buildings and overall site design.
Goal 10.6.2: Create a Sense of Arrival at gateways to the City.
Policy 10.6.3.A: Mark gateways with City identification (i.e. signage) and include enhanced
landscaping and street improvements to highlight Dublin’s identity, consistent with the City’s
Streetscape Master Plan, where feasible (reference: Streetscape Master Plan).
Policy 10.6.3.B: Incorporate dramatic and imaginative landscaping, public art, water features, or
other design features when reconstructing streets and/or sidewalks at key gateways into the
City, where feasible (reference: Public Art Master Plan).
Policy 10.6.3.C: Encourage signature building architecture at gateways that are oriented toward
the gateway to create a sense of place.
Implementation Measure 10.6.4.A: Implement the Streetscape Master Plan.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Implementation Measure 10.6.4.B: Review development adjacent to gateways through the
Planned Development Regulations and the Site Development Review Permit process.
Goal 10.7.2: Ensure quality and compatible design of the built form.
Policy 10.7.3.1.A: Encourage diverse, high quality, attractive, and architecturally appealing
buildings that create distinctive visual reference points, enrich the appearance of functional
gathering spaces, and convey an excellence in architecture, workmanship, quality, and
durability in building materials.
Policy 10.7.3.1.B: Encourage buildings with varied massing, heights, articulation techniques, and
architectural and signage treatments to create visual interest and ensure compatibility with
adjacent uses, in commercial, office, industrial, and mixed-use areas.
Policy 10.7.3.1.C: Ensure that building height, scale and design are compatible with the
character of the surrounding natural and built environment, and are varied in their massing,
scale and articulation.
Policy 10.7.3.1.D: Encourage a variety of site and building designs that are compatible and
consistent with surrounding development, especially where larger scale development is
adjacent to smaller scale and/or more sensitive land uses (i.e. residential, schools, and
churches) to the greatest extent feasible.
Policy 10.7.3.1.E: Avoid the use of long, continuous, straight (building) walls along roadways by
designing appropriate articulation, massing, and architectural features.
Policy 10.7.3.1.F: Create distinctive neighborhoods that exemplify high-quality and varied
design while reinforcing Dublin as one integrated community, in residential areas.
Policy 10.7.3.1.G: Encourage the diversity of garage orientation and setbacks, architectural
styles, building materials, color and rooflines, and other design features, on all sides of all
buildings, in residential areas.
Policy 10.7.3.1.H: Orient buildings toward major thoroughfares, sidewalks, pedestrian
pathways, and gathering spaces, and incorporate clear and identifiable entries where feasible,
in campus office areas.
Policy 10.7.3.1.I: Cluster and connect buildings through a series of pedestrian pathways
designed to work with each other to form a unified design character and create larger
functional spaces, in campus office and commercial areas.
Policy 10.7.3.1.K: Minimize the visual impacts of service/loading areas, storage areas, trash
enclosures, and ground mounted mechanical equipment. When feasible, these elements
should be located behind or to the sides of buildings and screened from views through a
combination of walls/ fencing, and/or landscaping.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 5-6 | Aesthetics
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Policy 10.7.3.1.L: Minimize the visual impacts of roof mounted mechanical equipment. When
feasible, such elements should be consolidated and housed in architecturally articulated
enclosures.
Policy 10.7.3.2.A: Utilize more formal landscaping treatments in more densely developed
(urban) areas and utilize more natural landscaping treatments in less dense (suburban) areas,
as appropriate.
Policy 10.7.3.2.B: Achieve neighborhood identities by applying streetscape and landscape
design, entry treatments, signage, and architectural detailing standards, in residential areas
(reference: Streetscape Master Plan).
Policy 10.7.3.2.C: Incorporate setbacks and landscaped buffers for development along collector
and arterial roadways to minimize the impacts from roadway noise, where appropriate.
Policy 10.7.3.2.D: Ensure that landscaping along and adjacent to the public realm is well
maintained and retains a natural appearance.
Policy 10.7.3.2.E: Encourage distinctive landscaping and signage that is aesthetically appealing
from the public realm (reference: Streetscape Master Plan).
Policy 10.7.3.2.F: Encourage the use of landscaping on walls to soften and screen their visual
appearance (reference: Streetscape Master Plan).
Policy 10.7.3.2.G: Increase the width of existing narrow parkway strips when the opportunity
arises and encourage all new development and redevelopment projects to provide
appropriately sized landscaped parkway strips (reference: Streetscape Master Plan).
Policy 10.7.3.2.H: Preserve mature trees and vegetation, with special consideration given to the
protection of groups of trees and associated undergrowth and specimen trees (reference:
Heritage Tree Ordinance).
Policy 10.7.3.2.I: Preserve views of creeks, hillsides, skylines, or other natural or man-made
landmarks during site planning of new developments, whenever feasible.
Policy 10.7.3.3.A: Encourage gathering spaces and amenities such as mini plazas, courtyards,
benches, seating, shade, trash receptacles, and water fountains, in commercial and office areas.
Policy 10.7.3.3.B: Design attractive gathering spaces with pedestrian amenities such as
landscaping, benches, shade structures, fountains, public art, and attractive lighting.
Policy 10.7.3.3.C: Encourage design treatments that enhance the attractiveness of the
streetscape, public spaces, landscaped areas, and open space.
Policy 10.7.3.4.A: Ensure that perimeter areas incorporate appropriate planting, lighting, and
signage.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Policy 10.7.3.4.B: Ensure that signs are constructed of high quality materials, are compatible
with their surroundings, and make a positive visual contribution to the character of the
community.
Policy 10.7.3.4.D: Incorporate public art where feasible (reference: Public Art Master Plan).
Policy 10.7.3.4.E: Design and locate outdoor lighting around buildings, in parking lots, and along
streets that minimize the effects of glare on adjacent properties, particularly in residential
areas.
Policy 10.7.3.5.A: Provide convenient but not visually dominating parking that incorporates
extensive landscaping to provide shade, promote wayfinding, visually soften views from the
street and surrounding properties, and reduce the heat island effect (generally characterized
with large expanses of paved and under-landscaped surfaces).
Policy 10.7.3.5.B: Buffer and screen large expanses of parking areas from the street, where
practical.
Policy 10.7.3.5.C: Encourage the use of integrated circulation and parking facilities that are
shared among surrounding properties.
Policy 10.8.3.A: Provide safe, visually pleasing, and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle
connections between destinations within a project area by providing wide multi-use paths,
generous sidewalks, and dedicated bicycle lanes on Class I and II Collector and Arterial streets.
Policy 10.8.3.B: Provide clear, identifiable, and ample pedestrian and bicycle pathways that
connect sidewalks, parking areas, building entrances, trails and other site features by using
wayfinding techniques such as signage, landscaping, hardscape, and prominent building
entrances, where feasible (reference: Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan).
Policy 10.8.3.C: Provide a continuous and ample network of pedestrian and bicycle routes
within a project area and logical connections to the exterior of the project area and thereby
create safe routes of travel to transit facilities, public gathering spaces, trails, parks, community
centers, schools, City villages, gateways and entries (reference: Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan).
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The project site is located within the following Planning Subareas of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan:
1) Town Center – Commercial, along Tassajara Road south of Gleason Drive and north of Dublin
Boulevard. This subarea was envisioned the commercial core for eastern Dublin and is
intended to be a high density, pedestrian-oriented commercial, civic, and entertainment center
for Dublin and the surrounding communities.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 5-8 | Aesthetics
Draft EIR
10/23/18
2) Town Center – Residential, along Brannigan Street south of Gleason Drive and north of
Dublin Boulevard. This subarea was envisioned for a large community park and open space
area on the eastern portion and residential on the western side.
3) Tassajara Gateway, area south of Dublin Boulevard. This area was envisioned for high-
quality commercial uses that establishes a positive impression on the thousands of travelers
travelling along Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road.
4) Foothill Residential for the small area of the project on the north side of Gleason Drive. This
area was envisioned for predominantly single-family residential in the lower density range.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains the following goals and policies as they relate to
aesthetic resources:
Visual Resources - General
Goal: To establish a visually distinctive community which preserves the character of the natural
landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining views from major travel corridors
and public spaces.
Policy 6-28: Preserve the natural open beauty of the hills and other important visual resources,
such as creeks and major stands of vegetation.
Policy 6-30: Structures built near designated scenic corridors shall be located so that views of
the back- drop ridge (identified in Figure 6.3 as “Visually Sensitive Ridgelands - no
development”) are generally maintained when viewed from the scenic corridors.
Policy 6-31: High quality design and visual character will be required for all development visible
from designated scenic corridors.
Tassajara Road Scenic Corridor
Policy 6-29: Development is not permitted on the main ridgeline that borders the planning area
to the north and east, but may be permitted on the foreground hills and ridgelands. Minor
interruptions of views of the main ridgeline by individual building masses may be permissible in
limited circumstances where all other remedies have been exhausted.
Policy 6-30: Structures built near designated scenic corridors shall be located so that views of
the back- drop ridge (identified in Figure 6.3 as "visually sensitive ridgelands - no development")
are generally maintained when viewed from the scenic corridors.
Policy 6-31: High quality design and visual character will be required for all development visible
from designated scenic corridors.
Program 6R: The City should require projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors to
submit detailed visual analysis with development project applications. Applicants will be
City of Dublin At Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
required to submit graphic simulations and/or sections drawn from affected travel corridors
through the parcel in question, representing, typical views of the parcel from these scenic
routes. The graphic depiction of the location and massing of the structure and associated
landscaping can then be used to adjust the project design to minimize the visual impact.
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards
The Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document was adopted by the City
Council in 1996 as a means of implementing the requirements of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan. The Scenic Corridor policies establish standards for projects within the scenic corridor
viewshed. Along the Interstate 580 corridor, the document identified three critical viewpoints
of Dublin’s “Visually Sensitive Ridgelands,” including: Viewpoint 1 from Interstate 580 looking
north up Tassajara Creek, Viewpoint 2 looking northeast to the ridgelands from the Tassajara
Road Interstate 580 overpass, and Viewpoint 3 looking north and northeast from the Fallon
Road overpass.
Standard 1.1 states that from these three designated viewpoints, development shall maintain
generally uninterrupted views to significant natural features. The viewpoint that is material to
this analysis is Viewpoint 2, where the standard is to have structures that do not extend above
the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands for more than 25 percent of the total horizon
line. The total horizon line is further defined as the limits of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands as
seen from Viewpoint 2 (as shown in Figure 7 of the Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards
document).
Standard 1.2 states that structures adjacent to a scenic corridor, generally within 700 feet of
the scenic corridor, should be allowed to obstruct views of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands
from Interstate 580 for not more than 50 percent of the developed frontages. Views may be
maintained by balancing building heights and setbacks so as to allow views over the buildings,
by clustering buildings to allow views through, or by siting parking to preserve views to the hills.
5.6 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
5.6.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for aesthetics were derived from the Environmental Checklist
in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been amended or
supplemented, as appropriate, to address lead agency requirements and the full range of
potential impacts related to this project.
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it
would meet one of the following criteria.
Cause a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings with a State scenic highway.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 5-10 | Aesthetics
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings.
Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
Also, given consideration are any General Plan goals, policies, or designations that are designed
to reduce aesthetic impacts. Conflicts with such laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards
can constitute evidence of a significant aesthetic impact. Lastly, a significant aesthetic impact
could occur if the project’s incremental aesthetic impact would be cumulatively considerable.
Significance Classifications
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
Impact Assessment Methodology
To determine potential impacts, the impact significance criteria identified above were applied
to construction and operation of the project. Impacts are identified as being either short-term
or long-term in nature. They are numbered under each impact significance criterion, as are
applicable mitigation measures.
An adverse aesthetic (visual) impact occurs within public view when: (1) an action significantly
changes existing features of the physical environment so that they no longer appear to be
characteristic of the subject locality or region; (2) an action introduces new features to the
physical environment that are significantly uncharacteristic of the region and/or locale; or (3)
aesthetic features of the landscape become significantly less visible (i.e. partially or totally
blocked from view) or are removed. Changes that seem uncharacteristic are those that appear
out of place, discordant, or distracting. The degree of the aesthetic impact depends upon how
noticeable the adverse change may be. The noticeability of an adverse aesthetic impact is a
function of project features, context, and viewing conditions (e.g. angle of view, distance,
primary viewing directions, and duration of view).
The specific factors considered in determining impacts on aesthetics included the following
factors:
1. An understanding of the overall visual sensitivity of the project site;
City of Dublin At Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
2. The resulting contrast of the proposed facilities or activities with existing landscape
characteristics;
3. The degree to which project components would dominate the view of the observer;
4. The extent to which project features or activities would block views of higher value
landscape features; and,
5. An understanding of the overall visual change that would occur in the landscape as a
result of the project.
The components contributing to the assessment of overall visual change are described below.
Visual Contrast
Visual contrast concerns the degree to which a project’s visual characteristics or elements (e.g.
form, line, color, and texture) differ from the same visual elements in the existing landscape.
The degree of contrast can range from low to high. A landscape with forms, lines, colors, and
textures similar to those of the project is more visually absorbent; that is, it is more capable of
accepting those project characteristics than a landscape in which those elements are absent.
Generally, visual absorption is inversely proportional to visual contrast. Visual contrast ranges
from low to high. Contrast can also be exacerbated by visible glare from project components.
Dominance
Dominance is a measure of the proportion of the total field of view occupied by the feature, a
feature’s apparent size relative to other visible landscape features, and the conspicuousness of
the feature due to its location in the view.
A feature’s level of dominance tends to be lower in a panoramic setting compared to a setting
with confined sightlines with a focus on the feature itself. A feature’s level of dominance is
higher if it is near the center of the view, elevated relative to the viewer, or has the sky as a
backdrop. As the distance between a viewer and a feature increases, its apparent size
decreases, and consequently its dominance decreases. The level of dominance ranges from
subordinate to dominant.
View Blockage
The extent to which any previously visible landscape features are blocked from view constitutes
view blockage or impairment. The view is also impaired when the continuity of the view is
interrupted. When considering a project’s features, higher quality landscape features can be
blocked by lower quality project features thus, resulting in adverse aesthetic impacts. The
degree of view blockage can range from none to high.
Visual Change
Visual change is derived from the three components described above—contrast, dominance,
and view blockage—and is a concluding assessment as to the degree of change that would be
caused by a project. The degree of visual change can range from low to high.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 5-12 | Aesthetics
Draft EIR
10/23/18
5.6.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
There are no “no” impacts nor “beneficial” impacts.
5.6.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
To address potential aesthetic impacts associated with the project, simulations from five
viewpoints were prepared and compared to existing conditions. Figure 5-1: Location of Key
Viewpoints identifies the location of simulation viewpoints. The simulations are shown in
Figures 5-2 through 5-6.
Impact AES-1: Adversely affect a scenic vista (Class III).
The General Plan describes a design vision which is the basis for the City’s goals and policies
related to community design. The design vision identifies the need to utilize regional corridors
to promote the positive regional identity of the City through attractive development, unique
landscaping, and preservation of views to rolling hillsides and other prominent natural features.
The General Plan identifies Tassajara Road as a regional corridor, and therefore, per Policy
10.5.3.B, developments must maintain views through the development to distant vistas
wherever feasible.
The General Plan recognizes Tassajara Road as an Alameda County designated scenic route.
The EDSP also recognizes Tassajara Road as a scenic corridor and asserts that views of major
ridgelands be maintained from scenic corridors. The EDSP goals and policies, discussed above,
encourage development that maintains views from scenic corridors to Visually Sensitive
Ridgelands, as shown in EDSP Figure 6.3: Environmental Constraints.
Furthermore, the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards identifies the view
looking northeast to the ridgelands from the Tassajara Road overpass as a designated viewpoint
within the project area. Per the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards,
implementation of developments shall maintain generally uninterrupted views and have
structures that do not extend above the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands for more
than 25 percent of the total horizon line (the limits of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands as seen
from Viewpoint 2).
The Visually Sensitive Ridgelands identified in EDSP Figure 6.3 are located approximately 2.5
miles northeast of the project site. As shown in Figure 5-6: Simulation Viewpoint 5, views to
the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands from the project area are not materially obstructed. The
tallest feature is the proposed hotel (maximum 74 feet in height), which does not extend above
the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands for more than 25 percent of the total horizon
line (Standard 1.1). The total horizon line is further defined as the limits of the Visually
Sensitive Ridgelands as seen from Viewpoint 2 (as shown in Figure 7 of the Scenic Corridor
Policies and Standards document). Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant
impact to views of a scenic vista. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant, and no
mitigation measures are required.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact AES-2: Substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway (Class III).
The City of Dublin General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways Element designates I-580 as a
“Scenic Route.” The General Plan indicates that scenic routes “are the places from which
people traveling through Dublin gain their impression of the City; therefore, it is important that
the quality of views be protected.” The General Plan indicates that development within the
boundaries of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that is adjacent to scenic routes must comply
with applicable goals and policies.
The Specific Plan sets forth a goal that calls for “protecting key visual elements and maintaining
views from major travel corridors” and a policy that indicates that views of visually sensitive
ridgelines in Specific Plan Figure 6.3 shall be maintained by new development. Additionally,
another policy states that new development along scenic routes shall employ high quality
design and visual character.
The southern boundary of the project site is immediately adjacent to and within view of I-580.
The Visually Sensitive Ridgelines identified in Specific Plan Figure 6.3 are located north of the
project site. Views of the visually sensitive ridgelands from Viewpoint 2 identified in the
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor would not be impacts, as described above.
Views of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelines from along the I-580 corridor are minimally impacted
as the one-story buildings closest to the freeway are set back and no more than 50 percent of
the developed frontage will obstruct views of the ridgelands.
Collectively, these characteristics would ensure that the project maintains views of the hills and
from the designated vantage points identified by the EDSP. Therefore, the project would not
adversely impact views from a scenic vista. Impacts would be less than significant.
Impact AES-3: Substantially alter the visual character of the project site and surrounding area
(Class III).
The project consists of both commercial and residential development that would be
constructed in three phases (see Figure 3-12: Project Phasing). Phase 1 would develop the
commercial uses and residential uses located between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway
within PA-2a, PA-2b and PA-2c. This Phase would include the development of townhomes
south of Central Parkway, the apartment building “wrapped” around a multi-level parking
garage, and commercial and retail uses including the theater and market hall. The maximum
height of the commercial buildings would be 50 feet with the majority of the buildings designed
as one-story commercial buildings measuring approximately 34 feet. The maximum height of
the residential buildings would be 65 feet.
Phase 2A would develop the residential units between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive as
well as a portion of the commercial uses located in PA-1 including the hotel (at a maximum of
74 feet) and one-story community room. Most of the commercial buildings would be typical
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 5-14 | Aesthetics
Draft EIR
10/23/18
one-story commercial structures measuring approximately 30 feet in height. The maximum
height of the residential buildings would be approximately 50 feet.
Phase 2B would develop the single-family residential units north of Gleason Drive and would be
a maximum of 41 feet.
Project development would include plazas, linear parks, paseos, and gardens located
throughout each of the planning areas along with the Porch, Side Yard, and Commons, which
would serve as gathering places for community events. The project would complete pedestrian
walkways and plantings along existing City streets and develop multi-use paths, paseos and
pedestrian walkways to provide connections between the residential, commercial and open
spaces throughout the site. Varied but complementary plantings and hardscape features would
project a modern agrarian aesthetic. The project would utilize setbacks and landscaped buffers
for screening throughout the site. Walls would be interior to the project with the exception of
the continuation of an existing wall located within PA-4. The continuation of the existing wall in
this specific portion of the project would allow for continuity with the existing setbacks,
landscaping, and residential lot configuration adjacent to PA-4 along Gleason Avenue.
The City’s General Plan identifies several key entrances to the City, including the intersection of
Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road, as gateways. General Plan Policies 10.6.3.A, 10.6.3.B and
10.6.3.C describe the use of landscaping, architectural features, signage, and consistency with
the City’s Streetscape Master Plan as measures that would support General Plan Goal 10.6.2
and assist in creating a sense of arrival to the City.
As shown in Figure 5-4a: Simulation Viewpoint 3 and Figure 5-4b: Gateway Perspective View,
the gateway at the southeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road would include low,
board-formed concrete seat-walls along the public sidewalk and grass-covered berms. The
berms would be planted with native grasses and specimen olive trees. A gathering space would
be located behind the berms. A similar, smaller scale version of the low wall, grass-planted
berm and specimen olive trees would be located at the northeast corner of the intersection,
providing views of the project’s Porch area while screening the at-grade parking area from
view.
The project would require a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan Amendment to
modify the land use designations to accommodate the proposed development. The subject site
is currently designated with a combination of General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial,
Medium, Medium/High, and High Density Residential land use designations. In addition, a
small portion of the site north of Gleason Drive is designated for Public/Semi-public uses. Thus,
the City has envisioned development of the project site with similar uses as the project, albeit
at different intensities and areas. Accordingly, the project is located in an area with compatible
surrounding uses, including commercial, residential, campus office, and parks/public recreation
uses.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Per Chapter 8.84 of the City’s Municipal Code, the project would be required to have a Master
Sign Program. Adherence to the Master Sign Program would ensure that project signage would
be compatible with the style and character of project and surrounding development and are
well related to each other.
As discussed above and shown in Figure 5-2 through Figure 5-6, the project would not
substantially alter the visual character of the project site and the surrounding area. The
building height, massing and materials are generally consistent with the surrounding land uses
and the project site includes landscaping, sidewalks, and signage that creates a consistent
streetscape. Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact to the visual
character of the project site and surrounding area. Impacts would be Class III, less than
significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Impact AES-4: Introduce new light and glare to the project site and project area (Class II).
The project site is vacant land with no existing sources of light or glare, with exception to the
minimal temporary lighting associated with seasonal uses. Nearby sources of light and glare
include street lighting and vehicle traffic along Tassajara Road, Brannigan Street, Dublin
Boulevard, Central Parkway, Gleason Drive as well as freeway lighting and vehicle traffic along
Interstate 580. Other sources of existing lighting and glare in the surrounding area include
surface parking lighting of the commercial uses to the west and southeast, residential uses to
the north and east and the public park to the west.
Implementation of the project would include additional sources of commercial and residential
indoor lighting, outdoor/security lighting, parking area lighting, and illuminated signage.
Residential development pursuant to the project would result in a greater intensity of uses as
compared to existing conditions due to an increased number of structures (residential units),
additional streets, and other land uses that is typical of an urban density development. Exterior
project lighting would consist of wall- and pole-mounted fixtures around the perimeters of
buildings, landscaped areas, pedestrian pathways, streets, and in parking areas on the project
site. Light from these fixtures could spill beyond the project site and result in significant light
and glare impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control,
would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level (Class II).
Mitigation for Impact AES-4
MM AES-4.1 Exterior Lighting Control Plan
To minimize the adverse impact associated with light and glare, the applicant shall submit an
exterior lighting control plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director
prior to issuance of a building permit for vertical construction for building lighting or approval
of the final landscape plan for all other site lighting.
The exterior lighting control plan shall address the design and install all permanent exterior
lighting and all temporary construction lighting such that: (a) lamps and reflectors are not
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 5-16 | Aesthetics
Draft EIR
10/23/18
directly visible from beyond the project site, as feasible; (b) lighting does not cause excessive
reflected glare; (c) direct lighting does not illuminate the nighttime sky; (d) illumination of the
project and its immediate vicinity is minimized; and (e) the lighting mitigation plan complies
with all relevant local policies and ordinances.
The exterior lighting control plan shall include the following:
A photometric study that demonstrates spillover horizontal foot-candle (fc) levels do
not exceed 1.0 fc at the project site boundary.
Identification of the location and direction of light fixtures that take the lighting
control requirements into account;
Lighting design that considers setbacks of project features from the site boundary to
aid in satisfying the lighting control requirements;
Lighting design that incorporates fixture hoods/shielding, with light directed
downward or toward the area to be illuminated;
Light fixtures that are visible from beyond the project boundary shall have cutoff
angles that are sufficient to prevent lamps and reflectors from being visible beyond
the project boundary, except where necessary for security;
Lighting figures that are a minimum necessary brightness, consistent with
operational safety and security; and
Where lights in high illumination areas not occupied on a continuous basis, utilize
timer switches or motion detectors so that the lights operate only when the area is
occupied.
5.6.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative aesthetic impacts includes the project
site viewshed and the visual character of its surroundings in the City of Dublin. Cumulative
projects considered are those that could be seen in proximity to the project site and taken
together would result in a substantial change to the project site viewshed.
Impact AES-5: Contribute to cumulatively considerable aesthetic impacts (Class II).
The geographic scope of the cumulative aesthetics, light, and glare analysis is the area
surrounding the project site. This is the area within view of the project and, therefore, the area
most likely to experience changes in visual character or experience light and glare impacts.
The area surrounding the project site is entirely developed with the exception of a vacant
parcel just north of Lowe’s which was part of the larger Grafton Station Planned Development.
The project vicinity is characterized by urban development and multi-family residential uses.
Much of the surrounding project area has been developed relatively recently in compliance
City of Dublin At Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-17
Draft EIR
10/23/18
with the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the City’s current municipal code
requirements related to design and visual character. Compliance with these standards as well
as the City’s review and approval role in the planning process have ensured a visually
compatible and cohesive development pattern in the surrounding area. Therefore, there is
currently no existing cumulatively significant visual aesthetic impact within the project area.
The project would be developed in several phases over a period of approximately six years. The
project would feature buildings as high as 74 feet (hotel); however, through the use of site
planning techniques such as setbacks, structure placement, and landscaping, the visual
appearance of the project would be softened such that it would be compatible with its
surroundings.
Therefore, with implementation of MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control Plan, the project in
conjunction with other planned and approved projects, would not have a cumulatively
significant impact relating to aesthetics, light, and glare.
5.6.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 5-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Aesthetics summarizes the
environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the project
with regard to aesthetics.
Table 5-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Aesthetics
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact AES-1: Adversely affect a
scenic vista (Class III).
Less than
Significant
None required.
Impact AES-2: Substantially damage
scenic resources within a state
scenic highway (Class III).
Less than
Significant
None required.
Impact AES-3: Substantially alter the
visual character of the project site
and project area, or substantially
change a scenic vista (Class III).
Less than
Significant
None required.
Impact AES-4: Introduce new light
and glare to the project site and
project area (Class II).
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control Plan
Impact AES-5: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable aesthetic
impacts (Class II).
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control Plan
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 5-18 | Aesthetics
Draft EIR
10/23/18
5.7 References
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2015. State Scenic Highway Program.
Available at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/faq.htm. Accessed
January 23, 2018.
California Department of Finance. 2017. Demographic Research Unit. E-1 Population
Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State January 1, 2016 and 2017. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/. Accessed January
24, 2018.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
6 Air Quality
6.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the existing setting of the project site as it relates to air quality; identifies
associated regulatory conditions and requirements; presents the criteria used to evaluate
potential impacts on air quality; and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid each
significant impact. The significance of each impact after the incorporation of identified
mitigation measures is included at the end of this chapter.
Information used to prepare this chapter came from the following sources:
Project application and related materials
Air quality data provided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Clean Air Plan 2017
City of Dublin, General Plan, 1985 as amended 2017
6.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, no comments regarding air quality
were raised.
6.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on air quality conditions in the project area. The Regional
Setting provides information on the baseline conditions in the region. The Project Setting
defines the project area and describes baseline conditions for air quality within it.
6.3.1 Climate and Topography
The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin), which includes
Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, Napa County, San Francisco County, San
Mateo County, and Santa Clara County. The Air Basin composes of an area of approximately
5,340 square miles in the San Francisco Bay Area. Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) is responsible for local control and monitoring of criteria air pollutants throughout
the Air Basin.
The climate of the Air Basin is determined largely by a high-pressure system that is almost
always present over the eastern Pacific Ocean off the West Coast of North America in the
summer. During winter, the Pacific high-pressure system shifts southward, allowing storms to
pass through the region. During the summer, the large-scale meteorological condition that
dominates the West Coast is a semi-permanent high-pressure cell centered over the
northeastern portion of the Pacific Ocean.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-2 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Climatological conditions, an area’s topography, and the quantity and type of pollutants
released commonly determine ambient air quality. The project site is located in central
Alameda County in the San Francisco Bay Area, in the City of Dublin.
Climate, or the average weather condition, affects air quality in several ways. Wind patterns
can remove or add air pollutants emitted by stationary or mobile sources. Inversion, a
condition where warm air traps cooler air underneath it, can hold pollutants near the ground by
limiting upward mixing (dilution). Topography also affects the local climate, as valleys often
trap emissions by limiting lateral dispersal.
6.3.2 Air Pollutants of Primary Concern
The State and federal Clean Air Acts mandate the control and reduction of certain air
pollutants. Under these Acts, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for certain
“criteria” pollutants. Ambient air pollutant concentrations are affected by the rates and
distributions of corresponding air pollutant emissions, as well as by the climactic and
topographic influences discussed above. The primary determinant of concentrations of non-
reactive pollutants (such as carbon monoxide [CO] and inhalable particulate matter [PM10]) is
proximity to major sources. Ambient CO levels in particular usually closely follow the spatial
and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. A discussion of primary criteria pollutants is
provided below.
Ozone. Ozone (O3) is a colorless gas with a pungent odor. Most ozone in the atmosphere is
formed as a result of the interaction of ultraviolet light, reactive organic gases (ROG), and
oxides of nitrogen (NOX). ROG (the organic compound fraction relevant to ozone formation,
and sufficiently equivalent for the purposes of this analysis to volatile organic compounds, or
VOC) comprises of non-methane hydrocarbons (with some specific exclusions), and NOX
consists of different chemical combinations of nitrogen and oxygen, mainly NO and NO2. A
highly reactive molecule, ozone readily combines with many different components of the
atmosphere. Consequently, high levels of ozone tend to exist only while high ROG and NOX
levels are present to sustain the ozone formation process. Once the precursors have been
depleted, ozone levels rapidly decline. Given these reactions occur on a regional rather than
local scale, ozone is considered a regional pollutant.
Concentrations of ground-level ozone can irritate and cause inflammation of the mucus
membranes and lung airways; cause wheezing, coughing, and pain when inhaling deeply;
decrease lung capacity; and aggravate lung and heart problems.
Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless, gas. CO causes a number of
health problems including fatigue, headache, confusion, and dizziness. The incomplete
combustion of petroleum fuels in on-road vehicles and at power plants is a major cause of CO.
CO is also produced by use of wood stoves and fireplaces, which are more frequently used in
winter months. CO tends to dissipate rapidly into the atmosphere; consequently, violations of
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
the State CO standard are generally associated with major roadway intersections during peak
hour traffic conditions.
Localized CO “hotspots” can occur at intersections with heavy peak hour traffic. Specifically,
hotspots can be created at intersections where traffic levels are sufficiently high such that the
local CO concentration exceeds the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) of 35.0
parts per million (ppm) or the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) of 20.0 ppm.
CO replaces oxygen in the body’s red blood cells. Individuals with a deficient blood supply to
the heart, patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, fetuses (unborn babies),
and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency) as seen in high altitudes are most
susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. People with heart disease are also more
susceptible to developing chest pains when exposed to low levels of carbon monoxide.
Nitrogen Dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a by-product of fuel combustion, with the primary
source being motor vehicles and industrial boilers and furnaces. The principal form of nitrogen
oxide produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO), but NO reacts rapidly to form NO2, creating
the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOX. Nitrogen dioxide is an acute irritant. A
relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis may exist, and an increase in
bronchitis in young children at concentrations below 0.3 ppm may occur. Nitrogen dioxide
absorbs blue light and causes a reddish-brown cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. It
can also contribute to the formation of PM10 and acid rain.
NO2 can irritate and damage the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as
influenza. The health effects of short-term exposure are still unclear. However, continued or
frequent exposure to NO2 concentrations that are typically much higher than those normally
found in the ambient air may increase acute respiratory illnesses in children and increase the
incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may aggravate
eyes and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction.
Particulate Matter. Suspended particulate matter (PM) consists of airborne dust small enough
to remain suspended in the air for long periods. Fine particulate matter includes particles small
enough to be inhaled, pass through the respiratory system, and lodge in the lungs, with
resultant health effects. Particulate matter can include materials such as sulfates and nitrates,
which are particularly damaging to the lungs. Studies of the health effects resulted in revision
of the Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) standard in 1987 to focus on particulates that are small
enough to be considered “inhalable,” i.e. 10 microns or less in size (PM10). In July of 1997, a
further revision of the federal standard added criteria for PM2.5, reflecting recent studies that
suggested that particulates less than 2.5 microns in diameter are of particular concern.
Particulate matter can penetrate lungs and potentially damage the respiratory tract. The
health effects include increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways,
coughing, or difficulty breathing; asthma; chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-4 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
attacks; and premature death in people with heart or lung disease. Particulate matter also
reduces visibility.
Sulfur Dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is produced by such stationary sources as coal and oil
combustion, steel mills, refineries and pulp and paper mills. The major adverse health effects
associated with SO2 exposure pertain to the upper respiratory tract. SO2 is a respiratory irritant
with construction of the bronchioles occurring with inhalation of SO2 at 5 ppm or more. On
contact with the moist mucous membranes, SO2 produces sulfurous acid, which is a direct
irritant. Concentration rather than duration of the exposure is an important determinant of
respiratory effects. Exposure of a few minutes to low levels of SO2 can result in airway
constriction in some asthmatics.
Lead. Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment, as well as in manufacturing
products. The major sources of lead emissions historically have been mobile and industrial
sources. As a result of the phase-out of leaded gasoline, as discussed below, metal processing
currently is the primary source of lead emissions. The highest level of lead in the air is generally
found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-
acid battery manufacturers.
Historically, mobile sources were the main contributor to ambient lead concentrations in the
air. In the early 1970s, U.S. EPA set national regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in
gasoline. In 1975, unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic
converters. U.S. U.S. EPA completed the ban prohibiting the use of leaded gasoline in highway
vehicles in early 1996.1 As a result of U.S. EPA’s regulatory efforts to remove lead from
gasoline, lead concentrations have declined substantially over the past several decades. The
most dramatic reductions in lead emissions occurred prior to 1990 in the transportation sector
due to the removal of lead from gasoline sold for most highway vehicles. Lead emissions were
further reduced substantially between 1990 and 2008, with significant reductions occurring in
the metals industries at least in part as a result of national emissions standards for hazardous
air pollutants.2
Exposure to lead occurs mainly through inhalation of air and ingestion of lead in food, water,
soil, or dust. It accumulates in the blood, bones, and soft tissues and can adversely affect the
kidneys, liver, nervous system, and other organs. Excessive exposure to lead may cause
neurological impairments such as seizures, mental retardation, and behavioral disorders. Even
at low doses, lead exposure is associated with damage to the nervous systems of fetuses and
young children, resulting in learning deficits and lowered IQ.
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register Vol. 67, No.101, May 24, 2002.
2 U.S. EPA 2013. Policy Assessment for the Review of the Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards – External Review Draft.
EPA – 452/P-13-001.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
U.S. EPA and CARB establish ambient air quality standards for major pollutants at thresholds
intended to protect public health. Federal and State standards have been established for
ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, lead, and PM10 and PM2.5.
Criteria air pollutant U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) are provided in Table 6-1: Current National and State
Ambient Air Quality Standards. California standards are more restrictive than federal standards
for each of these pollutants, except for lead and the 8-hour average for CO.
Table 6-1: Current National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time Federal Primary Standards California Standard
Ozone (O3)
1-Hour --- 0.09 ppm
8-Hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
1-Hour 35.0 ppm 20.0 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NOX)
Annual 0.053 ppm 0.030 ppm
1-Hour 0.100 ppm 0.18 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide (SOX)
Annual 0.03 ppm ---
24-Hour 0.14 ppm 0.04 ppm
1-Hour 0.075 ppm 0.25 ppm
Inhalable
Particulates (PM10)
Annual --- 20 μg/m3
24-Hour 150 μg/m3 50 μg/m3
Fine Particulates
(PM2.5)
Annual 12 μg/m3 12 μg/m3
24-Hour 35 μg/m3 ---
Lead (Pb)
30-Day Average --- 1.5 μg/m3
Rolling 3-Month
Average 0.15 μg/m3 ---
ppm = parts per million;
μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: CARB, 2016; U.S. EPA, 2016.
6.3.3 Current Ambient Air Quality
Local air districts and CARB monitor ambient air quality to assure that air quality standards are
met, and if they are not met, to also develop strategies to meet the standards. Air quality
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-6 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
monitoring stations measure pollutant ground-level concentrations (typically, ten feet above
ground level). Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the local air basin is
classified as in “attainment” or “non-attainment.” Some areas are unclassified, which means no
monitoring data is available. Unclassified areas are considered to be in attainment. Table 6-2:
Attainment Status of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin summarizes the State and federal
attainment status for criteria pollutants in the Air Basin.
Table 6-2: Attainment Status of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
Pollutant State Standard Federal Standard
Ozone (O3) Non-attainment 1 Non-attainment2
Inhalable Particulates (PM10) Non-attainment3 Unclassified
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) Non-attainment3 Unclassified
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Attainment4
Nitrogen Dioxide (NOX) Attainment ---5
Sulfur Dioxide (SOX) Attainment ---6
Lead (Pb) --- Attainment7
Notes:
1. The CARB approved the 8-hour CA ozone standard on April 28, 2005 and became effective May 17, 2006.
2. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075
to 0.070 ppm. An area will meet the standard if the fourth-highest maximum daily 8-hour ozone
concentration per year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than 0.070 ppm. EPA will make
recommendations on attainment designations by October 1, 2016, and issue final designations October 1,
2017. Nonattainment areas will have until 2020 to late 2037 to meet the health standard, with attainment
dates varying based on the ozone level in the area.
3. In June 2002, the CARB established new annual standards for PM2.5 and PM10
4. In April 1998, the Bay Area was re-designated to attainment for the national 8-hour carbon monoxide
standard.
5. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at
each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100ppm (effective January 22, 2010). The US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) expects to make a designation for the Bay Area by the end of 2017.
6. On June 2, 2010, the U.S. EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is
based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The
existing 0.030 ppm annual and 0.14 ppm 24-hour SO2 NAAQS however must continue to be used until one
year following U.S. EPA initial designations of the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA expects to make designation
for the Bay Area by the end of 2017.
7. The final rule for rolling 3-month average was signed October 15, 2008. Final designations effective
December 31, 2011.
Non-attainment pollutants are highlighted in Bold.
Source: BAAQMD, 2017b. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status.
As shown in Table 6-2: Attainment Status of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, although the
BAAQMD is in attainment or unclassifiable as to all NAAQS, it is designated as non-attainment
with respect to the more stringent State PM10 standard and the State’s 8-hour ozone standard.
BAAQMD operates 40 air monitoring stations within the nine Bay Area counties. There are
seven active monitoring stations within Alameda County: Berkeley Aquatic Park, Hayward,
three within Oakland, and two in Livermore. The nearest monitoring stations to the project site
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
is the Livermore monitoring station (approximately 4.8 miles east of the project site). However,
the Livermore monitoring station does not measure PM10 and therefore the Concord
monitoring station summary averages were used. Table 6-3: Ambient Air Quality Data,
summarizes the representative annual air quality data for the project vicinity over the past
three years.
Table 6-3: Ambient Air Quality Data
Pollutant 2014 2015 2016
Ozone (ppm), Worst 1-Hour 0.093 0.105 0.102
Number of days of State exceedances (>0.09 ppm) 0 1 2
Number of days of Federal exceedances (>0.08 ppm) 0 0 0
Ozone (ppm), 8-Hour Average 0.08 0.081 0.085
Number of days of State exceedances (>0.07 ppm) 6 7 4
Carbon Monoxide (ppm), Highest 8-Hour Average no data no data no data
Number of days of above State or Federal standard (>9.0 ppm) -- -- --
Particulate Matter <10 microns, Pg/m3, Worst 24 Hours 40.8 22.5 18.7
Number of days above State standard (>50 Pg/m3) 0 0 0
Number of days above Federal standard (>150 Pg/m3) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter <2.5 microns, Pg/m3, Worst 24 Hours 42.9 31.1 22.3
Number of days above Federal standard (>65 Pg/m3) 1 0 0
Source: CARB Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement System (ADAM) Top Four Summaries from 2014 to 2016.
Given that the BAAQMD is designated as non-attainment for State standards for ozone and
PM10, these are the primary pollutants of concern for the BAAQMD. As indicated in Table 6-3:
Ambient Air Quality Data, there were no federal ozone exceedances at the nearest BAAQMD
monitoring station in 2014, 2015, or 2016. The State 8-hour average exceed six days in 2014,
seven days in 2015, and four days in 2016. The State and federal standards for PM10 were not
exceeded in the three years, and the federal standards for PM2.5 were exceeded for one day in
2014, and none in 2013 and 2014.
6.3.4 Hazardous Air Pollutants/Toxic Air Contaminants
Both the U.S. EPA and CARB regulate hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)/ toxic air contaminants
(TACs). According to Section 39655 of the California Health and Safety Code, a TAC is “an air
pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious
illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” In addition, 189
substances that have been listed as federal hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) pursuant to Section
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-8 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
7412 of Title 42 of the United States Code are TACs under the State’s air toxics program
pursuant to Section 39657 (b) of the California Health and Safety Code.
TACs can cause various cancers, depending on the particular chemicals, their type and duration
of exposure. Additionally, some of the TACs may cause other health effects with short or long-
term exposure. The ten TACs posing the greatest health risk in California are acetaldehyde,
benzene, 1-3 butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene,
formaldehyde, methylene chloride, perchlorethylene, and diesel particulate matter (DPM).
Mobile sources of TACs include freeways and other roads with high traffic volumes, while
stationary sources include distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, dry cleaners, and
large gas dispensing facilities. The project site is not located near any major sources of TACs.
For cancer health effects, the risk is expressed as the number of chances in a population of a
million people who might be expected to get cancer over a 70-year lifetime.
6.4 Regulatory Setting
This analysis has been prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and
associated Guidelines (Public Resources Code 21000 et seq. and California Code of Regulations,
Title 14, Chapter 3 sections 15000 – 15387) and in accordance with local, State and federal
laws, including those administered by BAAWMD, CARB, and the EPA. The principal air quality
regulatory mechanisms include the following:
Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), in particular, the 1990 amendments;
California Clean Air Act (CCAA);
California Health and Safety Code (H&SC), in particular, Chapter 3.5 (Toxic Air
Contaminants) (H&SC Section 39650 et. seq.) and Part 6 (Air Toxics “Hot Spots”
Information and Assessment) (H&SC Section 44300 et. seq.).
BAAQMD’s Rules and Regulations and air quality planning documents
6.4.1 Federal and State
As discussed below, the federal and State governments have been empowered by FCAA and
CCAA, respectively, to regulate the emission of airborne pollutants and have established
ambient air quality standards for the protection of public health. U.S. EPA is the federal agency
designated to administer air quality regulation, while CARB is the State equivalent in California.
Local control in air quality management is provided by CARB through county-level or regional
(multi-county) air pollution control districts (APCDs). CARB establishes air quality standards and
is responsible for control of mobile emission sources, while the local APCDs are responsible for
enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources. CARB has established 14 air basins
statewide.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Federal Clean Air Act
U.S. EPA is charged with implementing national air quality programs. U.S. EPA’s air quality
mandates are drawn primarily from the FCAA. The FCAA was passed in 1963 by the U.S.
Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970 FCAA amendments strengthened
previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s.
In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including non-attainment requirements for
areas not meeting NAAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The 1990
FCAA amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection
of air quality in the U.S. The FCAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include
other pollution species.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
The FCAA requires U.S. EPA to establish primary and secondary NAAQS for a number of criteria
air pollutants. The air pollutants for which standards have been established are considered the
most prevalent air pollutants that are known to be hazardous to human health. NAAQS have
been established for the following pollutants: O3, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb.
Title III of the Federal Clean Air Act
As discussed above, HAPs are the air contaminants identified by the U.S. EPA as known or
suspected to cause cancer, other serious illnesses, birth defects, or death. The FCAA requires
the U.S. EPA to set standards for these pollutants and reduce emissions of controlled
chemicals. Specifically, Title III of the FCAA requires the U.S. EPA to promulgate National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for certain categories of sources
that emit one or more pollutants that are identified as HAPs. The FCAA also requires the U.S.
EPA to set standards to control emissions of HAPs through mobile source control programs.
These include programs that reformulated gasoline, national low emissions vehicle standards,
Tier 2 motor vehicle emission standards, gasoline sulfur control requirements, and heavy-duty
engine standards.
HAPs tend to be localized and are found in relatively low concentrations in ambient air.
However, they can result in adverse chronic health effects if exposure to low concentrations
occurs for long periods. Many HAPs originate from human activities, such as fuel combustion
and solvent use. Emission standards may differ between “major sources” and “area sources” of
the HAPs/TACs. Under the FCAA, major sources are defined as stationary sources with the
potential to emit more than 10 tons per year (tpy) of any one HAP or more than 25 tpy of any
combination of HAPs; all other sources are considered area sources. Mobile source air toxics
(MSATs) are a subset of the 188 HAPs. Of the 21 HAPs identified by the U.S. EPA as MSATs, a
priority list of six HAPs were identified that include: diesel exhaust, benzene, formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, acrolein, and 1, 3-butadiene. While vehicle miles traveled in the United States
are expected to increase by 45 percent over the period 2010 to 2050, a combined reduction of
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-10 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
91 percent in the total annual emissions for the priority MSAT is projected for the same time
period.3
California Clean Air Act
The CCAA, signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the State to achieve and maintain the
CAAQS by the earliest practical date. CARB is the State air pollution control agency and is a part
of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). CARB is the agency responsible for
coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California, and
for implementing the requirements of the CCAA. CARB overseas local district compliance with
California and federal laws, approves local air quality plans, submits the State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) to U.S. EPA, monitors air quality, determines and updates area designations and
maps, and sets emissions standards for new mobile sources, consumer products, small utility
engines, off-road vehicles, and fuels.
California Ambient Air Quality Standards
The CCAA requires CARB to establish CAAQS. Similar to the NAAQS, CAAQS have been
established for the following pollutants: O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, Pb, vinyl chloride,
hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and visibility-reducing particulates. In most cases, the CAAQS are
more stringent than the NAAQS. The CCAA requires that all local air districts in the State
endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. The CCAA specifies
that local air districts should focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from
transportation and area-wide emission sources and provides districts with the authority to
regulate indirect sources.
Tanner Air Toxics Act and Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act
TACs 4 in California primarily are regulated through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the
Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588) (Hot Spots Act). As
discussed above, HAPs/TACs are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or
mortality (cancer risk). HAPs/TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are
caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g. dry cleaners).
Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the
regional, State and federal level.
AB 1807 sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Research,
public participation, and scientific peer review are necessary before CARB can designate a
substance as a TAC. To date, CARB has identified more than 21 TACs and adopted the U.S.
EPA’s list of HAPs as TACs. In 1998, DPM was added to CARB’s list of TACs. Once a TAC is
identified, CARB adopts an Airborne Toxic Control Measure for sources that emit that particular
3 Federal Highway Administration, 2016. Updated. Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents.
4 TACs are referred to as HAPs under the FCAA.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
TAC. If a safe threshold exists at which no toxic effect occurs from a substance, the control
measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If no safe threshold exists, the measure
must incorporate Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to minimize emissions.
The Hot Spots Act requires for existing facilities that emit toxic substances above a specified
level to prepare a toxic emissions inventory and a risk assessment if the emissions are
significant, notify the public of significant risk levels, and prepare and implement risk reduction
measures.
Diesel Exhaust and Diesel Particulate Matter
Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about two-
thirds of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the statewide average). According to CARB, diesel
exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. This mixture makes the
evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some chemicals in
diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by
CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under State Proposition 65 or under the Federal
Hazardous Air Pollutants programs.
CARB reports that recent air pollution studies have shown an association between diesel
exhaust and other cancer-causing toxic air contaminants emitted from vehicles and much of the
overall cancer risk from TACs in California. DPM was found to compose much of that risk.
CARB has adopted and implemented a number of regulations for stationary and mobile sources
to reduce emissions of DPM. Several of these regulatory programs affect medium- and heavy-
duty diesel trucks that generate the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. These
include the solid waste collection vehicle (SWCV) rule, in-use public and utility fleet regulations,
and the heavy-duty diesel truck and bus regulations. The regulation requires affected vehicles
to meet specific performance requirements between 2011 and 2023, with all affected diesel
vehicles required to have 2010 model-year engines or the equivalent by 2023. These
requirements are phased in over the compliance period and depend on the model year of the
vehicle. With implementation of CARB’s Risk Reduction Plan, DPM concentrations are expected
to be reduced by 85 percent in 2020 from the estimated year-2000 level.5 As emissions are
reduced, risks associated with exposure to emissions also are expected to be reduced.
CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook
In April 2005, CARB released the final version of its Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A
Community Health Perspective. This guidance document is intended to encourage local land
use agencies to consider the risks from air pollution before they approve the siting of sensitive
land uses (e.g. residences) near sources of air pollution, particularly TACs (e.g. freeway and
high traffic roads, commercial distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, dry cleaners,
5 CARB. 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpFinal.pdf
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-12 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
gasoline stations and industrial facilities). These advisory recommendations include general
setbacks or buffers from air pollution sources. However, unlike industrial or stationary sources
of air pollution, the siting of new sensitive land use does not require air quality permits or
approval by air districts, and as noted above, the CARB handbook provides guidance only rather
than binding regulations.
CAPCOA Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects
The California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA), which is a consortium of air
district managers throughout California, provides guidance material to addressing air quality
issues in the State. As a follow up to CARB’s 2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, CAPCOA
prepared the Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.6 CAPCOA released this
guidance document to ensure that the health risk of projects be identified, assessed, and avoid
or mitigated, if feasible, through the CEQA process. The CAPCOA guidance document provides
recommended methodologies for evaluating health risk impacts for development projects.
6.4.2 Regional
The BAAQMD regulates air quality in the SFBAAB and is responsible for attainment planning
related to criteria air pollutants and for district rule development and enforcement. The district
inspects stationary sources and responds to citizen complaints, monitors ambient air quality
and meteorological conditions, and implements programs and regulations required by law. It
also reviews air quality analyses prepared for CEQA assessments and has published the CEQA
Air Quality Guidelines documents for use in evaluation of air quality impacts.
Air Quality Management Plan
The BAAQMD is responsible for developing a Clean Air Plan, which guides the region’s air
quality planning efforts to attain the CAAQS. The BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan on
April 19, 2017. The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains district-wide control measures to reduce
ozone precursor emissions (i.e., ROG and NOx), particulate matter, TACs, and greenhouse gas
emissions. The Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan updates the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan in
accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act to implement “all feasible
measures” to reduce ozone; provides a control strategy to reduce ozone, PM, TACs, and
greenhouse gases in a single, integrated plan; reviews progress in improving air quality in
recent years; and establishes emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in both
the short term and through 2050.
The following BAAQMD rules would limit emissions of air pollutants from construction and
operation of the project:
6 CAPCOA. 2009. Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Regulation 6, Rule 3. Wood-Burning Devices. The purpose of this rule is to limit
emissions of particulate matter and visible emissions from wood-burning devices
used for primary heat, supplemental heat or ambiance.
Regulation 8, Rule 3. Architectural Coatings. This rule governs the manufacture,
distribution, and sale of architectural coatings and limits the reactive organic gases
content in paints and paint solvents. Although this rule does not directly apply to
the project, it does dictate the ROG content of paint available for use during the
construction.
Regulation 8, Rule 15. Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts. This rule dictates the reactive
organic gases content of asphalt available for use during construction through
regulating the sale and use of asphalt and limits the ROG content in asphalt.
Although this rule does not directly apply to the project, it does dictate the ROG
content of asphalt for use during the construction.
Regulation 9, Rule 8. Organic Compounds. This rule limits the emissions of nitrogen
oxides and carbon monoxide from stationary internal combustion engines with an
output rated by the manufacturer at more than 50 brake horsepower.
BAAQMD prepared an Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan to satisfy the federal 1-hour
ozone planning requirement because of the Air Basin’s nonattainment for federal and State
ozone standards. The U.S. EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard and adopted an 8-hour
ozone standard. The BAAQMD will address the new federal 8-hour ozone planning
requirements once they are established.
CARE Program
Initiated in 2004, the Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program evaluates and reduces
health risks associated with exposures to outdoor TACs in the Bay Area. The program examines
TAC emissions from point sources, area sources, and on-road and off-road mobile sources with
an emphasis on diesel exhaust. The CARE program is ongoing and encourages community
involvement and input. The technical analysis portion of the CARE program is being
implemented in three phases that include an assessment of the sources of TAC emissions,
modeling, and measurement programs to estimate concentrations of TACs, and an assessment
of exposures and health risks. Throughout the program, information derived from the technical
analyses will be used to focus emission reduction measures in areas with high TAC exposures
and a high density of sensitive populations. Risk reduction activities associated with the CARE
program are focused on the most at-risk communities in the Bay Area. BAAQMD has identified
six affected communities, including San Jose, as in need of immediate action.
For commercial and industrial sources, the BAAQMD regulates TACs using a risk-based
approach. This approach uses a health risk assessment to determine what sources and
pollutants to control as well as the degree of control. A health risk assessment is an analysis in
which human health exposure to toxic substances is estimated and considered together with
information regarding the toxic potency of the substances, to provide a quantitative estimate of
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-14 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
health risks. As part of ongoing efforts to identify and assess potential health risks to the
public, the BAAQMD has collected and compiled air toxics emissions data from industrial and
commercial sources of air pollution throughout the Bay Area.
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality
impacts of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines provide
recommended procedures for evaluating potential air impacts during the environmental review
process, consistent with CEQA requirements, and include recommended thresholds of
significance, mitigation measures, and background air quality information. They also include
recommended assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and greenhouse gas emissions.
In June 2010, the BAAQMD’s Board of Directors adopted CEQA thre sholds of significance and an
update of the CEQA Guidelines. In May 2011, the updated BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines were amended to include a risk and hazards threshold for new receptors and
modified procedures for assessing impacts related to risk and hazard impacts.
In May 2017, the BAAQMD published updated Guidelines responding to the 2015 California
Supreme Court Decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (S213478) that CEQA does not generally require an agency to consider the
effects of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents, such as the
effects of toxic air contaminants and fine particulate matter from existing sources on future
residents or users of a project. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court stated that lead agencies still
must evaluate existing environmental conditions to assess whether a project could exacerbate
hazards that are already present. The Supreme Court did not apply a holding to reach a
conclusion on the validity of BAAQMD’s receptor thresholds. Instead, the Supreme Court
remanded the case to the Court of Appeal to decide the question in light of the Court’s opinion.
As of the date of this document, BAAQMD has not formally re-instated the thresholds.7
CALGreen
CALGreen is a set of mandatory green building standards for new construction that went into
effect throughout California on January 1, 2011 and was most recently updated in 2016 with
provisions effective in 2017. These building standards apply to all new public and privately-
constructed commercial and residential buildings. CALGreen is referred to officially as the
California Green Building Standards Code and includes a matrix of mandatory requirements
tailored to residential and non-residential building classifications, as well as two sets of
7 The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Carl Moyer Program) provides grant funding for cleaner-than-required
engines and equipment. Local air districts administer these grants and select which projects to fund.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
voluntary measures (CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2) that provide a host of more stringent
sustainable building practices and features. Among the key mandatory provisions are
requirements that new buildings:
Reduce indoor potable water use by at least 20% below current standards;
Recycle or salvage at least 65%8 of construction waste;
Utilize low VOC-emitting finish materials and flooring systems;
Install separate water meters tracking non-residential buildings’ indoor and outdoor
water use;
Utilize moisture-sensing irrigation systems for larger landscape areas;
Receive mandatory inspections by local officials of building energy systems, such as
HVAC and mechanical equipment, to verify performance in accordance with
specifications in non-residential buildings exceeding 10,000 square feet; and
Earmark parking for fuel-efficient and carpool vehicles.
6.4.3 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin’s General Plan contains the following policy as it relates to air quality:
Implementing Policy 7.5.1.A.1: Request that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
establish an air quality monitoring station in Dublin.
Implementing Policy 7.5.1.A.2: Require an air quality analysis for new development projects
that could generate significant air emissions on a project and cumulative level. Air quality
analyses shall include specific feasible measures to reduce anticipated air quality emissions to a
less than significant California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) level.
Guiding Policy 13.3.2.A
1.Encourage the installation of alternative energy technology in new residential and
commercial development.
2.Encourage designing for solar access.
8 The City of Dublin has a more stringent requirement and requires that at least 65 percent for remodels and 75 percent for new construction
by weight of the total construction and demolition debris generated by a project via reuse or recycling excluding asphalt and concrete debris of
which 100 percent must be diverted, unless the applicant has been granted an infeasible exemption (Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.30).
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-16 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
3.Encourage energy efficient improvements be made on residential and commercial
properties.
Implementing Policies 13.3.2.B
3. In new commercial and residential parking lots, require the installation of conduit to
serve electric vehicle parking spaces to enable the easier installation of future
charging stations.
4. Encourage the installation of charging stations for commercial projects over a
certain size and any new residential project that has open parking (i.e. not
individual, enclosed garages).
6.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
6.5.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for air quality were derived from the Environmental Checklist
in the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Exceedance of a CAAQS or NAAQS for any criteria
pollutant (as determined by modeling).
Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the Clean Bay Area 2017.
Violates any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation.
Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Cumulative impact of any criteria pollutant.
Air Quality Thresholds
Under CEQA, the BAAQMD is an expert commenting agency on air quality within its jurisdiction
or impacting its jurisdiction. Under the FCAA, the BAAQMD has adopted Federal attainment
plans for ozone (O3) and particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less (PM2.5). The
BAAQMD reviews projects to ensure that they would not: (1) cause or contribute to any new
violation of any air quality standard; (2) increase the frequency or severity of any existing
violation of any air quality standard; or (3) delay timely attainment of any air quality standard
or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones of any Federal attainment
plan.
The BAAQMD Options and Justification Report (dated October 2009) establishes thresholds
based on substantial evidence, and the thresholds are consistent with the thresholds outlined
within the 2010/2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The thresholds have been
developed by the BAAQMD to attain State and Federal ambient air quality standards.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-17
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Construction Emissions
The regional construction emissions associated with the project were calculated using the most
recent version of CalEEMod with default inputs for the type and size of proposed land uses,
including the types and number of pieces of equipment that would be used on-site during each
construction phase and off-site vehicle trips that would result from construction activities on
the project site. CalEEMod is a computer model developed by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District to estimate air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land
use development projects and is based on parameters that include the duration of construction
activity, area of disturbance, and anticipated equipment used during construction.
The following significance criteria for air quality were derived from BAAQMD’s 2017 CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines and are summarized in Table 6-4: BAAQMD Significance Thresholds for
Construction and Operational Emissions.
Table 6-4: BAAQMD Significance Thresholds for Construction Emissions
Pollutant of Concern Daily Threshold During Construction
ROG 54 lbs./ day
NOx 54 lbs./ day
PM10 82 lbs./day (exhaust only)
PM2.5 54 (exhaust only)
PM10 / PM2.5 (fugitive dust) Best Management Practices
Note:
Project-Level emissions
Source: BAAQMD, 2017b. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status
Short-term construction emission thresholds, as stated in BAAQMD’s 2017 CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines, involve identifying the level of construction activity that could result in significant
temporary impacts if not mitigated. Construction activities (e.g., excavation, grading, on-site
vehicle movements) that directly exceed BAAQMD criterion for PM10 PM2.5 would have a
significant impact on local air quality when they are located nearby and upwind of sensitive
receptors (BAAQMD, 2017c). Regarding ozone, construction projects using typical equipment
that temporarily emits ozone precursors (i.e., ROG and NOX) are accommodated in the emission
inventories of State and federally required air quality management plans and would not have a
significant impact on ozone concentrations (BAAQMD, 2017b).
If construction-related activities exceed the BAAQMD thresholds, the project would be
characterized as contributing substantially to existing or new violations of the CAAQS.
The construction activities associated with residential development pursuant to the project
would generate diesel emissions and dust. Construction equipment that would generate
criteria air pollutants includes excavators, graders, dump trucks, and loaders. It is assumed that
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-18 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
this type of equipment would be used during both grading/demolition and construction. It is
also assumed that all of the construction equipment used would be diesel-powered.
Complete results from CalEEMod and assumptions can be viewed in Appendix B.
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions associated with on-site development were also estimated using
CalEEMod. Operational emissions would comprise mobile source emissions, emissions
associated with energy consumption, and area source emissions. Mobile source emissions are
generated by the increase in motor vehicle trips to and from the project site associated with
operation of a project. Emissions attributed to energy use include electricity and natural gas
consumption for space and water heating and cooling. Area source emissions are generated
by, for example, landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural
coatings.
Table 6-5: BAAQMD Significance Thresholds for Operational Emissions
Pollutant of Concern Daily Threshold During Operation
Maximum Annual Emissions
During Operations (tpy)
ROG 54 lbs./ day 10
NOx 54 lbs./ day 10
PM10 82 lbs./day 15
PM2.5 54 lbs./day 10
Local CO 9.0 ppm (8- hour average), 20.0 ppm (1-hour average)
Note:
Project-Level emissions
Source: BAAQMD, 2017b. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status
The criteria for assessing cumulative impacts on localized air quality (i.e. the cumulative impacts
of CO and PM10) are identical to those for individual project operation. The criteria for
determine a project's cumulative impact on regional ozone levels depends on consistency with
the applicable AQMP. Consistency with the AQMP does not mean that a project will not have a
significant project-specific adverse air quality impact. However, inconsistency with the AQMP is
considered a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact. The Association of Bay Area
Governments also provides consistency determinations for population-related projects. A
quantitative CO impact analysis is not required, if the following criteria are met:
Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency
plans.
The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to
more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-19
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to
more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is
substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban
street canyon, below-grade roadway).
BAAQMD guidelines state that odor impacts would be significant if there have been five
complaints per year averaged over three years within certain screening thresholds. If
construction or operation of the project would emit pollutants associated with odors in
substantial amounts, the analysis should assess the impact on existing or reasonably
foreseeable sensitive receptors.
The BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan was prepared to accommodate growth, meet State and
Federal air quality standards, and minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures
have on the local economy. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, project-
related emissions that fall below the established construction and operational thresholds
should be considered less than significant unless there is pertinent information to the contrary.
If a project exceeds these emission thresholds, the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines states
that the significance of a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts should be determined
based on whether the rate of growth in average daily trips exceeds the rate of growth in
population.
Significance Classifications
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
Impact Assessment Methodology
The analysis of air quality impacts conforms to the methodologies recommended in the
BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The handbook includes thresholds for emissions
associated with both construction and operation of projects.
6.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
There are no “no” impacts nor “beneficial” impacts.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-20 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
6.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact AQ-1: Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the San Francisco Bay Area 2017
Clean Air Plan. (Class I)
The project site is in the City of Dublin, which is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air
Basin (SFBAAB). The BAAQMD is responsible for assuring that the National and California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS and CAAQS) are attained and maintained in the SFBAAB.
The SFBAAB exceeds the state air quality standards for ozone (O3) and particulate matter (PM10
and PM2.5). The area is designated nonattainment for federal standards of 8-hour ozone, 24-
hour PM2.5, and State standards for 24-hour and annual PM10, and annual PM2.5.
The project is consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan policies that are applicable to the project.
As discussed in Table 6-6: Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures,
the project would comply with city, state, and regional requirements. However, as discussed
below in Impacts AQ-2 and AQ-5, the project would exceed air quality thresholds with MM AQ-
2.1 through AQ-2.4.
Table 6-6: Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures
Control Measure Project Consistency
Stationary Source Control Measures
SS21: New Source Review of Toxic
Air Contaminants
Consistent. This EIR has included preparation of a construction health
risk assessment (HRA) (see Impact discussion AQ-3), which found the
project’s toxic air contaminant emissions would result in less than
significant cancer and non- cancer (acute and chronic) impacts to the
nearby sensitive receptors.
SS25: Coatings, Solvents, Lubricants,
Sealants and Adhesives
Consistent. The project would comply with Regulation 8, Rule 3:
Architectural Coatings, which would dictate the ROG content of paint
available for use during construction. The project would also
implement Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Architectural Coating per
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3. MM AQ-2.3 also further restricts the
ROG content of paint to ensure that BAAQMD thresholds are not
exceeded.
SS26: Surface Prep and Cleaning
Solvent
SS29: Asphaltic Concrete
Consistent. Paving activities associated with the project would be
required to utilize asphalt that does not exceed BAAQMD emission
standards in Regulation 8, Rule 15.
SS30: Residential Fan Type Furnaces
Consistent. BAAQMD is the responsible party for implementation of
this regulation and that the project would use the latest central
furnaces that comply with the applicable regulations. The project
would not conflict with BAAQMD's implementation of that measure.
SS31: General Particulate Matter
Emissions Limitation
Consistent. The proposed restaurants would be required to utilize
particulate emissions reduction equipment associated with their
commercial cooking equipment.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-21
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Control Measure Project Consistency
SS32: Emergency Back-up
Generators
Consistent. Use of back-up generators by the project is currently
unknown. However, if emergency generators were to be installed they
would be required to meet the BAAQMD’s emissions standards for
back-up generators.
SS33: Commercial Cooking
Equipment
Consistent. If any of the proposed restaurants install a charbroiler, a
catalytic oxidizer system must also be installed pursuant to BAAQMD
Rule 6-2.
SS34: Wood Smoke Consistent. As per Mitigation Measure AQ-4, wood burning fireplaces
would be prohibited at the project.
SS36: Particulate Matter from
Trackout
Consistent. Mud and dirt that may be tracked out onto the nearby
public roads during construction activities shall be removed promptly
by the contractor based on BAAQMD’s requirements.
SS37: Particulate Matter from
Asphalt Operations
Consistent. Paving and roofing activities associated with the project
would be required to utilize best management practices to minimize
the particulate matter created from the transport and application of
road and roofing asphalt.
SS38: Fugitive Dust
Consistent. Material stockpiling and track out during grading activities
as well as smoke and fumes from paving and roofing asphalt
operations shall utilize best management practices to minimize the
creation of fugitive dust.
SS40: Odors Consistent. The project would comply with Regulation 7 to strengthen
odor standards and enhance enforceability.
Transportation Control Measures
TR2: Trip Reduction Programs
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-22 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Control Measure Project Consistency
TR8: Ridesharing and Last-Mile
Connections
Consistent. The project would comply through various design features
including using “smart growth” principles as an urban in-fill
development with a mix of retail, entertainment, and residential uses
adjacent to transit/multi-modal corridors and within two miles of a
BART station. The project facilitates the use of existing bus routes with
stops adjacent to the project site. The Livermore Amador Valley
Transit Authority (LAVTA) runs bus service from the project site (Dublin
Boulevard and Tassajara Road) to the BART station with 15-minute
headways during peak commute hours. Additionally, the project would
improve and complete pedestrian and bicycle connections around its
perimeter and through the project site. Bicycle storage would be
provided in the apartments and bicycle racks would be provided near
the commercial uses. The project would also improve and complete
bicycle lanes and facilities along the perimeter and through the project
site that connect with existing bicycle routes. The project includes
landscaped paseos and pedestrian pathways that would directly
connect residents and retail patrons with adjacent open space,
surrounding neighborhoods and nearby Emerald Glen Park. Sidewalks
on the streets surrounding the project site would be improved and a
10-foot public multi-use trail would be constructed on the north side of
Central Parkway and an on-street bicycle lane along Dublin Boulevard,
Tassajara Road, Central Parkway, and Gleason Drive.
The commercial uses are also planned at a higher density through the
application of shared parking. The shared parking plan would allow
parking to be shared by the apartments and commercial space, along
with shared parking between hospitality uses with complimentary peak
demand.
TR9: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access
Facilities
Consistent. The project has existing class II bike lanes along Tassajara
and Dublin Boulevard. Gleason Drive and Central Parkway, east and
west of the project site have class II bicycle lanes. Additionally, the site
has pedestrian connections and crosswalks to adjacent retail and
commercial uses (e.g. Shops at Waterford, Grafton Plaza, Emerald
Glen Park).
TR10: Land Use Strategies
Consistent. The project site is located within 1.5 miles of an existing
BART rail station, adjacent to park and ride lot, and proposed infill and
mixed-use.
TR13: Parking Policies
Consistent. The project is including the required amount of parking as
per the City of Dublin Municipal Code. The project will include 577
shared parking spaces in the mixed-use commercial area. The
commercial area will include 1,048 parking spaces including 119
electric vehicle parking. The residential areas will have 609 parking
spaces.
TR19: Medium and Heavy Duty
Trucks
Not Applicable. Although the project does not involve warehousing or
industrial uses that would generate substantial truck trips, the project
would not conflict with the implementation of this measure.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-23
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Control Measure Project Consistency
TR22: Construction, Freight and
Farming Equipment
Consistent. The project would comply through implementation of
Mitigation Measure AQ-2, which requires all construction equipment
greater than 50 horsepower to meet the Tier 4 emissions standards.
Energy and Climate Control Measures
EN1: Decarbonize Electricity
Generation
Consistent. The project would be constructed in accordance with the
latest building code and green building regulations/ CalGreen. The City
of Dublin has a CalGreen Residential Building Checklist that the project
would comply with. EN2: Decrease Electricity Demand
Buildings Control Measures
BL1: Green Buildings Consistent. The project would be constructed in accordance with the
latest building code and green building regulations/ CalGreen. The
project would comply with the City of Dublin’s CalGreen Residential
Building Checklist.
L2: Decarbonize Buildings
BL4: Urban Heat Island Mitigation
Consistent. The project would reduce urban heat island effects by
providing green common spaces. The project would construct a
parking structure shared between uses that would provide shade and
reduce surface parking/asphalt and therefore minimize the urban heat
island effect.
Natural and Working Lands Control Measures
NW2: Urban Tree Planting
Consistent. The project would implement a landscape plan that has
been designed to meet the City’s tree requirements in parking lots in
order to reduce the urban heat island phenomenon that occurs in
surface parking lots.
Waste Management Control Measures
WA1: Landfills
Consistent. The waste service provider for the project will be required
to meet the AB 341 and SB 939, 1374, and 1383 requirements that
require waste service providers to divert waste.
WA3: Green Waste Diversion
Consistent. The waste service provider for the project will be required
to meet the AB 341 and SB 939, 1374, and 1383 requirements that
require waste service providers to divert green waste.
WA4: Recycling and Waste
Reduction
Consistent. The waste service provider for the project will be required
to meet the AB 341 and SB 939, 1374, and 1383 requirements that
require waste to be recycled.
Water Control Measures
WR2: Support Water Conservation
Consistent: The project would implement water conservation
measures and low flow fixtures as per the requirements of Title 24 and
CalGreen. The City of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.88 has Water-
Efficient Landscaping Regulations which includes various specifications
for plant types, water features, and irrigation design etc.
Source: BAAQMD, 2017. Clean Air Plan and Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-24 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The 2017 Clean Air Plan assumptions for projected air emissions and pollutants in the city are
based on the land use and development projection assumptions in the General Plan. The
project site currently has a primary land use designation of General Commercial with a small
area of Public/Semi-public and Neighborhood Commercial as well as varying densities of
residential along Brannigan Street. The project would require a General Plan amendment,
Specific Plan amendment, a rezone, tentative parcel map, and site development review.
As described below in Impact AQ-2, construction and operational air quality emissions
generated by the project would exceed the BAAQMD’s emissions thresholds despite the
implementation of mitigation measures. These thresholds are established to identify projects
that have the potential to generate a substantial amount of criteria air pollutants.
Because the project would exceed these thresholds, the project would be considered by the
BAAQMD to be a substantial emitter of criteria air pollutants and has the potential to result in
an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or delay timely
attainment of air quality standards and contribute to non-attainment areas in the SFBAAB.
Therefore, the project would potentially conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and impacts
would be significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM AQ-2.1 through AQ-2.4, below.
Impact AQ-2: Violates any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation (Class I).
Construction Impacts
Construction emissions would include the generation of fugitive dust, on-site generation of
construction equipment exhaust emissions, and the off-site generation of mobile source
emissions related to construction traffic. Short-term air quality impacts are predicted to occur
during grading, and construction operations associated with implementation of the project.
Emissions produced during grading and construction activities would cease following
completion of the development.
As discussed in Chapter 3: Project Description, it is assumed that the entirety of the project
would be constructed in two phases (with phase 2 broken into two sub phases) over
approximately five years, beginning in April 2020 with completion by June 2025. Construction
activities would include grading, off-site and on-site infrastructure, paving, building
construction, and architectural coating. The resulting total cut and fill of soils for the project
site is estimated to be approximately 96,300 cubic yards. Construction equipment includes
excavators, rubber-tired dozers, graders, scrapers, trenchers, tractors, and pavers. Exhaust
emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on the California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) program defaults. Variables factored into estimating
the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of weather conditions,
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-25
Draft EIR
10/23/18
number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on- or off-
site.
Maximum daily emissions for each year of construction has been quantified based upon the
phase durations and equipment types. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been
prepared utilizing the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Refer to Appendix B,
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis, for the CalEEMod outputs and results.
Table 6-7: Construction Air Emissions, presents the anticipated daily construction emissions
which would remain below their respective thresholds except for ROG and NOX due to the
overlap of several sub-phases.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-26 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 6-7: Construction Air Emissions
Emissions Source
Pollutant (pounds per day)
ROG NOx
PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust)
2020
Unmitigated 33.37 353.09 16.99 15.66
Mitigated1 5.40 26.76 0.65 0.65
2021
Unmitigated 87.32 577.56 22.95 21.25
Mitigated1 52.83 159.79 1.37 1.35
2022
Unmitigated 74.32 416.34 14.95 13.89
Mitigated1 50.57 148.01 1.20 1.18
2023
Unmitigated 60.04 252.67 8.74 8.15
Mitigated1 46.43 109.17 0.78 0.76
2024
Unmitigated 34.99 113.72 2.72 2.56
Mitigated1 30.34 66.37 0.35 0.34
2025
Unmitigated 27.90 56.31 1.26 1.19
Mitigated1 25.58 33.13 0.18 0.18
Maximum Unmitigated 87.32 577.56 22.95 21.25
Maximum Mitigated1 52.83 159.79 1.37 1.35
BAAQMD Significance
Thresholds
54 54 82 54
Threshold Exceeded? No Yes No No
Notes:
1. The reduction/credits for construction emission mitigations are based on mitigation included in CalEEMod and as typically required by the
BAAQMD (Basic Control Measures and Regulation 6: Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions). The mitigation includes the following: replace
ground cover on disturbed areas quickly, water exposed surfaces twice daily, and proper loading/unloading of mobile and other construction
equipment. Additional mitigation involves compliance with an additional control measure requiring the use of CARB Certified low-NOX
emissions equipment and the use of low volatile organic compound (VOC) coatings (compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3;
Architectural Coatings).
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-27
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Fugitive Dust. The project would require grading of the entire project during the initial phases.
Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, cut-and-fill
operations, demolition, and truck travel on unpaved roadways. Dust emissions also vary
substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and
weather conditions. Fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial, temporary impact on
local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the
project vicinity. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential
health hazard to those living and working nearby. The BAAQMD recommends the
implementation of all Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, whether or not construction-
related emissions exceed applicable significance thresholds; refer to MM AQ-2.1.
Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust. Exhaust emission factors for typical
diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on the CalEEMod program defaults. Variables
factored into estimating the total construction emissions include: level of activity, length of
construction period, number of pieces/types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather
conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported
onsite or offsite.
Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport
of machinery and supplies to and from the project site, emissions produced on site as the
equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials and workers to and from
the site. Emitted pollutants would include ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Despite the
implementation of Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, NOX thresholds would be exceeded
during construction. Therefore, MM AQ-2.2 would be required to reduce NOX emissions.
Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.2, NOX emissions would remain above the BAAQMD’s
thresholds.
ROG Emissions. In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt
and surface coatings creates ROG emissions, which are O3 precursors. In accordance with the
methodology prescribed by the BAAQMD, the ROG emissions associated with paving have been
quantified with CalEEMod. In addition, based upon the size of the buildings, architectural
coatings were also quantified in CalEEMod.
The highest concentration of ROG emissions would be generated during the application of
architectural coatings beginning in 2021. As required by law, all architectural coatings for the
project structures would comply with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coating.
Regulation 8, Rule 3 provides specifications on painting practices and regulates the ROG
content of paint. As indicated in Table 6-7: Construction Air Emissions, project construction
would result in an exceedance of ROG thresholds despite the implementation of Basic
Construction Measures in MM AQ-1. Therefore, compliance with MM AQ-3 is also required to
require the use of low VOC interior architectural coating (paint and primer) products would be
used. MM AQ-2.3 requires interior architectural coatings to have a VOC content of 20 grams
per liter or less while exterior architectural coating must be less than 100 grams per liter. With
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-28 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
implementation of MM AQ-2.3, construction ROG emissions would not exceed BAAQMD
thresholds.
Total Daily Construction Emissions. As shown in Table 6-7: Construction Air Emissions,
implementation of MM AQ-2.1 through MM AQ-2.3 would reduce construction emissions.
However, NOX emissions would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Operation Impacts
The project would result in long-term operational stationary and vehicular emissions.
Operational emissions generated by both stationary and mobile sources would result from
normal daily activities on the project site after occupation. Stationary area source emissions
would be generated by the consumption of natural gas for space and water heating devices, the
operation of landscape maintenance equipment, generators, and the use of consumer
products. Mobile emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from
the project site. Operational emissions attributable to the project are shown in Table 6-8:
Project Buildout Operational Emissions-Un-Mitigated and are discussed below.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-29
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 6-8: Project Buildout Operational Emissions – Un-Mitigated
Emission Source ROG NOx
PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust)
Annual Emissions (tons per year)
Area 10.67 0.11 0.48 0.48
Energy 0.15 1.32 0.10 0.10
Mobile 4.68 30.75 0.16 0.15
Total Emissions 15.5 32.18 0.74 0.73
BAAQMD Threshold 10 10 15 10
Are Thresholds Exceeded? Yes Yes No No
Winter Emissions (pounds per day)
Area 439.36 8.79 72.99 72.99
Energy 0.82 7.26 0.57 0.57
Mobile 27.27 182.55 0.95 0.9
Total Emissions 467.45 198.59 74.52 74.46
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54
Are Thresholds Exceeded? Yes Yes No Yes
Summer Emissions (pounds per day)
Area 439.36 8.79 72.99 72.99
Energy 0.82 7.26 0.57 0.57
Mobile 31.93 177.75 0.94 0.89
Total Emissions 472.11 193.8 74.5 74.45
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54
Are Thresholds Exceeded? Yes Yes No Yes
Notes:
Area source emissions include natural gas fuel combustion, landscape fuel combustion, consumer products, architectural
coatings, and hearth fuel combustion (i.e., wood stoves, wood fireplaces, natural gas fireplace/stoves).
(1) Applies to Area Source (Direct) emissions of Carbon Monoxide only.
Source: CalEEMod v. 2013.2.2 and Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018.
Stationary Source Emissions
Stationary source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for electrical
energy for the project’s residential uses. Energy is generated from power plants utilizing fossil
fuels. Electric power generating plants are distributed throughout the Air Basin and beyond,
and their emissions contribute to the total pollutant burden across air basins. The primary use
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-30 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
of natural gas within the project would be for combustion to produce space heating, water
heating and other miscellaneous heating or air conditioning.
Area Source Emissions
Area source emissions are generally a function of land use (e.g. number of single-family
residential units), activity (e.g. fuel use per residential unit), and emission factor (e.g. mass of
pollutant emitted per fuel usage). These include the following:
Natural gas fuel combustion. This source includes natural gas combustion for water
and space heating, in residential and non-residential buildings.
Hearth fuel combustion. This source includes wood stoves, wood fireplaces, and
natural gas-fired stoves.
Landscape fuel combustion. This source includes exhaust and evaporative emissions
from landscaping equipment, including lawnmowers, rototillers, shredders/grinders,
trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers, used in residential and commercial
applications.
Consumer products. This source category comprises a wide range of products,
including air fresheners, automotive products, household cleaners, and personal
care products.
Architectural coatings. This source includes ROG (similar to VOCs) emissions
resulting from the evaporation of solvents contained in paints, varnishes, primers,
and other surface coatings, from residential and nonresidential structures.
Energy Source Emissions
Energy source emissions would be generated as a result of electricity and natural gas (non-
hearth) usage associated with the project. The primary use of electricity and natural gas by the
project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances,
and electronics.
Mobile Source Emissions
Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative
emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the p otential air quality impact may
be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all
pollutants of regional concern (NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3 [photochemical
smog], and wind currents readily transport PM10 and PM2.5). However, CO tends to be a
localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.
The amount of mobile source emissions that would be associated with the project is based on
land use designations (e.g. number of single-family residential units; square footage of various
education, recreation, retail, commercial, and industrial uses), trip rates (i.e. the number of
vehicle trips per day per land use unit), assumptions regarding the vehicle fleet (e.g. analysis
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-31
Draft EIR
10/23/18
year, vehicle type and technology class), trip lengths (i.e. miles traveled per trip), and pollutant
emission factors (i.e. mass of pollutant emitted per mile traveled). Project-generated vehicle
emissions have been estimated using CalEEMod. Trip generation rates associated with the
project were based on the project traffic impact analysis (see Tables 17-11 and 17-12). Based
on this analysis, the project would result in an average of approximately 19,327 new daily
weekday vehicle trips and 20,314 new daily weekend vehicle trips.
The project would result in long-term operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and O3
precursors (i.e., ROG and NOX). Project-generated increases in emissions would be
predominantly associated with motor vehicle use. As shown in Table 6-9: Project Buildout
Operational Emissions-Mitigated, daily ROG and NOX thresholds would be exceeded. The
predominant source of ROG emissions is fireplaces. Therefore, MM AQ-2.4 is required to
prohibit the use of wood burning devices (e.g., fireplaces, wood stoves) and ensure compliance
with BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 3.
The predominant source of NOX emissions would be mobile sources (i.e., project generated
vehicle trips). The project’s proximity to transit (i.e., 1.5 miles from the Dublin/Pleasanton
BART station) and mix of uses would reduce both the number and length of vehicle trips. Table
6-9: Project Buildout Operational Emissions-Mitigated shows the project’s operational
emissions with the implementation of these mitigation measures and design features. These
project design features include proximity to Dublin/Pleasanton BART station; increasing density
and diversity for the site; improving destination accessibility and pedestrian network. These
design features are identified in the CalEEMod in Appendix B. As indicated in Table 6-9: Project
Buildout Operational Emissions-Mitigated, despite the implementation of MM AQ-2.1 through
AQ-2.4, operational emissions would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-32 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 6-9: Project Buildout Operational Emissions – Mitigated
Emission Source ROG NOx
PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust)
Annual Emissions (tons per year)
Area 7.36 0.09 0.03 0.03
Energy 0.12 1.09 0.09 0.09
Mobile 3.96 24.26 0.09 0.09
Total Emissions 11.44 25.44 0.21 0.2
BAAQMD Threshold 10 10 15 10
Are Thresholds Exceeded? Yes Yes No No
Winter Emissions (pounds per day)
Area 41.80 6.12 0.75 0.75
Energy 0.67 5.98 0.47 0.47
Mobile 23.01 143.08 0.54 0.51
Total Emissions 65.48 155.17 1.76 1.73
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54
Are Thresholds Exceeded? Yes Yes No No
Summer Emissions (pounds per day)
Area 41.80 6.12 0.75 0.75
Energy 0.67 5.98 0.47 0.47
Mobile 27.6 141.68 0.53 0.5
Total Emissions 70.07 153.77 1.75 1.72
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54
Are Thresholds Exceeded? Yes Yes No No
Notes:
Area source emissions include natural gas fuel combustion, landscape fuel combustion, consumer products, architectural
coatings, and hearth fuel combustion (i.e., wood stoves, wood fireplaces, natural gas fireplace/stoves).
(1) Applies to Area Source (Direct) emissions of Carbon Monoxide only.
Source: CalEEMod v. 2013.2.2 and Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018.
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-2.1 BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures
During construction, the following BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures air
pollution control measures shall be implemented:
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-33
Draft EIR
10/23/18
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using
wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding
or soil binders are used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all
access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the
Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
MM AQ-2.2 Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to
the City of Dublin that demonstrate that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment
greater than 50 horsepower meets United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 Final
off-road emissions standards.
MM AQ-2.3 Architectural Coating
The applicant shall require by contract specifications that the interior architectural coating
(paint and primer) products used would have a volatile organic compound rating of 20 grams
per liter or less while exterior architectural coating must be less than 100 grams per liter.
Contract specifications shall be included in the construction documents for the project, which
shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-34 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
MM AQ-2.4 Prohibition of Wood-Burning Fireplaces
The installation of wood-burning devices shall be prohibited within the development per Bay
Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 6, Rule 3. The purpose of this rule is to limit
emissions of particulate matter and visible emissions from wood-burning devices used for
primary heat, supplemental heat or ambiance. This prohibition shall be noted on the deed for
future property owners to obey. Natural gas fireplaces are acceptable.
Impact AQ-3: Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (Class III).
A sensitive receptor is defined by the BAAQMD as the following: Facilities or land uses that
include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants,
such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples include schools, hospitals and
residential areas. Sensitive receptors closest to the residential project site include residences
east and north of the project site.
Localized Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
The primary mobile-source criteria pollutant of local concern is carbon monoxide.
Concentrations of CO are a direct function of the number of vehicles, length of delay, and traffic
flow conditions. Transport of this criteria pollutant is extremely limited; CO disperses rapidly
with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. Under certain
meteorological conditions, however, CO concentrations close to congested intersections that
experience high levels of traffic and elevated background concentrations may reach unhealthy
levels, affecting nearby sensitive receptors. Areas of high CO concentrations, or “hot spots,”
are typically associated with intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels
of service during the peak commute hours. CO concentration modeling is therefore typically
conducted for intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service
during peak commute hours.
The SFBAAB is designated as attainment for carbon monoxide (CO). Emissions and ambient
concentrations of CO have decreased dramatically in the SFBAAB with the introduction of the
catalytic converter in 1975. No exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS for CO have been
recorded at nearby monitoring stations since 1991.
As a result, the BAAQMD screening criteria notes that CO impacts may be determined to be less
than significant if a project is consistent with the applicable congestion management plan
(CMP) and would not increase traffic volumes at local intersections to more than 44,000
vehicles per hour, or 24,000 vehicles per hour for locations in heavily urban areas, where
“urban canyons” formed by buildings tend to reduce air circulation.
According to the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the project, the project study intersection
with the highest traffic volumes (Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road) would have 10,928
vehicles during the cumulative plus project (worst case) peak hour the cumulative plus project
(worst case) scenario. All other intersections would have fewer total vehicles per hour.
Therefore, the project would not involve intersections with more than 24,000 or 44,000
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-35
Draft EIR
10/23/18
vehicles per hour. As a result, the project would not generate a significant number of vehicle
trips and impacts associated with CO concentrations would be less than significant.
Construction Fugitive Dust
Fugitive dust (PM10) would be generated during construction (grading). As detailed in Impact
AQ-2, the project would result in a less than significant dust impact after incorporation of
BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures required in MM AQ-2.1. Therefore, the
project would not expose adjacent receptors to significant amounts of construction dust after
incorporation of mitigation.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generate diesel exhaust, which
is a known toxic air contaminants (TAC). Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating
at the site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. The closest sensitive receptor to
the project site are the residences to the east and north of the project site. BAAQMD provides
guidance for evaluating impacts from TACs in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines document. As
noted therein, an incremental cancer risk of greater than 10 cases per million at the Maximally
Exposed Individual (MEI) will result in a significant impact. The BAAQMD considers exposure to
annual PM2.5 concentrations that exceed 0.3 ʅŐͬŵ3 from a single source to be significant. The
BAAQMD significance threshold for non-cancer hazards is 1.0.
Construction TAC and PM2.5 Health Risks
Construction-related activities would result in project-generated emissions of diesel PM from
the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., demolition,
clearing, grading); paving; application of architectural coatings; on-road truck travel; and other
miscellaneous activities. For construction activity, diesel PM is the primary toxic air
contaminant of concern. On-road diesel-powered haul trucks traveling to and from the
construction area to deliver materials and equipment are less of a concern because they would
not stay on the site for long durations. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating
at the site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. The closest sensitive receptor to
the project site are the residences to the north on Georgetown Circle, residences to the east on
Brannigan Street, and residences and Emerald Glen Park along Tassajara Road.
CARB identified particulate exhaust emissions from diesel-fueled engines (i.e., diesel PM) as a
TAC in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of diesel PM, as discussed below,
outweighs the potential for all other health impacts (i.e., non-cancer chronic risk, short-term
acute risk) and health impacts from other TACs (CARB 2003), so diesel PM is the focus of this
discussion.
Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term
exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer. The use of diesel-powered construction
equipment would be episodic and would occur over several locations isolated from one
another. Additionally, construction activities would be subject to and would comply with
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-36 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
California regulations limiting idling to no more than five minutes, which would further reduce
nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable diesel PM emissions.
Furthermore, even during the most intense year of construction, emissions of diesel PM would
be generated from different locations on the project site rather than in a single location
because different types of construction activities (e.g., site preparation and building
construction) would not occur at the same place at the same time.
The EPA recommended screening model AERSCREEN has been used to evaluate potential
health effects to sensitive receptors from construction emissions of diesel particulate matter
(DPM). AERSCREEN is the recommended screening model based on the AERMOD dispersion
model. The model produces estimates of worst-case concentrations without the need for
hourly meteorological data. According to the EPA Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric
Modeling (SCRAM) website, AERSCREEN is intended to produce concentration estimates that
are equal to or greater than the estimates produced by AERMOD with a fully developed set of
meteorological and terrain data.9 Maximum (worst case) PM2.5 exhaust construction emissions
over the entire construction period were used in AERSCREEN to approximate construction DPM
emissions. Risk levels were calculated using the CARB Hotspot Analysis and Reporting Program
(HARP) Risk Assessment Standalone Tool (RAST). The calculations are based on the California
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance document, Air Toxics Hot
Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines (February 2015).
Results of this assessment indicate that the maximum concentration of PM2.5 during
construction would be 0.003 ʅŐͬŵ3 which is below the BAAQMD 0.3 ʅŐͬŵ3 significance
threshold. The highest calculated carcinogenic risk from project construction is 1.94 per
million, which is below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Non-cancer hazards for
DPM would be below BAAQMD threshold, with a chronic hazard index computed at 0.001 and
an acute hazard index of 0.01. Acute and chronic hazards would be below the BAAQMD
significance threshold of 1.0. As described above, worst-case construction risk levels based on
screening-level modeling (AERSCREEN) and conservative assumptions would be below the
BAAQMD’s thresholds. Therefore, construction risk levels would be less than significant.
Another potential source of TACs associated with construction-related activities is the airborne
entrainment of asbestos due to the disturbance of naturally-occurring asbestos-containing
soils. The project is not located in an area designated by the State of California as likely to
contain naturally-occurring asbestos (DOC 2000). As a result, construction-related activities
would not be anticipated to result in increased exposure of sensitive land uses to asbestos.
9 US EPA. Air Quality Dispersion Modeling- Screening Models. 2017. https://www.epa.gov/scram/air-quality-dispersion-modeling-
screening-models
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-37
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Off-Site Stationary Sources
The BAAQMD recommends that all TAC and PM2.5 sources be identified within a 1,000-foot
radius of a project site to identify any risk and health hazards. As described above, the project
site is surrounded primarily by residential uses, commercial uses, and parks.
According to BAAQMD there are three stationary TAC sources located within 1,000 feet of the
project site that consists of two backup generators and a gas dispensing facility. As indicated in
Table 10: Existing Permitted Stationary Sources within 1,000 Feet of the Project Boundary,
these sources have cancer risk, hazard risk, and PM2.5 concentrations below the BAAQMD’s
thresholds. Additionally, although these sources are in the vicinity of the project boundary,
they are approximately 1,000 feet or more away from the location of the closest proposed
sensitive receptor. As indicated in Table 10: Existing Permitted Stationary Sources within 1,000
Feet of the Project Boundary, impacts from TAC sources would be less than significant.
Table 6-10: Existing Permitted Stationary Sources within 1,000 Feet of the Project Boundary
Distance
from
Receptor
(feet) or
MEI 1
Facility
Name Address
Cancer
Risk
Hazard
Risk PM 2.5 Type of Source
Status/
Comments
140 Lowe’s of
Dublin
3750 Dublin
Boulevard 3.0044 0.008382 0.006567 Generator
Updated to
include OEHHA
factor, use
Diesel IC
Multiplier
70
San
Ramon
Valley FPD
STA #36
Tassajara
and Gleason
Drive
N/A N/A N/A Generator Shutdown
1000 Pleasanton
Car wash
4005 Pimlico
Drive 0.0096 0.003172 0 Gas Dispensing
Facility
Includes OEHHA
factor. Use
Distance
Multiplier Tool.
Notes:
1. MEI = Maximally Exposed Individual
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018.
Mobile Sources
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that projects be evaluated for
community risk when they locate sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of freeways, high traffic
volume roadways (10,000 average annual daily trips or more), and/or stationary permitted
sources of TACs. A community health risk assessment was completed for the project site to
identify TAC emission sources within 1,000 feet of the site and their impacts on the project.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-38 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The project would not place sensitive receptors within 1,000-feet of the I-580 freeway (a
mobile TAC source).
However, the project would locate sensitive receptors (residential dwelling units) along
Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard, both of which have traffic in excess of 10,000 average
daily trips (ADT). The other roadways within 1,000 feet have less than 10,000 ADT. Tassajara
Road has an estimated 20,767 ADT and Dublin Boulevard has an estimated 43,434 ADT during
the future Cumulative Plus Project Scenario. Potential risks from traffic emissions generated
along these roadways were evaluated using an analysis methodology that takes into account
local traffic conditions, site-specific meteorology, and future exposures.
The air dispersion modeling for the mobile source risk assessment was performed using the U.S.
EPA AERMOD dispersion model. AERMOD is a steady-state, multiple-source, Gaussian
dispersion model designed for use with emission sources situated in terrain where ground
elevations can exceed the stack heights of the emission sources (not a factor in this case).
AERMOD requires hourly meteorological data consisting of wind vector, wind speed,
temperature, stability class, and mixing height. Surface and upper air meteorological data was
obtained from CARB. Surface and upper air meteorological data from the Livermore
Monitoring Station was selected as being the most representative for meteorology based on
proximity to the project site.
The emission sources in the model are line volume sources (comprised of numerous adjacent
volume sources) along the Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard adjacent to the project site.
An emission rate for PM2.5 (a proxy for DPM) was calculated using traffic volumes from the
Traffic Study and an Emission FACtor model (EMFAC2017) model run for the Alameda County
portion of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin; refer to Appendix B. Heavy duty vehicle
emissions were assigned a release height of 12 feet (3.7 meters), a plume height of 20 feet (6.3
meters). A release height of 10 feet is the average stack height for trucks and the plume height
is based on EPA guidance for vehicle volume sources.
AERMOD was run to obtain the peak 1-hour and annual average concentration in micrograms
per cubic meter ʅŐͬŵ3] of PM2.5 at the project site. Note that the concentration estimate
developed using this methodology is considered conservative and is not a specific prediction of
the actual concentrations that would occur at the project site any one point in time. Actual 1-
hour and annual average concentrations are dependent on many variables, particularly the
number and type of vehicles traveling during time periods of adverse meteorology.
A health risk computation was performed to determine the risk of developing an excess cancer
risk calculated on a 70-year lifetime basis, 30-year, and 9-year exposure scenarios. The cancer
risk calculations were based on applying age sensitivity weighting factors for each emissions
period modeled. Age-sensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and small
children to cancer causing TACs. The chronic and carcinogenic health risk calculations are
based on the standardized equations contained in the OEHHA Guidance Manual. Only the risk
associated with the worst-case location of the project was assessed.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-39
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Based on the AERMOD outputs, the highest expected hourly average diesel PM2.5 emission
concentrations at the project site would be 0.077 ʅŐͬŵ3. The highest expected annual average
PM2.5 emission concentrations at the project site would be 0.005 ʅŐͬŵ3, which is below the
BAAQMD’s threshold of 0.3 ʅŐͬŵ3. The analysis for the project assumed the site would not be
occupied until 2022 or later. The calculations conservatively assume no cleaner technology
with lower emissions in future years. Cancer risk calculations are based on 70-, 30-, and 9-year
exposure periods. The highest calculated carcinogenic risk as a result of the project is 2.59 per
million for 70-year exposure, 2.18 per million for 30-year exposure, and 1.57 per million for 9-
year exposure. Additionally, acute and chronic hazards would be 0.031 and 0.001, respectively,
which are below the hazard index threshold of 1.0. Therefore, impacts related to cancer risk,
hazards, and PM2.5 concentrations from mobile sources would be less than significant at the
project site.
Furthermore, in May 2016 the BAAQMD released the Planning Healthy Places guidebook that
provides air quality and public health information for locations throughout the Bay Area. The
BAAQMD also provides web-based interactive maps that show the location of communities and
places throughout the region that are estimated to have elevated levels of fine particulates
and/or TACs. The maps identify where best practices and further study should be applied.
Based on the mapping, the project site is not located in a best practices or further study area.
As indicated above, the project includes the future development of residences that are located
outside of the BAAQMD’s recommended 1,000-foot buffer from freeways. As the project
design maximizes the buffer between potential TAC sources and residential units impacts
associated with TACs related to the project’s on-site receptors would be less-than-significant.
Parking Structure Hotspots
Carbon monoxide concentrations are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological
conditions, and traffic flow. Therefore, parking structures (and particularly subterranean
parking structures) tend to be of concern regarding CO hotspots, as they are enclosed spaces
with frequent cars operating in cold start mode. Approximately 598 parking spaces would be
constructed within the mixed-use parking garage. The project would be required to comply
with the ventilation requirements of the International Mechanical Code (Section 403.5 [Public
Garages]), which requires that mechanical ventilation systems for public garages operate
automatically upon detection of a concentration of carbon monoxide of 25 parts per million 10
(ppm) by approved detection devices. Impacts regarding parking structure CO hotspots would
be less than significant.
10 The 25 ppm trigger is the maximum allowable concentration for continuous exposure in any eight-hour period according to the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-40 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Off-Site Impacts
The project would not be considered a source of toxic air contaminants (TACs) that would pose
a possible risk to off-site uses. The project involves the future development of mixed-use
project that would include commercial and residential uses. The project would not include
stationary sources that emit TACs and would not generate a significant amount of heavy-duty
truck trips (a source of diesel particulate matter [DPM]). Therefore, no impacts to surrounding
receptors associated with TACs would occur.
Cumulative TAC Risk
Cumulative TAC impacts to sensitive receptors were evaluated by adding the cancer risk, PM2.5
concentrations, and Hazard Index from each TAC source within 1,000 feet of the project site
and comparing those to the significance thresholds for cumulative sources. Cumulative TAC
significance thresholds are 100 per million cancer risk, 0.8 ʅŐͬŵ3 annual PM2.5, and 10.0 hazard
index. As shown in Table 6-11: Cumulative TAC Risk, the project would have a less than
significant impact with respect to cumulative community risk.
Table 6-11: Cumulative TAC Risk
Source
Cancer Risk
(in one million)
Non-Cancer
Hazard Index PM 2.5
Lowe’s of Dublin 3.0044 0.008382 0.006567
San Ramon Valley FPD STA #36 N/A N/A N/A
Pleasanton Car wash 0.0096 0.003172 0
Local Roadways (Tassajara Road and
Dublin Boulevard) 2.59 0.031 0.005
Cumulative Total 5.60 0.031 0.012
BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold 100 in one million 10.0 0.08
Are Thresholds Exceeded? No No No
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018.
Impact AQ-4: Creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people (Class III).
According to the BAAQMD, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include
wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food
manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. The project does not include any uses
identified by the BAAQMD as being associated with odors.
The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depends on numerous factors, including the
nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of
the receptors. While offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, they can still be unpleasant,
leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-41
Draft EIR
10/23/18
local governments and regulatory agencies. Projects with the potential to frequently expose
members of the public to objectionable odors would be deemed to violate the BAAQMD
standards.
BAAQMD enforces permit and nuisance rules to control odorous emissions from stationary
sources. For instance, BAAQMD Regulation 7 (Odorous Substances) places general limitations
on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds.
Regulation 7 disallows discharge of any odorous substance which causes the ambient air at or
beyond the property line to be odorous and to remain odorous after dilution with four parts of
odor-free air. Given these regulations, and the fact that there are no odorous emissions
existing or proposed on or near the project site, there would be no impact.
6.5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographical area for cumulative air emission impacts is the San Francisco Bay Area Air
Basin, which includes Alameda County.
Impact AQ-5: Contribute to cumulatively considerable air quality impacts (Class I).
Cumulative Construction Emission Impacts
The SFBAAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards and
nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for federal standards. As discussed above, Table 6-7:
Construction Air Emissions, the project’s construction-related emissions by themselves would
exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for NOx but not the other three criteria pollutants.
Since these thresholds indicate whether an individual project’s emissions have the potential to
affect cumulative regional air quality, it can be expected that the project-related construction
emissions would have cumulatively considerable impacts for NOx. The BAAQMD recommends
Basic Construction Mitigation Measures for all projects whether or not construction-related
emissions exceed the thresholds of significance. Compliance with BAAQMD construction-
related mitigation requirements are considered to reduce cumulative impacts at a Basin-wide
level. As a result, construction emissions associated with the project would result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.
Cumulative Operational Emission Impacts
The BAAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational
emissions. The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single
project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards.
Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse
air quality impacts. The BAAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based
on the level above which a project’s individual emissions would result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the Basin’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that
exceeds the BAAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-42 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
As shown in Table 6-9: Project Buildout Operational Emissions-Mitigated, the project would
result in long-term operational stationary and vehicular emissions. The operational emissions
for ROG and NOx would exceed BAAQMD thresholds. As a result, operational emissions
associated with the project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to
significant cumulative air quality impacts.
With mitigation identified for the project, MM AQ-2.1 through AQ-2.4, and compliance with
BAAQMD rules and requirements, the cumulative impacts of the project would be reduced;
however, the project’s cumulative contribution to NOX emissions would remain significant and
unavoidable (Class I).
6.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 6-12: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Air Quality summarizes the
environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the project
with regard to air quality.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-43
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 6-12: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Air Quality
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact AQ-1: Conflict with
implementation of San Francisco Bay
Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (Class I)
Significant
and
Unavoidable
MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation
Measures
MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction
Equipment
MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating
MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces
Impact AQ-2: Violates air quality
standard or contributes substantially
to an existing or projected air quality
violation (Class I)
Significant
and
Unavoidable
MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation
Measures
MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction
Equipment
MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating
MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces
Impact AQ-3: Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations (Class III)
Less than
Significant
None required
Impact AQ-4: Create objectionable
odors (Class III)
Less than
Significant
None required
Impact AQ-5: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable air quality
impacts. (Class I)
Significant
and
Unavoidable
MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation
Measures
MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction
Equipment
MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating
MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces
6.6 References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2012. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/baaqmd-ceqa-
guidelines_final_may-2012.pdf
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2016. Planning Healthy Places. Available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/planning-healthy-places
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017a. Clean Air Plan. Available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/current-plans .
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017b. Air Quality Standards and Attainment
Status. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-
and-attainment-status
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-44 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017c. Current Rules. Available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/rules-and-compliance/current-rules
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2009. Health Risk Assessments
for Proposed Land Use Projects. Available at: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter
Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpFinal.pdf
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A
Community Health Perspective. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2016. Current Air Quality Standards.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/ds.htm
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2018. Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement
System (ADAM) Top Four Summaries from 2014 to 2016. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php.
City of Dublin. 2013. Climate Action Plan Update. Available at:
https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5799/Dublin-Climate-Action-Plan-Update-
2013.
Federal Highway Administration, 2016. Updated. Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic
Analysis in NEPA Documents.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots
Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2016. NAAQS Table. Available
online: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2013. Policy Assessment for the
Review of the Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/46963ceebabd621905256cae0053d5c6/ab
1476f97f51b242852578b90065bb04!OpenDocument.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
7 Biological Resources
7.1 Introduction
This section describes the effects on biological resources that would be caused by
implementation of the project. It addresses existing environmental conditions in the affected
area, identifies and analyzes environmental impacts, and recommends measures to reduce or
avoid adverse impacts anticipated from project construction and operation. In addition,
existing laws and regulations relevant to biological resources are described. In some cases,
compliance with these existing laws and regulations would serve to reduce or avoid certain
impacts that might otherwise occur with implementation of the project.
This section references the following technical reports that were prepared for the project and
can be found in Appendix C:
WRA, Biological Resources Assessment, 2018
WRA, At Dublin Wetland Delineation Report, 2018
WRA, Rare Plant Survey Report, 2018
7.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, no comments regarding biological
resources were raised.
7.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on existing biological resources conditions in the project area.
The current condition and quality of biological resources was used as the baseline against which
to compare potential impacts of the project.
7.3.1 Project Setting
The project site is vacant land and is generally flat with a slight slope from a higher elevation at
the northerly boundary to a slightly lower elevation towards the southerly boundary. At one
time, the property was used for agricultural purposes and is currently vacant (except for
seasonal temporary uses). The project site is characterized by low lying native and non-native
grasses that is turned (disced) periodically for the purposes of weed abatement. A small group
of trees and shrubs is located near the corner of Tassajara Road and Central Parkway. No
grading for development purposes has occurred to date.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-2 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
7.3.2 Methodology
Literature Search and Review of Existing Data
The assessment of biological resources for the project began with a review of all available
documents and species and habitat data provided by the project applicant, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and other
agencies. Biological resource data sources included, but were not limited to, the following:
CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) to determine special-status
plants, wildlife, and vegetation communities that have been documented within the
vicinity of the project site.
Aerial photographs, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data, United States
Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps.
Previously prepared reports and regional planning documents (general plan policies,
Habitat Conservation Plans [HCPs], Environmental Impact Reports [EIRs], and
published scientific literature).
In addition to the literature search and review of existing data, descriptions and analysis in this
section are based on the Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) prepared by WRA, provided in
Appendix C-1. The methodology of the BRA is described below.
Biological Resources Assessment
On December 7, 2017, the project site was traversed on foot to determine: (1) plant
communities present within the project site, (2) if existing conditions provided suitable habitat
for any special-status plant or wildlife species, and (3) if sensitive habitats are present. All plant
and wildlife species encountered were recorded and are summarized in the BRA. Appendix C-2
provides a list of species-status species that have been documented in the vicinity and
summarizes the potential for occurrence for each of these species based on observed habitat
suitability, proximity of known occurrences, or the direct observation of a species.
Prior to the initial site visit, online soil survey data for the project area, the USGS 7.5-minute
quadrangle map for Livermore, USFWS National Wetlands Inventory data, rainfall data and
wetlands determination (WETS) precipitation data, and available aerial photographs of the
project site were reviewed to identify potential sensitive habitats and areas for further
investigation. Biological communities present in the project site were classified based on
existing plant community descriptions described in A Manual of California Vegetation, Online
Edition (CNPS 2018a; CDFW 2018b). However, in some cases it is necessary to identify variants
of community types or to describe non-vegetated areas that are not described in the literature.
Biological communities were classified as sensitive or non-sensitive as defined by CEQA and
other applicable laws and regulations.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
7.3.3 Biological Communities
As shown in Figure 7-1: Biological Communities on the Project Site biological communities on
the project site consist of 76.24 acres of non-sensitive ruderal habitat and 0.66 acres of
sensitive seasonal wetlands.
Non-sensitive Biological Communities
Ruderal
The project site contains ruderal habitat, comprised primarily of disced and mowed areas of
disturbed vegetation. Ruderal areas are primarily composed of ruderal herbaceous vegetation
dominated by non-native annual species, such as slim oat (Avena barbata), ripgut brome
(Bromus diandrus), soft chess (B. hordeaceus), and black mustard (Brassica nigra). Native
species, such as common fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia) and tarweed fiddleneck (A.
lycopsoides), are also present. The project site has been disced for weed abatement, with small
margins of intact ruderal vegetation along the margins and southwest of Northside Drive.
Sensitive Biological Communities
Seasonal Wetland
The 0.66 acres of seasonal wetlands occur as five separate topographic depressions and one
flat-to-sloping area where seasonal inundation and/or saturation occurs during the rainy
season. Four wetlands had varying levels of apparent regular disturbance, including discing and
use as a parking area for vehicles.
Vegetation within these seasonal wetlands is sparse and is dominated by a mixture of non-
native grasses and forbs, all of which are adapted to high levels of disturbance. Commonly
observed species include Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), hyssop loosestrife (Lythrum
hyssopifolia), and curly dock (Rumex crispus).
Given the highly altered and regularly disturbed nature of the project site, as well as the lack of
a dominance by or characteristic presence of species associated with vernal pools, the wetlands
are classified as seasonal wetlands rather than vernal pools.
City of Dublin Protected Trees
There are no trees defined as “heritage trees” under the City of Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance
present on site. There are several remnant trees located on the abandoned homestead area in
the northern portion of the project site. These trees exceed 24 inches in diameter at four (4)
feet six (6) inches above natural grade; however, are not species included under the definition
of heritage trees.
Additionally, two coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) saplings less than 24 inches in diameter are
located north of Gleason Drive. At 24 inches these are too small to be included under the
definition heritage trees.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-4 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
7.3.4 Special-Status Species
Special Status Plant Species
Based on a review of the resources and databases described above, 62 statewide special-status
plant species were documented in the project area. Of these, nine species were documented in
the CNDDB as occurring within a five-mile buffer of the project area as shown in Figure 7-2:
Special-Status Plant Species Documented within Five Miles of the Project Site.
Within the project site, three special-status plant species were identified or have the potential
to occur, namely:
Local and State special-status plant, Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii); CNPS Rank 1B.1; Present
State special-status plant, San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana); CNPS Rank
1B.2; Moderate Potential
State special-status plant, Saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum); CNPS Rank 1B.2;
Moderate Potential
Local rare plant species, Northern California black walnut (Juglans hindsii), was also identified
within the project site. However, only native populations of Northern California black walnut
are considered specials-status, and the Northern California black walnut individuals within the
project site are remnant ornamental planting, therefore not considered special-status species.
Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii)
Congdon’s tarplant is an annual herb in the composite family (Asteraceae) that typically blooms
from May to October. It often grows in alkaline soils, sometimes described as heavy white clay,
in valley and foothill grassland habitats ranging from 0 to 755 feet (0 to 230 meters) in
elevation.
As shown in Figure 7-3: Congdon’s Tarplant on the Project Site, 371 individuals of Congdon’s
tarplant were observed in the seasonal wetland in the southeastern corner, as well as in
scattered locations along the eastern boundary of the project site.
San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana)
San Joaquin spearscale is an annual herb in the goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae) that
typically blooms from April to October. It often grows in seasonal alkali sink scrub and wetlands
in chenopod scrub, alkali meadow, and valley and foothill grassland habitat at elevations
ranging from 0 to 2,740 feet. San Joaquin spearscale is known to occur throughout northern
California.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
No occurrence of San Joaquin spearscale was observed during the site visit, however, there
were 36 CNDDB records found within the greater vicinity of the project area and 17 Consortium
of California Herbaria (CCH) records from Alameda County. The nearest documented
occurrence is from May 2002 and is centered on the project site; however, the location
description is imprecise and is “mapped by CNDDB as best guess”. The most recent
documented occurrence is from August 2012 near Tassajara Road, approximately six miles
north of the project site. San Joaquin spearscale has a moderate potential to occur in the
project area due to the presence of mesic areas and alkaline substrate and the fact that this
species has been documented near the project area in disced conditions (CDFW 2018a).
Saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum)
Saline clover is an annual herb in the pea family (Fabaceae) that typically blooms from April to
June. It generally grows in mesic, alkali sites in marsh, swamp, valley and foothill grassland, and
vernal pool habitat at elevations ranging from 0 to 980 feet. Saline clover is also known to
occur throughout northern California.
No occurrence of saline clover was observed during the site visit, however there were two
CNDDB records found in the project area, and five CCH records in Alameda County. The nearest
known occurrence is from May 2002, approximately 0.5 mile east of the project site, which may
now be absent. The most recent documented occurrence is from April 2006, in the Springtown
area, seven miles east of the project site.
Saline clover has a moderate potential to occur in the project site due to the presence of
seasonally inundated depressions and alkaline substrate and the fact that this species has been
documented near the project site in disced conditions.
Special Status Wildlife Species
Based on a review of the resources and databases described above, 37 special-status wildlife
species were documented in the project area. Of these, 14 species were documented in the
CNDDB (CDFW 2018a) as occurring within a five-mile buffer of the project site as shown in
Figure 7-4: Special-Status Wildlife Species within Five Miles of the Project Site. Three special-
status wildlife species were observed or were considered to have moderate or high potential to
occur in the project site and are discussed below.
Within the project site, three special-status wildlife species were identified as having the
potential to occur, namely:
Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia); CDFW Species of Special Concern;
USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern; High Potential
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus); CDFW Species of Special Concern; USFWS
Bird of Conservation Concern; Moderate Potential
White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus); CDFW Fully Protected Species; High Potential
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-6 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)
Burrowing owl typically favors flat, open grassland or gentle slopes and sparse shrub land
ecosystems. These owls prefer annual or perennial grasslands, typically with sparse or
nonexistent tree or shrub canopies. This species is dependent on burrowing mammals to
provide the burrows that are characteristically used for shelter and nesting, and in northern
California is typically found in close association with California ground squirrels (Spermophilus
beecheyi).
Burrowing owls were documented within the project site (CNDDB occurrence number 671) in
2004 and 2009. During the December 7, 2017 site visit, ground squirrels and ground squirrel
burrow complexes were observed throughout the project site. In addition, multiple debris piles
were present within the project site, which may provide additional nesting habitat for the
species. Vegetation height within the project site is variable and, in some areas, may be
suitable for the species throughout the year, including during nesting season (February 1 –
August 31). Although no burrowing owls were observed on the project site during the
December 2017 site visit, due to the presence of suitable nesting and foraging habitat, as well
as previous occurrences of burrowing owl within the project site, the species has a high
potential to occur.
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
Loggerhead shrike is a year-round resident or winter visitor in lowlands and foothills
throughout California. This species is associated with open country with short vegetation and
scattered trees, shrubs, fences, utility lines, and/or other perches. The loggerhead shrike nests
in trees and large shrubs; nests are usually placed three to ten feet off the ground.
No occurrence of Loggerhead shrike was observed during the December 7, 2017 site visit. The
trees located in the northwestern portion of the project site provide suitable habitat to support
nesting by this species. Grasslands within the project site may also provide sufficient area to
support foraging by the species. While the project site is surrounded by development, due to
the presence of potentially suitable nesting and foraging habitat, this species has a moderate
potential to occur.
White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus)
White-tailed kite is a resident in open to semi-open habitats throughout the lower elevations of
California, including grasslands, savannahs, woodlands, agricultural areas and wetlands.
Vegetative structure and prey availability seem to be more important habitat elements than
associations with specific plants or vegetative communities. Nests are constructed mostly of
twigs and are placed in trees, often at habitat edges. Nest trees are highly variable in size,
structure, and immediate surroundings, ranging from shrubs to trees greater than 150 feet tall.
This species preys upon a variety of small mammals, as well as other vertebrates and
invertebrates.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The project site contains open habitat for foraging by this species, as well as shrubs and trees
suitable for nesting. A white-tailed kite was observed foraging on the December 7, 2017 site
visit. White-tailed kite has a high potential to occur.
Special-Status Wildlife Species Unlikely to Occur within the Project Site
As described in the BRA, seven federally-listed wildlife species have been documented in the
vicinity, but are unlikely to inhabit the project site. These are California Red-Legged Frog (Rana
draytonii), California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes
macrotis), Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus), longhorn fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta longiantenna), Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), and Callippe
silverspot butterfly (Speyeria callippe callippe).
7.3.5 Critical Habitat
The project site is not located within any units designated as critical habitat according to the
Federal Endangered Species Act (described below).
7.3.6 Wildlife Movement Corridor
The project site does not fall within any identified wildlife corridors or natural habitat blocks.
The project site is surrounded by roadways, two of which are multi-lane roadways. There are
several vacant lots west of Arnold Road. However, there is greater than one mile of residential
and commercial development separating the project site from the vacant lots, preventing
dispersal into the project site.
7.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
7.4.1 Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) provisions protect federally listed threatened and
endangered species and their habitats from unlawful take and ensure that federal actions do
not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. Under the ESA, “take” is defined as “to harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
of the specifically enumerated conduct.” USFWS regulations define harm to mean “an act which
actually kills or injures wildlife.” Such an act “may include significant habitat modification or
degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential
behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering” (50 CFR § 17.3).
Critical habitat is defined in Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as “(i) the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species on which are found those physical or biological
features (I) essential to the conservation of the species, and (II) which may require special
management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species upon a determination by the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-8 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
of the Interior (Secretary) that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.” The
effects analyses for designated critical habitat must consider the role of the critical habitat in
both the continued survival and the eventual recovery (i.e., the conservation) of the species in
question, consistent with the recent Ninth Circuit judicial opinion, Gifford Pinchot Task Force v.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Activities that may result in “take” of individuals are
regulated by the USFWS. The USFWS produced an updated list of candidate species December
2, 2016 (72 FR 69034). Candidate species are not afforded any legal protection under ESA;
however, candidate species typically receive special attention from federal and State agencies
during the environmental review process.
Waters of the United States
Areas meeting the regulatory definition of “Waters of the U.S.” (Jurisdictional Waters) are
subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under provisions of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1972) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (1899).
These waters may include all waters used, or potentially used, for interstate commerce,
including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, all interstate waters, all other
waters (intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, playa lakes, natural ponds, etc.), all
impoundments of waters otherwise defined as “Waters of the U.S.,” tributaries of waters
otherwise defined as “Waters of the U.S.,” the territorial seas, and wetlands (termed Special
Aquatic Sites) adjacent to “Waters of the U.S.” (33 CFR, Part 328, Section 328.3).
Construction activities within jurisdictional waters are regulated by USACE. The placement of
fill into such waters must comply with permit requirements of USACE. No USACE permit would
be effective in the absence of State water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. As a part of the permit process USACE works directly with USFWS to assess
project impacts on biological resources.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Raptors (e.g. eagles, hawks, and owls) and their nests are protected under both Federal and
State regulations. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits killing, possessing, or
trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.
7.4.2 State
California Endangered Species Act
Provisions of California Endangered Species Act (CESA) protect State-listed Threatened and
Endangered species. CDFW regulates activities that may result in “take” of individuals (“take”
means “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”).
Habitat degradation or modification is not expressly included in the definition of “take” under
the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Code. Additionally, the CDFW Code
contains lists of vertebrate species designated as “fully protected” (§§ 3511 [birds], 4700
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
[mammals], 5050 [reptiles and amphibians], 5515 [fish]). Such species may not be taken or
possessed.
In addition to federal and State-listed species, CDFW also has produced a list of Species of
Special Concern to serve as a “watch list.” Species on this list are of limited distribution or the
extent of their habitats has been reduced substantially, such that threat to their populations
may be imminent. Species of Special Concern may receive special attention during
environmental review, but they do not have statutory protection.
Birds of prey are protected under the CDFG Code. Section 3503.5 states it is “unlawful to take,
possess, or destroy any birds of prey (in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes) or to take,
possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this Code
or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction-related disturbance during the
breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead
to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive
effort is considered “take” by CDFW. Under Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and
Wildlife Code, activities that would result in the taking, possessing, or destroying of any birds-
of-prey, taking or possessing of any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA, or the
taking, possessing, or needlessly destroying of the nest or eggs of any raptors or non-game
birds protected by the MBTA, or the taking of any non-game bird pursuant to CDFG Code
Section 3800 are prohibited.
Waters of the State
The State Water Resources Control Board is the State agency (together with the Regional Water
Quality Control Boards [RWQCB]) charged with implementing water quality certification in
California. The project falls under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.
CDFW potentially extends the definition of stream to include “intermittent and ephemeral
streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue-line streams (USGS), and watercourses with
subsurface flows. Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance
can also be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-
dependent terrestrial wildlife” (CDFG, 1994). Such areas of the project were determined using
methodology described in A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements,
Sections 1600-1607 (CDFG, 1994).
Activities that result in the diversion or obstruction of the natural flow of a stream; or which
substantially change its bed, channel, or bank; or which utilize any materials (including
vegetation) from the streambed, may require that the project applicant enter into a Streambed
Alteration Agreement with the CDFW.
Fish and Game Code (Sections 2050 through 2098)
Sections 2050 through 2098 of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) outline the protection
provided to California’s rare, endangered, and threatened species. Section 2080 of the CFGC
prohibits the taking of plants and animals listed under the CESA. Section 2081 established an
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-10 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
incidental take permit program for state-listed species. Also, the Native Plant Protection Act of
1977 (FGC Section 1900, et seq.) gives the CDFW authority to designate state endangered,
threatened, and rare plants and provides specific protection measures for designated
populations.
The CDFW has also identified many “Species of Special Concern”. Species with this status have
habitats that have been reduced substantially, such that their populations may be threatened.
These populations are monitored and may receive special attention during environmental
review. While they do not have statutory protection, they may be considered rare under CEQA
and thereby warrant specific protection measures.
Sensitive species, which would qualify for listing, but are not currently listed, are also given
protection under CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 (“Mandatory Findings of
Significance”) identifies a substantial reduction in numbers of a rare or endangered species as a
significant effect. CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 (“Rare or Endangered Species”) provides for
assessment of unlisted species as rare or endangered under CEQA if the species can be shown
to meet the criteria for listing. Unlisted plant species on the California Rare Plant Ranking
(CRPR) system lists 1A, 1B, and 2 would typically be considered under CEQA.
7.4.3 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin’s General Plan contains the following policies as it relates to biological
resources:
Guiding Policy 7.2.1.A.1: Protect riparian vegetation as a protective buffer for stream quality
and for its value as a habitat and aesthetic resource.
Guiding Policy 7.2.1.A.2: Promote access to stream corridors for passive recreational use and to
allow stream maintenance and improvements as necessary, while respecting the privacy of
owners of property abutting stream corridors.
Guiding Policy 7.3.1.A.1: Maintain natural hydrologic systems.
Guiding Policy 7.4.1.A.1: Protect oak woodlands.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The City of Dublin’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains the following policies and programs as
it relates to biological resources:
Policy 6-15: Avoid development and potentially destructive activities in areas with high-value
habitat including:
northern riparian forest
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
arroyo willow riparian woodland
freshwater marsh
Exceptions may only be granted where an owner's reasonable beneficial use of the land cannot
be otherwise provided.
Policy 6-16: To ensure long-term protection, high- value habitat areas either should be
dedicated as public open space or restricted from potentially harmful development and
activities with deed restrictions and design standards.
Policy 6-17: Impacts to sensitive wildlife species that occur in the planning area will be avoided
wherever possible. Mitigation programs will be required as necessary to reduce or eliminate
impacts on special status species.
Policy 6-21: Direct disturbance or removal of trees or native vegetation cover should be
minimized and should be restricted to those areas actually designated for the construction of
improvements.
Policy 6-22: All areas of disturbance should be revegetated as quickly as possible to prevent
erosion. Native trees (preferably those species already on site), shrubs, herbs, and grasses
should be used for revegetation of areas to remain as natural open space. The introduction of
non-native plant species should be avoided.
Program 6K: The City of Dublin shall establish and maintain a liaison with resource
management agencies (i.e., California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) for the purpose of monitoring compliance with specific
plan policies. These agencies should be consulted and involved throughout the planning and
development process of individual properties in order to avoid violations of state and federal
regulations and ensure that specific issues and concerns are recognized and addressed.
Program 6L: The City shall require development applicants to conduct a pre-construction survey
within 60 days prior to habitat modification (clearing construction and road site, etc.) to verify
the presence or absence of sensitive species, especially the San Joaquin kit fox, nesting raptors,
the red-legged frog, western pond turtles, the California tiger salamander, and other species of
special concern.
Program 6N: The use of rodenticides and herbicides within the project area should be restricted
to avoid impacts on wildlife. The City shall require any poisoning programstobedonein
cooperation with and under supervision of the Alameda County Department of Agriculture.
Herbicides should be used only selectively within the project area, should be carefully applied in
accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and used only for control of non-native pest
plant species.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-12 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
City of Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance
The City of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 5.60 regulates the preservation of heritage trees
through its development review and permit approval process. Sections 5.60.080 to 5.60.100
includes tree protection regulations. Heritage trees are defined as:
Any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye and sycamore tree having a trunk or main
stem of twenty-four (24) inches or more in diameter at four (4) feet six (6) inches above natural
grade; a tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit,
use permit, site development review of subdivision map; or a tree required to be planted as a
replacement for an unlawfully removed tree.
A tree permit is required for the removal of any heritage tree as defined above on public or
private property. Furthermore, the City may require additional conditions barring the issuance
of a tree removal permit including that one (1) or more replacement trees be planted of a
designated species, size, and location.
East Alameda County Conservation Strategy
The project site is in Conservation Zone 3 (CZ-3) of the East Alameda County Conservation
Strategy (EACCS). The EACCS is intended to provide effective framework to protect, enhance,
and restore natural resources. Conservation priorities are described as guidelines to protect
the resources known to occur in the conservation zones. Relevant policies for CZ-3 are:
Protection of known occurrences of San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana)
and surveys of other potential habitat
Protection of known occurrences of Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii) and surveys of other potential habitat
Protection of known California tiger salamander (CTS; Ambystoma californiense) and
California red-legged frog (CRLF; Rana draytonii) breeding habitat, sufficient upland
habitat surrounding those sites, and connections between breeding and upland
habitat
Protection of CTS and CRLF critical habitat
7.4.4 Other Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
California Native Plant Society
The mission of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Program is to develop
current, accurate information on the distribution, ecology, and conservation status of
California's rare and endangered plants, and to use this information to promote science-based
plant conservation in California. Once a species has been identified as being of potential
conservation concern, it is put through an extensive review process. Once a species has gone
through the review process, information on all aspects of the species (listing status, habitat,
distribution, threats, etc.) are recorded on the online CNPS Inventory. The program currently
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
recognizes more than 2,300 plant taxa (species, subspecies and varieties) as rare or endangered
in California (CNPS List, 2015).
Vascular plants listed as rare or endangered by the CNPS, but which might not have designated
status under State endangered species legislation, are defined as follows:
List 1A – Plants considered by the CNPS to be extinct in California
List 1B – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere
List 2 – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere
List 3 – Plants about which we need more information – a review list
List 4 – Plants of limited distribution – a watch list
In addition to the list designations above, the CNPS adds a Threat Rank as an extension added
onto the CNPS List and designates the level of endangerment by a 1 to 3 ranking, with 1 being
the most endangered and 3 being the least endangered and are described as follows:
0.1 – Seriously threatened in California (high degree/immediacy of threat)
0.2 – Fairly threatened in California (moderate degree/immediacy of threat)
0.3 – Not very threatened in California (low degree/immediacy of threats or no current
threats known
The combined definition and Threat Rank (such as 1B.1) provides an overall classification of the
species.
7.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
7.5.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for biological resources were derived from the Environmental
Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been amended or
supplemented, as appropriate, to address lead agency requirements and the full range of
impacts related to the project.
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it
would meet one of the following criteria:
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or
USFWS.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-14 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Have an adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed or critical habitat for these
species.
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS.
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to marshes, vernal
pools, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as
a tree preservation policy or ordinances.
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural
Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state
HCP.
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
7.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
There are no adopted Habitat Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plans
applicable to the project site and therefore there would be no impacts.
7.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact BIO-1: Have a substantial adverse effect on special-status plant and wildlife species
(Class II).
Three special-status plant species and three special-status wildlife species have a moderate or
high potential to occur within the project site.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Special-Status Plant Species
As described in the BRA, of the 62-statewide special-status plant species known to occur in the
project area, Congdon’s tarplant was observed during the site assessment and has a high
potential to occur and San Joaquin spearscale and Saline clover have a moderate potential to
occur in the project site. Most of the species found in the review of background literature
occur in high-quality vernal pool habitat, in different plant communities, often at higher
elevations, or in high-quality grassland habitat. Because of the history of disturbance and
change in hydrologic regime, the grassland and seasonal wetlands in the project site are likely
too low in quality to support most of these other special-status plant species.
Proposed development of the project site would have a significant impact on these special
status plant species. Implementation of MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and
Mitigation would avoid or minimize impacts to these special-status plant species to a less-than-
significant level (Class II).
Special-Status Wildlife Species
Of the 37 special-status wildlife species known to occur in the project area, three were
determined to have a high to moderate potential to occur on the project site, namely Western
Burrowing Owl, and the Loggerhead shrike and White-tailed kite, both described below as
nesting birds.
Habitat suitability for other grassland-associated species in the project site has been reduced by
repeated discing, surrounding development, and major roads acting as dispersal barriers.
These factors have also dramatically reduced or eliminated the potential for riparian and
aquatic species to occur on the project site. Similarly, all seasonal wetland habitat suitable for
vernal pool crustaceans have been eliminated through repeated discing. Bats are also unlikely
to roost within the project site, due to the lack of suitable thermal conditions and roost
structures present.
Potential impacts to the three special-status wildlife species with a high to moderate potential
to occur on the project site are discussed below.
Western Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl has been documented within the project site and there is a high potential for
this species to inhabit ground squirrel burrows present on-site. As determined during the site
survey, the project site is not currently inhabited by this species, however, there still is the
continued potential to support this species.
Project activities, including vegetation removal and ground disturbance, may affect this species
by causing auditory, vibratory, and/or visual disturbance of a sufficient level to cause
abandonment of the site or active nests, or by removing foraging habitat or access to burrows,
which are required to support nesting. This would result in a potentially significant impact
under CEQA. Implementation of MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Exclusion
Measures would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level (Class II).
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-16 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Nesting Birds
The project has the potential to impact special-status and non-special-status native nesting
birds (i.e., Loggerhead shrike and White-tailed kites) protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) and/or California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). Baseline p rotections for most native
birds under federal law and state codes include active nests (those with eggs or young).
Recently, the U.S. Department of the Interior issued guidance clarifying that the MBTA only
applies to intentional/deliberate killing, harm, or collection of covered species (including active
nests). According to the guidance, unintentional impacts to birds/nests that occur within the
context of otherwise lawful activities are not violations of the MBTA. However, ambiguity
remains regarding application of the CFGC, as well as the extent to which minimization and
avoidance measures are still required under the MBTA. Therefore, avoidance of nesting birds is
considered a “best practice” in the San Francisco Bay region and avoids potential enforcement
action by the CDFW. Nesting bird pre-construction survey obligations are a common
component of various permits and authorizations, including CEQA documents and even local
grading permits, and as such may be deemed applicable to project activities within the project
area.
Project activities, such as vegetation removal and ground disturbance associated with
development, would have the potential to affect these species by causing direct mortality of
eggs or young, or by causing auditory, vibratory, and/ or visual disturbance of a sufficient level
to cause abandonment of an active nest. If project activities occur during the nesting season,
which extends from February 1 through August 31, nests of both special-status and non-special-
status native birds could be impacted by construction and other ground disturbing activities.
Implementation of MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures would reduce this potential
impact to a less-than-significant level (Class II).
Mitigation for Impact BIO-1
MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and Mitigation
Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities
involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable
to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following:
Prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, a focused survey shall be
conducted to determine the presence of Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species with
potential to occur within the project area. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the
Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and
Natural Communities (CDFG 2009). These guidelines require rare plant surveys to be
conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both “evident” and
identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with known blooming periods, and/or
during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of
concern. If no special-status plant species are found, then the project will not have any impacts
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-17
Draft EIR
10/23/18
to the species and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. If any of the species are
found on-site and cannot be avoided, the following measures shall be required:
1. If the survey determines that Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species are
present within or adjacent to the project site, direct and indirect impacts of the project
on the species shall be avoided where feasible through the establishment of activity
exclusion zones, where no ground-disturbing activities shall take place, including
construction of new facilities, construction staging, or other temporary work areas.
Activity exclusion zones for special-status plant species shall be established prior to
construction activities around each occupied habitat site, the boundaries of which shall
be clearly marked with standard orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its
equivalent. The establishment of activity exclusion zones shall not be required if no
construction-related disturbances would occur within 250 feet of the occupied habitat
site. The size of activity exclusion zones may be reduced through consultation with a
qualified biologist and with concurrence from CDFW based on site-specific conditions.
2. If exclusion zones and avoidance of impacts on Congdon’s tarplant or other special-
status species within the project area are not feasible, then the loss of individuals or
occupied habitat of special-status plants shall be compensated for through the
acquisition, protection, and subsequent management of other existing occurrences.
Before the implementation of compensation measures, the project’s applicant shall
provide detailed information to the CDFW and lead agency on the quality of preserved
habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing
the areas, the responsible parties involved, and other pertinent information that
demonstrates the feasibility of the compensation. A mitigation plan identifying
appropriate mitigation ratios at a minimum ratio of 1:1 shall be developed in
consultation with, and approved by, the CDFW and the City prior to the commencement
of any activities that would impact Congdon’s tarplant or other species with potential to
occur within the project area. A mitigation plan may include but is not limited to the
following: the acquisition of off-site mitigation areas presently supporting the Congdon’s
tarplant or other special-status species, purchase of credits in a mitigation bank that is
approved to sell credits for special-status plants, or payment of in-lieu fees to a public
agency or conservation organization (e.g., a local land trust) for the preservation and
management of existing populations of special-status plants.
MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Exclusion Measures
Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities
involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable
to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following:
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-18 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey
Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified
biologist to conduct two pre-construction surveys for the Western burrowing owl on the project
site.
The first survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing activities
and the second survey within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. The surveys shall be
conducted in accordance with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the
surveys determine owls are present, then the measures set forth below shall be followed.
Implement Avoidance Measures
If direct impacts to owls can be avoided, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the
project applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures during all phases of
construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls.
A pre-construction survey shall be performed prior to start of ground disturbance
activities. This survey will occur regardless of the time of year, as burrowing owls
may use the project site during the non-nesting season. The survey shall be
performed according to the standards set forth by the Staff Report for Burrowing
Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012).
The project site should be managed to prevent burrowing owl from occupying the
site prior to any project activities
All suitable burrows should be closed by hand once it has been determined that the
burrow is unoccupied.
Maintenance of the property to ensure burrows are not rebuilt will be necessary
throughout the year to preclude the presence of burrowing owl and suitable
burrowing owl habitat. Maintenance should occur approximately every 8 weeks,
and burrows should be inspected prior to closure to ensure no burrowing owl are
present. The frequency of burrow closure may be adjusted based upon ground
squirrel and burrow reestablishment progress.
The debris within the project site should be removed.
If discing is chosen as a preferred method for burrow maintenance, it is
recommended that any sensitive biological resources (populations of rare plants,
wetland boundaries and any active bird nests, etc.) be flagged by a qualified
biologist and avoided.
Conduct Burrow Exclusion
If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, prior to the first ground-
disturbing activities, the project applicant, in consultation with the CDFW, shall prepare a
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-19
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out as per the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 Staff Report.
Prepare and Implement a Mitigation Plan
If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible and project activities may result
in impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat, the project
applicant shall consult with the CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation plan that shall include
replacement of impacted habitat, number of burrows, and burrowing owl at a ratio approved
by CDFW. The mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements set forth in Appendix A of
the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the plan shall be reviewed and
accepted by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground-disturbing activities.
MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
Prior to obtaining the first site grading building or other permit for development activities from
February 1 to August 31, the applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the
Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following:
Pre-construction Breeding Bird Surveys
No more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance and vegetation removal during the
nesting season (February 1 to August 31), the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist
to perform pre-construction breeding bird surveys. If any nests are found, they shall be flagged
and protected with a suitable buffer. Buffer distance may vary based on species and
conditions, but is typically at least 50 feet, and up to 250 feet for raptors. This mitigation
measure does not apply to ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities that occur
outside of the nesting season (September 1 to January 31).
Impact BIO-2: Have a substantial adverse effect on sensitive natural communities or riparian
habitat (Class III).
As shown in Table 7-1: Summary of Biological Communities in Project Area, the project site
contains 76.24 acres of non-sensitive ruderal habitat comprised primarily of disced and mowed
areas of disturbed vegetation. These biological communities are not considered sensitive
natural communities or riparian habitat, and therefore impacts would be less than significant.
Impact BIO-3: Have a substantial adverse effect on wetlands or jurisdictional features (Class II).
Development of the project site as proposed would result in direct and permanent impacts to
0.66 acre of seasonal wetlands. The direct loss of these wetland features is considered a
potentially significant impact under CEQA. These wetlands are likely within the jurisdiction of
the Corps under Section 404 of the CWA and the RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA and the
Porter-Cologne Act. Implementation of MM BIO-3.1: Design Development Area to Minimize
Effects to Preserved Wetland, and Obtain and Comply with Resource Agency Approvals would
reduce this potentially significant impact to wetlands to a less-than-significant level (Class II).
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-20 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Mitigation for Impact BIO-3
MM BIO-3.1 Wetland Mitigation Plan
Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities
involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable
to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following:
The project applicant shall the acquire the appropriate applicable permit(s) (e.g. Section 404,
Section 401, Porter-Cologne) from the respective regulating agency(s) (i.e. USACE and/or
RWQCB). A If necessary, aA wetland mitigation plan shall be prepared that will establish
suitable compensatory mitigation based on the concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values
or acreages, to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies.
This may include the creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of off-site wetlands prior to
project ground disturbance. Mitigation areas shall be established in perpetuity through
dedication of a conservation easement (or similar mechanism) to an approved environmental
organization and payment of an endowment for the long-term management of the site. The
wetland mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the applicable regulatory agency
(USACE and/or RWQCB) and the City.
The wetland mitigation plan shall include measures for avoidance, minimization and
compensation for wetland impacts. Avoidance and minimization measures may include the
designation of buffers around wetland features to be avoided or project design measures.
Compensation measures shall include the preservation and/or creation of wetlands or other
waters. The final mitigation ratio (the amount of wetlands and other water created or
preserved compared to the amount impacted) shall be determined by the applicable resource
agency(s) and result in no net loss of wetland habitat value or acreages. The wetland mitigation
plan shall include the following:
1. Description of wetland types and their expected functions and values;
2. Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success of the mitigation
wetlands over a period of time to be determined by the resource agencies;
3. Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of wetlands to be created
or preserved;
4. An implementation schedule showing the construction or preservation of mitigation
areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with the initiation of construction; and
5. A description of legal protection of the preserved wetlands (such as dedication of fee
title, conservation easement and/or an endowment held by an approved conservation
organization, government agency or mitigation bank).
Impact BIO-4: Have a substantial adverse effect on wildlife movement. (Class III).
The project site is surrounded on four sides by roadways which create an anthropogenic barrier
to dispersal around the project site and precludes the primary function of a habitat corridor, to
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-21
Draft EIR
10/23/18
link two separated but occupied habitats. Therefore, given that the project site is bounded by
urban development, the project site does not function as a wildlife corridor connecting two or
more areas of occupied habitat, and impacts would be less than significant.
Impact BIO-5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinances (Class III).
Heritage Tree Ordinance
The project site does not contain any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye or sycamore
trees that are 24 inches in diameter as measured 4.5 feet above natural grade. Therefore, the
project would not be subject to the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance and no significant impacts
would occur.
East Alameda County Conservation Strategy
The project site is in Conservation Zone 3 (CZ-3) of the EACCS. The EACCS is a guidance
document that is used by the City for public projects, but compliance is not mandated for
private development as it is not an adopted or approved plan that requires a consistency
determination under CEQA. Therefore, no conflicts would occur and impacts would be less
than significant.
7.5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographic extent for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to biological resources
includes the City of Dublin, which contains suitable and occupied habitat of Congdon’s tarplant,
San Joaquin spearscale, Saline clover, Western Burrowing Owl, Loggerhead shrike, and White-
tailed kite. This area may alsoHowever, based on professional judgement and field surveys, the
project site does not support core, critical, or unique populations essential to recovery and
long-term survival of these species.
Impact BIO-6: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on biological resources (Class
II).
As stated above, the project would not result in a net loss of riparian habitat and would not
result in a loss of any heritage trees.
The project would affect 0.66 acres of seasonal wetlands, which would considerably contribute
to the significant cumulative biological impacts associated with past, present, and reasonably
future projects. Implementation of MM BIO-3.1 would reduce the project’s contribution to
less-than-cumulatively considerable.
The project’s impacts to Congdon’s tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, Saline clover, Western
Burrowing Owl, Loggerhead shrike, and White-tailed kite would be reduced through adherence
to MM BIO-1.1. MM BIO-1.2, and MM BIO-1.3. Although past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects may result in impacts to special-status plants and special-status
wildlife, such impacts would be site-specific and could be mitigated through adherence to
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-22 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
similar standard mitigation. The required mitigation would reduce the project’s contribution to
any significant cumulative impact on wetlands to less than cumulatively considerable. As such,
cumulative impacts to special-species plants and wildlife species would be less than significant.
7.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 7-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Biological Resources summarizes
the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the
project with regard to biological resources.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-23
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 7-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Biological Resources
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact BIO-1: Have a substantial
adverse effect on special-status
plant and wildlife species (Class II).
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and
Mitigation
MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Exclusion
Measures
MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
Impact BIO-2: Have a substantial
adverse effect on sensitive natural
communities or riparian habitat
(Class III).
Less than
Significant
None required
Impact BIO-3: Have a substantial
adverse effect on wetlands or
jurisdictional features (Class II).
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM BIO-3.1: Wetland Mitigation Plan
Impact BIO-4: Have a substantial
adverse effect on wildlife
movement. (Class III).
Less than
Significant
None required
Impact BIO-5: Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinances
(Class III).
Less than
Significant
None required
Impact BIO-6: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable impacts
on biological resources (Class II).
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and
Mitigation
MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Exclusion
Measures
MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
MM BIO-3.1: Wetland Mitigation Plan
7.6 References
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2017. Candidate Conservation | Candidate
Notice of Review. Available at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-
do/cnor.html.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2018a. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online
Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Available at:
http://vegetation.cnps.org.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2018b. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online
Edition. Sacramento, California. Available online at: http://vegetation.cnps.org. most
recently accessed: March 2018.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-24 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2015. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants
of California
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018a. California Natural Diversity
Database. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Biogeographic Data Branch,
Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, Sacramento, California. Available
online at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data
WRA, Inc. Biological Resources Assessment for the At Dublin Development Project, 2018.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources | Page 8-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
8 Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
8.1 Introduction
This section describes effects on cultural and tribal cultural resources that could be caused by
implementation of the project. The following discussion addresses existing environmental
conditions in the affected area, identifies and analyzes environmental impacts, and
recommends measures to reduce or avoid adverse impacts anticipated from project
construction and operation. In addition, existing laws and regulations relevant to cultural and
paleontological resources are described. In some cases, compliance with these existing laws
and regulations would serve to reduce or avoid certain impacts that might otherwise occur with
implementation of the project.
The term “cultural resources” encompasses historic, archaeological, and paleontological
resources, and burial sites. It includes:
Historic Resources: Historic resources are associated with the recent past. In California, historic
resources are typically associated with the Spanish, Mexican, and American periods in the
State’s history.
Archaeological Resources: Archaeology is the study of prehistoric human activities and
cultures. Archaeological resources are generally associated with indigenous cultures.
Paleontological Resources: Paleontology is the study of plant and animal fossils.
Burial Sites: Burial sites are formal or informal locations where human remains, usually
associated with indigenous cultures, are interred.
The term “tribal cultural resources” are either of the following:
1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value
to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of
Historical Resources.
(B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of
Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code.
2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section
5024.1.
8.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, the following comments regarding
cultural resources were received and are addressed in this section:
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-8-2 | Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The National American Heritage Commission provided general guidance on consultation with
California Native American tribes and CEQA requirements
8.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on cultural resources conditions in the greater project area,
which includes the greater Tri-Valley area. The current condition and quality of cultural
resources was used as the baseline against which to compare potential impacts of the project.
8.3.1 Prehistory
The Tri-Valley sub-region compromises of the cities of Dublin, San Ramon, Pleasanton, and
Livermore, and portions of both Alameda County and Contra Costa County. Existing
archaeological records are derived from excavations related to construction in areas south of I-
580. These archaeological surveys make up the primary source of information on prehistoric
life in the greater Livermore-Amador Valley area.
The first discoveries of buried archaeological sites were found in the Arroyo Mocho area south
of I-580 on the banks of streams. Analysis of materials taken from these sites indicate that
trading occurred with Native American peoples throughout central and northern California.
These prehistoric sites appear to have been abandoned during certain periods mainly due to
regular flooding. To date, several village sites on the northern and southern borders of the
arroyo’s seasonal marsh, known in historic times as Willow Marsh, were found buried under
varying amounts of silt material. The precise retreat of these inhabitants is unclear since similar
sites on dry ground are rare for the Livermore and Amador valleys and have not been located in
nearby foothills, nor on the project site.
As one possible explanation, there is evidence that the entire Livermore-Amador Valley area
was abandoned for several hundred years and the inhabitants migrated south through Sunol
and west to the San Francisco Bay. This group of people, presently named the “Meganos”
people, have been traced from an early origin in the Sacramento Valley through the Concord
drainage and to the San Francisco Bay margin.
By 500 or 600 A.D., the valley and the hills in the EDSP area were repopulated by the ancestors
of the modern day Ohlones. Archaeological sites have been found in areas of higher ground
near watercourses in Pleasanton and Livermore along the San Ramon drainage. However, none
of these sites were located in the EDSP area.
Prehistoric Use of the Project Area
For the indigenous population, the EDSP area was likely used for seed gathering from grasses
and acorn harvesting, as well as vegetation along the watercourses were denser flowing from
the hills into Willow Marsh. Main habitation sites were situated along the marsh edges in the
earliest period and then migrated to higher grounds south and west of the marsh
approximately 1,500 years ago.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources | Page 8-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
8.3.2 Historic Resources
Considerable alteration to the natural landscape occurred during the period of Anglo-American
farming and ranching. All the drainages running through the EDSP area show signs of
considerable siltation and erosion caused by cattle grazing and dry farming. Native grasses,
mainly bunchgrass, have been replaced with European grasses. Large native trees have been
removed or replaced with eucalyptus along drainages and at the locations of the ranches and
homes found in the canyons. Oak, cottonwood, and willow trees can be found sporadically
throughout the EDSP area.
8.3.3 Archaeological Resources
Six reports were found from previous archaeological surveys inside the EDSP area,
concentrating on the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center complex. The Santa Rita Rehabilitation is
approximately 0.56 mile west of the project.
8.3.4 Historic Sites
Although the California Archaeological Inventory located at Sonoma State University does not
record any historic resources inside the EDSP area, numerous structures are listed in The
Thompson and West Historic Atlas of 1878. The 1878 Historic Atlas lists 16 structures within
the EDSP area. Twelve of the historic sites identified to date in the EDSP are considered either
in-use structures of farming complexes. Of these historic resources inventoried above, none
are located within the project site.
8.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
8.4.1 Federal
National Register of Historic Places Eligibility
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended through 2000) authorizes the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), a program for the preservation of historic
properties (“cultural resources”) throughout the Nation. The eligibility of a resource for NRHP
listing is determined by evaluating the resource using criteria defined in 36 CFR 60.4 as follows:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and
culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and
local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, association, and:
That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history;
That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction;
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-8-4 | Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
That represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack
individual distinction; or,
That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or
history.
Unless a site is of exceptional importance, it is not eligible for listing in the NRHP until 50 years
after it was constructed.
All properties change over time. Therefore, it is not necessary for a property to retain all its
historic physical features or characteristics to be eligible for listing on the NRHP. The property
must, however, retain enough integrity to enable it to convey its historic identity; in other
words, to be recognizable to a historical contemporary. The National Register recognizes seven
aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity:
Location – the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the
historic event occurred.
Design – the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of
a property.
Setting – the physical environment of a historic property.
Materials – the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period
of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
Workmanship – the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any
given period in history or prehistory.
Feeling – a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of
time.
Association – the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic
property (National Park Service, 1990).
To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of these
aspects. To properly assess integrity, however, significance (why, where, and when a property
is important) must first be fully established. Therefore, the issues of significance and integrity
must always be considered together when evaluating a historic property.
Executive Order 11593 (May 13, 1971), 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 8921 as
incorporated into Title 7, United States Code
Executive Order 11593, Protection of the Cultural Environment, orders the protection and
enhancement of the cultural environment through providing leadership, establishing State
offices of historic preservation, and developing criteria for assessing resource values.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources | Page 8-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Title 42, United States Code, Section 1996
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act protects Native American religious practices, ethnic
heritage sites, and land uses.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (1990), Title 25, United
States Code
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) defines “cultural items,”
“sacred objects,” and “objects of cultural patrimony;” establishes an ownership hierarchy;
provides for review; allows excavation of remains under certain conditions, but stipulates
return of the remains according to ownership; sets penalties for violations; calls for inventories;
and provides for return of specified cultural items.
8.4.2 State
CEQA, Archaeological Resources
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines contain specific standards for determining the significance of
impacts to archaeological sites (PRC §21083.2; 14 CCR §15064.5(c)). If the lead agency
determines that the project may have a significant effect on unique archaeological resources,
the EIR must address those archaeological resources (PRC §21083.2(a)). A “unique
archaeological resource” is defined as an “archaeological artifact, object, or site” that, without
merely adding to the current body of knowledge:
Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and
in which there is a demonstrable public interest;
Has a special or particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best
available example of its type; or
Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic
event or person. (PRC §21083.2(g)).
Under CEQA, significant impacts on non-unique archaeological resources need not
be addressed in an EIR. (PRC §21083.2(a), (h)).
The limitations in PRC §21083.2 relating to unique archaeological resources do not apply to
archaeological sites that qualify as “historical resources.” (PRC §21083.2(l)). If a lead agency
finds that an archaeological site is a historical resource, impact assessment is governed by PRC
§21084.1, which provides standards for identification of historical resources (14 CCR
§15064.5(c)(2). See §§13.58, 20.94-20.98). The CEQA Guidelines also provide that public
agencies should seek to avoid effects that could damage a "historical resource of an
archaeological nature" when it is feasible to do so (14 CCR §15126.4(b)(3)).
Native American Consultation
Prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan proposed on or after March 1, 2005,
California Government Code Sections 65352.3 and 65352.4 (commonly referred to as Senate
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-8-6 | Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Bill (SB) 18) require a city or county to consult with local Native American tribes that are on the
contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The purpose is to
preserve or mitigate impacts to places, features, and objects described in Public Resources
Code Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 (Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship,
religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine located on public property) that are located within
a city or county’s jurisdiction. SB 18 also states that a city or county shall protect the
confidentiality of information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of
those places, features, and objects identified by said Native American consultation.
The City sent a letter to ten tribes under SB18 and one under AB52. No response for
consultation were received.
Native American Historic Resource Protection Act; Archaeological, Paleontological, and
Historical Sites; Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites (Pub. Res. Code §
5097-5097.994)
Public Resources Code Section 5097 specifies the procedures to be followed in the event of the
unexpected discovery of Native American human remains on non-federal public lands.
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.9 states that no public agency or private party on
public property shall “interfere with the free expression or exercise of Native American
Religion.” The Code further states that:
“No such agency or party [shall] cause severe or irreparable damage to any Native
American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred
shrine…except on a clear and convincing showing that the public interest and necessity
so require.”
California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or
recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall
be no further excavation or disturbance of the find or any nearby area reasonably suspected to
overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered
has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. If the
human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American
Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage
Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site
and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave
goods.
Public Resources Code Section 5097.5
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 prohibits excavation or removal of any
“vertebrate paleontological site…or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical
feature, situated on public lands, except with express permission of the public agency having
jurisdiction over such lands.” Public lands are defined to include lands owned by or under the
jurisdiction of the state or any city, county, district, authority or public corporation, or any
City of Dublin At Dublin
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources | Page 8-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
agency thereof. Section 5097.5 states that any unauthorized disturbance or removal of
archaeological, historical, or paleontological materials or sites located on public lands is a
misdemeanor.
CEQA, Historic Resources
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines contain specific standards for determining the significance of
impacts on “historical resources” (PRC §21084.1, 14 CCR §15064.5). A resource listed in the
California Register of Historical Resources, or determined by the State Historical Resources
Commission to be eligible for listing in the Register, must be treated as an “historical resource”
for purposes of CEQA. PRC §21084.1; 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1). A resource designated as
historically significant in a local register of historical resources, or identified as significant in an
approved historical resources survey, is presumed to be significant. The presumption of
significance may be overcome if the agency concludes, based on a preponderance of the
evidence, that the site is not historically or culturally significant (PRC §21084.1; 14 CCR
§15064.5(a)(2)).
A lead agency may also find that a site that does not meet any of these criteria should be
treated as a historical resource under CEQA (PRC §21084.1; 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(4)). A lead
agency may find that “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript” is
historically significant or significant in the “cultural annals of California” provided that its
determination is “supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record” (14 CCR
§15064.5(a)(3)). The guidelines also note that a resource ordinarily should be considered
historically significant if it meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical
Resources (14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)).
California Register of Historical Resources
To be determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), a
property must be significant at the local, State, or national level under one or more of the
following four criteria as defined in Public Resources Code 5024.1 and CEQA Guideline
15064.5(a).
It is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of the history and cultural heritage of California
and the United States.
It is associated with the lives of persons important to the nation or to California’s
past.
It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or
possesses high artistic values.
It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the prehistory or
history of the state and the nation.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-8-8 | Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, a significant property must also retain
integrity. Properties eligible for listing in the CRHR must retain enough of their historic
character to convey the reason(s) for their significance. Integrity is judged in relation to
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
8.4.3 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin’s General Plan contains the following policy as it relates to cultural and tribal
resources:
Guiding Policy 7.7.1.A.2: Follow State regulations as set forth in Public Resources Code Section
21083.2 regarding discovery of archaeological sites, and Historical Resources, as defined in
Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The City of Dublin’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains the following policies and programs as
it relates to cultural and tribal resources:
Policy 6-24: The presence and significance of archaeological or historic resources will be
determined, and necessary mitigation programs formulated, prior to development approvals
for any of the sites identified in the cultural resource survey prepared for this plan.
Policy 6-25: The discovery of historic or prehistoric remains during grading and construction will
result in the cessation of such activities until the significance and extent of those remains can
be ascertained by a certified archaeologist.
Policy 6-26: All properties with historic resources which may be impacted by future
development shall be subjected to in-depth archival research to determine the significance of
the resource prior to any alteration.
Policy 6-27: Where the disruption of historic resources is unavoidable, encourage the adaptive
re-use or restoration of historic structures (such as the old school house, several barns, and
Victorian residences currently in the area) whenever feasible.
ACTION PROGRAM: Cultural Resources
Program 6P: The City of Dublin shall require the following actions as part of the application
process for development within eastern Dublin:
Site Sensitivity: Based on the first stage cultural resource survey of the area
conducted as background for the Plan, the City will make a determination of
whether the subject site has been identified as having prehistoric or historic
resources potentially located on it.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources | Page 8-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Research: For those sites with potential resources, a second level of detailed
research and field reconnaissance will be required to determine the level of
archaeological or historical significance. This research will be the responsibility of
the development applicant, and be conducted by a qualified archaeologist. The
research will be consistent with the guidelines for prehistoric and historic resources
provided in the cultural resources survey prepared for eastern Dublin.
Mitigation: For those sites that contain significant resources, a mitigation plan must
be developed which is consistent with the policies in this Specific Plan and current
CEQA guidelines concerning cultural resources.
City of Dublin Municipal Code
Section 8.48.020 Archaeology Regulations of the Dublin Municipal Code states that in the event
that archaeological resources, prehistoric or historic artifacts are discovered during any
construction or excavation, the following regulations shall apply:
A. Cessation of construction activities. Construction and/or excavation activities shall cease
immediately and the Department of Community Development shall be notified.
B. Procedure. A qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether any such
materials are significant prior to resuming ground breaking construction activities.
Standardized procedures for evaluating accidental finds and discovery of human remains shall
be followed as prescribed in Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
8.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
8.5.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for cultural and tribal resources were derived from the
Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been
amended or supplemented, as appropriate, to address lead agency requirements and the full
range of potential impacts related to this project.
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it
would meet one of the following criteria.
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource (CEQA
Guideline 15064.5).
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
(CEQA Guideline 15064.5).
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-8-10 | Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and
that is:
Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Significance Classifications
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
8.5.2 Impact Assessment Methodology
For cultural resources, impact assessment is based on a comparison of known resource
locations with the placement of ground disturbing project activities that have the potential to
remove, relocate, damage, or destroy the physical evidence of past cultural activities. If such
ground disturbance overlaps recorded site locations, then a direct impact may occur. Historical
buildings and structures may be directly impacted if the nearby setting and context is modified
substantially, even if the building or structure itself is not physically affected. Indirect impacts
may occur if activities occur near, but not directly on, known cultural resources.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources | Page 8-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
8.5.3 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Known Historical or Archaeological Resources
As described above, the historic-period resources identified within the project site were
formally evaluated for CRHR-eligibility and found to be ineligible under CEQA. Neither does the
project site qualify as unique archaeological resources. Therefore, the construction of the
project would not impact any known historical resources or unique archaeological resources as
defined by CEQA, and therefore there would be no impact.
Tribal Cultural Resources
The project site is not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code
section 5020.1(k). The City sent a letter to ten tribes under SB18 and one under AB52 and no
response for consultation were received. Therefore, the project site is not considered to be of
cultural value to a California Native American tribe as the construction of the project would not
impact any known tribal cultural resources as defined by CEQA, and there would be no impact.
8.5.4 Impacts of the Project
Impact CR-1: Cause a substantial adverse change to a previously unknown historic or
archeological resource (Class II).
Of the historic resources inventoried in the 1878 Historic Atlas, none of the historic sites are
located within the project site. In addition, no historic sites were identified in the NRHP and
CRHR databases. Nonetheless, there is always the possibility that previously unknown historic
resources exist below the ground surface within the project site. This is a potentially significant
impact.
Implementation of MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During Construction would
reduce impacts to a level of less-than-significant level.
Mitigation for Impact CR-1
MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During Construction
If buried historic or archaeological resources are discovered during construction, operations
shall stop within 50 feet of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to evaluate
the resource in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15064.5. The applicant shall include a
standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of
this requirement. If the resource does not qualify as a significant resource, then no further
protection or study is necessary. If the resource does qualify as a significant resource then the
impacts shall be avoided by project activities. If the resource cannot be avoided, adverse
impacts to the resource shall be addressed. The archaeologist shall make recommendations
concerning appropriate mitigation measures that shall be implemented to protect the
resources, including but not limited to excavation and evaluation of the finds in accordance
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-8-12 | Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Any previously undiscovered resources found
during construction within the project area should be recorded on appropriate Department of
Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria.
Impact CR-2: Directly impact a paleontological resource or unique geologic feature (Class II).
The project area is not located in an area that is considered likely to have paleontological
resources present. Fossils of plants, animals, or other organisms of paleontological significance
have not been discovered at the project site, nor has the site been identified to be within an
area where such discoveries are likely. The type of depositional environment at the project
area typically does not present favorable conditions for the discovery of paleontological
resources. In this context, the project would not result in impacts to paleontological resources
or unique geologic features. However, if significant paleontological resources are discovered,
implementation of MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource Monitoring would reduce impacts to a
less-than-significant level (Class II).
Mitigation for Impact CR-2
MM CR-2.1 Paleontological Resource Monitoring
In the event a fossil(s) is discovered during construction for the project, excavations within 50
feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a
qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards.
The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction
contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the paleontological resources are found
to be significant, they shall be avoided by project construction activities and recovered by a
qualified paleontologist. Upon completion of the recovery, a paleontological assessment shall
be conducted by a qualified paleontologist to determine if further monitoring for
paleontological resources is required. The assessment shall include (1) the results of any
geotechnical investigation prepared for the project area, (2) specific details of the construction
plans for the project area, (3) background research, and (4) limited subsurface investigation
within the project area.
If a high potential to encounter paleontological resources is confirmed, a monitoring plan of
further project subsurface construction shall be prepared in conjunction with this assessment.
After project subsurface construction has ended, a report documenting monitoring, methods,
findings, and further recommendations regarding paleontological resources shall be prepared
and submitted to the Director of Community Development.
Impact CR-3: Inadvertently disturb human remains (Class III).
No known human remains are located on the project site. Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the
Health and Safety Code, if human remains are discovered, there shall be no further excavation
or disturbance of the discovery site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie
City of Dublin At Dublin
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources | Page 8-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
adjacent human remains until the project applicant has complied with the provisions of State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). In general, these provisions require that the County
Coroner be notified immediately.
If the remains are found to be Native American, the County Coroner is required to notify the
Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The most likely descendant of the
deceased Native American is notified by the Commission and given the chance to make
recommendations for the remains. If the Commission is unable to identify the most likely
descendent, or if no recommendations are made within 24 hours, remains may be reinterred
with appropriate dignity elsewhere on the property in a location not subject to further
subsurface disturbance. If recommendations are made and not accepted, the Native American
Heritage Commission will mediate the problem.
With implementation of existing regulations, the impact would be less than significant (Class III)
and no mitigation is required.
8.5.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographic extent of cumulative impacts to cultural resources is dependent on the
resource under discussion. For example, a cumulative impact to a historic architectural district
would extend across the district, while the cumulative impact to individual archaeological or
paleontological resources may accumulate across the City of Dublin, depending on the nature
of the resources.
Impact CR-4: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on cultural resources (Class II).
The project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects,
could result in significant impacts to archaeological resources. However, projects located in an
archaeologically sensitive area is required to conduct archaeological monitoring during
construction, which would reduce cumulative impacts to a less-than-significant level. In
addition, MM CR-1.1 and CR-2.1 would apply to the project, ensuring that its contribution to
cumulative impacts would not be considerable.
The project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects,
could result in significant cumulative impacts to paleontological resources through accidentally
discovery or destruction. The project’s contribution to those cumulative effects would be
reduced through MM CR-1.1 and CR-2.1. Therefore, the project would not considerably
contribute to cumulative impacts to paleontological resources.
As stated above, project-level impacts to human remains would be less than significant.
Standard regulatory requirements and procedures are required of other present and
reasonably foreseeable future projects, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-8-14 | Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
8.5.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 8-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Cultural Resources summarizes the
environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the project
with regard to cultural resources.
Table 8-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Cultural Resources
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact CR-1: Cause a substantial
adverse change to a known
archeological resource (Class II).
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During
Construction
Impact CR-2: Directly impact a
paleontological resource or unique
geologic feature (Class II)
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource Monitoring
Impact CR-3: Inadvertently disturb
human remains (Class III)
Less than
significant
None required
Impact CR-4: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable effects on
cultural resources (Class II)
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During
Construction
MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource Monitoring
8.6 References
City of Dublin General Plan 1985 updated 2017. Website:
https://www.dublin.ca.gov/171/General-Plan
City of Dublin At Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
9 Geology & Soils
9.1 Introduction
This section describes effects on geology and soils that would be caused by implementation of
the project. Information used to prepare this section came from the following resources:
ENGEO, AT Dublin Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, 2018 (see Appendix D) 11
City of Dublin,Dublin General Plan 1985, as amended 2017
Online reference materials
9.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, no comments regarding geology and
soils were raised.
9.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on geology and soils conditions in the project area. The
current soils condition was used as the baseline against which to compare potential impacts of
the project.
9.3.1 Subsurface Conditions
Dublin is located in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province, which is characterized as near
parallel, northwest trending mountain ranges and valleys. As shown in Figure 9-1: Soils on the
Project Site, the online soil survey of the project site from the California Soil Resources Lab
(CSRL 2018) indicates that the project site contains four native soil mapping units: Clear Lake,
Sycamore, Linne and Sunnyvale.
Clear Lake Series. The Clear Lake series consists of very deep, poorly drained soils located on
plains and flat basins, which formed in alluvium derived from sandstone andshale. A
representative profile for the series consists of a very dark gray (N 3/0) clay layer, 39 inches
thick, with few faint redoximorphic concentrations in the upper 13 inches. A light olive brown
(2.5Y 5/4) clay layer with light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) masses of iron accumulations occurs
below this layer to a depth of approximately 60 inches. This soil is a very hard, firm, and very
sticky clay. This soil type is listed as hydric (USDA 2018b), but the two soil mapping units in this
series that are present within the Project Area are drained (Clear Lake clay, drained, 3 to 7
percent slopes, and Clear Lake clay, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 14), and any hydric
soil indicators observed within these mapping units may be relict.
11 This report was prepared on behalf of the project applicant and peer reviewed by Kimley-Horn & Associates.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-9-2 | Geology & Soils
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Sycamore Series. The Sycamore series consists of poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium
from sedimentary rock on floodplains. Typically, Sycamore soils contain grayish-brown (2.5Y
5/2), slightly acidic, slightly clay loam A horizons that are approximately 15 inches thick; grayish
brown and light brownish-gray (2.5Y 4/4), distinctly mottled, mildly to moderately alkaline, silt
loam B horizons that extend to a depth of 27 inches; and stratified light brownish-gray and pale
brown (10YR 6/3) mottled loam, fine sandy loam and loamy fine sand calcareous C horizons.
This soil type is listed as hydric (USDA 2018b).
Linne Series. The Linne series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils on hills with
slopes of 5 to 75 percent. They formed in material weathered from fairly soft shale and
sandstone and have medium to very rapid runoff and moderately slow permeability. In a
typical profile, the surface layer is composed of black (10YR 2/1), moderately alkaline clay loam
that extends nine inches in depth. This soil is underlain by black to very dark gray (10YR 3/1),
moderately alkaline clay loam that extends up to 29 inches in depth. From 29 to 32 inches, the
soil is composed of gray and light brownish gray (10YR 5/1 and 6/2), moderately alkaline sandy
clay loam. From 32 to 36 inches, the soil is composed of very pale brown and white (10YR 7/2
and 8/2) moderately alkaline fine sandy loam. Lastly, from 36 to 51 inches, the soil is
comprised of light gray and pale yellow (2.5Y 7/2 and 8/4) moderately alkaline mudstone. This
soil type is listed as hydric.
Sunnyvale Series.The Sunnyvale series consists of poorly drained, calcareous soils on nearly
level valley floors north of Pleasanton. The surface soil is gray, granular, slightly calcareous,
heavy clay loam. Sunnyvale soils are often used for irrigated row crops, for pasture, and for
dry-farmed grain. A representative profile for the Sunnyvale series consists of an Ap horizon
from 0 to 6 inches with dark gray to very dark grey (N4/ - N3/) silty clay. Similar colors are seen
in an Alc2 horizon of silty clay from 6 to 14 inches in depth. A Clca horizon extends from 14 to
34 inches in depth, with light grey to dark grey (N7/ - N3/) silty clay. This soil type is listed as
hydric.
9.3.2 Seismicity
The San Francisco Bay Area contains numerous active earthquake faults. The active faults
mapped within 20 miles of the site are listed in Table 9-1: Regional Faults and Seismicity. An
active fault is defined by the State Mining and Geology Board as one that has had surface
displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years) (Bryant and Hart, 2007).
Figure 9-2: Regional Fault Zones shows the approximate locations of these faults and significant
historic earthquakes recorded within the San Francisco Bay Region.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 9-1: Regional Faults and Seismicity
Fault Segment
Distance from
Project Site
(miles)
Direction from Project
Site (miles)
Maximum
Characteristic
Magnitude
Mount Diablo Thrust 2.8 North 6.7
Calaveras 3.6 West 7.0
Greenville 8.2 Northeast 7.0
Hayward-Rodgers 10.4 West 7.3
Green Valley 14.8 Northwest 6.8
Great Valley 19.0 East 6.9
Source: ENGEO, 2018
The bedrock formations in the area south of Mount Diablo and north of the Livermore Valley
have been folded and cut by thrust faults that typically dip toward the north, according to
geologic mapping by Crane (1995) and Graymer, et al. (1996). Geologic studies by Unruh and
Sawyer (1997) suggest that the core of Mount Diablo may be underlain at depth (several
thousand feet) by an active “blind” thrust fault system (a “blind” thrust fault does not extend to
the surface).
According to Unruh and Sawyer (1997), movement on the blind thrust fault system is
responsible for the uplift of Mount Diablo and the folding of the rocks in the site vicinity. Unruh
and Sawyer believe that surface effects of the deeply buried blind thrust fault system are
typically relatively slow, diffuse, and distributed vertical movements associated with the growth
of folds. According to their cross sections, the leading edge of the buried Mount Diablo thrust
fault may exist at depths of three to five miles somewhere near the Tassajara Anticline, located
approximately four miles to the north of the site.
Seismic Hazards
Fault Rupture
Fault rupture is a seismic hazard that affects structures sited above an active fault. The hazard
from fault rupture is the movement of the ground surface along a fault during an earthquake.
Typically, this movement takes place during the short time of an earthquake, but it also can
occur slowly over many years in a process known as creep. Most structures and underground
utilities cannot accommodate the surface displacements of several inches to several feet
commonly associated with fault rupture or creep.
Ground Shaking
The severity of ground shaking depends on several variables such as earthquake magnitude,
epicenter distance, local geology, thickness, seismic wave-propagation properties of
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-9-4 | Geology & Soils
Draft EIR
10/23/18
unconsolidated materials, groundwater conditions, and topographic setting. Ground shaking
hazards are most pronounced in areas near faults or with unconsolidated alluvium.
Based on observations of damage from recent earthquakes in California (e.g., San Fernando
1971, Whittier-Narrows 1987, Landers 1992, Northridge 1994), ground shaking is responsible
for 70 to 100 percent of all earthquake damage. The most common type of damage from
ground shaking is structural damage to buildings, which can range from cosmetic stucco cracks
to total collapse. The overall level of structural damage from a nearby large earthquake would
likely be moderate to heavy, depending on the characteristics of the earthquake, the type of
ground, and the condition of the building. Besides damage to buildings, strong ground shaking
can cause severe damage from falling objects or broken utility lines. Fire and explosions are
also hazards associated with strong ground shaking.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction tends to occur in loose, saturated fine-grained sands, course silts, or clays with low
plasticity. The liquefaction process typically occurs at depths less than 50 feet below the
ground surface, although liquefaction can occur at deeper intervals, given the right conditions.
The most susceptible zone occurs at depths shallower than 30 feet below the ground surface.
Liquefaction can lead to several types of ground failure, depending on slope conditions and the
geological and hydrological settings, of which the four most common types of ground failure
are: 1) lateral spreads, 2) flow failures, 3) ground oscillation, and 4) loss of bearing strength.
A liquefaction potential analysis was conducted by ENGEO for the project site indicating that
the interbedded layers of clay sand and sandy clay will settle approximately three inches due to
cyclic softening and liquefaction.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a failure within a nearly horizontal soil zone that causes the overlying soil
mass to move toward a free face or down a gentle slope. Generally, the effects of lateral
spreading are most significant at a free face or the crest of a slope and diminish with distance
from the slope. Based on the lack of a laterally continuous layer of potentially liquefiable soil at
the site and general flatness of the project site, the risk of lateral spreading is low.
Ground Lurching
Ground lurching is a result of the rolling motion imparted to the ground surface during energy
released by an earthquake. Such rolling motion can cause ground cracks to form in weaker
soils. The potential for the formation of these cracks is considered greater at contacts between
deep alluvium and bedrock. Such an occurrence is possible at the project site as in other
locations in the Bay Area region, but based on the site location, the offset is expected to be
minor.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Flooding
Flooding is not expected at the project site based on site elevation and distance from water
sources.
Expansive Soils
Samples of existing near-surface soil were tested for plasticity index (PI) to estimate expansive
potential. The existing near-surface soil samples tested yielded PIs ranging from 11 to 55,
which indicate moderately high expansion potential.
Expansive soil can change in volume with changes in moisture. They can shrink or swell and
cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow
foundations. Building damage due to volume changes associated with expansive soil can be
reduced by: (1) using a rigid mat foundation that is designed to resist the settlement and heave
of expansive soil, (2) deepening the foundations to below the zone of moisture fluctuation, i.e.
by using deep footings or drilled piers, and/or (3) using footings at normal shallow depths, but
bottomed on a layer of select fill having a low expansion potential.
9.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
9.4.1 Federal
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program was established by the U.S. Congress
when it passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, Public Law 95–124. In
establishing the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, Congress recognized that
earthquake-related losses could be reduced through improved design and construction
methods and practices, land use controls and redevelopment, prediction techniques and early
warning systems, coordinated emergency preparedness plans, and public education and
involvement programs. The four basic goals remain unchanged:
1. Develop effective practices and policies for earthquake loss reduction and accelerate
their implementation.
2. Improve techniques for reducing earthquake vulnerabilities of facilities and systems.
3. Improve earthquake hazards identification and risk assessment methods, and their use.
4. Improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects.
Several key federal agencies contribute to earthquake mitigation efforts. There are four
primary National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program agencies:
1. National Institute of Standards and Technology of the Department of Commerce
2. National Science Foundation
3. United States Geological Survey (USGS) of the Department of the Interior
4. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland
Security
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-9-6 | Geology & Soils
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Implementation of National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program priorities is accomplished
primarily through original research, publications, and recommendations to assist and guide
state, regional, and local agencies in the development of plans and policies to promote safety
and emergency planning.
International Building Code
Published by the International Code Council, the scope of this code covers major aspects of
construction and design of structures and buildings, except for 3-story one- and two-family
dwellings and town homes. The 2012 International Building Code replaced the 1997 Uniform
Building Code and contains provisions for structural engineering design. Published by the
International Conference of Building Officials, the 2012 International Building Code (IBC)
addresses the design and installation of structures and building systems through requirements
that emphasize performance. The IBC includes codes governing structural as well as fire- and
life-safety provisions covering seismic, wind, accessibility, egress, occupancy, and roofs.
9.4.2 State
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC), provides building codes and standards for design and
construction of structures in California.
Chapter 16 of the CBC contains definitions of seismic sources and the procedure used to
calculate seismic forces on structures. Chapter 33 of the CBC contains requirements relevant to
the construction of underground transmission lines. Building permits for all projects are
reviewed to ensure compliance with the CBC.
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Public Resources Code (PRC), Section 2621-2630
(formerly the Special Studies Zoning Act), regulates development and construction of buildings
intended for human occupancy to avoid the hazard of surface fault rupture. This Act
categorizes faults as active, potentially active, and inactive. Historic and Holocene age faults
are considered active, Late Quaternary and Quaternary age faults are considered potentially
active, and pre-Quaternary age faults are considered inactive. These classifications are
qualified by the conditions that a fault must be shown to be “sufficiently active” and “well
defined” by detailed site-specific geologic explorations to determine whether building setbacks
should be established.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, PRC, Sections 2690–2699, of 1990 directs the California
Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology [now called California Geological
Survey (CGS)] to delineate Seismic Hazard Zones. The purpose of the act is to reduce the threat
to public health and safety and to minimize the loss of life and property by identifying and
mitigating seismic hazards.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Cities, counties, and State agencies are directed to use seismic hazard zone maps developed by
CGS in their land-use planning and permitting processes. The act requires that site-specific
geotechnical investigations be performed prior to permitting most urban development projects
within seismic hazard zones.
9.4.3 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin’s General Plan contains the following policy as it relates to geology and soils:
Guiding Policy 7.3.1.A.1: Maintain natural hydrologic systems.
Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.1: Enforce the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit for
stormwater issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board or any
subsequent permit as well as Chapter 7 (Public Works) and Chapter 9 (Subdivisions) of the
Dublin Municipal Code for maintenance of water quality and protection of stream courses.
Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.2: Review development proposals to insure site design that
minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff.
Guiding Policy 8.2.1.A.1: Geologic hazards shall be mitigated or development shall be located
away from geologic hazards to preserve life, protect property, and reasonably limit the financial
risks to the City of Dublin and other public agencies that would result from damage to poorly
located public facilities.
Implementing Policy 8.2.1.B.1: Structural and Grading Requirements
All structures shall be designed to the standards delineated in the Dublin Building
Code and Dublin’s Grading Ordinance. A “design earthquake” shall be established by
an engineering geologist for each structure for which ground shaking is a significant
design factor.
Structures intended for human occupancy shall be at least 50 feet from any active
fault trace; freestanding garages and storage structures may be as close as 25 feet.
These distances may be reduced based on adequate exploration to accurately locate
the fault trace.
Generally, facilities should not be built astride potential rupture zones, although
certain low-risk facilities may be considered. Critical facilities that must cross a fault,
such as oil, gas, and water lines, shall be designed to accommodate the maximum
expected offset from fault rupture. Site specific evaluations shall determine the
maximum credible offset.
A preliminary geologic hazards report must be prepared for all subdivisions. Any
other facility that could create a geologic hazard, such as a road or a building on hillside
terrain, must also have such a study. Each of the hazards described in the Seismic Safety
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-9-8 | Geology & Soils
Draft EIR
10/23/18
and Safety Element must be evaluated. This hazard analysis shall be prepared by a
registered engineering geologist.
Detailed geologic studies will be required at the tentative subdivision map stage for
all projects within the Landslide Hazard Area Boundary on the Geologic Hazards and
Constraints map, and for other projects if the preliminary investigation indicates a potential
geologic hazard. Proposals for mitigation should be included at this stage. The detailed
analysis for projects in the Landslide Hazard Area Boundary must consider:
o Cumulative effect of new development on a partially developed slide;
o Effects of septic leach systems, garden watering, and altered drainage patterns;
o Impact of a maximum credible earthquake;
o Where applicable, passage of the Calaveras Fault through or under landslide
deposits;
o Debris flow and other downslope hazards (especially common east of Dublin). Care
must be taken not to locate structures in the path of potential debris flows.
o Where published maps identify or show “ancient” or Quaternary slides on sites of
proposed development, their stability must be analyzed, and effects of the proposed
development on the area's stability must be evaluated by a soils engineer.
o If the preliminary report indicates liquefaction potential, an engineering analysis and
design, if necessary, to mitigate liquefaction hazards, shall be required for all
structures planned for human occupancy.
o Evaluation for shrink-swell potential shall be included with all soils reports and
design recommendations formulated where the potential is present. These analyses
and recommendations shall include public streets and utilities, to reduce future
public repair costs.
o A surface fault rupture evaluation, as outlined by the State of California for Special
Studies Zones (Alquist-Priolo Act), shall be required for all development within the
Revised Special Studies Zones as shown on the Geologic Hazards and Constraints
map.
o The fault rupture evaluation should be conducted after building sites are specifically
defined. Sites situated outside of this zone but within the Preliminary Zones
(Slossen, 1973) shall be evaluated if proposed for multifamily dwellings or for public
or recreational facilities.
o Any changes in grading or building design that would be significantly affected by
geologic hazards or soils conditions, or in turn would significantly alter geologic or
soils conditions, shall be accompanied by a re-analysis of those conditions. In
addition, any conditions discovered during excavation or grading that significantly
depart from the previously described geologic and soils setting shall be evaluated.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Implementing Policy 8.2.1.B.3J: Post-earthquake or damage reconstruction of existing
structures shall be permitted only if mitigating factors are incorporated.
Implementing Policy 8.2.1.B.4: Data Review and Collection
All required reports and data shall be reviewed by the Alameda County Geologist or
a consulting engineering geologist. This individual shall participate in the review
process from the earliest proposal stage to completion of the project.
A file of all geologic and soils reports and grading plans shall be maintained as
reference material for future planning and design on each site as well as on adjacent
sites.
City and developer shall endeavor to fully disclose hazards to present and future
occupants and property owners.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The City of Dublin’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains the following policy as it relates to
geology and soils:
Policy 6-43: New development shall be designed to provide effective control of soil erosion as a
result of construction activities and the alteration of site drainage characteristics.
Program 6H: The City should enact and enforce an erosion and sedimentation control ordinance
establishing performance standards to ensure maintenance of water quality and protection of
stream channels. The ordinance should regulate grading and development activities adjacent
to streams and wetland areas and require revegetation of all ground disturbances immediately
after construction to reduce erosion potential. Until such an ordinance is in place, the City shall
require project applicants to provide a detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan as part
of the project submittal.
Dublin Municipal Code
Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 7.32 adopts the 2016 CBC; as such, all new construction within
the city limits is required to adhere to its seismic safety standards. The City of Dublin
Community Development Department, Building and Safety Division, is responsible for the
administration and enforcement of the Building Code.
9.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
9.5.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for geology & soils were derived from the Environmental
Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been amended or
supplemented, as appropriate, to address lead agency requirements and the full range of
impacts related to the project.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-9-10 | Geology & Soils
Draft EIR
10/23/18
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it
would meet one of the following criteria:
Result in triggering or acceleration of geologic processes, such as landslides,
substantial soil erosion, or loss of topsoil during construction.
Expose people or structures to potential risk of loss or injury where there is high
potential for seismically induced ground shaking, landslides, liquefaction,
settlement, lateral spreading, and/or surface cracking.
Expose people or structures to potential risk of loss or injury where there is high
potential for earthquake-related ground rupture near major fault crossings.
Expose people or structures to potential risk of loss or injury where corrosive,
expansive or other unsuitable soils are present.
Result in soils that are unable to support an on-site wastewater disposal system
(septic).
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
9.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Exposure to Earthquake-Related Ground Rupture
The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map as mapped
by the State Geologist. The closest known fault to the project site is the Mount Diablo Thrust
fault, located approximately 2.8 miles north of the project site. There are no known or
potentially active faults located within or adjacent to the project site. Based on the distance of
the project site from the Mount Diablo Thrust fault, the project would not expose people or
structures to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving
fault rupture, and therefore there would be no impact.
Landslide Susceptibility
The project site is relatively flat and is not located in an area that would be affected by a
landslide. Therefore, there would be no impact.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
On-site Wastewater Disposal System
The project would involve disposal of wastewater via a sanitary sewer, and there would be no
septic systems under the project. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Extraction of Mineral Resources
There are no mines or quarries within 1,000 feet of the project site; nor is the project site
within a known mapped oil or gas field, and therefore there would be no impact.
9.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact GEO-1: Expose people or structures to potential risk of loss or injury associated with
seismic hazards (Class II).
Ground Shaking
An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the San Francisco Bay Region
could cause considerable ground shaking at the site, similar to that which has occurred in the
past. To mitigate the shaking effects, all structures will be required to be designed using sound
engineering judgment and the current California Building Code (CBC) requirements, as a
minimum.
As part of the project applicant’s building permit application, they would be required to submit
a design-level geotechnical report. This report would provide recommendations on the
appropriate level of soil engineering and building design necessary to minimize ground-shaking
hazards. Accordingly, MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Report
Recommendations is proposed, requiring the applicant to submit a design-level geotechnical
report to the City of Dublin for review and approval. The implementation of this mitigation
measure would ensure that the project is not exposed to strong ground shaking hazards and
impacts would be less than significant.
Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction, Lateral Spreading, and Ground Lurching
The Preliminary Geotechnical Report indicated that based on the lack of a laterally continuous
layer of potentially liquefiable soil and the general flatness of the project site, the risk of lateral
spreading is low. In addition, based on the site location, the occurrence of ground lurching is
expected to be minor.
Liquefaction tends to occur in loose, saturated fine-grained sands, course silts, or clays with low
plasticity. The liquefaction potential analysis indicated that interbedded layers of clay sand and
sandy clay will settle approximately three inches due to cyclic softening and liquefaction. Based
on the high end of the calculated total liquefaction settlements, site improvements on the
project site should be designed to withstand a differential settlement of 1½ inches over a 30-
foot distance and perform as intended. To mitigate the differential settlement for structures,
the Preliminary Geotechnical Report recommends post-tensioned mat foundations for the
residential structures and commercial structures.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-9-12 | Geology & Soils
Draft EIR
10/23/18
With incorporation of MM GEO-1.1 Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Report
Recommendations to implement geotechnical report recommendations into the final project
design and construction documents for the project, and compliance with the CBC and General
Plan policies, impacts would be less than significant (Class II).
Mitigation for Impact GEO-1
MM GEO-1.1 Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Recommendations
The project applicant shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design-
level geotechnical investigation that incorporates the recommendations in the Preliminary
Geotechnical Exploration. The design-level geotechnical report shall address, but not be limited
to, site preparation and grading, building foundations, and CBC seismic design parameters. A
design-level geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted in conjunction with Building
Permit application(s) and reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin. Recommendations
from the design-level geotechnical report shall be incorporated into the final project design and
construction documents for each phase of the project.
Impact GEO-2: Trigger or accelerate substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil (Class II).
The project would involve grading, building construction, and paving activities that could result
in erosion and sedimentation. Based on site elevation and distance from water sources,
flooding is not expected to occur at the project site.
The topsoil is expected to have a low to moderate permeability level for stormwater infiltration
in grassy swales or permeable pavers, unless subdrains are installed. Thus, limited stormwater
infiltration is assumed to occur on the project site. However, the Preliminary Geotechnical
Exploration recommends a Civil Engineer review pertinent information relating to possible
flood levels for the project site based on final pad elevations and provide appropriate design
measures for development of the project, if recommended.
Projects involving construction on sites that are one acre or more are required to prepare and
implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies how the discharger
will protect water quality during construction activities. These measures include, but are not
limited to: design and construction of cut and fill slopes in a manner that will minimize erosion,
protection of exposed slope areas, control of surface water flows over exposed soils, use of
wetting or sealing agents or sedimentation ponds, limiting soil excavation in high winds,
construction of beams and runoff diversion ditches, and use of sediment traps, such as hay
bales. (Also see Chapter 12: Hydrology & Water Quality.)
Because the near-surface soil is moderately to highly expansive, the Preliminary Geotechnical
Exploration recommends restricting the amount of surface water infiltration near structures,
pavements, flatwork, and slabs-on-grade. This may be accomplished by:
City of Dublin At Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Selecting landscaping that requires little or no watering, especially within three feet
of structures, slabs-on-grade, or pavements.
Using low precipitation sprinkler heads.
Regulating the amount of water distributed to lawn or planter areas by installing
timers on the sprinkler system.
Providing surface grades to drain rainfall or landscape watering to appropriate
collection systems and away from structures, slabs-on-grade, or pavements.
Preventing water from draining toward or ponding near building foundations, slabs-
on-grade, or pavements.
Avoiding open planting areas within three feet of the building perimeter.
With incorporation of MM GEO-1.1 to implement the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration
recommendations into the final project design and construction documents for the project, and
compliance with the CBC and General Plan policies, impacts would be less than significant (Class
II).
Impact GEO-3: Expose people or structures to substantial safety risks as a result of liquefaction
or expansive soils (Class II).
Ground Failure Including Liquefaction
Laboratory samples of soils in the project area exhibit moderate to high shrink/swell potential
with variations in moisture content. The Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration includes
recommendations including the use of post-tensioned mat foundations, keeping exposed soils
moist prior to placement of concrete for foundation construction, and recommendations for
compaction of clay soil to reduce the swell potential of the clay.
With incorporation of MM GEO-1.1 to implement these Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration
recommendations into the final project design for the project, and compliance with General
Plan policies, expansive soil conditions would be abated, and impacts would be less than
significant (Class II).
9.5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Because geologic impacts are site-specific and highly dependent upon the structural
characteristics of individual projects, cumulative geologic hazards and soils impacts are
generally confined to the project site and immediate vicinity.
Impact GEO-4: Contribute to cumulatively considerable effects on geology and soils (Class II).
Most geologic-related impacts from development are site-specific and, if properly designed,
would not result in worsening of the environmental or public health and safety. Cumulative
development would be subject to site-specific geologic and/or soils constraints; pursuant to the
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-9-14 | Geology & Soils
Draft EIR
10/23/18
City of Dublin requirements, a registered geotechnical engineer would investigate site-specific
conditions and minimize exposure to hazards or constraints with implementation of their
recommendations.
Cumulative development would also involve the exposure of an increased number of people
and/or structures to risk of earthquakes and their associated geologic hazards. New
construction would be required to comply with the most current CA Building Code (CBC), which
establishes building standards to minimize risk based on the geologic and seismic conditions of
the region in which a project is located.
With administration of these requirements, the incorporation of MM GEO-1.1 to implement
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration recommendations, and adherence to the CBC, cumulative
geologic and soils impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
9.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 9-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Geology & Soils summarizes the
environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the project
with regard to geology & soils.
Table 9-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Geology & Soils
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact GEO-1: Expose people or
structures to potential risk of loss or
injury associated with seismic
hazards (Class II).
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical
Exploration Recommendations
Impact GEO-2: Trigger or accelerate
substantial soil erosion or loss of
topsoil (Class II).
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical
Exploration Recommendations
Impact GEO-3: Expose people or
structures to substantial safety risks
as a result of liquefaction (Class II).
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical
Exploration Recommendations
Impact GEO-4: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable effects on
geology and soils (Class II).
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical
Exploration Recommendations
City of Dublin At Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
9.6 References
CGS (California Geological Survey). 2018. Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, CGS Special
Publication #42. Available at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sp/Sp42.pdf.
Accessed March 13, 2018.
City of Dublin. 2017. City of Dublin General Plan.
ENGEO Inc. 2018. At Dublin Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration.
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018a. WETS
Station Livermore NCDC #4997, 1971-2000 analysis. http://agacis.rcc-
acis.org/06111/wets/results. Most recently accessed: January 2018.
USDA United States Department of Agriculture. 2018b. National List of Hydric Soils. Natural
Resources Conservation Service. Available online at:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/
USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2018. Earthquake Hazards Program, National Seismic
Hazard Map website. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/. Accessed March 13, 2018.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
10.1 Introduction
This section describes effects on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions that would be
caused by implementation of the project. Information used to prepare this section came from
the following resources:
Project application and related materials
Air quality data provided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Clean Air Plan 2017
City of Dublin, General Plan, 1985 amended 2017
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update, 2013
The study area for climate change and the analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is broad
because climate change is influenced by world-wide emissions and their global effects.
However, the study area is also limited by the CEQA Guidelines [Section 15064(d)], which
directs lead agencies to consider an “indirect physical change” only if that change is a
reasonably foreseeable impact that may be caused by the project. This analysis limits
discussion to those physical changes to the environment that are not speculative and are
reasonably foreseeable.
10.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, no comments regarding greenhouse
gas emissions were raised.
10.3 Environmental Setting
10.3.1 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere
and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate—such as wind patterns,
precipitation, and storms—over an extended period of time. Gases that absorb and re-emit
infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHGs). GHGs are present in
the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary
reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as the principal
contributors to human-induced climate change include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxides (N2O), fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) (CEQA Guidelines § 15364.5). Water
vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its
atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-2 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
evaporation. Table 10-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases, described the primary GHGs
attributed to global climate change, including their physical properties.
GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4
are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-
products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results from off-gassing associated with
agricultural practices and landfills. GHGs have the potential to adversely affect the
environment because such emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to climate change.
Climate change is by definition a cumulative impact because it occurs worldwide. Although
emissions of one single project do not cause climate change, GHG emissions from multiple
projects (past, present and future) throughout the world could result in a cumulative impact
with respect to climate change.
Man-made GHGs, many of which have greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include
fluorinated gases and SF6 (California Environmental Protection Agency [CalEPA], 2006).
Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWPs). The GWP of a GHG is
the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale
(generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference
gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emissions,
referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e), and is the amount of a GHG emitted
multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane CH4
has a GWP of 28, meaning its global warming effect is 28 times greater than carbon dioxide on
a molecule per molecule basis (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[IPCC], 2014).
The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature. Without the
natural heat trapping effect of GHGs, Earth’s surface would be about 34° C cooler (CalEPA,
2006). However, it is believed that emissions from human activities, particularly the
consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation, have elevated the
concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring
concentrations.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 10-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas that is emitted naturally and through human
activities. Natural sources include decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration
of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic
outgassing. Anthropogenic sources are from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood.
The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as
coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, and industrial facilities. The
atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is variable because it is readily exchanged in the
atmosphere. CO2 is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (Global
Warming Potential of 1) for determining Global Warming Potentials for other GHGs.
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
N2O is largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. Primary
human-related sources of N2O include agricultural soil management, sewage
treatment, combustion of fossil fuels, and adipic and nitric acid production. N2O is
produced from biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in
wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years.
The Global Warming Potential of N2O is 298.
Methane (CH4)
Methane, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from off-gassing (the release of
chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure
conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices and landfills.
Methane is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume.
Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry, rice
cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. Natural sources of CH4
include wetlands, gas hydrates, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland
soils, and wildfires. The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is about 12 years and the Global
Warming Potential is 25.
Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs)
HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both stationary refrigeration and mobile
air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is increasing, as the
continued phase out of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and HCFCs gains momentum.
The 100-year Global Warming Potential of HFCs range from 124 for HFC-152 to
14,800 for HFC-23.
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
PFCs have stable molecular structures and only break down by ultraviolet rays about
60 kilometers above Earth’s surface. Because of this, they have long lifetimes,
between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum
production and semiconductor manufacturing. Global Warming Potentials range
from 6,500 to 9,200.
Chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs)
CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or
ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. They are nontoxic, nonflammable,
insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s
surface). CFCs were synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants,
and cleaning solvents. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer prohibited their production in 1987. Global Warming Potentials for CFCs range
from 3,800 to 14,400.
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)
SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has a
lifetime of 3,200 years. This gas is manmade and used for insulation in electric
power transmission equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor
manufacturing, and as a tracer gas. The Global Warming Potential of SF6 is 23,900.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-4 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Greenhouse Gas Description
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFCs)
HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to CFCs. The main uses
of HCFCs are for refrigerant products and air conditioning systems. As part of the
Montreal Protocol, HCFCs are subject to a consumption cap and gradual phase out.
The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent reduction to the cap by
2030. The 100-year Global Warming Potentials of HCFCs range from 90 for HCFC-123
to 1,800 for HCFC-142b.
Nitrogen trifluoride
Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) was added to Health and Safety Code section 38505(g)(7)
as a GHG of concern. This gas is used in electronics manufacture for semiconductors
and liquid crystal displays. It has a high global warming potential of 17,200.
Source: Compiled from U.S. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases, April 11, 2018
(https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases); U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990-2016, 2018; IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, 2007; National Research Council, Advancing the
Science of Climate Change, 2010; U.S. EPA, Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission from Natural Sources, April 2010;
10.3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
Total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,511 million metric tons (MMT) CO2e in 2016 (United States
Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], April 2018). Total U.S. emissions have increased
by 2.4 percent from 1990 to 2016 but decreased by 12 percent below 2005 levels in 2016, after
accounting for sequestration from the land sector (U.S. EPA, 2018). In 2016, fossil fuel
combustion accounted for 93.5 percent of CO2 emissions (U.S. EPA, April 2018). Important
drivers influencing emissions levels include: (1) changes in demand for energy, and (2) a general
decline in the carbon intensity of fuels combusted for energy in recent years by non-transport
sectors of the economy.
Based upon the California Air Resources Board (CARB) California Greenhouse Gas Inventory-
2017 Edition (CARB, June 2017), California produced 440.4 MMT CO2e in 2015. The major
source of GHGs in California is transportation, contributing 39 percent of the state’s total GHG
emissions. Industrial activity is the second largest source, contributing 23 percent of the state’s
GHG emissions (CARB, June 2017). California’s relatively high emissions compared to other
states are due in part to its large size and large population compared to other states. CARB has
projected statewide unregulated GHG emissions for the year 2020 will be 507 MMT CO2e
(CARB, January 2013). These projections represent the emissions that would be expected to
occur in the absence of any GHG reduction actions.
The City of Dublin has roughly 62 percent of total CO2e coming from transportation, 18 percent
from commercial and industrial uses, roughly 17 percent from residential, and the remaining
2.5 percent from solid waste and water & wastewater (City of Dublin, 2013); refer to Table 10-
2: City of Dublin CAP Reduction Goal Analysis. Additionally, an updated inventory was
conducted in 2015 and found at that 57 percent total CO2e is from transportation, 18 percent is
from commercial and industrial uses, 19 percent is from residential, and 6 percent is from solid
waste and water (wastewater was not included because it is not treated within the City’s
boundaries).
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 10-2: City of Dublin CAP Reduction Goal Analysis
Emissions Summary Year Emissions (MTCO2e)
GHG Emissions Inventory 2010 328,155
GHG BAU Emissions Forecast 2020 374,790
Reductions from State GHG reduction measures 2020 -63,460
Forecast after State Reductions 2020 311,330
Reductions from Local GHG reduction measures 2020 -38,920
Forecast after State and Local Reductions 2020 272,410
Compared to 2010 Baseline -17 %
Item Year Persons
Service Population (SP) 2010 65,040
Service Population (SP) 2020 85, 200
Item Year MTCO2e/ SP
GHG Efficiency Metric 2010 5.04
GHG Efficiency BAU Metric 2020 4.40
GHG Efficiency Goal Metric 2020 3.20
Source: City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update, 2013. Table 13- Dublin Community-Wide Emissions Analysis.
10.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
10.4.1 Federal
To date, no national standards have been established for nationwide GHG reduction targets,
nor have any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and
GHG emissions reduction at the project level. Various efforts have been promulgated at the
federal level to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency to address climate change and its
associated effects.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 among other key measures, requires the following, which would aid in the reduction of
national GHG emissions:
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-6 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable
Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in
2022.
Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by
model year 2020, and direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) to establish a fuel economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks
and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks.
Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling
products and procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation,
energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler
efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding. The U.S. EPA authority to
regulate GHG emissions stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. U. S.
EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the
existing Clean Air Act and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. Responding to the Court’s ruling, the U.S. EPA finalized an
endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence it found that six GHGs
(carbon dioxide [CO2], methane [CH4], nitrous oxide [N2O], hydrofluorocarbons [HFCs],
perfluorocarbons [PFCs], and sulfur hexafluoride [SF6]) constitute a threat to public health and
welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the existing Act and the U.S. EPA’s
assessment of the scientific evidence that form the basis for the EPA’s regulatory actions.
Federal Vehicle Standards. In response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling discussed above, the
George W. Bush Administration issued Executive Order 13432 in 2007 directing the U.S. EPA,
the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy to establish regulations that
reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles, non-road vehicles, and non-road engines by 2008.
In 2009, the NHTSA issued a final rule regulating fuel efficiency and GHG emissions from cars
and light-duty trucks for model year 2011, and in 2010, the EPA and NHTSA issued a final rule
regulating cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012–2016.
In 2010, President Barack Obama issued a memorandum directing the Department of
Transportation, Department of Energy, U.S. EPA, and NHTSA to establish additional standards
regarding fuel efficiency and GHG reduction, clean fuels, and advanced vehicle infrastructure.
In response to this directive, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA proposed stringent, coordinated federal
GHG and fuel economy standards for model years 2017–2025 light-duty vehicles. The proposed
standards projected to achieve 163 grams per mile of CO2 in model year 2025, on an average
industry fleet-wide basis, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if this level were achieved
solely through fuel efficiency. The final rule was adopted in 2012 for model years 2017–2021,
and NHTSA intends to set standards for model years 2022–2025 in a future rulemaking. On
January 12, 2017, the U.S. EPA finalized its decision to maintain the current GHG emissions
standards for model years 2022–2025 cars and light trucks.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
In addition to the regulations applicable to cars and light-duty trucks described above, in 2011,
the U.S. EPA and NHTSA announced fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-
duty trucks for model years 2014–2018. The standards for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption
are tailored to three main vehicle categories: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks
and vans, and vocational vehicles. According to the U.S. EPA, this regulatory program will
reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption for the affected vehicles by 6 to 23 percent over
the 2010 baselines.
In August 2016, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two program
related to the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The phase
two program will apply to vehicles with model year 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers, and
model years 2021 through 2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types and
sizes of buses and work trucks. The final standards are expected to lower CO2 emissions by
approximately 1.1 billion metric tons and reduce oil consumption by up to 2 billion barrels over
the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program. It should be noted that the U.S. EPA has
received petitions for reconsideration of these standards.
Clean Power Plan and New Source Performance Standards for Electric Generating Units. On
October 23, 2015, the U.S. EPA published a final rule (effective December 22, 2015)
establishing the carbon pollution emission guidelines for existing stationary sources: electric
utility generating units (80 FR 64510–64660), also known as the Clean Power Plan. These
guidelines prescribe how states must develop plans to reduce GHG emissions from existing
fossil-fuel-fired electric generating units. The guidelines establish CO2 emission performance
rates representing the best system of emission reduction for two subcategories of existing
fossil-fuel-fired electric generating units: (1) fossil-fuel-fired electric utility steam-generating
units and (2) stationary combustion turbines. Concurrently, the U.S. EPA published a final rule
(effective October 23, 2015) establishing standards of performance for GHG emissions from
new, modified, and reconstructed stationary sources: electric utility generating units (80 FR
64661–65120). The rule prescribes CO2 emission standards for newly constructed, modified,
and reconstructed affected fossil-fuel-fired electric utility generating units. The U.S. Supreme
Court stayed implementation of the Clean Power Plan pending resolution of several lawsuits.
Additionally, in March 2017, President Trump directed the U.S. EPA Administrator to review
the Clean Power Plan to determine whether it is consistent with current executive policies
concerning GHG emissions, climate change, and energy.
Presidential Executive Order 13693. Presidential Executive Order 13693, Planning for Federal
Sustainability in the Next Decade, signed in 2015, seeks to maintain federal leadership in
sustainability and greenhouse gas emission reductions. Its goal is to reduce agency Scope 1 and
2 GHG emissions by at least 40 percent by 2025, foster innovation, reduce spending, and
strengthen communities through increased efficiency and improved environmental
performance. Sustainability goals are set for building efficiency and management, energy
portfolio, water use efficiency, fleet efficiency, sustainable acquisition and supply chain
greenhouse gas management, pollution prevention, and electronic stewardship.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Presidential Executive Order 13783. Presidential Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy
Independence and Economic Growth (March 28, 2017), orders all federal agencies to apply
cost-benefit analyses to regulations of GHG emissions and evaluations of the social cost of
carbon, nitrous oxide, and methane.
10.4.2 State
CARB is responsible for the coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control
programs in California. Various statewide and local initiatives to reduce California’s
contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness about climate change and its potential
for severe long-term adverse environmental, social, and economic effects.
Assembly Bill 1493
Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (2002), referred to as “Pavley,” requires CARB to develop and adopt
regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions
from motor vehicles.” On June 30, 2009, U.S. EPA granted the waiver of Clean Air Act
preemption to California for its greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles
beginning with the 2009 model year. Pavley I took effect for model years starting in 2009 to
2016, and Pavley II, which is now referred to as “LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) III GHG” covers
2017 to 2025.
Under Pavley, fleet average emission standards were intended to reach 22 percent reduction
from 2009 levels by 2012 and 30 percent by 2016. The Advanced Clean Cars program
coordinates the goals of the Low Emissions Vehicles (LEV), Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV), and
Clean Fuels Outlet programs and would provide major reductions in GHG emissions. By 2025,
when the rules would be fully implemented, new automobiles would emit 34 percent less
GHGs. Statewide CO2e emissions would be reduced 3 percent by 2020 and 12 percent by 2025.
The reduction would increase to 27 percent in 2035 and even further to 33 percent reduction in
2050 (CARB, 2013).
Assembly Bill 32
California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32),
the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of
reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 15 percent reduction below 2005
emission levels; the same requirement as under S-3-05), and requires CARB to prepare a
Scoping Plan that outlines the main state strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020
deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and
verification of statewide GHG emissions. Additional development of these measures and
adoption of the appropriate regulations occurred through the end of 2013. Key elements of the
Scoping Plan include:
Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs, as well as building
and appliance standards.
Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent by 2020.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other programs to
create a regional market system and caps sources contributing 85 percent of
California’s GHG emissions (adopted in 2011).
Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout
California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets (several
Sustainable Communities Strategies have been adopted).
Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies,
including California’s clean car standards, heavy-duty truck measures, the Low
Carbon Fuel Standard (amendments to the Pavley Standard adopted 2009;
Advanced Clean Car standard adopted 2012), goods movement measures, and the
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (adopted 2009).
Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on gasses
with high global warming potential, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the
State of California’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation (CARB 2008).
After completing a comprehensive review and update process, CARB approved a 1990
statewide GHG level and 2020 limit of 427 MMT CO2e. CARB approved the Scoping on
December 11, 2008. The Scoping Plan includes measures to address GHG emission reduction
strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other
measures. Many of the GHG reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e. g Low Carbon
Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car standards, and Cap-and-Trade) have been adopted and
implementation activities are ongoing.
In May 2014, CARB approved the first update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The 2014 Scoping Plan
update defined CARB’s climate change priorities for the next 5 years and sets the groundwork
to reach post-2020 goals set forth in EO S-3-05. The 2014 update highlighted California’s
progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the
original Scoping Plan. It also evaluated how to align the State’s longer-term GHG reduction
strategies with other State policy priorities, such as for water, waste, natural resources, clean
energy and transportation, and land use (CARB, 2014).
In 2016, the Legislature passed SB 32, which codifies a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of
40 percent below 1990 levels. With SB 32, the Legislature passed companion legislation, AB
197, which provides additional direction for developing the Scoping Plan. On December 14,
2017 CARB adopted a second update to the Scoping Plan 12. The 2017 Scoping Plan details how
the State will reduce GHG emissions to meet the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30-15
and codified by SB 32. Other objectives listed in the 2017 Scoping Plan are to provide direct
12 California Air Resources Board,California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan,
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.Accessed May 9, 2018.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-10 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
GHG emissions reductions; support climate investment in disadvantaged communities; and,
support the Clean Power Plan and other Federal actions. These measures include increasing
the Renewable Portfolio Standard to 50 percent by 2030 and extending the cap-and-trade
program to 2030 and providing the revenue towards climate programs, disadvantage
communities, and projects like the high-speed rail. The 2017 Scoping Plan also includes a 50
percent reduction in petroleum use in vehicles, increasing energy efficiency savings at existing
buildings, carbon sequestration in the land base, and reducing methane, black carbon, and
other short-live climate pollutants.
The AB 32 Scoping Plan also identifies a cap-and-trade program as one of the strategies
California will employ to reduce the GHG emissions. Under the cap-and-trade program, an
overall limit on GHG emissions from capped sectors will be established and facilities subject to
the cap will be able to trade permits (allowances) to emit GHGs. The program began on
January 1, 2012, with an enforceable compliance obligation beginning with the 2013 GHG
emissions and extending until 2030.
Senate Bill 1368
SB 1368 (Emission Performance Standards) is the companion bill of AB 32, which directs the
California Public Utilities Commission to adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for
the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 limits carbon emissions associated
with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for
energy longer than 5 years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean,
combined cycle natural gas power plant. The new law effectively prevents California’s utilities
from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants
located in or out of the State. The California Public Utilities Commission adopted the
regulations required by SB 1368 on August 29, 2007. The regulations implementing SB 1368
establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under long-term contract to publicly
owned utilities, of 1,100 lbs. CO2 per megawatt-hour (MWh).
Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill (SB) 375, signed in September 2008, enhances the State’s ability to reach AB 32 goals
by directing CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from
vehicles for 2020 and 2035. In addition, SB 375 directs each of the state’s 18 major
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to prepare a “sustainable communities strategy”
(SCS) that contains a growth strategy to meet these emission targets for inclusion in the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). On September 23, 2010, CARB adopted final regional
targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035.
Senate Bills 1078 and X1-2 and Executive Orders S-14-08 and S-21-09
These bills enact the renewable electricity standards for the State. SB 1078 requires California
to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 changed the
due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, then-Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which established a Renewable Portfolio
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Standard target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of
their load with renewable energy by 2020. The existing RPS requires retail sellers to supply 20
percent of their total electrical load from renewable energy sources by 2010. SB 350 (see
below) extended this goal to 50 percent by 2050.
To meet this new goal, a substantial increase in the development of wind, solar, geothermal,
and other “RPS eligible” energy projects will be needed. Executive Order S-14-08 seeks to
accelerate such development by streamlining the siting, permitting, and procurement processes
for renewable energy generation facilities. To this end, S-14-08 issues two directives: (1) the
existing Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative will identify renewable energy zones that can
be developed as such with little environmental impact, and (2) the California Energy
Commission (CEC) and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) will collaborate to
expedite the review, permitting, and licensing process for proposed RPS-eligible renewable
energy projects.
Executive Order S-21-09 also directed CARB to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the
State’s load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. CARB
approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010 by Resolution 10-23.
SBX1-2, which codified the 33 percent by 2020 goal.
Assembly Bill 1493
AB 1493 (Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards), enacted on July 22, 2002, required
CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and
light duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by
automakers and by the U.S. EPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. The U.S. EPA
subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011. The regulations establish one set of emission
standards for model years 2009–2016 and a second set of emissions standards for model years
2017 to 2025. By 2025, when all rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34
percent fewer CO2e emissions and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions.
Senate Bill 350
The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 was signed into law on October 7, 2015,
SB 350 implements the goals of Executive Order B-30-15. The objectives of SB 350 are to
increase the procurement of electricity from renewable sources from 33 percent to 50 percent
(with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 25 percent by 2027) and to double the energy
efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses of retail customers through energy
efficiency and conservation. SB 350 also reorganizes the Independent System Operator (ISO) to
develop more regional electricity transmission markets and improve accessibility in these
markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United
States.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-12 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Senate Bill 32
Signed into law in September 2016, Senate Bill (SB) 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target
in Executive Order B-30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). CARB also must adopt rules
and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible,
and cost-effective GHG reductions to achieve 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
Executive Orders
California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs through the use of
executive orders. Although not regulatory, they set the tone for the State and guide the actions
of state agencies.
Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order S-3-05 was issued on June 1, 2005, which established
the following GHG emissions reduction targets:
By 2010, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels.
By 2020, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels.
By 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels
that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was codified in AB 32. Because the 2050 target is
only contained in an executive order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local
governments or the private sector.
Executive Order S-01-07. Issued on January 18, 2007, Executive Order S 01-07 mandates that a
statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation
fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. In particular, the executive order established a Low
Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to
coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission, CARB, the University of California,
and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “life-cycle carbon
intensity” of transportation fuels. CARB adopted the Low Carbon Fuel Standard on April 23,
2009.
Executive Order S-13-08. Issued on November 14, 2008, Executive Order S-13-08 facilitated the
California Natural Resources Agency development of the 2009 California Climate Adaptation
Strategy. Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and
exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.
Executive Order S-14-08. Issued on November 17, 2008, Executive Order S-14-08 expands the
State’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020.
Executive Order S-21-09. Issued on July 17, 2009, Executive Order S-21-09 directs CARB to
adopt regulations to increase California's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 33 percent by
2020. This builds upon SB 1078 (2002), which established the California RPS program, requiring
20 percent renewable energy by 2017, and SB 107 (2006), which advanced the 20 percent
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
deadline to 2010, a goal which was expanded to 33 percent by 2020 in the 2005 Energy Action
Plan II.
Executive Order B-30-15. Issued on April 29, 2015, Executive Order B-30-15 established a
California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and directs CARB to
update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of MMCO2e. The
2030 target acts as an interim goal on the way to achieving reductions of 80 percent below
1990 levels by 2050, a goal set by Executive Order S-3-05. The executive order also requires the
State’s climate adaptation plan to be updated every three years and for the State to continue
its climate change research program, among other provisions. With the enactment of SB 32 in
2016, the Legislature codified the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 2030 to 40 percent below
1990 levels.
California Regulations and Building Codes
Title 20- Appliance Efficiency Regulations. The California Energy Commission adopted
Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608) on October 11,
2006. The regulations were approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on
December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances
and non-federally regulated appliances. While these regulations are now often viewed as
“business-as-usual,” they exceed the standards imposed by all other states and they reduce
GHG emissions by reducing energy demand.
Title 24- California Building Code. The California Energy Resources Conservation and
Development Commission adopted energy conservation standards for new residential and
nonresidential buildings in June 1977 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s
energy consumption. These standards were most recently revised in 2016 and went into effect
on January 1, 2017 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). The standards
are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy
efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity;
therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG
emissions.
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green
building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code was adopted as part of the
California Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (Part 11, Title 24, CCR). The green building
standards that became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the code established voluntary
standards on planning and design for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess
of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and
internal air contaminants. CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local
governments may adopt that encourage or require additional measures in the five green
building topics. The most recent update to the CALGreen Code went into effect January 1,
2017.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-14 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
10.4.3 Regional & Local
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD regulates air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, and is responsible for
attainment planning related to criteria air pollutants and for district rule development and
enforcement. The district inspects stationary sources and responds to citizen complaints,
monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implements programs and
regulations required by law. It also reviews air quality analyses prepared for CEQA
assessments, and has published the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines documents for use in
evaluation of air quality (including GHG) impacts.
East Bay Community Energy
East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) is a new community choice aggregation local power supplier
that will begin serving customers in 2018. All accounts with PG&E will be automatically
enrolled into EBCE’s default product “Bright Choice” which is 80 percent carbon-free.
Customers have the option to opt up to a 100 percent carbon-free product (same price as
PG&E) or opt out and remain with PG&E.
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin’s General Plan contains the following policy as it relates to GHG emissions:
Energy Efficiency and Conservation in New Development
Guiding Policy 13.3.2.A:
1. Encourage the installation of alternative energy technology in new residential and
commercial development.
2. Encourage designing for solar access.
3. Encourage energy efficient improvements be made on residential and commercial
properties.
Implementing Policy 13.3.2.B
1. New development proposals shall be reviewed to ensure lighting levels needed for a
safe and secure environment are provided - utilizing the most energy-efficient fixtures
(in most cases, LED lights) - while avoiding over-lighting of sites. Smart lighting
technology (e.g. sensors and/or timers) shall also be employed in interior and exterior
lighting applications where appropriate.
2. New development projects shall install LED streetlights in compliance with the City’s LED
light standard.
3. In new commercial and residential parking lots, require the installation of conduit to
serve electric vehicle parking spaces to enable the easier installation of future charging
stations.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
4. Encourage the installation of charging stations for commercial projects over a certain
size and any new residential project that has open parking (i.e. not individual, enclosed
garages).
5. Encourage buildings (and more substantially, whole neighborhoods) to be designed
along an east-west axis to maximize solar exposure. Where feasible, require new
development projects to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping and sun
screens to reduce energy use; and to use regenerative energy heating and cooling
source alternatives to fossil fuels.
6. Continue to implement parking lot tree planting standards that would substantially cool
parking areas and help cool the surrounding environment. Encourage landscaping
conducive to solar panels in areas where appropriate.
7. Promote and encourage photovoltaic demonstration projects in association with new
development.
Consider creating a recognition program for commercial or residential projects that
install large-scale solar or wind energy systems and to publicly commend and
acknowledge businesses or individuals that construct or remodel buildings that save
more energy than required by Title 24 or by the Cal Green Building Code.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan (CAP)
The City of Dublin prepared a 2010 Climate Action Plan (CAP), which calculated 2010 baseline
emissions inventory of GHGs for the City, as well as adopted an emission reduction goal of 20
percent below a business-as-usual scenario by 2020. The City’s efficiency measure for 2020 is
projected to be 4.22 MTCO2e per service population per year, which is significantly below
BAAQMD’s GHG efficiency based metric of 6.6 MT CO2e per service population per year. The
2010 CAP includes 34 reduction measures that are organized into three broad categories: 1)
transportation and land use measures; 2) energy measures; and 3) solid waste and recycling
measures.
In 2013, the City of Dublin updated their CAP, which established a new reduction target of 15
percent below 2010 emissions by 2020. The CAP Update identifies a variety of measures to
achieve the City’s GHG reduction target. City’s efficiency measure for 2020 under the CAP
Update is projected to be 3.2 MTCO2e per service population per year, which is significantly
below BAAQMD’s GHG efficiency based metric of 6.6 MTCO2e per service population per year.
The CAP also implemented an additional 11 new reduction measures. The City has determined
that the reduction target should reduce the impacts from activities under the CAP to a less than
significant level under CEQA. If a project were consistent with the applicable emissions
reduction target, the project would be considered to have a less than significant impact due to
GHG emissions and climate change consistent with Public Resources Code 21083.3 and CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15183.5, 15064 and 15130.
Green Building Ordinance
In 2009, the City passed a Green Building Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 7.94) requiring
residential projects over 20 units to reach 50 points on the GreenPoint Rated system or achieve
LEED for Homes. GreenPoint Rated is a green building program administered by the nonprofit
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-16 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
organization Build It Green with assistance from StopWaste. The GreenPoint Rated system
includes five categories: energy efficiency, resource conservation, indoor air quality, water
conservation, and community. The City is currently in the process of adopting 2013 California
Green Building Standards Code, which will also reduce water use in existing buildings.
10.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
10.5.1 Significance Thresholds
According to the adopted Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to GHG
emissions from a project would be significant if the project would:
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment; and/or
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) approach to developing a
threshold of significance for GHG emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project
would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to
reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move towards climate stabilization. If a project
would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute
considerably to a significant cumulative impact. Stationary-source projects include land uses
that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would
require an Air District permit to operate. If annual emissions of operational-related GHGs
exceed these levels, the project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a
cumulatively significant impact to global climate change. BAAQMD’s recommended thresholds
are as follows:
Compliance with a Qualified Climate Action Plan; or
Meet one of the following thresholds:
o 1,100 MT CO2eq/year (yr.); or
o 4.6 MTCO2eq/service population (sp)/yr. (residents and employees).
It should be noted that the BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for
construction-related GHG emissions. However, the BAAQMD recommends quantification and
disclosure of construction GHG emissions. The BAAQMD also recommends that the Lead
Agency should make a determination on the significance of these construction generated GHG
emission impacts in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction goals, as required by the Public
Resources Code, Section 21082.2. The Lead Agency is encouraged to incorporate best
management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction, as feasible and
applicable.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-17
Draft EIR
10/23/18
For CEQA analyses, project-related GHG impacts can be categorized as either direct or indirect.
Direct emissions refer to those emitted by stationary sources at the project site or caused by
project activity on-site, and these emissions are normally within control of the project sponsor
or applicant. Indirect emissions include those emissions that are not within the direct control
of the project sponsor or applicant, but may occur as a result of the project, such as the motor
vehicle emissions induced by the project. Indirect emissions include emissions from any off-site
facilities used for project support as a result of the construction or operation of a project, and
these emissions are likely to occur outside the control of the project far off-site or even outside
of California.
Construction-phase GHG emissions are quantified as part of the air quality impact assessment
(see Chapter 6, Air Quality, and Appendix B for supporting calculations). These one-time
emissions can be amortized over the life of the project to describe an equivalent annual
emission rate. To amortize the construction emissions over the life of the project, the total
GHG emissions due to construction are divided by the expected project operating life (i.e., 30
years for this project). The amortized construction emissions can then be added to the annual
operational GHG emissions.
The effects of the project are also considered based on whether the project implements
reduction strategies identified in AB32, SB 32, 2017 Scoping Plan, the Governor’s Executive
Order S-14-08, or other strategies to help reduce GHGs to the level proposed by the Governor.
If so, it could reasonably follow that the project would not result in a significant contribution to
the cumulative impact of global climate change.
Significance Classifications
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
10.5.2 Study Methodology
Calculations of CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions are provided to identify the magnitude of project
effects. The analysis focuses on CO2, CH4, and N2O because these GHGs comprise 98.9 percent
of all GHG emissions by volume (IPCC, 2007) and are the GHG emissions that the project would
emit in the largest quantities. Fluorinated gases—such as HFCs, PFCs, and SF6—were also
considered for the analysis. However, fluorinated gases are primarily associated with industrial
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-18 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
processes, and the project does not include an industrial component. Emissions of all GHGs are
converted into their equivalent weight in CO2 (CO2e). Minimal amounts of other main GHGs
(such as CFCs) would be emitted; however, these other GHG emissions would not substantially
add to the calculated CO2e amounts. Calculations are based on the methodologies discussed in
the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change white paper (January 2008) and included the use of the
California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) General Reporting Protocol (January 2009).
Construction Emissions
To estimate the annual emissions that would result from construction activity associated with
the project, GHGs from construction projects were quantified and amortized over a 30-year
period. The emissions were then added to the annual average operational emissions and
compared to the applicable operational thresholds.
According to the construction information provided by the applicant, the project would include
an estimated total of 50,000 cubic yards of soil imported and no export. The material will only
be imported to Planning Area 1 (PA-1), the southern portion of the city that is proposed to
include commercial uses. The imported dirt will come from available borrow sites, preferably
within the Tri-Valley area.
This analysis assumes that construction would last approximately 62 months. Annualizing total
construction GHG emissions using this methodology accurately accounts for temporary
construction emissions as part of the project’s annual GHG emissions, which are compared to
the applicable annual GHG threshold. Based on these assumptions, construction emissions
were estimated individually using CalEEMod.
Operational Emissions
Emissions from transportation sources for the project were quantified using CalEEMod and are
based on project trip generation from the Traffic Impact Study. Operational emissions from
energy use (electricity and natural gas use) for the project were also estimated using CalEEMod
(see Appendix B). The default values on which CalEEMod are based include the CEC-sponsored
California Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS) for non-residential land uses and Residential
Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) for residential land uses. This methodology is considered
reasonable and reliable for use, as it has been subjected to peer review by numerous public and
private stakeholders, and in particular by the CEC. It is also recommended by CAPCOA (January
2008).
Emissions associated with area sources—including consumer products, landscape maintenance,
and architectural coating—were calculated in CalEEMod based on standard emission rates from
CARB, U.S. EPA, and district supplied emission factor values CalEEMod User’s Guide (CAPCOA,
2016). Emissions from waste generation were also calculated in CalEEMod and are based on
the IPCC’s methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste using the degradable
organic content of waste CalEEMod User’s Guide (CAPCOA, 2016). Waste disposal rates by land
use and overall composition of municipal solid waste in California was based on data provided
by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). CalEEMod also
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-19
Draft EIR
10/23/18
estimates the land uses contribution of GHG emissions associated with supplying and treating
water and wastewater. Emissions are based on electricity intensity factors for various phases of
providing and treating water. Electricity intensity is from the California Energy Commission’s
2006 document Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California.
10.5.3 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
There are no “no” impacts or “beneficial” impacts.
10.5.4 Impact Analysis
Global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative impact of GHG emissions. Therefore, there
is no project-level analysis.
Impact GHG-1: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (Class III).
Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The project would include direct and indirect GHG emissions. Direct operational-related GHG
emissions for the project would include emissions from area and mobile sources, while indirect
emissions are from energy consumption, water demand, and solid waste.
Construction Emissions
Construction of the project would result in direct emissions of CO2,N2O, and CH4 from the
operation of construction equipment and the transport of materials and construction workers
to and from the project site. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized
over the lifetime of the project (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational
emissions.13 Total GHG emissions generated during all phases of construction were combined
and are presented in Table 10-3, Project Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The
CalEEMod outputs are contained within the Appendix B, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Data. As shown in Table 10-3, the project would result in 38,935 MTCO2e (1,298 MTCO2eq/yr.
when amortized over 30 years).
13 The project lifetime is based on the standard 30-year assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast Air Quality
Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, August 26, 2009).
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-20 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 10-3: Project Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Year Emissions (MTCO2e)
2020 3,199.87
2021 10,570.39
2022 12,053.11
2023 8,392.37
2024 3,548.45
2025 1,170.48
Total Construction Emissions 38,934.67
Annualized over 30 years 1,297.82
Notes:
MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2.
Operational Emissions
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the project. GHG emissions would
result from direct emissions such as project generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of
natural gas, operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also
result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power over the life of the
project, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the project site, the
emissions associated with solid waste generated from the project site, and any fugitive
refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators. Table 10-4: Project Operation-Related
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, summarizes the total GHG emissions associated with project. As
shown, the project would generate approximately 14,800.21 metric tons of CO2e annually.
Table 10-4: Project Operation-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source Emissions (MTCO2e)
Area 43.97
Energy 4,282.28
Mobile 8,748.64
Waste 223.15
Water and Wastewater 204.35
Construction (annualized) 1,297.82
Total Operational Emissions 14,800.21
Notes:
MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-21
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Area Source Emissions. Area source emissions were calculated using CalEEMod and project
specific land use data. The primary GHG emission sources calculated by CalEEMod include
hearths and landscape equipment. As noted in Table 10-4, the project would result in 43.97
MTCO2e/year of area source GHG emissions.
Mobile Source. CalEEMod relies upon trip data within the Traffic Impact Study and project
specific land use data to calculate mobile source emissions. The project would directly result in
8,748.64 MTCO2e/year of mobile source-generated GHG emissions; refer to Table 10-4.
Energy Consumption. Energy consumption emissions were calculated using CalEEMod and
project-specific land use data. Electricity and natural gas would be provided to the project site
via Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). The project would indirectly result in 4,282.28 MTCO2e/year
due to energy consumption; refer to Table 10-4. It should be noted that Dublin electricity
customers can directly enroll in the choice energy group East Bay Community Energy, which
would further reduce the energy emissions. This analysis conservatively assumes all energy
would be provided by PG&E.
Water Demand. The project’s water supply would be provided by local groundwater and
imported surface water. Emissions from indirect energy impacts due to water treatment and
transport would result in 204.35 MTCO2e/year; refer to Table 10-4.
Solid Waste. Solid waste associated with operations of the project would result in 223.15
MTCO2e/year; refer to Table 10-4.
Operational emissions for the years 2000, 2030, and 2050 were modeled using CalEEMod.
CalEEMod emission factor incorporate compliance with some, but not all, applicable rules and
regulations regarding energy efficiency and vehicle fuel efficiency, and other GHG reduction
policies, as described in the CalEEMod User’s Guide (CAPCOA, 2016). The reductions obtained
from each regulation and the source of the reduction amount used in the analysis are described
below.
The following regulations are incorporated into the CalEEMod emission factors:
Pavley I motor vehicle emission standards
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
2016 title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards
The following regulations have not been incorporated into the CalEEMod emission factors and
require alternative methods to account for emission reductions provided by the regulations:
Pavley II (LEV III) Advanced Clean Cars Program (extends to model year 2025)
Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)
Green Building Code Standards (indoor water use)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-22 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Outdoor Water)
Pavley II/LEV III standards have not been incorporated in the latest version of CalEEMod.
Reductions from standards are calculated by adjusting the CalEEMod GHG passenger car and
light truck emission factors by CARB’s estimated three percent reduction expected from the
vehicle categories subject to the regulation by 2020.
RPS is not accounted for in the current version of CalEEMod. Reductions from RPS are
addressed by revising the electricity emission intensity factor in CalEEMod to account for the
utility complying with the 33 percent renewable mandate by 2020. For the year 2020, 2030,
and 2050 analyses it was assumed that the Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) would
achieve the 33 percent renewable energy goal for 2020 and the 50 percent renewable energy
goal established by EO B-30-15 and SB 350. Additionally, as noted above, Dublin electricity
customers can directly enroll in the choice energy group East Bay Community Energy, which
would further reduce energy emissions. This analysis conservatively assumes all energy would
be provided by PG&E.
Energy savings from water conservation resulting from the Green Building Code Standards for
indoor water use and California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance for outdoor water
use are not included in CalEEMod. The Water Conservation Act of 2009 mandates a 20 percent
reduction in urban water use that is implemented with these regulations (CDWR, 2018).
Benefits of the water conservation regulations are applied in the CalEEMod mitigation
component. Adjustments were also made for project design features that would reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
Year 2030 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
To determine if the project meets the 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions over 1990 levels
by 2030 as codified in AB 197 and SB 32, the project’s GHG emissions have been calculated for
the year 2030 and compared to the year 2000 emissions, since that is the nearest year available
in CalEEMod to the year 1990. CalEEMod uses historical consumption rates and emissions
factors to calculate the past scenario emissions. As shown in Table 10-5: City of Dublin CAP
Consistency Analysis - Operational Year 2030, the project would generate 24,623 MTCO2eper
year for the year 2000 conditions and 13,150 MTCO2e per year for the year 2030 conditions,
which results in a 47 percent reduction in GHG emissions over what the project would create if
it was developed in 2000, which is the nearest year to 1990 available in the CalEEMod model.
The project would meet the 40 percent reduction requirement over year 1990 by 2030, as
required by AB 197 and SB 32.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-23
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 10-5: City of Dublin CAP Consistency Analysis - Operational Year 2030
Emission Source
MT CO2e per year
2000 BAU Scenario
2030 Project
Scenario
Percent
Reduction
Area 44.27 43.97 1%
Energy 4,758.11 3,931.31 17%
Mobile 17,820.68 7,449.71 58%
Waste 446.30 223.15 50%
Water 255.43 204.35 20%
Construction 1,297.82 1,297.82 0%
Total Emissions 24,622.61 13,150.31 47%
AB 197 and Sb 32 Requirements 40%
Does the Project Meet the Reduction Target? Yes
MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. See Appendix B CalEEMod output
The project would include additional energy efficiency and GHG reduction design features per
City’s Climate Action Plan, including LED streetlights, efficient outdoor lighting, options for
photovoltaic solar systems, solar ready buildings, and drought tolerant and water efficient
landscaping. The project also reduces transportation GHG emissions by applying smart growth
principles as an urban in-fill development with a mix of retail, entertainment, and residential
uses adjacent to transit/multi-modal corridors and within two miles of a BART station. The
project facilitates the use of existing bus routes with stops adjacent to the project site. The
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) runs bus service from the project site
(Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road) to the BART station with 15-minute headways during
peak commute hours. Additionally, the Project would improve and complete pedestrian and
bicycle connections around its perimeter and through the Project site. Bicycle storage would be
provided in the apartments and bicycle racks would be provided near the commercial uses. The
project would also improve and complete bicycle lanes and facilities along the perimeter and
through the project site that connect with existing bicycle routes.
Additionally, the commercial uses are also planned at a higher density through the application
of shared parking. The shared parking plan would allow parking to be shared by the
apartments and commercial space, along with shared parking between hospitality uses with
complimentary peak demand. As shown in Table 10-5: City of Dublin CAP Consistency Analysis-
Operational Year 2030, the project would meet the 40 percent reduction requirement over year
1990 by 2030, as required by AB 197 and SB 32 and impacts would be less than significant.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-24 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Year 2050 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Executive Order S-3-05 provides an aspirational goal of reducing GHG emissions in California of
80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The year 2050 analysis has been included in this DSEIR
in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San
Diego Association of Governments (Cleveland v. SANDAG), filed July 13, 2017, which stated
“First, the parties agree that the EIR should consider the Plan’s long-range greenhouse gas
impacts for the year 2050.” Cleveland v. SANDAG also stated that EIRs “must include detail
sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to
consider meaningfully the issues raised by the project.”
The year 2050 analysis is provided differently than the year 2030 analysis, because Executive
Order S-3-05 is not an adopted GHG reduction plan within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.4(b)(2), and there are no adopted plans or implementation measures to achieve
this reduction goal at this time. As stated in Cleveland v. SANDAG, “the Attorney General
…[has] advised that the EO 2050 target can inform CEQA analysis, there is no legal requirement
to use it as a threshold of significance. Under the CEQA Guidelines and case law, SANDAG [lead
agency] retains the discretion to select certain GHG emission reduction thresholds and not
select others.”
Furthermore, the court in Cleveland v. SANDAG stated:
SANDAG did not abuse its discretion in declining to adopt the 2050 goal as a measure of
significance in light of the fact that the Executive Order does not specify any plan or
implementation measures to achieve its goal. In its response to comments, the EIR said:
It is uncertain what role regional land use and transportation strategies can or should
play in achieving the EO’s 2050 emissions reduction target. A recent California Energy
Commission report concludes, however, that the primary strategies to achieve this
target should be major ‘decarbonization’ of electricity supplies and fuels, and major
improvements in energy efficiency [citation omitted].
Therefore, the impacts of the project’s GHG emissions in 2050 are provided for information and
disclosure purposes only in this document, and no significance determination on the project’s
impacts is made.
Table 10-6: City of Dublin CAP Consistency Analysis- Operational Year 2050, shows the
combined construction and operational GHG emissions for the year 2050 and compared to the
year 2000 emissions, since that is the nearest year available in CalEEMod to the year 1990.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-25
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 10-6: City of Dublin CAP Consistency Analysis- Operational Year 2050
Emission Source
MT CO2e per year
2000 BAU Scenario
2050 Project
Scenario
Percent
Reduction
Area 44.27 43.97 1%
Energy 4,758.11 3,931.31 17%
Mobile 17,820.68 7,463.76 58%
Waste 446.30 223.15 50%
Water 255.43 204.35 20%
Construction 1,297.82 1,297.82 0%
Total Emissions 24,622.61 13,164.36 47%
AB 197 and Sb 32 Requirements 40%
Does the Project Meet the Reduction Target? Yes
MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. See Appendix B CalEEMod output
As shown in Table 10-6: City of Dublin CAP Consistency Analysis- Operational Year 2050, the
project would generate 24,623 CO2e per year for the year 2000 conditions and 13,164 MT CO2e
per year for the year 2050 conditions, which results in a 47 percent reduction in GHG emissions
over what the project would create if it were developed in 2000, which is the nearest year to
1990 available in the CalEEMod model. The year 2050 emission calculations include the
anticipated emission reductions associated with implementation of State GHG emission
reduction regulations that have gone into effect by 2030. However, emissions reductions from
the State’s Cap and Trade program, which applies to GHG emissions from utilities and fuels
utilized for vehicles is not accounted for in the CalEEMod model, which would result in lower
GHG emissions from energy and mobile sources than what is presented in Table 10-6. If
emissions reductions from the State’s Cap and Trade program are offset for energy production
and fuel consumption, approximately 90 percent of GHG emissions from new projects would be
offset.
Summary
For 2030, the project would be within the AB 197 and SB 32 reduction requirement
of a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions over year 1990. The project in 2030
would have a 47 percent reduction. Impacts would be less than significant.
For 2050, the project emissions would be similar to 2030 and the trajectory is
towards greater emissions reductions would occur through technological
improvements and future regulations that are not currently in place. The estimated
emissions levels are provided for information and disclosure purposes only. No
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-26 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
significance determination for the project’s 2050 GHG emissions is made.
Impact GHG-2: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (Class III).
To address this potential impact for 2020, project consistency with the City of Dublin CAP is
used for this analysis. The CAP is a qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy under CEQA,
which can be used to determine the significance of GHG emissions from a project (CEQA
Guidelines section 15183.5). BAAQMD also recognizes the use of a CAP as a significance
threshold for a project’s GHG emissions. Therefore, if the project is consistent with the CAP,
then the project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact to global climate
change in 2020.
In July 2013, the City of Dublin adopted their Final CAP, which provides goals and associated
reduction measures in the sectors of energy use, transportation, land use, water, solid waste,
and off-road equipment. The City’s CAP constitutes a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy and has
been utilized in this analysis for determining the level of significance of the project’s GHG
emissions. Impact GHG-1 provides a quantitative analysis of the thresholds provided in the CAP
for 2030. For 2020, the analysis of the project’s cumulative contribution to climate change and
GHG emissions is the analysis of the project’s consistency with the applicable CAP measures
that is provided in Table 10-7, Project Consistency with the City of Dublin CAP. The project
would be consistent with the applicable CAP reduction measures. Thus, the project would help
implement the CAP, and would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. A less than significant impact would occur
in this regard.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-27
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 10-7: Project Consistency with Applicable City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Control
Measures
Control Measure Project Consistency
A. Community-wide Measures
A.1. Transportation and Land Use Measures
A.1.1. Transit-Oriented
Development
Consistent. The project is located within 1.5 miles of the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.
A.1.2. High-Density Development
Consistent. The project consists of 300 units apartment units
in addition to a mix of 380 single-family homes and
townhomes.
A.1.3. Mixed-Use Development Consistent. The project consists of commercial, residential,
parks, hotel and retail within a 77-acre site.
A.1.4. Bicycle Parking
Requirements Consistent. The project includes bicycle parking spaces
A.1.5. Streetscape Master Plan
Consistent. Street trees are included on the Landscape
Master Plan as per the City of Dublin Streetscape Master
Plan.
A.1.6. Multi-Modal Map
Consistent. The project is located within 1.5 miles of the
Dublin/ Pleasanton BART station, adjacent to I-580, other
major arterials, and bicycle lanes. The project includes
various multi-use paths and walkways that connect the
residents and retail patrons with adjacent open space,
surrounding neighborhoods and nearby Emerald Glen Park.
A.1.7.
Electric and Plug In-Hybrid
Charging Stations at the
Library
Not applicable. The project would include 119 electric
vehicle parking spaces. The City is the responsible party for
this measure. The project would not conflict with
implementation.
A.1.8.
General Plan Community
Design and Sustainability
Element
Not applicable. The City is the responsible party for this
measure. The project would not conflict with
implementation.
A.1.9. Work with LAVTA to
Improve Transit
Not applicable. The City is the responsible party for this
measure. The project would not conflict with
implementation.
A.1.10. Bikeways Master Plan
Not applicable. The City is the responsible party for this
measure. The project would not conflict with
implementation. The project includes connections to
existing bikeways.
A.1.11. West Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station
Not applicable. While the project is not located within the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area, it is 1.5 miles from the
East Dublin / Pleasanton BART station and will provide high
density mixed-uses near a transit stop.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-28 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Control Measure Project Consistency
A.1.12. City Design Strategy
Consistent. The project includes walkways and connections
between neighborhoods through the internal park system.
The project provides a variety of open spaces for users.
A.2. Energy Measures
A.2.1. Green Building Ordinance
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this
measure. The project would be required to comply with
these standards.
A.2.2. Energy Upgrade California
Not applicable. This measure establishes countywide
building retrofit measures and specifications for energy
efficiency, water and resource conservation, and indoor air
quality and health. As the project does not include existing
structures, this measure does not apply.
A.2.3. Solar Conversion Programs
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the City of Dublin’s ability to enact
these programs. These programs could benefit the project
and lower project emissions.
A.2.4. Reduce Solar Installation
Permit Fee
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the City of Dublin’s ability to enact
these programs. These programs could benefit the project
and lower project emissions.
A.2.5.
LED Streetlight
Specifications for new
Projects
Consistent. The project would be required to comply with
the city’s LED streetlight specifications.
A.2.6. California Youth Energy
Services Program
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the City of Dublin’s ability to enact
these programs.
A.2.7.Implementation of Green
Shamrock program
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the City of Dublin’s ability to enact
these programs.
A.2.8. Direct Commercial Energy
Outreach
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the City of Dublin’s ability to enact
these programs.
A.2.9. Behavioral Energy Change
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the City of Dublin’s ability to enact
these programs.
A.3. Solid Waste and Recycling Measures
A.3.1.
Construction and
Demolition Debris
Ordinance
Consistent. The project would comply with the city’s
requirement of 100 percent of asphalt and concrete being
recycled and a minimum of 75 percent of other materials.
A.3.2. Citywide Diversion Goal of
75 percent
Consistent. The project would comply with the city’s goal of
diverting 75 percent of waste from the landfill.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-29
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Control Measure Project Consistency
A.3.3. Tiered Rate Structure for
Garbage and Recycling
Consistent. This is a municipal measure. However, the
project would comply with the city’s tiered rate structure
which encourages recycling and composting.
A.3.4. Commercial Recycling
Program
Consistent. This is a municipal measure. However, the
project would comply with the city’s free commercial
recycling program for businesses.
A.3.5. Commercial Food Waste
Collection Program
Consistent. This is a municipal measure. However, the
project would encourage food composting for its commercial
uses.
A.3.6. Promote Commercial
Recycling
Consistent. This is a municipal measure. The project would
encourage recycling in the commercial areas.
A.3.7. Promote Multi-family
Recycling
Consistent. This is a municipal measure. However, the
project would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact
these measures. Effective January 2020 the project would
not conflict with the city’s ability to enact organics collection
of food scraps for residents of multi-family properties for
compliance with SB 1383.
A.3.8. Curbside Residential
Recycling Program
Consistent. This is a municipal measure. The project would
be included in the city’s organics program that includes
curbside pickup of food waste and yard waste for residential
neighborhoods. A.3.9. Curbside Organics
Collection Program
A.3.10. Reusable Bag Ordinance
Consistent. The commercial uses within the project site
would comply with the Alameda County Waste Management
Reusable Bag Ordinance.
B. Municipal Operations Measures
B.1. Transportation and Land Use Measures
B.1.1. City Hybrid Vehicles
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
B.1.2. Commute Alternative
Program
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
B.1.3. Green Fleet Policy for City
Vehicles
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
B.2. Energy Measures
B.2.1. LEED Silver Requirement
for New City Buildings > $3
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-30 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Control Measure Project Consistency
B.2.2. Window Film on the Civic
Center
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
B.2.3. LED Park Lights
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
B.2.4. Energy Action Plan
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
B.3. Solid Waste and Recycling Measures
B.3.1. Bay-Friendly Landscaping
Policy
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
C. Public Outreach Programs
C.1.Great Race for Clean Air
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
C.2. Spare the Air Resource
Team
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
C.3.
Work with Schools on Go
Green Recycling and
Composting
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
C.4. AVI Educational
Presentations
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
C.5. Promote Bike to Work Day
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
C.6. Outreach at the Farmers
Market
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
Source: City of Dublin Climate Action Plan, 2013 and Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018.
Consistency with the CARB Scoping Plan
The California State Legislature adopted AB 32 in 2006. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHGs
(carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride) to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Pursuant to the requirements in AB 32, the ARB
adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) in 2008, which outlines actions
recommended to obtain that goal. The Scoping Plan provides a range of GHG reduction actions
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-31
Draft EIR
10/23/18
that include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-
monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms such as the cap-and-trade
program, and an AB 32 implementation fee to fund the program. As shown in Table 10-8:
Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures, the project is consistent with
most of the strategies, while others are not applicable to the project.
The 2017 Scoping Plan Update identifies additional GHG reduction measures necessary to
achieve the 2030 target. These measures build upon those identified in the First Update to the
Climate Change Scoping Plan (2013). Although a number of these measures are currently
established as policies and measures, some measures have not yet been formally proposed or
adopted. It is expected that these measures or similar actions to reduce GHG emissions will be
adopted as required to achieve statewide GHG emissions targets. As such, impacts related to
consistency with the Climate Change Scoping Plan would be less than significant.
Table 10-8: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures
Scoping Plan
Sector
Scoping Plan
Measure
Implementing
Regulations Project Consistency
Transportation California Cap-
and-Trade
Program Linked to
Western Climate
Initiative
Regulation for the
California Cap on
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Market-
Based Compliance
Mechanism October
20, 2015 (CCR 95800)
Consistent. The Cap-and-Trade Program applies to
large industrial sources such as power plants, refineries,
and cement manufacturers. However, the regulation
indirectly affects people who use the products and
services produced by these industrial sources when
increased cost of products or services (such as electricity
and fuel) are transferred to the consumers. The Cap-
and-Trade Program covers the GHG emissions
associated with electricity consumed in California,
whether generated in-state or imported. Accordingly,
GHG emissions associated with CEQA projects’
electricity usage are covered by the Cap-and-Trade
Program. The Cap-and-Trade Program also covers fuel
suppliers (natural gas and propane fuel providers and
transportation fuel providers) to address emissions from
such fuels and from combustion of other fossil fuels not
directly covered at large sources in the Program’s first
compliance period.
California Light-Duty
Vehicle Greenhouse
Gas Standards
Pavley I 2005
Regulations to Control
GHG Emissions from
Motor Vehicles
Consistent. This measure applies to all new vehicles
starting with model year 2012. The project would not
conflict with its implementation as it would apply to all
new passenger vehicles purchased in California.
Passenger vehicles, model year 2012 and later,
associated with construction and operation of the
project would be required to comply with the Pavley
emissions standards.
2012 LEV III
Amendments to the
California Greenhouse
Gas and Criteria
Consistent. The LEV III amendments provide reductions
from new vehicles sold in California between 2017 and
2025. Passenger vehicles associated with the site would
comply with LEV III standards.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-32 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Scoping Plan
Sector
Scoping Plan
Measure
Implementing
Regulations Project Consistency
Pollutant Exhaust and
Evaporative Emission
Standards
Low Carbon Fuel
Standard
2009 readopted in
2015. Regulations to
Achieve Greenhouse
Gas Emission
Reductions
Subarticle 7. Low
Carbon Fuel
Standard CCR 95480
Consistent. This measure applies to transportation
fuels utilized by vehicles in California. The project
would not conflict with implementation of this measure.
Motor vehicles associated with construction and
operation of the project would utilize low carbon
transportation fuels as required under this measure.
Regional
Transportation-
Related Greenhouse
Gas Targets.
SB 375. Cal. Public
Resources Code §§
21155, 21155.1,
21155.2, 21159.28
Consistent. The project would provide development in
the region that is consistent with the growth projections
in the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS) (Plan Bay Area 2040).
Goods Movement Goods Movement
Action Plan January
2007
Not applicable. The project does not propose any
changes to maritime, rail, or intermodal facilities or
forms of transportation.
Medium/Heavy-Duty
Vehicle
2010 Amendments to
the Truck and Bus
Regulation, the
Drayage Truck
Regulation and the
Tractor-Trailer
Greenhouse Gas
Regulation
Consistent. This measure applies to medium and heavy-
duty vehicles that operate in the state. The project
would not conflict with implementation of this measure.
Medium and heavy-duty vehicles associated with
construction and operation of the project would be
required to comply with the requirements of this
regulation.
High Speed Rail Funded under SB 862 Not applicable. This is a statewide measure that cannot
be implemented by a project applicant or Lead Agency.
Electricity and
Natural Gas
Energy Efficiency Title 20 Appliance
Efficiency Regulation
Consistent. The project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure. The project would
comply with the latest energy efficiency standards. Title 24 Part 6 Energy
Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Non-
Residential Building
Title 24 Part 11
California Green
Building Code
Standards
Renewable Portfolio
Standard/Renewable
Electricity Standard.
2010 Regulation to
Implement the
Renewable Electricity
Standard (33% 2020)
Consistent. The project would provide the option to
home buyers to include photovoltaic solar systems.
Photovoltaic systems would be installed on the rooftops
of commercial buildings. All structures that do not
include solar PV panels will be “solar ready,” as required
by City Municipal Code sections 7.94.060 and 7.94.070.
The project would obtain electricity from the electric
utility, PG&E, or from East Bay Community Energy.
SB 350 Clean Energy
and Pollution
Reduction Act of 2015
(50% 2030)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-33
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Scoping Plan
Sector
Scoping Plan
Measure
Implementing
Regulations Project Consistency
PG&E obtained 33 percent of its power supply from
renewable sources in 2016. Therefore, the utility would
provide power when needed on site that is composed of
a greater percentage of renewable sources.
Million Solar Roofs
Program
Tax incentive program Consistent. This measure is to increase solar
throughout California, which is being done by various
electricity providers and existing solar programs.
Homeowners within the project would be able to take
advantage of incentives that are in place at the time of
construction.
Water Water Title 24 Part 11
California Green
Building Code
Standards
Consistent. The project would comply with the
California Green Building Standards Code, which
requires a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use.
The project would also comply with the City’s Water-
Efficient Landscaping Regulations (Chapter 8.88 of the
Dublin Municipal Code).
SBX 7-7—The Water
Conservation Act of
2009
Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance
Green Buildings Green Building
Strategy
Title 24 Part 11
California Green
Building Code
Standards
Consistent. The State is to increase the use of green
building practices. The project would implement
required green building strategies through existing
regulation that requires the project to comply with
various CalGreen requirements. The project includes
sustainability design features that support the Green
Building Strategy.
Industry Industrial Emissions 2010 CARB Mandatory
Reporting Regulation
Not applicable. The project does not include industrial
land uses.
Recycling and
Waste
Management
Recycling and Waste Title 24 Part 11
California Green
Building Code
Standards
Consistent. The project would not conflict with
implementation of these measures. The project is
required to achieve the recycling mandates via
compliance with the CALGreen code. The City has
consistently achieved its state recycling mandates. AB 341 Statewide 75
Percent Diversion Goal
SB 1383 Mandatory
Organics Diversion
Forests Sustainable Forests Cap and Trade Offset
Projects
Not applicable. The project site is in an area designated
for urban uses. No forested lands exist on-site.
High Global
Warming
Potential
High Global
Warming Potential
Gases
CARB Refrigerant
Management Program
CCR 95380
Not applicable. The regulations are applicable to
refrigerants used by large air conditioning systems and
large commercial and industrial refrigerators and cold
storage system. The project is not expected to use large
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-34 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Scoping Plan
Sector
Scoping Plan
Measure
Implementing
Regulations Project Consistency
systems subject to the refrigerant management
regulations adopted by CARB.
Agriculture Agriculture Cap and Trade Offset
Projects for Livestock
and Rice Cultivation
Not applicable. The project site is designated for urban
development. No grazing, feedlot, or other agricultural
activities that generate manure occur currently exist on-
site or are proposed to be implemented by the project.
Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB), California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017 and CARB, Climate Change
Scoping Plan, December 2008.
Consistency with Plan Bay Area
The project would be consistent with the overall goals of the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission’s Plan Bay Area 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy in concentrating new development in locations where there is existing infrastructure
as the project would develop the project site to provide a mix of land uses. The project is
located approximately 1.5 miles of the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, adjacent to I-580, other
major arterials, and bicycle lanes. The project includes various multi-use paths and walkways
that connect the residents and retail patrons with adjacent open space, surrounding
neighborhoods and nearby Emerald Glen Park. The project would provide housing and mixed
uses on an infill location near transit. These project design features are consistent with the GHG
reduction planning efforts and housing performance targets outlined in Plan Bay Area 2040.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with the land use concept plan in Plan Bay Area 2040
and impacts would be less than significant.
10.5.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Table 10-9: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
summarizes the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures
for the project with regard to greenhouse gas emissions.
Table 10-9: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
Impact GHG-1: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable effects on
construction-related greenhouse gas
emissions (Class III).
Less than Significant None required.
Impact GHG-2: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable effects on
long-term operations-related
greenhouse gas emissions (Class III).
Less than Significant None required.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-35
Draft EIR
10/23/18
10.6 References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010. Clean Air Plan. Available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/current-plans.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
(updated May 2017). Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-
and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. Air Quality Standards and
Attainment Status. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-
qualitystandards- and-attainment-status. Accessed March 20, 2017.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2008. CEQA & Climate Change:
Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2016. CalEEMod User’s Guide
Version 2016.3.2. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/mwg-
internal/de5fs23hu73ds/progress?id=WyxrYFLEwisGHCGagrwXbLpEoQlsK2Ey4aPiERcP1
NA,&dl
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan, Framework for
Change, as Approved December 2008, Pursuant to AB32. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2013. Annual Report to the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee on Assembly Bill 32. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/jlbcreports/jan2013jlbcreport.pdf.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2014. AB 32 Scoping Plan. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scoping plan/scoping plan.htm
California Air Resources Board (CARB). January 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping
Plan. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data – 2017 Edition.
Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm
California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). January 2009. General Report Protocol, Reporting
Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1. Available at:
http://www.sfenvironment.org/sites/default/files/fliers/files/ccar_grp_3-
1_january2009_sfe-web.pdf
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2018. The Water Conservation Act of 2009.
Available at: http://wdl.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/sb7/.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-36 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2006. Climate Action Team Report to
Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. Available at:
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006-04-
03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). April 2010. Climate Action Team Biennial
Report. Final Report. Available at:
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/
City of Dublin. Climate Action Plan Update. July 2013. Available online:
https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5799
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis
Report, the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report. Available at: http://www.ipcc-
nggip.iges.or.jp/public/index.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis
Report, the Fifth IPCC Assessment Report. Available at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
US EPA. April 2018. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
US EPA. April 2018. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-
1990-2016
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hazards & Hazardous Materials | Page 11-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
11 Hazards & Hazardous Materials
11.1 Introduction
This section describes effects of hazards and hazardous materials that would result from
implementation of the project. Information used to prepare this section came from the
following resources:
ENGEO Incorporated, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 2018 (see Appendix E)
City of Dublin, General Plan, 1985, as amended November 2017
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Final EIR, 1994, updated 2016
11.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, no comments regarding hazards and
hazardous materials were raised.
11.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on the potential for hazardous conditions on the project site.
11.3.1 Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials, as defined by the California Code of Regulations, are substances with
certain physical properties that could pose a substantial present or future hazard to human
health or the environment when handled, disposed, or otherwise managed improperly.
Hazardous materials are grouped into the following four categories, based on their properties:
Toxic – causes human health effects
Ignitable – has the ability to burn
Corrosive – causes severe burns or damage to materials
Reactive – causes explosions or generates toxic gases
A hazardous waste is any hazardous material that is discarded, abandoned, or slated to be
recycled. The criteria that define a material as hazardous also define a waste as hazardous. If
handled, disposed, or otherwise handled improperly, hazardous materials and hazardous waste
can result in public health hazards if released into the soil or groundwater or through airborne
releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. Soil and groundwater having concentrations of hazardous
material constituents higher than specific regulatory levels must be handled and disposed of as
hazardous waste when excavated or pumped from an aquifer. The California Code of
Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66261.20-24 contain technical descriptions of toxic
characteristics that could cause soil or groundwater to be classified as hazardous waste.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 11-2 | Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Draft EIR
10/23/18
11.3.2 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
A Phase 1 ESA was prepared by ENGEO in January 2018 to determine the presence or absence
of hazardous materials on the project site. This assessment included a review of local, state,
tribal, and federal environmental record sources, standard historical sources, aerial
photographs, fire insurance maps and physical setting sources. A reconnaissance of the
property was conducted to review site use and current conditions to check for the storage, use,
production or disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials and interviews with
persons knowledgeable about current and past site use. The findings are summarized as
follows.
Existing Conditions
The Phase I ESA identified 11 Federal USGS wells located within one mile of the project site.
The closed well, Well Number 1, is located less than one-half-mile east-southeast of the
property, and 20 groundwater level measurements were observed, which ranged between 34.9
feet and 36.9 feet below the ground.
No Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), historical RECs, nor controlled RECs were
identified on the property. However, ENGEO identified the following conditions that could pose
an environmental concern:
One five-gallon bucket containing petroleum hydrocarbon material and one five-
gallon bucket containing petroleum hydrocarbon spilt material (middle parcel APN
985-52-24).
Approximately nine drums in poor condition (middle parcel APN 985-52-24).
Minor stained soil with odors (middle parcel APN 985-52-24).
Minor stressed vegetation under abandoned tractors (middle parcel APN 985-52-
24).
Solid waste debris (middle parcel AP: 985-52-24 and southern parcel APN 985-51-5).
Abandoned Zone 7 water supply well (middle parcel APN 985-52-24).
Records Search
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) performed a search of federal, state, and local
databases listing contaminated sites, brownfield sites (a development site having the presence
or potential presence of hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminate), underground storage
tank sites, waste storage sites, toxic chemical sites, contaminated well sites, clandestine drug
lab sites, and other sites containing hazardous materials. The project site and adjacent sites
were not listed on any databases.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hazards & Hazardous Materials | Page 11-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Topographic Maps and Aerial Photographs
ENGEO reviewed historical USGS topographic maps and aerial photographs provided by EDR of
the project site dating back to 1906. In the 1906 map, no structures were identified. Structures
do appear in 1953 and disappear by 1998.
In the aerial photographs the project site was vacant or used as agricultural land in 1939 and
four structures appear on the site in 1949. The site appears to have historically been used as
agricultural row crops based on 1966 and 1968 aerial photographs.
Hazardous Building Materials
The Phase I ESA concluded that asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint were not a
concern because of the absence of buildings on the project site.
11.3.3 Livermore Municipal Airport
The Livermore Municipal Airport is located in the western portion of Livermore, immediately
south of I-580, and approximately two miles from the project site. The airport is owned and
operated by the City of Livermore.
The Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) indicates that 600 aircraft
were based at the airport in 2008, with that number projected to increase to 900 by 2030. The
airport averaged 394 operations per day in 2014 (143,810 operations annually).
Most of the project site, excluding the most northerly portion, is located with the Airport
Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District. This area is designated as an area in which current
or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety and/or airspace protection factors may affect
land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The AIA is a designation in the ALUCP by the
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission.
As shown in Figure 11-1: Livermore Municipal Airport Safety Compatibility Zones, the same
portion of the project site is also located within Land Use Compatibility Zone 7 (Area of
Influence) of the Livermore Municipal Airport, as established in the ALUCP.
11.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
The management of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes is regulated at federal, state,
and local levels, including, among others, through programs administered by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA); agencies within the California Environmental
Protection Agency (CalEPA), such as the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC);
federal and state occupational safety agencies; and the Alameda County Department of
Environmental Health. Regulations pertaining to flood hazards are discussed in Chapter 12:
Hydrology & Water Quality, and regulations for geologic and soil-related hazards are discussed
in Chapter 9: Geology and Soils.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 11-4 | Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Draft EIR
10/23/18
11.4.1 Federal
Toxic Substances Control Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act/Hazardous and Solid
Waste Act
The federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) established a program administered by the U.S. EPA for the regulation of the
generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was
amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act (HSWA), which affirmed and extended
the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act/Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law
(U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 103) provides broad federal authority to respond directly to
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or
the environment. CERCLA establishes requirements concerning closed and abandoned
hazardous waste sites; provides for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous
waste at these sites; and establishes a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible
party can be identified. CERCLA also enables the revision of the National Contingency Plan
(NCP). The NCP (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulation [CFR], Part 300) provides the guidelines
and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, and/or contaminants. The NCP also established the National Priorities
List. CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October
17, 1986.
Clean Water Act/SPCC Rule
The Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq., formerly the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972), was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. The CWA
requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the
regulation of point source and certain non-point source discharges to surface water. Those
discharges are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit process (CWA Section 402). In California, NPDES permitting authority is delegated to,
and administered by, the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The project is
within the jurisdiction of the Central Coast RWQCB.
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the California State Water Resources Control
Board to issue NPDES General Construction Storm Water Permit (Water Quality Order 99-08-
DWQ), referred to as the “General Construction Permit.” Construction activities can comply
with and be covered under the General Construction Permit provided that they:
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hazards & Hazardous Materials | Page 11-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which
specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will prevent all construction
pollutants from contacting stormwater and with the intent of keeping all products of
erosion from moving off-site into receiving waters;
Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other
waters of the nation; and
Perform inspections of all BMPs.
NPDES regulations are administered by the RWQCB. Projects that disturb one or more acres
are required to obtain NPDES coverage under the Construction General Permits.
As part of the CWA, U.S. EPA oversees and enforces the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation
contained in Title 40 of the CFR, Part 112 (Title 40 CFR, Part 112) which is often referred to as
the “SPCC rule” because the regulations describe the requirements for facilities to prepare,
amend and implement Spill Prevention and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plans. A facility is subject
to SPCC regulations if a single oil (or gasoline, or diesel fuel) storage tank has a capacity greater
than 660 gallons, the total above ground oil storage capacity exceeds 1,320 gallons, or the
underground oil storage capacity exceeds 42,000 gallons, and if, due to its location, the facility
could reasonably be expected to discharge oil into or upon the “Navigable Waters” of the
United States.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
OSHA’s mission is to ensure the safety and health of America's workers by setting and enforcing
standards; providing training, outreach, and education; establishing partnerships; and
encouraging continual improvement in workplace safety and health. OSHA staff establishes
and enforces protective standards and reaches out to employers and employees through
technical assistance and consultation programs. OSHA standards are listed in Title 29 CFR Part
1910.
OSHA’s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard (HAZWOPER) applies
to five distinct groups of employers and their employees. This includes any employees who are
exposed or potentially exposed to hazardous substances — including hazardous waste — and
who are engaged in one of the following operations:
Clean-up operations — required by a governmental body, whether federal, State,
local, or other involving hazardous substances — that are conducted at uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites;
Corrective actions involving clean-up operations at sites covered by RCRA as
amended (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.);
Voluntary clean-up operations at sites recognized by federal, state, local, or other
governmental body as uncontrolled hazardous waste sites;
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 11-6 | Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Operations involving hazardous wastes that are conducted at treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities regulated by Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 264
and 265 pursuant to RCRA, or by agencies under agreement with U.S. EPA to
implement RCRA regulations; and
Emergency response operations for releases of, or substantial threats of releases of,
hazardous substances regardless of the location of the hazard.
11.4.2 State
Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act of 1985
The California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, known as the Hazardous
Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act or the Business Plan Act, requires
businesses using hazardous materials to prepare a plan that describes their facilities,
inventories, emergency response plans, and training programs. Businesses must submit this
information to the County Environmental Health Division. The Environmental Health Division
verifies the information and provides it to agencies responsible for protection of public health
and safety and the environment. Business Plans are required to include emergency response
plans and procedures in the event of a reportable release or threatened release of a hazardous
material, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
Immediate notification to the administering agency and to the appropriate local
emergency rescue personnel.
Procedures for the mitigation of a release or threatened release to minimize any
potential harm or damage to persons, property, or the environment.
Evacuation plans and procedures, including immediate notice, for the business site.
Business Plans are also required to include training for all new employees, and
annual training, including refresher courses, for all employees in safety procedures
in the event of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material.
Hazardous Waste Control Act
The Hazardous Waste Control Act created the State hazardous waste management program,
which is similar to but more stringent than the federal RCRA program. The act is implemented
by regulations contained in Title 26 of the CCR, which describes the following required aspects
for the proper management of hazardous waste: identification and classification; generation
and transportation; design and permitting of recycling, treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities; treatment standards; operation of facilities and staff training; and closure of facilities
and liability requirements. These regulations list more than 800 materials that may be
hazardous and establish criteria for identifying, packaging, and disposing of such waste. Under
the Hazardous Waste Control Act and Title 26, the generator of hazardous waste must
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hazards & Hazardous Materials | Page 11-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
complete a manifest that accompanies the waste from generator to transporter to the ultimate
disposal location. Copies of the manifest must be filed with the DTSC.
Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program
The Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program
(Unified Program) required the administrative consolidation of six hazardous materials and
waste programs (Program Elements) under one agency, a Certified Unified Program Agency
(CUPA). The Program Elements consolidated under the Unified Program are Hazardous Waste
Generator and On-site Hazardous Waste Treatment Programs (a.k.a. Tiered Permitting);
Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank SPCC; Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and
Inventory Program (a.k.a. Hazardous Materials Disclosure or “Community-Right-To-Know”);
California Accidental Release Prevention Program (Cal ARP); Underground Storage Tank (UST)
Program; and Uniform Fire Code Plans and Inventory Requirements.
The Unified Program is intended to provide relief to businesses complying with the overlapping
and sometimes conflicting requirements of formerly independently managed programs. The
Unified Program is implemented at the local government level by CUPAs. Most CUPAs have
been established as a function of a local environmental health or fire department. Some CUPAs
have contractual agreements with another local agency, a participating agency, which
implements one or more Program Elements in coordination with the CUPA.
Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC)
DTSC is a department of Cal EPA and is the primary agency in California that regulates
hazardous waste, cleans up existing contamination, and looks for ways to reduce the hazardous
waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the
authority of the federal RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code (primarily Division 20,
Chapters 6.5 through 10.6, and Title 22, Division 4.5). Other laws that affect hazardous waste
are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and
emergency planning. Government Code §65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List)
includes DTSC-listed hazardous waste facilities and sites, Department of Health Services (DHS)
lists of contaminated drinking water wells, sites listed by the California Water Resources
Control Board as having UST leaks and have had a discharge of hazardous wastes or materials
into the water or groundwater, and lists from local regulatory agencies of sites that have had a
known migration of hazardous waste/material.
California Office of Emergency Services (OES)
To protect the public health and safety and the environment, the California OES is responsible
for establishing and managing statewide standards for business and area plans relating to the
handling and release or threatened release of hazardous materials. Basic information on
hazardous materials handled, used, stored, or disposed of (including location, type, quantity,
and the health risks) needs to be available to firefighters, public safety officers, and regulatory
agencies. The information must be included in these institutions’ business plans to prevent or
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 11-8 | Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Draft EIR
10/23/18
mitigate the damage to the health and safety of persons and the environment from the release
or threatened release of these materials into the workplace and environment.
These regulations are covered under Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code
Article 1– Hazardous Materials Release Response and Inventory Program (Sections 25500 to
25520) and Article 2– Hazardous Materials Management (Sections 25531 to 25543.3). CCR Title
19, Public Safety, Division 2, Office of Emergency Services, Chapter 4–Hazardous Material
Release Reporting, Inventory, and Response Plans, Article 4 (Minimum Standards for Business
Plans) establishes minimum statewide standards for Hazardous Materials Business Plans
(HMBP). These plans shall include the following: (1) a hazardous material inventory in
accordance with Sections 2729.2 to 2729.7; (2) emergency response plans and procedures in
accordance with Section 2731; and (3) training program information in accordance with Section
2732. Business plans contain basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks
of hazardous materials stored, used, or disposed of in the State. Each business shall prepare a
HMBP if that business uses, handles, or stores a hazardous material or an extremely hazardous
material in quantities greater than or equal to the following: 500 pounds of a solid substance,
55 gallons of a liquid, 200 cubic feet of compressed gas, a hazardous compressed gas in any
amount, or hazardous waste in any quantity.
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) is the primary agency
responsible for worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. Cal/OSHA
standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations. The employer is required to
monitor worker exposure to listed hazardous substances and notify workers of exposure (8 CCR
Sections 337-340). The regulations specify requirements for employee training, availability of
safety equipment, accident-prevention programs, and hazardous substance exposure warnings.
11.4.3 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin General Plan contains the following policies as it relates hazards and
hazardous materials.
Guiding Policy 8.3.4.A.1: Maintain and enhance the ability to regulate the use, transport, and
storage of hazardous materials and to quickly identify substances and take appropriate action
during emergencies.
Guiding Policy 8.3.4.A.2: Minimize the risk of exposure to hazardous materials from
contaminated sites.
Implementing Policy 8.3.4.B.2: As part of the City’s Comprehensive Emergency Response Plan,
the City has adopted a Hazardous Materials Response Plan. The City will periodically review the
Plan to prepare for and respond to emergencies related to hazardous materials.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hazards & Hazardous Materials | Page 11-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Implementing Policy 8.3.4.B.3: Periodically review and enforce the City’s ordinances regulating
the handling, transport, and storage of hazardous materials and hazardous waste.
Implementing Policy 8.3.4.B.4: Require site-specific hazardous materials studies for new
development projects where there is a potential for the presence of hazardous materials from
previous uses on the site. If hazardous materials are found, require the clean-up of sites to
acceptable regulatory standards prior to development.
Guiding Policy 8.4.1.A.1: All proposed land uses within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) shall be
reviewed for consistency with the safety compatibility policies and airspace protection policies
of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the Livermore Municipal Airport.
Implementing Policy 8.4.1.B.1: Adopt an Airport Overlay Zoning District to ensure that all
proposed development within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) is reviewed for consistency with
all applicable Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP)
policies.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The City of Dublin’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains the following policies and programs as
it relates to hazards and hazardous materials:
Policy 11-1 Prior to issuance of building permits for site-specific Phase I (and if necessary Phase
II) environmental site assessments shall be made available to the Community Development
Director, with appropriate documentation that all recommended remediation actions have
been completed.
Alameda County – Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) governs land use around
Livermore Municipal Airport. The ALUCP was adopted by the Alameda County Airport Land Use
Commission in 2012.
The ALUCP should act as a guide for the Airport Land Use Commission and local jurisdictions in
safeguarding the general welfare of the public. The ALUCP establishes that the following
“specific characteristics” are to be avoided: (1) glare or distracting lights that could be mistaken
for airport lights; (2) sources dust, heat, steam, or smoke that may impair pilot vision; (3)
sources of steam or other emissions that may cause thermal plumes or other forms of unstable
air that generate turbulence within the flight path; (4) sources of electrical interferences with
aircraft communications or navigation; or (5) features that create an increased attraction for
wildlife including landfills or agricultural and recreational uses that attract large flocks of birds.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 11-10 | Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Draft EIR
10/23/18
11.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
11.5.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for hazards & hazardous materials were derived from the
Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been
amended or supplemented, as appropriate, to address lead agency requirements and the full
range of potential impacts related to this project. An impact of the project would be
considered significant and would require mitigation if it would meet one of the following
criteria.
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment.
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment.
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands.
Significance Classifications
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hazards & Hazardous Materials | Page 11-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
11.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
The nearest school to the project site is Kolb Elementary School, located 0.5 miles east of the
project site. Therefore, the project would not affect an existing or proposed school within the
designated rate of one-quarter mile and this threshold is not evaluated further. The project site
is also not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5; therefore, this threshold is not evaluated further.
The project site is not located within the area of or within the direct vicinity of an emergency
response plan. Therefore, this threshold is not further evaluated.
The project site is not located adjacent to wildlands that would put the property at risk for fires.
Therefore, this threshold is not further evaluated.
11.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact HAZ-1: Exposure to known hazardous contaminants (Class II).
The project site is currently undeveloped and has not supported urban development in the
past. Although Phase I ESA concluded there were no Recognized Environmental Conditions
(RECs) or historical RECs on the site, the following deleterious materials were observed:
One 5-gallon bucket of petroleum hydrocarbon containing material and one 5-gallon
bucket of petroleum hydrocarbon containing spilt material (middle parcel APN 985-
52-24).
Approximately nine drums in poor condition (middle parcel APN 985-52-24).
Minor stained soil with odors (middle parcel APN 985-52-24).
Minor stressed vegetation under abandoned tractors (middle parcel APN 985-52-
24).
Solid waste debris (middle parcel AP: 985-52-24 and southern parcel APN 985-51-5).
Abandoned Zone 7 water supply well (middle parcel APN 985-52-24).
Based on the land uses being proposed, the disturbance of these deleterious materials could
result in the exposure of hazardous contaminants into the environment. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. Implementation of MM HAZ-1.1 Disposal of Deleterious
Materials would reduce this impact to less than significant.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 11-12 | Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Mitigation for Impact HAZ-1
MM HAZ-1.1 Disposal of Deleterious Materials.
Prior to any ground disturbance on the middle parcel (APN 985-52-24), the project applicant
shall retain a qualified hazardous materials contractor to properly dispose of the observed
deleterious materials, and any others discovered during remediation. Additionally, the
applicant shall close the abandoned Zone 7 water supply well in accordance with applicable
regulatory agency requirements.
Impact HAZ-2: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions. (Class III).
Project construction activities may involve the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous
materials. These materials may include chemicals such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil,
hydraulic oil, lubricating grease, automatic transmission fluid, paints, solvents, glues, and other
substances used during construction. Construction of the project would also require the use of
gasoline and diesel-powered heavy equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, water pumps, and
air compressors. Transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during
construction activities would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations regarding the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials.
Compliance with these statutes and regulations would ensure that human health and the
environment are not exposed to hazardous materials.
The project would develop a mixed-use of commercial and residential uses on the project site.
The project’s end uses would not involve the routine use of large qualities of hazardous
materials. Small quantities of hazardous materials would be used as part of daily operations,
including cleaning solvents (e.g., degreasers, diesel, paint thinners, and aerosol propellants),
paints, disinfectants, and fertilizers. These substances would be stored in secure areas and
would be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements.
If future commercial users propose to use, handle, or store hazardous materials or waste in
quantities that are regulated by the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health,
they would be required to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan documenting basic
information on the location, type, quality, and health risks of hazardous materials and/or
waste. Transport of these materials would be performed by commercial vendors who would be
required to comply with applicable federal and state regulations.
For the residential portion of the project, there would be a less than impact to the transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials, since residential development does not use, store or
transport significant quantities of hazardous materials. To the extent there are potentially
hazardous materials used in construction, the impacts would be less than significant due to
compliance with regulatory requirements, and no mitigation would be required.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hazards & Hazardous Materials | Page 11-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR did not identify any significant impacts associated with
hazardous materials.
Impact HAZ-3: Create aviation hazards for persons residing or working in the project area (Class
III).
Most of the project site is located with the Airport Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District.
This area is designated as an area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight,
safety and/or airspace protection factors may affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on
those uses.
The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan establishes that the following “specific characteristics”
are to be avoided in the AIA: 1) Glare or distracting lights that could be mistaken for airport
lights; 2) Sources of dust, heat, steam, or smoke that may impair pilot vision; 3) Sources of
steam or other emissions that may cause thermal plumes or other forms of unstable air that
generate turbulence within the flight path; 4) Sources of electrical interferences with aircraft
communications or navigation; or 5) Features that create an increased attraction for wildlife
including landfills or agricultural and recreational uses that attract large flocks of birds.
The project’s does not: 1) Propose any exterior lights that could be mistaken for airport lights;
2) Propose any uses or activities that emit substantial amounts of dust, heat, steam, or smoke;
3) Propose any uses or activities that would generate electrical interference; or 4) Have
features that could attract large flocks of birds (e.g., a pond). As such, the project would be
compatible with the flight hazards policies of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and
impacts would be less than significant.
11.5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographical area for the analysis of cumulative impacts involving risks associated with
hazards and hazardous materials is the is the project site and adjacent properties.
Impact HAZ-4: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts to hazards and hazardous
materials (Class II).
Most hazards and hazardous materials impacts from development are site-specific and if
properly designed would not result in additive worsening of the environmental or public health
and safety. Cumulative development would be subject to site-specific hazards and/or
hazardous materials constraints; pursuant to the City of Dublin’s building requirements.
Nevertheless, development of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future developments
could cumulatively increase the potential for exposure of people throughout the City of Dublin
to existing soil contamination from ground disturbance during construction; hazards associated
with the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials for any industrial projects; wildland
fire hazards from development in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone; and compliance with the
Alameda County Emergency Response and/or Evacuation Plans because of the addition of
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 11-14 | Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Draft EIR
10/23/18
residents and employees in areas without adequate emergency access. Therefore, an overall
increase in the potential for exposure to hazards, hazardous materials, and wildland fires could
occur as development occurs. The project’s potential contribution to this cumulative increase
would be less than significant based on the primary site-specific nature of potential impacts,
compliance with regulatory requirements, and implementation of MM HAZ- 1.1: Disposal of
Deleterious Materials.
11.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 11-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Hazards & Hazardous Materials
summarizes the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures
for the project with regard to hazards & hazardous materials.
Table 11-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact HAZ-1: Exposure to known
hazardous contaminants (Class II).
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM HAZ- 1.1: Disposal of Deleterious Materials.
Impact HAZ-2: Create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials, or through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions. (Class III).
Less than
Significant
None required.
Impact HAZ-3: Create aviation
hazards for persons residing or
working in the project area (Class III)
Less than
Significant
None required.
Impact HAZ-4: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable impacts
to hazards and hazardous materials
(Class II).
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM HAZ- 1.1: Disposal of Deleterious Materials.
11.6 References
CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2008. Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones in LRA in Alameda County.
http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/alameda/fhszl_map.1.pdf
City of Dublin. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 1994 updated 2016.
County of Alameda. 2012. Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. August.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hazards & Hazardous Materials | Page 11-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hydrology & Water Quality | Page 12-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
12 Hydrology & Water Quality
12.1 Introduction
This section describes effects on water resources (hydrology and water quality) that would be
caused by implementation of the project. Information used to prepare this section came from
the following resources:
Aerial photography
Project application and related materials
Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, Preliminary Drainage Study, At Dublin, 2018 (see Appendix F)
Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan, At Dublin, 2018
(see Appendix G)
Dublin-San Ramon Services District, Urban Water Management Plan, 2015.
12.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, no comments regarding hydrology
and water quality were raised.
12.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on the existing conditions of the project site and vicinity for
hydrology and water quality.
12.3.1 Surface Water
Watershed
The project site is located within the Livermore Drainage Unit which is one of two major
drainage basins in the Alameda Creek Watershed, and east of Tassajara Creek, which runs in a
north-south direction. Tassajara Creek is a natural watercourse north of Interstate 580; but is
channelized south of Interstate 580, prior to its convergence with Arroyo Mocho. Arroyo
Mocho flows south to Arroyo De La Laguna, which empties into the San Francisco Bay.
The project site is located in the service area of the Dublin-San Ramon Services District (DSRSD),
which serves the City of Dublin with potable water and non-potable recycled water. Alameda
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, known as Zone 7, supplies wholesale
water to DSRSD.
Flooding
Flood Insurance Rate maps partition flood areas into three zones: Zone A for areas of 100-year
flood; Zone B for areas of 500-year flood; and Zone C for areas of minimal flooding. The
National Flood Insurance Program 100-year floodplain is considered the base flood condition.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-12-2 | Hydrology & Water Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
This is defined as a flood event of a magnitude that would be equaled or exceeded an average
of once during a 100-year period. Floodways are defined as stream channels plus adjacent
floodplains that must be kept free of encroachment as much as possible so that the 100-year
floods can be carried without substantial increases (no more than one foot) in flood elevations.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM), the majority of the project site is within Zone X (areas of the 0.2% annual
chance flood; areas of one percent annual chance flood with average depth of less than one
foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1%
annual chance flood), except the southerly portion of PA-1, which lies within zone AH (flood
depth of one to three feet) with a base flood elevation of 349.0. (FEMA, 2009). As shown in
Figure 12-1: Flood Hazard Areas, the southerly portion of the project site is located within the
100-year floodplain.
12.3.2 Groundwater
The project is within the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin which extends about 14 miles
from the Pleasanton Ridge east to the Altamont Hills and about three miles from the Livermore
Upland north to the Orinda Upland. Principal streams providing surface drainage include
Arroyo Valle, Arroyo Mocho, and Arroyo Las Positas, with Alamo Creek, South San Ramon
Creek, and Tassajara Creek as minor streams. All streams converge on the west side of the
basin to form Arroyo de la Laguna, which flows south and joins Alameda Creek in Sunol Valley.
Some geologic structures restrict the lateral movement of groundwater, but the general
groundwater gradient is to the west, then south towards Arroyo de la Laguna. Elevations
within the basin range from about 600 feet in the east, near the Altamont Hills, to about 280
feet in the southwest, where Arroyo de la Laguna flows into Sunol Groundwater Basin. Average
annual precipitation ranges from 16 inches on the valley floor to more than 20 inches along the
southeast and northwest basin margins.
The floor of the Livermore Valley and portions of the upland areas on all sides of the valley
overlie groundwater-bearing materials. The materials are continental deposits from alluvial
fans, outwash plains, and lakes. They include valley-fill materials, the Livermore Formation, and
the Tassajara Formation. Under most conditions, the valley-fill and Livermore sediments yield
adequate to large quantities of groundwater to all types of wells. The quality of water
produced from these rocks ranges from poor to excellent, with most waters in the good to
excellent range.
Total storage capacity of the basin is estimated at about 500,000 acre-feet (af). Groundwater
storage was estimated at 219,000 af in 1999.
Zone 7 has maintained an annual hydrologic inventory of supply and demand since 1974. The
inventory describes the balance between groundwater supply and demand. Under average
hydrologic conditions, the groundwater budget is essentially in balance. Groundwater budget
inflow components include natural recharge of 10,000 acre-feet, artificial recharge of 10,900 af,
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hydrology & Water Quality | Page 12-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
applied water recharge of 1,740 acre-feet, and subsurface inflow of 1,000 af. Groundwater
budget outflow components include urban extraction of 10,290 af, agricultural extraction of
190 af, other extraction and evaporation associated with gravel mining operations of 12,620 af,
and subsurface outflow of 540 af.
Zone 7 extracts groundwater from the Livermore Valley Main Groundwater Basin (Main Basin)
which contains high-yielding aquifers and good quality groundwater. The Main Basin has an
estimated storage capacity of approximately 254,000 af. California Department of Water
Resources (DWR) has not identified the Main Basin as a basin in overdraft or a basin expected
to be in overdraft. The Main Basin is considered a storage facility and not a long-term source of
water supply because Zone 7 only pumps groundwater it has artificially recharged using its
surface water supplies.
DSRSD, the City of Pleasanton, the City of Livermore, and California Water Service Company
have agreements with Zone 7 limiting their extraction of the long-term sustainable yield of the
Main Basin. This agreement, along with Zone 7’s other groundwater management activities,
keeps the groundwater budget in balance under average hydraulic conditions. Each of these
entities, known as retailers, has a groundwater pumping quota (GPQ) and are responsible for a
fee if they pump in excess of their GPQ.
DSRSD groundwater supply is pumped by Zone 7 from Mocho well No. 4, a Zone 7 installed
well located in the Mocho well field. Groundwater from Mocho No.4 is blended with water
from other Zone 7 water supplies and is delivered to DSRSD to meet its total water demand.
Zone 7 conducts a program of groundwater replenishment by recharging imported surface
water via its streams ("in-stream recharge") for storage in the Main Basin. Zone 7's operational
policy is to maintain the balance between the combination of natural and artificial recharge and
withdrawal, ensuring that groundwater levels do not drop below the historic low level of
128,000 af. Zone 7 plans to recharge 9,200 afy on average, which means that Zone 7 can pump
an equivalent 9,200 afy on average from the Main Basin.
12.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
12.4.1 Federal and State
Clean Water Act
Under the Clean Water Act of 1972, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA) is authorized to regulate the discharge of pollutants in the waters of the United States and
to regulate water quality standards for surface waters. The U.S. EPA has delegated authority
for implementing water quality regulations to the California State Water Resources Control
Board (State Water Board), which has nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB).
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
State Water Board regulates water quality through the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act of
1969, which contains a complete framework for the regulation of waste discharges to both
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-12-4 | Hydrology & Water Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
surface waters and groundwater of the state. On the regional level, the project falls under the
jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, which is responsible for the implementation of
state and federal water quality protection statutes, regulations and guidelines.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,
municipal storm water discharges in the City of Dublin are regulated under the San Francisco
Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit, Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, adopted November
19, 2015. The Municipal Regional Permit is overseen by the RWQCB.
The City of Dublin is a member agency of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, which
assists municipalities and other agencies in Alameda County with implementation of the
Municipal Regional Permit. Provision C.3 addresses post-construction stormwater
management requirements for new development and redevelopment projects that add and/or
replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious area. Provision C.3 requires the
incorporation of site design, source control, and stormwater treatment measures into
development projects to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and non-
stormwater discharges, and to prevent increases in runoff flows. Low Impact Development
(LID) methods are to be the primary mechanism for implementing such controls.
Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3.g pertains to hydromodification management. This
Municipal Regional Permit provision requires that stormwater discharges not cause an increase
in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the existing condition. Increases in runoff
flow and volume must be managed so that the post-project runoff does not exceed estimated
pre-project rates and durations, where such increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause
increased potential for erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other
adverse impacts on beneficial uses due to increased erosive force.
The Hydromodification Management Susceptibility Map developed by the Alameda Countywide
Clean Water Program indicates that Dublin drains primarily to earthen channels; therefore,
projects that create or replace one acre or more of impervious surface and increase impervious
surface over pre-project conditions are subject to hydromodification management
requirements.
In addition, projects disturbing more than one acre of land during construction are required to
comply with the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with
Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No.
CAS000002 (Construction General Permit). Construction General Permit activities are regulated
at a local level by the RWQCB.
To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, a project applicant must provide a
Notice of Intent, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and other documents
required by Attachment B of the Construction General Permit. Activities subject to the
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hydrology & Water Quality | Page 12-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Construction General Permit include clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as
grubbing or excavation. The permit also covers linear underground and overhead projects such
as pipeline installations.
The Construction General Permit uses a risk-based permitting approach and mandates certain
requirements based on the project risk level (Level 1, 2, or 3). The project risk level is based on
the risk of sediment discharge and the receiving water risk. The sediment discharge risk
depends on project location and timing (such as wet season versus dry season activities). The
receiving water risk depends on whether the project would discharge to a sediment-sensitive
receiving water. The determination of the project risk level would be made by project
applicants when the Notice of Intent is filed (and more details of the timing of the construction
activity are known).
The performance standard in the Construction General Permit is that dischargers minimize or
prevent pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges
through the use of controls, structures, and best management practices (BMPs). A SWPPP must
be prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer that meets the certification requirements in the
Construction General Permit. The purpose of the SWPPP is: 1) to help identify the sources of
sediment and other pollutants that could affect the quality of stormwater discharges, and 2) to
describe and ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other
pollutants in stormwater as well as non-stormwater discharges resulting from construction
activity. Operation of BMPs must be overseen by a qualified SWPPP practitioner who meets
the requirements outlined in the permit.
Section 303(d) and Total Maximum Daily Loads
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires each state to identify water bodies that
are impaired, and which consequently require further action to support their beneficial uses.
Once a water body is identified as impaired, the state is required to establish a Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) for each pollutant that is a source of impairment. A TMDL is a calculation of
the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality
standards, which will ensure the protection of beneficial uses. The Basin Plan establishes
TMDLs and the attainment strategies that need to be implemented to meet the standards.
TMDL attainment strategies are implemented by the RWQCB through National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
National Flood Insurance Program
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), implemented by the Congress of the United
States in 1968, enables participating communities to purchase flood insurance. Flood insurance
rates are set according to flood-prone status of property as indicated by FIRMs developed by
FEMA. FIRMs identify the estimated limits of the 100-year floodplain for mapped watercourses,
among other flood hazards. As a condition of participation in the NFIP, communities must
adopt regulations for floodplain development intended to reduce flood damage for new
development through such measures as flood proofing, elevation on fill, or floodplain
avoidance.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-12-6 | Hydrology & Water Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Senate Bill 610
Senate Bill (SB) 610 was passed on January 1, 2002, amending California state law to require
detailed analysis of water supply availability for large development projects. An SB 610 Water
Supply Assessment (WSA) must be prepared if the following three conditions are met: 1) the
project is subject to CEQA under Water Code Section 10910; 2) the project meets criteria to be
defined as a “Project” under Water Code Section 10912; and 3) the applicable water agency’s
current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) does not account for the water supply
demand associated with the project. A project would meet the definition of “Project” per
Water Code Section 10912 if it is:
A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units;
A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000
persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space;
A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or
having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space;
A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms;
A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned
to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having
more than 650,000 square feet of floor area;
A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this
subdivision; or
A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the
amount of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project (DWR, 2003b).
12.4.2 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following guiding and implementing policies
associated with hydrology and water quality that are relevant to the project:
Guiding Policy 7.3.1.A.1: Maintain natural hydrologic systems.
Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.1: Enforce the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit for
stormwater issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board or any
subsequent permit as well as Chapter 7 (Public Works) and Chapter 9 (Subdivisions) of the
Dublin Municipal Code for maintenance of water quality and protection of stream courses.
Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.2: Review development proposals to ensure site design that
minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hydrology & Water Quality | Page 12-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.1: Protect the quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater
resources that serve the community.
Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.2: Protect water quality by minimizing stormwater runoff and providing
adequate stormwater facilities.
Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.3: To minimize flooding in existing and future development, design
stormwater facilities to handle design-year flows based on buildout of the General Plan.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.1: Support Zone 7’s efforts to complete planned regional storm
drainage improvements.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.2: With the goal of minimizing impervious surface area,
encourage design and construction of new streets to have the minimum vehicular travel lane
width possible while still meeting circulation, flow, and safety requirements for all modes of
transportation.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.3: Discourage additional parking over and above the required
minimum parking standards for any land use unless the developer can demonstrate a need for
additional parking.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.5: Review design guidelines and standard details to ensure that
developers can incorporate clean water runoff requirements into their projects.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.6: Maximize the runoff directed to permeable areas or to
stormwater storage by appropriate site design and grading, using appropriate detention and/or
retention structures, and orienting runoff toward permeable surfaces designed to manage
water flow.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.7: Review development plans to minimize impervious surfaces
and generally maximize infiltration of rainwater in soils, where appropriate. Strive to maximize
permeable areas to allow more percolation of runoff into the ground through such means as
bioretention areas, green strips, planter strips, decomposed granite, porous pavers, swales, and
other water permeable surfaces. Require planter strips between the streetandthesidewalk
within the community, wherever practical and feasible.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.8: Continue conducting construction site field inspections to
ensure proper erosion control and materials/waste management implementation to effectively
prohibit non-stormwater discharges.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The City of Dublin’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains the following policies and programs as
it relates to hydrology and water quality:
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-12-8 | Hydrology & Water Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Program 6H: The City should enact and enforce an erosion and sedimentation control ordinance
establishing performance standards to ensure maintenance of water quality and protection of
stream channels. The ordinance should regulate grading and development activities adjacent
to streams and wetland areas, and require revegetation of all ground disturbances immediately
after construction to reduce erosion potential. Until such an ordinance is in place, the City shall
require project applicants to provide a detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan as part
of the project submittal.
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCWC)
The ACFCWC is responsible for protecting county citizens from flooding by maintaining flood
channels and natural creeks within Alameda County. As a condition of receiving a drainage
permit, drainage plans for development projects must be reviewed by the ACFCWC to ensure
that they are consistent with its policies and regulations pertaining to runoff, stormwater
management and detention, flooding, and erosion. In addition, development projects that
involve work within the ACFCWC right-of-way or that involve construction, modification, or
connection to ACFCWC facilities are required to obtain a Flood Encroachment Permit and must
comply with ACFCWC standards and specifications.
12.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
12.5.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for hydrology & water quality were derived from the
Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been
amended or supplemented, as appropriate, to address lead agency requirements and the full
range of potential impacts related to this project.
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it
would meet one of the following criteria:
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, create any
substantial new sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise degrade surface water or
groundwater quality.
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge,
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted).
Place within a watercourse or flood hazard area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows, or otherwise substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
an area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flood-related damage
on- or offsite.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hydrology & Water Quality | Page 12-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite.
Result in or be subject to damage from inundation by mudflow.
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
12.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Based on the site’s location, it would not be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow. Therefore, these thresholds are not evaluated further in this chapter.
12.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact HYD-1: Contribute to the depletion of local groundwater supplies or interfere with
groundwater recharge (Class III).
The project could substantially deplete local groundwater supplies or interfere with
groundwater recharge if it:
Affected groundwater basin in overdraft conditions;
Caused the affected groundwater basin to be in overdraft;
Caused a substantial local groundwater level drawdown at wells in the area; or
Redirected natural recharge to the basin, such as through the introduction of
impervious areas that prevent infiltration.
As further described in Chapter 16: Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems, the project
would generate a potable water demand of 229 afy and a recycled water demand of 28 afy.
The project water demand, inclusive of potable, recycled, and groundwater, would be higher
than the demand included for the project site in the DSRSD’s 2015 UWMP.
However, the DSRSD net resulting water demand is lower than the water demand identified in
the UWMP due to the reduced water demands from four planned developments in the DSRSD
service area including The Green, Grafton Plaza, Lennar Homes, and Gale Ranch. Therefore, the
project would not exceed the capacity of the groundwater production system. Furthermore,
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-12-10 | Hydrology & Water Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
DWR has not identified the Main Basin as a basin in overdraft or a basin expected to be in
overdraft. Thus, the project would not cause the groundwater basin to be in overdraft, and it
would not result in substantial local groundwater level drawdown at wells in the area.
According to the Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan (Appendix G), the project would
result in 51.32 acres (approximately 66.74 percent of the project site) of net impervious
surfaces. An increase in impervious surfaces from the primarily pervious existing condition
could reduce groundwater recharge. Site acreage and impervious surface acreage identified in
the Stormwater Management Plan include building footprints, public and private street
pavement, sidewalks, walkways and driveways. Pursuant to the Stormwater Control Plans,
however, stormwater would be reduced through inclusion of bioretention, Silva Cells with
bioretention, and landscaping throughout the project site. These features would allow for
infiltration and replenishment of the groundwater basin.
In conclusion, the project would not result in groundwater overdraft, substantial local
groundwater level drawdown; or substantially redirect stormwater such that natural basin
recharge would be precluded. Impacts to local groundwater would be less than significant
(Class III).
Impact HYD-2: Increase stormwater runoff due to an increase in impervious surfaces (Class III).
The rate and amount of surface runoff is determined by multiple factors, including the
following: amount and intensity of precipitation; amount of other imported water that enters a
watershed; and amount of precipitation and imported water that infiltrates to the
groundwater. Infiltration is determined by several factors, including soil type, antecedent soil
moisture, rainfall intensity, the amount of impervious surfaces within a watershed, and
topography. The rate of surface runoff is largely determined by topography and the intensity of
rainfall over time. The project would not alter any precipitation amounts or intensities, nor
would it require any additional water to be imported into the project site. However,
construction would include earth-disturbing activities which may affect site-specific infiltration
and permeability during construction (temporary) and operation (permanent).
As shown in Figure 12-2: Preliminary Hydromodification Management Plan, on-site operations
would include a drainage system that would collect and convey runoff and ultimately discharge
it to the City of Dublin’s municipal storm drainage system. In accordance with the C.3 provision
of the Municipal Regional Storm Water Permit (MRP), the project utilizes the flow based
method (the “4 percent method”) to determine the sizing of the bioretention and Silva Cells.
The 4 percent method is based on a runoff inflow of 0.2 inches per hour, with an infiltration
rate through the biotreatment soil of five inches per hour (0.2 inches/hour divided by five
inches/hour = 0.04). The 0.04 sizing factor is applied to the to the total drainage area
contributing runoff to the treatment measure. For example, 1,742 square feet of bioretention
area would be needed to treat a one-acre paved site using the 4 percent method.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hydrology & Water Quality | Page 12-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The Dublin Ranch West Side Storm Drain Benefit District, adopted March 18, 2008, allocated
flow from watershed PA-1, PA-2 and PA-3 for design of the storm drain system that has since
been constructed. Below is a summary of the allocated 15-year peak flows for the project:
Watershed PA-1 = 24.52 cubic feet/second (cfs)
Watershed PA-2a and 2b = 26.21 cfs
Watershed PA-2c = 25.19 cfs
Watershed PA-3 = 19.60 cfs
Watershed PA-4 = not a part of the Dublin Ranch Master Drainage Watershed
Watershed “Tassajara” = not a part of the Dublin Ranch Master Drainage Watershed
The majority of the project site, including parcels PA-2 and PA-3, as well as Dublin Boulevard,
Central Parkway and Brannigan Street, is located within the Dublin Ranch Master Drainage
Watershed. Most drainage from the project site is discharged into the existing underground
storm drain system in the public streets surrounding the project site. The existing storm drain
system has been previously constructed in accordance with the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master
Plan infrastructure improvements. Thus, the watersheds and drainage connection points for
each development parcel and surrounding public streets have been previously identified and
hydraulically sized as part of the revised SWMP for Dublin Ranch (March 2003), and the Dublin
Ranch Drainage Master Plan (March 2006).
As a part of the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan improvements, a water quality/detention
basin was constructed at the downstream end of the Dublin Ranch Development Watershed
adjacent to Interstate 580. This water quality/detention basin treats stormwater runoff for the
properties that were included in the Dublin Ranch Development Watershed, including parcels
PA-2 and PA-3. The stormwater quality/detention pond was constructed to meet the mandates
in California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Order No.
R2-2003-0031, Waste Discharge Requirements and Water Quality Certification for Dublin Ranch
Project, Dublin and Livermore, Alameda County.
Impervious surface area within PA-1, PA-4, Gleason Drive and Tassajara Road were not included
in the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan, therefore full compliance to the MRP C.3
Requirements and Zone 7 flood control requirements shall be met within the project
boundaries.
Tables 12-1 through 12-6 show the criteria used to determine the drainage boundary and
treatment area for each drainage management area (DMA).
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-12-12 | Hydrology & Water Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 12-1: PA-1 Water Quality Boundary
Area
(Acres)
Proposed
Impervious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Allocated
Impervious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Impervious
Surface Area
Required to be
Treated
(Acres)
Treatment Area
Provided
(Acres)
PA-1 Boundary 22.21 17.33 0 17.33 0.888
Brannigan
Street within
PA-1 Boundary
0.21 0.16 0 0.16 0.008
Total PA-1A: 22.42 17.49 0 17.49 0.896
Notes:
1. Impervious surface areas for PA-1 include building footprints, pavement, sidewalks and walkways.
2. Impervious surface areas for public streets include street pavement and sidewalks.
3. Impervious Surface Area Required to be Treated = the treatment area that is not allocated to the downstream water quality/detention
basin per the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan.
4. Allocated Impervious Surface Area = the calculated impervious surface area based on the amount of runoff allocated to the downstream
water quality/detention basin.
5. Treatment Area Provided is calculated using the 4 percent method.
Source: RJA, Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, At Dublin, 2018 (see Appendix G).
Table 12-2: PA-2a Water Quality Boundary
Area
(Acres)
Proposed
Imperious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Allocated
Impervious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Impervious
Surface Area
Required to be
Treated
(Acres)
Treatment Area
Provided
(Acres)
PA-2a Boundary 9.75 8.10 5.85 2.24 0.39
100% of Dublin
Boulevard along
PA-2a Boundary
2.38 2.00 1.43 0.58
0.095
Tassajara Road
within PA-2a
Boundary
0.53 0.42 0.32 0.10
0.021
Total PA-2a: 12.66 10.52 7.60 2.92 0.506
Notes:
1. Impervious surface areas for single-family include building footprints, pavement, sidewalks, walkways and driveways.
2. Impervious surface areas for public streets include street pavement and sidewalks.
3. Impervious Surface Area Required to be Treated is the treatment area that is not allocated to the downstream water quality/detention
basin per the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan.
4. Allocated Impervious Surface Area = the calculated impervious surface area based on the amount of runoff allocated to the downstream
water quality/detention basin.
5. Treatment Area Provided is calculated using the 4 percent method.
Source: RJA, Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, At Dublin, 2018 (see Appendix G).
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hydrology & Water Quality | Page 12-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 12-3: PA-2b Water Quality Boundary
Area
(Acres)
Proposed
Imperious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Allocated
Impervious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Impervious
Surface Area
Required to be
Treated
(Acres)
Provided Water
Quality
Treatment
Area (Acres)
PA-2b Boundary 4.91 4.05 2.95 1.10 0.196
100% of Dublin
Blvd. along
PA-2b Boundary
1.15 0.97 0.69 0.28
0.046
Brannigan
Street within
PA-2b Boundary
0.36 0.28 0.22 0.06
0.014
Total PA-2b: 6.42 5.30 3.86 1.44 0.257
Notes:
1. Impervious surface areas for PA-2B include apartment footprints, pavement, sidewalks, walkways and driveways.
2. Impervious surface areas for public streets include street pavement and sidewalks.
3. Impervious Surface Area Required to be Treated is the treatment area that is not allocated to the downstream water quality/detention
basin per the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan.
4. Allocated Impervious Surface Area = the calculated impervious surface area based on the amount of runoff allocated to the downstream
water quality/detention basin.
5. Treatment Area Provided is calculated using the 4 percent method.
Source: RJA, Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, At Dublin, 2018 (see Appendix G).
Table 12-4: PA-2c Water Quality Boundary
Area
(Acres)
Proposed
Imperious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Allocated
Impervious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Impervious
Surface Area
Required to be
Treated
(Acres)
Provided Water
Quality
Treatment
Area (Acres)
PA-2c Boundary 12.80 8.71 7.68 1.03 0.512
50% of Central
Parkway 1.12 0.82 0.67 0.15 0.045
Tassajara Road
within PA-2c
Boundary
0.46 0.36 0.28 0.08
0.018
Brannigan
Street within
PA-2c Boundary
0.21 0.15 0.13 0.02
0.008
Total PA-2c: 14.59 10.04 8.76 1.28 0.584
Notes:
1. Impervious surface areas for PA-2C include townhouse footprints, pavement, sidewalks, walkways and driveways.
2. Impervious surface areas for public streets include street pavement and sidewalks.
3. Impervious Surface Area Required to be Treated is the treatment area that is not allocated to the downstream water quality/detention
basin per the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan.
4. Allocated Impervious Surface Area = the calculated impervious surface area based on the amount of runoff allocated to the downstream
water quality/detention basin.
5. Treatment Area Provided is calculated using the 4 percent method.
Source: RJA, Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, At Dublin, 2018 (see Appendix G).
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-12-14 | Hydrology & Water Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 12-5: PA-3 Water Quality Boundary
Area
(Acres)
Proposed
Imperious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Allocated
Impervious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Impervious
Surface Area
Required to be
Treated
(Acres)
Provided Water
Quality
Treatment
Area (Acres)
PA-3 Boundary 18.53 11.71 11.12 0.59 0.741
50% of Central
Parkway 1.12 0.95 0.67 0.28 0.045
Gleason Drive
within PA-3
Boundary
0.66 0.55 0.40 0.15
0.026
Tassajara Road
within PA-3
Boundary
0.65 0.51 0.39 0.12
0.026
Brannigan
Street 0.34 0.24 0.20 0.04 0.014
Total PA-3: 21.30 13.96 12.78 1.18 0.852
Notes:
1. Impervious surface areas for PA-3 include house footprints, street pavement, sidewalks, walkways and driveways.
2. Impervious surface areas for public streets include street pavement and sidewalks.
3. Impervious surface Area Required to be Treated is the treatment area that is not allocated to the downstream water quality/detention
basin per the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan.
4. Allocated Impervious Surface Area = the calculated impervious surface area based on the amount of runoff allocated to the downstream
water quality/detention basin.
5. Treatment Area Provided is calculated using the 4 percent method.
Source: RJA, Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, At Dublin, 2018 (see Appendix G).
Table 12-6: PA-4 Water Quality Boundary
Area
(Acres)
Proposed
Imperious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Allocated
Impervious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Impervious
Surface Area
Required to be
Treated
(Acres)
Provided Water
Quality
Treatment
Area (Acres)
PA-4 Boundary 2.27 1.42 0 1.42 0.091
Gleason Drive
within PA-4
Boundary
1.59 0.51 0 0.51
0.064
Tassajara Road
within PA-4
Boundary
0.07 0.06 0 0.06
0.003
Brannigan
Street within
PA-4 Boundary
0.12 0.06 0 0.06
0.005
Total PA-4: 4.05 2.05 0 2.05 0.162
Notes:
1. Impervious surface areas for PA-4 include house footprints, street pavement, sidewalks, walkways and driveways.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hydrology & Water Quality | Page 12-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
2. Impervious surface areas for public streets include street pavement and sidewalks.
3. Impervious Surface Area Required to be Treated is the treatment area that is not allocated to the downstream water quality/detention
basin per the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan.
4. Allocated Impervious Surface Area = the calculated impervious surface area based on the amount of runoff allocated to the downstream
water quality/detention basin.
5. Treatment Area Provided is calculated using the 4 percent method.
Source: RJA, Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, At Dublin, 2018 (see Appendix G).
Drainage for the project site has been designed to maintain the existing watershed drainage
pattern and avoid any impact to downstream watersheds by reducing the post development
runoff for the site to the predevelopment condition by incorporating low impact development
features such as bioretention and Silva Cells to treat and reduce stormwater pollutants from
entering into the municipal separate storm drain system. The grading design maintains the
north/south sloping layout of the land, matches existing grades along project perimeters,
minimizes the use of retaining walls, while minimizing the earthwork cut and fill.
As shown in Figure 12-3: Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, stormwater flows from
PA-1 would be treated on-site using bioretention and a hydromodification storage vault.
Stormwater runoff from PA-1 would be collected through an existing 42” storm drain pipe near
the southeasterly corner of PA-1 and conveyed to an existing triple 14’x9’ underground box
culvert bypassing the existing water quality and detention basin.
Stormwater flows from PA-2a and PA-2b would be treated on-site using bioretention and
conveyed to an existing 48” storm drain in Brannigan Street and an existing 18” storm drain in
Dublin Boulevard, and then to a connected 60” storm drain in Dublin Boulevard east of
Brannigan Street and a 96” storm drain in Grafton Street south of Dublin Boulevard. The 96”
storm drain (connected to the water quality/detention basin with a 36” storm drain) eventually
discharges into three existing 9’x14’ box culverts under Interstate 580.
Stormwater flows from PA-2c would be treated on-site using bioretention and conveyed to an
existing 42” storm drain in Brannigan Street between Central Parkway and Finnian Way. Runoff
would continue to the existing 48” storm drain south of Finnian Way, which would eventually
discharge into the water quality/detention basin and the three existing 9’x14’ box culverts
under Interstate 580.
Stormwater flows from PA-3 would be treated on-site using bioretention placed in the central
open space located in the middle of the site, and then discharged into the existing 42” storm
drain in Brannigan Street south of Central Parkway. The 42” storm drain conveys storm runoff
into the water quality/detention basin and the three existing 9’x14’ box culverts under
Interstate 580.
Stormwater flows from PA-4 would be treated on-site using bioretention, Silva Cells, and a
hydromodification storage vault and then conveyed to the existing drainage inlets near the
intersection of Gleason Drive and Tassajara Road. Tassajara Road runoff would be captured by
existing stormwater inlets and conveyed to the existing storm drain system along the west side
of Tassajara Road. Flow from the existing Tassajara Road storm drain lines do not flow to the
water quality/detention basin.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-12-16 | Hydrology & Water Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Development would include earth-disturbing activities, which may affect site-specific
infiltration and permeability during construction (temporary) and operation (permanent). As
described above, the project would result in 51.32 acres (66.74 percent of the project site) of
net impervious surfaces, which would increase stormwater flows. The Dublin Ranch West Side
Storm Drain Benefit District allocated 15-year peak flows from watershed PA-1, PA-2 and PA-3
for design of the storm drain system. Table 12-7: Stormwater Flows for a 15-Year Storm Event
summarizes the post development flow compared to the allocated 15-year peak flows.
Table 12-7: Stormwater Flows for a 15-Year Storm Event
Watershed
Allocated Flow
(cfs)
Post Development Flow
(cfs)
PA-1 24.52 30.13
PA-2a & PA-2b 26.21 26.85
PA-2c 25.19 13.88
PA-3 19.60 19.30
PA-4 0.00 6.89
Notes: cfs = cubic feet per second
Source: RJA, Preliminary Drainage Study, At Dublin, 2018 (see Appendix F).
Post development flow for each watershed within the project site was determined using criteria
in accordance with the 2016 ACFCWC Manual. As shown in Table 12-7, the post development
flow from PA-1 for a 15-year storm event is higher than the allocated flow. As discussed
previously, stormwater runoff from PA-1 would not discharge to the water quality/detention
basin. On-site bioretention and hydromodification storage are proposed to reduce flows from
PA-1 to a level below the allocated flow. The Bay Area Hydrology Model (BAHM) was used to
calculate the hydromodification storage volume and design. For modeling, PA-1 was broken
into 10 uniform DMAs and the total storage volume required was determined to be 37,800
cubic feet.
The post development flow from PA-2a and PA-2b for a 15-year storm event exceeds the
allocated flow. Stormwater runoff from PA-2a and PA-2b would discharge to the downstream
water quality/detention basin, thus hydromodification storage is not required for PA-2a and 2b.
The post development flow from PA-2c and PA-3 for a 15-year storm event is less than the
allocated flow for those watershed areas. Stormwater runoff from both PA-2c and PA-3 would
discharge to the downstream water quality/detention basin, thus hydromodification storage is
not required for PA-2c or PA-3.
The Dublin Ranch Master Drainage Watershed did not include PA-4, thus there is not an
associated allocation for this watershed. Stormwater runoff from PA-4 would not discharge to
the water quality/detention basin, but would be conveyed to the Tassajara Road storm drain
system. Bioretention and an underground storage vault is included in the preliminary design to
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hydrology & Water Quality | Page 12-17
Draft EIR
10/23/18
reduce the flow and mimic the pre-development flow condition. BAHM modeling was used to
calculate the hydromodification storage volume and design. PA-4 was broken into 2 DMAs and
the total storage volume required was determined to be 3,600 cubic feet.
Although the project would increase the amount of impervious surface area within the project
site, the use of on-site treatment and detention would prevent a substantial increase in
stormwater flows. Thus, the project would not result in an increase in stormwater runoff due
to an increase in impervious surfaces. Impacts would be less than significant (Class III).
Impact HYD-3: Substantially alter drainage patterns on- or off-site that would result in the
storm water transport of contaminants, pollutants, bacteria, salts, and sediment into
downstream facilities (Class III).
Regulations under two State stormwater permits are applicable to this impact: 1) The Municipal
Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Provision C.3 Requirements (MRP) and 2) The NPDES
General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance
Activities (Construction General Permit).
Construction General Permit
Because the project would disturb more than one acre of land, the project applicant would be
required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board and
apply for coverage under the Construction General Permit. As part of the NOI application
process a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be submitted for review and
approval prior to commencing construction.
In addition to potential sediment transport, construction activities require the use of gasoline-
and diesel-powered heavy equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, water pumps, and air
compressors and chemicals such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, hydraulic oil, lubricating
grease, automatic transmission fluid, paints, solvents, and glues. An accidental release of any
of these substances could degrade the quality of the surface water runoff and adversely affect
receiving waters.
To address this potential impact, the project applicant is required to prepare a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the requirements of the statewide
Construction General Permit. The SWPPP shall be designed to address the following objectives:
(1) All pollutants and their sources, including sources of sediment associated with
construction, construction site erosion, and all other activities associated with
construction activity are controlled;
(2) Where not otherwise required to be under a Regional Water Quality Control Board
permit, all non-stormwater discharges are identified and either eliminated, controlled,
or treated;
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-12-18 | Hydrology & Water Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
(3) Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) are effective and result in the reduction or
elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater
discharges from construction activity; and
(4) Stabilization BMPs installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction are
completed.
The SWPPP is required to be consistent with the BMP requirements as described in the most
recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater Best
Management Handbook-Construction or the Caltrans Stormwater Quality Handbook
Construction Site BMPs Manual. The project applicant has prepared preliminary erosion
control plans which follow CASQA guidelines and which includes silt fences, fiber rolls, drop
inlet protection and curb inlet sediment barriers, and rocked construction site entrances.
Construction BMPs include soil preparation, hydroseeding, wind erosion control, water
conservation practices, and stockpile management.
MRP Provision C.3 Requirements
The Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) adopted by the RWQCB, requires the
implementation of post construction stormwater treatment measures minimizing long term
water quality impacts by using low impact development, site design and source control
measures. Pursuant to the RWQCB requirements, the project applicant has prepared a
Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) (see Appendix G).
As detailed in the SWMP, the project site is divided into individual DMA’s to determine the best
approach for stormwater management within the project site. Where possible within PA-1, 2a,
and 2b, roof drainage from the buildings would be discharged into bioretention areas situated
along the perimeter of the site and in landscape islands in parking areas. Within PA-2c,
bioretention would be placed in the central landscaped Commons to allow for treatment of
roof runoff, private streets and walkways. PA-3 would include bioretention in residential
paseos to treat the required impervious surface areas. The linear nature and lot configuration
of PA-4 would require the use of Silva Cells with bioretention along edges of the parking spaces
to provide the required treatment for the lots and streets. As shown in Tables 12-1 through 12-
6, the project provides sufficient water quality treatment areas pursuant to water quality
requirements.
Given that the project would meet the water quality requirements required by the Construction
General Permit and MRP Provision C.3 Requirements, the impact would be less than significant
(Class III) and no mitigation is necessary.
Impact HYD-4: Place structures which would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year
flood hazard area (Class III).
According to FIRM map number 06001C328G, the majority the project is outside of a 100-year
flood hazard area. A portion of PA-1 is currently within the AH zone with a flood depth of 1-3
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hydrology & Water Quality | Page 12-19
Draft EIR
10/23/18
feet. As shown in 12-1: Flood Hazard Areas, implementation of the project would include an
import of soils to elevate structures within PA-1 above the 100-year flood elevation level; thus,
as a part of the design process, the project applicant would seek a Conditional Letter of Map
Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA. A CLOMR describes the changes that can be expected as a result
of the project and states whether these changes would be in accordance with NFIP regulations.
In accordance with the comments and instructions provided in the CLOMR, the project
applicant would initiate a request for a LOMR which would modify the associated FIRM map to
show the elevation and hydrology alterations to the regulatory floodway resulting from the
project. The raised elevations within PA-1 and the associated CLOMR and LOMR process would
reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level and no mitigation is required.
12.5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographical area for cumulative hydrology impacts is the Alameda Creek Watershed.
Impact HYD-5: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on hydrology & water quality
(Class III).
Present and reasonably foreseeable future projects could contribute to cumulatively
considerable impacts on hydrology and water quality, including an increase the amount of
impervious surfaces in the area, which would decrease the area available for water percolation
and groundwater recharge. However, the WSA for the project provides verification of sufficient
water supply to serve the project. Per the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), DSRSD has
adequate water supply to meet demands of future projects during normal, dry, and multiple-
dry years through 2035. UWMP water demand estimates, including groundwater, are based on
the full General Plan build out of the municipalities within the DSRSD service area. Thus, the
future water demand estimates would account for the water supply and potential demands of
reasonably foreseeable future projects as well as the project.
Stormwater discharges from the project and other new developments in the City would be
required to comply with the Construction General Permit, MRP Provision C.3 requirements, and
incorporate appropriate site-specific LID and source and treatment control measures.
Compliance with these regulations would ensure that the project and other new developments
would not increase stormwater runoff or substantially alter drainage patterns. The project,
combined with present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would result in less-than-
significant cumulative impacts to stormwater quantity and water quality.
12.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 12-8: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Hydrology & Water Quality
summarizes the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures
for the project with regard to hydrology & water quality.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-12-20 | Hydrology & Water Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 12-8: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Hydrology & Water Quality
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact HYD-1: Contribute to the
depletion of local groundwater
supplies or interfere with
groundwater recharge (Class III).
Less than
Significant
None required.
Impact HYD-2: Increase stormwater
runoff due to the increase in
impervious surfaces (Class II).
Less than
Significant
None required.
Impact HYD-3: Substantially alter
drainage patterns on- or off-site that
would result in the storm water
transport of pollutants, bacteria,
salts, and sediment into
downstream facilities (Class III).
Less than
Significant
None required.
Impact HYD-4: Place structures
which would impede or redirect
flood flows within a 100-year flood
hazard area? (Class III).
Less than
Significant
None required.
Impact HYD-5: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable effects on
hydrology and water quality (Class
III).
Less than
Significant
None required.
12.6 References
CASQA (California Stormwater Quality Association). 2003. “Construction Handbook.”
Dublin-San Ramon Services District. 2015. Urban Water Management Plan.
DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2003. “Guidebook for Implementation of
Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001 to assist water suppliers, cities, and counties
in integrating water and land use planning.” Available at:
https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/pubs/use/sb_610_sb_221_guidebook/guidebook.pdf
DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2003. California’s Groundwater, Bulletin
118 Update 2003. Available at:
https://www.water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/groundwater/bulletin118/basindescriptions/2-10.pdf
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map Number
06001C0328G. Available at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=dublin%2C%20ca#searchresultsanc
hor
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hydrology & Water Quality | Page 12-21
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Mackay & Somps. 2006. Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan.
Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar. 2018. Preliminary Drainage Study, At Dublin. (see Appendix F)
Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar. 2018. Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan, At Dublin. (see
Appendix G)
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United
States: A Delineation Manual. Available at:
http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/regulatory/pdf/Ordinary_High_
Watermark_Manual_Aug_2008.pdf.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Land Use & Planning | Page 13-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
13 Land Use & Planning
13.1 Introduction
This section describes effects on land use and planning that would be caused by
implementation of the project. Information used to prepare this section came from the
following resources:
City of Dublin, Dublin General Plan, 1985 as amended 2017
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Final EIR, 1994 updated 2016
City of Dublin, Dublin Municipal Code, as amended
13.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, no comments regarding land use and
planning were raised.
13.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on the existing conditions of the project site and vicinity for
land use.
13.3.1 Project Site Land Uses
The project site was previously used for agricultural purposes and has remained vacant, with
exception to seasonal uses and consists of low lying native and non-native grasses turned
periodically for the purposes of weed abatement and fire hazard management. A small group
of trees and shrubs is located near the corner of Tassajara Road and Central Parkway. No
grading for development has occurred to date.
13.3.2 Land Uses in the Project Site Vicinity
West
Tassajara Road forms the western boundary of the project site. Medium density residential,
parks/public recreation, general commercial, and campus office uses are located to the west.
North
Undeveloped land contemplated for future residential development form the northern
boundary of the project site just north of Gleason Drive. Single family medium density
residential uses are located to the north.
East
Brannigan Street forms the eastern boundary of the project site. A broad mix of land uses are
located to the east including multi-family residential, general commercial, and a vacant parcel
at the southeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan Street
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-13-2 | Land Use & Planning
Draft EIR
10/23/18
South
Interstate 580 forms the southern boundary of the project site. The City of Pleasanton is
located south of the project site.
13.3.3 Livermore Municipal Airport
The Livermore Municipal Airport 14 is located in the western portion of the City of Livermore,
south of I-580 and approximately two miles southeast from the project site. The airport is
owned and operated by the City of Livermore and features two parallel runways: 7L /25R and
7R/25L, 5,255 feet in length and 2,699 feet in length, respectively.
The majority of the project site is also located within Land Use Compatibility Zone 7 of the
Airport Influence Area, as established in the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan.
13.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines recommends the evaluation of a project’s potential
conflicts with: 1) Physically divide an established community, 2) Conflict with any applicable
land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency having jurisdiction over a project adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; and 3) any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). Applicable local land
use plans and ordinances for land use are described below. See Chapter 6: Air Quality for a
discussion of the project’s consistency with applicable federal, State, and local air quality plans.
13.4.1 State
State Aeronautics Act
The State Aeronautics Act requires each county with an airport to establish an Airport Land Use
Commission to regulate land use around airports, to protect public safety and ensure that land
uses near airports do not interfere with aviation operations. The Livermore Executive Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan regulates land use around Livermore Municipal Airport by requiring
compliance with the applicable policies. In certain circumstances, local governments have the
ability to override the decisions of the Airport Land Use Commission by a two-thirds vote.
14 The City of Livermore refers to the airport as “Livermore Municipal Airport” while the Alameda County Airport
Land Use Commission refers to the airport as “Livermore Executive Airport”. This EIR will refer to it as “Livermore
Municipal Airport” except in instances where the “Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Plan” is discussed.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Land Use & Planning | Page 13-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
13.4.2 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin General Plan is the comprehensive planning document governing
development within the City, and contains goals, policies, and programs describing the
community’s vision for economic viability, livable neighborhoods, and environmental
protection.
The General Plan, as amended, establishes policies for the orderly growth and development of
the City of Dublin. Among other purposes, the General Plan identifies policies necessary to
protect and enhance those features and services which contribute to the quality of life of the
community in which it serves.
The General Plan is a comprehensive policy plan which sets forth a series of written statements
(goals, policies and objectives) defining the direction, character and composition of future land
use development, and establishes guidelines (policies and actions) necessary to attain
conformance with the plan. It is made up of 12 elements and various maps which accompany
the elements. The elements are: 1) Land Use 2) Parks & Open Space 3) Schools, Public Lands &
Utilities 4) Circulation & Scenic Highways, 5) Housing, 6) Conservation, 7) Seismic Safety &
Safety, 8) Noise, 9) Community Design & Sustainability, 10) Economic Development, 11) Water
Resources, 12) Energy Conservation. The General Plan Land Use Plan Map visually represents
the physical relationship of all portions of the text, including development densities.
General Plans are reviewed annually and should be updated every three years to ensure that
the most recent technical data, community goals and state law requirements are recognized.
Major updates typically occur every 10 to 30 years, depending on changes in land use patterns,
growth and development pressures, and new regulations.
As shown in Figure 3-3: Existing General Plan Designations, the southern and western portions
of the project site is designated General Commercial in the General Plan. The northern and
eastern portions of the project site are designated Medium Density Residential, Public/Semi-
Public, Medium/High Density Residential, and Neighborhood Commercial in the General Plan.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) serves as the zoning ordinance for the eastern portion
of the City of Dublin. The EDSP provides a framework to guide future land use and
development decisions in eastern Dublin. For projects within the EDSP area, policies and
standards in the Specific Plan will take precedence over more general policies and standards
applied throughout the rest of the city.
The project site is located within the following Planning Subareas of the EDSP: 1) Town Center –
Commercial, along Tassajara Road south of Gleason Drive and north of Dublin Boulevard; 2)
Town Center – Residential, along Brannigan Street south of Gleason Drive and north of Dublin
Boulevard; 3) Tassajara Gateway, area south of Dublin Boulevard; and 4) Foothill Residential for
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-13-4 | Land Use & Planning
Draft EIR
10/23/18
the small area of the project on the north side of Gleason Drive. The Specific Plan’s description
of the land use concept for each Subarea is described as follows:
Town Center – Commercial Subarea
This subarea represents the commercial core for eastern Dublin. The area is intended to be a
high density, pedestrian-oriented commercial, civic, and entertainment center for Dublin and
the surrounding communities. The subarea consists of two distinct parts; the General
Commercial area and the Neighborhood Commercial area.
The General Commercial area, which extends along Tassajara Road, is intended to include uses
with a broader market area and a greater orientation to the motoring public, including a full
range of regional and community retail, service, office, and restaurant uses. Ideally, a major
community shopping center, with supermarket, drug store, hardware store, liquor store, and
other supporting retail and service uses would be located in this area.
Town Center – Residential Subarea
This subarea is generally located in the area bounded by Dublin Boulevard on the south, Fallon
Road on the east, Gleason Drive on the north and Hacienda Drive on the west. The residential
subarea is bisected by the Town Center--Commercial subarea. A community park and open
space occupy the eastern portion of the subarea and residential is designated for the western
portion.
Tassajara Gateway Planning Subarea
This subarea is located at the Tassajara Road interchange with I-580 and includes the areas on
either side of Tassajara Road between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard. The land use concept for
the Tassajara Gateway encourages the development of uses that will benefit from their location
at the intersection of the area's two major east-west travel corridors (I- 580 and Dublin
Boulevard) with the major north-south corridor (Tassajara Road). The area is favored for uses
that depend on the location’s high visibility and convenient vehicular access. Uses which fit
these criteria might include activities such as hotels, campus office, conference center,
restaurants, and quality regional retail.
Foothill Residential Subarea
This subarea includes most of the Specific Plan area north and east of the Town Center subarea.
Land use in this subarea is predominantly single-family residential. Other uses include schools
and parks.
East Alameda County Conservation Strategy
The East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) is a guidance document intended to
provide a framework to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources in eastern Alameda
County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts
resulting from infrastructure and development studies. The City of Dublin adopted the EACCS
City of Dublin At Dublin
Land Use & Planning | Page 13-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
as its guidance document for public projects and uses the document to provide input for
managing biological resources and conservation priorities during project-level planning and
environmental planning. For privately sponsored development projects such as this project,
proponents are encouraged to consult the EACCS for guidance, but compliance with the
document is not mandatory.
Alameda County - Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan governs land use around
Livermore Municipal Airport. This Plan was adopted by the Alameda County Airport Land Use
Commission in 2012.
The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) should act as a guide for the Airport Land Use
Commission and local jurisdictions in safeguarding the general welfare of the public. To guide
future development, the ALUCP provides compatibility criteria for noise, safety and airspace
protection.
As stated in the ALUCP, in comparison to noise, safety is in many respects a more difficult
concern to address in airport land use compatibility policies. The primary reason for this
difference is that safety policies address uncertain events which may occur with occasional
aircraft operations, whereas noise policies deal with known, quantifiable, and more or less
predictable events which do occur with every aircraft operation.
In regard to airspace protection whether a particular object constitutes an airspace obstruction
depends upon the height of the object relative to the runway elevation and its proximity to the
airport. The acceptable height of objects near an airport is most commonly determined by
application of standards set forth in Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77.
13.4.3 Zoning
The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance implements the land use designations of the General Plan.
As shown in Figure 3-4: Existing Zoning, the project site is designated Planned Development
(PD).
The purpose of the PD zone is to:
A. Establish a Planned Development Zoning District through which one or more properties
are planned as a unit with development standards tailored to the site.
B. Provide maximum flexibility and diversification in the development of property.
C. Maintain consistency with, and implement the provisions of, the Dublin General Plan
and applicable Specific Plans.
D. Protect the integrity and character of both residential and non-residential areas of the
City.
E. Encourage efficient use of land for preservation of sensitive environmental areas such as
open space areas and topographic features.
F. Provide for effective development of public facilities and services for the site.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-13-6 | Land Use & Planning
Draft EIR
10/23/18
G. Encourage use of design features to achieve development that is compatible with the
area.
H. Allow for creative and imaginative design that will promote amenities beyond those
expected in conventional developments
13.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
13.5.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for land use & planning were derived from the Environmental
Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been amended or
supplemented, as appropriate, to address lead agency requirements and the full range of
potential impacts related to this project.
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it
would meet one of the following criteria.
Physically divide an established community.
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan.
Significance Classifications
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
13.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Physically Divide an Established Community
The project would not physically divide an established community because it is located in within
the City limits and would be compatible with surrounding land uses. In addition, existing
City of Dublin At Dublin
Land Use & Planning | Page 13-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
roadway connections to the surrounding community would be maintained. Therefore, there
would be no impact.
The environmental effects related to compatibility between proposed on-site land uses and
adjacent land uses during both construction and operation are described in the respective
impact section of the following environmental resource chapters: Aesthetics, Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation and Circulation.
Within the Boundaries of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan
The project site is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan
or Natural Community Conservation Plan, and therefore there would be no impact. The
impacts to biological resources are presented in Chapter 7.
13.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact LU-1: Substantially conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (Class III)
General Plan Amendment
As shown in Figure 3-5: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations, the project would
include a General Plan amendment that would re-designate the project site from six to four
land use designations. With City Council approval of the project and certification of the EIR, the
project would be consistent with applicable land use plan, policy, and regulations. And
environmental impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Ordinances and Regulations
The project would be required to comply with all applicable City of Dublin ordinances and
regulations. Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with all Conditions of
Approval, as augmented by the decision-makers.
13.5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographic area for the analysis of cumulative impacts to land use and planning is the
greater Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, where land use changes could interact with land use
changes under the project to result in cumulative effects.
Impact LU-2: Contribute to cumulatively considerable land use impacts (Class III).
Land use impacts would be cumulatively considerable if the project, in conjunction with other
past, present, reasonably foreseeable future projects, would be designed or otherwise
conditioned to maintain consistency with adopted land use plans and ordinances or be
amended with the appropriate mitigation and conditions of approval.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-13-8 | Land Use & Planning
Draft EIR
10/23/18
As described above, the project, with implementation of the General Plan amendment, would
be consistent with the City’s General Plan and the EDSP. All feasible mitigation measures to
address environmental impacts of the project have been described in this EIR.
Implementation of future projects requiring a change in the General Plan land use designation
would require discretionary approval, similar to this project review and approval process. It is
reasonably assumed that these projects would be designed or otherwise conditioned to
maintain consistency with adopted land use plans and ordinances or be amended with the
appropriate mitigation and conditions of approval.
As described above, the project would be consistent with applicable land use goals, policies and
objectives of the General Plan. Mitigation measures to address potential environmental
impacts of the project have been included in this EIR. Given the project’s consistency, as well as
the potential for other projects in the cumulative impact scenario to be generally consistent
with the land use policy framework, overall cumulative land use consistency impacts would be
less than significant.
13.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 13 -1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Land Use & Planning summarizes
the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the
project with regard to land use & planning.
Table 13-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Land Use & Planning
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
Impact LU-1: Substantially conflict
with an applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect
(Class III).
Less Than Significant None required.
Impact LU-2: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable land use
impacts (Class III).
Less Than Significant None required.
13.6 References
None.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
14 Noise & Vibration
14.1 Introduction
This section describes the potential noise effects that would be caused by implementation of
the project. Information used to prepare this section came from the following resources:
Project application and related materials
City of Dublin,General Plan, 1985 amended 2017
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Final EIR, 1994 updated 2016
City of Dublin, General Plan Noise Element
14.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, no comments regarding noise and
vibration were raised.
14.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on the existing conditions of the project site and vicinity for
noise and vibration.
14.3.1 General Information on Noise
To describe environmental noise and to assess impacts on areas sensitive to community noise,
a frequency weighting measure that simulates human perception is customarily used. The
frequency weighting scale known as A-weighting best reflects the human ear’s reduced
sensitivity to low frequencies and correlates well with human perceptions of the annoying
aspects of noise. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) is cited in most noise criteria. In general,
a difference of more than 3 dBA is a perceptible change in environmental noise, while a 5 dBA
difference typically causes a change in community reaction. An increase of 10 dBA is perceived
by people as a doubling of loudness.
As shown in Table 14-1: Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels, people experience a wide range of
sounds in the environment. Excessive noise is not only undesirable but may also cause physical
and/or psychological damage. The amount of annoyance or damage caused by noise is
dependent primarily upon: the amount and nature of the noise, the amount of ambient noise
present before the intruding noise, and the activity of the person working or living in the area.
Environmental and community noise levels rarely are of sufficient intensity to cause irreversible
hearing damage, but disruptive environmental noise can interfere with speech and other
communication and be a major source of annoyance by disturbing sleep, rest, and relaxation.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-2 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 14-1: Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels
Noise Level (dBA) Indoor Noise Source Outdoor Noise Source
0 (Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing) (Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing)
10-20 Broadcast/ recording studio
30
Library
Bedroom at night, concert hall
(background)
Quiet rural nighttime
40 Theater, large conference room
(background) Quiet urban/ suburban nighttime
50 Dishwasher in next room Quiet urban daytime
60 Large business office Heavy traffic at 300 feet
70
Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet
Normal Speech at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawnmower, 100 feet
Commercial area
80 Garbage disposal at 3 feet Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph
90 Food blender at 3 feet Gas lawn mower at 3 feet
100 Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet
110 Rock band
Source: California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013
Decibels are logarithmic units that conveniently compare the wide range of sound intensities to
which the human ear is sensitive. Therefore, the cumulative noise level from two or more
sources will combine logarithmically, rather than linearly (i.e., simple addition). For example, if
two identical noise sources produce a noise level of 50 dBA each, the combined noise level
would be 53 dBA, not 100 dBA. Sound is generally propagated by spherical spreading according
to the “inverse square law,” where the sound energy decreases with the square of the distance.
As such, the sound pressure level would be reduced by 6 decibels per doubling of distance from
a ground-level stationary or point source. For a noise source which is relatively long, such as a
constant stream of highway traffic (line source), the sound pressure spreads at a rate of three
decibels per doubling of distance. At very large distances, beyond several hundred feet, wind
and temperature gradients influence sound propagation. Changes in noise levels due to wind
are generally short-term without persistent directional winds, where some hours may be one or
two decibels louder than others within the margin of precision of this assessment.
The community noise environment and the consequences of human activities cause noise levels
to be widely variable over time. For simplicity, sound levels are usually best represented by an
equivalent level over a given time period (Leq) or by an average level occurring over a 24-hour
period. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is a single value for any desired duration, which
includes all of the time-varying sound energy in the measurement period, usually 1 hour. Given
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
the sensitivity to noise increases during evening and nighttime hours when people are trying to
sleep, 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties
added to quiet-time sounds. The Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL, is a measure of the
day-night noise exposure, with a 5-decibel penalty added to evening sounds (7:00 p.m. to
10:00 p.m.) and a 10 dBA addition to nighttime sounds (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The Ldn, or
day-night average sound level, is equal to the 24-hour equivalent sound level (in dBA) with a 10
decibel penalty applied to nighttime sounds occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Community noise levels are closely related to the intensity of human activity and land use.
Noise levels are generally considered low when ambient levels are below 45 dBA Leq, moderate
in the 45 to 60 dBA Leq range, and high above 60 dBA Leq. In wilderness areas, the Ldn noise
levels can be below 35 dBA. In small towns or wooded and lightly used residential areas, the
Ldn is more likely to be approximately 50 or 60 dBA. Levels of approximately 75 dBA Leq are
more common in busy urban areas (e.g. downtown Los Angeles), and levels up to 85 dBA Leq
occur near major freeways and airports.
Although people often accept the higher levels associated with very noisy urban residential and
residential-commercial zones, the surrounding land uses dictate what noise levels would be
considered acceptable or unacceptable. Lower levels are expected in rural or suburban areas
than what would be expected for commercial or industrial zones. Nighttime ambient levels in
urban environments are about 7 decibels lower than the corresponding daytime levels. In rural
areas, away from roads and other human activity, the day-to-night difference can be
considerably less. Areas with full-time human occupation that are subject to nighttime noise
are often considered objectionable because of the likelihood of disrupting sleep. Noise levels
higher than 45 dBA Ldn at night can result in the onset of sleep interference effects. At 70 dBA
Ldn, sleep interference effects become considerable (U.S. EPA, 1974).
14.3.2 General Information on Vibration
Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium, in which the motion’s amplitude can
be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. There are several different
methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the
maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to
describe vibration impacts to buildings. The root mean square (RMS) amplitude is most
frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. The RMS amplitude is
defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. Decibel notation (Vdb) is
commonly used to measure RMS. The decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers
required to describe vibration. Typically, groundborne vibration generated by heavy equipment
or traffic on rough roads attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration so
that potential impact areas are confined to short distances (i.e., within 200 feet or less) from
the source (FTA, 2006). The general human response to different levels of groundborne
vibration velocity levels is described in Table 14-2: Human Response to Different Levels of
Groundborne Vibration.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-4 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 14-2: Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration
Vibration Velocity Level Human Reaction
65 Vdb Approximate threshold of perception for many people.
75 Vdb
Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and
distinctly perceptible. Many people find transit vibration at this
level annoying.
85 Vdb Vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of
events per day.
90 Vdb Difficulty with tasks such as reading computer screens.
Source: Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May 2006.
14.3.3 Project Setting
In the City of Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Figure 9-1: 2011 Existing Noise Exposure
Contours shows contours of 70 and 75 dB near I-580, 60 and 65 dB along Dublin Boulevard, 60
and 65 dB along Tassajara Road, and 60 dB along Gleason Drive. Figure 9-2 shows Projected
Noise Contours in 2035 and shows an increase of 70 dB along Dublin Boulevard.
The primary sources of stationary noise in the project vicinity are those associated with the
operations of adjacent residential uses to the north and east, commercial uses to the east and
west. The noise associated with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence,
short-term, or long-term/continuous noise.
14.3.4 Sensitive Receptors
Noise exposure standards and guidelines for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise
sensitivities associated with each of these uses. Residences, hospitals, schools, guest lodging,
libraries, and churches are treated as the most sensitive to noise intrusion and therefore have
more stringent noise exposure targets than other uses, such as manufacturing or agricultural
uses that are not subject to impacts such as sleep disturbance.
Sensitive receptors near the project site include: residences 80 feet east of the site, 50 feet
north of the site, and 800 feet west of the site. Additionally, the proposed on-site residences
would be a sensitive receptor.
14.3.5 Existing Ambient Noise Measurements
To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project area, Kimley-Horn and Associates
conducted six short-term noise measurements on February 21, 2018 (see Appendix B). The
weather was 55 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), with calm winds under five miles per hour (mph) and
clear skies when measurements were taken. The noise measurement sites were representative
of typical existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the project site. The 10-
minute measurements were taken between 11:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. The noise
measurements were taken during the midday hours, as the midday hours typically have the
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
highest daytimenoise levels in urban environments. The sound level meter and microphone
were mounted on a tripod five feet above the ground. Short-ter m (Leq) measurements are
considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day. The average noise levels and
sources of noise measured at each location are listed in Table 14-3: Existing Noise
Measurements.
Table 14-3: Existing Noise Measurements
Site No. Location
Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA) Peak Time
1 Northwest of project site, adjacent to
Emerald Glen Park and Tassajara Road 61.5 53 72.1 87.2 11:37 am
2 West of project site, approximately 600
feet south of Central Parkway 62.3 51.8 73.4 86.8 12:03 pm
3 Southwest portion of the site,
approximately 900 feet north of I-580 72 59.9 84 104.4 12:38 pm
4 Southeast corner of project site,
approximately 700 feet north of I-580 53.8 50.7 61.5 91.6 1:08 pm
5
Southeast of the project site,
approximately 350 feet south of Central
Parkway
45.4 42.3 51.7 94.2 1:34 pm
6 North of the project site, approximately
550 feet east of Tassajara Road 48 35.8 64.6 87.6 1:52 pm
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, 2018
As shown in Table 14-3: Existing Noise Measurements, the ambient recorded noise levels
ranged from 45.4 dBA to 72 dBA Leq near the project site. The maximum noise levels in the
project vicinity ranged from 86.8 dBA to 104.4 dBA. The field survey noted the most commonly
present noises in the project vicinity are produced by automotive vehicles (cars, trucks, buses,
and motorcycles) on local roadway traffic, I-580 traffic, birds, and pedestrians. Traffic moving
along streets and freeways produces a sound level that remains relatively constant and is
therefore a component of the city’s minimum ambient noise level. Vehicle noise varies with
the volume, speed, and type of traffic. Slower traffic produces less noise than fast moving
traffic. Trucks typically generate more noise than cars. Infrequent or intermittent noise also is
associated with some vehicles, including sirens, vehicle alarms, slamming of doors, garbage and
construction vehicle activity, and honking of horns. These noises add to urban noise and are
regulated by a variety of agencies (as described below).
14.3.6 Existing Roadway Noise Levels
Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for the roadway segments in the project vicinity.
This task was accomplished using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic
Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and existing traffic volumes from the project traffic
impact analysis (Kimley-Horn 2017). The noise prediction model calculates the average noise
level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-6 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (also referred to as energy rates)
used in the FHWA model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified
for California by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The Caltrans data
indicates that California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that
medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels. The average daily
noise levels along roadway segments in proximity to the project site are included in Table 14-3:
Existing Traffic Noise Measurements.
As depicted in Table 14-4: Existing Traffic Noise Levels, the existing traffic-generated noise level
on project-vicinity roadways currently ranges from 54.7 to 72.3 dBA CNEL. As previously
described, CNEL is 24-hour average noise level with a 5 dBA “weighting” during the hours of
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00
p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively.
Table 14-4: Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT
CNEL at 100 feet from
Centerline of Roadway (dBA)
Hacienda Drive
Gleason Drive to Central Parkway 6,140 65.0
Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard 8,563 66.4
Dublin Boulevard to I-580 WB Ramps 22,787 70.7
I-580 WB Ramps to I-580 EB Ramps 23,691 71.6
I-580 EB Ramps to Owens Drive 22,042 71.7
South of Owens Drive 11,121 68.3
Tassajara Road
Fallon Road to Gleason Drive 12,413 69.2
Gleason Drive to Central Parkway 12,356 69.3
Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard 15,392 69.0
Dublin Boulevard to I-580 WB Ramps 26,899 71.6
I-580 WB Ramps to I-580 EB Ramps 33,502 72.1
Saint Rita Road
I-580 EB Ramps to Las Positas Boulevard 24,913 72.3
Brannigan Street
Gleason Drive to Central Parkway 851 55.4
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Roadway Segment ADT
CNEL at 100 feet from
Centerline of Roadway (dBA)
Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard 741 54.7
South of Dublin Boulevard 1,178 56.7
Fallon Road
Tassajara Road to Gleason Drive 5,954 65.0
South of Gleason Drive 7,148 66.6
Gleason Drive
Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road 5,154 64.3
Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street 6,147 65.0
Brannigan Street to Fallon Road 2,748 61.5
Central Parkway
Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road 3,655 63.5
Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street 3,555 63.3
Brannigan Street to Fallon Road 3,128 62.8
Dublin Boulevard
West of Hacienda Drive 16,419 69.9
Hacienda Drive to Toyota Drive 14,649 69.4
Toyota Drive to Glynnis Rose Drive 17,978 70.3
Glynnis Rose Drive to Tassajara Road 17,459 70.2
Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street 13,532 68.8
Brannigan Street to Grafton Street 11,434 68.3
Grafton Street to Keegan Street 9,753 67.6
Keegan Street to Lockhart Street 7,809 66.3
Lockhart Street to Fallon Road 4,425 63.9
Notes: ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level.
Data source: Based on traffic data within the Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Kimley-Horn, 2018. Refer to Appendix B of the Noise Technical
Memorandum (EIR Appendix G) for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results.
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, 2018
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-8 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
14.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
14.4.1 Federal
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration
The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has recommended
noise criteria related to traffic-generated noise. Recommendations contained in the May 2006
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment prepared by FTA can be used as guidance to
determine whether or not a change in traffic would result in a substantial permanent increase
in noise. Under the FTA standards, the allowable noise exposure increase is reduced with
increasing ambient existing noise exposure, such that higher ambient noise levels have a lower
allowable noise exposure increase. Table 14-5: Significance of Changes in Operational Roadway
Noise Exposure shows the significance thresholds for increases in traffic-related noise levels.
These standards are applicable to project-impacts on existing sensitive receptors.
Table 14-5: Significance of Changes in Operational Roadway Noise Exposure
Existing Noise Exposure
(dBA Ldn or Leq)
Allowable Noise Exposure Increase
(dBA Ldn or Leq)
45-50 7
50-55 5
55-60 3
60-65 2
65-74 1
75+ 0
Source: Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May 2006.
The FTA also recommends vibration impact thresholds to determine whether groundborne
vibration would be “excessive.” According to FTA, groundborne vibration impact criteria for
residential receptors are 72 Vdb for frequent events, 75 Vdb for occasional events, and 80 Vdb
for infrequent events (FTA, 2006). The FTA recommends an 80 Vdb threshold for infrequent
events at residences and buildings where people normally sleep and 83 Vdb threshold at
institutional buildings with primarily daytime uses.
In terms of groundborne vibration impacts on structures, the FTA states that groundborne
vibration levels in excess of 100 Vdb would damage fragile buildings, and levels in excess of 95
Vdb would damage extremely fragile historic buildings. The threshold for this project is 80 Vdb
for infrequent events at residences and buildings where people normally sleep (e.g. residential
neighborhoods).
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Occupational Safety and Health Act
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. §651 et seq.), the United
States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) adopted
regulations (29 CFR §1910.95) designed to protect workers against the effects of occupational
noise exposure. These regulations list limits on noise exposure levels as a function of the
amount of time during which the worker is exposed. The regulations further specify
requirements for a hearing conservation program (§1910.95(c)), a monitoring program
(§1910.95(d)), an audiometric testing program (§1910.95(g)), and hearing protection
(§1910.95(i)). There are no federal laws governing community noise.
14.4.2 State
California Building Code
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations contains standards for allowable interior noise
levels associated with exterior noise sources. The standards apply to new hotels, motels,
dormitories, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family residences.,
which are specifically excluded from the municipal code. The standards require interior noise
level attributable to exterior sources not exceed 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room. Multi-
family residential structures proposed where the CNEL would exceed 60 dBA requires an
acoustical analysis showing that the proposed building design would achieve the prescribed
allowable interior noise standard.
In 1974, the California Commission on Housing and Community Development adopted noise
insulation standards for multi-family residential buildings (Title 24, Part 2, California Code of
Regulations). Title 24 establishes standards for interior room noise (attributable to outside
noise sources). The regulations also specify that acoustical studies must be prepared whenever
a multi-family residential building or structure is proposed to be located near an existing or
adopted freeway route, expressway, parkway, major street, thoroughfare, rail line, rapid transit
line, or industrial noise source, and where such noise source or sources create an exterior CNEL
(or Ldn) of 60 dBA or greater. Such acoustical analysis must demonstrate that the residence has
been designed to limit intruding noise to an interior CNEL (or Ldn) of at least 45 dBA.
California Noise Control Act of 1973
Sections 46000 through 46080 of the California Health and Safety Code, known as the California
Noise Control Act, find that excessive noise is a serious hazard to public health and welfare, and
that exposure to certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic
damage. The Act also finds that there is a continuous and increasing bombardment of noise in
urban, suburban, and rural areas. The California Noise Control Act declares that the State has a
responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its citizens by the control, prevention, and
abatement of noise. It is the policy of the State to provide an environment for all Californians
that is free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-10 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
14.4.3 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The Noise Element of the City of Dublin General Plan establishes residential, commercial, and
industrial land use compatibility standards for noise measured at the property line of the
receiving land use. The land use compatibility noise criteria provide the basis for decisions on
location of land uses in relation to noise sources and for determining noise mitigation
requirements.
Table 14-6: Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix shows the City of Dublin’s Land Use
Compatibility for Community Noise Environments standards for specific land uses. As indicated,
the normally acceptable exterior noise level is 70 dBA CNEL or less for office, retail, and
commercial land uses (the types of land uses proposed for development with implementation
of the project). Noise levels over 75 dBA CNEL are considered normally unacceptable for new
development of these types of land uses. For residential land uses, the normally acceptable
exterior noise level is 60 dBA CNEL or less and noise levels over 70 dBA CNEL are considered
normally unacceptable.
Table 14-6: Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix
Land Use Category
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable*
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential 60 or less 61-70 71-75 Over 75
Motels, hotels 60 or less 61-70 71-80 Over 80
Schools, churches, nursing homes 60 or less 61-70 71-80 Over 80
Neighborhood parks 60 or less 61-65 66-70 Over 70
Offices: retail commercial 70 or less 71-75 76-80 Over 80
Industrial 70 or less 71-75 Over 75
Notes:
*Conditionally acceptable exposure requires noise insulation features in building design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows
and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
Source: City of Dublin General Plan Noise Element, 1993, as amended. Table 9.1
General Plan Policies
The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to project-related
potential noise impacts:
Guiding Policy 9.2.1.A.1: Where feasible, mitigate traffic noise to levels indicated by Table 9.1:
Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments.
Implementing Policy 9.2.1.B.4: Noise impacts related to all new development shall be analyzed
by a certified acoustic consultant.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Implementing Policy 9.2.1.B.5: Request demonstration of ability to mitigate noise prior to
approval of light rail or bus service in the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way Transportation
Corridor.
A depressed rail line or noise walls close to the tracks could make light rail a good neighbor.
Implementing Policy 9.2.1.B.6: Review all multi-family development proposals within the
projected 60 CNEL contour for compliance with noise standards (45 CNEL in any habitable
room) as required by State law.
Because the General Plan designates almost all residential sites subject to 60 or greater CNEL
for multifamily development, this standard will be effective in Dublin. Project designers may
use one or more of four available categories of mitigation measures: site planning, architectural
layout (bedrooms away from noise source, for example), noise barriers, or construction
modifications.
Implementing Policy 9.2.1.B.7: Review all non-residential development proposals within the
projected CNEL 65 dBA contour for compliance with exterior noise transmission standards as
required by the California Green Building Standards Code.
The noise element specifies that project designers may use one or more of four available
categories of mitigation measures: site planning, architectural layout (bedrooms away from
noise source, for example), noise barriers, or construction modifications.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The City of Dublin’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains the following policy as it relates to
noise and vibration:
Policy 6-44: Require development along the I-580 frontage to provide adequate mitigation to
conform to the State Land Use Compatibility Standards for noise and policies and standards in
the City of Dublin's Noise Element.
City of Dublin Municipal Code
Noise regulations listed in the City of Dublin’s Municipal Code are enacted for the purpose of
securing and promoting the public health, comfort, safety, welfare, and prosperity and the
peace and quiet of the city and its inhabitants. The goal is to maintain and preserve the quiet
atmosphere of the city, and to implement programs and enact legislation consistent with the
objectives and goals set forth in the Noise Element of the General Plan and aimed at retaining
noise levels throughout the city acceptable values established in the General Plan.
Code Section 5.28.020 prohibits any person within the City to make any loud, or disturbing, or
unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which annoys or disturbs or injures or
endangers the health, repose, peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity
present in the area. Section 8.36.060(C)(3) states that lots less than 5,000 square feet with
mechanical equipment that generates noise (such as swimming pool, spa, and air conditioning
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-12 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
equipment) on the property shall be enclosed as necessary to reduce noise at the property line
to a maximum of 50 dBA at any time. For lots 5,000 square feet or larger, mechanical
equipment that generates noise when located within a required setback as allowed by this
subsection, and within 10 feet of an existing or potential residence, or an existing paved patio
area on adjoining property, shall be enclosed as necessary to reduce noise at the property line
to a maximum of 50 dBA at any time.
14.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
14.5.1 Significance Criteria
CEQA does not define what construction or operational noise level increase would be
considered substantial. Typically, a noise increase of 3 dBA Ldn or greater at a residential
receptor would be considered significant when existing ambient noise levels are between 60
and 65 dBA Ldn (FICON, 1992). A noise increase of 5 dBA Ldn or greater at the receptor would
be considered a significant impact when existing ambient noise levels are less than 60 dBA Ldn
(FICON, 1992). Noise due to construction activities is usually considered to be less than
significant in terms of CEQA compliance if the construction activity is temporary and the use of
heavy construction equipment and noisy activities are limited to daytime hours. As indicated
above, the City of Dublin does not have separate noise standards for construction.
The following significance criteria for noise were derived from the Environmental Checklist in
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been amended or supplemented,
as appropriate, to address lead agency requirements and the full range of potential impacts
related to this project.
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it
would meet one of the following criteria.
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies (refer to Impact N-1).
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels (refer to Impact N-2).
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project (refer to Impact N-3).
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project (refer to Impact N-4).
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels (refer to Impact N-5).
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (refer to Impact N-5).
Significance Classifications
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
Impacts Assessment Methodology
Construction
The analysis of noise impacts considers the effects of both temporary construction-related
noise and operational noise associated with long-term project-related activities, including,
without limitation, project-generated traffic.
The FHWA has developed the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), which has become
the industry accepted standard model for calculating construction noise levels at specific
receptor locations. Therefore, the noise levels presented herein represent a conservative,
reasonable worst-case estimate of actual temporary construction noise. The modeling for this
project has analyzed construction noise impacts according to various building phases, as types
of equipment used generally change according to various phases of construction. The modeled
receptor locations represent the closest existing receiving land uses to the east, north, west,
and south of the project site. The construction noise modeling assumptions and outputs are
provided in Appendix B of this EIR.
Operational
Traffic noise impacts are assessed using the U.S. Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction
Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Model input data includes without- and with-project average daily
traffic volumes on adjacent roadway segments, day/night percentages of autos, medium and
heavy trucks, vehicle speeds, ground attenuation factors, and roadway widths. The roadway
speeds are based on the posted speed limits observed during site visits. The model analyzed
the noise impacts from the nearby roadways onto the project vicinity, which consists of the
area that has the potential of being impacted from the on-site noise sources as well as the
project-generated traffic on the nearby roadways. The roadway traffic model input
assumptions are presented in Appendix J.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-14 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
14.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
There are no “no” impacts nor “beneficial” impacts.
14.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact N-1: Cause a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction
that would substantially disturb sensitive receptors (Class II).
There are two types of short-term noise impacts associated with construction, increase in
traffic flow on local streets and noise generated from equipment.
Construction Traffic Noise
Construction noise may be generated by large trucks moving materials to and from the project
site. Large trucks would be necessary to deliver building materials as well as remove dump
materials and cut soil. Excavation and cut and fill would be required, resulting in grading of
approximately 50,000 net cubic yards to be exported from the site. Based on the CalEEMod
default assumptions for this project, as analyzed in the air quality section of this document, the
project would generate the highest number of daily trips during the building construction
phase. The model estimates that the project would generate up to 3,321 worker trips and
1,053 vendor trips over the entire construction duration. Because of the logarithmic nature of
noiselevels,a doublingof the trafficvolume(assumingthatthespeed and vehicle mixdo notalso
change) would result in a noise level increase of 3 dBA. As shown in the existing traffic conditions
discussion, all roadway segments in the immediate project vicinity have greater than 1,008
average daily trips (ADT). Therefore, project construction trips would result in an average of
two trips daily over the almost five-year construction period on modeled roadway segments in
the project vicinity and would not double the existing traffic volumes.
The State of California establishes noise limits for vehicles licensed to operate on public roads
using a pass-by test procedure. Pass-by noise refers to the noise level produced by an
individual vehicle as it travels past a fixed location. The pass-by procedure measures the total
noise emissions of a moving vehicle with a microphone. When the vehicle reaches the
microphone, the vehicle is at full throttle acceleration at an engine speed calculated for its
displacement.
For heavy trucks, the State pass by standard is consistent with the federal limit of 80 dB. The
State pass by standard for light trucks and passenger cars (less than 4.5 tons gross vehicle
rating) is also 80 dB at 15 meters from the centerline. According to the FHWA, dump trucks
typically generate noise levels of 76 dBA and flatbed trucks typically generate noise levels of 74
dBA, at a distance of 50 feet from the truck (FHWA, 2006). As such, noise from truck trips
associated with the project would not exceed FTA threshold levels of 90 dBA (one-hour Leq)or
80 dBA (eight-hour Leq) (FTA, 2006).
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Equipment Noise
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase
of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by
construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators,
can reach high levels. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may
involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower
power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents,
which would last less than one minute, such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the
hydraulic movement of machinery lifts.
Table 14-7: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels, shows typical noise levels associated
with activities during various phases of construction at a distance of 50 feet from the noise
source. Typical construction noise levels range from about 81 to 85 dBA at this distance. Noise
levels typically attenuate (or drop off) at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance from point
sources, such as industrial machinery. As shown in Table 14-7: Typical Construction Equipment
Noise Levels, typical construction noise levels would range from about 75 dBA to 89 dBA at 50
feet from the source of construction noise. The loudest piece of equipment (jack hammer)
would reach maximum noise levels of 89 dBA at 50 feet from the source.
Table 14-7: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Onsite
Typical Level
(dBA) 50 Feet
from the
Source
Typical Level
(dBA) 400 Feet
from the
Source
Typical Level
(dBA) 800 Feet
from the
Source
Typical Level
(dBA) 1,000
Feet from the
Source
Typical Level
(dBA) 1,600
Feet from the
Source
Air Compressor 78 60 54 52 48
Backhoe 78 60 54 52 48
Bobcat Tractor 78 60 54 52 48
Concrete Mixer 79 61 55 53 49
Bulldozer 82 64 58 56 52
Jack Hammer 89 71 65 63 59
Pavement Roller 80 62 56 54 50
Street Sweeper 82 64 58 56 52
Man Lift 75 57 51 49 45
Dump Truck 76 58 52 50 46
Notes:
1) The distances shown in this table represent minimum distances at which sources can be located from construction activity before a
potentially significant impact would occur.
2) Noise levels based on actual maximum measured noise levels at 50 feet (Lmax).
3) Noise levels assume a noise attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance.
Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (2006) Users Guide Table 1
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-16 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Project construction related noise would be generated during minor demolition, site-
preparation, grading, paving, and building. Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of
which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These
various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on-site.
Therefore, the noise levels vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the types and
sizes of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of
operation allow construction related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.
Because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment, the site preparation
(grading) phase is expected to be the loudest phase of construction. The site preparation
construction phase is expected to require the use of graders, scrapers, tractors, front-end
loaders, backhoes, and haul trucks. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction
equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at
lower power settings.
The FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model was used to calculate the worst-case
construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors surrounding the project site during
construction. The modeled receptor locations represent the closest existing receiving land uses
to the north as well as future on-site sensitive receptors constructed during the initial phases
that could potentially occupied during the final construction phases. Noise levels at other
sensitive receptors located to the east and west would be further away and would experience
lower construction noise levels than the closest receptors modeled. A worst-case scenario was
modeled assuming each piece of modeled equipment would operate simultaneously at the
nearest reasonable locations to each modeled receptor for each construction phase of the
project. Overall, average daily project construction noise levels would be much lower than this
worst-case scenario since all equipment would not always operate simultaneously and would
also produce less noise as the equipment operates toward the center of the project site further
from off-site receptors. Table 14-8: Project Construction Average Noise Levels identifies the
estimated construction noise levels at the closest receptors.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-17
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 14-8: Project Construction Average Noise Levels
Construction Phase/Activity
Receptor Location Estimated Exterior
Construction Noise
Level (dBA Leq) 2 Land Use Direction Distance1
Demolition/Site
Preparation/Grading3 Off-Site Residential
North 300 72.8
East 300 72.8
Paving
Off Site Residential
North 300 69.5
East 300 69.5
On-Site Residential Adjacent 100 79.0
Building
Off-Site Residential
North 300 70.2
East 300 70.2
On-Site Residential Adjacent 100 79.7
Notes:
1. Distance is from the nearest receptor to the closest construction activity area of the project site.
2. Derived from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), Jan 2006. Refer to Appendix B of EIR Appendix I
for noise modeling assumptions and results.
3. No on-site residences would be built or occupied during the initial construction phases (demolition, site preparation, or grading).
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018.
The City of Dublin’s Municipal Code (Section 5.28.020) prohibits any person within the City from
making any loud, or disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which
annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace, or safety of any
reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area.
As shown in Table 14-8: Project Construction Average Noise Levels, worst-case construction
noise levels at the closest off-site sensitive receptors could reach 72.8 dBA Leq. Worst-case
construction noise levels at the closest occupied on-site receptors could reach 79.7 dBA. MM
N-1.1 requires numerous construction best management practices and requires that loud noise-
generating construction would occur only during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
and would reduce construction noise impacts or minimize the severity of the impacts through a
variety of noise abatement methods. Implementation of the construction noise best
management practices would ensure that construction noise would not result in annoyance or
disturbance or injury or endangerment of the health, repose, peace or safety of any reasonable
person of normal sensitivity residing in the project vicinity. With implementation of MM N-1.1,
impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation for Impact N-1
MM N-1.1 Construction Noise Reduction
To reduce the effects of construction noise, the City of Dublin shall ensure that the project
applicants include the following on all construction contracts for the project:
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-18 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The project shall submit a Construction Noise Management Program that identifies
measures proposed to minimize construction noise impacts on existing residents.
All construction operations shall comply with local noise standards and be limited to
normal daylight hours. All stationary equipment shall be adequately muffled and
located away from sensitive receptors. The construction contractor shall limit all on-site
noise-producing construction activities, including deliveries and warming up of
equipment, to the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., daily.
The construction contractor shall ensure that all internal combustion engine- driven
equipment is equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the
equipment.
The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as
possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a
construction project area. In addition, the project contractor shall place such stationary
construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors
nearest the project site.
The construction contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion
engines.
The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on-site
equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance between construction- related
noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project
construction.
The construction contractor shall designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would
be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a
complaint is received, the disturbance coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours
of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaints (starting too early,
bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem,
as deemed acceptable by the City of Dublin Community Development Department. The
construction contractor shall conspicuously post the contact name and telephone
number for the noise disturbance coordinator at the construction site.
Impact N-2: Temporarily generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
(Class III).
Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the project would be primarily
associated with construction-related activities. Construction on the project site would have the
potential to result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the
specific construction equipment used and the operations involved. Ground vibration generated
by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with
increases in distance. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site
often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-19
Draft EIR
10/23/18
receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the
lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to
slight damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely
reach levels that damage structures.
Construction-related ground vibration is normally associated with impact equipment such as
pile drivers, jackhammers, and the operation of some heavy-duty construction equipment, such
as dozers and trucks. Vibration decreases rapidly with distance.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published standard vibration velocities for
construction equipment operations. In general, depending on the building category of the
nearest buildings adjacent to the potential pile driving area, the potential construction vibration
damage criteria vary. For example, for a building that is constructed with reinforced concrete
with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.50 inch per second
(in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) is considered safe and would not result in any construction
vibration damage. The FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations for non-
engineered timber and masonry buildings (i.e., 0.20 inch/second) appears to be conservative.
The types of construction vibration impact include human annoyance and building damage.
Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of
human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or
structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any
cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary
substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between
vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration
generated by construction equipment. The City of Dublin does not provide numerical vibration
standards for construction activities. Therefore, this impact discussion uses FTA standard of
0.20 inch/second PPV with respect to the prevention of structural damage for normal buildings
and human annoyance.
Construction of the project could potentially include impact-pile driving or drilling for the
multifamily parking garage. The nearest structures to any of the construction activities include
residences that are within approximately 50 feet and the nearest sensitive receptors from the
parking garage are residents that are more than 250 feet to the east. Table 14-9: Typical
Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, identifies vibration levels feet for typical construction
equipment. Based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment
operations that would be used during project construction would range from 0.003 to 0.644
inch/second PPV at 25 feet from the source of activity. It is also acknowledged that
construction activities would occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated
at the point closest to the nearest structure. At the closest sensitive receptors approximately
50 feet away, vibration from typical equipment for residential construction (i.e., excluding pile
drivers) would range from 0.001 to 0.024 inch/second PPV. At 250 feet (i.e., the closest
distance for sensitive receptors to the parking garage) vibration from pile drivers would be
0.020 inch/second PPV. Therefore, vibration from construction activities experienced at the
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-20 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
nearest building would be expected to be below the 0.20 inch/second PPV significance
threshold.
Table 14-9: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Equipment Type
Peak Particle Velocity
at 25 Feet (inches per
second)
Peak Particle Velocity at
50 Feet (inches per
second)
Peak Particle Velocity at
250 Feet (inches per
second)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.024 0.003
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.024 0.003
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.020 0.002
Rock Breaker 0.059 0.016 0.002
Jackhammer 0.035 0.001 0.001
Small Bulldozer/Tractor 0.003 0.001 0.000
Pile Driver (impact) 0.644 0.23 0.020
Pile Driver (sonic) 0.170 0.06 0.005
Notes:
Calculated using the following formula:
PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5, where:
PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in inch per second of the equipment adjusted for the distance
PPV (ref) = the reference vibration level in inch per second from Table 12-2 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
Guidelines
D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
As noted above, the 0.20 inch/second PPV threshold is conservative because the construction
vibration damage criteria for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings. Buildings would
be better represented by the 0.50 inch/second PPV significance threshold (construction
vibration damage criteria for a reinforced concrete, steel or timber buildings). Once
operational, the Project would not be a source of groundborne vibration. Because construction
equipment vibration levels would be below the significance thresholds, impacts would be less
than significant (Class III).
Impact N-3: Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels (Class II).
Implementation of the project would create new sources of noise in the project vicinity. The
major noise sources associated with the project that would potentially impact existing and
future nearby residences include the following:
Mechanical equipment (i.e., trash compactors, air conditioners, etc.);
Slow moving delivery/supply trucks on the project site, approaching and leaving the
loading areas;
Activities at the loading areas (i.e., maneuvering and idling trucks, banging and
clanging of equipment);
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-21
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Parking areas (i.e., car door slamming, car radios, engine start-up, and car pass-by);
and
Landscape maintenance activities.
Traffic Noise
Implementation of the project would generate increased traffic volumes along study roadway
segments. According to the traffic impact analysis, the project would result in a net total of 19,
327 average daily weekday trips, which would result in noise increases on project area
roadways. In general, traffic noise increase of less than 3 dBA is barely perceptible to people,
while a 5-dBA increase is readily noticeable (Caltrans, 2009). Generally, traffic volumes on
project area roadways would have to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels
to increase by 3 dBA. Therefore, permanent increases in ambient noise levels of less than 3
dBA are considered to be less than significant.
Traffic noise levels for roadways primarily affected by the project were calculated using the
FHWA’s Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Traffic noise modeling was
conducted for conditions with and without the project, based on traffic volumes obtained from
the project Traffic Impact Study (Kimley-Horn 2018). The highest traffic noise level increase
with implementation of the project would occur along Brannigan Road between Gleason Drive
and Central Parkway under existing plus project conditions. As shown in Table 14-10: Existing
and Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels, the project would result in an increase of 3.4 dBA
under existing plus project conditions on this roadway segment. However, the existing plus
project noise level would remain under the 60 dBA CNEL allowed by City of Dublin noise
standards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Table 14-10: Existing and Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway
Existing Noise
Level
(dBA CNEL)
Existing + Project
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)Change
Significant
Impact
Hacienda Drive
Gleason Drive to Central Parkway 65.0 65.0 0 No
Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard 66.4 66.6 0.2 No
Dublin Boulevard to I-580 WB Ramps 70.7 71.0 0.3 No
I-580 WB Ramps to I-580 EB Ramps 71.6 71.8 0.2 No
I-580 EB Ramps to Owens Drive 71.7 71.8 0.1 No
South of Owens Drive 68.3 68.6 0.3 No
Tassajara Road
Fallon Road to Gleason Drive 69.2 69.2 0 No
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-22 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Roadway
Existing Noise
Level
(dBA CNEL)
Existing + Project
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL) Change
Significant
Impact
Gleason Drive to Central Parkway 69.3 69.4 0.1 No
Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard 69.0 69.2 0.2 No
Dublin Boulevard to I-580 WB Ramps 71.6 72.2 0.6 No
I-580 WB Ramps to I-580 EB Ramps 72.1 72.5 0.4 No
Saint Rita Road
I-580 EB Ramps to Las Positas Boulevard 72.3 72.6 0.3 No
Brannigan Street
Gleason Drive to Central Parkway 55.4 58.8 3.4 No
Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard 54.7 57.5 2.7 No
South of Dublin Boulevard 56.7 58.9 2.2 No
Fallon Road
Tassajara Road to Gleason Drive 65.0 65.0 0 No
South of Gleason Drive 66.6 66.6 0 No
Gleason Drive
Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road 64.3 64.3 0 No
Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street 65.0 65.0 0 No
Brannigan Street to Fallon Road 61.5 61.9 0.4 No
Central Parkway
Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road 63.5 64.4 0.9 No
Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street 63.3 64.2 0.9 No
Brannigan Street to Fallon Road 62.8 63.1 0.3 No
Dublin Boulevard
West of Hacienda Drive 69.9 70.4 0.5 No
Hacienda Drive to Toyota Drive 69.4 70.1 0.7 No
Toyota Drive to Glynnis Rose Drive 70.3 70.9 0.6 No
Glynnis Rose Drive to Tassajara Road 70.2 70.9 0.7 No
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-23
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Roadway
Existing Noise
Level
(dBA CNEL)
Existing + Project
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL) Change
Significant
Impact
Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street 68.8 70.1 1.3 No
Brannigan Street to Grafton Street 68.3 68.5 0.2 No
Grafton Street to Keegan Street 67.6 67.9 0.3 No
Keegan Street to Lockhart Street 66.3 66.6 0.3 No
Lockhart Street to Fallon Road 63.9 64.1 0.2 No
Source: Noise modeling is based on traffic data within the At Dublin Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Kimley-Horn, 2018.
The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates evaluated near term and
near term plus project conditions. These analyses help develop a forecast of future traffic
volumes in the study area under “Near-term Conditions” without the project. This forecast
provides a baseline to measure the Project’s impacts related to traffic. The year 2025 was
selected for analysis based on the predicted opening year for the project. Table 14-11: Near
Term and Near Term Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels, shows the noise levels on the various
roadway segments studies in the traffic analysis.
Table 14-11: Near Term and Near Term Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway
Near Term
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Near Term +
Project Noise
Level (dBA CNEL) Change
Significant
Impact
Hacienda Drive
Gleason Drive to Central Parkway 65.0 65.0 0.0 No
Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard 67.1 67.3 0.1 No
Dublin Boulevard to I-580 WB Ramps 71.9 72.1 0.2 No
I-580 WB Ramps to I-580 EB Ramps 72.6 72.8 0.2 No
I-580 EB Ramps to Owens Drive 72.9 73.0 0.1 No
South of Owens Drive 69.5 69.7 0.2 No
Tassajara Road
Fallon Road to Gleason Drive 69.8 69.9 0.1 No
Gleason Drive to Central Parkway 70.0 70.1 0.1 No
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-24 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Roadway
Near Term
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Near Term +
Project Noise
Level (dBA CNEL) Change
Significant
Impact
Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard 69.3 69.6 0.3 No
Dublin Boulevard to I-580 WB Ramps 72.9 73.5 0.5 No
I-580 WB Ramps to I-580 EB Ramps 73.1 73.4 0.4 No
Saint Rita Road
I-580 EB Ramps to Las Positas Boulevard 73.3 73.6 0.3 No
Brannigan Street
Gleason Drive to Central Parkway 55.6 58.7 3.2 No
Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard 55.1 57.5 2.4 No
South of Dublin Boulevard 57.3 59.4 2.1 No
Fallon Road
Tassajara Road to Gleason Drive 65.8 65.8 0.0 No
South of Gleason Drive 67.2 67.2 0.0 No
Gleason Drive
Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road 64.3 64.3 0.0 No
Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street 65.1 65.2 0.1 No
Brannigan Street to Fallon Road 61.6 62.0 0.3 No
Central Parkway
Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road 63.8 64.6 0.8 No
Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street 63.8 64.7 0.8 No
Brannigan Street to Fallon Road 63.4 63.6 0.3 No
Dublin Boulevard
West of Hacienda Drive 71.5 71.8 0.3 No
Hacienda Drive to Toyota Drive 71.0 71.5 0.5 No
Toyota Drive to Glynnis Rose Drive 71.7 72.2 0.5 No
Glynnis Rose Drive to Tassajara Road 71.7 72.2 0.5 No
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-25
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Roadway
Near Term
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Near Term +
Project Noise
Level (dBA CNEL) Change
Significant
Impact
Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street 71.3 72.1 0.8 No
Brannigan Street to Grafton Street 71.1 71.2 0.2 No
Grafton Street to Keegan Street 70.6 70.8 0.2 No
Keegan Street to Lockhart Street 68.5 68.8 0.3 No
Lockhart Street to Fallon Road 66.3 66.5 0.2 No
Source: Noise modeling is based on traffic data within the At Dublin Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Kimley-Horn, 2018.
As shown in Table 14-11: Near Term and Near Term Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels, Brannigan
Street between Gleason Drive to Central Parkway and Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard
would have an increase of 3.2 dBA CNEL and 2.4 dBA CNEL, respectively, from near term to near
term plus project. This increase is not a significant impact as the resulting noise level is
acceptable according to the City of Dublin, see Table 14-6: Land Use/Noise Compatibility
Matrix.
Therefore, traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. The project would not result in a
doubling of traffic on project area roadways. Moreover, project traffic would traverse and
disperse over project area roadways, where existing ambient noise levels already exist.
Mechanical Equipment
Regarding mechanical equipment, the project would generate stationary-source noise
associated with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units. Such HVAC units
typically generate noise levels of approximately 55 dBA at a reference distance of 100 feet from
the operating units during maximum heating or air conditioning operations. As stated above,
the nearest existing sensitive receptors are located more than 100 feet from the commercial
and mixed-use areas of the project site. Single family residential areas in PA-4 would be
adjacent to existing residences (north of Gleason Drive). However, the mechanical equipment
associated with the proposed residences would be similar to the existing uses and would also
be buffered by a proposed road and existing and proposed setbacks and would be
approximately 100 feet away from the closest residences. Given that existing and project-
related sensitive receptors would be located beyond 100 feet from on-site HVAC units, noise
generated by HVAC units would not result in a significant impact.
Slow Moving Trucks (Deliveries) and Loading Areas
Potential noise impacts with the project’s retail uses would be associated primarily with truck
deliveries. The primary noise associated with truck deliveries is the arrival and departure of
trucks. Noise sources at a truck loading area may include maneuvering and idling trucks, truck
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-26 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
refrigeration units, forklifts, banging and clanging of equipment (i.e., hand carts and roll-up
doors), and voices of truck drivers and employees. The greatest potential for noise impacts
would be to on site residents in the proposed mixed-use area (Planning Area 2) as these would
be the closest sensitive receptors to commercial/retail areas. The residents in the mixed-use
area would be approximately 100 feet away from the closest potential truck loading areas. The
closest off-site sensitive receptors would be located 400 feet or more away from proposed
commercial loading areas and in most cases, would not have a direct line of sight to the loading
areas.
Delivery truck loading/unloading activities typically result in maximum noise levels from 75 dBA
Lmax at 50 feet. These activities are expected to occur intermittently throughout the day, as
trucks arrive and leave the parking lot areas for deliveries. Delivery truck noise at the existing
off-site receptors would be attenuated to 56.9 dBA and would not exceed the City’s Normally
Acceptable standard of 60 dBA. However, at the closest proposed on-site receptors
(approximately 100 feet away), 75 dBA at 50 feet would attenuate to 69 dBA.
Noise levels 61 to 70 dBA are considered Conditionally Acceptable according to the City’s
General Plan Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. Conditionally acceptable exposure requires
noise insulation features in building design. Conventional construction, but with closed
windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Therefore, MM
N-3.1 requires all residential units to be designed to ensure that interior noise levels in
habitable rooms from exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dBA, in compliance with Title 24 of
the California Code of Regulations and City Implementing Policy H. Further, the project would
be required to comply with MM N-3.1, which require a detailed acoustical study demonstrating
that all residential units would meet the City’s 60 dBA exterior noise standard for all patios,
balconies, and common outdoor living areas through any necessary noise reduction features
(barriers, berms, enclosures, etc.). Compliance with MM N-3.1 would result in a less than
significant impact.
Parking Areas
The project includes the construction of a surface parking and a parking structure in PA-2 as
well as surface parking in PA-1. Typical parking lot activities include people conversing, doors
shutting, engines starting up, or vehicles idling generate noise levels of approximately 60 dBA to
63 dBA at 50 feet.15 These activities are expected to occur intermittently throughout the day, as
visitors and employees arrive and leave the parking lot areas. As such, noise associated with
parking lots and garages is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise
standards, which are based on a time-averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. While the
15 The reference noise levels are typical noise levels based on previous experience. These levels are also
consistent with data within the Anthem Winery Use Permit Modification Environmental Noise Assessment,
prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. (May 26, 2016).
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-27
Draft EIR
10/23/18
instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up,
and car pass-bys may be an annoyance, noise levels are not a significant impact.
The nearest off-site receptors would be the residences located approximately 400 feet to the
east from the nearest parking lot and the nearest on-site sensitive receptors would be
proposed residences approximately 100 feet away. At these distances, noise levels would
attenuate to 45 dBA and 57 dBA, respectively. As parking lot noise levels would not exceed the
City’s 60 dBA standard, project-related parking lot noise impacts would be less than significant.
On-Site Mobile Noise
Future residents at the project site would be exposed to mobile traffic noise along Tassajara
Road, Brannigan Street, Dublin Boulevard, Central Parkway, and Gleason Drive. Table 14-11:
Near Term and Near Term Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels identifies the combined noise levels
of traffic noise at the future residences on the site. Residences facing Tassajara Road would
experience interior noise levels ranging up to approximately 74 dBA, which would exceed the
City’s 60 dBA Normally Acceptable exterior standard for residential uses and the City’s 45 dBA
interior standard per the State Building Code and City Implementing Policy H.
Therefore, the project would be required to comply with MM N-3.1, which require a detailed
acoustical study demonstrating that all residential units would meet the City’s 60 dBA exterior
noise standard for all patios, balconies, and common outdoor living areas through any
necessary noise reduction features (barriers, berms, enclosures, etc.). Further, MM N-3.1 also
requires all residential units to be designed to ensure that interior noise levels in habitable
rooms from exterior sources (including vehicles on adjacent roadways) shall not exceed 45 dBA,
in compliance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and City Implementing Policy
H. Compliance with MM N-3.1 would result in a less than significant impact.
Overall, implementation of MM N-3.1 and adherence to Municipal Code requirements, noise
impacts associated with traffic, mechanical equipment, deliveries, loading/unloading activities,
and parking lot noise would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation for Impact N-3
MM N-3.1 Noise Attenuation
Prior to issuance of building permits for Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4, a detailed acoustical study
based on architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and
submitted to the Community Development Department to demonstrate that all residential
units would meet the City’s 60 dBA exterior noise standard for all patios, balconies, and
common outdoor living areas. In addition, the acoustical study shall demonstrate that interior
noise levels at all residential units at the project site would meet the City’s 45 dBA threshold.
This mitigation measure complies with the applicable sections of the California Building Code
(Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) and City Implementing Policy H. The necessary
noise reduction may be achieved by implementing noise control measures at the receiver
locations. Where closed windows are required to achieve the interior 45 dBA CNEL limit,
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-28 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
project plans and specifications shall include ventilation as required by the California Building
Code. The final grading and building plans shall incorporate the required noise barriers (patio
enclosure, wall, berm, or combination wall/berm), and the property owner/developer shall
install these barriers and enclosures.
Impact N-4: Result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels (Class II).
As discussed in Impact Statement N-1, project construction would generate short-term noise
due to the operation of heavy equipment. The heavy equipment would primarily be used
during the grading phase and would involve the use of graders and scrapers (i.e., non-impact
equipment). It should be noted that only minor cuts and fills are necessary for the areas of the
project site that are in proximity to sensitive receptors as the project site is relatively flat.
As shown in Table 14-8: Project Construction Average Noise Levels, project construction would
generate worst-case noise levels up to 72.8 dBA at the closest off-site sensitive receptors.
During grading, the equipment travels around the graded area to move earth. From the
perspective of a sensitive receptor, the equipment approaches, passes by, and then recedes
into the distance. Peak noise levels would thus be periodic, intermittent, and temporary during
brief pass-by periods when construction equipment operates at the far extent of the grading
limits. Ambient noise levels are measured over a long-term period and consider noise levels
during the daytime (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (i.e., 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).
Noise standards for changes in ambient conditions (such as CNEL) are also designed to consider
the level of noise over a long duration such as 24 hours. As discussed above, construction
activities would not produce sustained changes in ambient noise levels.
Instead, construction equipment would travel throughout the site and would be focused on the
interior of the site, thus not occurring near sensitive receptors for extended periods of time.
Accordingly, the construction activities have limited ability to the influence the ambient noise
levels. Furthermore, the project would implement noise-attenuating measures that would
further minimize potential construction noise impacts (refer to MM N-1.1). The project is not
considered a new development that can materially increase ambient CNEL. Finally, even if the
project could create substantial increase in ambient noise levels (which it cannot) the noise
ordinances of the applicable jurisdictions exempt construction noise activity performed within
certain hours. MM N-1 mandates that the project adhere to the construction hour limitations.
Implementation of MM N-1 also requires best management practice construction noise
reduction measures and restrictions on permissible hours of construction would therefore
ensure construction noise would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise
levels.
As a result, the project would not create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Implementation of MM N-1 would result in less than significant impacts.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-29
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact N-5: Result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels due to private or public
airports (Class III).
The nearest public airport is the Livermore Municipal Airport located approximately 2.5 miles
southwest of the project site. The Airport Executive Land Use Compatibility Plan shows the
project within Zone 7 as shown in Figure 11-1: Livermore Municipal Airport Safety Compatibility
Zones. According to the ALUC, no restrictions on residential development shall apply to
portions of Zone 7 that extend beyond the boundary of the Airport Protection Area. Although,
the project is partially within the Airport Influence Area, it is not within the airport protection
Area and is outside of the 55 CNEL noise contour. There are no private airstrips near the
project site. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
14.5.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic area for the analysis of cumulative impacts to noise is the City of Dublin.
Impact N-6: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on noise (Class II).
Cumulative Construction Noise
The project’s construction activities would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient
noise levels with the implementation of MM N-1.1 and MM N-3.1. There would be periodic,
temporary, significant noise impacts that would cease upon completion of construction
activities. The project would contribute to and construction noise impacts should other
development proximate to the project site occur concurrent with the project.
However, based on the noise analysis above, impacts from the project’s noise would be less
than significant with mitigation. Based on the fact that noise dissipates as it travels away from
its source, noise impacts from on-site activities and other stationary sources would be limited
to the project site and vicinity. Thus, cumulative operational noise impacts from related
projects, in conjunction with project-specific noise impacts, would not be cumulatively
significant.
Cumulative Operational Noise
Cumulative noise impacts describe how much noise levels are projected to increase over
existing conditions with the development of the project and other foreseeable projects.
Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local
roadways due to buildout of the project and other projects in the vicinity. Cumulative increases
in traffic noise levels were estimated by comparing the Existing Plus Project and Opening Year
scenarios to existing conditions. The traffic analysis considers cumulative traffic from future
growth assumed in the traffic mode, as well as cumulative projects identified by the City of
Dublin.
A project’s contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered significant
when the combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold.
The following criteria is used to evaluate the combined effect of the cumulative noise increase.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-30 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Combined Effect. The cumulative with Project noise level (“Cumulative With
Project”) would cause a significant cumulative impact if a 3.0 dB increase over
“Existing” conditions occurs and the resulting noise level exceeds the applicable
exterior standard at a sensitive use. Although there may be a significant noise
increase due to the project in combination with other related projects (combined
effects), it must also be demonstrated that the project has an incremental effect. In
other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to the project.
The following criteria have been used to evaluate the incremental effect of the cumulative
noise increase.
Incremental Effects. The “Cumulative With Project” causes a 1.0 dBA increase in
noise over the “Cumulative Without Project” noise level.
A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria
have been exceeded. Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon, and reduces as distance
from the source increases. Consequently, only the project and growth due to occur in the
general area would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Table 14-12: Cumulative Plus
Project Conditions Predicted Traffic Noise Levels identifies the traffic noise effects along
roadway segments in the vicinity of the project site for “Existing,” “Cumulative Without
Project,” and “Cumulative With Project,” conditions, including incremental and net cumulative
impacts.
First, it must be determined whether the “Future With Project” increase above existing
conditions (Combined Effects) is exceeded. As indicated in the table, the Proposed Project does
not exceed the combined effects criterion. Next, under the Incremental Effects criteria,
cumulative noise impacts are defined by determining if the forecast ambient (“Future Without
Project”) noise level is increased by 1 dB or more. As shown in the table, the incremental
effects criterion is not exceeded. Based on the significance criteria set forth in this EIR, none of
the roadway segments would result in significant impacts because they would not exceed
either the combined or the incremental effects criteria. The project would not result in long-
term mobile noise impacts based on project-generated traffic as well as cumulative and
incremental noise levels. Therefore, the project, in combination with cumulative background
traffic noise levels, would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. The project’s
contribution to would not be cumulatively considerable.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-31
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 14-12: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Predicted Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Existing
Cumulative
Without
Project
Cumulative
With
Project
Combined
Effects
Incremental
Effects
Cumulatively
Significant
Impact?
dBA @
100 Ft
from
Centerline
dBA @ 100
Ft from
Centerline
dBA @ 100
Ft from
Centerline
dBA
Difference:
Existing
and
Cumulative
With
Project
dBA
Difference:
Cumulative
Without
and With
Project
Hacienda Drive
Gleason Drive to Central
Parkway 65.0 65.6 65.6 0.5 0 No
Central Parkway to Dublin
Boulevard 66.4 68.3 68.4 2.0 0.1 No
Dublin Boulevard to I-580
WB Ramps 70.7 73.8 73.9 3.2 0.1 No
I-580 WB Ramps to I-580 EB
Ramps 71.6 73.9 74.0 2.4 0.1 No
I-580 EB Ramps to Owens
Drive 71.7 74.2 74.4 2.7 0.1 No
South of Owens Drive 68.3 71.1 71.3 3.0 0.2 No
Tassajara Road
Fallon Road to Gleason Drive 69.1 70.8 70.9 1.8 0.1 No
Gleason Drive to Central
Parkway 69.3 70.6 70.8 1.5 0.2 No
Central Parkway to Dublin
Boulevard 68.9 70.0 70.2 1.3 0.3 No
Dublin Boulevard to I-580
WB Ramps 71.5 73.6 73.9 2.4 0.4 No
I-580 WB Ramps to I-580 EB
Ramps 72.0 73.7 74.0 1.9 0.3 No
Saint Rita Road
I-580 EB Ramps to Las
Positas Boulevard 72.2 73.7 73.9 1.7 0.2 No
Brannigan Street
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-32 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Roadway Segment
Existing
Cumulative
Without
Project
Cumulative
With
Project
Combined
Effects
Incremental
Effects
Cumulatively
Significant
Impact?
dBA @
100 Ft
from
Centerline
dBA @ 100
Ft from
Centerline
dBA @ 100
Ft from
Centerline
dBA
Difference:
Existing
and
Cumulative
With
Project
dBA
Difference:
Cumulative
Without
and With
Project
Gleason Drive to Central
Parkway 55.4 57.7 59.8 4.4 2.1 No
Central Parkway to Dublin
Boulevard 54.7 58.1 59.4 4.7 1.3 No
South of Dublin Boulevard 56.7 63.4 64.2 7.5 0.8 No
Fallon Road
Tassajara Road to Gleason
Drive 65.0 68.2 68.2 3.2 0 No
South of Gleason Drive 66.6 69.8 69.8 3.2 0 No
Gleason Drive
Hacienda Drive to Tassajara
Road 64.3 65.1 65.2 0.9 0.1 No
Tassajara Road to Brannigan
Street 64.9 66.1 66.2 1.3 0.1 No
Brannigan Street to Fallon
Road 61.5 62.9 63.2 1.7 0.3 No
Central Parkway
Hacienda Drive to Tassajara
Road 63.5 65.4 66.0 2.5 0.5 No
Tassajara Road to Brannigan
Street 63.3 65.4 66.0 2.7 0.5 No
Brannigan Street to Fallon
Road 62.8 65.0 65.2 2.4 0.2 No
Dublin Boulevard
West of Hacienda Drive 69.9 72.7 72.9 3.0 0.3 No
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-33
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Roadway Segment
Existing
Cumulative
Without
Project
Cumulative
With
Project
Combined
Effects
Incremental
Effects
Cumulatively
Significant
Impact?
dBA @
100 Ft
from
Centerline
dBA @ 100
Ft from
Centerline
dBA @ 100
Ft from
Centerline
dBA
Difference:
Existing
and
Cumulative
With
Project
dBA
Difference:
Cumulative
Without
and With
Project
Hacienda Drive to Toyota
Drive 69.4 72.8 73.2 3.8 0.4 No
Toyota Drive to Glynnis Rose
Drive 70.2 73.4 73.8 3.5 0.4 No
Glynnis Rose Drive to
Tassajara Road 70.2 73.7 74.0 3.8 0.3 No
Tassajara Road to Brannigan
Street 68.8 73.4 73.9 5.1 0.5 No
Brannigan Street to Grafton
Street 68.2 72.8 73.0 4.8 0.2 No
Grafton Street to Keegan
Street 67.6 72.6 72.7 5.2 0.2 No
Keegan Street to Lockhart
Street 66.3 71.2 71.3 5.1 0.2 No
Lockhart Street to Fallon
Road 63.9 71.8 71.9 8.0 0.1 No
Source: Noise modeling is based on traffic data within the At Dublin Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Kimley-Horn, 2018.
14.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 14-13: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Noise summarizes the
environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the project
with regard to noise.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-34 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 14-13: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Noise
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
Impact N-1: Cause a temporary or
periodic increase in ambient noise
levels during construction that would
substantially disturb sensitive
receptors (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction
Impact N-2: Temporarily generate
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise. (Class III).
Less than significant None required.
Impact N-3: Result in a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels (Class II).
Less than significant
with Mitigation
MM N-3.1: Noise Attenuation
Impact N-4: Result in a substantial
temporary increase in ambient noise
levels (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction
Impact N-5: Result in a substantial
increase in ambient noise levels due to
private or public airports (Class III).
Less than Significant None required.
Impact N-6: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable impacts on
noise (Class II).
Less than significant
with Mitigation
MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction
MM N-3.1: Noise Attenuation
14.6 References
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2009. Technical Noise Supplement. pp.
248 – 249. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/tens_complete.pdf.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplemental to the
Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Available at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook.
(FHWAHEP-06-015; DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02). Available at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/index.cf
m
FICON (Federal Interagency Committee on Noise). 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected
Airport Noise Analysis Issues. August. Available at:
http://www.gsweventcenter.com/GSW_RTC_References/1992_0801_FICON.pdf
FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
Final Report. Available at:
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-35
Draft EIR
10/23/18
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Ma
nual.pdf
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1974. Information on Levels of
Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate
Margin of Safety. Available at:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/2000L3LN.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=E
PA&Index=Prior+to+1976&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRe
strict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFiel
dOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C70thr
u75%5CTxt%5C00000001%5C2000L3LN.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymou
s&SortMethod=h%7C-
&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i4
25&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=
Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL
City of Dublin At Dublin
Population & Housing | Page 15-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
15 Population & Housing
15.1 Introduction
This section describes effects on population and housing that would be caused by
implementation of the project. Information used to prepare this section came from the
following resources:
City of Dublin, General Plan, 1985 amended 2017
City of Dublin, Housing Element, 2014
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC), Plan Bay Area
15.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, the following comment regarding
population and housing was raised:
Consider the assumptions used to estimate the number of school children the
project would create, especially as it relates to type of units.
15.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on population and housing conditions in the project area.
15.3.1 Population Characteristics
Alameda County
Alameda County has a current population of approximately 1,645,359 persons (DOF, 2017).
The County is forecasted to grow nearly 41 percent from 2000 to 2040. Table 15-1: City of
Dublin and Alameda County Existing and Forecasted Population shows population numbers for
the County and City as determined by the California Department of Finance (DOF). DOF
estimates that the population of Alameda County will increase to 1,958,389 by 2035. As
identified in the table, the population in Alameda County is forecasted to grow nearly 53
percent between 1990 and 2035.
City of Dublin
As of January 2017, the City of Dublin has a population of 59,686 persons representing
approximately four percent of Alameda County’s population (DOF, 2017). As shown in Table
15-1: City of Dublin and Alameda County Existing and Forecasted Population the population in
Dublin is expected to increase to 76,000 by 2035. The City of Dublin would see a population
increase of 227 percent between 1990 and General Plan Build-Out at 2035, while the County
would experience a 53 percent increase over the same time period.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-15-2 | Population & Housing
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 15-1: City of Dublin and Alameda County Existing and Forecasted Population
1990 2000 2017 2035 Percent Increase
1990-2035
Dublin 23,229 29,973 59,686 76,000 227%
Alameda County 1,279,182 1,443,741 1,645,359 1,958,389 53%
Source: City of Dublin General Plan Housing Element, 2014.; DOF, 2017.
15.3.2 Housing Characteristics
Alameda County
As shown in Table 15-2: Housing Units for City of Dublin and Alameda County, the County has
an estimated 596,936 housing units with an average of 2.81 persons per household (DOF,
2017).
As reported by the DOF, the vacancy rate is a measure of the availability of housing in a
community. It also demonstrates how well the types of units available meet the market
demand. A low vacancy rate suggests that households may have difficulty finding housing
within their price range; a high supply of vacant units may indicate either the existence of a
high number of desired units, or an oversupply of units. The vacancy rate for housing in
Alameda County is estimated to be 4.1 percent (DOF, 2017).
Table 15-2: Housing Units for City of Dublin and Alameda County
2017 Persons per Household Vacancy Rate
Dublin 20,931 2.81 4.2 %
Alameda County 596,936 2.81 4.1 %
Source: Department of Finance, Table 2: E-5, 1/1/2017.
City of Dublin
According to the Department of Finance, the City of Dublin has approximately 20,931 housing
units with an average of 2.81 persons per household in 2017. The vacancy rate for housing in
the City is similar to that of Alameda County, 4.2 percent.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determines the regional housing needs
allocation (RHNA) by income category for each community in the region based on employment
activities, community patterns, types and tenure of housing needs, and others. The City of
Dublin’s allocation are shown in Table 15-3: City of Dublin Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
The City is required to ensure that sufficient sites that are planned and zoned for housing are
available to accommodate its need and to implement proactive programs that facilitate and
encourage the production of housing commensurate with its housing needs. The extremely low
income and very low-income need are approximately 35 percent of the total RHNA allocation.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Population & Housing | Page 15-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 15-3: City of Dublin Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Income Category RHNA Units Approved Remaining RHNA
Extremely Low Income
796 26 770
Very Low Income
Low Income 446 39 407
Moderate Income 425 14 411
Above Moderate Income 618 2,638 -2,020
Total 2,285 2,717 -432
Source: City of Dublin General Plan Housing Element, 2014; City of Dublin Housing Element Annual Report, 2017.
15.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
15.4.1 Federal
There are no applicable federal regulations applicable to the project.
15.4.2 State
California Housing Element Law
Government Code Sections 65580–65589.8 include provisions related to the requirements for
housing elements of local government general plans. Among these requirements, some of the
necessary elements include an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and
constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. Additionally, to assure that counties and
cities recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the State housing
goals, the statute calls for local jurisdictions to plan for, and allow the construction of, a share of
the region’s projected housing needs. The share is known as the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA). The RHNA for the Bay Area is based on a Regional Housing Needs Plan
(RHNP) developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for a nine-county area
that includes Alameda County and the City of Dublin. The City’s RHNA that covers the period
from 2015 through 2023 includes 2,285 units.
15.4.3 Local
Association of Bay Area Governments
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the official comprehensive regional
planning agency for the San Francisco Bay area, which is composed of nine counties, including
Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and
Sonoma. ABAG produces growth forecasts on four-year cycles so that other regional agencies,
including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD), can use the forecast to make funding and regulatory
decisions. ABAG projections are also the basis for the Regional Transportation Plan and
regional Ozone Attainment Plan. The general plans, zoning regulations, and growth
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-15-4 | Population & Housing
Draft EIR
10/23/18
management programs of local jurisdictions inform the ABAG projections. The ABAG
projections are also developed to reflect the impact of “smart growth” policies and incentives
that could be used to shift development patterns from historical trends toward a better jobs-
housing balance, increased preservation of open space, and greater development and
redevelopment in urban core and transit-accessible areas throughout the ABAG region.
In July 2017, ABAG and the MTC adopted Plan Bay Area 2040 and its associated Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). The second such regional housing and transportation plan adopted by
MTC and ABAG, Plan Bay Area 2040 is a long-range blueprint to guide transportation
investments and land-use decisions through 2040, while meeting the requirements of
California’s landmark 2008 Senate Bill 375, which calls on each of the state’s 18 metropolitan
areas to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy to accommodate future population
growth and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks.
The Action Plan portion of Plan Bay Area 2040 also focuses on economic development,
particularly improving transportation access to jobs, increasing middle-wage job creation and
maintaining the region’s infrastructure. Another focus of the Action Plan is resilience in terms
of enhancing climate protection and adaptation efforts, strengthening open space protections,
creating healthy and safe communities, and protecting communities against natural hazards.
City of Dublin General Plan Housing Element
The City of Dublin updated and adopted its Housing Element on November 18, 2014. Dublin’s
Housing Element, which focuses on the regional housing needs for the period between 2015
and 2023, includes all the mandatory sections as identified by California law, including an
inventory of land parcels that could accommodate its RHNA as set by ABAG. The element
outlines housing production objectives, describes strategies to achieve those objectives,
examines the local need for special needs populations, identifies adequate sites for housing
production serving various income levels, analyzes constraints to new development, and
evaluates the Housing Element’s consistency with other General Plan elements. A list of
relevant Housing Element goals and policies are provided below.
Policy 4-19: Encourage employment-generating uses which provide a broad range of job
types and wage/salary scales.
Policy 6.3.A: Encourage housing of varied types, sizes and prices to meet current and future
needs of all Dublin residents.
Implementing Policy 2.1.2.C: Require a mixture of dwelling types in large projects.
Guiding Policy 2.1.3.A: Avoid abrupt transition between single-family development and higher
density development on adjoining sites.
Implementing Policy 6.4.E: Require a percentage of units in large multi-family projects to be
rented for a specified period of time.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Population & Housing | Page 15-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The Affordable Housing Program
The City of Dublin has Inclusionary Zoning Regulations that requires residential development to
include a certain percentage of affordable housing. Developers may choose to satisfy a portion
of the obligation through the payment of a fee in-lieu of construction, with the funds being
deposited into the City’s affordable housing fund. As of June 30, 2017, the fund had an
available balance of $12,189,714. The City also adopted a nonresidential development
affordable housing impact fee to fund affordable housing to serve the workforces of new
nonresidential development. The proceeds are deposited into the affordable housing fund
program.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) and EIR were adopted in May 1993 to evaluate the
potential environmental effects of urbanizing eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30-year period. The
buildout potential of the EDSP is 32,023 residents, 13,913 dwelling units, and 29,424 jobs. The
project is located in the EDSP area.
15.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
15.5.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for population & housing were derived from the
Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been
amended or supplemented, as appropriate, to address lead agency requirements and the full
range of potential impacts related to this project.
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it
would meet one of the following criteria.
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure.)
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitation the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-15-6 | Population & Housing
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
15.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Displace existing housing or substantial people (No Impact).
The project site does not include any existing housing and therefore would not displace existing
housing or people. Implementation of the project would not displace substantial people, nor
would it require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. As a result, no impacts
would occur.
15.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact POP-1: Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly
(Class III).
According to the City of Dublin General Plan, the average household has 2.7 persons per unit
(2016). Therefore, the proposed Project is estimated to add a maximum population of
approximately 1,132 residents. As shown in Table 15-4: Additional Population Generated by
Project, this would lead to a three percent increase in the City’s 2017 population. A three
percent increase would still be within the range of population growth forecast by DOF, which is
76,000 by 2035. Therefore, the project’s population growth would be consistent with DOF’s
projections for the City.
Table 15-4: Additional Population Generated by Project
Dublin Current Population
Population generated by
Project1 Percent of Total Population
59,686 1,836 3 %
Source: Department of Finance, Table 2: E-5, 1/1/2017.
Note:
1- Based on 2.7 people per unit from Dublin General Plan, 2017.
Table 15-5: Buildout Potential of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, shows the forecasted growth
of the EDSP area. The project would provide 454,500 square feet or four percent of the
planned general commercial for the EDSP area and 50 percent of the proposed commercial
area for the project site in the EDSP. The project is only four percent of the forecasted
residential units for the EDSP plan area. While the project would increase the population
projections for the City, by increasing the number of units allowed from 261 to 680, the project
still represents a small fraction of the planned buildout for the EDSP overall; would be
consistent with the nature of surrounding development; and would be within the estimate of
population growth estimated by DOF and the City’s Housing Element. In addition, the
development that has actually occurred under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is less than was
City of Dublin At Dublin
Population & Housing | Page 15-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
originally. For all of these reasons, impacts associated with increased population growth would
be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
Table 15-5: Buildout Potential of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
EDSP EDSP Project Site Proposed Project
% of EDSP
overall
% of EDSP
Project site
Residential (units) 17,970 261 680 4% 261%
Commercial (square feet) 10,575,000 902,563 454,500 4% 50%
Population 42,669 705 1,836 4% 260%
Source: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, 1993, as amended.
15.5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative population and housing impacts includes
the City of Dublin.
Impact POP-2: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on population and housing
(Class III).
The project would have a maximum of 1,836 residents. Table 15-1: City of Dublin and Alameda
County Existing and Forecasted Population estimates the City of Dublin would have a
population of 76,000 at General Plan Buildout in 2035, of which the project would represent
less than three percent. Therefore, the project would not cause a cumulatively considerable
impact on population and housing and no mitigation is required.
15.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 15-6: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Population & Housing summarizes
the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the
project with regard to population & housing.
Table 15-6: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Population & Housing
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact POP-1: Induce substantial
population growth in an area, either
directly or indirectly (Class III).
Less than
significant
None required.
Impact POP-2: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable impacts
on population and housing (Class III).
Less than
significant
None required.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-15-8 | Population & Housing
Draft EIR
10/23/18
15.6 References
DOF (California Department of Finance). 2010a. Demographic Information. Reports and
Research Papers. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-
2009, with 2000 Benchmark. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/Estimates/E-4/2011-20/
_____. 2017b. Demographic Research Unit. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and
the State January 1, 2016 and 2017. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/p-3/
_____. 2017c. Demographic Information. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties and the State, 2001-2009, with 2000 Benchmark. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2009/
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
16 Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
16.1 Introduction
This section describes effects on public services, utilities, and service systems that would be
caused by implementation of the project. The discussion addresses existing environmental
conditions in the affected area, identifies and analyzes environmental impacts, and
recommends measures to reduce or avoid adverse impacts anticipated from project
construction and operation. In addition, existing laws and regulations relevant to public
services, utilities, and service systems are described. In some cases, compliance with these
existing laws and regulations would serve to reduce or avoid certain impacts that might
otherwise occur with the implementation of the project.
Information used to prepare this section came from the following resources:
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Final EIR, 1994 updated 2016
City of Dublin, General Plan, 1985 amended 2017
City of Dublin, Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2015
Dublin San Ramon Services District, At Dublin Project Water Supply Assessment,
2018 (see Appendix I)
Dublin San Ramon Services District, Wastewater Treatment and Biosolids Facilities
Master Plan, 2017
Dublin San Ramon Services District, Water System Master Plan, 2016
Dublin San Ramon Services District, Urban Water Management Plan, 2015
Dublin Unified School District, 7-Year Student Population Projections, February 5,
2018
Dublin Unified School District, School Facilities Needs Analysis, May 2017
Project application and related materials
Zone 7 Water Agency, Urban Water Management Plan, 2015
16.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, the following comments regarding
public services quality were raised:
Water shortages, particularly during consecutive years of drought
Evaluate impacts to City resources and budget due to the project (i.e. police, fire,
etc.)
Consider what the project benefits are to the City of Dublin
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-2 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
School overcrowding is a public health and safety concern
Pause project for a couple years to allow time for the school (high school)
overcrowding issue to be resolved
16.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on public services, utilities, and service systems in the project
area. Physical impacts to public services, utilities, and service systems are usually associated
with population in-migration and growth in an area, which increase the demand for a particular
service, leading to the need for expanded or new facilities.
16.3.1 Public Services
Police Protection
The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office provides law enforcement to the City of Dublin on a
contract basis (known locally as “Dublin Police Services”). Criminal investigations, crime
prevention, and some business office functions are performed at the Dublin Civic Center (100
Civic Center), while dispatch and some data processing functions are handled at Sheriff’s Office
facilities in Oakland and San Leandro.
Dublin Police Services have 55 sworn officers and four Sheriff’s technicians assigned to the duty
station at the Dublin Civic Center. Four City of Dublin civilian employees provide support
services for Dublin Police Services.
The Dublin Police Services responded to 37,323 calls for service in 2016 with an average
response time to priority calls in just over five minutes. This response time meets the Alameda
County Sheriff’s Office standards and the industry average of five minutes.
Fire Protection and Emergency Response Services
The Alameda County Fire Department provides fire protection, emergency medical services,
and public assistance to the City of Dublin. The Fire Department serves approximately 508
square miles and has a service population of 394,000 people. The Fire Department includes
three specialized response teams: Hazardous Materials Unit, Urban Search and Rescue Unit,
and Water Rescue Team Unit.
As shown in Table 16-1: Alameda County Fire Department Stations in the City of Dublin, the Fire
Department has four stations and one fire bureau in the City of Dublin, three of which are
staffed (shaded) and the other are used for reserve purposes.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 16-1: Alameda County Fire Department Stations in the City of Dublin
Station
Number Address Distance to
At Dublin
15 5325 Broder Road 1.1 miles This station houses the apparatus and equipment
for the Reserve Firefighters of the ACFD.
16 7494 Donohue Drive 3.4 miles
This station has one engine company, a patrol, a
water tender, and an air support unit. The
response area is primarily the west and central
Dublin.
17 6200 Madigan Road 0.6 miles
This station houses an engine and a truck company,
one Type 3 engine, and a water rescue boat.
Central Dublin is its primary response area but also
responds to the west, central core, and eastern
most sections of the City.
18 4800 Fallon Road 0.8 miles
This station has an engine company, one patrol,
and a bulldozer. Its response area covers the
eastern most portions of Dublin, urban wildland
interface areas, and Highway 580.
Fire
Prevention
Bureau
100 Civic Plaza 2.5 miles
Performs plan reviews and inspections of new
construction. The Bureau reviews building plans to
ensure compliance with applicable fire codes and
regulations.
Note: Shaded stations are staffed.
Source: Alameda County Fire Department, 2017.
The Fire Department is organized into four battalions consisting of 27 engine companies, five
tiller trucks, two Quints, and one heavy rescue vehicle. The Fire Department has 486
authorized positions and 100 reserve firefighters. The Fire Department also staffs specialized
response teams for hazardous materials, urban search and rescue, and water rescue. Stations
16 and 18 are staffed with one engine company and three personnel. Station 17, closest to the
project site, is staffed with one engine and one tiller truck with three personnel each for a total
of six personnel.
In 2016-2017, the Fire Department responded to 3,108 calls from the City of Dublin and 40,921
Countywide.16 The Fire Department’s average response times are reported to the City of Dublin
on a quarterly basis. According to the September 1, 2017 Standards of Cover Review, prepared
by Citygate Associates, the Fire Department responds to 90 percent of all incidences within 7
minutes, 23 seconds. This is within the Department-wide call to arrival goal of 7 minutes, 30
seconds.
16 https://www.acgov.org/fire/about/statistics.htm. Accessed January 17, 2018.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-4 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Aid Agreements
The Fire Department has mutual and automatic mutual aid agreements with the Livermore-
Pleasanton Fire Department, the San Ramon Valley Fire Department, and the Camp Parks Fire
Department.8 These agreements help to ensure service is sent based on shortest response
times and may result in a mix of different agencies responding to a particular call. In the case of
a wildland fire within the State Responsibility Areas of the County, CAL FIRE’s ground and air
resources are also available. The Fire Department also participates in the California Master
Mutual Aid Plan that allows source requests to be filled from an agency outside Alameda
County.
Schools
Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) provides K-12 educational services to the City of Dublin.
As of Fall 2017, DUSD had a total enrollment of 11,242 students, 542 certified staff members,
and 326 classified staff. DUSD operates 11 schools; seven elementary (TK-5), two middle (6-8),
and two high schools (one comprehensive, one alternative).17 The Cottonwood Creek School (a
K-8 site) will open in Fall 2018 giving the District a total of 8 elementary sites. DUSD also offers:
Pathways, an alternative option for elementary students; Independent Study; Dublin Adult
School; Home/Hospital Instruction for those with serious physical or mental health issues;
Home Schooling for K-6th grade; Online Program for Students; and various programs for
students with disabilities.18
While most school districts in California experiences a reduction in student enrollment and
funding following the downturn in the economy post 2007, student enrollment in the DUSD
continued to increase.
As a result, as shown in Table 16-2: Dublin School District Existing Student Capacity, student
enrollment for elementary and middle school grade levels exceeds current capacity.
17 https://www.dublin.k12.ca.us/domain/1053. Accessed January 17, 2018 and Dublin Unified School District, 7-
Year Student Population Projections, February 5, 2018
18 https://www.dublin.k12.ca.us/Page/4830. Accessed January 18, 2018.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 16-2: Dublin School District Existing Student Capacity
Grade Level
Existing Facilities
Capacity
Student Enrollment
(2017)
Excess/ (Deficit)
Capacity
Elementary School (TK-5) 5,194 5,956 (762)
Middle School (6-8) 1,450 2,532 (1,082)
High School (9-12) 3,180 2,754 426
Total 9,824 11,242 (1,418)
Source: DUSD, “School Facilities Need Analysis”, May 2017.
Elementary Schools
The DUSD is composed of seven elementary schools serving 5,956 transitional kindergarten (TK)
to grade 5 (TK-5) students as of Fall 2017. The Cottonwood Creek Elementary (K-8) will open in
Fall 2018 giving the District a total of eight elementary schools.
The project site is served by Kolb Elementary School (0.5 miles east) south of Gleason Drive and
Green Elementary School (0.8 miles northeast) north of Gleason Drive. Other nearby schools
include Dougherty Elementary School (0.8 miles west) and Cottonwood Creek Elementary (1.5
miles west, as of Fall 2018).
Middle School
There are currently two middle schools in the DUSD (Wells and Fallon) along with the
Cottonwood Creek K-8 that will open in the Fall of 2018. These two middle schools served
2,532 grade 6-8 students as of Fall 2017. The project site is served by Fallon Middle School,
located 0.5 miles northeast of the project site.
High School
The DUSD currently operates one comprehensive high school, Dublin High School, located four
miles west of the project site. As of Fall 2017, there were 2,754 9-12 high school students
enrolled in the District with Dublin HS serving 2,584 students, and Valley Continuation High
serving the remaining 45 students.
Parks
The City of Dublin’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015) establishes the goals, standards,
policies, and action programs to guide the City of Dublin in the acquisition, development and
management (operations and maintenance) of Dublin’s park and recreation facilities through
the ultimate build-out of the City in accordance with the General Plan.
As shown in Table 16-3: Dublin Parks and Sport Facilities Existing Service Levels and Standards,
the Master Plan establishes park standards for neighborhood and community parks and sport
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-6 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
facilities. Comparisons to the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) standards are
also shown for reference.
Table 16-3: Dublin Parks and Sport Facilities Existing Service Levels and Standards
Park & Sport Facilities NRPA Standard
City of Dublin
Standard
Existing Level of
Service (2015) 2
Neighborhood Park 1 1-2 1.9 2.109
Community Park 1 5-8 3.3 3.144
Baseball Fields 1 per 5,000 1 per 3,500 1 per 3,237
Softball Fields 1 per 5,000 1 per 15,000 1 per 10,357
Soccer Fields 1 per 10,000 1 per 3,500 1 per 3,237
Swimming Pool 1 per 20,000 400 sf. per 1,000 192 sf. per 1,000
Tennis Courts 1 per 2,000 1 per 2,700 1 per 2,725
Basketball Courts 1 per 5,000 1 per 4,300 1 per 4,315
Cricket Fields -- 1 per 40,000 1 per 51,784
Volleyball Courts 1 per 5,000 1 per 17,000 1 per 17,261
Notes:
1. Acres per 1,000 population
2. Bold/shaded box indicates deficit (below City standard)
Source: City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2015.
The City currently has 290 acres of community and neighborhood parks, sports fields, and open
space areas for hiking and biking. At buildout, the City of Dublin envisions a 380-acre park
system. With the existing and planned park acreage resulting in a 11.5-acre deficit compared to
the need at General Plan build-out, the Master Plan identifies six potential future sites for a
park totally approximately 21 acres. One potential future site for a two-acre Neighborhood
Square is south of Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road.
The nearest community park is Emerald Glen Park located directly adjacent to the project site
on the west side of Tassajara Road. The closest neighborhood parks are Bray Commons (0.4
miles east) and Ted Fairfield Park (0.5 miles north).
Community Facilities
As shown in Table 16-4: City of Dublin Community Facilities, the Parks and Community Services
Department operates five community centers.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 16-4: City of Dublin Community Facilities
Name Address
Distance from
Project Site Facilities
Dublin Civic
Center 100 Civic Plaza 2.5 miles
Council Chambers: Theater-style seating for 142,
panel seating for 11, two podiums, and two built-in
screens.
Regional Meeting Room: 80 for dining and 125 for
assembly.
Dublin Public
Library
Community
Room
200 Civic Plaza 2.55 miles
1,830 square foot Community Room that is
available for rent for up to 122 people.
Dublin Senior
Center
7600 Amador Valley
Boulevard 3.3 miles
Ballroom seats 248 for dining, raised stage, casual
seating nook, and two patios
Lounge area with fireplace and furniture
Shannon
Community
Center
11600 Shannon Avenue 3.8 miles 6,000 square foot room that fits 300 for dining
Heritage Park
and Museums 6600 Donlon Way 3.7 miles The Old St. Raymond Church and Sunday School
Barn are available for rentals
Source: City of Dublin Parks & Community Services, 2017. Accessed January 18, 2018.
16.3.2 Utilities and Service Systems
Water
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) provides potable water and non-potable recycled
water service to the City of Dublin and the Dougherty Valley portion of the City of San Ramon.
DSRSD’s water service population is approximately 70,000.
Potable Water
DSRSD obtains its water supply from Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District, Zone 7 (Zone 7), a multi-purpose agency that oversees water-related issues in the
Livermore-Amador Valley. Zone 7 is a State Water Project contractor that wholesales treated
water to four retail water agencies in the Tri-Valley area (DSRSD, City of Livermore, City of
Pleasanton, and California Water Service Company-Livermore District). It also retails non-
potable water supplies for irrigated agricultural use, retails treated water to several direct
customers, provides and maintains flood control facilities, and manages groundwater and
surface water supplies in its service area. DSRSD has a groundwater pumping quota (GPQ) of
645 acre-feet/year in the Livermore Valley Main Groundwater Basin (Main Basin), which Zone 7
pumps on DSRSD’s behalf as part of its water contract.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-8 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
DSRSD’s water supply is augmented with recycled water from its Recycled Water Treatment
Facilities. DSRSD owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant that treats wastewater
from Dublin, South San Ramon, and Pleasanton. The wastewater treatment plant includes
conventional secondary treatment facilities, as well as tertiary and advanced recycled water
treatment facilities. The DSRSD - East Bay Municipal Utility Recycled Water Authority (DERWA)
operates the San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program, a multi-phased project that
distributes recycled water from the Recycled Water Treatment Facilities to portions of DSRSD’s
and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) service areas.
Zone 7 uses a combination of water supplies and water storage facilities to meet the municipal
and industrial demands of its retailers. These include the following:
Imported surface water from the State Water Project;
Imported surface water transferred from the Byron Bethany Irrigation District;
Local surface water runoff captured in Del Valle Reservoir;
Local groundwater extracted from the Livermore Valley Groundwater Main Basin;
Local storage in the Chain-of-Lakes; and
Non-local groundwater storage in the Semitropic Water Storage District and Cawelo
Water District.
A full discussion of these water supply sources can be found in the Zone 7’s Urban Water
Management Plan (2015).
Recycled Water
DSRSD currently treats and distributes recycled water to water customers in its service area and
portions of the EBMUD. Recycled water is produced from DSRSD's regional wastewater
treatment facilities.
DSRSD began its recycled water program in the early 1990's by adopting Resolution No. 42-92
in August 1992. The resolution set priorities and policies for the use and promotion of recycled
water service within and outside DSRSD's water service area. DSRSD then adopted the "Water
Recycling Business Plan Framework" in 1993, to establish the DSRSD Recycled Water Enterprise.
Since that time, recycled water has been an important part of water planning at DSRSD.
In that same year, the City of Dublin certified an EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan. The DSRSD service plan for eastern Dublin is predicated upon
the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation. Potable water supply requests to Zone 7 by
DSRSD for Eastern Dublin under the "Contract between Zone 7 and DSRSD for a Municipal &
Industrial Water Supply," are the net of the eastern Dublin total water demands, less the
recycled water provided by DSRSD.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
In 1995, DSRSD began providing recycled water to Dougherty Valley. Similar to eastern Dublin,
the DSRSD service plan for Dougherty Valley is also predicated upon the use of recycled water
for landscape irrigation.
Summary of Current and Projected Future Water Supplies
Table 16-5: DSRSD Current and Projected Future Water Supplies, provides a summary of
DSRSD’s current and projected future water supplies as presented in the DSRSD 2015 UWMP.
As noted above, DSRSD’s future potable water demand will likely be lower than projected in the
2015 UWMP, and thus potable supplies required from Zone 7 will also likely be lower. DSRSD’s
future recycled water demand will likely be higher than projected in the 2015 UWMP; however,
recycled water supplies are anticipated to increase per a recent agreement with the City of
Pleasanton.
Table 16-5: DSRSD Current and Projected Future Water Supplies
2015
Actual 1 2020 2 2025 2 2030 2 2035 2 2040 2
Water Purchased from Zone 7, afy 7,445 13,678 14,554 15,223 15,840 15,840
Recycled Water, afy 2,579 3,905 4,117 4,203 4,203 4,203
Total, afy 10,024 17,583 18,671 19,426 20,043 20,043
Notes:
1. Actual 2015 supplies are from Table 6-11 of the DSRSD 2015 UWMP (June 2016). Includes GPQ if 645 afy.
2. Projected supplies are from Table 6-9 of the DSRSD 2015 UWMP (June 2016). Includes GPQ if 645 afy.
Source: DSRSD, At Dublin Water Supply Assessment, 2018. (See Appendix I).
Project Site Facilities
A series of water lines ranging from 12 inches (along Brannigan Street) to as large as 20 inches
(along Dublin Boulevard) surround the project site.
Wastewater
DSRSD provides wastewater collection and treatment service to the City of Dublin as well as to
the southern portion of the City of San Ramon. The wastewater service population is
approximately 154,000.
Collection System
DSRSD’s collection system consists of 207 miles of 6-inch- to 42-inch-diameter pipe. The
collection system includes two inverted siphons, two creek crossings that are within the open
channel, and one lift station.
The project would connect to existing underground DSRSD sewer lines located within the right-
of-way of the adjacent roadways. Major sanitary sewer facilities include a 30-inch pipe on
Dublin Boulevard, a 15-inch pipe on Tassajara Road, and 10-inch pipes on both Brannigan Street
and Gleason Drive.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-10 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Treatment Facility
DSRSD owns and operates the Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility in the City of
Pleasanton, which treats wastewater from the cities of Dublin, South San Ramon, and
Pleasanton. The wastewater treatment facility includes conventional secondary treatment
facilities, as well as tertiary and advanced recycled water treatment facilities.
Conventional secondary wastewater treatment facilities include primary sedimentation,
activated sludge secondary treatment, secondary sedimentation, chlorine disinfection, and
effluent pumping. The Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility has a treatment capacity of
17.0 million gallons per day (mgd). As of July 2017, the facility treats an average of 10.74 mgd
during dry-weather and 12.48 mgd during wet-weather.
The Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency disposes of treated wastewater for
DSRSD and the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore. The agency’s pipeline transports treated
wastewater from the DSRSD and Livermore treatment plants 16 miles to San Lorenzo, where it
is discharged into a deep-water outfall in San Francisco Bay.
Storm Drainage
The City of Dublin maintains storm drain pipes and inlets that are on public streets or that carry
water which originates on a public street. Drainage facilities that are located on private
property are maintained by private property owners. Private drainage facilities may include
(but are not limited to) V-ditches or channels on residential or commercial property, and drain
inlets in parking lots.
Runoff that leaves the project site enters either a 42-inch-diameter line in Arnold Road or an
84-inch-diameter line into a storm drainage structure on the north side of I-580. From there,
runoff is conveyed south under I-580 via a triple set of 54-inch-diameter storm drains to Chabot
Canal. Chabot Canal conveys stormwater to Arroyo Mocho, which outlets into South San
Ramon Creek, which becomes Arroyo de La Laguna, and ultimately Alameda Creek, which is
tributary to San Francisco Bay.
Solid Waste
The City of Dublin has an existing franchise agreement with Amador Valley Industries for
residential and commercial garbage, recycling, and organics collection. Single family residences
are provided with recycling and organics service with their trash subscription. Multi-family
residences have access to recycling services. Commercial businesses must subscribe to
recycling and organics service the same way they subscribe to garbage collection. Solid waste
generated within the City is received at the Altamont Landfill which has a total estimated
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
permitted capacity of 124 million cubic yards. The Altamont Landfill is approximately 52% full
and has a disposal capacity through 2045. 19, 20
Electricity
Electricity in City of Dublin is provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). In 2012 (the most
recent year for which data is provided), the electricity mix comprised 27 percent natural gas, 21
percent nuclear, 11 percent large hydroelectric, 19 percent renewables, and 21 percent
unspecified (PG&E, 2012).
Natural Gas
PG&E operates one of the largest natural gas distribution networks in the country, including
48,850 miles of natural gas transmission and distribution pipelines (PG&E, 2015a). Service is
provided to 4.3 million accounts statewide. A transmission gas pipeline runs parallel to the
southern boundary of the City, south of Interstate 580, and small-diameter pipelines serve the
City (PG&E, 2015b).
16.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
16.4.1 Federal
Wastewater
Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, more commonly known as the Clean Water
Act (CWA), regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the U. S. under
the CWA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) implements pollution
control programs and sets wastewater treatment standards.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Control Act, municipal stormwater discharges in the City of Dublin are regulated under the San
Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit, Order No. R2-2009-0074, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, adopted
October 14, 2009 and revised November 28, 2011. The Municipal Regional Permit is overseen
by the Regional Water Board.
The City of Dublin is a member agency of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, which
assists municipalities and other agencies in Alameda County with implementation of the
19 http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/01-aa-0009/Detail/. Accessed February 20, 2018.
20 http://altamontlandfill.wm.com/sustainability/index.jsp. Accessed February 20, 2018.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-12 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Municipal Regional Permit. Provision C.3 addresses post-construction stormwater
management requirements for new development and redevelopment projects that add and/or
replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious area. Provision C.3 requires the
incorporation of site design, source control, and stormwater treatment measures into
development projects to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and non-
stormwater discharges and to prevent increases in runoff flows. Low Impact Development (LID)
methods are to be the primary mechanism for implementing such controls.
Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3.g pertains to hydromodification management. This
Municipal Regional Permit provision requires that stormwater discharges not cause an increase
in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the existing condition. Increases in runoff
flow and volume must be managed so that the post-project runoff does not exceed estimated
pre-project rates and durations, where such increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause
increased potential for erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other
adverse impacts on beneficial uses due to increased erosive force. The Hydromodification
Management Susceptibility Map, developed by the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program,
indicates that the Community Plan area drains primarily to earthen channels and therefore
projects implemented under the Community Plan that create and/or replace one acre or more
of impervious surface and increase impervious surface over pre-project conditions are subject
to hydromodification management requirements.
16.4.2 State
Police Services
All law enforcement agencies within California are organized and operate in accordance with
the applicable provisions of the California Penal Code. This code sets forth the authority, rules
of conduct, and training for police officers.
Fire Protection
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
In accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 8 Sections 1270 "Fire Prevention" and
6773 "Fire Protection and Fire Equipment" the California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (Cal/OSHA) has established minimum standards for fire suppression and
emergency medical services. The standards include, but are not limited to, guidelines on the
handling of highly combustible materials, fire hose sizing requirements, restrictions on the use
of compressed air, access roads, and the testing, maintenance, and use of all fire-fighting and
emergency medical equipment.
Fire Protection
The California Fire Code contains regulations relating to construction and maintenance of
buildings and the use of premises. Fire hazards are addressed mainly through the application of
the State Fire Code that addresses access, including roads, and vegetation removal in high fire
hazard areas, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
hazards safety, and many other general and specialized fire safety requirements for new and
existing buildings and premises.
California Health and Safety Code
State fire regulations are set forth in Sections 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety
Code. This includes regulations for building standards (as also set forth in the California
Building Code), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as
extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building and childcare facility standards, and fire
suppression training.
Emergency Response
The State passed legislation authorizing the Office of Emergency Services (OES) to prepare a
Standard Emergency Management System (SEMS) program, which sets forth measures by
which a jurisdiction should handle emergency disasters. Non-compliance with SEMS could
result in the State withholding disaster relief from the non-complying jurisdiction in the event
of an emergency disaster.
Schools
Senate Bill (SB) 50
Senate Bill (SB) 50 (1998), which is funded by Proposition 1A, limits the power of cities and
counties to require mitigation of developers as a condition of approving new development and
provides instead authorizes school districts to impose fees in amounts limited by law. SB 50
anticipated that the state would fund have of new school facilities construction and the
remainder would be funded by the local school district. SB 50 provides for three levels of
statutory impact fees. The level depends on whether state funding is available; whether the
school district is eligible for state funding; and whether the school district meets certain
additional criteria involving bonding capacity, year-round schools, and the percentage of
moveable classrooms in use. Consistent with this authority, the DUSD currently implements a
Level 2 fee of $11.20 per square foot of new residential development and $0.56 per square foot
of new commercial development.
California Government Code sections 65995-65998 sets forth provisions to implement SB 50
and limits the City’s discretion to mitigate for development’s impact on schools. Specifically, in
accordance with Section 65995(h), the payment of statutory fees is “deemed to be full and
complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but
not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in
governmental organization or reorganization…on the provision of adequate school facilities.”
The school district, rather than the City, is responsible for implementing the specific methods
for mitigating school impacts under the Government Code.
Furthermore, Government Code section 65995(i) provides that: “A state or local agency may
not deny or refuse to approve a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not
limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-14 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
organization or reorganization as defined in Section 56021 or 56073 on the basis of a person's
refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that exceeds the amounts authorized pursuant to
this section or pursuant to Section 65995.5 or 65995.7, as applicable.”
California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1) states that the governing board of any school
district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any
construction within the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construction
or reconstruction of school facilities.
California Government Code, Section 65995(b), and Education Code Section 17620
SB 50 amended California Government Code Section 65995, which contains limitations on
Education Code Section 17620, the statute that authorizes school districts to assess
development fees within school district boundaries. Government Code Section 65995(b)(3)
requires the maximum square footage assessment for development to be increased every two
years, according to inflation adjustments. On January 27, 2016, the State Allocation Board
(SAB) approved increasing the allowable amount of statutory school facilities fees (Level I
School Fees) from $3.36 to $3.39 per square foot of assessable space for residential
development of 500 square feet of more, and from $0.54 to $0.55 per square foot of
chargeable covered and enclosed space for commercial/industrial development (SAB, 2016).
School districts may levy high fees if they apply to the SAB and meet certain conditions.
The Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2002 (Proposition 47)
This act was approved by California voters in November 2002 and provides for a bond issue of
$13.05 billion to fund necessary education facilities to relieve overcrowding and to repair older
schools. Funds will be targeted at areas of greatest need and must be spent according to strict
accountability measures. Funds will also be used to upgrade and build new classrooms in the
California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California
to provide adequate higher education facilities to accommodate growing student enrollment.
Parks and Recreation
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) states that “the legislative body
of a City or county may, by ordinance, require the dedication of land or impose a requirement
of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreational
purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative or parcel map.” Requirements of the
Quimby Act apply only to the acquisition of new parkland and do not apply to the physical
development of new park facilities or associated operations and maintenance costs. The
Quimby Act seeks to preserve open space needed to develop parkland and recreational
facilities; however, the actual development of parks and other recreational facilities is subject
to discretionary approval and is evaluated on a case-by-case basis with new residential
development. The City of Dublin has adopted park fees as allowed by the Quimby Act, as
described in greater detail below.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Water Supply
Senate Bill 610
Senate Bill (SB) 610 amended the Public Resources and Water Codes as they pertain to
consultation with water supply agencies and water supply assessments. SB 610 requires Water
Supply Assessments (WSA) for “projects” as that term is defined by Water Code Section 10912,
which are subject to CEQA. The project does meet the definition of a project as specified in
Water Code Section 10912 and has not been the subject of a previously adopted WSA or
included in a WSA for a larger project; thus, a WSA is required and included as Appendix I.
Senate Bill 221
Whereas SB 610 requires a written assessment of water supply availability, SB 221 requires lead
agencies to obtain an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supply prior to approval
of certain specified subdivision projects. For this purpose, water suppliers may rely on an
Urban Water Management Plan (if the project is accounted for within the UWMP), a Water
Supply Assessment prepared for the project, or other acceptable information that constitutes
“substantial evidence.”
“Sufficient water supply” is defined in SB 221 as the total water supplies available during
normal, single-dry and multiple-dry water years within the 20-year (or greater) projection
period that are available to meet the projected demand associated with a project, in addition to
existing and planned future uses. The project would develop more than 500 dwelling units and
is therefore subject to the requirements of SB 221. The WSA provides verification of sufficient
water supply to serve the project.
California Urban Water Management Planning Act
The California Urban Water Management Planning (UWMP) Act requires urban water suppliers
to prepare an UWMP every five years and to file this plan with the Department of Water
Resources, the California State Library, and any city or county within which the supplier
provides water supplies. All urban water suppliers, either publicly or privately owned, providing
water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or
supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet annually are required to prepare an UWMP (CWC §10617).
The UWMP Act was enacted in 1983. Over the years, it has been amended in response to
water resource challenges and planning imperatives confronting California. A significant
amendment was made in 2009 as a result of the governor’s call for a statewide 20 percent
reduction in urban water use by 2020. Colloquially known as 20x2020, the Water Conservation
Act of 2009 (also referred to as SB X7-7) required urban retail water suppliers to establish water
use targets for 2015 and 2020 that would result in statewide water savings of 20 percent by
2020. Beginning in 2016, urban retail water suppliers are required to comply with the water
conservation requirements in SB X7-7 to be eligible for state water grants or loans.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-16 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Wastewater
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is the local division of the SWRCB that has oversight authority
over the project. SWRCB is a State department that provides a definitive program of actions
designed to preserve and enhance water quality and to protect beneficial uses of water in
California. NPDES permits allow RWQCB to collect information on where the waste is disposed,
what type of waste is being disposed, and what entity is disposing of the waste. RWQCB is also
charged with conducting inspections of permitted discharges and monitoring permit
compliance.
Solid Waste
California Integrated Waste Management Act
California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires that cities and
counties divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills as of January 1, 2000, through source
reduction, recycling, and composting. AB 939 also establishes a goal for all California counties
to provide at least 15 years of ongoing landfill capacity.
To help achieve this goal, the Act requires that each city and county prepare a Source Reduction
and Recycling Element to be submitted to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
(CalRecycle), a department within the California Natural Resources Agency, which administers
programs formerly managed by the State’s Integrated Waste Management Board and Division
of Recycling.
As part of CalRecycle’s Zero Waste Campaign, regulations affect what common household items
can be placed in the trash. Household materials—including fluorescent lamps and tubes,
batteries, electronic devices and thermostats—that contain mercury are no longer permitted in
the trash and must be disposed separately.
In 2007, SB 1016 amended AB 939 to establish a per capita disposal measurement system. The
per capita disposal measurement system is based on a jurisdiction’s reported total disposal of
solid waste divided by a jurisdiction’s population. CalRecycle sets a target per capita disposal
rate for each jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction must submit an annual report to CalRecycle with an
update of its progress in implementing diversion programs and its current per capita disposal
rate.
California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act requires adequate space in all
developments to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials and organics. The
Act requires CalRecycle to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency relating
to adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials as part of development
projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model, or an ordinance of their own,
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-17
Draft EIR
10/23/18
governing adequate areas in development programs for collection and loading of recyclable
materials.
CALGreen Building Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) came into effect for all projects
beginning after January 1, 2011. Effective January 1, 2017, Section 4.408, Construction Waste
Reduction Disposal and Recycling, mandates that, in the absence of a more stringent local
ordinance, a minimum of 65 percent of non-hazardous construction and demolition debris must
be recycled or salvaged. The Code requires the applicant to have a waste management plan for
on-site sorting of construction debris.
The City of Dublin has a more stringent requirement and requires that at least 65 percent for
remodels and 75 percent for new construction by weight of thetotal construction and
demolition debris generated by a project via reuse or recycling excluding asphalt and concrete
debris of which 100 percent must be diverted, unless the applicant has been granted an
infeasible exemption. The modified diversion requirement is equal to the maximum feasible
diversion rate established by the WMP Compliance Official for the project (Dublin Municipal
Code Chapter 7.30).
16.4.3 Regional
Zone 7 Water Agency
Zone 7 is responsible for providing flood protection to the residents of Eastern Alameda
County. Zone 7 owns and maintains drainage facilities within the Dublin city limits. Drainage
plans for development projects must be reviewed by Zone 7 to ensure that the project does not
propose any impacts to downstream facilities. In addition, development projects that involve
work within Zone 7’s right-of-way or that involve construction, modification, or connection to a
Zone 7 facility are required to obtain an Encroachment Permit and comply with Zone 7
standards and specifications.
Dublin San Ramon Services District
DSRSD adopted Ordinance No. 323 in 2009 that set forth its Emergency Response Plan. This
plan is implemented when the DSRSD Board of Directors declares a drought emergency. The
plan sets forth Stages 1 through 4 that consist of incrementally more stringent water reduction
measures for activities such as landscape irrigation, swimming pools and spas, water theme
parks, ornamental water features, and washing of pavement, autos, boats, and buildings. The
plan was most recently invoked beginning in 2014 and remained in effect until 2017.
Multi-Jurisdictional Local Government Hazard Mitigation Plan for The San Francisco Bay Area
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) prepared and adopted a Local Hazards
Mitigation Plan in 2005. The purpose of the Plan is to serve as a catalyst for a dialogue on
public policies needed to mitigate the natural hazards that affect the San Francisco Bay Area.
The overall strategy of the Plan is to utilize a multi-jurisdictional effort to maintain and enhance
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-18 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
the disaster resistance of the region, and to fulfill the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000 for all local governments to develop and adopt this type of plan.
Alameda County Emergency Operations Plan
The purpose of the Alameda County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) is to establish policies
and procedures and assign responsibilities to effective management of emergency operations
within Alameda County.
The County’s responses to disasters is based on five phases:
1. Prevention;
2. Preparedness;
3. Response;
4. Recovery; and
5. Mitigation.
During each phase, there are specified activities, operational capabilities and effective
responses to a given disaster. The County’s Primary Emergency Operating Centers (EOC) is in
Dublin at 4985 Broder Blvd approximately one-mile northwest of the project site. The EOC is
equipped with emergency power generators, radios, telephones, maps, and can be staffed 24-
hours per day.
16.4.4 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following guiding and implementing policies
associated with public services and utilities that are relevant to the project:
Guiding Policy 3.4.2.1: Provide active parks and facilities which are adequate to meet citywide
needs for open space, cultural, and sports facilities, as well as the local needs of the Eastern
Extended Planning Area.
Guiding Policy 3.4.2.2: Establish a trail system with connections to planned regional and sub-
regional systems, including north-south corridors such as East Bay Regional Park District’s trail
along Tassajara Creek north to Mt. Diablo State Park.
Implementing Policy 3.4.2.B.1: Require land dedication and improvements for the parks
designated in the General Plan for the Eastern Extended Planning Area and based on a standard
of 5 net acres per 1,000 residents. Collect in-lieu park fees as required by City policies.
Guiding Policy 4.4.1.A.1: Ensure that adequate solid waste disposal capacity is available, to
avoid constraining development, consistent with the Dublin General Plan.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-19
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Implementing Policy 4.4.1.B.3: Prior to project approval, the applicant shall demonstrate that
capacity will exist in solid waste disposal facilities for their project prior to the issuance of
building permits.
Implementing Policy 4.4.1.B.4: Large scale projects should be required to submit a plan that
demonstrates how they will contribute toward the City’s State mandated diversion
requirement.
Guiding Policy 4.5.1.A.1: Expand sewage treatment and disposal capacity to avoid constraining
development consistent with the Dublin General Plan.
Implementing Policy 4.5.1.B.1: Prior to project approval, developers shall demonstrate that
adequate capacity will exist in sewage treatment and disposal facilities for their projects prior
to the issuance of building permits.
Guiding Policy 4.6.1.A.1: Base General Plan proposals on the assumption that water supplies
will be sufficient and that local wells could be used to supplement imported water if necessary.
Guiding Policy 7.3.1.A.1: Maintain natural hydrologic systems.
Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.1: Enforce the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit for
stormwater issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board or any
subsequent permit as well as Chapter 7 (Public Works) and Chapter 9 (Subdivisions) of the
Dublin Municipal Code for maintenance of water quality and protection of stream courses.
Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.2: Review development proposals to ensure site design that
minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff.
Guiding Policy 12.3.1.A.1: Work with Zone 7 and DSRSD to secure an adequate water supply for,
and provide water delivery to, existing and future customers in Dublin.
Implementing Policy 12.3.1.B.1: In anticipation of planned future growth, continue working
with DSRSD and Zone 7 to plan and provide for sufficient future water supplies.
Guiding Policy 12.3.2.A.1: Increase water conservation efforts and strive to maximize water use
efficiency in existing residential, commercial, and industrial buildings and grounds.
Guiding Policy 12.3.2.A.2: Support DSRSD in extending recycled water service to established
areas of Dublin.
Guiding Policy 12.3.3.A.1: Promote the conservation of water resources in new development
Implementing Policy 12.3.3.B.1: Continue implementation of the Water Efficient Landscape
Regulations, which requires grouping plants with the same water requirements together
(hydrozoning), the installation of water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil
moisture-based irrigation controls, and the minimal use of turf.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-20 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Implementing Policy 12.3.3.B.2: Support DSRSD’s ongoing efforts to extend recycled water
infrastructure (“purple pipe”) to new locations.
Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.1: Protect the quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater
resources that serve the community.
Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.2: Protect water quality by minimizing stormwater runoff and providing
adequate stormwater facilities.
Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.3: To minimize flooding in existing and future development, design
stormwater facilities to handle design-year flows based on buildout of the General Plan.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.1: Support Zone 7’s efforts to complete planned regional storm
drainage improvements.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.2: With the goal of minimizing impervious surface area,
encourage design and construction of new streets to have the minimum vehicular travel lane
width possible while still meeting circulation, flow, and safety requirements for all modes of
transportation.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.3: Discourage additional parking over and above the required
minimum parking standards for any land use unless the developer can demonstrate a need for
additional parking.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.5: Review design guidelines and standard details to ensure that
developers can incorporate clean water runoff requirements into their projects.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.6: Maximize the runoff directed to permeable areas or to
stormwater storage by appropriate site design and grading, using appropriate detention and/or
retention structures, and orienting runoff toward permeable surfaces designed to manage
water flow.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.7: Review development plans to minimize impervious surfaces
and generally maximize infiltration of rainwater in soils, where appropriate. Strive to maximize
permeable areas to allow more percolation of runoff into the ground throughsuchmeansas
bioretention areas, green strips, planter strips, decomposed granite, porous pavers, swales, and
other water-permeable surfaces. Require planter strips between the street and the sidewalk
within the community, wherever practical and feasible.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.8: Continue conducting construction site field inspections to
ensure proper erosion control and materials/waste management implementation to effectively
prohibit non-stormwater discharges.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-21
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The City of Dublin’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains the following policies and programs as
it relates to public services, utilities and service systems:
GOAL: To ensure that fire protection services in eastern Dublin are consistent with standards
maintained in the rest of the city.
Policy 8-5: Time the construction of new facilities to coincide with new service demand in order
to avoid periods of reduced service efficiency. The first station will be sited and construction
completed prior to completion of initial development in the planning area.
Program 8F: Establish appropriate funding mechanisms (e.g., Mello Roos District, developer
financing with reimbursement agreements, etc.) to cover upfront costs of capital improvements
(i.e., fire stations and related facilities and equipment).
Program 8H: Based on approval by the City, incorporate applicable Dougherty Regional Fire
Authority (DRFA) recommendations on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire
safety and prevention into the requirements for development approval. Require that the
following DPFA design standards are incorporated where appropriate:
Use of non-combustible roof materials in all new construction.
Available capacity of 1,000 GPM at 20 PSI fire flow from project fire hydrants on
public water mains. For groupings of one-family and small two-family dwellings not
exceeding two stories in height, the fire flow requirements are a minimum of 1,000
GPM. Fire flow requirements for all other buildings will be calculated based on
building size, type of construction, and location.
Automatic fire alarm systems and sprinklers in all non-residential structures for
human use.
Compliance with DRFA and City minimum road widths, maximum street slopes,
parking recommendations, and secondary access road requirements.
GOAL: Provide adequate police services to the eastern Dublin planning area to ensure the
health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents, workers, and visitors.
Policy 8-4: Provide additional personnel and facilities and revise “beats” as needed in order to
establish and maintain City standards for police protection service in eastern Dublin.
Program 8E: Incorporate into the requirements of project approval Police Department
recommendations on project design that affects traffic safety and crime prevention.
GOAL: To provide an adequate water system for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
Policy 9-1: Water Conservation. Require the following as conditions of project approval in
eastern Dublin:
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-22 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Use of water-conserving devices such as low-flow showerheads, faucets, and toilets.
Support implementation of the DSRSD Water Use Reduction Plan and
implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water conservation.
Require all developments to meet the BMPs of the Memorandum of Understanding
regarding Urban Water Conservation in California, of which DSRD is a signatory.
Water efficient irrigation systems within public rights-of-way, median islands, public
parks, recreation areas and golf course areas (see Program 9B on Water
Reclamation).
Drought resistant plant palettes within public rights-of-way, median islands, public
parks, recreation areas and golf course areas.
Ensure that highly invasive plant species that could out-compete native species and
threaten wildlife habitat are not used in these areas. Species which should be
prohibited include, but are not limited to: Acacia, Algerian Ivy, Bamboo, Mattress
Vine, Black Locust, Blue Gum Eucalyptus, Castor Bean, Cotoneaster, English Ivy,
French Broom, Fountain Grass, Giant Reed, German Ivy, Gorse, Ice Plant, Pampas
Grass, Periwinkle, Pyracantha, Scotch Broom, Spanish Broom, Tamarisk, Tree of
Heaven, and Tree Tobacco.
Water efficient irrigation and landscaping systems for residential, commercial,
institutional, and industrial areas in accordance with AB325.
Adoption of a water efficient landscape ordinance by the City of Dublin that will
apply to eastern Dublin development.
Encourage the use of recycled water during construction for compaction and dust
control.
Program 9B: Water Reclamation. Require the following as conditions of project approval in
eastern Dublin:
Implementation of DSRSD and Zone 7 findings and recommendations on uses of
reclaimed water to augment existing water supplies.
Construction of a recycled water distribution system in eastern Dublin as well as
necessary offsite facilities to support recycled water use. Constructionofsucha
recycled water system will require approval of the use of recycled water for
landscape irrigation by DSRSD, Zone 7 and the San Francisco Bay Area Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
Program 9E: DSRSD Standards. Require that design and construction of all water and recycled
water system facility improvements be in accordance with DSRSD policies, standards and
master plans.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-23
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Program 9F: Consistency With Resource Management Policies. Require the siting of water
system infrastructure to be consistent with the Resource Management Policies of this plan.
Program 9G: Implementation Responsibilities. Require the Developer to obtain proper
approvals; refer to attached Table 9.1, Water Service Matrix of Implementation responsibilities.
Program 9H: DSRSD Service. Require a “will-serve” letter from DSRSD prior to grading permit
approval.
GOAL: To provide adequate wastewater collection, treatment and disposal for the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan area.
Program 9K: Recycled Water Distribution System. Require development within the Project to
fund a recycled water distribution system computer model reflecting the proposed Specific Plan
land uses and verify the conceptual backbone reclaimed water distribution system presented
on Figure 9.3.
Program 9M: Design Level Wastewater Investigation. Require eastern Dublin applicants to
prepare (in coordination with DSRSD) a detailed wastewater capacity investigation or
supplement the information in the Specific Plan, which reflects the phased development
approach matched against the allocation of sewer permits. Such an investigation shall include,
at a minimum, a thorough estimate of planned land uses at the site and estimated wastewater
flows to be generated at the site. Base the estimation of the wastewater flows for sewer
permits on the DSRSD approved wastewater flow factors.
Program 9N: DSRSD Service. Require a “will-serve” letter from DSRSD prior to grading permit
approval.
Program 9O: DSRSD Standards. Coordination with DSRSD Policies, Standards and Master Plans.
Require design and construction of all wastewater systems to be in accordance with DSRSD
service policies, procedures, design and construction standards and master plans.
Program 9P: Onsite Wastewater Treatment. In conjunction with DSRSD, discourage onsite
wastewater treatment systems such as package plants and septic systems in accordance with
the policies of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Program 9Q: Connection to Public Sewers. Require all developments in the Specific Plan be
connected to public sewers. Exceptions to this requirement, in particular septic tank systems,
will only be allowed upon receipt of written approval from Alameda County Environmental
Health Department and DSRSD.
Program 9R: Implementation Responsibilities. Require developers obtain proper approvals;
refer to attached Table 9.2, Wastewater Service Matrix of Implementation Responsibilities.
GOAL: To provide adequate storm drainage facilities for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-24 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Policy 9-7: Require drainage facilities that will minimize any increased potential for erosion or
flooding.
GOAL: To reduce the total flow of waste to landfill by promoting waste reduction, source
separation, curbside collection, and other recycling alternatives to landfilling.
Policy 8-8: Encourage the separation of recyclable materials from the general waste stream by
supporting the development of a recycling collection system and facilities.
Program 8K: Prepare a solid waste management plan for eastern Dublin which includes the
following:
Specific areas designated for the collection of recyclable materials in multifamily and
commercial areas, with coordination as needed for pick-up.
GOAL: To provide a full complement of community services and facilities as needed in eastern
Dublin.
Policy 8-9: Coordinate with Pacific Gas and Electric and Pacific Bell in planning and scheduling
future facilities which will serve eastern Dublin.
Program 8-L: Require project applicants to provide documentation that electric, gas, and
telephone service can be provided to all new development.
City of Dublin Municipal Code
The City of Dublin Municipal Code contains all ordinances for the City. The Municipal Code is
organized by Title, Chapter, and Section.
The City’s Fire Code, which is Section 5.08.020, regulates permit processes, emergency access,
hazardous material handling, and fire protection systems, including automatic sprinkler services,
fire extinguishers, and fire alarms. The Fire Code contains specialized technical regulations
related to fire and life safety in the city.
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan
The City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan was adopted in 2015 by the City Council.
The goal of the plan is to build and maintain parks and facilities that both enhance the positive
image of the City and meet the needs of the City into the future. The Plan establishes goals,
standards, guiding policies, and action programs to guide the City of Dublin in the acquisition,
development, and management (operations and maintenance) of Dublin’s park and recreation
facilities through the ultimate build-out of the City in accordance with the General Plan.
Local Impact Fees
Pursuant to SB 50 and Government Code Section 65994, Dublin Unified School District charges
development fees on a per-square-foot basis for commercial and industrial uses.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-25
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Additionally, the City has fire, public facilities, noise mitigation and traffic impact fees.
16.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
16.5.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for public services, utilities, & service systems were derived
from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria
have been amended or supplemented, as appropriate, to address lead agency requirements
and the full range of impacts of the project.
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it
would meet one of the following criteria.
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public
services: Fire protection, Police protection, schools, parks, other public facilities.
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
Require or result in the construction of a new water storm drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
effects.
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed.
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs.
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-26 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Includes recreational facilities or requires the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
Public Services
Police and fire service providers were contacted to ascertain the current average response
times, estimated response times, and current service levels that would be utilized in this impact
analysis. Impacts to these public services would be considered significant if average response
times, service ratios or other performance standards could not be met, such that the
construction of new or expanded facilities would be required to maintain said ratios, response
times and/or other performance standards. The evaluation of school impacts is limited to
those effects with the potential to result in the need for construction of new classrooms or
placement of portable classrooms.
Utilities
Utility providers were contacted to ascertain utility services available to the project. Impacts to
these utilities would be considered significant if utility service standards could not be met, such
that the construction of new or expanded facilities would be required to maintain availability of
utilities.
16.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Compliance with Solid Waste Regulations
The project would be located within City limits and would be provided solid waste collection
and disposal services by a licensed contractor requiring compliance with federal, state, and
local solid waste regulations. Therefore, there would be no impact.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-27
Draft EIR
10/23/18
16.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact PSU-1: Introduce in a new service population requiring the construction of new or
altered police, fire protection, or emergency medical services facilities (Class III).
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
The nearest fire station (Station No. 17 is located 0.6 miles from the project site. Using an
average travel speed of 25 miles per hour, a fire engine dispatched from the station would
reach the project in less than two minutes, which is less than their eight-minute average for 90
percent of all incidents and well within the allowable travel time to meet the Fire Department's
response time objective of five minutes for single unit and ten minutes for multiple unit
responses to the source. The Alameda County Fire Department indicated that it would be
expected to serve the project with existing stations. The project site would be served with
vehicle access point from all surrounding roadways and thus would meet California Fire Code
requirements for emergency access.
Although the addition of new residents and commercial services to the project site would
increase the demand for fire services, implementation of the project is not anticipated to have
an adverse effect on response times for fire protection and emergency services and would not
affect the Fire Department’s ability to serve the project.
The project would be required to comply with all applicable State building and fire codes.
These codes require a development plan that provides for fire protection systems, ingress and
egress, maximum occupancy limitations, and construction techniques and materials dictated by
the proposed use of the structure (refer to the City of Dublin’s Municipal Code, Chapter 5.08,
Fire Code). Specifically, the Fire Department would review the development plan for
conformance with locally-defined performance standards, including the California Fire Code, as
adopted by the Fire Department, and California Building Code standards. Site access, capacity
of the water mains, road widths and turning radii, road grades, surfacing, load bearing
capability, sprinkler systems, stand pipes, smoke detectors, and fire alarms would also be
reviewed for consistency with Fire Department standards.
The project will be required to fund on-site and off-site improvements consistent with existing
City regulations and requirements. The City would collect public facilities fees (per Chapter
7.78 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code) from the project applicant to help off-set fire
protection-related capital improvements and on-going maintenance expenses incurred by the
project prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
Police Services
The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, acting as Dublin Police Services, would serve the project
with law enforcement services. The project would require additional police protection services
associated with additional residential dwelling units and commercial uses. The project would
be expected to generate 400 to 500 emergency calls annually.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-28 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Although the addition of new residents and commercial services to the project site would
increase the demand for police services, implementation of the project is not anticipated to
have an adverse effect on response times for police services and would not affect the Sheriff’s
Office ability to serve the project.
The project would be required to comply with Chapter 7.32.300 (Building Security) and Chapter
7.32.310 (Nonresidential building security) of the City’s Building Code, which includes building
standards aimed at reducing law enforcement calls within the City. In addition, the City would
collect public facilities fees (Chapter 7.78 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code) to help off-set
police service capital improvements and on-going maintenance expenses incurred by the
project prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure that the project will not cause impacts
on law enforcement services.
For these reasons, the project would not trigger the need to construct new police, fire, or
emergency facilities or alter existing facilities. Therefore, impacts would be Class III, less than
significant.
Impact PSU-2: Require the construction of new or expanded educational facilities (Class III).
The project would result in the construction of up to 680 residential units. The project site is
served by Kolb Elementary School (0.5 miles east) south of Gleason Drive and Green Elementary
School (0.8 miles northeast) north of Gleason Drive. It is also served by Fallon Middle School,
located 0.5 miles northeast, and Dublin High School located four miles to the west.
Project vs. Projected Student Enrollment
Using the student generation rates identified in Table 16-6: Dublin Unified School District
Student Generation Rates by Housing Type, the total estimated number of students attending
public schools were calculated for the project, as shown in Table 16-7: Estimated Project
Student Generation vs. DUSD Projections. The analysis indicates that there would be 168
elementary students, 104 middle school students, and 58 high school students, for a total of
330 new students.
Table 16-6: Dublin Unified School District Student Generation Rates by Housing Type
School Level
Housing Type
Single Family Detached Single Family Attached Multi Family
Elementary School (K-5) 0.464 0.317 0.142
Middle School (6-8) 0.178 0.125 0.049
High School (9-12) 0.159 0.072 0.074
Source: DUSD, 7 Year Population Projection February 5, 2018.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-29
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 16-7: Estimated Project Student Generation vs. DUSD Projections
Residential Type
Students Generated
Total Elementary School Middle School High School
180 Single Family Units (Detached) 84 57 26 167
200 Medium-High Density Units (attached) 36 25 10 71
300 Multifamily Units 48 22 22 92
Total (A) 168 104 58 330
DUSD Projected Increase for the Project Site 1 (B) 145 85 93 323
Difference (A-B) 23 19 (35) 7
Notes:
1. Includes Study Areas 106, 120A, and 102.
Source: DUSD, 7 Year Population Projection February 5, 2018.
The DUSD’s 7-Year Student Population Projections (Davis, 2018), projected future student
population by Study Area based on future anticipated residential development between 2017
and 2024. Proposed residential development in project site includes Study Areas 106, 120A,
and 102. Study Area 102 includes a portion of the project site, however, the remainder the
Study Area is built out.
As shown in Table 16-7: Estimated Project Student Generation vs. DUSD Projections, the
project would generate more elementary and middle-school students than projected, but less
high-school students, with a net total of seven more students than projected. However,
regardless of the projections, the DUSD is experiencing student capacity constraints, to which
the project would contribute, as described below for each school that would be served by the
project site.
Kolb Elementary School
With a projected net of growth of about 34.4%, the Kolb Elementary School (ES) attendance
area is expected to have the sixth largest growth at the TK-5 level by Fall 2024. In Fall 2017,
Kolb ES had 675 TK-5 students living within its attendance area. Kolb Elementary School is
projected to grow by 232 TK-5 students resulting with a total student population of 907 by Fall
of 2024. The District indicates that similar to other areas in Dublin, most of the projected
growth is due to the 548 residential units that are anticipated over the next seven years, which
includes growth associated with the project site. An actual school capacity of 938 gives Kolb
just enough room to absorb the TK-5 resident student projected growth, however, portable
classrooms may be needed if the District plans to take in a significant amount of transfers over
the projected time frame.
Green Elementary School
Green ES is projected to experience the least amount of growth over the next seven years. As
of Fall 2017, there were 840 TK-5 students living within Green’s attendance area. This area is
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-30 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
projected to experience a net growth of 176 TK-5 students, or a 21% net growth. A relatively
small amount of residential development is projected within this attendance area as this area is
largely built-out. Most of the growth in this area is attributed to the positive in-migration
pattern that the District has been experiencing over the last three years. The school currently
has a capacity of 893 students. However, due to potential expansion of the school’s service
boundary, the school could reach its capacity by Fall 2020.
Elementary Schools District-Wide
With a total projected elementary student population of 8,282 by Fall 2024 and a net growth of
2,326 TK-5 students, some of the existing elementary schools within the District will not be able
to absorb the projected student growth. Projections indicate the potential need for one flexible
K-8 site, aside from the Cottonwood Creek K-8, be constructed within the eastern or central
portion of the District where most of the student growth is expected to occur.
Cottonwood Creek K-8
When the Cottonwood Creek K-8 school opens next Fall 2018, it will help relieve the student
population growth that has been and will continue to occur over the next seven years. As of
Fall 2017 this attendance area had a total student population of 176 grade 6-8 students. This
area is projected to double its 6-8 student population to 375 grade 6-8 students through Fall
2024. A combined total of K-8 student population of 1,048 is projected for this area by Fall
2024. The Cottonwood Creek K-8 school is projected to accommodate this student population
through Fall 2024.
Fallon Middle School
As of Fall 2017, there were 1,408 6-8 students living within the Fallon Middle School attendance
area. It is projected that this area could grow by as many as 427 grade 6-8 students through
Fall 2024 when a total of 1,835 grade 6-8 students are expected due to a projected 1,554 new
residential units, which includes growth associated with the project site. Another growth factor
is the larger class size “bubble” in the elementary schools that will eventually graduate through
to the middle schools. While Cottonwood Creek K-8 will absorb a portion of Fallon’s grade 6-8
resident population, Fallon Middle school is still projected to reach its designed capacity by Fall
2020.
Middle-Schools District-Wide
Over the next seven years, the District’s 6-8 student population is expected to continue to
grow. Currently (Fall 2017), the DUSD accommodates 2,532 6-8 students, which is project to
reach 3,945 6-8 students by 2024 (1,413 additional students). Projected net new 6-8 student
growth through 2024 is expected to be 766 at Wells MS, 427 at Fallon MS, and 199 at
Cottonwood Creek K-8. The addition of Cottonwood Creek K-8 will help absorb some of the
projected middle school student population growth within the southeastern portion of the
District. However, projected demand indicates the potential need to construct one more
flexible K-8 site within the central portion of the District where most of the resident student
growth is expected to occur.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-31
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Dublin High School
As of Fall 2017, Dublin High School had a total of 2,629 grade 9-12 students within its
attendance area (the entire District boundary). It is projected that the District will have about
4,434 grade 9-12 students living within the boundary by Fall of 2024. This represents a net
growth of 1,805 students (68.7%). The District indicates that much of this projected growth is
due to the 4,848 residential units that are projected for construction by Fall 2024 (which
includes growth associated with the project site), as well as the “bubble” of larger class sizes at
the elementary grades that are due to graduate through to high school.
Based on these projections, Dublin High School could be faced with a student enrollment of
more than 4,595 by 2024, 1,415 students more than its current capacity of 3,180. This
projected demand indicates the need to construct an additional high school, preferably in the
eastern or central portion of the District where most of the resident student growth is expected
to occur.
To address this need, the DUSD Board of Trustees directed the Superintendent to create a
Community Review Committee to review, analyze, and recommend potential land options for a
future high school. Their final report, Community Review Committee Report: Study of Potential
Sites for a Future High School, dated February 6, 2018, looked at 11 sites. Of these, five sites
were recommended for further consideration, namely DiManto A and DiManto B&C (both part
of the project site), as well as Fallon Middle School, Fallon Sports Park and the Promenade.
On June 12, 2018, the DUSD Board approved the selection of the 23.4-acre Promenade site as
their preferred location for the development of a new high school with a proposed enrollment
of up to 2,500 students. The site would be accessed from both Central Parkway and Dublin
Boulevard and would include multi-story buildings, sport fields, an internal access road, and
approximately 400 parking spaces. Construction is estimated to be completed by 2022.
School Impact Fees
In accordance with Section 65995(h) of the California Government Code, the project would be
required to pay school impact fees at the time of the building permit issuance. The DUSD
currently implements a Level 2 fee of $11.20 per square foot of residential development and
$0.56 per square foot for commercial and industrial uses. These fees are used by the DUSD to
mitigate impacts associated with long-term operation and maintenance of school facilities.
The project applicant’s fees would be determined at the time of the building permit issuance
and would reflect the most current fee amount established by the DUSD. School fees from
residential and commercial uses would help fund necessary school service and facilities
improvements to accommodate anticipated population and school enrollment growth within
the DUSD service area and would allow for the DUSD to allocate these funds as deemed
necessary. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995, payment of development fees is “full
and complete mitigation” for impacts on schools. Therefore, the increased demand on the
DUSD is considered a less than significant impact (Class III) on school services, and no mitigation
is required.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-32 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact PSU-3: Create a need for new or expanded park and recreational facilities (Class III).
Implementation of the project would increase the demand for neighborhood and community
parks due to the projected increase in the residential population generated by the project. As
shown in Table 16-8: Community and Neighborhood Park Requirements, the project would not
provide enough neighborhood or community parks (based on 680 residential units being
constructed).
Table 16-8: Community and Neighborhood Park Requirements
Park Type
City Standard
(acres/ 1,000 population)
Park
Requirement1 Parks Provided2 Net Difference
Community Park 3.3 5.72 0.20 (5.52)
Neighborhood Park 1.7 2.95 2.47 (0.48)
Total 5.0 8.67 2.67 (6.0)
1. Based on 680 residential units; 380 Single-Family/Townhomes and 300 Multifamily
2. Sheet L0.2, Project Plans dated May 16, 2018
The Parks and Community Services Department Public Facilities Fee would be applied to
development at the project site. The Public Facilities Fees would vary according to the size of
residential units, the location of the development, and a credit for the dedication of land and
funding for construction of the parks. With payment of the City’s public facilities fees (Chapter
7.78 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code), the project would have a less than significant impact
(Class III) on park and recreation facilities in the City, and no mitigation is required.
Impact PSU- 4: Require new or expanded water supplies or water treatment facilities (Class III).
DSRSD would serve the project with potable water service. The project would connect to the
existing water lines located with the surrounding roadways. Connections would be looped for
redundancy.
DSRSD has adopted standard unit water use factors for use in potable water demands based on
proposed land use, number of dwelling units or square footage, and whether recycled water is
proposed for exterior water uses. The DSRSD calculated that the interior water use factor for
the Residential - Medium Density residential uses would be 255 gallons per day per dwelling
unit (gpd/du) and the factor for Residential (Medium-High Density) would be 160 gpd/du. The
interior water use factor calculated for the Residential (High Density) use, a part of the Mixed
Use proposed for the project, would have an interior water factor of 135 gpd/du. Commercial
Retail, also a part of the Mixed-Use proposed for the project, would have a factor of 0.156
gpd/ft2 for interior water use and 267.8 gallons per day per acre (gpd/acre) for exterior water
use. Based on a recent evaluation of actual potable water use for hotels within the DSRSD
service area from 2013-2017, DSRSD determined that hotel water demand per hotel room is
115 gpd. Based on this, the Retail potable water use factor for the project increased from 0.14
gpd/ft2 to 0.156 gpd/ft2 to account for additional potable water use for up to 240 hotel rooms.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-33
Draft EIR
10/23/18
As shown in Table 16-9: Project Potable Water Demand, the project would generate a potable
water demand of 229 acre-feet per year (afy).
Table 16-9: Project Potable Water Demand
Use
Interior Water Use
Factor
Exterior Water Use
Factor
Potable Water
Demand (afy)
Residential Medium Density 255 gpd/du -- 54.7
Residential Medium-High Density 160 gpd/du -- 38.1
Residential High Density (part of Mixed Use)
135 gpd/du --46.7
Commercial-Retail (part of Mixed Use) 0.156 gpd/ft2 267.8 gpd/acre 19.7
Commercial-Retail 0.156 gpd/ft2 267.8 gpd/acre 70.0
Total 229
Notes:
1. Land uses, areas and quantities per At Dublin land Use Plan- Proposed (sheet A0.3) dated January 17,2018.
2. The Commercial -Retail land use Includes 150,000 square feet of hotel (240 rooms).
3. Potable water use based on DSRSD unit water demand factors (2016 DSRSD Water System Master Plan).
4. The Commercial -Retail interior water use factor Is higher than the 0.14 gpd/ft2 provided for in the 2016 DSRSD Water System
Master Plan, as it accounts for a hotel water use factor of 115 gpd/room (based on historical hotel water use data within the
DSRSD water service area).
5. Potable water demand includes unaccounted-for water, assuming 6% potable water loss (per the 2016 DSRSD Water System
Master Plan).
6. Recycled water use assumed for irrigation for all proposed land uses.
7. Recycled water factors (% irrigable and % Irrigated with recycled water) based on 2016 Water System Master Plan. Unit irrigation
demand assumed to be 48 inches per year.
8. Recycled water factor for Residential High Density/Commercial - Retail corresponds to Mixed Use land use (2016 Water System
Master Plan).
Source: DSRSD, At Dublin Project Water Supply Assessment, February 2018.
DSRSD operates an extensive water recycling program. Recycled water is produced from
DSRSD’s regional wastewater treatment facilities and distributed to water customers in its
service area. It is assumed that recycled water would be used for project irrigation if available.
DSRSD has adopted standard unit water use factors for use in recycled water demands based
on proposed land use and acreage, residential density, plant factor, and percent of irrigable
area and percent assumed to be irrigated with recycled water. Table 16-10: Project Recycled
Water Demand shows the project demand for recycled water would be 28 afy.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-34 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 16-10: Project Recycled Water Demand
Use
Percent
of Area
Irrigable
Percent of
Irrigation
with
Recycled
Water
Unit
Demand,
inches/yr.
Normal
Irrigation
Demand
(afy)
Plant Type
Factor
Recycled
Water
Demand
(afy)
Residential Medium
Density 15% 30% 48 4.2 0.9 3.8
Residential Medium-High
Density 10% 80% 48 4.5 0.9 4.0
Residential High Density
(part of Mixed Use) 15% 100% 48 9.6 0.9 8.6
Commercial-Retail (part of
Mixed Use)
Commercial-Retail 15% 100% 48 13.9 0.8 11.1
Total 28
Notes:
1. Land uses, areas and quantities per AT Dublin land Use Plan- Proposed (sheet A0.3) dated January 17,2018.
2. The Commercial -Retail land use Includes 150,000 square feet of hotel (240 rooms).
3. Potable water use based on DSRSD unit water demand factors (2016 DSRSD Water System Master Plan).
4. The Commercial -Retail interior water use factor Is higher than the 0.14 gpd/ft2 provided for in the 2016 DSRSD Water System
Master Plan, as it accounts for a hotel water use factor of 115 gpd/room (based on historical hotel water use data within the
DSRSD water service area).
5. Potable water demand includes unaccounted-for water, assuming 6% potable water loss (per the 2016 DSRSD Water System
Master Plan).
6. Recycled water use assumed for irrigation for all proposed land uses.
7. Recycled water factors (% irrigable and % Irrigated with recycled water) based on 2016 Water System Master Plan. Unit irrigation
demand assumed to be 48 inches per year.
8. Recycled water factor for Residential High Density/Commercial-Retail corresponds to Mixed Use land use (2016 Water System
Master Plan).
Source: DSRSD, and Kimley-Horn, 2018.
According to the Zone 7 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the 2015 water
demand was projected to be 72,100 afy, and 2035 water demand was projected to be 92,800
afy. The sustainable yield for the Main Basin, the portion of the Livermore Valley Groundwater
Basin serving Zone 7, is 13,400 afy, which is approximately 11 percent of the operational
storage.
The UWMP indicates that potable water demand for the site based on existing land uses is 185
afy. As shown in Table 16-9: Project Potable Water Demand, the project potable water demand
would be 44 afy higher than the demand included for the site in the UWMP. However, as
concluded in the At Dublin Water Supply Assessment (see Appendix I), the DSRSD net resulting
potable water demand is lower than the potable water demand identified in the UWMP due to
the reduced potable water demands from four proposed developments that were included the
UWMP that are no longer being pursued, The Green, Grafton Plaza, Dublin Ranch Subarea 3,
and Gale Ranch (Amarante).
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-35
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Furthermore, Zone 7 is planning for water supply programs and projects to meet the water
demands of its customers through buildout of their adopted General Plans. According to the
UWMP, Zone 7 does not anticipate any water supply shortage during Normal, Single Dry, and
Multiple Dry water years through 2035. DSRSD plans to continue to manage potable water
demands within its water service area through conservation efforts and its recycled water
program. However, if supply shortages should occur, DSRSD may invoke its Water Shortage
Contingency and Drought Plan, described in its UWMP. Therefore, DSRSD finds that the
projected potable water demands for the project can be met by DSRSD during Normal, Single
Dry, and Multiple Dry water years for a 20-year projection with no water supply shortage.
The recycled water demand for the site based on existing land uses is seven afy. As shown in
Table 16-10: Project Recycled Water Demand, the project potable water demand would be
higher than the demand identified in the UWMP. The availability of source water limits
production of recycled water, especially during peak demand periods. DSRSD anticipates that
production constraints on recycled water will be resolved, however, the irrigation demands for
the project can be met with potable water through the potable water offset described above
during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry water years for a 20-year projection with no water
shortage. In any event, if sufficient recycled water supplies are not available, DSRSD has
adequate potable water supplies available to meet the project’s irrigation demands.
Each water district served by Zone 7 has a “Groundwater Pumping Quota” (GPQ). Averages are
maintained by allowance of a carryover limited to 20% of the GPQ. Water Agencies must pay a
recharge fee for any groundwater pumped exceeding their GPQ and any carryover. Zone 7
pumps only water that has been recharged as part of its artificial recharge program using its
surface water supplies. Zone 7 only utilizes its stored groundwater under emergency or
drought conditions, when there may be insufficient surface water supply available, or in a
deliberate effort to help reduce the salt loading in the Main Basin. Zone 7 plans to recharge
9,200 afy on average, which means that Zone 7 can pump an equivalent 9,200 afy on average
from the Main Basin. The demand of approximately 257 afy of water generated by the project
would not exceed the capacity of the groundwater production system, and no new wells or
treatment plants would be required. Therefore, construction and operational impacts to water
supply would be Class III, less than significant.
Impact PSU-5: Require the construction or expansion of new wastewater treatment facilities
(Class III).
Conservatively, if all of the project’s water use exits the project site as wastewater, the project
would generate 264,209 gallons of wastewater per day (gpd). This wastewater would exit this
site via existing connections to the wastewater line installed beneath Gleason Drive, Dublin
Boulevard, Brannigan Street and Tassajara Road. Wastewater lines would be constructed as a
part of the project beneath Central Avenue.
The project’s wastewater would be accommodated within the DSRSD Wastewater Treatment
Plant. Per the DSRSD 2017 Wastewater Treatment and Biosolids Facilities Master Plan, DSRSD’s
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-36 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Wastewater Treatment Plant has a total capacity of 75 million gallons per day (mgd). As
discussed above, DSRSD’s WSA indicates that the water demand for the project would exceed
the water demand DSRSD accounted for on the project site resulting from existing land uses,
but that the increased wastewater demand is offset by the reduced water demands of projects
included in the UWMP. As discussed in Impact PSU-4, these planned developments have a
reduced water demand than what had been previously accounted for within the DSRSD’s
assumptions. Thus, the wastewater generated by the project site would also be offset by the
net reduction in water demand resulting from the four developments discussed above.
Therefore, construction and operational impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
Impact PS-6: Require the construction or expansion of stormwater drainage facilities (Class III).
The rate and amount of surface runoff is determined by multiple factors, including the amount
and intensity of precipitation; amount of other imported water that enters a watershed; and
amount of precipitation and imported water that infiltrates to the groundwater. Infiltration is
determined by several factors, including soil type, antecedent soil moisture, rainfall intensity,
the amount of impervious surfaces within a watershed, and topography. The rate of surface
runoff is largely determined by topography and the intensity of rainfall over a given period of
time.
Based on preliminary engineering plans and as discussed in Chapter 12: Hydrology and Water
Quality, the project would result in 51.32 acres of net new impervious surface on the project
site, and would entail construction of a new stormwater collection, retention, and treatment
system. This would be accomplished through construction of on-site bio-retention, silva cells,
and landscaping. Based on preliminary estimates, post-construction stormwater flows for a
10-year storm event would be 11.63 cubic feet per second, compared to 12.37 cubic feet per
second under existing conditions. Table 12-2: Stormwater Flows for a 10-Year Storm Event
summarizes the preliminary calculation of stormwater flows that would result from the project.
Given that post stormwater run-off would not exceed existing pre stormwater runoff
conditions, impacts from the project would be less than significant (Class III).
Impact PSU-7: Generate solid waste that would exceed the capacity of area landfills (Class III).
Solid waste generated by operation of the project is shown in Table 16-11: Proposed Project
Estimated Daily Solid Waste Generation.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-37
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 16-11: Proposed Project Estimated Daily Solid Waste Generation
Land Use Unit
lbs. per Unit
per Day1
Total lbs. per
Day
Commercial
Retail 215,000 sf 0.046 9,890
General
Commercial 80,000 sf 0.013 1,040
Residential 680 du 12.23 8,316
Hotel 240 units 4.00 960
Total -- -- 20,206
Notes:
1. U.S. Census 2009–2013 American Community Survey and CalRecycle, 2015b
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2018
The 20,206 pounds of daily solid waste generated by the project would represent 0.18 percent
of the Altamont Landfill permitted maximum daily throughput of 11,150 tons per day. As
described above, the Altamont Landfill has adequate capacity.
The project would also generate waste during the construction phase. As stated above,
CalGREEN Section 4.408, Construction Waste Reduction Disposal and Recycling, mandates that
in the absence of a more stringent local ordinance, a minimum of 65 percent of non-hazardous
construction (and demolition) debris must be recycled or salvaged. Adherence to the Building
Code would reduce total waste generated by demolition and construction, and the waste would
be appropriately sorted disposed at landfills with adequate capacity.
Construction and operational impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
16.5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographic area for the analysis of cumulative public service and utility service impacts is
the service area of provider.
Impact PSU-8: Contribute to cumulatively considerable public services, utilities and service
system impacts (Class III).
Public Services
Regarding police and fire protection services, the General Plan includes provisions to provide
adequate public services at projected buildout. The project, combined with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not exceed those projections, and impacts to
police and fire protection services would be less than significant.
Regarding schools, the Dublin Unified School District is nearing capacity for the majority of its
schools by 2024. State law deems new developments’ payment of the fees imposed by the
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-38 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
DUSD, the amounts of which are restricted by law, adequate mitigation to address impacts to
public schools. Developers of present and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be
required to pay these fees and therefore impacts to schools would be less than significant.
Utilities
Regarding water demand, the DSRSD has analyzed water demand through 2035—inclusive of
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects—and finds that adequate entitlement
and groundwater pumping capacity exists to serve that development (See Appendix I – Water
Supply Assessment).
Wastewater generation from cumulative projects would similarly be accommodated within the
DSRSD’s Wastewater Treatment Facility’s total capacity of 17 million gallons per day (mgd), well
above their current average treatment rates of 10.5 mgd during dry-weather and 10.9 mgd
during wet-weather.
Regarding stormwater, the project would ensure that no net increase in stormwater would
leave the project site during a peak storm event, and would avoid cumulatively significant
stormwater impacts to downstream waterways at times when capacity is most constrained.
The project would implement standard pollution prevention measures during construction to
ensure that downstream water quality impacts are minimized to the greatest extent possible.
In addition, the project would provide water quality measures to prevent pollution during
project operations. Stormwater facilities in the project vicinity either have or will be required
to have capacity to serve both the project and planned future development in the service area.
Increases in runoff flow and volume from future development must be managed so that the
post-project runoff does not exceed estimated pre-project rates and durations, in accordance
with Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3.g. Therefore, the project, in conjunction with
other planned and approved projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related
to storm drainage
Regarding electricity and gas, their impacts are addressed in Chapter 17 Energy Consumption.
Lastly, the Altamont Landfill has estimated a closure year of 2045, which is based upon
anticipated tipping tonnage and volume, as well as capacity. Solid waste generation from past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be accommodated within those
capacities.
In conclusion, cumulative impacts to public services, utilities and service systems would be less
than significant (Class III).
16.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 16-12: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Public Services summarizes the
environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the project
with regard to public services.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-39
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 16-12: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact PSU-1: Introduce in a new
service population requiring the
construction of new or altered
police, fire protection, or emergency
medical services facilities (Class III).
Less than
Significant None required.
Impact PSU-2: Require construction
of new or expanded educational
facilities (Class III).
Less than
Significant None required.
Impact PSU-3: Create a need for
new or expanded park and
recreational facilities (Class III).
Less than
Significant None required.
Impact PSU-3: Require new or
expanded water supplies or water
treatment facilities (Class III).
Less than
Significant None required.
Impact PSU- 4: Require new or
expanded water treatment facilities
(Class III).
Less than
Significant None required.
Impact PSU-5: Require the
construction or expansion of new
wastewater treatment facilities
(Class III).
Less than
Significant None required.
Impact PS-6: Require the
construction or expansion of
stormwater drainage facilities (Class
III).
Less than
Significant None required.
Impact PSU-7: Generate solid waste
that would exceed the capacity of
area landfills (Class III).
Less than
Significant None required.
Impact PSU-8: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable public
services, utilities and service system
impacts (Class III).
Less than
Significant None required.
16.6 References
CalRecycle. 2015a. Solid Waste Facilities, Sites, and Operation. Available at:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/
CalRecycle. 2015b. Waste Characterization. Service Sector: Estimate Solid Waste Generation
and Disposal Rates. Available at:
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-40 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/Service.htm. Accessed
October 15, 2015.
Ciceron, Ferdinand. 2008. Sanitary Sewer Design Standards. City of Oakland. Engineering
Design & ROW Management Division. Department of Engineering and Construction.
Community & Economic Development Agency.
Dublin San Ramon Services District. 2018. AT Dublin Project Water Supply Assessment.
Dublin San Ramon Services District. 2018. AT Dublin Project Utilities Analysis.
Dublin San Ramon Services District. 2015. Urban Water Management Plan. Available at:
http://www.dsrsd.com/about-us/library/plans-studies
Dublin San Ramon Services District. 2017. Wastewater Treatment and Biosolids Facilities
Master Plan. Available at: http://www.dsrsd.com/about-us/library/plans-studies
Dublin San Ramon Services District. 2016. Water System Master Plan. Available at:
http://www.dsrsd.com/about-us/library/plans-studies
Dublin Unified School District, 7-Year Student Population Projections, February 5, 2018
Pacific Gas & Electric. 2012. Electric Power Mix Delivered to Retail Customers. Available
online: http://www.pge.com/myhome/edusafety/systemworks/electric/energymix/.
Pacific Gas & Electric. 2015a. Company Profile. Available online:
http://www.pge.com/en/about/company/profile/index.page.
Pacific Gas & Electric. 2015b. Gas Transmission Pipelines. Web page:
http://www.pge.com/en/safety/systemworks/gas/transmissionpipelines/index.page.
Waste Management, Inc., 2018. Sustainability. Available at:
http://altamontlandfill.wm.com/sustainability/index.jsp. Accessed February 20, 2018.
Zone 7 Water Agency. 2015. Urban Water Management Plan. Available at:
http://www.zone7water.com/images/pdf_docs/water_supply/urban_water_mgmt_pla
n_2015.pdf
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
17 Transportation & Circulation
17.1 Introduction
This section describes environmental effects on transportation and circulation that would be
caused by implementation of the project. Information used to prepare this section is
referenced from the following resources:
Aerial photography
Project application and related materials
Alameda County Transportation Commission, Congestion Management Program 2017
Caltrans, Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies 2002
City of Dublin, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 2014
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Final EIR, 1994 updated 2016
City of Dublin, General Plan 1985 amended 2017
City of Dublin, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan 2013
City of Dublin, Dublin IKEA Final Transportation Assessment January 2018
City of Livermore, General Plan 2014
City of Pleasanton, General Plan 2009
City of Pleasanton, Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan 2010
Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000.
Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010.
Caltrans, Highway Design Manual (HDM) 6th Edition
Tri-Valley Transportation Council, Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan for
Routes of Regional Significance 2017
17.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project the following comments related to
transportation and circulation were received and are addressed in this section:
Project impacts on traffic and transportation
Efforts to reduce vehicles miles traveled (VMT)
Evaluate the elimination of Northside Drive and the shifting of large truck traffic for
Lowe’s Home Improvement
Evaluate the left turn from Gleason Drive onto Tassajara Road
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-2 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
17.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on transportation and circulation conditions in the project
area.
17.3.1 Existing Roadway Network
The project area is shown in Figure 17-1: Study Intersections. Regional access to the project
site is from Interstate 580 (I-580). Regional project traffic is anticipated to primarily use the I-
580 ramps at Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road. Local roadways serving the
project site include: Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road, Central Parkway, Brannigan Street and
Gleason Drive. Project driveways would be located on Gleason Drive, Central Parkway, Dublin
Boulevard, Tassajara Road, and Brannigan Street. Additional details are provided below for the
existing street and highway system including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
State Highways
Interstate 580 (I-580)
I-580 is part of the interstate freeway system and is located directly to the south of the project
site. I-580 extends east-west connecting the project to the San Francisco Bay Area in the west
and the City of Livermore in the east. The posted speed limit on I-580 is 65 miles per hour (mph)
in the project area.
I-580 express lanes were recently opened in 2016 and are in operation Monday through Friday
from 5:00am to 8:00pm. I-580 is a designated route of regional significance in the Tri-Valley
Transportation Plan and Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance.
Principal Arterials
Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard is an east-west principal arterial that bisects the southern portion of the
project site. This roadway serves existing residential, office, and retail land uses. A Kaiser
medical office building is currently under construction on the undeveloped parcel south of
Dublin Boulevard between Keegan Street and the existing Fallon Gateway retail center.
Construction has also begun on a residential development (Apex Homes) south of Dublin
Boulevard and east of Grafton Street.
On-street parking is not permitted along this roadway and the posted speed limit is 45 mph in
the project area. Dublin Boulevard is a divided roadway that varies between four lanes and six
lanes in the project area.
Sidewalks exist along both sides of the roadway in the project area, except for along the project
frontage, as well as other undeveloped parcels west of the project area.
Class II bike lanes typically exist along Dublin Boulevard, except along the project frontage and
other undeveloped parcels west of the project area.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Tassajara Road
Tassajara Road is a north-south principal arterial extending along the project site (west side). It
provides access to Camino Tassajara to the north, which connects to the City of San Ramon and
unincorporated Contra Costa County. I-580 eastbound and westbound ramps are located on
this roadway.
On-street parking is not permitted on this road and the posted speed limit is 45 mph in the
project area. North of Somerset Lane, the roadway varies between four divided lanes and two
undivided lanes. It is a five-lane divided roadway from Somerset Lane to Cascade Creek
Lane/Dublin Ranch Drive (two northbound lanes, three southbound lanes), a four-lane divided
roadway from Cascade Creek Lane/Dublin Ranch Drive to Central Parkway, a five-lane divided
roadway (two northbound lanes, three southbound lanes) from Central Parkway to I-580
ramps, and a six-lane divided roadway from I-580 ramps south into Pleasanton.
Sidewalks and Class II bike lanes exist along most of Tassajara Road. No sidewalks exist along
the Project frontage.
Hacienda Drive
Hacienda Drive is a north-south principal arterial located west of the project site and extends
approximately two and a half miles from the City of Dublin in the north, to the City of
Pleasanton in the south. The roadway connects nearby offices, corporate campuses, and retail
to local single family and multifamily residential land uses. I-580 eastbound and westbound
ramps are located on this roadway. A new IKEA store is proposed west of Hacienda Drive, east
of Arnold Road, and between Martinelli Way to the north and I-580 to the south.
On-street parking is not permitted on this road and the posted speed limit is 35 mph. It is a
three-lane divided roadway (two northbound lanes, one southbound lane) from Gleason Drive
to Central Parkway, a five-lane divided roadway (two northbound lanes, three southbound
lanes) from Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard, and a six-lane divided roadway from Dublin
Boulevard south into Pleasanton.
Sidewalks and Class II bike lanes exist along both sides of this roadway.
Minor Arterials
Brannigan Street
Brannigan Street is a two-lane, north-south minor arterial extending along the project site (east
side). The roadway extends approximately 0.75 miles and primarily serves residential land uses,
with a Lowes Home Improvement center and retail located south of Dublin Boulevard.
On-street parking is striped and permitted along approximately 0.25 miles of this roadway and
the posted speed limit is 25 mph in the project area.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-4 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Sidewalk exists along Brannigan Street, except along the Project frontage and along the
undeveloped parcel south of Dublin Boulevard where Brannigan Street is a private street. No
bike lanes exist along this roadway.
Central Parkway
Central Parkway is a three-mile two-lane divided east-west minor arterial that extends through
the northern portion of the project site and serves residential land uses, as well as the offices
located at the west end, Emerald Glen Park just west of Tassajara Road, and the James
Dougherty Elementary School located east of Hacienda Drive.
On-street parking is not permitted along this roadway except for a few short segments near
residential uses on the east end of the roadway and in front of the elementary school. The
posted speed limit is 35 mph in the project area.
Sidewalks exist along both sides of Central Parkway for a majority of the roadway. Notable
sidewalk gaps exist along both sides of the project frontages and along the frontage of
undeveloped land east of Arnold Road. Class II bike lanes exist along both sides of Central
Parkway, except for along the north side of the project frontage, where no bike facilities exist.
Fallon Road
Fallon Road is a north-south minor arterial extending east of the Project site near the City of
Dublin eastern border. The roadway primarily serves residential land uses, with retail located at
the south end near the I-580 ramps. Westbound and eastbound ramps provide access to I-580.
On-street parking is not permitted along this roadway and the posted speed limit is 45 mph
north of the I-580 ramps. The speed limit is 40 mph north of Bent Tree Drive (through Tassajara
Road). Fallon Road is a divided roadway in the project area and varies from four lanes in
between the I-580 ramps and Central Parkway, six lanes from Central Parkway to Gleason Drive,
and four lanes from Gleason Drive to Tassajara Road.
Sidewalks exist along both sides of Fallon Road from south of Central Parkway to Signal Hill
Drive/Kingsmill Terrace. Gaps exist in the sidewalk on Fallon Road including: north of Signal Hill
Drive/Kingsmill Terrace, and near Dublin Boulevard to south of Stoneridge Drive/Jack London
Boulevard. Class II bike lanes exist along this roadway from north of I-580 ramps to Tassajara
Road. No bike lanes exist south of the I-580 ramps.
Gleason Drive
Gleason Drive is two-mile east-west minor arterial extending north along the project site. The
roadway primarily serves residential land uses, as well as the offices located at the west end of
the road and Emerald Glen Park west of Tassajara Road.
On-street parking is not permitted along this roadway and the posted speed limit is 40 mph.
Gleason Drive is a four-lane divided roadway, except for a one-block stretch along the Project
frontage, where it is a two-lane divided roadway.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Sidewalks and Class II bike lanes exist along Gleason Drive, except for along the project
frontage, where no sidewalks or bike facilities exist.
17.3.2 Pedestrian Facilities
Existing pedestrian facilities in the project area include sidewalks along the west side of
Tassajara Road and on the east side of Brannigan Street from Dublin Boulevard to beyond the
northern project site boundary. Sidewalks also exist on both sides of Gleason Drive, Central
Parkway, and Dublin Boulevard from Tassajara Road to the east and from Brannigan Street to
the west. No sidewalks currently exist along the project frontage.
17.3.3 Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities are divided into four classes. Class I bike paths are physically separated from
motor vehicle lanes and offer two-way bicycle travel. Class II bike lanes on roadways are
marked by signage and pavement striping. Painted buffers may separate the vehicle travel lanes
from the bike lane and green bike lane pavement coloring are used to highlight potential
conflict zones between vehicles and cyclists. Class III bike routes share the travel lane with
motor vehicles and have signs and sharrow striping to guide bicyclists on paved routes. Class IV
bike facilities are protected cycletracks that provide a physical barrier between motor vehicles
and cyclists. Figure 17-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities shows the bicycle facilities in the project
area.
Direct access to bicycle facilities is provided adjacent to the project site including Class I bike
paths along Brannigan Street and Finnian Way and Class II bike lanes along Tassajara Road,
Gleason Drive, Central Parkway, and Dublin Boulevard.
17.3.4 Transit Facilities
Tri-Valley Wheels has multiple transit routes in the cities of Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore.
Many routes (such as Route 1, 3, 10R, etc.) operate within the project area, but do not operate
near the project site. Only routes that service the nearby area of the project are described in
this section. Figure 17-3: Existing Transit Facilities shows the transit facilities in the project area.
Route 2 is a local bus route that operates between the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station to
Positano Hills. In the project area, Route 2 operates on Central Parkway, Tassajara Road,
Brannigan Street, and Gleason Drive. On weekdays, Route 2 operates between 6:33 AM to 9:19
AM and between 3:21 PM to 6:51 PM on 60-minute headways. Route 2 does not operate on
Saturdays or Sundays. The closest bus stop is on Central Parkway at Glynnis Rose Drive.
Route 30R is a local bus route that operates between the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station
to the Sandia Laboratory in Livermore, CA. In the vicinity of the project site, Route 30R operates
on Dublin Boulevard. On weekdays, Route 30R operates between 5:02 AM to 12:45 AM (of the
following day) in 15-minute to 30-minute headways. On weekends, Route 30R operates
between 5:09 AM to 12:42 AM (of the following day) in 60-minute headways. the closest bus
stop is on Dublin Boulevard at Glynnis Rose Drive and Grafton Street.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-6 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Route 501 is a Dublin School Route that operates between Dublin High School to Positano Hills.
In the vicinity of the project site, Route 501 operates on Gleason Drive and Tassajara Road. It
operates between 6:31 AM to 7:32 AM and 3:40 PM to 4:34 PM with 5-minute to 30-minute
headways. The service is only provided on school days. The closest bus stop area is at the
intersection of Tassajara Road at Gleason Drive.
Route 502 is a Dublin School Route that operates between Dublin High School to the
intersection of Central Parkway and Chancery Lane. In the vicinity of the project site, Route 502
operates on Tassajara Road and Central Parkway. It operates one morning and one afternoon
bus from 7:09 AM to 7:35 AM and 3:40 PM to 4:13 PM, respectively. The service is only
provided on school days. Near the project site, there is a bus stop along Central Parkway at
Glynnis Rose Drive and Chancery Lane.
Route 504 is a Dublin School Route that operates between Dublin High School to the
intersection of Gleason Drive and Brannigan Street. In the vicinity of the project site, Route 504
operates on Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road, and Gleason Drive. It operates one morning and
one afternoon bus from 7:08 AM to 7:35 AM and 3:40 PM to 4:1 PM, respectively. The service is
only provided on school days. The closest bus stops are Gleason Drive at Tassajara Road and
Brannigan Street.
17.3.5 Study Intersections & Segments
The study intersections are those through which the majority of the project-generated traffic
would traverse, and where potential traffic impacts would be most likely to occur. Study
intersections were based on City of Dublin and Caltrans traffic impact study guidelines, based
on the expected project-generated trips, assumed trip distribution, and engineering judgement.
Roadway segments, as required for the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda
CTC) Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS), were also included.
Because regional access to the project site is from the I-580 ramps (at Hacienda Drive, Tassajara
Road, and Fallon Road), the freeway segments east and west of these ramps were included for
the traffic analysis.
Study intersections and segments were also selected in consultation with City of Dublin staff.
As shown in Figure 17-1: Study Intersections the following intersections, freeway segments, and
roadway segments were analyzed as part of the traffic analysis:
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Study Intersections
1. Gleason Dr. / Hacienda Dr [DUB] 22. Project Dwy. #3 – Finnian Way / Brannigan St. [DUB]
2. Hacienda Dr. / Central Pkwy [DUB] 23. Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. [DUB]
3. Dublin Blvd. / Hacienda Dr. [DUB] 24. Dublin Blvd. / Grafton St. [DUB]
4. Hacienda Dr. / I-580 WB ramps [CAL] 25. Gleason Dr. / Fallon Rd. [DUB]
5. Hacienda Dr. / I-580 EB ramps [CAL] 26. Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. [DUB]
6. Hacienda Dr. / Owens Dr. [PLS] 27. Fallon Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps [CAL]
7. Dublin Blvd. / Hibernia Dr. [DUB] 28. Fallon Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps [CAL]
8. Dublin Blvd. / Myrtle Dr. - Toyota Dr. [DUB] 29. El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd.
[PLSLIV]
9. Dublin Blvd. / John Monego Ct [DUB] 30. Project Dwy. #4 / Tassajara Rd. [DUB]
10. Dublin Blvd. / Glynnis Rose Dr. [DUB] 31. Project Dwy. #5 / Tassajara Rd. [DUB]
11. Tassajara Rd. / Gleason Dr. [DUB] 32. Project Dwy. #6 / Gleason Dr. [DUB]
12. Tassajara Rd. / Central Pkwy [DUB] 33. Project Dwy. #7 / Central Pkwy. [DUB]
13. Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd* [DUB] 34. Project Dwy. #8 / Central Pkwy. [DUB]
14. Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd* [DUB] 35. Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd.* [DUB]
15. Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Corporate Way [DUB] 36. Project Dwy. #10 / Brannigan St. [DUB]
16. Tassajara Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps [CAL] 37. Project Dwy. #11 / Brannigan St. [DUB]
17. Tassajara Rd. /Santa Rita Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps –
Pimlico Dr. [CAL]
38. Project Dwy. #12 / Brannigan St. [DUB]
18. Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. [PLS] 39. Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. [DUB]
19. Brannigan St. / Gleason Dr. [DUB] 40. Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. [DUB]
20. Project Dwy. #2 / Brannigan St / Aviano Way [DUB] 41. Fallon Rd. / Tassajara Rd. [DUB]
21. Brannigan St. / Central Pkwy. [DUB]
* Includes both weekday and weekend intersection analysis.
[DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation, [LIV] – City of Livermore
Study Freeway Segments
a. I-580 from Dougherty Rd to Hacienda Dr. [CAL] c. I-580 from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road [CAL]
b. I-580 from Hacienda Dr. to Tassajara Rd [CAL] d. I-580 from Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard [CAL]
[CAL] – California Department of Transportation
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-8 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Study Roadway Segments
Dublin Blvd (Eastbound and Westbound)
Hacienda Dr. to Fallon Rd
Santa Rita Rd/Tassajara Rd (Northbound and Southbound)
Gleason Dr. to Las Positas Blvd
Hacienda Dr. (Northbound and Southbound)
Gleason Dr. to Owens Drive
Fallon Rd (Northbound and Southbound)
Gleason Dr. to Stoneridge Drive
Gleason Dr. (Eastbound and Westbound)
Hacienda Dr. to Fallon Rd
17.3.6 Traffic Analysis Methodology
Level of Service
Traffic conditions are measured by average daily traffic (ADT), peak hour traffic volumes, level
of service (LOS), average delay, and volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. Average daily traffic is the
total number of vehicles passing through a segment of the roadway, in both directions, on an
average day. Peak hour volumes are the total number of vehicles passing through a roadway
segment during the peak hour in the weekday morning (AM), weekday afternoon/evening
(PM), or weekend midday (MID).
Signalized Intersections
Signalized intersections were analyzed based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000
method using Synchro software. The HCM 2000 method evaluates signalized intersection
operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. Control
delay is the delay that is attributed to the particular traffic control device at the intersection,
and includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final
acceleration delay.
Unsignalized Intersections
LOS at unsignalized intersections is based on the HCM 2000 method using Synchro software.
This method is applicable for both two-way (SSSC or TWSC) and all-way stop-controlled (AWSC)
intersections. For two-way stop-controlled intersections, delay is calculated for each stop-
controlled movement and for the uncontrolled left turns, if any, from the main street. For two-
way stop controlled intersections, the overall average delay and LOS are reported, as are the
delay and LOS for the worst intersection movement. For all-way stop controlled intersections,
the overall intersection average delay and LOS are reported.
Table 17-1: Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria summarizes the relationship
between control delay and LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of
Service Description
Average Control Delay
(Seconds Per Vehicle)
Signalized Unsignalized
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable
traffic signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. < 10.0 < 10.0
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression
and/or short cycle lengths. > 10.0 to 20.0 > 10.0 to 15.0
C
Operations with average delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle
failures begin to appear.
> 20.0 to 35.0 > 15.0 to 25.0
D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high
volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and
individual cycle failures are noticeable.
> 35.0 to 55.0 > 25.0 to 35.0
E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.
Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
> 55.0 to 80.0 > 35.0 to 50.0
F
Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers
occurring due to over-saturation, poor progression, or very
long cycle lengths.
> 80.0 > 50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000; Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010
Freeway Mainline Segments
Freeway mainline segments were analyzed using HCM 2010 methodology as defined in the
Highway Capacity Software (HCS) 2010. This method determines LOS based on the freeway
density, as shown in Table 17-2: Freeway Facilities LOS Criteria.
Freeway Ramps
Freeway ramps were analyzed using HCM 2010 methodology as defined in the Highway
Capacity Software (HCS) 2010. This method determines LOS based on density for merging (i.e.
on-ramps) and diverging (i.e. off-ramps) locations, as shown in Table 17-2: Freeway Facilities
LOS Criteria.
For on-ramp locations with ramp metering activated, a ramp metering analysis was conducted
to determine if the volume demand would result in vehicle queues extending onto the adjacent
arterial due to the ramp meters. The analysis compares the volume demand to the ramp
metering rate to determine if the potential queues would exceed the on-ramp storage capacity.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-10 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 2 Freeway Facilities LOS Criteria
Level of
Service
Density
(Passenger Cars Per Mile Per Lane)
Basic Segments Merge/Diverge
A < 11.0 < 10.0
B > 11.0 to 18.0 > 10.0 to 20.0
C > 18.0 to 26.0 > 20.0 to 28.0
D > 26.0 to 35.0 > 28.0 to 35.0
E > 35.0 to 45.0 > 35.0
F > 45.0 Demand Exceeds Capacity
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000; Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010
Alameda CTC Roadway Segments
Roadway segments were analyzed based on volume to capacity (v/c) methodology. This
method determines LOS based on v/c, as shown in Table 17-3: ACTC Roadway Segment LOS
Criteria.
Table 17-3 Alameda CTC Roadway Segment LOS Criteria
Level of
Service v/c Ratio
A < 0.60
B > 0.61 to 0.70
C > 0.70 to 0.80
D > 0.81 to 0.90
E > 0.91 to 1.0
F > 1.0
Source: Alameda CTC, 2018.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Study Conditions
This traffic analysis evaluates project impacts under the following traffic conditions:
1.Existing - Based on existing counts collected in June 2016, December 2017, and January
2018.
2.Existing + Project - Based on existing counts plus traffic generated by the project.
Project traffic was manually added to the count generated volumes.
3.Near-Term (2025) - Based on volumes from the City of Dublin travel demand forecast
model, which include approved and pending projects in the area. Phases 1 and 2 of the
Kaiser Dublin Medical Center and the proposed IKEA Retail Center project on the north
side of Interstate 580 are included in the near-term projects.
4.Near-Term (2025) + Project - Based on near-term volumes plus traffic generated by the
project. Project traffic was manually added to the model generated volumes.
5.Cumulative (2040) - Based on volumes from the City of Dublin travel demand forecast
model. This horizon year will assume full build-out of the City General Plan.
6.Cumulative (2040) + Project - Based on cumulative volumes plus traffic generated by
the project. Project traffic was manually added to the model generated volumes.
17.3.7 Existing Conditions
Intersections
Existing lane geometry for study intersections are shown in Figure 17-4: Existing Traffic
Geometry and Control.
Existing traffic counts were collected in May and June 2016, March 2017, September 2017,
December 2017, and January 2018. All traffic counts were collected while local schools were in
session. Where volume imbalances were observed in the count data, volumes were
conservatively balanced upwards.
Existing conditions traffic volumes at study intersections are shown in Figure 17-5: Existing Peak
Hour Turning Movement Volumes.
As shown in Table 17-4: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS
without project – Weekday, all study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS)
under Existing conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of:
El Charro Road / Jack London Boulevard (Intersection #29)
o Operates at LOS E during PM Peak
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-12 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
As shown in Table 17-5: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS
without project – Saturday, all study intersections operate at acceptable LOS under Existing
conditions during the Saturday peak hours.
Freeway Segments
Freeway segments were analyzed between each interchange along I-580 between Dougherty
Road and Airway Boulevard. Volumes were obtained from the Caltrans Performance
Measurement System (PeMS) website for the same days in December 2017 as the majority of
the intersection traffic counts. These freeway volumes are based on observed throughput of
each freeway segment, and not the demand volumes. In instances where there is congestion at
a downstream bottleneck, the observed volumes would be less than the true demand volumes.
The express lanes on each segment were not included in the freeway analysis.
As shown in Table 17-6: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Freeway Segment LOS without
project, all study freeway segments operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) under Existing
conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours because the volumes for the westbound
direction in the AM peak hour and the volumes for the eastbound direction in the PM peak
hour are constrained by downstream bottlenecks. Therefore, the volumes used in the freeway
analysis do not reflect the true volume demand and result in a better than reported LOS.
Freeway Ramps
Freeway ramps were analyzed at each interchange along I-580 between Hacienda Drive and
Fallon Road. Volumes were obtained from intersection turning movement counts. The
mainline volumes were obtained from the freeway mainline segment analysis described above.
As shown in Table 17-7: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Freeway Ramp LOS without
project, all study freeway ramps operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) under Existing
conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours.
Freeway ramps with ramp metering were analyzed for on-ramps where the project would add
vehicles. The following on-ramps were analyzed during the specified peak periods when ramp
meters were active:
WB I-580 Hacienda Drive Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Santa Rita Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Fallon Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 El Charro Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
On-ramp volumes were obtained from intersection turning movement counts. For locations
with an HOV lane, the on-ramp volume was separated into high-occupancy vehicles (HOV) and
single-occupancy vehicles (SOV) based on HOV and SOV volumes collected in PeMS. It should
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
be noted that the PeMS data for the WB I-580 diagonal on-ramp from Hacienda Drive did not
have volumes in the HOV lane, and therefore it was conservatively assumed that all vehicles
would use the SOV lane. The ramp metering rates were provided by the City of Dublin for each
on-ramp location and the storage lengths for each on-ramp were measured using Google aerial
maps. It was assumed that each vehicle in queue is equivalent to 25 feet per vehicle.
As shown in Table 17-8: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Ramp Metering Analysis without
Project, the vehicle queues for on-ramps with ramp metering are contained within the available
on-ramp storage except at the following on-ramps:
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
For the WB I-580 Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp in the AM peak hour, the SOV volume of 636
vehicles exceeds the ramp metering rate of 480 vph and therefore the vehicle queues extend
onto the arterial (total queue length is greater than 1,100 feet and exceeds the 1,080-foot
storage). It was observed in the field that the queues would extend onto Tassajara Road just
south of Dublin Boulevard.
17.3.8 Near-Term Conditions
Intersections
To evaluate Near-Term + Project conditions, it is necessary to develop a forecast of future
traffic volumes under “Near-Term conditions”. This forecast provides a baseline against which
to measure the project’s traffic impacts. The City of Dublin uses a travel demand forecast model
to estimate future roadway volumes based on land use information and the future roadway
network. The year 2025 was selected for analysis based on the predicted opening year for the
project.
The travel demand forecast model was adjusted to address land uses that were determined to
be inconsistent with known development. The following highlights these updates:
Updated the Kaiser traffic area zone (TAZ) to assume 4,000 jobs for Phases 1A and 1B,
which are expected to be completed in 2025.
Updated the TAZ’s east of Fallon Road consistent with the Alameda County
Transportation Commission (ACTC) travel demand forecast model.
Adjusted the centroid connector for the TAZ on the southwest corner of Tassajara Road
and Dublin Boulevard to restrict left turns onto Tassajara Road.
Removed the existing General Plan land use designations for the TAZ’s on the project
site.
Traffic volumes under “Near-Term conditions” are shown in Figure 17-6: Near-Term Peak Hour
Turning Movement Volumes.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-14 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The following roadway improvements were assumed for the Near-Term conditions without the
Project:
Tassajara Road / I-580 Eastbound Ramps (Intersection #17)
o Add second southbound left turn lane.
Dublin Boulevard / Fallon Road (Intersection #26)
o Construct second eastbound left turn lane. Add second northbound left turn
lane.
Fallon Road / I-580 Westbound Ramps (Intersection #27)
o Widen to three through lanes in each direction on Fallon Road and a partial
cloverleaf ramp system.
Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street (Intersection #39)
o Add second westbound left turn lane. This improvement is a mitigation from the
Kaiser project and will be completed before the Kaiser project opens.
Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street (Intersection #40)
o Extend the westbound left turn lane by 100 feet. This improvement is a
mitigation from the Kaiser project and will be completed before the Kaiser
project opens.
The following roadway improvements were assumed for the Near-Term conditions with the
Project:
Tassajara Road / Gleason Drive (Intersection #11)
o Add a 3rd northbound through lane.
o Add a 2nd eastbound through lane.
o The westbound approach will become two left turn lanes, two through lanes,
and one right turn lane (185 feet).
Tassajara Road / Central Parkway (Intersection #12)
o Add a northbound left turn lane and a 3
rd northbound through lane.
o Convert the westbound shared through-right lane into a separate through lane
and a separate right turn lane (190 feet).
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14)
o Widen to three (3) eastbound through lanes (with fourth eastbound receiving
lane) at the intersection. Widen Dublin Boulevard to three eastbound lanes
between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street.
o Widen to three (3) northbound through lanes and two (2) northbound right turn
lanes
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
o Add third westbound through lane.
Brannigan Street / Gleason Drive (Intersection #19)
o The eastbound approach will become one left turn lane, two through lanes, and
one right turn lane (130 feet).
Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #23)
o Add westbound through lane.
o Convert the southbound shared through-right lane into a separate through lane
and a separate right turn lane (225 feet).
o The eastbound approach will become one left turn lane, three through lanes,
and one right turn lane.
Near-Term lane geometry for study intersections are shown in Figure 17-7: Near-Term Traffic
Geometry and Control.
As shown in Table 17-4: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS
without project – Weekday, all study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under
Near-Term conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of:
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14)
o Operates at LOS E during the PM Peak
Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (Intersection #18)
o Operates at LOS E during the PM Peak
El Charro Road / Jack London Boulevard (Intersection #29)
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
The following gateway intersections operate at LOS E, but this is acceptable based on the City of
Pleasanton LOS standards for gateway intersections:
Hacienda Drive / EB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #5)
o Operates at LOS E during the AM Peak
Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #17)
o Operates at LOS E during the PM Peak
As shown in Table 17-5: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS
without project – Saturday, all study intersections operate at acceptable LOS under Near-Term
conditions during the Saturday peak hours with the exception of:
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14)
o Operates at LOS F during the Saturday Peak
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-16 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Freeway Segments
Freeway segments were analyzed between each interchange along I-580 between Dougherty
Road and Airway Boulevard. Volumes were calculated by growing the existing volumes based
on the growth from the ACTC travel demand forecast model for each segment.
As shown in Table 17-6: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Freeway Segment LOS without
project, all study freeway segments operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) under Near-
Term conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of:
WB I-580 between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive (Segment a)
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road (Segment b)
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road (Segment c)
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 between Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard (Segment d)
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
Similar to the Existing conditions, each freeway segment is actually over capacity and should be
operating at LOS F because the volumes for the westbound direction in the AM peak hour and
the volumes for the eastbound direction in the PM peak hour are constrained by downstream
bottlenecks. Therefore, the volumes used in the freeway analysis do not reflect the true
volume demand and result in a better than reported LOS.
Freeway Ramps
Freeway ramps were analyzed at each interchange along I-580 between Hacienda Drive and
Fallon Road. Volumes were obtained from the intersection turning movement counts in the
Near-Term condition. The mainline volumes were obtained from the freeway mainline
segment analysis mentioned previously.
As shown in Table 17-7: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Freeway Ramp LOS without
project, all study freeway ramps operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) under Near-Term
conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of:
WB I-580 off-ramp to Hacienda Drive
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 off-ramp to Tassajara Road
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 loop on-ramp from northbound Fallon Road
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-17
Draft EIR
10/23/18
WB I-580 off-ramp to Fallon Road
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 loop on-ramp from Fallon Road
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak Hour
Freeway ramps with ramp metering were analyzed for on-ramps where the project would add
vehicles. The following on-ramps were analyzed during the specified peak periods when ramp
meters were active:
WB I-580 Hacienda Drive Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Santa Rita Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Fallon Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 El Charro Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
As shown in Table 17-8: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Ramp Metering Analysis without
Project, the vehicle queues for on-ramps with ramp metering are contained within the available
on-ramp storage except at the following on-ramps:
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
For the EB I-580 Hacienda Drive loop on-ramp in the PM peak hour, the SOV volume of 388
vehicles exceeds the ramp metering rate of 300 vph and therefore the vehicle queues extend
onto the arterial (total queue length is greater than 1,000 feet and exceeds the 490-foot
storage). This assumed that the metering rate of 300 vph would not change from the existing
metering rate. To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate could be increased to 400 vph,
however, this may result in increased congestion on EB I-580 adjacent to this on-ramp.
For the WB I-580 Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp in the AM peak hour, the SOV volume of 767
vehicles exceeds the ramp metering rate of 480 vph and therefore the vehicle queues extend
onto the arterial (total queue length is greater than 1,100 feet and exceeds the 1,080-foot
storage). This also assumed that the metering rate of 480 vph would not change from the
existing metering rate. To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate could be increased to
800 vph, however, this may result in increased congestion on WB I-580 adjacent to this on-
ramp.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-18 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
17.3.9 Cumulative Conditions
Intersections
To evaluate Cumulative + Project conditions, it is necessary to develop a forecast of future
traffic volumes in the project area under Cumulative Conditions. This forecast provides a
baseline against which to measure the project’s traffic impacts under Cumulative conditions.
The City of Dublin travel demand forecast model was used to estimate future 2040 roadway
volumes based on land use information and the future roadway network.
The travel demand forecast model was adjusted to address land uses that were determined to
be inconsistent with known development. The following highlights these updates:
Adjusted the centroid connector for the TAZ on the southwest corner of Tassajara Road
and Dublin Boulevard to restrict left turns out onto Tassajara Road.
Removed the uses for the TAZ’s on the project site.
Traffic volumes under Cumulative conditions are based on the peak hour forecasts determined
in collaboration with City Dublin staff and are shown in Figure 17-8: Cumulative Peak Hour
Turning Movement Volumes.
The following roadway improvements were assumed in the Cumulative analysis:
Hacienda Drive / Owens Drive (Intersection #6)
o Convert southbound through lane to third southbound left turn lane, and
convert eastbound through lane to third eastbound left turn lane
Dublin Boulevard / Fallon Road (Intersection #26)
o Reconfigure the NB approach to be three left turn lanes, three through lanes,
and two right turn lanes
o Reconfigure the SB approach to be two left turn lanes, three through lanes, and
one right turn lane
o Reconfigure the EB approach to be two left turn lanes, three through lanes, and
two right turn lanes
o Reconfigure the WB approach to be three left turn lanes, three through lanes,
and one right turn lane
Fallon Road / I-580 Westbound Ramps (Intersection #27)
o Add one southbound through lane, widen northbound to three through lanes
and right turn lane
Fallon Road / I-580 Eastbound Ramps (Intersection #28)
o Add one northbound through lane and one southbound through lane
El Charro Road / Stoneridge - East Jack London (Intersection #29)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-19
Draft EIR
10/23/18
o Add southbound through lane. NB approach becomes one northbound left turn
lane, three northbound through lanes, and two northbound right turn lanes
The following assumptions were assumed as identified in the City’s General Plan.
Tassajara Road
o Widen Tassajara Road to six lanes between North Dublin Ranch Road and Dublin
Boulevard
o Widen Tassajara Road to eight lanes between Dublin Boulevard and I-580 WB
Ramps
Fallon Road
o Widen Fallon Road to six lanes between Positano Parkway and Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard
o Widen Dublin Boulevard to six lanes between Brannigan Street and Fallon Road
o Extend Dublin Boulevard from Fallon Road to North Canyons Parkway
Near-Term lane geometry for study intersections are shown in Figure 17-9: Cumulative Traffic
Geometry and Control.
As shown in Table 17-4: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS
without project - Weekday, all study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under
Cumulative conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of:
Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #3)
o Operates at LOS F during PM Peak
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14)
o Operates at LOS E during the AM Peak
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (Intersection #18)
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street (Intersection #23)
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
Dublin Boulevard / Grafton Street (Intersection #24)
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
Fallon Road / Gleason Drive (Intersection #25)
o Operates at LOS E during the AM Peak
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-20 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #26)
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
El Charro Road / Jack London Boulevard (Intersection #29)
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street (Intersection #39)
o Operates at LOS E during the PM Peak
Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street (Intersection #40)
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
The following gateway intersections operate at LOS E or worse, but are acceptable based on the
City of Pleasanton LOS standards for gateway intersections:
Hacienda Drive / EB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #5)
o Operates at LOS E during AM Peak
o Operates at LOS E during PM Peak
Hacienda Drive / Owens Drive (Intersection #6)
o Operates at LOS F during PM Peak
Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road / WB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #16)
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #17)
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
Fallon Road/El Charro Road / EB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #28)
o Operates at LOS E during the AM Peak
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
As shown in Table 17-5: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS
without project – Saturday, all study intersections operate at acceptable LOS under Cumulative
conditions during the Saturday peak hours.
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14)
o Operates at LOS F during the Saturday Peak
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-21
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Freeway Segments
Freeway segments were analyzed between each interchange along I-580 between Dougherty
Road and Airway Boulevard. Volumes were calculated by growing the existing volumes based
on the growth from the ACTC travel demand forecast model for each segment.
As shown in Table 17-6: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Freeway Segment LOS without
project, all study freeway segments operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) under
Cumulative conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of:
WB I-580 between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive (Segment a)
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road (Segment b)
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road (Segment c)
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 between Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard (Segment d)
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
Similar to Existing conditions, each freeway segment is actually over capacity and should be
operating at LOS F because the volumes for the westbound direction in the AM peak hour and
the volumes for the eastbound direction in the PM peak hour are constrained by downstream
bottlenecks. Therefore, the volumes used in the freeway analysis do not reflect the true
volume demand and result in a better than reported LOS.
Freeway Ramps
Freeway ramps were analyzed at each interchange along I-580 between Hacienda Drive and
Fallon Road. Volumes were obtained from the intersection turning movement counts in the
Cumulative condition. The mainline volumes were obtained from the freeway mainline
segment analysis described above.
As shown in Table 17-7: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Freeway Ramp LOS without
project, all study freeway ramps operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) under Cumulative
conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with exception of:
WB I-580 off-ramp to Hacienda Drive
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 off-ramp to Tassajara Road
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 loop on-ramp from northbound Fallon Road
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-22 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 off-ramp to Fallon Road
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
Freeway ramps with ramp metering were analyzed for on-ramps where the project would add
vehicles. The following on-ramps were analyzed during the specified peak periods when ramp
meters were active:
WB I-580 Hacienda Drive Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Santa Rita Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Fallon Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 El Charro Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
As shown in Table 17-8: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Ramp Metering Analysis without
Project, the vehicle queues for on-ramps with ramp metering are contained within the available
on-ramp storage except at the following on-ramps:
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
For the EB I-580 Hacienda Drive loop on-ramp in the PM peak hour, the SOV volume of 392
vehicles exceeds the ramp metering rate of 300 vph and therefore the vehicle queues extend
onto the arterial (total queue length is greater than 1,000 feet and exceeds 490-foot storage).
This assumed that the metering rate of 300 vph would not change from the existing metering
rate. To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate could be increased to 400 vph, however,
this may result in increased congestion on EB I-580 adjacent to this on-ramp.
For the WB I-580 Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp in the AM peak hour, the SOV volume of 816
vehicles exceeds the ramp metering rate of 480 vph and therefore the vehicle queues extend
onto the arterial (total queue length is greater than 1,100 feet and exceeds 1,080-foot storage).
This also assumed that the metering rate of 480 vph would not change from the existing
metering rate. This also assumed that the metering rate of 480 vph would not change from the
existing metering rate. To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate could be increased to
800 vph, however, this may result in increased congestion on WB I-580 adjacent to this on-
ramp.
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-23 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 4: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS without Project – Weekday # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing Near-Term (Year 2025) Cumulative (Year 2040) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 1 Gleason Dr. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 11.5 B 11.3 B 11.1 B 11.3 B 14.2 B 11.6 B 2 Hacienda Dr. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 22.8 C 21.0 C 22.9 C 20.6 C 20.0 C 22.3 C 3 Dublin Blvd. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 44.5 D 37.7 C 41.4 D 39.6 D 47.5 D 126.4 F 4 Hacienda Dr. / I-580 WB ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 7.3 A 6.2 A 7.4 A 28.4 C 8.7 A 29.8 C 5 Hacienda Dr. / I-580 EB ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 39.9 D 11.3 B 60.7 E 19.5 B 76.9 E 78.8 E 6 Hacienda Dr. / Owens Dr. Signal PLS N/A 18.0 B 34.3 C 20.6 C 47.4 D 23.4 C 121.0 F 7 Dublin Blvd. / Hibernia Dr. Signal DUB D 16.0 B 18.7 B 16.2 B 17.8 B 16.3 B 24.5 C 8 Dublin Blvd. / Myrtle Dr. - Toyota Dr. Signal DUB D 11.7 B 14.8 B 10.7 B 16.4 B 11.4 B 19.6 B 9 Dublin Blvd. / John Monego Ct. Signal DUB D 8.1 A 8.8 A 8.6 A 8.0 A 10.9 B 6.9 A 10 Dublin Blvd. / Glynnis Rose Dr. Signal DUB D 15.8 B 17.7 B 14.3 B 17.5 B 17.7 B 23.9 C 11 Tassajara Rd. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 40.9 D 36.5 D 50.3 D 38.7 D 39.5 D 39.8 D 12 Tassajara Rd. / Central Pkwy Signal DUB D 30.7 C 24.5 C 32.7 C 26.0 C 31.9 C 23.9 C 13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops (Future Project Dwy. #1) Signal DUB D 9.1 A 16.6 B 9.3 A 17.5 B 9.6 A 11.8 B 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 40.3 D 45.8 D 50.3 D 97.6 F 146.9 F 259.2 F 15 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Corporate Way Signal DUB D 7.1 A 22.8 C 6.1 A 25.0 C 6.1 A 19.2 B 16 Tassajara Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 7.8 A 9.8 A 13.8 B 50.5 D 44.8 D 113.9 F
At Dublin City of Dublin Page 17-24 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing Near-Term (Year 2025) Cumulative (Year 2040) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 17 Tassajara Rd./Santa Rita Rd./ I-580 EB Ramps – Pimlico Dr. Signal CAL/PLS N/A 42.5 D 42.8 D 45.4 D 67.1 E 52.4 D 117.4 F 18 Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. Signal PLS D 30.9 C 32.8 C 40.9 D 69.6 E 137.0 F 207.2 F 19 Brannigan St. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 36.3 D 14.0 B 37.9 D 14.0 B 42.9 D 14.3 B 20 Brannigan St / Aviano Way (Future Project Dwy. #2) SSSC DUB D 2.9 A 3.3 A 3.1 A 3.2 A 3.2 A 2.3 A Worst Approach 13.5 B 9.3 A 14.0 B 9.4 A 13.8 B 10.0 B 21 Brannigan St. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 24.6 C 16.2 B 25.4 C 18.2 B 24.2 C 19.0 B 22 Finnian Way / Brannigan St. (Future Project Dwy. #3) AWSC DUB D 7.9 A 8.1 A 8.0 A 8.2 A 8.0 A 8.8 A 23 Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D15.5 B 18.2 B 17.2 B 27.4 C 148.1 F 365.7 F 24 Dublin Blvd. / Grafton St. Signal DUB D 15.9 B 10.7 B 7.4 A 11.3 B 20.0 C 128.7 F 25 Gleason Dr. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 33.1 C 15.0 B 35.5 D 14.4 B 72.2 E 18.9 B 26 Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 13.5 B 14.8 B 19.8 B 21.0 C 42.0 D 100.6 F 27 Fallon Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 8.8 A 11.0 B 15.8 B 37.9 D 26.7 C 31.4 C 28 Fallon Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 7.9 A 8.7 A 12.7 B 12.6 B 76.1 E 102.0 F 29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. Signal PLSLIV D 44.0 D 58.2 E 52.3 D 89.7 F 132.2 F 262.1 F 30 Project Dwy. #4 / Tassajara Rd. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 31 Project Dwy. #5 / Tassajara Rd. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-25 Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing Near-Term (Year 2025) Cumulative (Year 2040) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 32 Project Dwy. #6 / Gleason Dr. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 33 Project Dwy. #7 / Central Pkwy. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 34 Project Dwy. #8 / Central Pkwy. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 36 Project Dwy. #10 / Brannigan St. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 37 Project Dwy. #11 / Brannigan St. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 38 Project Dwy. #12 / Brannigan St. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 39 Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. Signal DUB D 11.1 B 9.2 A 17.9 B 33.4 D 22.7 C 57.7 E 40 Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. Signal DUB D 10.6 B 9.1 A 17.5 B 25.0 C 26.2 C 155.4 F 41 Fallon Rd. / Tassajara Rd. Signal DUB D 21.7 C 22.4 C 16.8 B 21.5 C 25.1 C 21.5 C Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC), or does not exist (DNE). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown with bold text. 8. Gateway intersections do not have a LOS threshold, as denoted with “N/A”, per the City of Pleasanton General Plan. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018
At Dublin City of Dublin Page 17-26 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 5: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS without Project – Saturday # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing Near-Term (Year 2025) Cumulative (Year 2040) Saturday Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops (Future Project Dwy. #1) Signal DUB D 18.6 B 20.3 C 13.7 B 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 39.3 D 72.4 F 106.4 F 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC), or does not exist (DNE). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown with bold text. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-27 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 6: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Freeway Segment LOS without Project # Study Segment (I-580) Dir Lanes Existing Near-Term (Year 2025) Cumulative (Year 2040) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Vol (vph) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Vol (vph) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Vol (vph) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Vol (vph) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Vol (vph) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Vol (vph) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS a Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive WB 5 8,976 35.0 D 7,601 27.5 D 11,155 55.6 F 7,974 29.3 D 11,382 59.0 F 9,878 41.6 E EB 7 8,128 20.5 C 7,625 19.2 C 8850 22.3 C 8,669 21.8 C 9,755 24.8 C 8,669 21.8 C b Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road WB 5 9,352 37.5 E 6,606 23.4 C 11,447 60.0 F 7,147 25.5 C 11,550 61.8 F 8,304 31 D EB 5 6,621 23.4 C 7,358 26.4 D 7311 26.2 D 8,675 33.1 D 8,085 29.9 D 8,632 32.9 D c Tassajara Road to Fallon Road WB 5 8,583 32.6 D 6,474 22.9 C 10,843 51.5 F 7,327 26.3 D 10,953 52.9 F 8,550 32.4 D EB 5 5,619 19.8 C 7,233 25.9 C 6270 22.1 C 8,419 31.7 D 6,775 24.0 C 8,011 29.5 D d Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard WB 5 8,434 31.7 D 6,451 22.8 C 10,757 50.5 F 7,131 25.5 C 10,757 50.5 F 8,081 29.8 D EB 5 5,673 20.0 C 7,553 27.3 D 5989 21.1 C 8,877 34.4 D 6,261 22.1 C 8,266 30.8 D Notes: 1. Segments operating at unacceptable levels of service based on established targets by Caltrans are shown with bold text. 2. Analysis performed using HCS 2010 software. 3. For freeway segments where an auxiliary lane is > 2,500 feet in length, weaving does not apply; therefore, the auxiliary lane is considered to be a basic freeway lane for the purposes of this analysis. 4. Express lanes not included in this analysis.
At Dublin City of Dublin Page 17-28 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 7: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Freeway Ramp LOS without Project Interchange (I-580) Dir Ramp Existing Near-Term (Year 2025) Cumulative (Year 2040) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Hacienda Drive WB Diagonal On-ramp 27.1 C 23.8 C 38.9 E 24.8 C 40.9 E 35.0 D Loop On-ramp 22.0 C 8.9 A 32.9 D 23.1 C 35.1 E 24.9 C Off-ramp 29.4 D 20.8 C 43.8 F 22.5 C 44.6 F 26.1 C EB Diagonal On-ramp 19.3 B 23.3 C 20.9 C 28.2 D 12.4 B 28.3 D Loop On-ramp 18.6 B 10.7 B 20.2 C 23.2 C 22.5 C 22.9 C Off-ramp 16.9 C 15.4 B 18.5 C 17.7 C 20.6 D 17.7 C Tassajara Road WB Diagonal On-ramp 31.4 D 10.4 B 40.3 E 21.4 C 41.1 E 24.0 C Loop On-ramp 9.0 A 17.5 B 27.7 C 7.7 A 27.7 C 8.6 A Off-ramp 26.5 C 19.8 B 38.5 F 24.0 C 39.4 F 26.4 C EB Diagonal On-ramp 17.6 B 21.0 C 19.8 B 24.5 C 21.1 C 23.0 C Loop On-ramp 20.3 C 27.5 C 22.1 C 30.4 D 23.9 C 30.8 D Off-ramp 23.1 C 22.6 C 26.5 C 26.8 C 30.0 D 29.1 D Fallon RoadWB Diagonal On-ramp 28.5 D 22.3 C 37.8 E 13.4 B 38.7 E 29.0 D Loop On-ramp 30.2 D 24.3 C 49.6 F 29.7 D 50.1 F 28.4 D Off-ramp 25.5 C 19.2 B 37.3 F 21.4 C 37.3 F 24.4 C EB Diagonal On-ramp 13.5 B 27.0 C 21.7 C 31.8 D 25.5 C 28.9 D Loop On-ramp 23.3 C 28.9 D 24.4 C 33.2 F 24.1 C 28.6 D Off-ramp 24.3 C 29.5 D 27.6 C 33.6 D 32.7 D 32.6 D Notes: 1. Ramps operating at unacceptable levels of service based on established targets by Caltrans are shown with bold text. 2. Analysis performed using HCS 2010 software.
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-29 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 8: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Ramp Metering Analysis without Project On-ramp Peak Hour Storage Length (ft) SOV Metering Rate (vph) Existing Near-Term (Year 2025) Cumulative (Year 2040) SOV Volume (vph) Max Queue (ft) SOV Volume (vph) Max Queue (ft) SOV Volume (vph) Max Queue (ft) WB I-580 Hacienda Drive Diagonal On-ramp AM 700 540 385 0 385 0 385 0 EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp PM 490 300 309 225 388 > 1,000 392 > 1,000 WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp AM 1,080 480 636 > 1,100 767 > 1,100 816 > 1,100 EB I-580 Santa Rita Road Loop On-ramp PM 830 450 368 0 386 0 433 0 WB I-580 Fallon Road Diagonal On-ramp AM 685 300 255 0 255 0 275 0 EB I-580 El Charro Road Loop On-ramp PM 925 240 273 825 273 825 273 825 Notes: 1. SOV = Single-occupancy vehicles; Ramp meter analysis was performed for SOV lanes only. HOV lanes were assumed to operate with a 900 vph metering rate and therefore would not have any queues extend onto the arterial. 2. SOV volumes were calculated based on HOV to SOV ratios from PeMS on-ramp volumes. 3. Ramps with vehicle queues exceeding the on-ramp storage and extending onto the adjacent arterial are shown with bold text.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-30 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
17.3.10 Intersection Queuing
As congestion increases, it is common for traffic at intersections to form lines of stopped (or
queued) vehicles. Intersection queue lengths were determined for each turn lane and
measured as the distance that vehicles will back up in each direction approaching an
intersection. Queuing analysis was performed for intersections with significant impacts as a
result of the additional project trips. Synchro software calculates the 95th percentile queues
based on HCM 2000 methodology which accounts for fluctuations in traffic and where 95
percent of the time during the peak period, traffic volumes will be less than or equal to the
queue determined by the analysis. It is used as a benchmark for determining deficiencies as a
standard transportation engineering practice. A typical vehicle length of 25 feet was used in the
queuing analysis. An operational deficiency was assumed to occur if the queue increases by one
or more vehicles and the vehicle queue exceeds the turn pocket length. A summary of the
queuing results for all intersections is provided in Appendix J.
17.3.11 Roadway Analysis Using SimTraffic
Within the City of Dublin, there are roadways that are congested in the peak hours and are
considered over capacity with downstream congestion that can result in lower throughput
volumes than the actual demand. Under these conditions, the individual intersection LOS
analysis can be misleading in describing the actual traffic operations. Therefore, to better
represent corridor congestion, particularly along Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road, a
SimTraffic model was developed based on the Synchro model inputs. The SimTraffic model
accounts for intersection spacing, as well as upstream and downstream congestion.
The SimTraffic analysis was used to further evaluate the traffic operations along congested
corridors in the City of Dublin. The following are additional measures of effectiveness (MOE’s)
that were used to describe each corridor:
Corridor Travel Time (average minutes per vehicle)
Corridor Delay (average minutes per vehicle)
Average Corridor Speed (mph)
Length of Corridor Queues (feet)
These MOE’s were measured for each condition along the following corridors:
Eastbound Dublin Boulevard between Hacienda Drive and Fallon Road
Westbound Dublin Boulevard between Hacienda Drive and Fallon Road
Northbound Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road between Pimlico Drive and Gleason Drive
Southbound Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road between Pimlico Drive and Gleason Drive
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-31
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17-9: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative SimTraffic Analysis without Project summarizes
the MOE’s for each without project condition.
Existing
As shown in Table 17-9: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative SimTraffic Analysis without
Project, the travel times are less than seven (7) minutes for each corridor in the Existing
condition. The SimTraffic simulation shows minimal queuing from each approach at the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road.
Near-Term
The travel times are relatively minimal, with the exception of the travel time for eastbound
Dublin Boulevard between Hacienda Drive and Fallon Road in the Near-Term PM peak hour.
The majority of this travel time is travelling eastbound along Dublin Boulevard and approaching
the Tassajara Road intersection with Dublin Boulevard. The SimTraffic simulation shows
minimal queuing from each approach at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara
Road, except for the eastbound approach in the PM peak hour. The queues extend
approximately 4,400 feet (0.8 miles) from Tassajara Road to the intersection of Hacienda Drive.
Cumulative
During Cumulative conditions, the project area is over capacity as modeled and there is
considerable congestion, resulting to high travel times.
In the Cumulative AM peak hour condition, the travel times are high at approximately 37
minutes for westbound Dublin Boulevard. The majority of this travel time is from the
westbound delay east of Tassajara Road. The queues extend from Tassajara Road to past Fallon
Road. Also in the Cumulative AM peak hour condition, the travel times are high at
approximately 25 minutes for eastbound Dublin Boulevard. The majority of this travel time is
from the eastbound delay west of Tassajara Road. The queues extend from Tassajara Road to
Hibernia Drive.
In the Cumulative PM peak hour condition, the travel times are high at approximately 72
minutes for westbound Dublin Boulevard. The majority of this travel time is from the
westbound delay east of Tassajara Road. The queues extend from Tassajara Road to past Fallon
Road. Also in the Cumulative PM peak hour condition, the travel times are high at
approximately 35 minutes for eastbound Dublin Boulevard. The majority of this travel time is
from the eastbound delay west of Tassajara Road. The queues extend from Tassajara Road to
Hacienda Drive.
It should be noted that the congestion in these models are during Cumulative conditions
without the project, highlighting the fact that Dublin Boulevard is projected to operate with
considerable delays, even without additional traffic associated with the project.
At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-32 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 9: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative SimTraffic Analysis without Project Corridor Direction Length (miles) Existing Near-term Cumulative AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Travel Time (min) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 5.4 6.3 5.0 22.9 25.4 34.7 WB 2.1 4.4 4.7 9.3 6.3 37.0 71.5 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 2.9 3.3 4.0 5.3 5.1 9.6 SB 1.0 4.3 5.9 4.5 3.8 4.4 4.1 Delay (min) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 2.6 3.6 2.6 15.7 18.0 22.5 WB 2.1 2.0 2.3 4.9 3.8 22.2 53.7 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 1.6 2.0 2.6 3.9 3.7 6.7 SB 1.0 2.9 4.0 3.1 2.4 3.1 2.7 Average Speed (mph) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 24 20 25 8 7 4 WB 2.1 28 26 17 20 5 2 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 17 11 10 8 7 4 SB 1.0 11 10 10 14 12 13 Length of Queue (feet) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 Negligible 750 Negligible 4,400 3,700 4,400 WB 2.1 Negligible Negligible 2,600 Negligible Past Fallon Rd Past Fallon Rd Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 Negligible 450 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,800 SB 1.0 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Notes: 1. Analysis performed using SimTraffic software. 2. Traffic conditions in the Cumulative scenario are oversaturated, resulting in excessive travel times and delays. 3. Free flow travel time for Dublin Blvd between Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd is 2.8 minutes and free flow travel time for Tassajara Rd between Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr is 1.6 minutes.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-33
Draft EIR
10/23/18
17.3.12 Alameda County Transportation Commission Roadway Segment Analysis
The Alameda CTC roadway segment analysis was performed to comply with its congestion
management plan (CMP). In the CMP, development projects generating more than 100 PM
peak hour trips are analyzed to determine its impact on the Metropolitan Transportation
System (MTS) roadways.
The Alameda CTC travel demand forecast model was used to determine the Near-Term and
Cumulative traffic volumes in the PM peak hour. The analysis can be found in Appendix J. The
following summarizes the without project conditions:
Near-Term
Under the Near-Term condition, the following segments operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour:
Eastbound Dublin Boulevard from:
o Hacienda Drive to Hibernia Drive
o Hibernia Drive to Myrtle Drive
o Myrtle Drive to John Monego Court
o John Monego Court to Glynnis Rose Drive
o Glynnis Rose Drive to Tassajara Road
o Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street
o Brannigan Street to Keegan Street
o Keegan Street to Lockhart Street
o Lockhart Street to Fallon Road
Cumulative
Under the Cumulative condition, the following segments operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour:
Eastbound I-580 from:
o Tassajara Road to Fallon Road
Eastbound Dublin Boulevard from:
o Hacienda Drive to Hibernia Drive
o Hibernia Drive to Myrtle Drive
o Myrtle Drive to John Monego Court
o John Monego Court to Glynnis Rose Drive
o Glynnis Rose Drive to Tassajara Road
o Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-34 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
o Brannigan Street to Keegan Street
o Keegan Street to Lockhart Street
o Lockhart Street to Fallon Road
Southbound Fallon Road from:
o I-580 WB to I-580 EB
17.3.13 Vehicle Miles of Travel
In response to Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has updated
CEQA guidelines to include new transportation-related evaluation metrics. Draft guidelines
were developed in August 2014, with updated draft guidelines prepared in January 2016, which
incorporated public comments from the August 2014 guidelines. OPR released final proposed
Guidelines on November 27, 2017. The final proposed Guidelines include a new Section
15064.3 on vehicle miles of travel (VMT) analysis and thresholds. OPR also released a Technical
Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. New Guidelines Section 15064.3 states
that they do not take effect until January 1, 2020 unless the lead agency adopts them earlier.
Neither the City of Dublin nor the Alameda CTC has established any standards or thresholds on
VMT. Therefore, the new guidelines have not yet been adopted and are not in effect at this
time.
The final guidelines may change based on the comments received during the Natural Resources
Agency formal administrative rulemaking process for adoption under the Administrative
Procedure Act. Since there are no standards in effect on VMT analysis, a preliminary
assessment of the VMT generated by the project was prepared for information and disclosure
purposes only. No determination on the significance of VMT impacts is made in this document
since none is legally required.
The VMT for the City of Dublin and for the project were determined from the City of Dublin
travel demand forecast model. As shown in Table 17-10: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative
VMT Summary the project reduces the average trip length for each condition.
Table 17- 10: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative VMT Summary
Condition
Average Trip Length (miles)
City of Dublin At Dublin Reduction
Existing 7.60 7.29 -4.1%
Near-Term 7.54 7.14 -5.3%
Cumulative 7.60 6.77 -10.9%
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-35
Draft EIR
10/23/18
17.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
17.4.1 Federal
Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 prohibits discrimination toward people with
disabilities and guarantees that they have equal opportunities as the restofsocietytobecome
employed, purchase goods and services, and participate in government programs and services.
The ADA includes requirements pertaining to transportation infrastructure. The Department of
Justice’s revised regulations for Titles II and III of the ADA, known as the 2010 ADA Standards
for Accessible Designs, set minimum requirements for newly designed and constructed or
altered State and local government facilities, public accommodations, and commercial facilities
to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. These standards apply to
accessible walking routes, curb ramps, and other facilities.
17.4.2 State
California Complete Streets Act of 2008
This act requires that the circulation elements of local general plans accommodate a balanced,
multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and
highways in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the
jurisdiction. Users are defined to include motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons
with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and riders of public transportation.
California Transportation Development Act
The Mills-Alquist-Deddeh Act (SB 325) (also known as the Transportation Development Act
[TDA]) was enacted in 1971 to improve public transportation services and encourage regional
transportation coordination. This law provides funding to be allocated to transit- and non-
transit-related purposes that comply with regional transportation plans. The TDA provides two
funding sources: 1) the Local Transportation Fund (LTF), which is derived from a ¼ cent of the
general sales tax collected statewide, and 2) the State Transit Assistance fund (STA), which is
derived from the statewide sales tax on diesel fuel.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The Steinberg Act (SB 743) (also known as the Environmental Act) was enacted in 2013 to shift
the focus of transportation analysis from driver delay to reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
creating multimodal networks, and promoting mixed land uses. SB 743 requires the Governor’s
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide alternative
level of service metrics for transportation impact evaluations. The alternative criteria must
encourage greenhouse gas emissions reductions, support the development of multimodal
transportation networks, and promote a diversity of land uses. In August 2014, OPR released a
preliminary discussion draft of changes to the CEQA Guidelines for review and comment, and
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-36 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
the office is currently developing a revised draft for further review and comment. Under the
new guidelines, measurements of transportation impacts may include vehicle miles traveled,
vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips
generated.
17.4.3 Regional
Alameda County Transportation Commission Congestion Management Program
The Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) manages the county’s one-cent
transportation sales tax and services as the county’s congestion management agency. ACTC
requires that projects that generate more than 100 PM peak hour trips analyze project impacts
to the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadways.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Transportation Plan and Action Plan for Routes of Regional
Significance
The Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) is a joint powers authority formed pursuant to the
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement establishing the Tri-Valley Transportation County, among
the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa, the Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon,
Dublin and the Town of Danville. The TVTC oversees the expenditures of the Tri-Valley
Transportation Development Fund. The TVTC requires that projects that generate more than
100 peak hour vehicle trips must circulate the analysis to all TVTC jurisdictions. This circulation
can be a part of the CEQA process.
17.4.4 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following guiding and implementing policies
associated with transportation that are relevant to the project:
Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.1: Design streets to (1) include sufficient capacity for projected traffic, (2)
minimize congested conditions during peak hours of operation at intersections, (3) serve a
variety of transportation modes including vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, and variety
of users including people with disabilities, children, and seniors, (4) provide continuity with
existing streets, and (5) allow convenient access to planned land uses.
Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.3: The goals, policies, and implementation measures for street design in
Section 10.8 of the Community Design and Sustainability Element should be consulted when
new streets are being designed and/or existing streets are being modified.
Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.4: Reserve right-of-way and construct improvements necessary to allow
streets to accommodate projected vehicular traffic with the least friction.
Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.6: The City shall strive to phase development and roadway improvements
so that the operating Level of Service (LOS) for intersections in Dublin does not exceed LOS D.
However, intersections within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area (including the
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-37
Draft EIR
10/23/18
intersections of Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road and Village Parkway/Interstate 680 on-
ramp) are excluded from this requirement and may operate at LOS E or worse as long as the
safety for pedestrians and bicyclists is maintained and impacts to transit travel speeds are
minimized.
Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.7: The City will comply with all provisions of the Alameda County
Congestion Management Program and will review proposed development projects to ensure
compliance with this Program.
Implementing Policy 5.2.2.B.1: Design streets according to the forecasted demand and
maximum design speeds listed above, and to the detailed standards set forth in the City of
Dublin’s Street Design Standards and Standard Plans which are maintained by the Public Works
Department, as well as the listed Additional Policies.
Implementing Policy 5.2.2.B.2: Design and construct all roads in the City’s circulation network
as defined in Figure 5-1 [Exhibit 3.6-4a] as well as bicycle and pedestrian networks as defined in
the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Guiding Policy 5.2.3.A.1: Provide an integrated multi-modal circulation system that provides
efficient vehicular circulation while providing a design that allows safe and convenient travel
along and across streets for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities,
seniors, children, youth, and families; and encourages pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and other
non-automobile transportation alternatives.
Implementing Policy 5.2.3.B.1: Provide continuity with existing streets, include sufficient
capacity for projected traffic, and allow convenient access to planned land uses.
Guiding Policy 5.3.1.A.1: Support improved local transit as essential to a quality urban
environment, particularly for residents who do not drive.
Guiding Policy 5.3.1.A.2: Support the development of a community that facilitates and
encourages the use of local and regional transit systems.
Guiding Policy 5.3.1.A.3: Encourage improvements in the Enhanced Pedestrian Areas to
improve the walkability of these areas.
Guiding Policy 5.3.1.A.4: Maintain enhanced signal coordination and limit intersection delays on
major and RAPID transit routes to minimize delays to transit service.
Implementing Policy 5.3.1.B.2: Require dedication of land and the construction of
improvements to support the use of public transit in the community. Improvements could
consist of bus turnouts, shelters, benches, real time arrival information, and other facilities that
may be appropriate.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-38 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Implementing Policy 5.3.1.B.4: Capitalize on opportunities to connect into and enhance
ridership on regional transit systems including BART, LAVTA and any future light rail systems.
Guiding Policy 5.4.3.A.1: Plan for all users by creating and maintaining Complete Streets that
provide safe, comfortable, and convenient travel along and across streets (including streets,
roads, highways, bridges, and other portions of the transportation system) through a
comprehensive, integrated transportation network that meets the requirements of currently
adopted transportation plans and serves all categories of users.
Guiding Policy 5.4.3.A.2: Be context aware by maintaining sensitivity to local conditions and
needs in both residential and business districts as well as urban, suburban, and rural areas, and
will work with residents, merchants, and other stakeholders to ensure that a strong sense of
place ensues.
Guiding Policy 5.4.3.A.6: Encourage developers to implement Complete Streets in private
transportation infrastructure by providing guidance during the development approval process.
Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.1: Provide safe, continuous, comfortable and convenient bikeways
throughout the City.
Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.2: Improve and maintain bikeways and pedestrian facilities and support
facilities in conformance with the recommendations in the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan.
Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.3: Enhance the multi-modal circulation network to better accommodate
alternative transportation choices including BART, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation.
Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.4: Provide comfortable, safe, and convenient walking routes throughout
the City and, in particular, to key destinations such as Downtown Dublin, the BART Stations,
schools, parks, and commercial centers.
Implementing Policy 5.5.1.B.2: Improve bikeways, bicycle support facilities, and pedestrian
facilities in accordance with the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan in conjunction with
development proposals.
Implementing Policy 5.5.1.B.3: Ensure on-going maintenance of bikeways, bicycle support
facilities and pedestrian facilities that are intended for public use and located on private
property in conjunction with development proposals.
Guiding Policy 5.6.1.A.1: Designate and accommodate truck routes to minimize noise nuisance
on residential arterial streets.
Implementing Policy 5.6.1.B.1: Take advantage of opportunities to provide long-term truck
parking facilities.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-39
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Guiding Policy 5.9.1.A.1: Continue the city’s program of requiring developers to contribute fees
and/or improvements to help fund off-site improvements related to their projects.
City of Dublin Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan sets forth the following policies relevant to transportation:
Policy 4-24: Require all employment-related development to provide convenient and attractive
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-related facilities to encourage alternate modes of commuting to
and from work.
Policy 4-31: Establish a convenient, multi-use, all-weather network of trails, including bike
lanes, to link planning area parks, recreation facilities, schools, employment centers and major
open space areas to each other and to the surrounding community.
Policy 5-3: Plan development in eastern Dublin to maintain Level of Service D or better as the
average intersection level of service at all intersections within the Specific Plan area during AM,
PM and midday peak periods. The average intersection level of service is defined as the hourly
average.
Policy 5-12: BART service to the eastern Dublin/Pleasanton station orients local transit service
to provide transit connections between the BART station and all portions of the Specific Plan
area.
Policy 5-13: Establish design guidelines for residential and commercial development so that
there are clear and safe pedestrian paths between building entrances and transit service stops.
Policy 5-14: Provide transit shelters at major limit stops and bus pullouts on major collector,
arterial and major arterial streets.
Policy 5-18: Provide convenient and secure bicycle parking and support facilities at key
destinations in eastern Dublin, such as schools, recreation areas, transit stops and commercial
centers.
Policy 5-21: Require all non-residential projects with 50 or more employees to participate in a
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program.
17.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
17.5.1 Significance Criteria
CEQA Criteria
The following significance criteria for transportation and circulation were derived from the
Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-40 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
amended or supplemented, as appropriate, to address lead agency requirements and the full
range of potential impacts related to this project.
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it
would meet one of the following criteria.
Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.
Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited
to LOS standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
Result in inadequate emergency access.
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
City of Dublin
Impacts to City of Dublin intersections could be considered significant if the project would
result in any of the following:
The project conflicts with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures
of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. A significant
impact could be identified:
o If a signalized intersection is projected to operate within motor vehicle delay
ranges associated with LOS D or better (average control delay equal to or less
than 55 seconds per vehicle) without the project and the project is expected to
cause the facility to operate at a LOS E or F;
o If at a study, signalized intersection where the motor vehicle level of service is E,
the project would cause an increase in the average delay for any of the critical
movements of six (6) seconds or more.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-41
Draft EIR
10/23/18
If at a study, signalized intersection where the motor vehicle level of service is LOS F, the
project would cause (a) the overall volume-to-capacity (“V/C”) ratio to increase 0.03 or
more or (b) the critical movement V/C ratio to increase 0.05 or more.
A queuing impact would be identified if:
o Project traffic causes the 95th percentile queue in a turn pocket to extend
beyond the turn pocket by more than 25 feet (i.e., the length of one vehicle) into
adjacent traffic lanes that operate (i.e., move) separately from the turn lane; or
o If the 95th percentile queue already exceeds that turn pocket length under no
project conditions, the project traffic lengthens the queue by more than 25 feet.
If the operations of an unsignalized study intersection is projected to decline with the
addition of project traffic, and if the installation of a traffic signal based on the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Peak-Hour Signal Warrant (Warrant 3)
would be warranted.
For intersections that meet the above criteria, capacity-enhancing measures that do not
degrade other modes of travel will be considered, including upgrading or installing signal
equipment, extending left-turn pocket storage, providing non-motorized facilities to reduce
vehicular demand, enhancing capacity on a parallel route and/or enhancing transit access to a
site. The determination of a significant impact and the appropriate mitigation measure will
consider the City’s Complete Streets policy.
Impacts to transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities could be identified if the project conflicts with
adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities; specifically:
A pedestrian impact is considered significant if it would:
o Disrupt existing pedestrian facilities;
o Interfere with planned pedestrian facilities; or
o Create inconsistencies with adopted pedestrian system plans, guidelines,
policies, or standards.
A bicycle impact is considered significant if it would:
o Disrupt existing bicycle facilities;
o Interfere with planned bicycle facilities;
o Create inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, policies, or
standards; or
o Not provide secure and safe bicycle parking in adequate proportion to
anticipated demand.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-42 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
A transit impact is considered significant if it would result in development that is
inaccessible to transit riders or would generate transit demand that cannot be met by
existing or planned transit in the area.
Transportation-related impacts could also be identified if:
The project substantially increases traffic hazards due to a design feature (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses.
The project results in inadequate emergency access.
City of Pleasanton
Impacts to City of Pleasanton intersections could be considered if the project would result in
any of the following:
For signalized intersections located in Pleasanton, an impact would be assessed if the
addition of project traffic results in the deterioration of a signalized intersection from
LOS D (or better) to LOS E or LOS F. Assessments of impacts were based on HCM 2000
method. There are a few exceptions to the LOS standard, including the City of
Pleasanton Gateway intersections. Gateway intersections include all ramp terminal
intersections on I-580. For the Gateway intersections, the LOS standard could be below
D when no reasonable mitigation exists or the necessary mitigation is contrary to other
goals and policies of the City.
For signalized intersections located in Pleasanton, an impact would be assessed at an
intersection projected to operate at LOS E or F prior to the addition of project traffic, if
the project adds 10 or more peak-hour trips.
The exceptions are the following gateway intersections:
El Charro Road at I-580 EB ramps
Fallon Road at I-580 WB ramps
Santa Rita Road at I-580 EB ramps
Santa Rita Road at I-580 WB ramps
Hacienda Drive at I-580 EB ramps
Hacienda Drive at I-580 WB ramps
Hacienda Drive at Owens Drive
These gateway intersections may have a LOS below LOS D if no reasonable mitigation exists or if
the necessary mitigation is contrary to other goals and policies of Pleasanton. These standards
are identified in the City of Pleasanton General Plan (2009).
Mitigations for these significant impacts would be required to improve the intersection to at or
better than without project conditions.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-43
Draft EIR
10/23/18
City of Livermore
As stated in the City of Livermore General Plan, intersections in Livermore shall not exceed mid-
level LOS D (average control delay of 45 seconds or less for a signalized intersection), with the
exception of gateway intersections. The following would be considered a LOS impact:
If the project were to worsen the LOS from an acceptable LOS D to an unacceptable LOS
E or LOS F, this would be considered a significant impact.
For a signalized intersection operating at an unacceptable LOS E or LOS F without the
project, and the project were to add any peak hour trips, this would be considered a
significant impact.
Mitigations for these significant impacts would be required to improve the intersection to at or
better than without project conditions.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council
Impacts to intersections on Routes of Regional Significance as defined by the TVTC would be
considered significant if:
A signalized intersection is projected to operate within delay ranges associated with
less-than-capacity conditions for motor vehicles (i.e., LOS E or better with an average
control delay of equal to or less than 80 seconds per vehicle) without the project and
the project is expected to cause the facility to operate at [LOS] F;
At a study signalized intersection where the motor vehicle level of service is LOS F prior
to the addition of project traffic, the project would cause (a) the overall volume-to-
capacity (“V/C”) ratio to increase 0.03 or more or (b) the critical movement V/C ratio to
increase 0.05 or more.
Intersections in downtown areas and/or specifically exempted by local jurisdictions are exempt
from this TVTC standard.
Although the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance,
September 2017, specifies the use of the 2010 HCM method for evaluating intersection
operations, the City of Dublin has not yet adopted use of the 2010 HCM method. Therefore, for
the purposes of this assessment, the 2000 HCM method is used to assess impacts under the
TVTC criteria. The 2000 HCM method tends to produce more conservative results for motor
vehicle operations and use of the 2000 HCM method would capture potential impacts under
the TVTC criteria.
Alameda County Transportation Commission
The Alameda CTC does not have adopted thresholds of significance for Congestion
Management Plan (CMP) land use analysis purposes. Past analyses within the City of Dublin
have used the following criteria to assess roadway segment impacts:
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-44 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
For a roadway segment of the Alameda CTC Congestion Management Program (CMP)
Network, the project would cause (a) the LOS to degrade from LOS E or better to LOS F
or (b) the V/C ratio to increase 0.02 or more for a roadway segment that would operate
at LOS F without the project.
California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) endeavors to maintain a target LOS at
the transition between LOS C and LOS D on State Highway facilities (Caltrans 2002); however,
Caltrans recognizes that achieving LOS C/LOS D may not always be feasible. A standard of LOS E
or better on a peak-hour basis was used as the planning objective for the evaluation of
potential impacts of this development on Caltrans facilities, as that is the standard set for
Caltrans facilities in the study area by the Alameda CTC.
Significance Classifications
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
17.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
ADA-compliant spaces are not required for single-family dwelling units. Therefore, there would
be no impact.
Change in Air Traffic Patterns
The project site is more than two miles from an airport or private air strip and would not result
in a change in air traffic patterns. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Conflict with Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs Supporting Alternative Transportation
The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
Emergency Access & Hazards
The project includes multiple vehicular access points from public streets surrounding the
project site, meeting or exceeding California Fire Code requirements. Furthermore, the final
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-45
Draft EIR
10/23/18
site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal to ensure adequate emergency
access. Therefore, there would be no impact.
17.5.3 Trip Generation Estimates
Trip generation estimates were prepared for weekday and Saturday traffic conditions (worst
case). In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic accessing and departing
the project site is estimated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours and Saturday peak hour.
Through empirical research, data have been collected that correlate common land uses with
their propensity for producing traffic. Thus, for the most common land uses there are standard
trip generation rates that can be applied to help predict the traffic increases that would result
from a new development. Project trip generation was estimated by applying the proposed land
uses and then size to the appropriate trip generation rates published in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017).
Pass-By Reduction
Pass-by trips are credited to account for vehicle trips that will already be on the roadways and
will likely stop as they pass by the project site. Although data published in ITE’s Trip Generation
Handbook, 3rd Edition indicates that a pass-by rate greater than 15 percent could be applied to
retail land uses in the PM peak hour, Caltrans Traffic Impact Study (TIS) guidelines require that
only a maximum 15 percent pass-by reduction rate can be applied, and was assumed in this
analysis.
Internal Capture
Given the mixed-use characteristics of the project, there is the potential for interaction among
uses internal to the project site. These types of trips are considered “captured” within the site.
Based on the ITE’s Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, a 3.4 percent and 5 percent internal
capture reduction was applied to the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
As shown in Table 17-11: Proposed Project Trip Generation – Weekday, the project would
generate 19,327 net new daily trips, with 748 net new trips (325 in and 423 out) occurring
during the AM peak hour and 1,545 net new trips (809 in and 736 out) occurring during the PM
peak hour for a typical weekday.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-46 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 11: Proposed Project Trip Generation – Weekday
Land Use Size Unit
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total
Residential Single-Family
Detached (ITE 210) 1 180 DU 9.92 1,786 0.74 33 100 133 0.99 113 66 179
Residential Condominium
(ITE 220) 2 200 DU 7.36 1472 0.46 21 71 92 0.55 69 40 109
Residential Apartments
(ITE 220)2 300 DU 7.43 2228 0.45 31 104 135 0.52 99 58 157
Hotel (ITE 310) 3 240 Rooms 9.51 2282 0.48 68 47 115 0.64 79 75 154
Mixed-Use (ITE 820) 4 295 1,000 sf 42.53 12,546 1.01 185 114 299 4.10 581 629 1,210
Internal Capture
Trip Reduction
(Day: 4%, AM: 3.4%, PM: 5%) -813 -13 -13 -26 -45 -45 -90
Pass-By
Retail Only Trip Reduction
(PM: 15% after IC) -174 -87 -87 -174
Net New Project Trips 19,327 325 423 748 809 736 1,545
Notes:
[IC] - Internal Capture
1. Single Family Detached Housing - ITE Code 210; Based on ITE equation.
2. Multifamily Housing - ITE Code 220; Based on ITE equation.
3. Hotel - ITE 310; Based on ITE equation.
4. Shopping Center – ITE 820; Based on ITE equation.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation 10th Edition, 2017; Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018
As shown in Table 17-12: Proposed project Trip Generation – Saturday, the project would
generate 20,314 net new daily trips, with 1,928 net new trips (1,021 in and 905 out) occurring
during the peak hour for a typical Saturday.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-47
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 12: Proposed Project Trip Generation – Saturday
Land Use Size Unit
Daily Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate In Out Total
Residential Single-Family Detached
(ITE 210) 1 180 DU 9.54 1,718 0.93 90 77 169
Residential Condominium
(ITE 220) 2 200 DU 8.14 1,628 0.7 76 64 140
Residential Apartments
(ITE 220) 2 300 DU 8.14 2,442 0.7 113 97 210
Hotel (ITE 310) 3 240 Rooms 8.19 1,966 0.72 97 76 173
Mixed-Use (ITE 820) 4 295 1,000 sf 46.12 13,606 4.5 691 637 1,328
Internal Capture
Trip Reduction
(Day: 4%, Peak: 5%) 5 -854 50 50 100
Pass-By
Retail Only Trip Reduction
(Peak: 15% after IC) 6 -192 -96 -96 -192
Net New Project Trips 20,314 1,021 905 1,928
Notes:
[IC] - Internal Capture
1. Single Family Detached Housing - ITE Code 210; Based on ITE equation.
2. Multifamily Housing - ITE Code 220; Based on ITE equation.
3. Hotel - ITE 310; Based on ITE equation.
4. Shopping Center – ITE 820; Based on ITE equation.
5. Saturday internal capture is not available from ITE. Weekday daily and PM peak data is used in the table above.
6. Saturday pass-by trip reduction data is not available from ITE. Weekday PM peak data is used in the table above.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation 10th Edition, 2017; Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018
17.5.4 Trip Distribution
Trip distribution estimates the destinations to and origins from which the project would travel.
The project trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections. The directional distribution
of project-generated traffic to and from the site was developed based on a select zone analysis
from the City of Dublin travel demand forecast model in the Existing, Near-Term, and
Cumulative years, and adjusted based on existing traffic patterns, discussions with City staff,
and knowledge of the project area. Figure 17-10: Project Trip Distribution shows the
distribution of project trips throughout the project area for each condition. The peak hour trips
generated by the proposed uses were then assigned to the roadway system.
Figure 17-11: Project Site Plan shows the site plan with the various access points for each
project parcel. Project trip assignments to the network are shown in Figure 17-12a: Existing
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-48 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Project Trip Assignment Turning Movement Volumes, Figure 17-12b: Near-Term Project Trip
Assignment Turning Movement Volumes, and Figure 17-12c: Cumulative Project Trip
Assignment Turning Movement Volumes.
Project trips added to Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative volumes are shown in Figure 17-13:
Existing + Project Turning Movement Volumes, Figure 17-14: Near-Term + Project Turning
Movement Volumes and Figure 17-15: Cumulative + Project Turning Movement Volumes,
respectively.
17.5.5 Proposed Project Driveways and Intersections
As shown in Figure 17-11: Project Site Plan, the project is proposing 12 project driveways
and/or intersections:
x Intersection #13 – Tassajara Road / The Shops / Project Driveway #1
x Intersection #20 – Brannigan Street / Aviano Way / Project Driveway #2
x Intersection #22 – Brannigan Street / Finnian Way / Project Driveway #3
x Intersection #30 – Tassajara Road (north of Dublin Blvd) / Project Driveway #4
x Intersection #31 – Tassajara Road (south of Dublin Blvd) / Project Driveway #5
x Intersection #32 – Gleason Drive / Project Driveway #6
x Intersection #33 – Central Parkway (east of Tassajara Rd) / Project Driveway #7
x Intersection #34 – Central Parkway (west of Brannigan St) / Project Driveway #8
x Intersection #35 – Dublin Boulevard / Project Driveway #9
x Intersection #36 – Brannigan Street (south of Dublin Blvd) / Project Driveway #10
x Intersection #37 – Brannigan Street (south of Dublin Blvd) / Project Driveway #11
x Intersection #38 – Brannigan Street (south of Dublin Blvd) / Project Driveway #12
Vehicle Queuing
A queuing analysis was completed for the outbound approach for each project driveway to
determine the number of lanes needed and the necessary lane length. Table 17-13: Project
Driveway Lane Lengths Summary summarizes the lanes needed and the lengths.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-49
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 13: Project Driveway Lane Lengths Summary
Intersection
# Intersection Movement # of Lanes Lane Length
13 Tassajara Road / The Shops /
Project Driveway #1
WB Left
WB Thru/Right
1
1
190
50
20 Brannigan Street / Aviano Way /
Project Driveway #2 EB Left/Thru/Right 1 60
22 Brannigan Street / Finnian Way /
Project Driveway #3 EB Left/Thru/Right 1 205
30 Tassajara Road (north of Dublin
Blvd) / Project Driveway #4 WB Right 1 50
31 Tassajara Road (south of Dublin
Blvd) / Project Driveway #5 WB Right 1 435
32 Gleason Drive / Project Driveway #6 SB Right 1 50
33 Central Parkway (east of Tassajara
Rd) / Project Driveway #7 NB Right 1 50
34 Central Parkway (west of Brannigan
St) / Project Driveway #8
SB Right
NB Right
1
1
50
60
35 Dublin Boulevard / Project
Driveway #9
NB Left
NB Thru/Right
SB Left
SB Thru/Right
2
1
1
1
365
75
125
445
36 Brannigan Street (south of Dublin
Blvd) / Project Driveway #10 EB Left/Right 1 195
37 Brannigan Street (south of Dublin
Blvd) / Project Driveway #11 EB Left/Right 1 305
38 Brannigan Street (south of Dublin
Blvd) / Project Driveway #12 EB Left/Thru 1 220
Impact TR-1: Create a potentially dangerous new intersection. (Class II)
The project is proposing a new full access mid-block traffic signal on Dublin Boulevard between
Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. This traffic signal would provide access to Planning Area
(PA) 1 south of Dublin Boulevard and PA-2a and PA-2b north of Dublin Boulevard in addition to
an existing intersection at Brannigan Street. The project is proposing this signalized
intersection to allow vehicles exiting PA-1 to make a left turn onto westbound Dublin Boulevard
(in addition to Brannigan Street intersection), and then another left turn onto southbound
Tassajara Road to access I-580. Alternatively, vehicles could exit the proposed right-in and right-
out access along Tassajara Road opposite the Dublin Corporate Way intersection; however,
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-50 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
currently no left turn movement exist thus limiting direct connection from Tassajara Road
southbound to I-580.
This new traffic signal would provide pedestrians and bicyclists a controlled pathway across
Dublin Boulevard. Without this traffic signal, pedestrians would need to cross Dublin Boulevard
at the intersection of Tassajara Road or Brannigan Street. There are no final design plans for
the proposed intersection. Therefore, the intersection design should follow the City of Dublin’s
Pedestrian and Bicycle Design Guidelines to promote a safe design for pedestrians and
bicyclists. Pedestrian features should include crosswalks on the north, south, and eastall legs of
the intersection. The west leg may not include a crosswalk because it is anticipated that the
northbound left turn and eastbound right turn vehicular movements will be heavily used and
therefore would potentially conflict with pedestrians on the west leg of the intersection.
Pedestrian countdown signals should be installed for each pedestrian movement across the
intersection. Since the distance across Dublin Boulevard is long, a mid-block median refuge
should be installedBicycle features shouldmay include colorized pavement for the bicycle lane
on the eastbound approach to emphasize the bicycle right-of-way as there are expected to be a
high volume of eastbound right turning vehicles crossing the bicycle lane to enter the project
site south of Dublin Boulevard.
The existing distance between these two signalized intersections is approximately 1,000 feet
centerline to centerline. The proposed traffic signal would bisect this roadway segment along
Dublin Boulevard into approximately 550 feet and 450 feet for the segment to the west of the
signal and for the segment to the east of the signal, respectively.
These short distances are not typical for the installation of traffic signals. The City of Dublin
General Plan roadway standards state that intersections with median openings shall be spaced
no closer than 750 feet. In special circumstances, such as “T” intersections, intersection spacing
less than 750 feet may be allowed with the approval of the Public Works Director/City Engineer.
Typically, traffic signals are at least 1,000 feet apart to minimize traffic spill over to adjacent
signals, limit frequent stops, optimize progression of signals, and reduce the occurrences of
vehicles queued and blocking intersections. The spacing of the signals also play an important
role in safety considerations for access to adjacent land uses.
It should be noted that the two traffic signals on Dublin Boulevard, west of Tassajara Road, are
spaced less than 1,000 feet apart but the land uses accessing these intersections are
significantly different than the project in location, access, and intensity. The intersections of
Dublin Boulevard and John Monego Court (Intersection #9), Dublin Boulevard and Glynnis Rose
Drive (Intersection #10), and Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (Intersection #14) are spaced
660 feet apart and 730 feet apart, respectively. With these shorter distances between the
traffic signals, there are instances in which the eastbound queues on Dublin Boulevard
propagate back from Tassajara Road, and into the Glynnis Rose Drive intersection in the PM
peak hour indicating an existing concern about short spaced intersections.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-51
Draft EIR
10/23/18
As will be described in Sections 17.5.7 and 17.5.8, there is heavy congestion in the PM peak
hour on westbound Dublin Boulevard approaching the intersection of Tassajara Road in the
Near-term and Cumulative conditions. The westbound left turn lane at the intersection of
Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road is particularly congested with queues that would extend
through the new mid-block traffic signal. Therefore, a traffic issues arise given the heavy
congestion and short distances along Dublin Boulevard adjacent to the Project site, causing in
potentially dangerous roadway condition, resulting in a significant impact. Implementation of
MM TR-1.1 would reduce this impact to less than significant (Class III).
Implementation of MM TR-1.1 would also reduce the arterial travel times on Dublin Boulevard.
The project increases the travel time by more than double the without project travel time
under Existing conditions, from 5 minutes to 13 minutes.
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
Prior to approval of the first building permit for development in Planning Area 1 or 2, the
applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director that design features
have been incorporated into the development plans that prohibit northbound and southbound
left turn movements onto Dublin Boulevard at the new intersection during the weekday and
weekend time periods (defined below); or alternative improvements have been incorporated
that modify or eliminate the need for the prohibited turn movements. Time periods are
defined as:
Weekday = 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM
Weekday = 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM
Weekend Peak = 10:30 AM to 2:30 PM
Should the City determine that queuing impacts extend beyond these time periods, the City
may modify these time periods accordingly to ensure impacts remain less than significant.
Design features could include:
Moveable bollards,
Gated lane control systems,
Raised curbs,
Temporary traffic control devices,
Changeable message signs,
Flashing signal heads,
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-52 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Modifying the ingress/egress circulation on Brannigan Street and/or Tassajara Road,
and/or
Other means as deemed acceptable by the Public Works Director.
At any such time after full build-out and occupancy of the project, the applicant may submit
additional traffic analysis to the City, that would be independently verified, demonstrating that
the time periods may be adjusted or that the prohibited turning movements are no longer
required, such that impacts are maintained at a less than significant level, as deemed
acceptable by the Public Works Director.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would thereby reduce impacts to less than
significant (Class II).
17.5.6 Existing + Project Impact Analysis
Impact TR-2: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Existing + Project condition that
exceed established LOS standards (Class I).
Weekday Peak Hours
As shown in Table 17-14: Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday, all study
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the Existing + Project conditions
during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the following intersections
under each jurisdiction:
City of LivermorePleasanton
The project would add trips to the following intersection that is already operating at an
unacceptable LOS:
El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard (Intersection #29) (Class II)
o The project adds 69 trips to the intersection in the AM peak hour and causes the
intersection to continue to operate at LOS E.
MM TR-2.1 would improve operations to an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour. However,
since the mitigation is located in the City of Livermore Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot
guarantee implementation of the mitigation measure, the impacts remains significant and
unavoidable (Class I). Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-16: Mitigated Existing +
Project Transportation Delay & LOS.
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-53
Draft EIR
10/23/18
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Pleasanton impact criteria, but not
the TVTC criteria since LOS E is considered acceptable. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this
impact is considered less-than-significant (Class III).
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack
London Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of
Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Livermore Pleasanton to pay
the project’s proportionate fair share (2 percent) for improvements to the intersection of El
Charro Road / Jack London Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the signal
timing splits by adjusting the maximum green time for each movement to better match the
vehicle demand for that particular movement. The primary change would be to increase the
split for the eastbound left turn movement due to the high eastbound left turn traffic volumes.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Livermore Pleasanton impact criteria,
but not the TVTC criteria since LOS E is considered acceptable. Therefore, under TVTC criteria,
this impact is considered less-than-significant (Class III).
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Travel Demand Management (TDM) Program
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall submit a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program to the City of Dublin for review and approval. The
project applicant shall be responsible for fully funding and implementing the TDM program.
The TDM program shall be prepared by a qualified transportation consultant/ engineer in
coordination with the project applicant and City staff. The TDM program may include but not
be limited to the following measures:
Implement a subsidy program that would provide BART tickets at no cost or
subsidized rate to all employees.
Provide a shuttle service between the project site and the East Dublin/Pleasanton
BART station.
Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent, per Section 132(F) of
federal tax code, where an employer can offer its employees a monthly subsidy for
public transit.
Join City Car Share or similar program as a "Biz Prime" member and pay for
membership of a minimum of 5% employees.
Provide bicycle parking facilities for 20% of car spaces, or a number approved by the
City.
Provide secured bicycle parking (lockers or cages) for employees.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-54 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Partner with local businesses (e.g. Kaiser Medical Center) in the formation of a
Transportation Management Association (TMA)
Facilitate employer-sponsored carpooling and ride-matching programs.
Provide preferential carpool parking.
Implement a guaranteed ride home program.
Provide an on-site car share program.
Encourage employee flexible work scheduling practices to avoid peak-hour travel
(flex time, staggered shifts, compressed work schedules, etc.).
Co-sponsor a transportation fair once a year with At Dublin businesses. Invite
Wheels, 511.org, and at least two other commute alternative service providers to
attend and distribute commute alternative information. Provide refreshments to
participants.
Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all employees regarding
511, Ridematch, Guaranteed Ride Home Program, Wheels/LAVTA, shuttles to
regional transit, City CarShare program, and other relevant alternative
transportation options.
Distribute information quarterly regarding transportation alternatives by email to all
employees.
Provide a kiosk(s) with brochures, and similar items that provide information about
the TDM program. Create a website with similar information.
Appoint a Commute Coordinator to facilitate information dissemination.
The project applicant shall be required to submit a yearly report on/or before September 30
detailing the current status of the TDM measures, summarizing the program’s effectiveness,
identifying any changes to the TDM measures that occurred in the previous year, and
identifying additional steps to be taken, if necessary, to reduce traffic impacts. Additional
details regarding TDM monitoring shall be developed as part of the development of the TDM
program.
Saturday Peak Hours
As shown in Table 17-15: Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday, all study
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the Existing + Project condition
during the Saturday peak hours.
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-55 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 14: Existing and Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing Existing + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 1 Gleason Dr. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 11.5 B 11.3 B 11.5 B 11.3 B 2 Hacienda Dr. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 22.8 C 21.0 C 24.0 C 20.6 C 3 Dublin Blvd. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 44.5 D 37.7 D 48.4 D 39.6 D 4 Hacienda Dr. / I-580 WB ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 7.3 A 6.2 A 7.4 A 6.3 A 5 Hacienda Dr. / I-580 EB ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 39.9 D 11.3 B 43.3 D 12.2 B 6 Hacienda Dr. / Owens Dr. Signal PLS N/A 18.0 B 34.3 C 18.2 B 35.1 D 7 Dublin Blvd. / Hibernia Dr. Signal DUB D 16.0 B 18.7 B 15.9 B 18.4 B 8 Dublin Blvd. / Myrtle Dr. - Toyota Dr. Signal DUB D 11.7 B 14.8 B 11.5 B 14.8 B 9 Dublin Blvd. / John Monego Ct. Signal DUB D 8.1 A 8.8 A 8.0 A 8.7 A 10 Dublin Blvd. / Glynnis Rose Dr. Signal DUB D 15.8 B 17.7 B 15.2 B 16.9 B 11 Tassajara Rd. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 40.9 D 36.5 D 33.5 C 34.3 C 12 Tassajara Rd. / Central Pkwy Signal DUB D 30.7 C 24.5 C 22.5 C 17.4 B 13 Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd Signal DUB D 9.1 A 16.6 B 13.1 B 17.4 B 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 40.3 D 45.8 D 39.0 D 47.0 D 15 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Corporate Way Signal DUB D 7.1 A 22.8 C 7.0 A 21.9 C 16 Tassajara Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 7.8 A 9.8 A 8.3 A 14.8 B 17 Tassajara Rd. / Santa Rita Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps – Pimlico Dr. Signal CAL/PLS N/A 42.5 D 42.8 D 44.6 D 52.6 D 18 Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. Signal PLS D 30.9 C 32.8 C 31.1 C 33.1 C
At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-56 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing Existing + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 19 Brannigan St. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 36.3 D 14.0 B 40.5 D 36.7 D 20 Project Dwy. #2 / Brannigan St / Aviano Way SSSC DUB D 2.9 A 3.3 A 4.3 A 4.5 A Worst Approach 13.5 B 9.3 A 17.9 C 12.4 B 21 Brannigan St. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 24.6 C 16.2 B 28.4 C 18.0 B 22 Project Dwy. #3 – Finnian Way / Brannigan St. AWSC DUB D 7.9 A 8.1 A 8.2 A 9.3 A 23 Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 15.5 B 18.2 B 16.5 B 16.7 B 24 Dublin Blvd. / Grafton St. Signal DUB D 15.9 B 10.7 B 6.9 A 10.4 B 25 Gleason Dr. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 33.1 C 15.0 B 33.1 C 15.0 B 26 Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 13.5 B 14.8 B 13.9 B 15.4 B 27 Fallon Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 8.8 A 11.0 B 8.8 A 11.3 B 28 Fallon Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 7.9 A 8.7 A 7.9 A 8.9 A 29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. Signal PLSLIV D 44.0 D 58.2 E 44.1 D 59.0 69 trips E 30 Project Dwy. #4 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.1 A Worst Approach 8.6 A 9.1 A 31 Project Dwy. #5 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.1 A 0.3 A Worst Approach 11.0 B 17.3 C 32 Project Dwy. #6 / Gleason Dr. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.1 A 0.1 A Worst Approach 10.3 B 9.0 A 33 Project Dwy. #7 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.0 A Worst Approach 9.2 A 0.0 A
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-57 Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing Existing + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 34 Project Dwy. #8 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.8 A 0.4 A Worst Approach 11.9 B 11.3 B 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 13.5 B 30.2 C 36 Project Dwy. #10 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.6 A 1.0 A Worst Approach 9.2 A 10.2 B 37 Project Dwy. #11 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.1 A 0.4 A Worst Approach 9.1 A 9.9 A 38 Project Dwy. #12 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.7 A 1.3 A Worst Approach 9.1 A 9.7 A 39 Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. Signal DUB D 11.1 B 9.2 A 11.1 B 9.4 A 40 Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. Signal DUB D 10.6 B 9.1 A 10.6 B 9.0 A 41 Fallon Rd. / Tassajara Rd. Signal DUB D 21.7 C 22.4 C 21.8 C 22.5 C Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. 8. Gateway intersections do not have a LOS threshold, as denoted with “N/A”, per the City of Pleasanton General Plan. 9. Intersections with impacts that operate unacceptably in baseline conditions are followed by: project generated trips added to City of Pleasanton intersections, average delay for a critical movement at City of Dublin intersections with LOS E, and critical v/c at City of Dublin intersections with LOS F. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018
At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-58 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 15: Existing and Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. 8. Gateway intersections do not have a LOS threshold, as denoted with “N/A”, per the City of Pleasanton General Plan. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing Existing + Project Saturday Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 13 Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd Signal DUB D 18.6 B 21.3 C 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 39.3 D 44.0 D 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 40.6 D
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-59 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 16: Mitigated Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing + Project Mitigated Existing + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. Signal PLSLIV D 59.0 E 43.5 D
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-61
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact TR-3: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under Existing +
Project conditions (Class II).
As shown in Table 17-17: Existing + Project Queuing Analysis, the following intersections would
exceed the available storage length and increase the queue length by more than the significant
threshold of 25 feet during the weekday and weekend AM and PM peak period. A summary of
the queuing results for all study intersections is provided in Appendix J.
Table 17- 17: Existing + Project Queuing Analysis
# Intersection
Peak
Period
Turning
Movement
Storage
Length
(ft.)
Queue Length (ft.)
Variance
Without
Project
With
Project
2 Hacienda Dr /
Central Pkwy AM Peak WBL 190 207 260 53 feet (2 veh)
3 Hacienda Dr /
Dublin Blvd AM Peak WBL 250 235 290 55 feet (2 veh)
13 Dublin Blvd / The
Shops SAT Peak NBL 205 168 231 63 feet (3 veh)
14 Tassajara Rd /
Dublin Blvd PM Peak EBL 220 266 315 49 feet (2 veh)
17 Santa Rita Rd /
EB I-580 Ramps PM Peak SBL 405 668 693 25 feet (1 veh)
The following intersections have significant queuing impacts in the Existing + Project conditions:
Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway (Intersection #2) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 53
feet in the AM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.1 would extend the westbound left turn pocket by 55 feet from
190 feet to 245 feet. The increase in the turn pocket storage of 55 feet would mitigate the
project’s increase in the queue by 53 feet and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant
(Class II).
MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate
fair share (17%) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway. The
improvements shall consist of extending the westbound left turn pocket by 55 feet from 190
feet to 245 feet. There is an existing raised median that can be modified to lengthen the turn
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-62 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
pocket. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project
applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #3) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 55
feet in the AM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.2 would reduce the westbound left turn queue by 37 feet to 253
feet, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the existing turn pocket storage length of
250 feet. The queue is reduced to be contained within the available storage and thereby
reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II).
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (7 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive /
Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the
westbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact
Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement
costs.
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the eastbound left turn lane by 49
feet in the PM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.3 would reduce the eastbound left turn queue by 37 feet to 278
feet, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the without project queue of 266 feet.
The queue is reduced to be within one vehicle length of the without project queue and thereby
reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II).
MM TR-3.3: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (15 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Tassajara Road /
Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the
eastbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact
Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement
costs.
Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #17) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the southbound left turn lane by 25
feet in the PM peak hour.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-63
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Implementation of MM TR-3.4 would extend the southbound left turn pocket by 25 feet from
405 feet to 430 feet. The increase in the turn pocket storage of 25 feet would mitigate the
project’s increase in the queue by 25 feet. However, since the intersection is located in the City
of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee implementation of the mitigation
measure, the impacts remains significant and unavoidable (Class I).
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
MM TR-3.4: Existing + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shallprovidetheCityof
Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (16 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Santa
Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps. The improvements shall consist of extending the southbound left
turn pocket by 25 feet from 405 feet to 430 feet. There is an existing raised median that can be
modified to lengthen the turn pocket.
Dublin Boulevard / The Shops / Project Driveway (Intersection #13) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 63
feet in the SAT peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.5 would reduce the northbound left turn queue by 24 feet to 207
feet, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the existing turn pocket storage length of
205 feet. The queue is reduced to be contained within the available storage and thereby
reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II).
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / The Shops / Project
Driveway
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the entirety (100
percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard. The
improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the northbound left turn movement.
Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project
applicant shall pay for the entirety of the mitigation costs.
Impact TR-4: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps in the Existing
+ Project condition that exceed established LOS standards. (Class I)
As shown in Table 17-18: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Analysis, all freeway segments
operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hour under the Existing + Project
condition. However, as mentioned previously, each freeway is actually over capacity and
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-64 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
should be operating at LOS F because the volumes for the westbound direction in the AM peak
hour and the volumes for the eastbound direction in the PM peak hour are constrained by
downstream bottlenecks. Therefore, the volumes used in the freeway analysis do not reflect
the true volume demand and result in a better than reported LOS.
Table 17- 18: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Analysis
#
Study Segment
(I-580) Dir Lanes
Existing + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Vol (vph)
Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Vol (vph)
Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS
a Dougherty Road to
Hacienda Drive
WB 5 9,081 35.7 E 7,762 28.3 D
EB 7 8,213 20.7 C 7,841 19.8 C
b Hacienda Drive to
Tassajara Road
WB 5 9,427 38.1 E 6,715 23.8 C
EB 5 6,679 23.7 C 7,506 27.1 D
c Tassajara Road to
Fallon Road
WB 5 8,609 32.7 D 6,533 23.1 C
EB 5 5,647 19.9 C 7,283 26.1 D
d Fallon Road to
Airway Boulevard
WB 5 8,469 31.9 D 6,532 23.1 C
EB 5 5,712 20.2 C 7,622 27.6 D
Notes:
1. Segments operating at unacceptable levels of service based on established targets by Caltrans are shown in bold and impacts are shaded
light blue.
2. Analysis performed using HCS 2010 software.
3. For freeway segments where an auxiliary lane is > 2,500 feet in length, weaving does not apply; therefore, the auxiliary lane is considered to
be a basic freeway lane for the purposes of this analysis.
4. Express lanes not included in this analysis.
Implementation of MM TR-4.1 would require the applicant to pay their proportional share to
fund regional roadway improvements. This Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fund is
calculated from the average peak hour vehicle trips. Additional information on the program
can be found on the TVTC website. These improvements may include the second phase of I-
680/I-580 interchange improvements, widening of State Route 84 through Pigeon Pass, and
other planned roadway system modifications that would relieve freeway congestion in the
study area. The I-680/I-580 interchange project should help to alleviate congestion on
westbound I-580 as vehicles going from westbound I-580 to southbound I-680 have only one
lane through the connector loop at the interchange and this creates a queue on I-580 since the
throughput of the loop ramp less than the demand, particularly due to the slow speeds by
trucks using the loop ramp. The State Route 84 widening project from Pigeon Pass to I-680
should help to provide additional capacity on State Route 84 and divert more traffic from I-580
between I-680 and State Route 84. However, as the construction timing of these
improvements is unknown as full funding has not been identified, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable (Class I).
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-65
Draft EIR
10/23/18
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of
Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the Tri-Valley Transportation Council
(TVTC) to pay all applicable regional transportation impact fees related to freeway
improvements.
I-580 Freeway Ramps
Table 17-19: Existing + Project Freeway Ramp Analysis shows the volume, density, and level of
service for each freeway ramp with the project trips added. Based on this analysis, the LOS at
each freeway ramp would remain at an acceptable level resulting in no impact.
Table 17- 19: Existing + Project Freeway Ramp Analysis
Interchange
(I-580)
Dir Ramp
Existing + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
ȴ
Density LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln)
ȴ
Density LOS
Hacienda Drive
WB
Diagonal On-ramp 27.4 0.3 C 24.2 0.4 C
Loop On-ramp 22.0 0.0 C 20.9 12.0 C
Off-ramp 29.7 0.3 D 21.1 0.3 C
EB
Diagonal On-ramp 19.6 0.3 B 24.0 0.7 C
Loop On-ramp 18.7 0.1 B 20.4 9.7 C
Off-ramp 17.1 0.2 C 15.9 0.5 C
Tassajara Road
WB
Diagonal On-ramp 32.0 0.6 D 20.3 9.9 C
Loop On-ramp 21.0 12.0 C 17.5 0.0 B
Off-ramp 26.6 0.1 C 20.0 0.2 C
EB
Diagonal On-ramp 17.7 0.1 B 21.2 0.2 C
Loop On-ramp 20.6 0.3 C 28.0 0.5 C
Off-ramp 23.7 0.6 C 23.5 0.9 C
Fallon Road
WB
Diagonal On-ramp 28.7 0.2 D 22.5 0.2 C
Loop On-ramp 30.3 0.1 D 24.6 0.3 C
Off-ramp 25.6 0.1 C 19.5 0.3 B
Diagonal On-ramp 21.1 7.6 C 27.0 0.0 C
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-66 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Interchange
(I-580)
Dir Ramp
Existing + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
ȴ
Density LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln)
ȴ
Density LOS
EB
Loop On-ramp 23.4 0.1 C 29.1 0.2 D
Off-ramp 24.5 0.2 C 29.9 0.4 D
Notes:
1. Ramps operating at unacceptable levels of service based on established targets by Caltrans are shown in bold and impacts are shaded light
blue.
2. Analysis performed using HCS 2010 software.
Freeway ramps with ramp metering were analyzed for on-ramps where the project would add
vehicles. The following on-ramps were analyzed during the specified peak periods when ramp
meters were active:
WB I-580 Hacienda Drive Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Santa Rita Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Fallon Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 El Charro Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
As shown in Table 17-20: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Analysis, the vehicle queues for on-
ramps with ramp metering are contained within the available on-ramp storage except at the
following on-ramps:
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 El Charro Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
For the WB I-580 Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp in the AM peak hour, the project increases
the SOV volume to 678 vehicles. This volume exceeds the ramp metering rate of 480 vph and
therefore the vehicle queues extend onto the arterial (total queue length is greater than 1,100
feet and exceeds the 1,080-foot storage). To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate
could be increased to 660 vph, however, this may result in increased congestion on WB I-580
adjacent to this on-ramp.
Table 17- 20: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Analysis
On-ramp Peak
Hour
Storage
Length (ft)
SOV
Metering
Rate (vph)
Existing Existing + Project
SOV Volume
(vph)
Max Queue
(ft)
SOV Volume
(vph)
Max Queue
(ft)
WB I-580 Hacienda
Drive Diagonal On-ramp AM 700 540 385 0 415 0
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-67
Draft EIR
10/23/18
On-ramp Peak
Hour
Storage
Length (ft)
SOV
Metering
Rate (vph)
Existing Existing + Project
SOV Volume
(vph)
Max Queue
(ft)
SOV Volume
(vph)
Max Queue
(ft)
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive
Loop On-ramp PM 490 300 309 225 309 225
WB I-580 Tassajara
Road Diagonal On-ramp AM 1,080 480 636 > 1,100 678 > 1,100
EB I-580 Santa Rita
Road Loop On-ramp PM 830 450 368 0 403 0
WB I-580 Fallon Road
Diagonal On-ramp AM 685 300 255 0 256 0
EB I-580 El Charro Road
Loop On-ramp PM 925 240 273 825 284 1,100
Notes:
1. SOV = Single-occupancy vehicles; Ramp meter analysis was performed for SOV lanes only. HOV lanes were assumed to operate with a 900
vph metering rate and therefore would not have any queues extend onto the arterial.
2. SOV volumes were calculated based on HOV to SOV ratios from PeMS on-ramp volumes.
3. Ramps with vehicle queues exceeding the on-ramp storage and extending onto the adjacent arterial are shown with bold text.
For the EB I-580 El Charro Road loop on-ramp in the PM peak hour, the project increases the
SOV volume to 284 vehicles. This volume exceeds the ramp metering rate of 240 vph and
therefore the vehicle queues extend onto the arterial (total queue length is 1,100 feet and
exceeds the 925-foot storage). To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate could be
increased to 300 vph, however, this may result in increased congestion on EB I-580 adjacent to
this on-ramp. Implementation of MM TR-4.2 would reduce the queues to less than significant,
however, because this is a Caltrans facility and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee
implementation of this mitigation the impact remains significant and unavoidable (Class I).
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Improvements
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay for the City of
Dublin to work with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to review the ramp metering rates at
the WB I-580 Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp in the AM peak period. Increasing the ramp
metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on Tassajara Road. In addition, the project
applicant shall pay for the City of Dublin to work with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to
review the ramp metering rates at the EB I-580 El Charro Road loop on-ramp in the PM peak
period. Increasing the ramp metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on El Charro Road.
However, since the City of Dublin does not have control over ramp metering rates at this
location, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-68 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
17.5.7 Near-Term + Project Impact Analysis
Impact TR-5: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Near-Term + Project condition
that exceed established LOS standards.
Weekday Peak Hours
As shown in Table 17-21: Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS - Weekday, all study
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the Near-Term + Project condition
during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the following intersections
under each jurisdiction:
City of Dublin
The project would increase the critical movement’s average delay by six (6) or more seconds in
the PM peak hour, further degrading the following already deficient LOS E intersection:
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class I)
o The project increases the critical movement v/c from 1.0 to 1.4 (a 0.4 increase)
during the PM peak hour and causes the intersection to continue to operate at
an unacceptable LOS F.
This intersection is projected to already be over capacity under the Near-Term without Project
and there are no feasible improvements to increase vehicle capacity. The intersection already
includes triple left turns in the westbound and northbound direction, which are the critical
turning movements. Furthermore, it is not feasible to extend the signal timing cycle length,
since it is at 200 seconds in the Near-Term (2025) conditions, and consequently, it is not
possible to further coordinate signal timing with adjacent traffic signals.
Given these conditions, project impacts to the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard under the Near-Term + Project condition would remain significant and unavoidable
(Class I).
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, and the TVTC
criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the critical v/c by more
than 0.05. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact is also considered significant and
unavoidable (Class I).
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-69
Draft EIR
10/23/18
City of Pleasanton
The project would add 10 or more trips, degrading the intersection from an acceptable LOS D to
an unacceptable LOS E or F or the project and further degrading the following already deficient
LOS E or F intersection.:
Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (Intersection #18) (Class II)
o The project adds 278 trips to the intersection in the PM peak hour and causes
the intersection to continue to operate at an LOS E.
MM TR-5.1 would improve operations to an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour. However,
since the intersection is located in the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot
guarantee implementation of the mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable
(Class I). Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-22: Mitigated Near-Term + Project
Transportation Delay & LOS - Weekday.
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
MM TR-5.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard.
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of
Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (8 percent) for improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita
Road / Las Positas Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the coordination of
the traffic signals along Santa Rita Road by increasing the cycle length from 105 seconds to 115
seconds.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Pleasanton impact criteria, but not
the TVTC criteria since LOS E is considered acceptable. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this
impact is considered less-than-significant (Class III).
City of Livermore
The project would add trips to the following intersection that is already operating at an
unacceptable LOS:
El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard (Intersection #29) (Class II)
o The project adds 70 trips to the intersection in the PM peak hour and causes the
intersection to continue to operate at an LOS F.
Implementation of MM TR-2.1 would reduce impacts. However, since the intersection is
located in the City of PleasantonLivermore and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-70 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
implementation of the mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-22: Mitigated Near-Term + Project
Transportation Delay & LOS - Weekday.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Livermore Pleasanton impact criteria,
but not the TVTC criteria since the project does not increase the intersection v/c by 0.03 or the
critical v/c by 0.05. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-
significant (Class III).
Saturday Peak Hours
As shown in Table 17-23: Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday, all study
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the Near-Term + Project conditions
during the Saturday peak hours with the exception of the following intersections under each
jurisdiction:
City of Dublin
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class III)
o The intersection operates at LOS F with and without the project, but the v/c does
not increase be 0.03 or more and the critical v/c does not increase by 0.05 or
more during the Saturday peak hour.
It should be noted that this is also not an impact under TVTC criteria because although the
intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS F, the Project does not increase the v/c by 0.03 or
more and does not increase the critical v/c by 0.05 or more. Therefore, under TVTC criteria,
this impact is considered less-than-significant (Class III).
Implementation of the project would cause the following new intersection to operate at an
unacceptable LOS:
Project Driveway / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #35) (Class II)
o The project proposes a new intersection for the project driveway on Dublin
Boulevard that will operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the Near-term +
Project Saturday peak hour.
MM TR-1.1 would improve operations to an acceptable LOS C in the Saturday peak hour and
thereby reduce impacts to less-than-significant (Class II). Mitigation analysis results are shown
in Table 17-24: Mitigated Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS - Saturday.
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-71 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 21: Near-Term and Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Near-Term Near-Term + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 1 Gleason Dr. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 11.1 B 11.3 B 11.1 B 11.3 B 2 Hacienda Dr. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 22.9 C 20.6 C 24.1 C 21.2 C 3 Dublin Blvd. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 41.4 D 39.6 D 45.4 D 44.0 D 4 Hacienda Dr. / I-580 WB ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 7.4 A 28.4 C 7.5 A 28.5 C 5 Hacienda Dr. / I-580 EB ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 60.7 E 19.5 B 62.8 E 25.3 C 6 Hacienda Dr. / Owens Dr. Signal PLS N/A 20.6 C 47.4 D 21.0 C 50.8 D 7 Dublin Blvd. / Hibernia Dr. Signal DUB D 16.2 B 17.8 B 16.3 B 18.7 B 8 Dublin Blvd. / Myrtle Dr. - Toyota Dr. Signal DUB D 10.7 B 16.4 B 10.9 B 17.2 B 9 Dublin Blvd. / John Monego Ct. Signal DUB D 8.6 A 8.0 A 8.6 A 9.1 A 10 Dublin Blvd. / Glynnis Rose Dr. Signal DUB D 14.3 B 17.5 B 14.2 B 17.4 B 11 Tassajara Rd. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 50.3 D 38.7 D 36.2 D 33.0 C 12 Tassajara Rd. / Central Pkwy Signal DUB D 32.7 C 26.0 C 23.5 C 18.5 B 13 Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd Signal DUB D 9.3 A 17.5 B 12.7 B 19.3 B 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd* Signal DUB D 50.3 D 97.6 90.6 F 52.0 D 97.4 254.5 F 15 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Corporate Way Signal DUB D 6.1 A 25.0 C 6.2 A 23.3 C 16 Tassajara Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 13.8 B 50.5 D 18.9 B 79.8 E 17 Tassajara Rd. / Santa Rita Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps – Pimlico Dr. Signal CAL/PLS N/A 45.4 D 67.1 E 46.8 D 101.0 F
At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-72 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Near-Term Near-Term + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 18 Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. Signal PLS D 40.9 D 69.6 E 44.5 D 76.3 278 trips E 19 Brannigan St. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 37.9 D 14.0 B 41.6 D 33.7 C 20 Project Dwy. #2 / Brannigan St / Aviano Way SSSC DUB D 3.1 A 3.2 A 4.6 A 4.7 A Worst Approach 14.0 B 9.4 A 18.8 C 12.5 B 21 Brannigan St. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 25.4 C 18.2 B 29.6 C 19.1 B 22 Project Dwy. #3 – Finnian Way / Brannigan St. AWSC DUB D 8.0 A 8.2 A 8.4 A 9.4 A 23 Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 17.2 B 27.4 C 12.6 B 22.3 C 24 Dublin Blvd. / Grafton St. Signal DUB D 7.4 A 11.3 B 5.0 A 11.4 B 25 Gleason Dr. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 35.5 D 14.4 B 35.5 D 14.5 B 26 Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 19.8 B 21.0 C 20.1 C 22.4 C 27 Fallon Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 15.8 B 37.9 D 16.4 B 42.8 D 28 Fallon Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 12.7 B 12.6 B 13.1 B 13.5 B 29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. Signal LIVPLS D 52.3 D 89.7 F 52.9 D 92.5 70 trips F 30 Project Dwy. #4 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.0 A Worst Approach 8.7 A 9.3 A 31 Project Dwy. #5 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.3 A Worst Approach 13.3 B 22.6 C 32 Project Dwy. #6 / Gleason Dr. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.1 A 0.1 A
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-73 Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Near-Term Near-Term + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Worst Approach 12.0 B 9.7 A 33 Project Dwy. #7 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.0 A Worst Approach 9.5 A 0.0 A 34 Project Dwy. #8 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.8 A 0.4 A Worst Approach 12.1 B 11.4 B 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 25.6 C 26.4 C 36 Project Dwy. #10 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.6 A 1.0 A Worst Approach 9.3 A 10.5 B 37 Project Dwy. #11 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.1 A 0.3 A Worst Approach 9.2 A 10.1 B 38 Project Dwy. #12 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.6 A 1.2 A Worst Approach 9.1 A 9.9 A 39 Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. Signal DUB D 17.9 B 33.4 D 18.4 B 34.1 C 40 Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. Signal DUB D 17.5 B 25.0 C 17.5 B 26.3 C 41 Fallon Rd. / Tassajara Rd. Signal DUB D 16.8 B 21.5 C 16.9 B 21.5 C Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. 8. Gateway intersections do not have a LOS threshold, as denoted with “N/A”, per the City of Pleasanton General Plan.
At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-74 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 9. Intersections with impacts that operate unacceptably in baseline conditions are followed by: project generated trips added to City of Pleasanton intersections, average delay for a critical movement at City of Dublin intersections with LOS E, and critical v/c at City of Dublin intersections with LOS F. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 Table 17- 22: Mitigated Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Near-Term + Project Mitigated Near-Term + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 97.4 F 88.3 F 18 Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. Signal PLS D 76.3 E 54.2 D 29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. Signal LIVPLS D 92.5 F 69.5 E
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-75 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 23: Near-Term and Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. 8. Intersections with impacts that operate unacceptably in baseline conditions are followed by: project generated trips added to City of Pleasanton intersections, average delay for a critical movement at City of Dublin intersections with LOS E, and critical v/c at City of Dublin intersections with LOS F. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Near-Term Near-Term + Project Saturday Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 13 Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd Signal DUB D 20.3 C 29.5 C 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 130.6 1.18 F 119.4 1.12 F 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 59.2 E
At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-76 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 22: Mitigated Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Near-Term + Project Mitigated Near-Term + Project Saturday Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 119.4 F 119.4 F 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 59.2 E 30.7 C
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-77
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact TR-6: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under Near-Term +
Project conditions (Class I and II).
As shown in Table 17-25: Near-Term + Project Queuing Analysis, the following intersections
would exceed the available storage length and increase the queue length by more than the
significant threshold of 25 feet during the weekday AM and PM peak period. A summary of the
queuing results for all study intersections is provided in the Appendix.
Table 17- 23: Near-Term + Project Queuing Analysis
# Intersection Peak
Period
Turning
Movement
Storage
Length (ft.)
Queue Length (ft.)
Variance Without
Project
With
Project
2 Hacienda Dr / Central
Pkwy AM Peak WBL 190 208 263 55 feet (2 veh)
3 Hacienda Dr / Dublin
Blvd
AM Peak
WBL 250
239 294 55 feet (2 veh)
PM Peak 179 290 111 feet (4 veh)
13 Dublin Boulevard / The
Shops SAT Peak NBL 205 207 318 111 feet (4 veh)
14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin
Blvd
AM Peak NBL 325 372 420 48 feet (2 veh)
PM Peak
WBL 350 482 683 201 feet (8 veh)
NBL 325 604 641 37 feet (1 veh)
23 Dublin Boulevard /
Brannigan Street PM Peak EBL 275 147 327 180 feet (7 veh)
The following intersections have significant queuing impacts in the Near-term + Project
conditions:
Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway (Intersection #2) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 55
feet in the AM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.1 would extend the westbound left turn pocket by 55 feet from
190 feet to 245 feet. The increase in the turn pocket storage of 55 feet would mitigate the
project’s increase in the queue by 55 feet and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant
(Class II).
Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #3) (Class II)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-78 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 55
feet in the AM peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 111
feet in the PM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.2 would reduce the westbound left turn queue by 35 feet to 259
feet in the AM peak hour, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the existing turn
pocket storage length of 250 feet. In the PM peak hour, implementation of MM TR-3.2 would
reduce the westbound left turn queue by 25 feet to 265 feet. The queue is reduced to be
contained within the available storage and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant
(Class II).
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class I and II)
o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 48
feet in the AM peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 201
feet in the PM peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 37
feet in the PM peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 66
feet in the SAT peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 70
feet in the SAT peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-6.1 would reduce the northbound left turn queue by 39 feet to 381
feet in the AM peak hour, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the without project
queue of 372 feet. The queue is reduced to be within one vehicle length of the without project
queue and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II).
Implementation of MM TR-6.1 would not reduce the westbound left turn queue to be
contained within the storage pocket or to better than without project conditions. Therefore,
the queuing impact to the westbound left turn movement in the PM peak hour and SAT peak
hour remains significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Implementation of MM TR-6.1 would reduce the northbound left turn queue by 24 feet to 617
feet in the PM peak hour, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the without project
queue of 604 feet. The queue is reduced to be within one vehicle length of the without project
queue and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II).
Implementation of MM TR-6.1 would not reduce the northbound left turn queue to be
contained within the storage pocket or to better than without project conditions in the SAT
peak hour. Therefore, the queuing impact to the westbound left turn movement in the SAT
peak hour remains significant and unavoidable (Class I).
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-79
Draft EIR
10/23/18
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
MM TR-6.1: Near-term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (15%) of improvements to the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the cycle length in the AM peak hour to
be 155 seconds and adjusting the green time for the northbound left turn movement in the PM
Peak hour. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the
project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street (Intersection #23) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the eastbound left turn lane by 180
feet in the PM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-6.2 reduce the eastbound left turn queue by 37 feet to 290 feet,
which is less than one vehicle length longer than the existing turn pocket storage length of 275
feet. The queue is reduced to be contained within the available storage and thereby reducing
impacts to less than significant (Class II).
MM TR-6.2: Near-term + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (6 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Dublin Boulevard /
Brannigan Street. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the
eastbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact
Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement
costs.
Dublin Boulevard / The Shops (Intersection #13) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 111
feet in the SAT peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.5 and MM TR-6.3 would reduce the northbound left turn queue by
98 feet to 220 feet, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the existing turn pocket
storage length of 205 feet. The queue is reduced to be contained within the available storage
and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II).
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-80 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
MM TR-6.3: Near-term + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / The Shops / Project
Driveway
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the entirety (100
percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard. The
improvements shall consist of adjusting the cycle length at this intersection from 110 seconds
to 120 seconds. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the
project applicant shall pay for the entirety of the mitigation costs.
Impact TR-7: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps in the Near-
Term + Project conditions that exceed established LOS standards (Class I Impact).
As shown in Table 17-26: Near-Term + Project Freeway Segment Analysis, all freeway segments
operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hour under the Near-term + Project
condition for the eastbound segments, but operate at an unacceptable LOS for all of the
westbound segments.
However, as mentioned previously, each freeway segment is currently over capacity and should
be operating at LOS F because the volumes for the westbound direction in the AM peak hour
and the volumes for the eastbound direction in the PM peak hour are constrained by
downstream bottlenecks. Therefore, the volumes used in the freeway analysis do not reflect
the true volume demand and result in a better than reported LOS.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-81
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 24: Near-Term + Project Freeway Segment Analysis
#
Study Segment
(I-580)
Dir Lanes
Near-Term + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Vol (vph) Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Vol (vph) Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS
a Dougherty Road to
Hacienda Drive
WB 5 11,262 57.2 F 8,121 30.1 D
EB 7 8,935 22.5 C 8,886 22.4 C
b Hacienda Drive to
Tassajara Road
WB 5 11,523 61.3 F 7,244 25.9 C
EB 5 7,369 26.5 D 8,823 34.0 D
c Tassajara Road to
Fallon Road
WB 5 10,870 51.9 F 7,386 26.6 D
EB 5 6,296 22.2 C 8,473 31.9 D
d Fallon Road to
Airway Boulevard
WB 5 10,793 50.9 F 7,212 25.8 C
EB 5 6,025 21.3 C 8,952 34.8 D
Notes:
1. Segments operating at unacceptable levels of service based on established targets by Caltrans are shown in bold and impacts are shaded
light blue.
2. Analysis performed using HCS 2010 software.
3. For freeway segments where an auxiliary lane is > 2,500 feet in length, weaving does not apply; therefore, the auxiliary lane is considered to
be a basic freeway lane for the purposes of this analysis.
4. Express lanes not included in this analysis.
I-580 Freeway Ramps
Table 17-27: Near-Term + Project Freeway Ramp Analysis displays the volume, density, and
level of service for each freeway ramp with the project trips added. Locations shaded in light
blue were identified as having a significant impact.
The following I-580 freeway ramps were identified as having a significant impact:
WB I-580 off-ramp to Hacienda Drive in the AM peak hour
WB I-580 off-ramp to Tassajara Road in the AM peak hour
WB I-580 loop on-ramp from Fallon Road in the AM peak hour
WB I-580 off-ramp to Fallon Road in the AM peak hour
Implementation of MM TR-4.1 would require the applicant to pay their proportional share to
fund regional roadway improvements. These improvements may include the second phase of I-
680/I-580 interchange improvements, widening of State Route 84 through Pigeon Pass, and
other planned roadway system modifications that would relieve freeway congestion in the
study area. However, as the construction timing of these improvements is unknown as full
funding has not been identified, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-82 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 25: Near-Term + Project Freeway Ramp Analysis
Interchange
(I-580)
Dir Ramp
Near-Term + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
ȴ
Density LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln)
ȴ
Density LOS
Hacienda Drive
WB
Diagonal On-ramp 39.2 0.3 E 25.2 0.4 C
Loop On-ramp 32.9 0.0 D 23.1 0.0 C
Off-ramp 44.4 0.6 F 22.8 0.3 C
EB
Diagonal On-ramp 21.1 0.2 C 29.1 0.9 D
Loop On-ramp 20.3 0.1 C 23.8 0.6 C
Off-ramp 18.7 0.2 C 18.2 0.5 C
Tassajara Road
WB
Diagonal On-ramp 40.9 0.6 E 22.2 0.8 C
Loop On-ramp 27.7 0.0 C 18.5 10.8 B
Off-ramp 38.7 0.2 F 24.5 0.5 C
EB
Diagonal On-ramp 19.9 0.1 B 24.7 0.2 C
Loop On-ramp 22.3 0.2 C 31.0 0.6 D
Off-ramp 27.1 0.6 C 27.4 0.6 C
Fallon Road
WB
Diagonal On-ramp 38.1 0.3 E 13.5 0.1 B
Loop On-ramp 49.8 0.2 F 30.0 0.3 D
Off-ramp 37.6 0.3 F 21.7 0.3 C
EB
Diagonal On-ramp 21.7 0.0 C 22.5 -9.3 C
Loop On-ramp 24.5 0.1 C 33.0 -0.2 F
Off-ramp 27.8 0.2 C 34.0 0.4 D
Notes:
1. Ramps operating at unacceptable levels of service based on established targets by Caltrans are shown in bold and impacts are shaded light
blue.
2. Analysis performed using HCS 2010 software.
Freeway ramps with ramp metering were analyzed for on-ramps where the project would add
vehicles. The following on-ramps were analyzed during the specified peak periods when ramp
meters were active:
WB I-580 Hacienda Drive Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Santa Rita Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Fallon Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 El Charro Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-83
Draft EIR
10/23/18
As shown in Table 17-28: Near-term + Project Ramp Metering Analysis, the vehicle queues for
on-ramps with ramp metering are contained within the available on-ramp storage except at the
following on-ramps:
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 El Charro Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
For the EB I-580 Hacienda Drive loop on-ramp in the PM peak hour, the project does not
increase the SOV volume. The queuing deficiency occurs without the project and the project
does not exacerbate the issue. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.
For the WB I-580 Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp in the AM peak hour, the project increases
the SOV volume to 811 vehicles. This volume exceeds the ramp metering rate of 480 vph and
therefore the vehicle queues extend onto the arterial (total queue length is greater than 1,100
feet and exceeds 1,080-foot storage). To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate could be
increased to 800 vph, however, this may result in increased congestion on WB I-580 adjacent to
this on-ramp.
Table 17- 26: Near-term + Project Ramp Metering Analysis
On-ramp Peak
Hour
Storage
Length (ft)
SOV
Metering
Rate (vph)
Near-term Near-term + Project
SOV Volume
(vph)
Max Queue
(ft)
SOV Volume
(vph)
Max Queue
(ft)
WB I-580 Hacienda
Drive Diagonal On-ramp AM 700 540 385 0 416 0
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive
Loop On-ramp PM 490 300 388 > 1,000 388 > 1,000
WB I-580 Tassajara
Road Diagonal On-ramp AM 1,080 480 767 > 1,100 811 > 1,100
EB I-580 Santa Rita
Road Loop On-ramp PM 830 450 386 0 424 0
WB I-580 Fallon Road
Diagonal On-ramp AM 685 300 255 0 256 0
EB I-580 El Charro Road
Loop On-ramp PM 925 240 273 825 285 1,125
Notes:
1. SOV = Single-occupancy vehicles; Ramp meter analysis was performed for SOV lanes only. HOV lanes were assumed to operate with a 900
vph metering rate and therefore would not have any queues extend onto the arterial.
2. SOV volumes were calculated based on HOV to SOV ratios from PeMS on-ramp volumes.
3. Ramps with vehicle queues exceeding the on-ramp storage and extending onto the adjacent arterial are shown with bold text.
For the EB I-580 El Charro Road loop on-ramp in the PM peak hour, the project increases the
SOV volume to 285 vehicles. This volume exceeds the ramp metering rate of 240 vph and
therefore the vehicle queues extend onto the arterial (total queue length is 1,125 feet and
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-84 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
exceeds the 925-foot storage). To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate could be
increased to 300 vph, however, this may result in increased congestion on EB I-580 adjacent to
this on-ramp.
Implementation of MM TR-4.2 would apply to this impact. In addition, MM TR-7.1 would
improve the impact. However, since the intersection is a Caltrans facility, the City of Dublin
cannot guarantee implementation of the mitigation, the impact remains significant and
unavoidable (Class I).
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
MM TR-7.1: Near-term + Project Ramp Metering Improvements
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay for the City of
Dublin to work with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to review the ramp metering rates at
the EB I-580 Hacienda Drive loop on-ramp in the PM peak period. Increasing the ramp
metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on Hacienda Drive.
17.5.8 Cumulative + Project Impact Analysis
Impact TR-8: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Cumulative + Project conditions
that exceed established LOS standards.
Weekday Peak Hours
As shown in Table 17-29: Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS - Weekday, all study
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the “Cumulative + Project
Conditions” during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the following
intersections under each jurisdiction:
City of Dublin
The project degrades the intersection from an acceptable to an unacceptable LOS per the
following; 1) increases the critical movement’s average delay by six (6) or more seconds of an
already deficient LOS E facility, or 2) increases the v/c ratio of an already deficient LOS F facility
by 0.03 for the overall intersection or 0.05 for the critical movement.
Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #3) (Class II)
o The project increases the critical movement v/c from 2.17 to 2.44 (a 0.27
increase) during the PM peak hour.
MM TR-8.1 would improve the critical v/c movement from 2.44 to 1.95, less than the 2.17
critical v/c movement under without project conditions during the PM peak hour and therefore,
impacts would be less than significant (Class II). Although this intersection would continue to
operate at an unacceptable LOS F, the mitigation improves the intersection to better than
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-85
Draft EIR
10/23/18
without project conditions. Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-30: Mitigated
Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday.
MM TR-8.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (10 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive /
Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the signal timing splits.
Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project
applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, and also the
TVTC criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the critical v/c by
more than 0.05. Since MM TR-8.1 would improve the critical v/c movement to better than
without project conditions, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant
with mitigation (Class II).
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class I)
o The project increases the critical movement delay from 145.5 to 191.9 seconds
(a 46.4-second increase) during the AM peak hour and causes the intersection to
continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F. In the PM peak hour, the project
increases the critical movement v/c from 1.32 to 1.61 (a 0.29 increase) and
causes the intersection to continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F.
As discussed previously, this intersection is projected to already be over capacity under the
Near-Term without Project and there are no feasible improvements to increase vehicle capacity
and the project’s impact would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I). Mitigation analysis
results are shown in Table 17-30: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS –
Weekday.
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, and the TVTC
criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the critical v/c by more
than 0.05. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact is also considered significant and
unavoidable (Class I).
Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #23) (Class II)
o The project increases the critical movement v/c from 1.37 to 1.46 (a 0.09
increase) during the PM peak hour.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-86 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
MM TR-8.2 would improve operations to an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour and
therefore, impacts would be less than significant (Class II). Mitigation analysis results are shown
in Table 17-30: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday.
MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (8 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Brannigan Street /
Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adding a second northbound left turn lane
of equal length. The south leg of this intersection will likely need to be widened to fit the
additional northbound left turn lane. Since the western side of Brannigan Street fronts the
project, it is recommended that this improvement be installed as part of the project to prevent
future widening after the project has been constructed. Because this improvement project is
not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair
share of the improvement costs.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, and the TVTC
criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the critical v/c by more
than 0.05. Since MM TR-8.2 would improve the LOS to an acceptable LOS D, under TVTC
criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant with mitigation (Class II).
Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #26) (Class II)
o The project increases the critical movement v/c from 1.48 to 1.54 (a 0.06
increase) during the PM peak hour. The intersection would continue to operate
at an unacceptable LOS F.
MM TR-8.3 would improve the critical v/c movement from 1.54 to 1.27, less than the 1.48
critical v/c movement under without project conditions during the PM peak hour and therefore,
impacts would be less than significant (Class II). Although this intersection would continue to
operate at an unacceptable LOS F, the mitigation improves the intersection to better than
without project conditions. Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-30: Mitigated
Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday.
MM TR-8.3: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (2 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Fallon Road /
Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of installing a westbound right turn overlap
phase. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project
applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, and the TVTC
criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the critical v/c by more
than 0.05. Since MM TR-8.3 would improve the critical v/c to better than without project
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-87
Draft EIR
10/23/18
conditions, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant with mitigation
(Class II).
Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street (Intersection #39) (Class II)
o The project increases the critical movement delay from 161.1 to 170.2 seconds
(a 9.1-second increase) during the PM peak hour. The intersection would
continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS E.
MM TR-8.4 would improve the critical movement delay from 170.2 to 133.6 seconds, less than
the 161.1 seconds under without project conditions during the PM peak hour and therefore,
impacts would be less than significant (Class II). Although this intersection would continue to
operate at an unacceptable LOS E, the mitigation improves the intersection to better than
without project conditions. Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-30: Mitigated
Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday.
MM TR-8.4: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (5 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Dublin Boulevard /
Keegan Street. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the cycle length to 150 seconds.
Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project
applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, but not the
TVTC criteria since LOS E is considered acceptable. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact
is considered less-than-significant (Class III).
Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street (Intersection #40) (Class II)
o The project increases the critical movement v/c from 2.59 to 2.66 (a 0.06
increase) during the PM peak hour. The intersection would continue to operate
at an unacceptable LOS F.
MM TR-8.5 would improve the critical v/c movement to 1.05, less than 2.59 during the PM peak
hour and therefore, impacts would be less than significant (Class II). Although this intersection
would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS E, the mitigation improvestheintersection
to better than without project conditions. Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-30:
Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday.
MM TR-8.5: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (4 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Dublin Boulevard /
Lockhart Street. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the cycle length to 150 seconds.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-88 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project
applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, and the TVTC
criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the critical v/c by more
than 0.05. Since MM TR-8.5 would improve the critical v/c to better than without project
conditions, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant with mitigation
(Class II).
City of Pleasanton
The project degrades the intersection from an acceptable LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E or F
or the project would add 10 or more trips, further degrading the already deficient LOS E or F
intersection.The project would add 10 or more trips, further degrading the already deficient
LOS E intersection:
Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (Intersection #18) (Class I)
o The project adds 127 trips and 261 trips to the intersection in the AM and PM
peak hour, respectively, and causes the intersection to continue to operate at an
LOS F for both peak hours.
MM TR-8.6 would reduce the delay to less than the Cumulative condition. However, since the
intersection is located in the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee
implementation of the mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-30: Mitigated Cumulative + Project
Transportation Delay & LOS - Weekday.
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
MM TR-8.6: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of
Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (8 percent) for improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita
Road / Las Positas Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the coordination of
the traffic signals along Santa Rita Road by increasing the cycle length from 105 seconds to 145
seconds.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Pleasanton impact criteria, and the
TVTC criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the v/c by more
than 0.03. Since MM TR-8.6 would improve the v/c to better than without project conditions,
under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant with mitigation (Class II).
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-89
Draft EIR
10/23/18
City of Livermore
The project would add trips to the following intersection that is already operating at an
unacceptable LOS:
El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard (Intersection #29) (Class II)
o The project adds 45 trips and 99 trips to the intersection in the AM and PM peak
hour, respectively, and causes the intersection to continue to operate at an LOS
F for both peak hours.
Implementation of MM TR-2.1 would reduce impacts. However, since the intersection is
located in the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee implementation of
the mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable (Class I). Mitigation analysis
results are shown in Table 17-30: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS –
Weekday.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Livermore Pleasanton impact criteria,
but not the TVTC criteria because although the intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS F,
the v/c does not increase by 0.03 or more and the critical v/c does not increase be 0.05 or
more. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant (Class III).
Saturday Peak Hours
As shown in Table 17-31: Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday, all study
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the Cumulative + Project Conditions
during the Saturday peak hours with the exception of the following intersections under each
jurisdiction:
City of Dublin
The project increases the v/c ratio of an already deficient LOS F facility by 0.05 for the critical
movement.
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class I)
o The project increases the critical movement v/c from 1.20 to 1.62 (a 0.42
increase) during the Saturday peak hour. The intersection continues to operate
at an LOS F with the project.
As discussed above, this intersection is projected to already be over capacity under the
Cumulative without Project and there are no feasible improvements to increase vehicle
capacity and the project’s impact would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
However, to help reduce the severity of the impact, a transportation demand management
(TDM) program shall be developed as part of the project. The TDM program is set forth in
Mitigation Measure TR-2.2.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-90 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, and the TVTC
criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the critical v/c by more
than 0.05. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact is also considered significant and
unavoidable (Class I). Implementation of the project would cause the following new
intersection to operate at an unacceptable LOS:
Project Driveway / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #35) (Class II)
o The project proposes a new intersection for the project driveway on Dublin
Boulevard that will operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the Saturday peak
hour.
Implementation of MM TR-1.1 would improve operations to an acceptable LOS D in the
Saturday peak hour and thereby reduce impacts to less-than-significant (Class II). Mitigation
analysis results are shown in Table 17-32: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay
& LOS - Saturday.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, but not the
TVTC criteria since LOS E is considered acceptable. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact
is considered less-than-significant (Class III).
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-91 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 27: Cumulative and Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Cumulative Cumulative + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 1 Gleason Dr. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 14.2 B 11.6 B 14.3 B 11.9 B 2 Hacienda Dr. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 20.0 C 22.3 C 21.8 C 23.0 C 3 Dublin Blvd. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 47.5 D 126.4 2.17 F 52.4 D 147.7 2.44 F 4 Hacienda Dr. / I-580 WB ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 8.7 A 29.8 C 8.8 A 32.1 C 5 Hacienda Dr. / I-580 EB ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 76.9 E 78.8 E 76.8 E 86.8 F 6 Hacienda Dr. / Owens Dr. Signal PLS N/A 23.4 C 121.0 F 23.6 C 128.2 F 7 Dublin Blvd. / Hibernia Dr. Signal DUB D 16.3 B 24.5 C 16.7 B 26.8 C 8 Dublin Blvd. / Myrtle Dr. - Toyota Dr. Signal DUB D 11.4 B 19.6 B 12.1 B 21.0 C 9 Dublin Blvd. / John Monego Ct. Signal DUB D 10.9 B 6.9 A 11.5 B 7.9 A 10 Dublin Blvd. / Glynnis Rose Dr. Signal DUB D 17.7 B 23.9 C 18.3 B 29.7 C 11 Tassajara Rd. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 39.5 D 39.8 D 33.5 C 37.7 D 12 Tassajara Rd. / Central Pkwy Signal DUB D 31.9 C 23.9 C 23.7 C 23.9 C 13 Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd Signal DUB D 9.6 A 11.8 B 12.2 B 19.6 B 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd* Signal DUB D 146.9 145.5 F 259.2 1.32 F 88.8 191.9 F 183.6 1.61 F 15 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Corporate Way Signal DUB D 6.1 A 19.2 B 6.2 A 18.3 B 16 Tassajara Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 44.8 D 113.9 F 55.8 E 145.3 F 17 Tassajara Rd. / Santa Rita Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps – Pimlico Dr. Signal CAL/PLS N/AD 52.4 D 117.4 F 55.5 E 143.9 F
At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-92 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Cumulative Cumulative + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 18 Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. Signal PLS D 137.0 F 207.2 F 144.9 127 trips F 214.9 261 trips F 19 Brannigan St. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 42.9 D 14.3 B 43.3 D 15.6 B 20 Project Dwy. #2 / Brannigan St / Aviano Way SSSC DUB D 3.2 A 2.3 A 4.6 A 4.0 A Worst Approach 13.8 B 10.0 B 18.1 C 13.6 B 21 Brannigan St. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 24.2 C 19.0 B 27.8 C 23.3 C 22 Project Dwy. #3 – Finnian Way / Brannigan St. AWSC DUB D 8.0 A 8.8 A 8.4 A 10.3 B 23 Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 148.1 F 365.7 1.37 F 16.8 B 104.9 1.46 F 24 Dublin Blvd. / Grafton St. Signal DUB D 20.0 C 128.7 F 21.7 C 60.1 E 25 Gleason Dr. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 72.2 E 18.9 B 72.3 E 19.0 B 26 Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 42.0 D 100.6 1.48 F 43.0 D 101.0 1.54 F 27 Fallon Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 26.7 C 31.4 C 28.2 C 34.3 C 28 Fallon Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 76.1 E 102.0 F 78.8 E 108.7 F 29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. Signal LIVPLS D 132.2 F 262.1 F 135.2 45 trips F 264.0 99 trips F 30 Project Dwy. #4 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.1 A Worst Approach 8.7 A 9.5 A 31 Project Dwy. #5 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.4 A Worst Approach 15.1 C 30.9 D 32 Project Dwy. #6 / Gleason Dr. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.1 A 0.1 A
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-93 Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Cumulative Cumulative + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Worst Approach 13.2 B 10.5 B 33 Project Dwy. #7 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.0 A Worst Approach 10.2 B 0.0 A 34 Project Dwy. #8 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.7 A 0.3 A Worst Approach 12.1 B 10.9 B 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 9.5 A 46.8 D 36 Project Dwy. #10 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.4 A 1.4 A Worst Approach 12.4 B 22.6 C 37 Project Dwy. #11 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.1 A Worst Approach 12.0 B 17.8 C 38 Project Dwy. #12 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.2 A 0.7 A Worst Approach 11.8 B 17.7 C 39 Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. Signal DUB D 22.7 C 57.7 161.1 E 23.0 C 61.4 170.2 E 40 Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. Signal DUB D 26.2 C 155.0 2.59 F 26.5 C 162.9 2.66 F 41 Fallon Rd. / Tassajara Rd. Signal DUB D 25.1 C 21.5 C 25.0 C 21.5 C Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. 8. Gateway intersections do not have a LOS threshold, as denoted with “N/A”, per the City of Pleasanton General Plan.
At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-94 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 9. Intersections with impacts that operate unacceptably in baseline conditions are followed by: project generated trips added to City of Pleasanton intersections, average delay for a critical movement at City of Dublin intersections with LOS E, and critical v/c at City of Dublin intersections with LOS F. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 Table 17- 30: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Cumulative + Project Mitigated Cumulative + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 3 Dublin Blvd. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 147.7 F 142.4 F 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 88.8 F 183.6 F 88.8 F 183.6 F 18 Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. Signal PLS D 144.9 F 214.9 F 119.1 F 170.3 F 23 Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 104.9 F 47.8 D 26 Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 101.0 F 80.2 F 29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. Signal LIVPLS D 135.2 F 264.0 F 80.8 F 141.6 F 39 Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. Signal DUB D 61.4 E 57.2 E 40 Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. Signal DUB D 162.9 F 81.3 F
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-95 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 31: Cumulative and Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. 8. Intersections with impacts that operate unacceptably in baseline conditions are followed by: project generated trips added to City of Pleasanton intersections, average delay for a critical movement at City of Dublin intersections with LOS E, and critical v/c at City of Dublin intersections with LOS F. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Cumulative Cumulative + Project Saturday Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 13 Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd Signal DUB D 13.7 B 24.6 C 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 223.4 1.20 F 156.1 1.62 F 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 78.6 E
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-97 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 28: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Cumulative + Project Mitigated Cumulative + Project Saturday Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 156.1 F 156.1 F 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 78.6 E 35.0 D
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-99
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact TR-9: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under Cumulative +
Project conditions (Class I and II).
As shown in Table 17-33: Cumulative + Project Queuing Analysis, the following intersections
would exceed the available storage length and increase the queue length by more than the
significant threshold of 25 feet during the weekday and weekend AM and PM peak period. A
summary of the queuing results for all study intersections is provided in the Appendix J.
Table 17- 29: Cumulative + Project Queuing Analysis
# Intersection
Peak
Period
Turning
Movement
Storage
Length (ft.)
Queue Length (ft.)
Variance
Without
Project
With
Project
2 Hacienda Drive / Central
Parkway AM Peak WBL 190 200 253 53 feet (2 veh)
3 Hacienda Dr / Dublin Blvd
AM Peak
WBL 250
239 287 48 feet (2 veh)
PM Peak 705 800 95 feet (4 veh)
13 Dublin Boulevard / The
Shops SAT Peak NBL 205 220 329 109 feet (4 veh)
14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd
AM Peak
WBL 350
489 551 62 feet (7 veh)
PM Peak
647 813 166 feet (7 veh)
NBL 325 642 676 34 feet (1veh)
23 Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd
AM Peak
NBL 250
162 296 134 feet (5 veh)
PM Peak
731 1037 306 feet (12 veh)
EBL 275 194 370 176 feet (7 veh)
24 Dublin Boulevard / Grafton
Street PM Peak
EBL 220 342 426 84 feet (3 veh)
WBL 230 342 478 136 feet (5 veh)
The following intersections have significant queuing impacts in the Cumulative + Project
conditions:
Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway (Intersection #2) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 53
feet in the AM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.1 would extend the westbound left turn pocket by 55 feet from
190 feet to 245 feet. The increase in the turn pocket storage of 55 feet would mitigate the
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-100 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
project’s increase in the queue by 53 feet and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant
(Class II).
Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #3) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 48
feet in the AM peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 95
feet in the PM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.2 would reduce the westbound left turn queue by 24 feet to 263
feet in the AM peak hour, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the existing turn
pocket storage length of 250 feet. In the PM peak hour, implementation of MM TR-3.2 would
reduce the westbound left turn queue by 72 feet to 728 feet. The queue is reduced to be
contained within the available storage and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant
(Class II).
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class I and II)
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 62
feet in the AM peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 166
feet in the PM peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 34
feet in the PM peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 211
feet in the SAT peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 48
feet in the SAT peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-6.1 would not reduce the westbound left turn queue to be
contained within the storage pocket or to better than without project conditions in the AM
peak hour, PM peak hour, and SAT peak hour. Therefore, the queuing impact to the westbound
left turn movement in the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and SAT peak hour remains significant
and unavoidable (Class I).
Implementation of MM TR-6.1 would reduce the northbound left turn queue by 24 feet to 652
feet in the PM peak hour, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the without project
queue of 642 feet. The queue is reduced to be within one vehicle length of the without project
queue in the PM peak hour and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II).
Implementation of MM TR-6.1 would not reduce the northbound left turn queue to be
contained within the storage pocket or to better than without project conditions in the SAT
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-101
Draft EIR
10/23/18
peak hour. Therefore, the queuing impact to the westbound left turn movement in the SAT
peak hour remains significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street (Intersection #23) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 134
feet in the AM peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the eastbound left turn lane by 176
feet in the PM peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 306
feet in the PM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-8.2 reduce the northbound left turn queue by 185 feet to 111 feet in
the AM peak hour, which is less than the existing turn pocket storage length of 250 feet. The
queue is reduced to be contained within the available storage and thereby reducing impacts to
less than significant (Class II).
Implementation of MM TR-6.2 reduce the eastbound left turn queue by 75 feet to 295 feet,
which is less than one vehicle length longer than the existing turn pocket storage length of 275
feet. The queue is reduced to be contained within the available storage and thereby reducing
impacts to less than significant (Class II).
Implementation of MM TR-8.2 reduce the northbound left turn queue by 560 feet to 477 feet in
the PM peak hour, which is less than the without project queue length of 731 feet. The queue
is reduced to be less than the without project queue and thereby reducing impacts to less than
significant (Class II).
Dublin Boulevard / Grafton Street (Intersection #24) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the eastbound left turn lane by 84
feet in the PM peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 136
feet in the PM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-9.1 would extend the eastbound left turn pocket by 85 feet from
220 feet to 305 feet. The increase in the turn pocket storage of 85 feet would mitigate the
project’s increase in the queue by 84 feet and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant
(Class II).
Implementation of MM TR-9.1 would extend the westbound left turn pocket by 140 feet from
230 feet to 370 feet. The increase in the turn pocket storage of 140 feet would mitigate the
project’s increase in the queue by 136 feet and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant
(Class II).
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-102 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
MM TR-9.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Grafton Street
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (5 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Dublin Boulevard /
Grafton Street. The improvements shall consist of extending the eastbound left turn pocket by
85 feet from 220 feet to 305 feet. There is an existing raised median that can be modified to
lengthen the turn pocket. The improvements shall also consist of extending the westbound left
turn pocket by 140 feet from 230 feet to 305 feet. There is an existing raised median that can
be modified to lengthen the turn pocket. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic
Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the
improvement costs.
Dublin Boulevard / The Shops (Intersection #13) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 109
feet in the SAT peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.5 would reduce the northbound left turn queue by 95 feet to 234
feet, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the without project queue length of 220
feet. The queue is reduced to be the same as the without project queue and thereby reducing
impacts to less than significant (Class II).
Impact TR-10: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps in the
Cumulative + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards. (Class I)
As shown in Table 17-34: Cumulative + Project Freeway Segment Analysis, all freeway segments
operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hour under the Cumulative + Project
condition for the eastbound segments, but operate at an unacceptable LOS for all of the
westbound segments. However, as described above, each freeway is actually over capacity and
should be operating at LOS F because the volumes for the westbound direction in the AM peak
hour and the volumes for the eastbound direction in the PM peak hour are constrained by
downstream bottlenecks. Therefore, the volumes used in the freeway analysis do not reflect
the true volume demand and result in a better than reported LOS.
Implementation of MM TR-4.1 would help to reduce travel delays along the study freeway
segments. However, as the construction timing of these improvements is unknown as full
funding has not been identified, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-103
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 30: Cumulative + Project Freeway Segment Analysis
#
Study Segment
(I-580) Dir Lanes
Cumulative + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Vol (vph)
Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Vol (vph)
Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS
a Dougherty Road to
Hacienda Drive
WB 5 11,454 60.2 F 9,982 42.6 E
EB 7 9,814 25.0 C 8,826 22.3 C
b Hacienda Drive to
Tassajara Road
WB 5 11,604 62.7 F 8,375 31.4 D
EB 5 8,128 30.1 D 8,744 33.5 D
c Tassajara Road to
Fallon Road
WB 5 10,977 53.3 F 8,606 32.7 D
EB 5 6,799 24.1 C 8,058 29.7 D
d Fallon Road to
Airway Boulevard
WB 5 10,787 50.9 F 8,152 30.2 D
EB 5 6,293 22.2 C 8,327 31.2 D
Notes:
1. Segments operating at unacceptable levels of service based on established targets by Caltrans are shown in bold and impacts are shaded
light blue.
2. Analysis performed using HCS 2010 software.
3. For freeway segments where an auxiliary lane is > 2,500 feet in length, weaving does not apply; therefore, the auxiliary lane is considered to
be a basic freeway lane for the purposes of this analysis.
4. Express lanes not included in this analysis.
I-580 Freeway Ramps
Table 17-35: Cumulative + Project Freeway Ramp Analysis shows the volume, density, and level
of service for each freeway ramp with the project trips added. Locations shaded in light blue
were identified as having a significant impact.
The following I-580 freeway ramps were identified as having a significant impact:
WB I-580 off-ramp to Hacienda Drive in the AM peak hour
WB I-580 off-ramp to Tassajara Road in the AM peak hour
WB I-580 loop on-ramp from Fallon Road in the AM peak hour
WB I-580 off-ramp to Fallon Road in the AM peak hour
Implementation of MM TR-4.1 would help to reduce travel delays along the study freeway
segments. However, as the construction timing of these improvements is unknown as full
funding has not been identified, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-104 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 31: Cumulative + Project Freeway Ramp Analysis
Interchange
(I-580)
Dir Ramp
Cumulative + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
ȴ
Density LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln)
ȴ
Density LOS
Hacienda Drive
WB
Diagonal On-ramp 41.1 0.2 E 35.2 0.2 E
Loop On-ramp 35.1 0.0 E 24.9 0.0 C
Off-ramp 45.0 0.4 F 26.4 0.3 C
EB
Diagonal On-ramp 23.5 11.1 C 29.1 0.8 D
Loop On-ramp 22.7 0.2 C 23.4 0.5 C
Off-ramp 20.7 0.1 D 18.1 0.4 C
Tassajara Road
WB
Diagonal On-ramp 41.6 0.5 E 24.6 0.6 C
Loop On-ramp 27.7 0.0 C 8.6 0.0 A
Off-ramp 39.6 0.2 F 26.6 0.2 C
EB
Diagonal On-ramp 21.2 0.1 C 23.2 0.2 C
Loop On-ramp 24.1 0.2 C 27.3 -3.5 C
Off-ramp 30.4 0.4 D 30.3 1.2 D
Fallon Road
WB
Diagonal On-ramp 39.0 0.3 E 29.2 0.2 D
Loop On-ramp 50.3 0.2 F 28.9 0.5 D
Off-ramp 37.5 0.2 F 24.6 0.2 C
EB
Diagonal On-ramp 25.2 -0.3 C 29.0 0.1 D
Loop On-ramp 24.2 0.1 C 31.6 3.0 D
Off-ramp 32.8 0.1 D 32.9 0.3 D
Notes:
1. Ramps operating at unacceptable levels of service based on established targets by Caltrans are shown in bold and impacts are shaded light
blue.
2. Analysis performed using HCS 2010 software.
Freeway ramps with ramp metering were analyzed for on-ramps where the project would add
vehicles. The following on-ramps were analyzed during the specified peak periods when ramp
meters were active:
WB I-580 Hacienda Drive Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Santa Rita Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Fallon Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 El Charro Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-105
Draft EIR
10/23/18
As shown in Table 17-36: Cumulative + Project Ramp Metering Analysis, the vehicle queues for
on-ramps with ramp metering are contained within the available on-ramp storage except at the
following on-ramps:
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 El Charro Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
For the EB I-580 Hacienda Drive loop on-ramp in the PM peak hour, the project does not
increase the SOV volume. The queuing deficiency occurs without the project and the project
does not exacerbate the issue. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.
For the WB I-580 Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp in the AM peak hour, the project increases
the SOV volume to 847 vehicles. This volume exceeds the ramp metering rate of 480 vph and
therefore the vehicle queues extend onto the arterial (total queue length is greater than 1,100
feet and exceeds 1,080-foot storage). To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate could be
increased to 900 vph, however, this may result in increased congestion on WB I-580 adjacent to
this on-ramp.
Table 17- 32: Cumulative + Project Ramp Metering Analysis
On-ramp Peak
Hour
Storage
Length (ft)
SOV
Metering
Rate (vph)
Near-term Near-term + Project
SOV Volume
(vph)
Max Queue
(ft)
SOV Volume
(vph)
Max Queue
(ft)
WB I-580 Hacienda
Drive Diagonal On-ramp AM 700 540 385 0 403 0
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive
Loop On-ramp PM 490 300 392 > 1,000 392 > 1,000
WB I-580 Tassajara
Road Diagonal On-ramp AM 1,080 480 816 > 1,100 847 > 1,100
EB I-580 Santa Rita
Road Loop On-ramp PM 830 450 433 0 466 400
WB I-580 Fallon Road
Diagonal On-ramp AM 685 300 275 0 276 0
EB I-580 El Charro Road
Loop On-ramp PM 925 240 273 825 281 1,025
Notes:
1. SOV = Single-occupancy vehicles; Ramp meter analysis was performed for SOV lanes only. HOV lanes were assumed to operate with a 900
vph metering rate and therefore would not have any queues extend onto the arterial.
2. SOV volumes were calculated based on HOV to SOV ratios from PeMS on-ramp volumes.
3. Ramps with vehicle queues exceeding the on-ramp storage and extending onto the adjacent arterial are shown with bold text.
For the EB I-580 El Charro Road loop on-ramp in the PM peak hour, the project increases the
SOV volume to 281 vehicles. This volume exceeds the ramp metering rate of 240 vph and
therefore the vehicle queues extend onto the arterial (total queue length is 1,025 feet and
exceeds the 925-foot storage). To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate could be
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-106 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
increased to 300 vph, however, this may result in increased congestion on EB I-580 adjacent to
this on-ramp.
Implementation of MM TR-4.2 and MM TR-4.2 would apply to this impact. However, since the
City of Dublin does not have control over ramp metering rates at this location, the impact
would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
17.5.9 Alameda County Transportation Commission Roadway Segment Analysis
Impact TR-11: Conflict with applicable congestion management program for designated roads,
highway, or freeways (Class I)
A separate analysis of regional roadways is required to comply with requirements of the
Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC). The Alameda CTC requires the
analysis of project impacts to Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadways identified in
the congestion management plan (CMP) for development projects that would generate more
than 100 PM peak-hour trips, which applies to this project.
Project trips were added to each MTS roadway segment and the v/c ratios were calculated.
The analysis can be found in Appendix J. Significant impacts were identified if the project would
worsen the roadway LOS on a MTS facility from an acceptable LOS E to an unacceptable LOS F,
or if the project increased a roadway segment already operating at LOS F without the project,
and the project increased the v/c ratio by 0.02 or more.
Near-Term + Project
Under the Near-Term + Project condition, the following segments would continue to operate at
an unacceptable LOS F in the PM peak hour with the project:
Eastbound Dublin Boulevard from:
o Hacienda Drive to Hibernia Drive
o Hibernia Drive to Myrtle Drive
o Myrtle Drive to John Monego Court
o John Monego Court to Glynnis Rose Drive
o Glynnis Rose Drive to Tassajara Road
o Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street
Cumulative + Project
Under the Cumulative + Project condition, the following segments would continue to operate at
an unacceptable LOS F in the PM peak hour and were significantly impacted by the project:
Eastbound I-580 from:
o Tassajara Road to Fallon Road
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-107
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Eastbound Dublin Boulevard from:
o Hacienda Drive to Hibernia Drive
o Hibernia Drive to Myrtle Drive
o Myrtle Drive to John Monego Court
o John Monego Court to Glynnis Rose Drive
o Glynnis Rose Drive to Tassajara Road
o Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street
o Brannigan Street to Keegan Street
o Keegan Street to Lockhart Street
o Lockhart Street to Fallon Road
Eastbound Dublin Boulevard
The General Plan calls for the eventual build-out of Dublin Boulevard to three lanes in each
direction. To fully mitigate conditions to an acceptable LOS would require the construction of
one and possible two additional lanes (up to five total in each direction) to increase the capacity
of the roadway by 800 vehicles per hour per lane and therefore reduce the v/c ratio. This
improvement would require the acquisition of a substantial amount of new right-of way and is
contradictory to the City’s Complete Streets Policy, and therefore is not considered feasible.
Implementation of MM TR-4.1 would help to reduce travel delays along eastbound Dublin
Boulevard. However, because there is no feasible mitigation that would reduce the LOS to an
acceptable level, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Eastbound I-580
To fully mitigate conditions to an acceptable LOS would require construction of an additional
eastbound lane on I-580 between Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard. This improvement would
increase the capacity of the roadway by 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane and therefore reduce
the v/c ratio. However, this improvement is not considered feasible given lack of sufficient
right-of-way and that the freeway was recently improved with two new HOV lanes. It would
also potentially conflict with plans to extend BART along I-580 to the City of Livermore.
Implementation of MM TR-4.1 would help to reduce travel delays along eastbound I-580.
However, because there is no feasible mitigation that would reduce the LOS to an acceptable
level, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-108 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
17.5.10 Public Transit, Bicycles and Pedestrian
Impact TR-12: Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities. (Class III)
Public Transit
The project proposes access for pedestrians to use public transit. Sidewalks and crosswalks are
proposed adjacent to the project site to allow for pedestrians to access the bus stops nearby.
Route 2 has its closest bus stop on Central Parkway at Glynnis Rose Drive. Route 30R has its
closest bus stop on Dublin Boulevard at Glynnis Rose Drive and Grafton Street. Route 501 has
its closest bus stop area at the intersection of Tassajara Road at Gleason Drive. Route 502 has
its closest bus stop along Central Parkway at Glynnis Rose Drive and Chancery Lane. Route 504
has its closest bus stops on Gleason Drive at Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. Each of
these bus stops are connected to the project site via pedestrian walkways.
There should be sufficient capacity on the existing transit system to accommodate the potential
for added transit riders.
Given the Project provides access to transit and should not generate excess transit demand to
the existing transit system, impacts are considered less than significant (Class III).
Pedestrians
The project proposes to construct sidewalks fronting the project site along Tassajara Road,
Central Parkway, Dublin Boulevard, Brannigan Street and Gleason Drive. Within the project
site, there would be a multi-use pathway in the north/south direction located between Finnian
Way and Gleason Drive that provides pedestrians access throughout the site. There are also
internal streets with sidewalks located on each parcel that provide pedestrian access north-
south and east-west for each parcel.
All pedestrian walkways would be designed to City standards. The project applicant will be
required to provide construction staging plans for review to ensure that at pedestrian access
along the site is maintained or detours are provided.
Given these improvement and requirements to conform to City regulations, impacts are
considered less than significant (Class III).
Bicycle
The project would maintain existing bike facilities adjacent to the project site along Tassajara
Road and Central Parkway. The project would construct a new Class II bike lane on Gleason
Drive between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street, and on Dublin Boulevard between
Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street, and thereby address current gaps in the network.
The City of Dublin bicycle parking standards adhere to the California Green Building Standards
Code, which requires that for long-term bicycle parking in buildings that occupy 10 or more
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-109
Draft EIR
10/23/18
tenants, bicycle parking provided should equal to 5 percent of the tenant vehicular parking with
a minimum of one space. Therefore, when the final site plan is determined, bicycle parking will
need to comply with these standards.
Construction of these bicycle improvements and compliance with City bike parking standards
will result in impacts being less than significant (Class III).
17.5.11 SimTraffic Impact Analysis
Impact TR-13: Increase travel speeds along roadways that exceed established LOS standards.
As noted previously, there are roadways in Dublin that are congested in the peak hours and are
considered at capacity due to downstream congestion that can result in lower throughput
volumes than the actual demand. Under these conditions, the individual intersection level of
service analysis can be misleading in describing the actual traffic operations. Therefore, to
better represent corridor congestion, particularly along Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road, a
SimTraffic model was developed based on the Synchro model inputs. The SimTraffic model
accounts for intersection spacing, as well as upstream and downstream congestion.
The SimTraffic analysis was used to evaluate the traffic operations along congested corridors in
the City of Dublin. The following are measures of effectiveness (MOE’s) that were used to
describe each corridor:
Corridor Travel Time (average minutes per vehicle)
Corridor Delay (average minutes per vehicle)
Average Corridor Speed (mph)
Length of Corridor Queues (feet)
The average corridor speed can be converted to an arterial LOS based on definitions in the
Highway Capacity Manual. For an urban street, the LOS of an arterial is based on the urban
street class and the average travel speed. The urban street class is based on the free-flow
speed. For Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road, within the study area, the posted speed limit
ranges from 35 mph to 45 mph. Therefore, both arterials can be considered a Class II urban
street. Based on this classification, the following outlines the LOS criteria based upon average
travel speed:
LOS A = > 35 mph
LOS B = > 28-35 mph
LOS C = > 22-28 mph
LOS D = > 17-22 mph
LOS E = > 13-17 mph
LOS F = <= 13 mph
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-110 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17-37: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative SimTraffic Analysis with Project summarizes
the MOE’s for each condition with the project.
Existing + Project
The travel times would be as high as 13 minutes for westbound Dublin Boulevard in the Existing
+ Project AM peak hour, with the project adding 8 minutes. The majority of this travel time
occurs traveling westbound on Dublin Boulevard and approaching Tassajara Road. The
SimTraffic simulation shows queuing from Tassajara Road to past Grafton Street (approximately
2,600 feet). This queue would extend through the proposed new traffic signal on Dublin
Boulevard between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. This may result in vehicles blocking
the new intersection.
In the PM peak hour, there would be congestion for northbound left turn vehicles out of the
new signalized project driveway. These vehicles would queue on the project site due to the
lack of sufficient green time for the northbound left turn movement. Due to the high volumes
on eastbound and westbound Dublin Boulevard, the side-street minor approach receives less
green time. In addition, the westbound left turn lanes at the intersection of Tassajara Road and
Dublin Boulevard are saturated, making it difficult for vehicles exiting the project site to enter
into this westbound left turn lane. To allow for better progression on the northbound approach
out of the project site, more green time would need to be given to this phase, as well as
potentially coordinating this intersection with the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin
Boulevard. However, this has its own challenges because the cycle length for the intersection
of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard is much higher than the adjacent intersections along
Dublin Boulevard and is the reason for that intersection currently operating in an
uncoordinated operation.
Near-Term + Project
The travel times would be as high as 32 minutes for westbound Dublin Boulevard in the Existing
+ Project AM peak hour, with the project adding 22 minutes. The majority of this travel time
occurs traveling westbound on Dublin Boulevard and approaching Tassajara Road. The
SimTraffic simulation shows queuing from Tassajara Road to Lockhart Street (approximately
4,100 feet). This queue would extend through the proposed new traffic signal on Dublin
Boulevard between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. This may result in vehicles blocking
the new intersection. In the PM peak hour, the travel times are 35 minutes, with the project
adding 28 minutes.
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-111 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 33: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative SimTraffic Analysis with Project Corridor Direction Length (miles) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Existing Ex + Project Difference Existing Ex + Project Difference Travel Time (min) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 5.4 5.9 0.5 6.3 7.3 0.9 WB 2.1 4.4 12.4 7.9 4.7 7.5 2.8 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 2.9 3.0 0.0 3.3 3.4 0.1 SB 1.0 4.3 6.1 1.8 5.9 7.6 1.8 Delay (min) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 2.6 3.1 0.5 3.6 4.5 0.9 WB 2.1 2.0 6.2 4.2 2.3 4.7 2.4 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 1.6 1.6 0.1 2.0 2.0 0.1 SB 1.0 2.9 4.7 1.8 4.0 6.0 2.1 Average Speed (mph) and LOS in parentheses Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 24 (C) 22 (D) -2 20 (D) 18 (D) -2 WB 2.1 28 (C) 14 (E) -14 26 (C) 18 (D) -8 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 17 (E) 16 (E) -1 11 (F) 10 (F) -1 SB 1.0 11 (F) 9 (F) -2 10 (F) 8 (F) -2 Length of Queue (feet) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 Negligible Negligible 0 750 750 0 WB 2.1 Negligible 2,600 2,600 Negligible 1,800 1,800 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 Negligible Negligible 0 450 Negligible -450 SB 1.0 Negligible 1,900 1,900 Negligible Negligible 0 Notes: 1. Analysis performed using SimTraffic software. 2. Traffic conditions in the Cumulative scenario are oversaturated, resulting in excessive travel times and delays. 3. Free flow travel time for Dublin Blvd between Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd is 2.8 minutes and free flow travel time for Tassajara Rd between Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr is 1.6 minutes.
At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-112 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 Corridor Direction Length (miles) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Near-term NT + Project Difference Near-term NT + Project Difference Travel Time (min) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 5.0 5.9 0.9 22.9 9.1 -13.9 WB 2.1 9.3 31.6 22.2 6.3 34.4 28.1 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 4.0 4.6 0.6 5.3 4.5 -0.8 SB 1.0 4.5 9.7 5.3 3.8 4.9 1.1 Delay (min) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 2.6 3.4 0.9 15.7 6.5 -9.2 WB 2.1 4.9 14.7 9.8 3.8 11.9 8.1 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 2.6 3.3 0.7 3.9 3.2 -0.8 SB 1.0 3.1 8.4 5.3 2.4 3.5 1.1 Average Speed (mph) and LOS in parentheses Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 25 (C) 22 (D) -3 8 (F) 15 (E) 7 WB 2.1 17 (E) 7 (F) -10 20 (D) 9 (F) -11 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 10 (F) 8 (F) -2 8 (F) 9 (F) 1 SB 1.0 10 (F) 5 (F) -5 14 (E) 11 (F) -3 Length of Queue (feet) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 Negligible Negligible 0 4,400 750 -3,650 WB 2.1 2,600 4,100 1,500 Negligible 3,400 3,400 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 1,000 1,800 800 1,000 1,000 0 SB 1.0 Negligible 2,600 2,600 Negligible Negligible 0 Notes: 1. Analysis performed using SimTraffic software. 2. Traffic conditions in the Cumulative scenario are oversaturated, resulting in excessive travel times and delays. 3. Free flow travel time for Dublin Blvd between Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd is 2.8 minutes and free flow travel time for Tassajara Rd between Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr is 1.6 minutes.
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-113 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Corridor Direction Length (miles) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Cumulative Cum + Project Difference Cumulative Cum + Project Difference Travel Time (min) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 25.4 8.4 -17.0 34.7 30.2 -4.5 WB 2.1 37.0 47.5 10.5 71.5 82.3 10.8 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 5.1 5.0 -0.1 9.6 15.0 5.4 SB 1.0 4.4 7.0 2.6 4.1 4.0 -0.1 Delay (min) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 18.0 5.7 -12.3 22.5 19.7 -2.8 WB 2.1 22.2 26.3 4.1 53.7 51.3 -2.5 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 3.7 3.6 -0.1 6.7 9.1 2.4 SB 1.0 3.1 5.6 2.6 2.7 2.6 -0.1 Average Speed (mph) and LOS in parentheses Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 7 (F) 16 (E) 9 4 (F) 5 (F) 1 WB 2.1 5 (F) 4 (F) -1 2 (F) 2 (F) 0 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 7 (F) 8 (F) 1 4 (F) 3 (F) -1 SB 1.0 12 (F) 8 (F) -4 13 (F) 13 (F) 0 Length of Queue (feet) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 3,700 750 -2,950 4,400 4,400 0 WB 2.1 Past Fallon Rd Past Fallon Rd 0 Past Fallon Rd Past Fallon Rd 0 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 1,000 1,000 0 1,800 Past Pimlico Dr 800 SB 1.0 Negligible 1,400 1,400 Negligible 600 600 Notes: 1. Analysis performed using SimTraffic software. 2. Traffic conditions in the Cumulative scenario are oversaturated, resulting in excessive travel times and delays. 3. Free flow travel time for Dublin Blvd between Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd is 2.8 minutes and free flow travel time for Tassajara Rd between Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr is 1.6 minutes.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-115
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Similar to the Existing + Project condition, in the PM peak hour, there would be congestion
issues for northbound left turn vehicles out of the new signalized project driveway. There
would also be congestion issues with vehicles exiting the right-in and right-out driveway along
Tassajara Road near Dublin Corporate Way. Many of these vehicles would be trying to enter
the northbound left turn lane at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard, but
since this movement is already saturated, the vehicles exiting would not be able to enter onto
northbound Tassajara Road. In actuality, vehicles would either enter the northbound through
lanes at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard or use the traffic signal on
Dublin Boulevard.
Cumulative + Project
The travel times would be as high as 48 minutes for westbound Dublin Boulevard in the Existing
+ Project AM peak hour, with the project adding 10 minutes. The majority of this travel time
occurs traveling westbound on Dublin Boulevard and approaching Tassajara Road. The
SimTraffic simulation shows queuing from Tassajara Road to past Fallon Road. This queue
would extend through the proposed new traffic signal on Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara
Road and Brannigan Street. This may result in vehicles blocking the new intersection. In the
PM peak hour, the travel times are 82 minutes, with the project adding 11 minutes.
Similar to the Existing + Project condition, in the PM peak hour, there would be congestion
issues for northbound left turn vehicles out of the new signalized project driveway. There
would also be congestion issues with vehicles exiting the right-in and right-out driveway along
Tassajara Road near Dublin Corporate Way. Many of these vehicles would be trying to enter
the northbound left turn lane at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard, but
since this movement is already saturated, the vehicles exiting would not be able to enter onto
northbound Tassajara Road. In actuality, vehicles would either enter the northbound through
lanes at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard or use the traffic signal on
Dublin Boulevard.
Project Driveway / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #35)
Each direction of Dublin Boulevard as it approaches Tassajara Road would experience queues
extending to Hacienda Drive in the eastbound direction and east of Fallon Road in the
westbound direction. This occurs in the Cumulative conditions with the project. The
installation of the new traffic signal along Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara Road and
Brannigan Street further disrupts the traffic flow along the corridor. Particularly in the
westbound direction in the PM peak hour, the high number of vehicles making the westbound
left turn from Dublin Boulevard onto southbound Tassajara Road to get to I-580 conflicts with
the new traffic signal. Vehicles exiting the project site, making a northbound left turn onto
westbound Dublin Boulevard cannot proceed through the new traffic signal due to the over
saturated receiving lanes on westbound Dublin Boulevard.
The project would degrade the following roadway segments from an acceptable to an
unacceptable LOS:
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-116 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
WB Dublin Boulevard between Hacienda Drive and Fallon Road (Existing + Project AM)
o LOS C to LOS E
WB Dublin Boulevard between Hacienda Drive and Fallon Road (NT + Project PM)
o LOS D to LOS F
MM TR-1.1 would improve the average speed and LOS to an acceptable LOS D in the Existing +
Project weekday AM peak hour and thereby reduce impacts to less-than-significant (Class II).
However, MM TR-1.1 would not improve the average speed and LOS to an acceptable LOS D in
the Near-term + Project weekday PM peak hour. Therefore, the impact would remain
significant and unavoidable (Class I).
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
17.5.12 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Table 17-38: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Transportation and Circulation,
summarizes the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures
for the project with regard to transportation and circulation.
Table 17- 34: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Transportation and Circulation
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact TR-1: Create a potentially
dangerous new intersection
(Class II).
Less than
significant with
mitigation
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design
Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
Impact TR-2: Increase travel
delays at study intersections in
the Existing + Project condition
that exceed established LOS
standards (Class II).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to
El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London
Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
Impact TR-3: Cause intersection
queues to operate below
acceptable levels under Existing +
Project conditions (Class II).
Less than
significant with
mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to
Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to
Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.3: Existing + Project Improvements to
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.4: Existing + Project Improvements to
Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to
Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-117
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
Impact TR-4: Increase vehicle
densities along study freeway
segments and ramps in the
Existing + Project condition that
exceed established LOS
standards (Class I).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment
Improvements
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
Impact TR-5: Increase travel
delays at study intersections in
the Near-Term + Project
condition that exceed
established LOS standards (Class I
and II).
Less than
significant with
mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-5.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements
to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to
El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London
Boulevard
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design
Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
Impact TR-6: Cause intersection
queues to operate below
acceptable levels under Near-
Term + Project conditions (Class I
and II).
Less than
significant with
mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-6.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements
to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-6.2: Near-Term + Project Improvements
to Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street
MM TR-6.3: Near-term + Project Improvements to
Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to
Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to
Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to
Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway
Impact TR-7: Increase vehicle
densities along study freeway
segments and ramps in the Near-
Term + Project conditions that
exceed established LOS
standards (Class I Impact).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-7.1: Near-Term + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project
Freeway Segment Improvements
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-118 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact TR-8: Increase travel
delays at study intersections in
the Cumulative + Project
conditions that exceed
established LOS standards (Class I
and II).
Less than
significant with
mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-8.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-8.3: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-8.4: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street
MM TR-8.5: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street
MM TR-8.6: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design
Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to
El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London
Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
Impact TR-9: Cause intersection
queues to operate below
acceptable levels under
Cumulative + Project conditions
(Class I and II).
Less than
significant with
mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-9.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Dublin Boulevard / Grafton Street
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to
Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to
Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to
Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway MM
TR-6.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-6.2: Near-Term + Project Improvements
to Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street
MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard
Impact TR-10: Increase vehicle
densities along study freeway
segments and ramps in the
Cumulative + Project condition
that exceed established LOS
standards (Class I).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment
Improvements
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-119
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
MM TR-7.1: Near-Term + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements
Impact TR-11: Conflict with
applicable congestion
management program for
designated roads, highway, or
freeways (Class I).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment
Improvements
Impact TR-12: Conflict with
adopted policies, plans or
programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease
the performance or safety of
such facilities (Class III).
Less than
significant
None required
Impact TR-13: Increase travel
speeds along roadways that
exceed established LOS
standards (Class II ).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design
Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-120 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
17.5.13 References
Alameda County Transportation Commission, Congestion Management Program, December
2017.
Caltrans, Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, December 2002.
Caltrans, Highway Design Manual, 6th Edition, December 2015.
City of Dublin, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, October 7, 2014.
City of Dublin, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, June 2013.
City of Dublin, Dublin IKEA Final Transportation Assessment, January 2018.
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 1985 amended 2016.
City of Dublin, General Plan, 1985 amended 2017.
City of Livermore, General Plan, Amended December 2014.
City of Pleasanton, General Plan, July 21, 2009.
City of Pleasanton, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, April 2017.
Transportation Research Board, HCM 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, December 2010.
Transportation Research Board, HCM 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, 2010.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council, Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan for
Routes of Regional Significance, September 2017.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
18 Energy Conservation
According to Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines, the goal of conserving energy implies
the wise and efficient use of energy including decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil and
increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. The project would be constructed to Title 24
standards, which would reduce energy demand as compared to traditional development.
Therefore, the project would not result in substantial or wasteful consumption of energy.
This section describes the existing setting of the project site as it relates to energy conservation;
identifies associated regulatory conditions and requirements; presents the criteria used to
evaluate potential impacts related to use of fuel and energy upon implementation of the
project; and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid each significant impact. The
significance of each impact after the incorporation of identified mitigation measures is included
at the end of this section.
18.1 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on the existing energy consumption in the region and project
vicinity. This information serves as the baseline for assessing the project’s impacts related to
energy conservation.
18.1.1 California’s Energy Use and Supply
Californians consumed 285,701 gigawatt hours (GWh)21 of electricity in 2016, which is the most
recent year for which data is available. Of this total, Alameda County consumed 10,815 GWh
(CEC, 2018a). In 2016, the California electricity mix included natural gas (36.48 percent), coal
(4.13 percent), large hydroelectric plants (10.21 percent), and nuclear (9.18 percent). The
remaining 25.45 percent was supplied from renewable resources, such as wind, solar,
21 A watt hour is a unit of energy equivalent to one watt of power expended for one hour. For example, a typical light bulb is 60
watts, meaning that if it is left on for one hour, 60-watt hours have been used. One kilowatt equals 1,000 watts. The
consumption of electrical energy by homes and businesses is usually measured in kilowatt hours (kWh). Some large
businesses and institutions also use megawatt hours (MWh), where one MWh equals 1,000 kWh. One gigawatt equals 1,000
megawatts, or 1,000,000 kilowatts. The energy output of large power plants over long periods of time, or the energy
consumption of jurisdictions, can be expressed in gigawatt hours (GWh).
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-2 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
geothermal, biomass, and small hydroelectric facilities (CEC, 2018b). In 2015, the state
consumed 2,177,467 million cubic feet 22 of natural gas (EIA, 2018).
Energy usage is typically quantified using the British Thermal Unit (BTU). Total energy usage in
California was 7,676 trillion BTU in 2015 (the most recent year for which this specific data is
available), which equates to an average of 197 million BTU per capita. Of California’s total
energy usage, the breakdown by sector is 39 percent transportation, 24 percent industrial, 19
percent commercial, and 18 percent residential. Electricity and natural gas in California are
generally consumed by stationary users such as residences and commercial and industrial
facilities, whereas petroleum consumption is generally accounted for by transportation-related
energy use.23 In 2016, taxable gasoline sales (including aviation gasoline) in California
accounted for 15,297,030,909 gallons of gasoline.24
In 2002, California established its Renewable Portfolio Standard program25 with the goal of
increasing the annual percentage of renewable energy in the state’s electricity mix by the
equivalent of at least 1 percent of sales, with an aggregate total of 20 percent by 2017. The
California Public Utilities Commission subsequently accelerated that goal to 2010 for retail
sellers of electricity (Public Utilities Code Section 399.15(b)(1)). Then-Governor Schwarzenegger
signed Executive Order S-14-08 in 2008, increasing the target to 33 percent renewable energy
by 2020. In September 2009, then-Governor Schwarzenegger continued California’s
commitment to the Renewable Portfolio Standard by signing Executive Order S-21-09, which
directs the California Air Resources Board under its Assembly Bill (AB) 32 authority to enact
regulations to help the State meet its Renewable Portfolio Standard goal of 33 percent
renewable energy by 2020. In September 2010, the California Air Resources Board adopted its
Renewable Electricity Standard regulations, which require all of the state’s load-serving entities
to meet this target. In October 2015, Governor Jerry Brown signed into legislation Senate Bill
350, which requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their
electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030.
Additional energy efficiency measures beyond the current regulations are needed to meet
these goals as well as the AB 32 greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goal of reducing statewide
GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (see Chapter 6, Air Quality, and Chapter 10, Greenhouse
22 100 cubic feet (CCF) is approximately the energy equivalent to burning 100 cubic feet of natural gas. 100 CCF of natural gas
equals 103,700 a British Thermal Unit (BTU). A BTU is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one pound
of water by one degree Fahrenheit. A kBTU is 1,000 BTUs. A therm is 100,000 BTUs.
23 EIA (US Energy Information Administration), California State Profile and Energy Estimates, updated April 19, 2018,
http://www.eia.gov/state/data.cfm?sid=CA#ConsumptionExpenditures and
https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_te.html&sid=US&sid=CA, accessed May 2,
2018.
24 California Board of Equalization, Net Taxable Gasoline Sales, 2016,
https://www.boe.ca.gov/sptaxprog/reports/mvf_10_year_report.pdf, accessed September 28, 2017.
25 The Renewable Portfolio Standard is a flexible, market-driven policy to ensure that the public benefits of wind, solar,
biomass, and geothermal energy continue to be realized as electricity markets become more competitive. The policy ensures
that a minimum amount of renewable energy is included in the portfolio of electricity resources serving a state or country.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Gases, for a discussion of AB 32). Part of the effort in meeting California’s long-term reduction
goals include reducing petroleum use in cars and trucks by 50 percent, increasing from one-
third to one-half of California’s electricity derived from renewable sources, doubling the
efficiency savings achieved at existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner; reducing the
release of methane, black carbon, and other short-lived climate pollutants, and managing farm
and rangelands, forests, and wetlands so they can store carbon (CEC, 2016).
18.1.2 Current Energy Providers
Electricity Providers
Currently, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity to Alameda County
businesses and residents. Effective June 2018, commercial businesses have the option to
choose between electricity from PG&E or East Bay Clean Energy (EBCE), a new community
choice aggregation joint powers authority recently formed and offering service in most of
Alameda County. Electricity from EBCE will be available to residents in the fall of 2018.
Residents and commercial businesses will be automatically enrolled in EBCE with the
opportunity to opt out for those who want to continue to receive their service from PG&E.
EBCE offers two energy options, Brilliant 100 and Bright Choice. Brilliant 100 is energy sourced
from 100% carbon-free energy and Bright Choice offers 85% carbon free energy. EBCE
estimates that the Bright Choice energy portfolio offers 7% higher carbon free content
compared to PG&E’s basic energy portfolio.
The PG&E 2016 power mix was as follows:
17 percent natural gas
24 percent nuclear
33 percent renewables
12 percent large hydroelectric,
14 percent unspecified power (PG&E, 2018b).
As of this date, the exact power mix that EBCE will offer customers is unavailable, however
EBCE’s Scheduling Coordinator and Energy Portfolio Manager, Northern California Power
Agency, has determined that EBCE is on track to serve EBCE Bright Choice customers in 2018
with the following:
Over 38% qualified renewable energy
Over 85% carbon-free energy (over 38% renewable and over 47% carbon-free large
hydro)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-4 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Natural Gas Provider
PG&E operates one of the largest natural gas distribution networks in the country, including
42,141 miles of natural gas transmission and distribution pipelines (PG&E, 2018a). In all, PG&E
delivers gas to approximately 4.3 million customer accounts in Northern and Central California,
including in Alameda County.
As shown in Table 18-1: Electricity Consumption in Alameda County 2006-2016 and Table 18-2:
Natural Gas Consumption in Alameda County 2006-2016, both electricity and natural gas
consumption in Alameda County has remained relatively constant between 2006 and 2016.
Table 18-1: Electricity Consumption in Alameda County 2006-2016
Year
Electricity Consumption
(in millions of kilowatt hours)
2006 11,186
2007 11,742
2008 11,184
2009 10,365
2010 10,729
2011 10,990
2012 10,603
2013 10,635
2014 10,319
2015 10,258
2016 10,815
Source: CEC, 2018a.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 18-2: Natural Gas Consumption in Alameda County 2006-2016
Year
Natural Gas Consumption
(in millions of therms)
2006 431
2007 415
2008 436
2009 421
2010 422
2011 423
2012 411
2013 423
2014 361
2015 355
2016 361
Source: CEC, 2018a.
Transportation Fuel
California’s transportation sector uses roughly half of the energy consumed in the state. In
2016, Californians consumed approximately 15.1 billion gallons of gasoline and three billion
gallons of diesel fuel, which were down from 15 billion gallons of gasoline and 2.8 billion gallons
of diesel in 2008 (BOE, 2018a; 2018b).
Fuel Consumption
As shown in Table 18-3: Automotive Fuel Consumption in Alameda County 2009-2019, on-road
automotive fuel and heavy-duty diesel fuel consumption in Alameda County has remained
steady since 2009.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-6 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 18-3: Automotive Fuel Consumption in Alameda County 2009-2019
Year
On-Road Automotive Fuel
Consumption (Gallons)
Heavy-Duty Vehicle/Diesel Fuel
Consumption (Gallons)
2009 549,822,000 125,827,000
2010 546,108,000 122,139,000
2011 534,708,000 127,202,000
2012 532,188,000 127,749,000
2013 534,200,000 130,467,000
2014 544,124,000 125,911,000
2015 559,640,000 126,586,000
2016 573,529,000 134,589,000
2017 562,071,000 135,711,000
2018 (projected) 551,105,000 136,591,000
2019 (projected) 539,782,000 137,597,000
Source: California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2017.
18.2 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
This section presents legislation and regulations specifically related to energy conservation. See
also Chapter 6: Air Quality, Chapter 11: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Chapter 17:
Transportation & Circulation, for other policies related to energy use. See Chapter 16: Public
Services, Utilities, and Service Systems for policies related to water consumption.
18.2.1 Federal
National Energy Conservation Policy Act
The National Energy Conservation Policy Act serves as the underlying authority for Federal
energy management goals and requirements. Signed into law in 1978, it has been regularly
updated and amended by subsequent laws and regulations. This act is the foundation of most
Federal energy requirements.
Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 sets equipment energy efficiency standards and seeks to reduce
reliance on non-renewable energy resources and provide incentives to reduce current demand
on these resources. For example, under the Act, consumers and businesses can attain Federal
tax credits for purchasing fuel-efficient appliances and products, including hybrid vehicles;
constructing energy-efficient buildings; and improving the energy efficiency of commercial
buildings. Additionally, tax credits are available for the installation of qualified fuel cells,
stationary micro-turbine power plants, and solar power equipment.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Executive Order 13693 (Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade), signed in 2015,
seeks to maintain Federal leadership in sustainability and GHG emission reductions. Its goal is
to reduce agency Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions 26 by at least 40 percent by 2025, foster
innovation, reduce spending, and strengthen communities through increased efficiency and
improved environmental performance. Sustainability goals are set for building efficiency and
management, energy portfolio, water use efficiency, fleet efficiency, sustainable acquisition
and supply chain GHG management, pollution prevention, and electronic stewardship.
Energy and Independence Security Act of 2007
The Energy and Independence Security Act of 2007 sets Federal energy management
requirements in several areas, including energy reduction goals for Federal buildings, facility
management and benchmarking, performance standards for new buildings and major
renovations, high-performance buildings, energy savings performance contracts, metering,
energy-efficient product procurement, and reduction in petroleum use and increase in
alternative fuel use. This act also amends portions of the National Energy Policy Conservation
Act.
18.2.2 State
Assembly Bill 32
California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32),
the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of
reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 15 percent reduction below 2005
emission levels; the same requirement as under S-3-05) and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping
Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline. In
addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of
statewide GHG emissions. Reductions in overall energy consumption have been implemented
to reduce emissions. See Chapter 10 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) for a further discussion of AB
32.
2008 California Energy Action Plan Update
The 2008 Energy Action Plan Update provides a status update to the 2005 Energy Action Plan II,
which is the State’s principal energy planning and policy document (CPUC and CEC, 2008). The
plan continues the goals of the original Energy Action Plan, describes a coordinated
implementation plan for State energy policies, and identifies specific action areas to ensure that
California’s energy is adequate, affordable, technologically advanced, and environmentally
sound. First-priority actions to address California’s increasing energy demands are energy
26 In GHG inventories, direction emissions are Scope 1; indirect emissions from consumption of purchased electricity, heat or
steam are Scope 2; and other indirect emissions (such as extraction and production of purchases materials and fuels,
transport in vehicles not controlled by the reporting entity, outsourced activities) are Scope 3.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-8 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
efficiency, demand response (i.e., reduction of customer energy usage during peak periods in
order to address system reliability and support the best use of energy infrastructure), and the
use of renewable sources of power. If these actions are unable to satisfy the increasing energy
and capacity needs, the plan supports clean and efficient fossil-fired generation.
California Green Building Standards Code
The 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, as specified in Title 24, Part 11 of the
California Code of Regulations, specifies building standards to improve public health, safety,
and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of
building concepts having a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable
construction practices in five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water
efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental
quality. The provisions of this code apply to the planning, design, operation, construction,
replacement, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every
building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such building structures
throughout California.
Building Energy Efficiency Standards
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as specified in
Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, were established in 1978 in response to a
legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated
periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency
technologies and methods. The California Energy Commission (CEC) adopted an update in
2013, and these new standards became effective on January 1, 2017 (CEC, 2017c).
2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The California Energy Commission adopted Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR
Sections 1601 through 1608) on October 11, 2006. The regulations were approved by the
California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include
standards for both Federally regulated appliances and non-Federally regulated appliances.
While these regulations are now often viewed as “business-as-usual,” they exceed the
standards imposed by all other states and they reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy
demand.
Senate Bill 1078 and 107; Executive Order S-14-08, S-21-09, and SB 2X
SB 1078 (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) requires retail sellers of electricity, including investor-
owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at least 20 percent of their
supply from renewable sources by 2017. SB 107 (Chapter 464, Statutes of 2006) changed the
target date to 2010. In November 2008, then-Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive
Order S-14-08, which expands the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard to 33 percent
renewable power by 2020. In September 2009, then-Governor Schwarzenegger continued
California’s commitment to the Renewable Portfolio Standard by signing Executive Order S-21-
09, which directs the CARB under its AB 32 authority to enact regulations to help the state meet
its Renewable Portfolio Standard goal of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020. In April 2011,
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Governor Brown signed SB 2X, which legislated the prior Executive Order S-14-08 renewable
standard.
Executive Order B-30-15 and Senate Bill 350
In April 2015, the Governor issued Executive Order B-30-15, which established a GHG reduction
target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. SB 350 (Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015)
advanced these goals through two measures. First, the law increases the renewable power
goal from 33 percent renewables by 2020 to 50 percent by 2030. Second, the law requires the
CEC to establish annual targets to double energy efficiency in buildings by 2030. The law also
requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to direct electric utilities to establish
annual efficiency targets and implement demand-reduction measures to achieve this goal.
Senate Bill 32
In September 2016, the Governor signed into legislation SB 32, which builds on AB 32 and
requires the state to cut GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. With SB 32,
the Legislature also passed AB 197, which provides additional direction for updating the
Scoping Plan to meet the 2030 GHG reduction target codified in SB 32. CARB has published a
draft update to the Scoping Plan and has received public comments on this draft, but has not
released the final version.
Recent CEQA Litigation
In California, Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173 (“CCEC”),
the Court observed that CEQA Guidelines Appendix F lists environmental impacts and mitigation
measures that an EIR may include. Potential issues that may require EIR discussion include:
The project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and
fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation,
maintenance, and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials
may be discussed.
The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements
for additional capacity.
The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards.
The effects of the project on energy resources.
The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use
of efficient transportation alternatives.
18.2.3 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions that encourage the
conservation of energy in the Community Design and Sustainability Element and the Energy
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-10 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Conservation Element. Below are the policies specifically related to energy that would be
applicable to the project.
Goal 10.9.2: Encourage Sustainability to provide a high quality of life and to preserve resources
and opportunities.
Policy 10.9.3(C): Consider environmentally sensitive and energy-efficient building siting, which
minimize impacts from wind, provides shade, reduces stormwater runoff, and maximizes
opportunities for passive solar design, where feasible.
Policy 10.9.3(F): Encourage alternative modes of transportation by providing priority parking for
carpool and alternative energy vehicles, bicycle racks/lockers, showers for employees, and easy
access to adjacent regional trails and transit stops.
Implementation Measure 10.9.4(A): Facilitate environmental and energy-efficient design
guidelines that promote good design for new construction.
Implementation Measure 10.9.4(H): Investigate modifications to the Building Code to require
integrated, comprehensive, and well-designed sustainable building practices (i.e. water and
energy efficiency, resource allocations, and site planning).
Guiding Policy 13.3.2(A)(1): Encourage the installation of alternative energy technology in new
residential and commercial development.
Guiding Policy 13.3.2(A)(2): Encourage designing for solar access.
Guiding Policy 13.3.2(A)(3): Encourage energy efficient improvements be made on residential
and commercial properties.
Implementing Policy 13.3.2(B)(1): New development proposals shall be reviewed to ensure
lighting levels needed for a safe and secure environment are provided—utilizing the most
energy-efficient fixtures (in most cases, LED lights)—while avoiding over-lighting of sites. Smart
lighting technology (e.g. sensors and/or timers) shall also be employed in interior and exterior
lighting applications where appropriate.
Implementing Policy 13.3.2(B)(2): New development projects shall install LED streetlights in
compliance with the City’s LED light standard.
Implementing Policy 13.3.2(B)(3): In new commercial and residential parking lots, require the
installation of conduit to serve electric vehicle parking spaces to enable the easier installation of
future charging stations.
Implementing Policy 13.3.2(B)(4): Encourage the installation of charging stations for
commercial projects over a certain size and any new residential project that has open parking
(i.e. not individual, enclosed garages).
Implementing Policy 13.3.2(B)(5): Encourage buildings (and more substantially, whole
neighborhoods) to be designed along an east-west axis to maximize solar exposure. Where
feasible, require new development projects to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds,
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
landscaping and sun screens to reduce energy use; and to use regenerative energy heating and
cooling source alternatives to fossil fuels.
Implementing Policy 13.3.2(B)(6): Continue to implement parking lot tree planting standards
that would substantially cool parking areas and help cool the surrounding environment.
Encourage landscaping conducive to solar panels in areas where appropriate.
Implementing Policy 13.3.2(B)(7): Promote and encourage photovoltaic demonstration projects
in association with new development.
Implementing Policy 13.3.2(B)(8): Consider creating a recognition program for commercial or
residential projects that install large-scale solar or wind energy systems and to publicly
commend and acknowledge businesses or individuals that construct or remodel buildings that
save more energy than required by Title 24 or by the Cal Green Building Code.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The Specific Plan features a comprehensive multi-modal transportation and circulation system.
The intent is to achieve important environmental benefits, such as reduced air and noise
pollution, and increased energy conservation, through the reduction in the number and length
of daily vehicle trips associated with new development.
Additionally, through the recycling of organic and man-made materials the total amount of
solid waste that needs to be disposed of in landfills can be greatly reduced, saving not only land
but also energy and natural resources.
The City of Dublin’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains the following policies and programs as
it relates to transportation and building energy conservation:
Policy 4.1: Maintain a reasonable balance in residential and employment-generating land uses
by adhering to the distribution of land uses depicted in Figure 4-1, Land Use Map.
Policy 4-13: Locate community-oriented commercial development in the "Town Center" within
walking distance or a short ride from most residents, and conveniently served by transit. Policy
4-14: Encourage the development of neighbor-hood serving retail and service uses in the
"Village Centers" in order to reduce daily vehicle trips, and contribute to the identity and
character of the outlying residential areas.
Policy 4-17: Avoid dispersion of commercial uses along major collectors and arterials in a linear
(i.e., "strip") development pattern that is oriented solely to vehicular traffic.
Policy 4-18: Encourage the creation of a pedestrian-oriented shopping environment in the
Town and Village Centers, while still accommodating the safe movement of vehicular traffic.
Policy 4-19: Encourage mixed-use development in the commercial areas of the Town and
Village Centers that contributes to the social, cultural, and economic vitality of the commercial
districts.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-12 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Policy 5-2: Require all development to provide a balanced orientation toward pedestrian,
bicycle, and automobile circulation.
Policy 5-17: Establish a bicycle circulation system which helps to serve the need for non-
motorized transportation and recreation in eastern Dublin that is consistent with the Dublin
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Policy 8-7: Support ACWMA efforts to develop alternate disposal facilities for organic waste in
the Tri-Valley area, particularly for composting and reuse of organic material.
Policy 8-8: Encourage the separation of recyclable materials from the general waste stream by
supporting the development of a recycling collection system and facilities.
18.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The analysis below generally follows Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that
the goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy, including decreasing
overall per capita energy consumption, decreasing reliance on fossil fuels, and increasing
reliance on renewable energy sources. According to Appendix F, the analysis should include a
description of energy conservation measures included as part of the project and should
consider whether a project would result in inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption
of energy.
18.3.1 Significance Criteria
Based upon the criteria derived from Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines, the project
would result in a significant impact related to energy conservation if it would:
Result in the inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy during
project construction or operation
18.3.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impact
There are no “no” impacts nor “beneficial” impacts.
18.3.3 Impact Assessment Methodology
In determining whether implementation of the project would result in the inefficient, wasteful
or unnecessary consumption of fuel or energy, this analysis considers the recommendations of
Appendix F (as described above), which states that environmental impact analyses of energy
conservation may include:
1. The project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel
type for each stage of the project’s life cycle including construction, operation,
maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials
maybe discussed.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
2. The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for
additional capacity.
3. The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards.
4. The effects of the project on energy resources.
5. The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of
efficient transportation alternatives.
This section analyzes energy consumption on three sources of energy that are relevant to the
project: electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with new
development, as well as the fuel necessary for project construction. The analysis of project
electricity/natural gas usage is based on California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod)
modeling, which quantifies energy use for occupancy. The results of the CalEEMod modeling
are included in Appendix B: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis of this Draft EIR.
Modeling related to project energy consumption was based primarily on the default settings in
the computer program for Alameda County. The amount of operational fuel use was estimated
using CalEEMod outputs for the project and the California Air Resources Board’s Emissions
Factor 2017 (EMFAC2017) computer program for typical daily fuel usage in Alameda County.
Construction fuel consumption was calculated based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and
conversion ratios from the Climate Registry.
Energy consumption impacts are analyzed below according to topic. Mitigation measures
directly correspond with an identified impact.
Impact ER-1: Would implementation of the project result in the inefficient, wasteful or
unnecessary consumption of energy during project construction or operation. (Class III)
Construction (Short-Term)
The energy consumption associated with buildout of the project includes electricity usage
associated with water usage for dust control, diesel fuel consumption from on-road hauling
trips and off-road construction diesel equipment, and gasoline consumption from on-road
worker commute and vendor trips. The methodology for each category is discussed below.
This analysis relies on the construction equipment list and operational characteristics, as stated
in Chapter 6 (Air Quality) and Chapter 10 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions), as well as Appendix B:
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis. Quantifications of construction energy
consumption are provided for the project.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-14 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Electricity Usage
Water Consumption for Construction Dust Control
Electricity usage associated with water consumption for construction dust control is calculated
based on total water consumption and the energy intensity for supply, distribution, and
treatment of water.
The total number of gallons of water usage is calculated based on acreage disturbed during
grading and site preparation, as well as the daily water consumption rate per acre disturbed.
The total acres disturbed are calculated using the methodology described in Chapter
4.2 of Appendix A of the CalEEMod® User’s Guide (Grading Equipment Passes).
The water application rate of 3,020 gallons per acre per day is from Air and Waste
Management Association’s Air Pollution Engineering Manual.
The energy intensity value is based on the CalEEMod® default energy intensity per gallon of
water for Alameda County.
As summarized in Table 18-4: Project Energy Consumption During Construction, the total
electricity consumption associated with water consumption for construction dust control would
be approximately 524,951 kWh (525 megawatt hours [MWh]) over the duration of buildout of
the project.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 18-4: Project Energy Consumption During Construction
Source
Project
Construction Usage
Alameda County Annual
Energy Consumption
Percentage
Increase
Countywide
Electricity Use Megawatt Hours (MWh)
Water Consumption 1 525
10,815,000
0.0049%
On-Road Construction Trips 2 0.4 0.0000%
Construction Electricity Total 525 0.0049%
Diesel Use Gallons
On-Road Construction Trips 2 1,123,387
137,597,000
0.8164%
Off-Road Construction Equipment 3 1,148,177 0.8344%
Construction Diesel Total 2,271,565 1.6509%
Gasoline Gallons
On-Road Construction Trips 2 1,161,076
551,105,000
0.2151%
Construction Gasoline Total 1,161,076 0.2151%
Notes:
1. Construction water use estimated based on acres disturbed per day per construction sequencing and estimated water use per acre
(AWMA 1992).
2. On-road mobile source fuel use based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from CalEEMod and fleet-average fuel consumption in gallons per
mile from EMFAC2017 in Alameda. Electricity demand based on VMT and calculated average electric vehicle fuel economy for 2015 models
(in kWh per mile) from the DOE Fuel Economy Guide.
3. Off-road mobile source fuel usage based on a fuel usage rate of 0.05 gallons of diesel per horsepower (hp)-hour from USEPA.
Abbreviations:
CalEEMod: California Emission Estimation Model; EMFAC: Emission Factor Model 2017; kWh: kilowatt-hour; MWh: megawatt-hour.
Sources: AWMA, 1992; DOE 2016; USEPA 1996.
On-Road Electric Vehicle Trips
The EMFAC2017 model includes the fraction of electric vehicles projected to be in the on-road
fleet during construction. Using this data, electricity consumption related to electric vehicle
traffic was estimated. The electric vehicles included in the EMFAC2017 model are all in the
light-duty auto and light-duty truck category, and as such would only exist in the construction
worker fleet, not the vendor and haul truck fleets. The efficiency of electric vehicles in kilowatt-
hours per vehicle mile travelled (kWh/mile) are the model year 2015 average for current model
electric vehicles (USDOE 2016). Total electricity usage from the on-road worker fleet during
construction would be approximately 383 kWh (0.4 MWh) over the duration of buildout of the
project.
Diesel Usage
On-Road Construction Trips
The diesel usage associated with on-road construction mobile trips is calculated based on
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from vehicle trips (i.e., worker, vendor, and hauling), the
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-16 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
CalEEMod default diesel fleet percentage, and vehicle fuel efficiency in miles per gallon. VMT
for the entire construction period is calculated based on the total (See Chapter 6: Air Quality
and Chapter 10: Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Construction fuel consumption was calculated
based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios from the Climate Registry.
As summarized in Table 18-4: Project Energy Consumption During Construction, the total diesel
consumption associated with on-road construction trips would be approximately 1,123,387
gallons over the duration of buildout of the project.
Off-Road Construction Equipment
The construction diesel usage associated with the off-road construction equipment is calculated
based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios from the Climate Registry. As
summarized in Table 18-4: Project Energy Consumption During Construction, the total diesel
consumption associated with off-road construction equipment is approximately 1,148,177
gallons for duration of buildout the project.
Gasoline Usage
On-Road Construction Trips
The gasoline usage associated with on-road construction mobile trips is calculated based on
VMT from vehicle trips (i.e., worker, vendor, and hauling), the CalEEMod default gasoline fleet
percentage, and vehicle fuel efficiency in miles per gallon using the same methodology as the
construction on-road trip diesel usage calculation discussed above. As summarized in Table 18-
4: Project Energy Consumption During Construction, the total gasoline consumption associated
with on-road construction trips would be approximately 1,161,076 gallons over the duration of
buildout the project.
Analysis
In total, construction of the project would consume approximately 525,400 kWh (525 MWh) of
electricity, 2,271,565 gallons of diesel, and 1,161,076 gallons of gasoline.
As indicated in the environmental setting above, Californians consumed 285,701 GWh of
electricity in 2016, of which Alameda County consumed 10,815 GWh. Extrapolating this
consumption over a five-year period, Californians would consume approximately 1.43 million
GWh and Alameda County would consume approximately 54,075 GWh. Therefore,
construction electricity consumption would represent approximately 0.0038 percent of the
electricity consumption in the state, and 0.0049 percent of the electricity consumption in
Alameda County.
In 2015, Californians consumed approximately 15.1 billion gallons of gasoline and 3 billion
gallons of diesel fuel. Extrapolated over a five-year period, Californians would consume 75.5
billion gallons of gasoline and 15 billion gallons of diesel. Alameda County annual diesel
consumption was 137,597,000 gallons and gasoline consumption was 539,782,000 gallons.
Extrapolated over a five-year period, Alameda County would consume 688 million gallons of
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-17
Draft EIR
10/23/18
diesel and 2.7 billion gallons of gasoline. Project construction gasoline consumption would
represent 0.04 percent of gasoline consumption in the County, and construction diesel
consumption would represent 0.33 percent of diesel consumption in the County over the
approximately five-year construction period.
Therefore, based on the project’s relatively low construction fuel use proportional to State and
County consumption, the project would not substantially affect existing energy or fuel supplies
or resources. New capacity/additional sources of construction fuel are not anticipated to be
required.
Furthermore, there are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of
construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction
sites in the region or state. In addition, some incidental energy conservation would occur
during construction through compliance with State requirements that equipment not in use for
more than five minutes be turned off. Project construction equipment would also be required
to comply with the latest EPA and CARB engine emissions standards. These engines use highly
efficient combustion engines to minimize unnecessary fuel consumption.
The project would entail construction activities that would consume energy, primarily in the
form of diesel fuel (e.g., mobile construction equipment) and electricity (e.g., power tools).
MM AQ-2.1 requires that engine idling for construction equipment is to be limited and that all
equipment is properly tuned and maintained to the manufacturer’s specifications. Additionally,
the City’s Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance requires that 100 percent of asphalt
and concrete be recycled and a minimum of 50 percent of all other materials be recycled.
Recycling construction and demolition waste not only keeps it from being transported to the
landfill, but also reduces the “upstream” energy consumption from the manufacturing of virgin
material in the first place. The project would be required to comply with this ordinance.
Construction activities would be required to monitor air quality emissions using applicable
regulatory guidance such as the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. This requirement indirectly relates
to construction energy conservation because when air pollutant emissions are reduced as a
result of monitoring and the efficient use of equipment and materials, this results in reduced
energy consumption. There are no aspects of the project that would foreseeably result in the
inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction activities.
As described above, the project’s fuel from the entire construction period would increase fuel
use in the County by less than one percent (i.e., project construction would represent 0.043
percent of gasoline consumption and 0.33 percent of diesel consumption in the County over a
five-year period). It should be noted that the CEQA Guideline Appendix F criteria requires the
project’s effects on local and regional energy supplies and on the requirements for additional
capacity to be addressed. A less than one percent increase in construction fuel demand is not
anticipated to trigger the need for additional capacity. Additionally, use of construction fuel
would be temporary and would cease once the project is fully developed. As such, project
construction would have a nominal effect on the local and regional energy supplies. It is noted
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-18 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
that construction fuel use is temporary and would cease upon completion of construction
activities.
As stated above, there are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of
construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction
sites in the region or state. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption
associated with the project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than
other similar development projects of this nature. Therefore, potential impacts are considered
less than significant.
18.3.4 Operations (Long-Term)
The energy consumption associated with operation of uses pursuant to the project would
include building electricity, water, and natural gas usage, as well as fuel usage from on-road
vehicles. The methodology for each category is discussed below. Note that this energy
resources analysis is consistent with the analysis presented in Chapter 6 and Chapter 10.
Quantifications of operational energy consumption are provided for the project.
Transportation Energy Demand
The gasoline and diesel usage associated with on-road vehicular trips is calculated based on
total VMT from the Chapter 6 and Chapter 10 analyses, as well as the average fuel efficiency
from EMFAC2017 model. The EMFAC2017 fuel efficiency data incorporate the Pavley Clean Car
Standards and the Advanced Clean Cars Program.27 As summarized in Table18-5: Project Annual
Energy Consumption During Operations, the total gasoline and diesel consumption associated
with on-road trips would be approximately 698,385 gallons per year and 223,350 gallons per
year, respectively.
The EMFAC2017 model includes the fraction of electric vehicles projected to be in the on-road
fleet during the assumed first year of operation; however, the fraction of the fleet that is
electric is assumed to continue to increase, allowing a decrease in gasoline and diesel
consumption. The electricity consumption related to electric vehicle traffic during operation
was estimated based on the EMFAC2017 fleet mix and the model year 2015 average kWh/mile
for current model electric vehicles (USDOE 2016). Total electricity usage from the on-road
transportation during operation is approximately 32,449 kWh per year (32 MWh per year).
27 The California Air Resources Board EMFAC 2017 Technical Documentation (March 2018) notes that
emissions are estimated with all current controls active, except Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS). The reason for
excluding LCFS is that most of the emissions benefits due to the LCFS come from the production cycle (upstream
emissions) of the fuel rather than the combustion cycle (tailpipe). As a result, LCFS is assumed to not have a
significant impact on CO2 emissions from EMFAC’s tailpipe emission estimates.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-19
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 18-5 Project Annual Energy Consumption During Operations
Source Project Operational
Usage
Alameda County Annual Energy
Consumption
Percentage Increase
Countywide
Electricity Use Megawatt Hour/Year (MWh/year)
Building 1 10,466
10,815,000
0.0968%
Water 1 430 0.0040%
Mobile 2 32 0.0003%
Total Electricity 10,929 0.1011%
Natural Gas Use Therms/year
Building 1 228,312 361,000,000 0.0632%
Diesel Use Gallons/Year
Mobile 2 223,350 137,597,000 0.1623%
Gasoline Use Gallons/Year
Mobile 2 698,385 539,782,000 0.1294%
Notes:
1. The electricity, natural gas, and water usage are based on project-specific estimates and CalEEMod defaults.
2. Calculated based on the mobile source fuel use based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and fleet-average fuel consumption (in gallons per
mile) from EMFAC2017. For electric vehicles, model year 2015 electric vehicle fuel economy is used from the DOE Fuel Economy Guide.
Abbreviations: CalEEMod: California Emission Estimation Model; EMFAC2014: California Air Resources Board Emission Factor Model; kBTU:
thousand British Thermal Units; kWh: kilowatt-hour; MWh: Megawatt-hour.
Sources: AWMA, 1992; DOE 2016; USEPA 1996.
Electricity Usage
Building Envelope
The electricity usage associated with the building envelopes constructed pursuant to the
project is based on CalEEMod defaults. As summarized in Table18-5: Project Annual Energy
Consumption During Operations, the buildings would consume 10,466,231 kWh (approximately
10.47 GWh) of electricity per year.
Water Consumption
The electricity usage associated with operational water consumption is estimated based on the
annual water consumption and the energy intensity factor is the CalEEMod default energy
intensity per gallon of water for Alameda County. Project area water use is based on the water
demand per square foot factors in CalEEMod.
Natural Gas Usage
Building Envelope
The methodology used to calculate the natural gas usage associated with the building
envelopes constructed pursuant to the project is based on CalEEMod default usage rates. As
summarized in Table18-5: Project Annual Energy Consumption During Operations, the building
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-20 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
envelope would consume 22,831,243 thousand British Thermal Units (kBTU) (228,312 therms)
of natural gas per year.
Analysis
Operation of uses implemented pursuant to the project would annually consume
approximately 10.5 million kWh of electricity, 22.8 million kBTU of natural gas, 223,350 gallons
of diesel, and 698,385 gallons of gasoline.
Californians consumed 285,701 GWh of electricity in 2016, of which Alameda County consumed
10,815 GWh. The project’s operational electricity consumption would represent 0.004 percent
of the electricity consumption in the state, and 0.10 percent of the energy consumption in
Alameda County. Regarding natural gas, Californians consumed 12,739 million therms (or
1,273.9 billion kBTUs) of natural gas and 361 million therms of natural gas in Alameda County in
2016. Therefore, the project’s operational natural gas consumption would represent 0.002
percent of the natural gas consumption in the state and 0.06 percent of the natural gas
consumption in the County.
In 2015, Californians consumed approximately 15.1 billion gallons of gasoline and 3 billion
gallons of diesel fuel. Project operational consumption of gasoline and diesel would represent
0.004 percent of gasoline and 0.007 percent of diesel consumption statewide. Project
operational consumption of gasoline and diesel would represent 0.13 percent of gasoline and
0.16 percent of diesel consumption in the County.
Therefore, operation of uses under the project would not substantially affect existing energy or
fuel supplies or resources. The project would comply with applicable energy standards and
new capacity would not be required. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Energy Efficiency Measures
As discussed above, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-residential
Buildings create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption, and provide
energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings. These standards are
incorporated within the California Building Code and are expected to substantially reduce the
growth in electricity and natural gas use. For example, requirements for energy efficient
lighting, heating and cooling systems, and green building materials are expected to save
additional electricity and natural gas. These savings are cumulative, doubling as years go by.
The project would include additional energy efficiency measures per City’s Climate Action Plan.
For example, the project would install LED streetlights where streetlights needed. The project
also would include energy-efficient outdoor lighting for community and publicly accessible
outdoor spaces where feasible. Full cut-off lights and automated outdoor lights on commercial
buildings and in publicly accessible places, including open space and parking lots, that adjust for
time and seasons will also be utilized.
Photovoltaic solar systems and on-demand water heating systems would be included an option
for home buyers. Photovoltaic systems would be installed on the rooftops of commercial
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-21
Draft EIR
10/23/18
buildings. On-demand water heating systems would also be included where applicable.
Additionally, all structures that do not include solar photovoltaic panels will be “solar ready,” as
required by City Municipal Code sections 7.94.060 and 7.94.070. Energy Star appliances and
low-flow toilets would be installed for the residential units and low-flow toilets and “smart”
control systems would be installed for the commercial uses. Light-colored cool roofs will be
used for the apartments and commercial buildings and pavement will be light-colored
throughout the project.
Regarding water energy conservation, the project would incorporate drought-tolerant
landscaping in commonly-owned areas in the residential and commercial portions of the site.
Recycled water and water-efficient irrigation controls would also be used in the landscape
areas. A comprehensive water conservation strategy would be development as applicable to
each respective land use as part of the project plan development. Buildings would also
incorporate water-efficient fixtures and appliances, in compliance with Title 24.
The project also reduces transportation energy usage by applying “smart growth” principles as
an urban in-fill development with a mix of retail, entertainment, and residential uses adjacent
to transit/multi-modal corridors and within two miles of a BART station. The project facilitates
the use of existing bus routes with stops adjacent to the project site. The Livermore Amador
Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) runs bus service from the project site (Dublin Boulevard and
Tassajara Road) to the BART station with 15-minute headways during peak commute hours.
Additionally, the Project would improve and complete pedestrian and bicycle connections
around its perimeter and through the Project site. Provide bicycle storage would be provided in
the apartments and bicycle racks would be provided near the commercial uses. The project
would also improve and complete bicycle lanes and facilities along the perimeter and through
the project site that connect with existing bicycle routes. The project includes landscaped
paseos and pedestrian pathways that would directly connect residents and retail patrons with
adjacent open space, surrounding neighborhoods and nearby Emerald Glen Park. Sidewalks on
the streets surrounding the project site would be improved and a 10-foot public multi-use trail
would be constructed on the north side of Central Parkway and an on-street bicycle lane along
Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road, Central Parkway, and Gleason Drive.
The project would increase the permitted residential density to permit more residential units
than allowed under the existing zoning. The commercial uses are also planned at a higher
density through the application of shared parking. The shared parking plan would allow parking
to be shared by the apartments and commercial space, along with shared parking between
hospitality uses with complimentary peak demand.
Furthermore, both electricity providers in Alameda County, EBCE and PG&E, are subject to
California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). The RPS requires investor-owned utilities,
electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from
eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020 and to 50
percent of total procurement by 2030. Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-22 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
comes from resources which are naturally replenished within a human timescale such as
sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat.
The project would be required to adhere to all Federal, State, and local requirements for energy
efficiency, including the latest Title 24 standards. Considering these requirements in addition to
the project design features described above, the project would not result in the inefficient,
wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy. Therefore, potential impacts are
considered less than significant.
The project would generate less-than-significant impacts related to energy use. Additionally,
the project would incorporate various building and transportation energy saving design
features (described above) and comply with the latest State Building Code (Title 24, Part 6 of
the California Code of Regulations), which further minimize energy consumption towards the
California Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan’s (CEESP) goal to have 100 percent of new
homes achieve zero net energy beginning in 2020. The latest Building Code approved by the
California Energy Commission reduces energy use in new homes by 28 percent compared to the
previous (2013) version of the code. Additionally, the California Plumbing and Green Building
Codes require water efficient fixtures that would reduce water consumption and water related
energy use. For example, the code requires automatic irrigation systems utilizing weather
and/or soil moisture based irrigation controllers. The code also requires the installation of high
efficiency toilets (HET) with a maximum of 1.28 gallons per flush, install kitchen faucets, bath
faucets, and shower heads that are 20 percent more efficient than typical low-flow plumbing
fixtures.
18.3.5 Cumulative Impacts
Construction and operations associated with implementation of the project would result in the
consumption of fuel and energy, but it would not do so in a wasteful manner. The consumption
of fuel and energy would not be substantial in comparison to statewide electricity, natural gas,
gasoline, and diesel demand; refer to Table 18-5 and Table 18-6. New capacity or supplies of
energy resources would not be required. Additionally, the project would be subject to
compliance with all Federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency.
The anticipated project impacts, in conjunction with cumulative development in the site
vicinity, would increase urbanization and result in increased energy consumption. Potential
land use impacts are site-specific and require evaluation on a case-by-case basis. Each
cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessment, which
would address potential energy consumption impacts and identify necessary mitigation
measures, where appropriate.
As noted above, the project would not result in significant energy consumption impacts. The
project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary with regard to energy.
Thus, the project and identified cumulative projects are not anticipated to result in a significant
cumulative impact. Therefore, potential impacts are considered less than significant.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-23
Draft EIR
10/23/18
18.3.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Table 18-6 (Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Energy Conservation) summarizes
the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the
project with regard to energy conservation.
Table 18-6: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Energy Conservation
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
Impact ER-1: Encourage activities that result in the
use of large amounts of fuel or energy, or use these
resources in a wasteful manner (Class III)
Less than Significant None required
18.4 References
Air and Waste Management Association (AWMA). 1992. Air Pollution Engineering Manual.
California State Board of Equalization (BOE.) 2018a. Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons. Available at:
http://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/MVF_10_Year_Report.pdf. Accessed May 2,
2018.
California State Board of Equalization (BOE). 2018b. Taxable Diesel Gallons 10-year Report.
Available at: http://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/Diesel_10_Year_Report.pdf.
Accessed May 2, 2018.
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). 2016. CalEEMod User’s Guide. Available at:
http://www.caleemod.com/.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2016a. Energy Consumption Data Management Service.
Electricity Consumption by County. Available at:
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed May 2, 2018.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2016. Final Integrated Energy Policy Report Update.
Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2016_energypolicy. Accessed May 2, 2018.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018a. Electricity Consumption by County. Available at:
htpp://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov. Accessed May 2, 2017.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018b. Energy Almanac, California’s Electricity Data.
Available at:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html.
Accessed May 2, 2018.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-24 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018c. California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Available at:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/. Accessed May 2, 2018.
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). 2016. CalEEMod User’s Guide. Available at:
http://www.caleemod.com/.
California Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission (CPUC and CEC). 2008.
2008 Update, Energy Action Plan. Available at:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-100-2008-001/CEC-100-2008-
001.PDF.
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). 2018a. Company Profile. Available at:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/profile/profile.page.
Accessed May 2, 2018.
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). 2017b. PG&E’s 2016 Electric Power Mix Delivered to Retail
Customers. Available at:
http://www.pge.com/myhome/edusafety/systemworks/electric/energymix/. Accessed
May 2, 2018.
United States Department of Energy (USDOE). 2016. Model Year 2015 Fuel Economy Guide.
Available at: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/guides/FEG2015.pdf. Accessed
May 2, 2018.
United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2018. California Natural Gas Total
Consumption. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/na1490_sca_2a.htm
Accessed May 2, 2018.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Alternatives | Page 19-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
19 Alternatives
This section describes the CEQA requirements related to alternatives and describes the process
used to define alternatives to the project. It describes three alternatives to the project and
provides a comparative analysis for each of these alternatives to the project. It includes the
evaluation of the No Project Alternative, as required by CEQA, and a comparison of alternatives.
Finally, it identifies the environmentally superior alternative.
19.1 CEQA Requirements for Alternatives
CEQA requires that an EIR “…describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to
the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the
project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and
evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every
conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially
feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation.” (CEQA
Guidelines §15126.6(a))
To comply with this requirement, the City of Dublin evaluated possible alternatives based on
the following factors:
Does the alternative accomplish most of the basic project objectives?
Is the alternative potentially feasible (from economic, environmental, legal, social,
technological standpoints)?
Does the alternative avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project?
Alternatives need be environmentally superior to the project in only some, not all,
respects.
Is the alternative reasonable and realistic? An EIR need not consider an alternative
whose effect cannot reasonably be ascertained or whose implementation is remote and
speculative, because unrealistic alternatives do not contribute to a useful analysis.
19.2 Consistency with Project Objectives
The basic purpose of an EIR's discussion of alternatives is to suggest ways project objectives
might be achieved at less environmental cost. Accordingly, alternatives must be able to meet
most project objectives, but they need not have to meet all of them. As stated in the CEQA
Guidelines, the EIR’s alternatives analysis should focus on alternatives that can eliminate or
reduce significant environmental impacts even if they would impede attainment of project
objectives to some degree or be more costly (14 CCR §15126.6(b)). The alternatives discussed
must, however, be able to attain most of the basic objectives of the project (14 CCR
§15126.6(a)).
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-19-2 | Alternatives
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The determination of whether to eliminate or retain alternatives in this EIR was based on each
alternative’s ability to meet most or all of the project objectives (see Chapter 3: Project
Description), even if the alternative may be more costly than the project.
19.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration
19.3.1 Alternative Location
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2) sets forth considerations to be used in evaluating an
alternative location. The section states that the “key question” is whether any of the significant
effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by relocating the project. The
CEQA Guidelines identify the following factors that may be taken into account when addressing
the feasibility of an alternative location:
Site suitability
Economic viability
Availability of infrastructure
General Plan consistency
Other plans or regulatory limitations
Jurisdictional boundaries
Whether the project applicant can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access
to the alternative site
The CEQA Guidelines establish that only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen the
project’s environmental effects are feasible and would meet most of the project objectives
should be considered as alternative locations for the project.
Because of Alameda County Measure D, which effectively prohibits new urban development
outside of city limits in eastern Alameda County, only sites located within the current Dublin
city limits are considered feasible.
Given the size of the project and the broad mix of uses proposed, it was determined that there
are no other suitable undeveloped parcels that do not already have a pending application nor
have existing entitlements in the City of Dublin that could accommodate the land uses
envisioned for the project. Additionally, the project applicant does not own or otherwise
control property of a similar size.
For these reasons, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
19.3.2 High School Project
During the public scoping process, comments were made recommending a project that includes
land appropriated for the development of a new high school.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Alternatives | Page 19-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
As described in Chapter 16 – Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems, the Dublin Unified
School District (DUSD) has identified the need for a second high school, preferably in eastern
Dublin, to address future student enrollment growth that exceeds capacity. To address this
need, the DUSD Board of Trustees directed the Superintendent to create a Community Review
Committee to review, analyze, and recommend potential land options for a future high school.
Their final report, Community Review Committee Report: Study of Potential Sites for a Future
High School, dated February 6, 2018, looked at 11 sites (see image below). Of these, five sites
were recommended for further consideration, namely DiManto A and DiManto B&C (both part
of the project site), as well as Fallon Middle School, Fallon Sports Park and the Promenade.
The report noted that advantages of the DiManto A and B&C sites include their size,
configuration, location, and adjacent commercial uses. Challenges identified include the fact
that the project site is already being considered for development (the project that this EIR is
analyzing), the higher acquisition costs based on current zoning, and the risk of a protracted
timely and added complexity if DUSD is compelled to pursue eminent domain to acquire the
parcel(s).
On June 12, 2018, the DUSD Board approved the selection of the 23.4-acre Promenade site as
their preferred location for the development of a new high school with a proposed enrollment
of up to 2,500 students. As shown in the figure below, the site could be accessed from both
Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard and would include multi-story buildings, sport fields, an
internal access road, and approximately 400 parking spaces. Construction is estimated to be
completed by 2022.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-19-4 | Alternatives
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Source: DUSD, June 12, 2018.
While it is recognized by the community and the DUSD that a portion of the project site could
be developed as a new high school, this alternative was eliminated for several reasons. First, as
documented in the City’s General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the City has long-
considered the project site as appropriate for a mixed of commercial and residential uses.
Therefore, a land use designation change from these uses to a Public use would represent a
significant change in City policy.
Second, the DUSD is a separate governmental entity from the City of Dublin and as such,
responsible for the development and operation of their facilities. This includes acting as the
Lead Agency under CEQA to analyze the potential environmental impacts of specific projects
they wish to pursue. The City of Dublin can only act as a Responsible Agency to review and
issue the appropriate permits associated with a DUSD project application.
Thirdly, the development of a high school on a portion of the project site would result in a
failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6. These objectives (summarized) include: 1) Provide a balanced mix of residential and
job-creating commercial uses, including high-density housing, that is financially feasible; 2) Add
City of Dublin At Dublin
Alternatives | Page 19-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
commercial, entertainment, and hotel uses that will have a synergy with existing retail in the
City; 3) Add to the City’s housing diversity in compliance with Housing Element Program 10 and
General Plan Policy 2.6.1.A.1 by providing a range of housing products; 4) Expand and improve
the City’s housing supply by developing high-quality housing in a portion of a City-designated
Priority Development Area, which is a location planned for growth under the Sustainable
Communities Strategy for the Bay Area: 5) Increase housing on the project site beyond what
was initially planned under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which will help in state-wide efforts
to alleviate California’s housing crisis.
Fourthly, as described above, the DUSD has selected the Promenade as their preferred site for
the construction of a new high school.
For these reasons, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
19.3.3 Commercial Only Project
During the public scoping process, comments were made recommending future development
that was commercial only (e.g. offices and retail), with no residential development. Like the
High School Project alternative, this alternative would preclude the development of a mixed-
use commercial and residential project as contemplated in the City’s General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan. It would also fail to meet most of the basic project objectives as they
relate to the development of residential uses. For these reasons, this alternative was
eliminated from further consideration.
19.4 Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative
19.4.1 Description
In addition to studying a reasonable range of alternatives based on the criteria set forth above,
CEQA requires the EIR to analyze a “no-project” alternative. Consideration of the No Project
Alternative is required by Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines. The analysis of the No
Project Alternative must discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation
was published (March 25, 2015), as well as: “what would be reasonably expected to occur in
the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent
with available infrastructure and community services” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (e)(2)).
The requirements also specify that: “If disapproval of the project under consideration would
result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some other project, this ‘no
project’ consequence should be discussed” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (e)(3)(B)).
19.4.2 Impact Analysis
The No Project Alternative would not advance any of the project objectives and the project site
would remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future. No disturbance or new development
would occur, thereby eliminating the potential for impacts on any of the environmental
resources analyzed in this EIR. Accordingly, this alternative would avoid all of the project’s
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-19-6 | Alternatives
Draft EIR
10/23/18
significant impacts (including significant and unavoidable impacts), as well as the need to
implement any mitigation measures.
19.5 Alternative 2 – Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
19.5.1 Description
The Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Alternative would allow development
consistent with existing land use designations and development densities as described in the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. As shown in Figure 3-3: Existing General Plan
and Land Use Designations, this includes designations of Neighborhood Commercial, General
Commercial, Medium High Density Residential, High Density Residential, and Public/Semi-
Public. Most the site is designated General Commercial. As shown in Table 3-1: Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Anticipated Project Site Development, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan assumed
development of 261 residential units and 902,563 square feet of commercial.
As shown in Table 19-2: Alternative 2 Land Use Summary & Comparison, this alternative would
have 419 fewer residential units and 448,063 more square feet of commercial uses in
comparison to the project.
Table 19-2: Alternative 2 Land Use Summary & Comparison
Land Use Designations Gross Acres Res. Units Du/Acre
Floor Area
Ratio
Commercial
sq. ft.
General Commercial 60.3 -- -- .4 846,153
Neighborhood Commercial 3.7 -- -- .35 56,140
Medium Density Residential 4.3 43 10 -- --
Medium-High Density Residential 5.3 106 20 -- --
High Density Residential 3.2 112 109 -- --
Public / Semi-Public 3.3 -- -- -- --
Total 261 902,563
Proposed Project 76.9 680 -- -- 454,500
Difference (419) 448,063
19.5.2 Impact Analysis
Because the entirety of the project site is assumed to be disturbed, impacts to Cultural & Tribal
Resources, Geology & Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology & Water Quality, and
construction related Air Quality/GHG Emissions and Noise would be similar to the project. Also,
because the types of land uses would be similar and subject to the site and architectural design
review, impacts to aesthetics would also be similar.
Impacts to Public Services, Utilities, & Service Systems, would generally be similar as this
alternative would be developing urban uses, similar to that proposed; with both needing
infrastructure to service the site, as well as police, fire, and emergency services.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Alternatives | Page 19-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Because the number people living on the project site would be less, impacts to population and
housing would be reduced, however, impacts would not be significant for this alternative,
similar to the project.
As shown in Table 19-2: Alternative 2 Trip Generation Comparison, Alternative 2 would
generate considerably more trips as compared to the project.
Table 19-2: Alternative 2 Trip Generation Comparison
Scenario
Trip Generation
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Saturday Peak
Hour
Alternative 2 – Existing General Plan 27,721 740 2,387 3,486
Proposed Project 19,327 748 1,545 1,928
Difference +8,394 -8 +842 +1,558
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018.
Because Alternative 2 would result in more traffic trips, operational impacts to air quality would
be greater. The greater number of traffic trips would correspond to more operational noise
impacts as well.
19.6 Alternative 3 – Commercial Development Task Force Land Plan
19.6.1 Background & Context
This alternative is derived from recommendations made by the City of Dublin Commercial
Development Task Force (CDTF), as documented in their Final Summary of Key
Recommendations Report, July 2014. The CDTF was created by the Dublin City Council in March
2014 to examine the potential for additional commercial development throughout Dublin. As
shown in Figure 19-1: Commercial Development Task Force Opportunity Sites, City staff
identified five “opportunity sites” that were the key focus of the CDTF, namely: 1) Downtown
Dublin; 2) The Green at Park Place; 3) Dublin Land Company (the project site); 4) The
Promenade/Grafton Plaza; and 5) the Chen property.
The purpose of the CDTF was is to engage residents and seek their input regarding the
remaining undeveloped commercial properties in Dublin. The CDTF was charged with the
following three tasks:
1. Classify the desirability of existing commercial sites for future development
2. Define desirable design principles to shape the vision of future commercial
development
3. Identify additional economic development incentives to attract and retain
commercial uses
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-19-8 | Alternatives
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The project site was identified as Dublin Land Company (DLC) – Parcel 1 (I-580 to Dublin
Boulevard), Parcel 2 (Dublin Boulevard to Central Parkway, and Parcels 3 & 4 (Center Park to
the northern boundary, north of Gleason Drive). The CDTF made following land use
recommendations:
DCL Parcel 1
A4-1. There is support for the existing land use of General Commercial which allows both office
and retail commercial.
A4-2. There is strong support for office uses at this site which should be a priority over retail.
A4-3. Office development should and would complement Dublin Corporate Center and
Gateway Medical to the west across Tassajara Road.
A4-4. Do not consider an auto dealership at this location.
DCL Parcel 2
A4-5. Create a “main street” lifestyle experience which incorporates a sense of place, walkable,
with gathering areas.
A4-6. Provide opportunities for retail, restaurant and neighborhood serving uses.
A4-7. This site provides a prime location for retail uses since it is on the “going home” side of
Tassajara Road.
A4-8. Uses should complement, but not necessarily duplicate, those uses already located at
The Shops at Waterford.
A4-9. Develop this parcel as a neighborhood commercial/lifestyle oriented walkable shopping
center.
A4-10. A mixed-use residential development, similar in orientation to The Shops at Waterford,
is supported here if it includes a strong retail component.
A4-11. The construction timing for the residential portion of a mixed-use development should
be tied to the construction of any retail component.
DLC - Parcels 3 & 4
A4-12. These parcels are best suited for medium-density residential.
A4-13. Residential uses should be considered based on existing adjacent uses and the
proximity to Emerald Glen Park.
A4-14. Residential development is supported on Parcels 3 and 4 if there is a strong commercial
component on Parcel 2.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Alternatives | Page 19-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
19.6.2 Description
Based on the recommendations above, particularly recommendation A4-3, this alternative
assumes the development of office use south of Dublin Boulevard. This 23-acre area would be
developed at a 0.3 floor-area-ratio (FAR) for a total of 300,564 square feet. The land uses north
of Dublin Boulevard would remain the same as the project. As shown in Table 19-3: Alternative
3 Land Use Summary & Comparison, this alternative would result in a reduction of 69,436 sf. of
commercial land use.
Table 19-3: Alternative 3 Land Use Summary & Comparison
Land Use Designations Gross Acres Res. Units Du/Acre
Floor Area
Ratio
Commercial
sq. ft.
Office 23.2 -- -- .3 300,564
Mixed-Use 16.1 300 -- .7 84,500
Medium-High Density Residential 14.1 200 14.2
Medium-Density Residential 23.5 180 7.7 -- --
Total -- 680 -- -- 385,064
Proposed Project 76.9 680 -- -- 454,500
Difference -- 0 -- -- (69,436)
19.6.3 Impact Analysis
Because the entirety of the project site is assumed to be disturbed, impacts to Cultural & Tribal
Resources, Geology & Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology & Water Quality, and
construction related Air Quality/GHG Emissions and Noise would be similar to the project. Also,
because the types of land uses would be similar and subject to the site and architectural design
review, impacts to aesthetics would also be similar.
Impacts to Public Services, Utilities, & Service Systems, would generally be similar as this
alternative would be developing urban uses, similar to that proposed; with both needing
infrastructure to service the site, as well as police, fire, and emergency services.
Because there would be no change in the number people living on the project site, impacts to
population and housing would be similar to the project.
As shown in Table 19-4: Trip Generation for Alternative 3, Alternative 3 would generate
considerably less trips as compared to the project.
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-19-10 | Alternatives
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 19-4: Alternative 3 Trip Generation Comparison
Scenario
Trip Generation
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Saturday Peak
Hour
Alternative 3 – Commercial 12,765 764 1,027 909
Proposed Project 19,327 748 1,545 1,928
Difference -6,562 +16 -518 -1,019
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018.
Because Alternative 3 would result in fewer traffic trips, operational impacts to air quality
would be less, but would still remain significant and unavoidable. The reduced number of
traffic trips would correspond to less operational noise impacts as well.
19.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The qualitative environmental effect of each alternative in relation to the project are
summarized in Table 19-5: Comparison of Alternatives.
Table 19-5: Comparison of Alternatives
Topic
Alternative 1
No Project
Alternative 2
Existing General Plan
and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan
Alternative 3
Commercial
Development Task
Force Land Plan
Aesthetics Less impact Similar impact Similar impact
Air Quality Less impact Similar Impact Less impact
Biological Resources Less impact Similar impact Similar impact
Cultural & Tribal Cultural
Resources
Less impact Similar impact Similar impact
Geology & Soils Less impact Similar impact Similar impact
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less impact Greater impact Less impact
Hazards & Hazardous Materials Less impact Similar impact Similar impact
Hydrology & Water Quality Less impact Similar impact Similar impact
Land Use & Planning Less impact Similar impact Similar impact
Noise & Vibration Less impact Similar Impact Less impact
Population & Housing Less impact Similar impact Similar impact
Public Services, Utilities &
Service Systems
Less impact Similar impact Similar impact
Transportation & Circulation Less impact Greater impact Less impact
City of Dublin At Dublin
Alternatives | Page 19-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(e)(2) requires an EIR to identify an environmentally superior
alternative. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR
must also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives.
In this case, the No Project Alternative has less impact on all topical subjects. Therefore, of the
three remaining alternatives, Alternative 3 Commercial Development Task Force Land Plan
would be environmentally superior because it achieves the greatest reduction in daily, weekday
AM peak-hour, and weekday PM peak-hour trip generation. This would result in the greatest
reductions in the severity of the significant unavoidable transportation impacts, and a
corresponding reduction in air quality and noise impacts. Therefore, the Alternative 3
Commercial Development Task Force Land Plan is the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Other CEQA Considerations | Page 20-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
20 Other CEQA Considerations
20.1 Growth-Inducing Effects
Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides the following guidance on growth-
inducing impacts: a project is identified as growth inducing if it “could foster economic or
population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the
surrounding environment.”
A project can have direct and/or indirect growth-inducement potential. Direct growth
inducement would result if a project involves construction of new housing. A project can have
indirect growth-inducement potential if it would establish substantial new permanent
employment opportunities (e.g., commercial, industrial or governmental enterprises) or if it
would involve a substantial construction effort with substantial short-term employment
opportunities and indirectly stimulate the need for additional housing and services to support
the new employment demand.
Similarly, under CEQA, a project would indirectly induce growth if it would remove an obstacle
to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a required public
service. Increases in population could tax existing community service facilities, requiring
construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. The CEQA
Guidelines also require analysis of the characteristics of projects that may encourage and
facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or
cumulatively.
The project’s 680 residential units would directly result in a population increase of 1,836
persons, based on the General Plan average of 2.7 person per household. This population
increase would not represent a substantial increase in housing and/or residents. Furthermore,
this amount of growth would be within existing growth projections for the City. Equally, the
increase in population would not represent a substantial indirect growth inducement factor.
Residential development on the project site would not propose new infrastructure that would
induce substantial growth in the project site vicinity that was not previously considered for
development. Residential development on the project site, like other development in the
project site vicinity, would connect to existing utilities and occur within an urbanized area
adequately served by transportation systems and infrastructure.
The project would develop up to 454,500 sf. of new commercial uses. Using a standard
employment estimate of one job per 500 sf., the project would employ an estimated 909
workers. This number of jobs is not large enough to induce significant population growth in the
area. In addition, the California Employment Development Department indicates that the
Alameda County labor force totaled 847,800 persons as of December 2017. Of this figure,
25,200 persons were unemployed. This indicates that there is a large enough pool of labor in
Alameda County to fill the project’s employment opportunities such that it would be unlikely
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-20-2 | Other CEQA Considerations
Draft EIR
10/23/18
that substantial numbers of people would relocate to the East Bay. Similarly, short-term
construction jobs would likely be filled by existing residents of the City of Dublin and the region.
Based on the foregoing analysis, growth-inducing impacts would be less than significant.
20.2 Significant Irreversible Commitment of Resources
Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that irreversible commitments of
resources should be evaluated to assure that such consumption is justified. Uses of
nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be
irreversible because a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse
thereafter unlikely, and certain types of impacts may commit future generations to similar uses.
Changes that Commit Future Generations to Similar Uses
The project would change the current land use designation and zoning of the project site and
commit future generations to similar land uses. Depending on market demand, the commercial
uses could change or be replaced in the future. However, residential development, once
constructed, is rarely replaced by new uses within the first few generations after construction.
Use of Nonrenewable Resources
Construction of the project would consume natural resources (gasoline, sand and gravel,
asphalt, oil, etc.) during construction activities. During operation of both the commercial and
the residential uses, energy would be consumed for lighting, heating/cooling, and
transportation. Neither the construction nor operation would consume nonrenewable
resources in amounts substantially different from or greater than typical urban development or
similar land uses. The project would not affect agricultural resources or mineral resources or
access to such resources. Therefore, the project would not involve a large commitment of
nonrenewable resources.
Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents
The project may include storage of hazardous materials, such as cleaning products and other
products, which would not be regarded as sufficient to create a significant hazard to the public.
All hazardous materials would be subject to existing storage, handling, and disposal regulations
that limit the potential exposure to workers and the public.
20.3 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
The project would result in the following significant unavoidable impacts:
Air Quality. The project would cause construction impacts associated with the release
of nitrogen oxides (NOx) that would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Despite
implementation of MM AQ-2.2, construction-related NOx emissions would remain
significant and unavoidable. The project would also cause operational impacts
associated with the release of reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOx that would exceed
BAAQMD significance thresholds. Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.4, operational
City of Dublin At Dublin
Other CEQA Considerations | Page 20-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
emissions from ROG and NOx would remain significant and unavoidable. These impacts
would occur through cumulative conditions.
Near-Term + Project Traffic Conditions. The project would increase the critical delay
movement by more than six (6) seconds to the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard (#14). This intersection would also experience an increase in queuing due to
the project of more than 25 feet during the weekday AM and PM peak periods and the
weekend peak period. This intersection was determined to be over capacity with no
feasible mitigation available. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and
unavoidable.
In addition, there is a LOS impact at the intersection of Santa Rita Road / Las Positas
Boulevard (Int #18). The project adds 278 trips in the PM peak hour to an already
deficient intersection. Mitigation Measure TR-5.1 would improve the operations to an
acceptable LOS, however since this intersection is located in the City of Pleasanton, the
City of Dublin cannot guarantee the implementation of the mitigation and therefore it
remains significant and unavoidable.
In addition, there is a LOS impact at the intersection of El Charro Road / Stoneridge
Drive / Jack London Boulevard (Int #29). The project adds 70 trips in the PM peak hour
to an already deficient intersection. Mitigation Measure TR-2.1 would improve the
operations to an acceptable LOS, however since this intersection is located in the City of
Livermore, the City of Dublin cannot guarantee the implementation of the mitigation
and therefore it remains significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative + Project Traffic Conditions. The project would contribute new trips to
facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels; namely, Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard (#14), Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (#18), El Charro Road / Jack
London Boulevard (#29), Project Driveway / Dublin Boulevard (#35). All feasible
mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts to levels better than without
project conditions; except for the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
(#14). No feasible mitigation is available for this intersection, similar to the Near-term +
Project conditions. In addition, Intersections #18 and #29 are located outside of the City
of Dublin, and therefore the implementation of the mitigations cannot be guaranteed.
Arterials. The project would contribute new trips to the already congested study
roadway segments along Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard. These arterials are
already over capacity in the future conditions and operate at LOS F based on average
travel speeds from the SimTraffic analysis. Since there are no feasible mitigations to
improve the average travel speeds to LOS D or better, the residual significance is
significant and unavoidable.
Freeways. The project would contribute new trips to the already congested project
study freeway segments from Dougherty Road to Airway Boulevard on I-580. These
segments are already over capacity and should be operating at LOS F because the
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-20-4 | Other CEQA Considerations
Draft EIR
10/23/18
volumes for the westbound direction in the AM peak hour and the volumes for the
eastbound direction in the PM peak hour are constrained by downstream bottlenecks.
While the project would be required to pay their proportional share of traffic impact
fees, these freeway segments will continue to operate in an over capacity manner.
Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable.
Ramp Metering. The project would contribute new trips to the Hacienda Drive loop on-
ramp to EB I-580 in the PM peak, to the Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp to WB I-580 in
the AM peak, and to the El Charro Road loop on-ramp to EB I-580 in the PM peak. Each
of these on-ramps have queues that exceed the on-ramp storage and extend onto the
arterial with project traffic added. While the project would be required to pay their
proportional share of traffic impact fees, the improvements cannot be guaranteed since
it is under Caltrans jurisdiction. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and
unavoidable.
Congestion Management Program. The project would contribute new trips to
Congestion Management Program facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels
(freeways and major arterials). All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to
mitigate impacts; however, in certain cases, they would not fully mitigate the impact to
a level of less than significant. In other cases, no feasible mitigation is available.
Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable.
The EDSP EIR also included the impacts identified above as significant and unavoidable as
follows:
Air Quality. Project development as a result of dust deposition, construction equipment
emissions, mobile source emissions of ROf and NOx, and stationary source emissions.
(Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, E)
Traffic and Circulation. I-580 (Impact 3.3/B, E), intersection of Santa Rita Road and I-580
EB Ramps (Impact 3.3/I), and the intersections of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive
and Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3/M)
City of Dublin At Dublin
EIR Preparers| Page 21-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
21 EIR Preparers
21.1 City of Dublin
Luke Sims, Community Development Director
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director
Amy Million, Principal Planner
21.2 EIR Preparers
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Bill Wiseman, Planning Practice Leader
Casey Schooner, Senior Planner
Sophia Lai, Environmental Planner
Noemi Wyss, Environmental Planner
Ben Huie, Transportation Practice Leader
Connie Leung, Transportation Planner
Jacob Mirabella, Transportation Planner
Colin Ogilvie, Transportation Planner
WRA, Inc.
Phil Greer, Senior Biologist
Kari Dupler, Senior Wetland Biologist
3070953.1