The proposed Project is anticipated to be constructed beginning in 2023 with completion anticipated for 2025. Off-road equipment used during construction would require the use of diesel fuel. On-road vehicles for construction workers, vendors, and haulers would require both diesel and gasoline fuel for travel to and from the site during construction. Table 5 provides estimates of the Project’s construction fuel consumption from off-road construction equipment and on-road vehicles. Approximately 21,467 gallons of fuel would be required for off-road equipment and 60,074 gallons would be required for on-road vehicles. There are no unusual Project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment or vehicles that would be less energy or fuel efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of the state. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the proposed Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than at other construction sites in the region.
Table 5: Construction Energy Demand
Phase Off-road Fuel
Consumption (gallons)
On-road Fuel Consumption
(gallons)
Total Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Site Preparation 703.78 219.46 923.24
Site Grading 3,880.36 784.62 4,664.98
Building Construction 15,923.33 58,411.49 74,334.82
Paving 843.63 195.07 1,038.70
Architectural Coating 116.02 463.30 579.32
Total 21,467.12 60,073.94 81,541.06
Source: Energy Consumption Summary (Appendix A)
Operations
Operational energy was discussed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, but the discussion was limited to natural gas and electricity use associated with water distribution, wastewater treatment and disposal, and building energy use.
Transportation Energy Demand
Energy use associated with mobile sources was not discussed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR; however, energy use from mobile sources does not represent new information as fuel conservation through the Energy Policy and Conservation Act dates to 1975. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. As such, the following information is presented for informational purposes only. 898
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 40
Table 6 provides an estimate of the daily and annual fuel consumed by vehicles traveling to and from the proposed Project. These estimates were derived using the same assumptions used in the operational air quality analysis for the proposed Project.
Table 6: Long-Term Operational Vehicle Fuel Consumption Vehicle Type
Percent of
Vehicle
Trips1
Daily
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Annual
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Average
Fuel
Economy
(miles/
gallon)2
Total Daily Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Total Annual Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Passenger Cars
(LDA) 57% 1,715 626,013 30 57 20,665
Light Trucks and
Medium Duty
Vehicles (LDT1,
LDT2, MDV)
35% 1,041 379,880 24 43 15,652
Light-Heavy to
Heavy-Heavy Diesel
Trucks (LHD1, LHD2,
MHDT, HHDT)
5% 160 58,309 10 17 6,090
Motorcycles (MCY) 2% 73 26,720 41 2 649
Other3 (OBUS,
UBUS, SBUS, MH) 0% 12 4,466 7 2 604
Total 100% 3,001 1,095,387 120 43,660
Notes:
1Percent of Vehicle Trips and VMT provided by California Emissions Estimator Model. 2Average fuel economy from EMFAC2021. 3“Other” definitions are OBUS = other buses except school buses and urban buses; UBUS = Urban transit buses; SBUS = School bus; MH = Mobile Home
Source: Energy Consumption Summary (Appendix A)
As shown above, daily vehicular fuel consumption is estimated to be 120 gallons for both gasoline and diesel fuel. Annual consumption is estimated at 43,660 gallons.
In terms of land use planning decisions, the proposed Project would constitute development within an established community and would not be opening a new geographical area for development such that it would draw mostly new trips or substantially lengthen existing trips.
The proposed Project would be well positioned to accommodate the existing population. For these reasons, it would be expected that vehicular fuel consumption associated with the proposed Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than for any other similar land use activities in the region.
Building Energy Demand
As shown in Table 7 and Table 8, the proposed Project is estimated to demand 685,779 KWhr (kilowatt hour) of electricity and 1,458,41 kilo British thermal units (KBTU) of natural gas, respectively on an annual basis. Based on Table 3.11-4 in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and assuming the floor area ration (FAR) 0.8 for the Project site, the estimated energy use of the site would 899
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 41
have been 741,102 KWh of electricity and 4,379,547 KBTU of natural gas on annual basis. The proposed Project would use less energy than previously contemplated.
Table 7: Long-Term Electricity Usage
Land
Use Size
Title 24
Electricity
Energy
Intensity
(KWhr/size/yea
r)
Nontitle 24
Electricity
Energy
Intensity
(KWhr/size/yea
r)
Lighting
Energy
Intensity
(KWhr/size/yea
r)
Total
Electricity
Energy
Demand
(KWhr/size/yea
r)
Total
Electricity
Demand
(KWhr/yea
r)
Congregate
Care 174 beds 70.89 3,054.10 741.44 3,866 672,759
Parking Lot 89
spaces
0 0 0.35 140 13,020
Total 685,779
Notes:
KWhr= kilowatt hour
Source: Energy Consumption Summary (Appendix A)
Table 8: Long-Term Natural Gas Usage
Land Use Size
Title 24 Natural
Gas Energy
Intensity
(KBTU/size/year)
Nontitle 24 Natural
Gas Energy
Intensity
(KBTU/size/year)
Total Natural Gas
Energy Demand
(KBTU/size/year)
Total Natural
Gas Demand
(KBTU/year)
Congregate Care 174 beds 5,226.68 3,155 8,382 1,458,410 Parking Lot 89 spaces 0 0 0 0
Total 1,458,410
Notes:
KBTU= kilo British thermal units
Source: Energy Consumption Summary (Appendix A)
It would be expected that building energy consumption associated with the proposed Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than for any other similar buildings in the region. Current state regulatory requirements for new building construction contained in the 2019 CALGreen and Title 24 standards would increase energy efficiency and reduce energy demand in comparison to existing commercial structures and, therefore, would reduce actual environmental effects associated with energy use from the proposed Project. Additionally, the CALGreen and Title 24 standards have increased efficiency standards through each update.
Therefore, while the proposed Project would result in increased electricity and natural gas demand, compared to the existing setting, the electricity and natural gas would be consumed more efficiently and when compared with energy projections from the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Compliance with future building code standards would result in increased energy efficiency.
Energy Demand Associated with Water and Wastewater
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not specifically quantify electricity and natural gas usage associated with water distribution and wastewater treatment and disposal but recognized that 900
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 42
development of the EDSP area would result in the consumption of non-renewable natural resources as water and wastewater lines were extended during construction and long-term operational energy was expended to supply and treat water and wastewater. The proposed Project would represent development consistent with the EDSP and would not be opening new service areas that were not previously contemplated. As such, the energy demand associated with provision of water and wastewater services to the Project site has already been fully evaluated and disclosed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Based on the above information, the proposed Project would not result in the inefficient or wasteful consumption of electricity or natural gas, and impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts compared to those previously identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no new mitigation would be required. (b) State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not include an evaluation of consistency with State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. However, the issues of renewable energy or energy efficiency are not new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the 1993 GPA/SP EIR was certified as complete (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163). Energy efficiency or conservation were of particular importance dating back to the 1970s when initial conservation regulations were adopted. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. The following information is presented for informational purposes only.
The City of Dublin’s General Plan includes energy goals and policies to reduce the reliance on nonrenewable energy sources in existing and new private and public facilities through implementation of energy resource policies to encourage energy conservation and the use of renewable energy. The City’s Climate Action Plan also includes measures that encourage green building, renewable energy, and sustainable mobility and land use.
The proposed Project would not conflict with the energy policies of the General Plan nor the strategies in the Climate Action Plan. The proposed Project would constitute development within an established community and would not be opening up a new geographical area for development such that it would draw mostly new trips, or substantially lengthen existing trips.
The proposed Project would be well positioned to accommodate the existing population and reduce vehicle miles traveled.
The proposed Project would comply with the current versions of CCR Titles 20 and 24, including CALGreen, that are applicable at the time that building permits are issued and with all applicable City measures.
For the above reasons, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The impact is less than significant. The proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts compared to those previously identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no new mitigation would be required. 901
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 43
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in 1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified energy impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, there would not be any new or substantially more severe significant impacts to energy beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Geology and Soils
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
X
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault?
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
X
902
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 44
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for geology and soils:
Impact 3.6/A: Fault Ground Rupture was found to have insignificant impact since no known active or potentially active faults traverse the EDSP area and Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones are not located within the EDSP area. Impact 3.6/B: Earthquake Ground Shaking: Primary Effects identified potentially significant and unavoidable impacts from primary effects of seismic ground shaking that were insufficiently mitigated by Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0. Impacts 3.6/C through 3.6/L were identified as potentially significant but mitigatable by Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0 through 3.6/28.0 to a level of insignificance. Impact 3.9/A and 3.9/B were identified as potentially significant due to potential disruption or destruction of identified and unidentified prehistoric resources. The potentially significant impacts were able to be sufficiently mitigation by Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/6.0.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, which includes the Project site.
The Project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Seismic hazards
Fault Rupture
As described in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, the Project site is not located within or adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and, therefore, there would be no impact related to fault 903
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 45
rupture. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
Ground Shaking
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR analyzed and found potentially significant and unavoidable impacts associated with primary effects of seismic ground shaking. The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 to reduce potential primary effects of ground shaking to structures and infrastructures. However, the 1993 GPA/SP EIR determined that implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 would not completely eliminate the hazards associated with the primary effects of earthquake ground shaking impacts and the impact remained potentially significant.
The Project site and the San Francisco Bay Area is located in a seismically active region and, therefore, the Project would be expected to experience ground shaking from earthquakes within its lifetime. The risk of ground shaking impacts can be reduced through adherence to the design and materials standards set forth in the building codes. The Project would be required to be constructed in accordance with the most recent California Building Code (CBC)-adopted by the City, which provides for construction requirements on projects in areas of high seismic risk.
The Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with earthquake resistant construction related to seismic design. Additionally, the Project would implement Mitigation Measures 3.6/1.0 and 3.6/7.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 requires buildings to be designed and constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and applicable County and City code requirements adopted to reduce the potential for structural failure. Mitigation Measure 3.6/7.0 requires the Project to conduct design-level geotechnical investigations and implement the recommendations included in the geotechnical report. A Geotechnical Investigation Report was prepared for the Project by Geocon Consultants, in June 2021. The Project would be required to implement all recommendations included in the geotechnical report related to site and building design, structural foundations, and any other applicable recommendations. With conformance with City building standards and implementation of mitigation measures identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
Ground Failure
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified potentially significant impacts resulting from secondary effects of earthquake ground shaking including seismically induced landslides, compaction, and settlement. These impacts were mitigated to a less than significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0 through 8.0.
The Geotechnical Report prepared for the Project identified that the Project site is located in a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission/Association of Bay Area Governments (MTC/ABAG) indicates the site has a moderate susceptibility to liquefaction. Additionally, Figure 8-1 in the City’s General Plan 904
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 46
identifies liquefaction and landslide areas within the City limits. The Project site is located in the liquefaction areas identified by the City (City of Dublin 2018). The Project would incorporate all recommendations related to liquefaction and ground failure risks identified in the Geotechnical Report, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.6/7.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Additionally, the Project would implement Mitigation Measure 3.6/2.0 and 3.6/4.0 through 6.0 to reduce potential impacts from ground failure. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0 and 3.6/4.0 through 7.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
Landslide
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified potentially significant impacts resulting from secondary effects of earthquake ground shaking including seismically induced landslides, compaction, and settlement. These impacts were mitigated to a less than significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0 through 3.6/8.0.
As identified in the Geotechnical Report, the Project site is relatively flat with surface elevations of approximately 355 to 360 feet mean sea level (MSL). The site is not located in an area identified by the City’s General Plan as being in a landslide hazard area (City of Dublin 2018).
The Project site and surrounding areas are not located along hillsides and are steeply sloped; therefore, the likelihood of a landslide occurring at the site is limited. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. (b) Erosion/topsoil loss
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified potentially significant short-term and long-term erosion and sedimentation impacts resulting from construction activities and operation of the Project.
These impacts were mitigated to a less than significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 through 28.0.
Construction activities associated with the Project would include ground disturbing activities, which could expose unprotected soils to stormwater runoff, causing erosion and loss of topsoil.
As discussed under the Regulatory Settings of the Hydrology and Water Quality section, projects that disturb one or more acres of soil during construction are required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that identifies BMPs to control the discharge of sediment and other pollutants during construction. The Project would be required to comply with the NPDES permit and prepare an SWPPP to reduce impacts from erosion.
Additionally, the Project would implement Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, which requires implementation of control measures to reduce construction-related erosion and sedimentation. The Project would also be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, which calls for the implementation of appropriate design, construction, and maintenance measures to reduce potential impacts of long-term erosion and sedimentation. The Project would construct bioretention areas as part of 905
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 47
the Project’s storm drainage system, which would provide treatment to site runoff and reduce potential polluted runoff such as erosion and sedimentation. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 through 28.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and compliance with regulatory requirements, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
(c, d) Soil stability
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to expansive soils and natural and cut-and-fill slope stability, which were reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0 through 26.0.
The Project site is not in an area mapped as having a landslide risk; therefore, the Project would have no impact from landslides and slope instability. The Geotechnical Report identified that the site is underlain by Holocene-age alluvial deposits and soil borings conducted revealed deposits were observed as stiff to hard clays with variable amounts of sand and medium dense to very dense sands with variable amounts of clay and gravel. Laboratory tests conducted for site soils indicated that predominant clayey soils are highly plastic with a high expansion potential. The Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 3.6/7.0 and
3.6/14.0, which calls for the formulation of appropriate design criteria and measures during the geotechnical investigation. Since the geotechnical investigation has already been conducted for the site, the Project would be required to implement all recommendations identified in the Geotechnical Report to reduce potential impacts from unstable soils. Additionally, the Project would implement Mitigation Measures 3.6/15.0 and 3.6/16.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, which would reduce potential impacts associated with unstable soils. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6/7.0 and 3.6/14.0 through 16.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and incorporation of recommendations included in the Geotechnical Report, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. (e) Soil capability to support wastewater disposal, including septic The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not analyze impacts related to the use of alternative waste disposal systems such as a septic tank. The Project would connect to the City’s sewer system and would not require the use of alternative waste disposal systems. Therefore, there would be no impact. (f) Unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to potential disruption or destruction of identified and unidentified pre-historic resources. Significant impacts to prehistoric resources were able to be reduced to a less than significant level with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0 through 6.0.
There are no identified paleontological or unique geologic resources located onsite. The discovery of previously unidentified paleontological resources is unlikely due to the already developed nature of the site. However, the Project would include ground disturbing activities, 906
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 48
which could reveal undiscovered paleontological resources. The Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 through 6.0, which outlines procedures for discovery of resources during construction and requires site reconnaissance as part of the development application process. The Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 through 6.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, which would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose changes beyond what was previously analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in 1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified geology and soil impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, there would not be any new or substantially more severe significant impacts to geology and soil beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial Increase
in the Severity of an
Impact Identified in
1993 GPA/SP EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
Previous CEQA Document
Since the 1993 GPA/SP EIR was certified before greenhouse gas (GHG) emission analysis became a CEQA requirement in 2006. The determination of whether GHG emissions and climate change need to be analyzed for the proposed Project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which 907
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 49
was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIRs were certified as complete” (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3)).
GHG emissions were not analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. However, these impacts are not new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163). The issue of climate change and GHG emissions was widely known at the time of the certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. Therefore, no supplemental environmental analysis of the Project’s impacts on this issue is required under CEQA.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, b) Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or conflict with GHG plans or regulations As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. The impact of GHG emissions on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X
908
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 50
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not include an analysis of impacts to hazards and hazardous materials.
However, these impacts are not required to be analyzed unless they constitute new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163). The potential impacts of hazards and hazardous materials were known at the time of the certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or negative declaration. Therefore, no supplemental environmental analysis of the Project’s impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. Nevertheless, a brief evaluation of hazards is provided below.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials
To the extent potentially hazardous materials could be used during Project construction or operation, related impacts would be less than significant due to compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements.
909
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 51
(b) Potential release of hazardous materials into the environment Implementation of the Project would not create a significant hazard to the pubic or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, as Project construction and operation would not utilize hazardous materials beyond normal cleaners, detergents and maintenance fluids. Such materials would be used in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
(c) Emit hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
There is no school located within one-quarter mile of the Project site, and as such, there would be no impact.
(d) Listed as a hazardous materials site
The Project site is vacant and has not been listed as a hazardous materials site in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and, therefore, there would be no impact.
(e) Proximity to a public or private airport
The Project site is located approximately 3.6 miles from the Livermore Municipal Airport, a general aviation airport. As such, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people working in the Project area, and there would be no impact. (f) Impair implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan Project construction and operation would not result in the impairment of an emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. Should any roadways be temporarily affected by construction activities, these activities would be previously permitted and performed in accordance with all applicable regulations and requirements in order to minimize or avoid any potential impacts. Therefore, there would be no impact. (g) Expose people or structures to wildland fires
As discussed in the Wildfire section below, the Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, as the Project site is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone or a California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection designated State Responsibility Area. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in this environmental analysis, the Project would result in less than significant or no impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials. Furthermore, Project implementation would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. There would not be any new or 910
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 52
substantially more severe significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Hydrology and Water Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin??
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
X
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? X ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or offsite?
X
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
X
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
X
911
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 53
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for hydrology and water quality:
Impact 3.5/P identified significant impacts related to the supply of water to the Eastern Dublin area. Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 through 3.5/40.0 were adopted to prevent overdraft of ground water resources by requiring or encouraging annexation and connection to Dublin-San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), minimize the effect of additional demand for water by encouraging water recycling and conservation and by encouraging the development of new facilities and supplies, and to ensure the development of a water distribution system by generally preventing development until such facilities are constructed by developers.
Impact 3.5/Q noted that the EDSP would increase demand to serve development at build-out under the then-applicable General Plan and required an additional 25,000 acre-feet (AF) annually. Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0 through 3.5/31.0 reduced the impact to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.5/V identified an impact due to flooding as a result of water storage reservoir failure but would be mitigated to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measure 3.5/41.0. Impact 3.5/Y: Potential Flooding was found to be potentially significant but was reduced to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 through 3.5/48.0. Impact 3.5/Z: Reduced Groundwater Recharge was a potentially significant impact but Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 3.5/50.0 reduced the impact to an insignificant level. Impact 3.5/AA: Non-Point Sources of Pollution was found to be a potentially significant impact but was reduced to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 and
3.5/52.0.
Impact 3.6/K through 3.6/L identified potentially significant impacts due to potential construction-related and long-term erosion and sedimentation impacts. Mitigation Measures 3.6-27.0 through 3.6/28.0 reduced the impacts to an insignificant level.
The Project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Violate water quality or waste discharge requirements Construction activities for the Project would include those that have the potential to generate stormwater runoff and to discharge pollutants, such as fuels, solvents, oil, paints, and trash into the City’s storm drain system. The Project would be required to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit and would prepare and implement a SWPPP which would include 912
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 54
BMPs to control sediment, erosion, and hazardous materials from being discharged from the site. Furthermore, the Project would also implement Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0, identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, which outlines short-term construction-related erosion and sedimentation reduction measures, including implementation of interim control measures designed to prevent concentration of runoff, control runoff velocity, and trap silt. Required Project-specific measures would be determined by the City, prior to issuance of a grading permit, which may include such measures as straw bale dikes, sediment traps, and/or silt fences. Compliance with the NPDES permit and implementation of mitigation measures identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR would reduce potential water quality impacts from construction to a less than significant level.
Post-construction impacts from development could affect drainage patterns and increase the overall amount of impervious surfaces at the site creating changes to stormwater flows and water quality. The Project is subject to conditions of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP).
Provision C.3 of the MRP requires all new development or redevelopment projects that create or replace 10,000 sf of impervious surfaces to include post-construction stormwater control.
Provision C.3 requirements include implementation of site design measures, source control measures, and stormwater treatment measures to reduce stormwater pollution postconstruction.
Development of the Project would result in 178,091 sf of impervious surfaces and 83,387 sf of pervious surfaces at the site. The Project would replace the existing private storm drainage system and construct a drainage system that works with the proposed development. The Project would install a Low Impact Development (LID) storm drain system, which would include new storm drain lines and 7,836 sf of bio-retention treatment areas onsite. LID systems refer to systems and practices that use or mimic natural processes that result in filtration, evapotranspiration, or use of stormwater in order to protect water quality and associated aquatic habitat (EPA 2022). The drainage system improvements would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s requirements and Provision C.3 requirements. In addition, the Project would be required to prepare a Storm Drainage Master Plan as required by Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. Additionally, the Project would implement Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0, 3.5/51.0, and 3.6/28.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. With adherence to mitigation measures identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and compliance with City and Provision C.3 requirements for storm drain systems, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. (b) Substantially deplete or interfere with groundwater supplies The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified a potential significant impact related to overdraft of local groundwater resources and reduced groundwater recharge due to an increase in impervious surfaces, which were mitigated to an insignificant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 through 3.5/25.0 and 3.5/49.0 through 3.5/50.0. 913
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 55
The Project would result in an increase in impervious surface coverage at the site compared to existing conditions; however, the Project would include the use of LID features that would retain and treat stormwater onsite before discharging to the City’s stormwater system, consistent with requirements of Provisions C.3. The Project would construct LID storm drain systems and pervious areas would include bioretention areas and landscaped areas, which would allow for infiltration of groundwater recharge.
The Project would connect to the City’s water system and would not require the construction of new wells or the use of local groundwater resources. Due to the depth of groundwater and shallow excavations required for Project construction, dewatering is not anticipated during construction. Therefore, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge and there would be no impact. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. (c) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified potentially significant impacts resulting from development of the Project as it would result in an increase in runoff increasing the potential for flooding and increase in non-point sources of polluted runoff. Potential significant impacts were mitigated to a level of insignificance with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 through
3.5/47.0 and 3.5/51.0 through 3.5/52.0.
The Project would create new landscaped areas and impermeable surfaces, which could alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. As discussed above, the Project would be required to comply with Provision C.3 requirements, standard City development requirements related to stormwater, and Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0, 3.5/46.0, 3.5/51.0, and 3.6/28.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, which would reduce impacts from polluted runoff. Additionally, the Project would be required comply with NPDES permit requirements and prepare and implement a SWPPP.
The Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.5/47.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, which requires development in the Planning Area to provide facilities to alleviate potential downstream flooding due to Project development. The Project would construct a LID storm drain system, which would include landscaped areas and bioretention areas where stormwater runoff would be directed before being discharged to the City’s system.
With the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and construction of storm drainage systems according to City and Provision C.3 requirements, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner that would result in substantial increase in erosion and polluted runoff, substantial increase in the rate or amount of runoff, exceed capacity of storm drain system, or impede or redirect flood flows. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. 914
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 56
(d) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not analyze impacts resulting from being located in flood hazard, seiche, or tsunami zone. According to the City’s General Plan, the Project site is not located in an area identified as having a flood hazard and Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) identified the Project site as being within Zone X, an area with minimal flood hazard (FEMA 2020). The City of Dublin is not located within an area mapped as being in a tsunami hazard area (DOC 2022). According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the City is too far inland to be subject to tsunami risks (City of Dublin 1984). A seiche is a long wave set up on an enclosed body of water such as a lake or reservoir. According to the County of Alameda’s General Plan Safety Element, the Bay Area has not been adversely affected by seiches during its history within the seismically active region of California. The County General Plan Safety Element identified that various lakes and reservoirs within the unincorporated areas may be at risk of a seiche in the event of an earthquake (County of Alameda 2013). The City and the Project site is not located within these unincorporated areas and, therefore, seiches do not pose a significant risk. The Project site would not be located in a flood hazard, seiche, or tsunami zone and would not risk the release of pollutants due to Project site inundation resulting from flooding, seiches, or tsunamis. There would be no impacts. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. (e) Conflict with water quality control or groundwater management plan The City is located within the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, which was identified by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) as a medium priority basin. Under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), high- and medium-priority basins must establish Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSP) and must establish Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) that oversee the preparation and implementation of a local GSP. Zone 7 is the designated GSA for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. Zone 7 adopted a Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) in 2005, which documented ongoing policies and programs for managing the groundwater basin. The GWMP was amended in 2015 with the adoption of the Nutrient Management Plan. Zone 7 submitted the Alternative GSP for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin in 2016 to DWR in compliance with SGMA and the GSP was approved in 2019 (Zone 7 2021). The Project would comply with the GWMP and GSP prepared by Zone 7 for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin and would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan.
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) adopted a Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan) that designates beneficial uses, establishes water quality objectives, and contains implementation programs and policies to achieve those objectors for all waters addressed through the Bain Plan. The proposed Project would be constructed and operated in accordance with the Basin Plan. The Project would be constructed and operated in accordance with applicable water quality control plans and would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any plans, therefore, there would be no impact. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than 915
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 57
identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in 1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified hydrology and water quality impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR., there would not be any new or substantially more severe significant impacts to hydrology and water quality beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Land Use and Planning
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following impact for land use and planning:
Impact 3.1/A found that there were significant and unavoidable impacts from the EDSP as a result of the loss of agricultural and open space lands. No mitigation measures were identified for those impacts.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this significant and unavoidable impact, which includes the Project site.
916
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 58
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Physically divide an established community
The Project site is a commercial/office campus and does not include any residences; therefore, there is no established community that could be divided by Project implementation. As such, there would be no impact.
(b) Conflict with general plan
The Project site is located in the EDSP project boundary and would be consistent with environmental goals and policies contained in the City’s General Plan.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified land use and planning impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
There are not any new or substantially more severe significant impacts to land use and planning beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Mineral Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not include an analysis of impacts to mineral resources. 917
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 59
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, b) Loss of known or identified mineral resource
The City’s General Plan states that there are no known mineral deposits in the City and the City does not contain any mineral extraction areas (City of Dublin 2018). Additionally, according to the Mineral Land Classification maps prepared by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Division of Mines and Geology, the Project site is located in a Mineral Resources Zone (MRZ) -1 zone (DOC 1982). Areas classified as MRZ-1 are areas where adequate information indicated that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists of their presence. As the City does not have any mineral extraction areas, there would be no impacts related to the loss of mineral resources or loss of a mineral resource recovery site. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts to mineral resources than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
Conclusion
Because the City does not have any mineral extraction areas, there would be no impact, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Noise
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? X
c) 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?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for noise:
918
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 60
Impact 3.10/A: Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise identified future vehicular traffic associated with development proposed in Eastern Dublin as potentially significant to future residents. This impact would be mitigated to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0 that requires acoustic studies for all future residential development in the Eastern Dublin area. Impact 3.10/B: Exposure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise would be a potentially significant impact to existing residents in the Eastern Dublin area as development occurs in accord with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. This impact would be reduced through adherence to Mitigation Measure
3.10/2.0, which requires future development projects to provide noise protection to existing residential uses in Eastern Dublin; however, noise impacts to existing residents along Fallon Road would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.10/ C: Exposure of Existing and Proposed Development to Airport Noise was considered an insignificant impact and no mitigation was required. Impact 3.10/D: Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to Noise from Future Military Training Activities at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA) and the County Jail identified potentially significant noise for future residents within 6,000 feet of Parks RFTA. This impact would be reduced through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0 that requires acoustic studies for development near Parks RFTA and the County Jail; however, reduction of noise from Parks RFTA may not be feasible, so this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Impact 3.10/E: Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise would be a potentially significant impact related to noise associated with construction of the EDSP, including but not limited to buildings, roads, and utilities. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 3.10/5.0 would reduce construction noise impacts to a level of insignificance through preparation and submittal of Construction Noise Management Plans and compliance with local noise standards. Impact 3.10/F: Noise Conflicts due to the Adjacency of Diverse Land Uses Permitted by Plan Policies Supporting Mixed-Use Development would result from close proximity of different land use types that may result in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measure 3.10/6.0 requires the preparation of noise management plans for all mixed-use developments within the Eastern Dublin area. This measure would reduce noise generated by mixed-use development to a level of insignificance.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable impacts described above, which includes the Project.
The Project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
919
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 61
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Exposure to or generate noise exceeding standards
Exposure of Proposed Facility to Future Roadway Noise
Part 2, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations California Noise Insulation Standards establishes minimum noise insulation standards to protect persons within new hotels, motels, dormitories, long-term care facilities, apartment houses, and dwellings other than single-family residences. Under Section 1207.11 “Exterior Sound Transmission Control”, interior noise levels attributable to exterior noise sources cannot exceed 45 decibels (dB)(A) day-night average sound level (Ldn) in any habitable room. Where such buildings are in an environment where exterior noise is 60 dB(A) Ldn or greater, an acoustical analysis is required to ensure interior levels do not exceed the 45 dB(A) Ldn interior standard. If the interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that windows be kept closed, the design for the building must also specify a ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment.
Impact 3.10/A in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR states that noise generated from vehicular traffic on roadways is potentially significant to future buildings containing sleeping units, such as senior living facilities. Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0 requires an acoustical study be submitted for buildings with sleeping units located within the future community noise equivalent level (CNEL) 60 contour. The goal of the acoustical study is to show how the interior noise level will be controlled to a CNEL/Ldn of 45 dB as required by California Building Code, Title 24, Part II.
Figure 9-2 “2035 Projected Noise Exposure Contours” in the City of Dublin General Plan shows the west edge of the Project site is contained within the 60 dB CNEL contour (City of Dublin 2018). Therefore, an acoustical study would be required for the Project with submittal of the building permit to ensure an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. Implementation of 1993 GPA/SP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0 will reduce the impact of exterior traffic noise on the Project to less than significant levels. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Exposure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise Impact 3.10/B in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR states that future project development will have the potential to impact existing residences due to increased noise on roadways. For example, it takes 25 percent more traffic volume to produce an increase of only 1 dB(A) in the ambient noise level. For roads already heavy with traffic volume, an increase in traffic numbers could even reduce noise because the heavier volumes could slow down the average speed of the vehicles. A doubling of traffic volume results in a 3 dB(A) increase in noise levels.
The Project site along Arnold Road is directly east of the Downing Boulevard multifamily residential complex. According to Table 10 in the Transportation section below, the proposed RCFE would generate 912 fewer daily trips, 159 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 140 fewer PM peak hour trips, which is significantly lower than the previously approved office use. As a result, the noise generated from traffic associated with the RCFE would also be lower than the 920
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 62
previously approved office use. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Exposure of Existing Residences to Noise from Activities at Camp Parks RFTA and the County Jail Impact 3.10/D in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR states that development on the Project site within 6,000 feet of Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area could be exposed to noise impacts from gunshots and helicopter overflights. The Project site is located approximately 1,970 feet from the south edge of the County Jail. Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0 requires an acoustical study to determine if noise impacts from Camp Parks RFTA or the County Jail will be within acceptable limits for the Project. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0, impacts may still be potentially significant since mitigation of Camp Parks and County Jail noise may not be feasible at all locations. Nevertheless, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise Impact 3.10/E states the noise associated with construction activity is generated from truck traffic on local roads, heavy equipment used in grading and paving, and impact noises from barriers used in framing of structures. Construction impacts will be most severe for the proposed Project when it occurs near existing residential uses, such as the Downing community at The Boulevard.
Construction noise is considered a potentially significant impact. Although noise levels from construction could fall into the “Clearly Unacceptable” range as defined by Table 9.1, “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Community Noise Exposure” in the City of Dublin General Plan, increases in noise levels from construction activities would be temporary and construction activities would be limited to the requirements listed in 1993 GPA/SP EIR Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 3.10/5.0. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures
3.10/4.0 and 3.10/5.0, the impact of construction noise on the community will be less than significant. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
(b) Exposure to ground borne vibration or ground borne noise During construction of the proposed Project, equipment such as trucks, bulldozers, and rollers may be used as close as 68 feet from the nearest building at 5601 Arnold Road. Table 7-4 “Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment” in the 2018 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Report No. 0123 September 2018) lists vibration source levels for the construction equipment most likely to generate high levels of ground vibration. The equipment listed in the FTA table includes impact and sonic pile drivers, clam shovel drops, hydromills, vibratory rollers, hoe rams, large and small bulldozers, caisson drilling, loaded trucks, and jackhammers.
Equipment used for the Dublin Senior Living Project will likely include bulldozers, loaded trucks, and rollers. Equipment used during Project construction could generate vibration levels between 0.0007 peak particle velocity (PPV) and 0.0468 PPV at 68 feet, as shown below in 921
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 63
Table 9. All estimated vibration levels should be below the FTA vibration threshold at which human annoyance could occur and below the threshold for potential building damage as defined by the California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020 (Caltrans 2020). Therefore, impacts from construction vibration would be less than significant, and the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Table 9: Estimated Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Type of Equipment Reference PPV at
25 Feet
Calculated PPV at
68 Feet
Threshold at
which Human
Annoyance Could
Occur
Potential for
Proposed Project
to Exceed
Threshold
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.0198 0.10 No
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.0169 0.10 No
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.0007 0.10 No
Vibratory Roller 0.21 0.0468 0.10 No
Source: Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018 (c) Excessive noise level near a public or private airport The Dublin Senior Living Project site is located approximately 3.6 miles northwest of the Livermore Municipal Airport. According to the Airport Land Use Policy Plan for Alameda County, the CNEL 60 contour for the airport would not extend into the Project area. Although the area would be exposed to occasional single-event noise from aircraft flyovers, average noise levels (CNEL) would not exceed Title 24 nor the City's standards. Consequently, aircraft noise would be less than significant, and the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the Project site than were previously analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIRs.
Based on the information in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified noise impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, there would not be any new or substantially more severe significant impacts to noise beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
922
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 64
Population and Housing
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) 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)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not identify any significant impacts or mitigation measures for population and housing.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Population growth
The EDSP projected a total of 12,496 housing units and approximately 10.8 million square feet of new commercial space at buildout of the EDSP. Additionally, buildout of the EDSP projected approximately 241 acres of parkland, 399 acres of open space, and 1.37 million square feet of industrial park development. However, since 1993 when the EDSP was approved, subsequent amendments have increased the total commercial square footage and open space acreage projected at buildout.
The Project proposes to construct a commercial community care facility for seniors and is not a residential development. The Project proposes to construct 152 units consisting of 114 assisted living units and 38 memory care units, with a total of up to 174 beds. The Project would provide residential care for approximately 174 elderly individuals, which would represent approximately
0.24 percent of the City’s 2020 population of 72,589. The estimated population served by the Project would represent approximately 0.21 percent of the City’s projected 2040 population of 83,595, as identified in Plan Bay Area 2040. The population growth in the City anticipated between 2020 and 2040 is expected to be 11,006 and the population associated with the Project would represent approximately 1.6 percent of the anticipated growth. The Project is an assisted living and memory care facility, which would be considered a quasi-public facility and is not a residential development. The Project expects a majority of the residents to come from within a five- to seven-mile radius of the Project location. Therefore, the Project would not directly induce substantial unplanned population growth. The Project site is surrounded by existing developments and the Project would be served by existing roads and infrastructures in 923
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 65
the area. The Project does not include the extension of roads or infrastructure to an undeveloped area and, therefore, would not indirectly induce substantial population growth in the area. The Project’s impacts on population would be less than significant. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. (b) Housing and resident displacement
The majority of the Project site is developed with paved surfaces for parking and there are no structures onsite that provide residential uses. Therefore, the Project would not displace existing people or housing and there would be no impact. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in 1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified population and housing impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
There are not any new or substantially more severe significant impacts to population and housing beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Public Services
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
924
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 66
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
e) Other public facilities? X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for public services:
Impacts 3.4/A and 3.4/B are related to the provision of police services. One notes that there would be a demand for increased police services with implementation of the EDSP and the other identifies an impact related to the hilly topography of the Eastern Dublin area that could present accessibility and crime-prevention issues. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.4/1.0 through 3.4/ 5.0 would reduce impacts to the Dublin Police Department to a less than significant level.
Impacts 3.4/C through 3.4/E are related to the provision of fire services. The build out of the EDSP area would increase the demand for fire services and the outlying areas of the EDSP were beyond the fire response area at the time resulting in extended fire response times. The build out of the EDSP would also result in the settlement of population and construction of new communities in proximity to high fire hazard open space areas. This would pose an increasing wildfire hazard to people and property if open space areas are not maintained for fire safety. Mitigation Measures 3.4/6.0 through 3.4/13.0 reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.
Impacts 3.4/F through 3.4/J are related to schools. The buildout of the EDSP will increase the demand for new classroom space and school facilities in proportion to the number of residential units constructed, far exceeding the current available capacity of either school district at the time. Overcrowding at existing schools could occur if insufficient new classroom space is provided. Development of Eastern Dublin under existing jurisdictional boundaries would result in the area being served by two different school districts. The division of the EDSP area by two different school districts would adversely affect financing of schools in Eastern Dublin and complicate provision of education to planning area students. The cost of providing new school facilities proposed in the EDSP area could adversely impact local school districts by creating an unwieldy financial burden unless some form of financing is identified. Mitigation Measures 3.4/13.0 through 3.4/19.0 reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.
Impacts 3.4/K through 3.4/N are related to parks and public facilities. Without the addition of new parks and facilities, the increased demand for new park and recreation facilities resulting from buildout of the GP/EDSP would create potentially significant 925
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 67
impacts. Acquisition and improvement of new park and recreation facilities may place a financial strain on existing City revenue sources causing a potentially significant impact.
Development of residential and commercial areas in Eastern Dublin without adequate provision of trail easements may thwart efforts to develop a regional trail system. Urban development along project stream corridors and ridgelines would adversely impact outdoor recreational opportunities for future Dublin residents and obstruct the formation of an interconnected open space system. Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0 through 3.4/36.0 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
The Project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Fire
Project implementation would increase the demand for fire and emergency services by increasing the amount of daytime and nighttime population (i.e., employees and residents) on the Project site that could require services. However, such uses and increases in population were already considered and evaluated in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and mitigation measures were implemented to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The Project would be designed and constructed in conformance with all applicable City ordinances and development requirements, which would further reduce potential impacts. The Project would include all required fire and life safety protection measures, such as fire sprinklers. Furthermore, there would be 24-hour per day nursing care onsite, thereby potentially reducing the need for emergency services. As part of the City’s Development Fee Program, the Project would be required to pay an impact fee for fire facilities to serve new development in the City. This impact fee relates to funding new fire facilities in Eastern Dublin, ensuring adequate water supplies and pressure for fire suppression, and minimizing wildland fire hazards, thereby further mitigating potential impacts. In addition, application of 1993 GPA/SP EIR Mitigation Measures 3.4/9.0 and 12.0 would further reduce potential Project-related impacts to fire service, and the Project’s impacts on fire service would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
(b) Police
Project implementation would increase the demand for police services by increasing the amount of daytime and nighttime population (i.e., employees and residents) on the Project site that could require services. However, such uses and increases in population were already considered and evaluated in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and mitigation measures were implemented to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. In addition, application of 1993 GPA/SP EIR Mitigation Measures 3.4/1.0 through 5.0 would further reduce potential Project-related impacts to police service, and the Project’s impacts on police service would not result in new or 926
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 68
substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
(c) Schools
The Project is not anticipated to generate a student population, as the Project is an RCFE. In addition, no new impacts to school facilities are anticipated since payment of mandated statutory impact fees at the time of issuance of building permits would off-set any impacts of the Project pursuant to State law. The Project’s impacts to schools would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
(d, e) Parks and other public facilities
The Project is not anticipated to cause impacts to parks or other public facilities, beyond those anticipated and evaluated in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. The Project would be required to comply with all prior mitigation measures and, if applicable, would pay the required Park Fee as part of the Public Facility fees.
Construction associated with the Project would incrementally increase the long-term maintenance demand for roads and other public facilities. However, such additional maintenance demands would be off-set by additional City fees and property tax revenues accruing to the City and, therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes to the Project site that were not previously analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in 1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified public services impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, there would not be any new or substantially more severe significant impacts to public services beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
927
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 69
Recreation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
16. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for recreation:
Impact 3.4/K indicated that increased demand for parks as a result of buildout of the GP/EDSP would represent a significant impact on the ability of the City to provide park service for future residents. It would also be a potentially significant cumulative impact for the community due to lack of sufficient city-wide park facilities that would not meet a standard of five acres of parkland per 1,000 population. Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0 through 28 would reduce this impact to an insignificant level. Impact 3.4/L identified a park facility fiscal impact on the City of Dublin. The fiscal strain of providing new park facilities would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.4/ 29.0 through 31.0 would require that each new development in Eastern Dublin provide a fair share of parks and open space facilities. Development of a parks implementation plan was also called for. Finally, adoption of a park in-lieu fee program was required. These mitigation measures would reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
Impacts 3.4/ M and N dealt with the regional trail system and open space connections.
Development of residential and commercial areas in Eastern Dublin was anticipated to have a potentially significant impact to the construction of a regional trail system.
Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 32.0 would require the establishment of a trail system with connections to planned regional and sub-regional trails, which would reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.4/N notes that urban development along stream corridors and ridgelines would adversely impact outdoor recreational opportunities for future Dublin residents and potentially obstruct the formation of an interconnected open space system. 928
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 70
Mitigation Measures 3.4/33.0 through 36.0 would reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
The Project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, b) Increase the use of existing recreation facilities causing deterioration or require new recreation facilities
The City’s park and recreational facilities are composed of neighborhood facilities, community facilities, community parks and community center. The EDSP identified a total of 17 parks on 219 acres, which is consistent with the City of Dublin 2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan ratio of 5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Sufficient park land has been constructed and is being planned, and future development associated with the proposed Project is limited to development of the RCFE. The proposed Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and/or regional parks such that a substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; nor would it require the construction/expansion of a recreational facility elsewhere which would have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes to the Project site that were not previously analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in 1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified recreation impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, there would not be any new or substantially more severe significant impacts to recreation beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
929
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 71
Transportation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for transportation and traffic:
Impacts 3.3/A through 3.3/E identified significant, significant cumulative, and significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to daily traffic volumes on I-580 for Year 2010 with and without build-out of the GP/EDSP and under a Year 2010 cumulative build-out scenario. Mitigation Measures 3.3/1.0 through 3.3/5.0 reduced these impacts but not sufficiently to avoid significant cumulative impacts.
Impacts 3.3/F through 3.3/N identified impacts to levels of service and PM peak hour traffic volumes at 18 intersections and at I-580 ramps. Mitigation Measures 3.3/6.0 through 3.3/8.0 and 3.3/10.0 through 3.3/14.0 were adopted to reduce these impacts.
Impacts 3.3/I, 3.3/M and 3.3/N were unable to be reduced to an insignificant level. Impacts 3.3/O and 3.3/P identified significant impacts related to transit service extensions and the provision of safe street crossings for pedestrians and bicycles.
Mitigation Measures 3.3/15.0 through 15.3 and 3.3/16.0 through 16.1 were adopted, which reduced these impacts to a level of insignificance.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the remaining significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts of Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/E, 3.3/I, 3.3/M and 3.3/N, which apply to the Project.
930
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 72
The Project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Conflict with applicable transportation circulations plans/standards As described in Appendix B: Transportation Analysis of the Dublin Senior Living Project (Stantec, March 18, 2022), a trip generation evaluation was prepared to determine if the Project would potentially result in a transportation impact.
Trip Generation
Table 10 summarizes the anticipated trip generation of the proposed Project with a comparison to the previously evaluated Campus Office use. For this analysis, the previously evaluated Campus Office use is assumed to be of the same size as the existing office building just south of the Project site. Trip generation rates for the proposed RCFE use, Assisted Living (254) and previously evaluated Campus Office use, General Office Building (710) are standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 11th Edition trip generation rates for uses of these types.
Table 10: Project Trip Generation Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Amount Unit In Out Total In Out Total ADT
Trip Rates
General Office Building (710) - TSF 1.34 0.18 1.52 0.24 1.20 1.44 10.84 Assisted Living (254) - Beds 0.11 0.07 0.18 0.09 0.15 0.24 2.60 Trip Generation
Existing (evaluated use)
Campus Office 125.847 TSF 168 23 191 31 150 181 1,364
Proposed
Assisted Living 174 Beds 19 13 32 16 25 41 452
Net New Trips -149 -10 -159 -15 -125 -140 -912
Note:
ADT - Average Daily Traffic
TSF - Thousand square feet
Trip Rate Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 11th Edition, 2021, with ITE code in parentheses 931
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 73
As shown in Table 10, the proposed Project is expected to generate approximately 452 average daily trips, with 32 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 41 trips occurring during the PM peak hour. For comparison, the trip generation of the previously evaluated Campus Office use is also shown in Table 10. As shown, the proposed RCFE would generate 912 fewer daily trips, 159 fewer AM peak hour trips and 140 fewer PM peak hour trips, which is significantly lower than the previously approved Campus Office use. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the previously evaluated Campus Office use, as it would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
(b) Conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3
Since certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, the issue of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of Senate Bill 743 in 2013.
Previously, CEQA analysis was conducted using a level of service measurement that evaluated traffic delay. As specified under Senate Bill 743 and implemented under Section 15064.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines (effective December 28, 2018), VMT is the required metric to be used for identifying CEQA impacts and mitigation. In December 2018, OPR published a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts, including guidance for VMT analysis. The Office of Administrative Law approved the updated CEQA Guidelines and lead agencies were given until July 1, 2020, to implement the updated guidelines for VMT analysis.
Upon certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, the determination of whether VMT needs to be analyzed for this Project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). VMT is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIRs were certified as complete” (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3)).
VMT impacts were not analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR; however, these impacts are not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time these previous EIRs were certified. The issue of VMT as a metric for analyzing traffic was widely known prior to the certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Therefore, the impact of VMT was known at the time of the certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the Project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA.
(c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature The Project site would be designed in accordance with all current City engineering design standards and other safety standards to avoid hazardous geometric design features and incompatible uses. The proposed Project does not substantially increase hazards due to its design or incompatible uses. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the previously 932
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 74
analyzed use, as it would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. (d) Result in inadequate emergency access
The proposed Project would be designed to provide adequate emergency vehicle access throughout the Project site. The proposed driveway would be designed to meet emergency vehicle access requirements. Project access and emergency plans would require review and approval from the local fire department prior to Project approval in order to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access and would be consistent with the previously analyzed use, as it would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. The criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
Conclusion
The trips generated by the proposed Project are substantially lower than the trips generated by the anticipated land use for the Project site that was previously analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. Based on the information in 1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified transportation impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
There would not be any new or substantially more severe significant impacts to transportation beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. No new mitigation measures would be required to reduce Project-related impacts. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Tribal Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
X
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the X
933
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 75
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
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.
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not specifically analyze impacts to tribal cultural resources as it was not a separate topic for analysis when the EIR was completed. Cultural resource impacts and mitigation measures, some of which could pertain to tribal resources, have already been satisfied, as discussed in the Cultural Resources section of this document.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, b) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1
AB 52 requires lead agencies to invite listed California Native America Tribes to consult with the lead agency regarding projects which may impact a tribal cultural resource, as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21074; however, preparation of an Addendum does not trigger the requirements of AB 52, as potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would have already been considered in the previous CEQA document. Potential impacts to cultural resources related to the buildout of the EDSP area were already evaluated in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and were determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Conclusion
As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Potential impacts to tribal cultural resources were known at the time of the certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the Project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA.
Nevertheless, the Project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on this environmental analysis, the Project would not result in new significant impacts to tribal cultural resources, and no new mitigation measures would be required. There would not be any new or substantially more severe significant impacts to tribal cultural resources beyond what has been analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. 934
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 76
Utilities and Service Systems
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for utilities and service systems:
Impact 3.4/O and 3.4/P identified potentially significant impacts resulting from increased solid waste generation on solid waste disposal facilities. Mitigation Measures
3.4/37.0 through 3.4/40.0 were adopted to mitigate these impacts to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.4/Q identified an unavoidable adverse impact from the demand of utility extensions resulting in expansion of utilities onto undeveloped land. The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified extension of utility lines are necessary for the buildout of the project and therefore, did not identify mitigation and the impact remain unavoidable adverse impact.
935
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 77
Impact 3.5/B identified the lack of a collection system as a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0 through 3.5/5.0, generally preventing development until such facilities are constructed by developers, were adopted to mitigate this impact to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.5/C noted potential growth-inducing impacts of pipeline construction. These impacts were mitigated by Mitigation Measure 3.5/6.0, preventing the construction of facilities greater than those required for the GPA/EDSP, to an insignificant level. Impacts 3.5/D, 3.5/E and 3.5/G identified current and future inadequate treatment plant capacity in DSRSD's treatment plan and inadequate disposal capacity as significant impacts. All were mitigated to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measures 3.5/7.0 through 3.5/9.0 and 3.5/11.0 through 3.5/14.
Impacts 3.5/F and 3.5/H relate to the increased energy usage as a result of Impacts
3.5/D, E, and G. Both were mitigated by Mitigation Measures 3.5/10.0, 3.5/15.0 and
3.5/16.0 but remained significant and unavoidable impacts. Impact 3.5/I noted that a failure of the export disposal system could have a potentially significant impact, but Mitigation Measure 3.5/17.0 reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.5/L noted that the proposed recycled water system must be constructed and operated properly in order to prevent any potential contamination of or crossconnection with potable water supply systems. Mitigation Measure 3.5/20.0 reduced this impact to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.5/P identified significant impacts related to the supply of water to the Eastern Dublin area. Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 through 3.5/40.0 were adopted to prevent overdraft of ground water resources by requiring or encouraging annexation and connection to DSRSD, minimize the effect of additional demand for water by encouraging water recycling and conservation and by encouraging the development of new facilities and supplies, and to ensure the development of a water distribution system by generally preventing development until such facilities are constructed by developers.
Impact 3.5/Q noted that buildout of the GP/EDSP will increase water demand.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0 through 3.5/31.0 reduced this impact to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.5/R noted that there would be a significant impact since the increase in water demands through development of the GP/EDSP will require an expansion of existing water treatment facilities in order to deliver safe and potable water. Mitigation Measures 3.5/32.0 and 33.0 reduced this impact to an insignificant level. Impact 3.5/S noted that at the time there was no water service in the area, with the exception of a Zone 7 water supply connection to Alameda County for the old Santa Rita 936
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 78
Jail. With development of the GP/EDSP, a water distribution system and storage system would be required. If a water distribution system was not constructed, this would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.5/34.0 through 3.5/38.0 reduced this impact to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.5/U accounted for the increased energy requirement as a result of increased water demands requiring a water distribution system. Mitigation Measure 3.5/40.0 mitigated this impact but was insufficient to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 3.5/Z: Reduced Groundwater Recharge was a potentially significant impact but Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 3.5/50.0 reduced the impact to an insignificant level.
The City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for Impacts 3.3/F and H, which includes the Project.
The Project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Require relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas or telecommunication facilities The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified potentially significant impacts to utility and service systems resulting from the lack of a wastewater collection and water distribution system in the area.
These impacts were able to be mitigated to a less than significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures. Since the impacts were analyzed in 1993 GPA/SP EIR, the EDSP area has been significantly developed as part of the planned buildout of the EDSP area, and the area is now served by existing utility infrastructure that has been constructed since the preparation of the EIR.
Wastewater collection and treatment services for Dublin are provided by DSRSD, which owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in Pleasanton that has a capacity of 17 million gallons per day (mgd) (DSRSD 2021). The Project would construct sanitary sewer lines and stubs that would connect to the existing eight-inch sanitary sewer lateral onsite. The Project plans to reuse the existing private sewer manhole onsite. The Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.5/4.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, which requires a “will-serve” letter for wastewater treatment from DSRSD prior to permit approval for grading.
Additionally, the new sanitary sewer lines installed within the Project site would be constructed in accordance with City and DSRSD standards as required by Mitigation Measure 3.5/5.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5/5.0, impacts would be less than significant.
937
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 79
Water service in the City is provided by DSRSD who also provides recycled water service for irrigation and other non-potable uses. The existing public water system onsite would be improved. The Project would install a new 10-inch fire service line throughout the site, which would connect to a new six-inch line to connect with new fire hydrants. The new 10-inch fire service line would connect to an existing fire service main onsite. The existing irrigation and domestic water meters would be removed, and the Project would construct two-inch water meters onsite that would connect to the existing 16-inch water main located along the Project frontage on Arnold Road. The existing main has sufficient capacity to accommodate the Project.
The Project is estimated to have an overall demand of 320 gallons per minute (gpm) for domestic water and 100 gpm for irrigation use. The Project would not substantially increase the demand for water and would not exceed the capacity of the existing water systems and facilities. The Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures 3.5/37.0 and
3.5/38.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, which required waster system improvements be in accordance with DSRSD standards and require a “will-serve” letter from DSRSD prior to grading permit approval. Therefore, the Project would not require the construction or expansion of existing water facilities.
The existing storm drain system would be removed and replaced with a new drainage system.
The new storm drain system would include construction of storm drain lines onsite ranging from eight-inch to 18-inch and would connect to existing storm drain manholes and laterals onsite. Additionally, the Project would construct 7,836 sf of bio-retention treatment areas onsite. The drainage system onsite would be designed to be consistent with the NPDES Provision C.3 requirements for LID. The Project’s onsite storm drain system would retain and treat stormwater runoff from the site before being conveyed to the City’s system, which would ensure that the City’s storm drain system does not become overwhelmed. Therefore, the Project would not require the construction or expansion of existing storm drain facilities.
The Project would connect to and be served by existing electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities located within the vicinity of the Project site. The Project is not expected to require any construction or expansion of existing electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities.
The Project would connect to and be served by existing utility infrastructure onsite or located within the vicinity of the Project site. The Project is not expected to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater, stormwater, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. (b) Sufficient water supplies
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified potentially significant effects resulting from an increased demand for water which were mitigated to a level of insignificance with the implementation of mitigation measures. The Project site is located within the EDSP area, which is located within DSRSD’s service area. Because the demands of buildout of the Specific Plan have been factored 938
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 80
into the DSRSD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan’s (UWMP) demand analysis, development of the Project would not result in increased shortages beyond those already factored into DSRSD’s planning under current and future conditions.
DSRSD’s 2020 UWMP described the existing and planned sources of water available in the service area through the year 2040. The UWMP determined that water supplies will be adequate during normal year, single-dry year, and multiple-dry year scenarios through 2040 based on the development of the land uses within the DSRSD service area, which includes the City of Dublin. The Project is anticipated to demand approximately 320 gpm of domestic water and 100 gpm for irrigation use for a total of 420 gpm. Based on the estimated 420 gpm, the Project would demand approximately 604,088 gallons per day (gpd) or 677 acre-feet per year (AFY). The UWMP reported that DSRSD’s available water supplies in 2020 was 10,966 AF for potable water and 2,888 AF for recycled water. The total gross water demand in 2020 as reported by the UWMP was 10,330 AF for potable, raw, and other non-potable water and 3,044 AF for recycled water. The UWMP estimates that total projected water supplies and demand in 2040 would be 13,820 AF for potable, raw, and other non-potable water and 3,044 for recycled water.
The Project’s anticipated demand of 677 AFY would represent approximately 4.9 percent of the UWMP’s projected water demand and supply for the DSRSD service area in the year 2040. The estimated water demand for the Project would be nominal compared to the projected supply and, therefore, DSRSD would have enough water supply to serve the Project. To ensure the Project does not have any significant impacts to water supply, the Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0 and 3.5/27.0, which require implementation of water conservation and recycling measures. As required by Mitigation Measure 3.5/38.0, the Project would be required to obtain a “will-serve” letter from DSRSD confirming its availability to serve the new development. With the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
(c) Sufficient wastewater capacity
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified a potentially significant impact resulting from future lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity. The impacts were mitigated to a level of insignificance with implementation of mitigation measures. Since certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, improvements to the wastewater treatment plant have been completed to allow for more capacity to treat wastewater. Wastewater collection and treatment services for Dublin are provided by DSRSD, which owns and operates a WWTP in Pleasanton that has a capacity of 17 mgd (DSRSD 2021). Volume of wastewater collected from the UWMP service area in 2020 was approximately 10,909 AF or approximately 9.7 mgd. Wastewater that is not recycled is discharged into the San Francisco Bay through a pipeline owned by the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA), a joint powers agency created by DSRSD, Livermore, and Pleasanton. The pipeline has a current design capacity of 41.2 mgd (DSRSD 2021).
939
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 81
The Project is estimated to produce 16,200 gpd of wastewater, which would represent approximately 0.1 percent of the WWTP’s 17 mgd capacity. In 2020, the volume of wastewater collected and treated at the WWTP was approximately 10,909 AF or 9.7 mgd. With a capacity of 17 mgd, the WWTP has sufficient remaining capacity to serve new developments. Therefore, the Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it would not be able to serve the demand of the Project and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
(d, e) Solid waste disposal and regulatory compliance
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified potentially significant impacts resulting from buildout of the Specific Plan as it would increase solid waste production in the area and would result in impacts on solid waste disposal facilities which incrementally accelerate the closing schedule for the landfill. These impacts were mitigated to a level of insignificance with the implementation of mitigation measures.
Solid waste generated within the City is deposited at the Altamont Landfill (City of Dublin 2018).
The Altamont Landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 11,150 tons per day and a maximum permit capacity of 124.4 million cubic yards. The Altamont Landfill is estimated to have a remaining capacity of 65.4 million cubic yards and is expected to cease operation in the year 2070 (CalRecycle 2022b). In the year 2020, the City had an estimated disposal amount of 30,221 tons and a disposal rate of 2.5 pounds per person per day for resident population and
6.4 pounds per person per day for employment-based waste (CalRecycle 2020). CalRecycle identified that the waste generation rate for a nursing/retirement home is approximately five pounds per person per day (CalRecycle 2022a). Therefore, at five pounds per person per day with 174 beds, the Project is anticipated to generate approximately 870 pounds per day. Waste generated by the Project would represent approximately 0.004 percent of the permitted throughput per day at the landfill, which is a negligible amount. Due to the substantial amount of available capacity remaining at the Altamont Landfill and negligible amount of waste anticipated to be generated by the Project, sufficient capacity would be available to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs. The Project would implement the City’s goals, policies, and standards for reducing waste and would implement all applicable statues and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards and would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in 1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase 940
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 82
the severity of the previously identified utilities and service system impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, there would not be any new or substantially more severe significant impacts to utilities and service systems beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Wildfires
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
20. Wildfires. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?? X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not specifically analyze impacts of wildfires as it was not a separate topic for analysis when the EIR were completed. Public services impacts and mitigation measures, some of which related to the provision of fire services pertain to wildfires, were identified, and are discussed in the Public Services section. However, since the Project is not located in or near a California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection designated State Responsibility Area or within a very high fire hazard severity zone, no further analysis is required.
941
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 83
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, b, c, d) Impair emergency response plan, pollutants or uncontrolled spread, infrastructure, and slop instability resulting in post-fire slope instability The Project is not located in or near a California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection designated State Responsibility Area, nor is it located within a very high fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, there would be no Project related impact to or from wildfire.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose changes that were not previously analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in 1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified wildfire impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. The Project would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements related to fire protection. There would not be any new or substantially more severe significant impacts from wildfires, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project:
a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
X
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
X
c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
942
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 84
(a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As discussed, and analyzed in this document, the proposed Project would not degrade the quality of the environment. Additionally, for the reasons discussed in the Biological Resources section, the proposed Project, with mitigation, would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Further, for the reasons identified in the Cultural Resources section, the Project site does not contain any significant cultural resources, and no impacts to such resources would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? The proposed Project has the potential to result in incremental environmental impacts that are part of a series of approvals that were anticipated under the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. The 1993 GPA/SP EIR considered the Project’s cumulatively considerable impacts where effects had the potential to degrade the quality of the environment as a result of build-out of the EDSP.
Implementation of the proposed Project, with mitigation, would not result in any new cumulative impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant cumulative impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met.
Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The proposed Project would not create adverse environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed Project would construct an RCFE, which is not a use or activity that would result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, as discussed throughout this document. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area.
943
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 85
References
Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2018. Plan Bay Area Projections 2040 – A Companion to Plan Bay Area 2040. http://mtcmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/files/Projections_2040-ABAG-MTC-web.pdf.
Accessed April 2022.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2016. Planning Healthy Places: A Guidebook for Addressing Local Sources of Air Pollutants in Community Planning. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/planning-healthyplaces/php_may20_2016-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed February 17, 2022. ______. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed February 17, 2022.
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 1982. Mineral Land Classification Map Dublin Quadrangle Special Report 146 Plate 2.9.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc.
Accessed March 2022.
_____. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed February 2022. _____. 2022. CGS Information Warehouse: Tsunami Hazard Area Map. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/ts_evacuation/?extent=- 13660824.1095%2C4512285.6761%2C13543416.8341%2C4564415.7294%2C102100&utm_source=cgs+active&utm_content=a lameda. Accessed March 2022.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2020. Disposal Rate Calculator – Dublin 2020.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DisposalRateCalculator.
Accessed March 2022.
_____. 2022a. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates. Accessed March 2022.
_____. 2022b. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Detail. Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery (01- AA-0009). https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/7?siteID=7.
Accessed March 2022.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map.
944
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 86
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057 116f1aacaa. Accessed February 2022.
_____. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020- a11y.pdf. Accessed March 2022.
City of Dublin. 1984. City of Dublin General Plan Volume 2: Technical Supplement Draft Environmental Impact Report.
https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5866/Dublin-General-Plan-EIR-Vol2-Tech-Supplement?bidId=. Accessed March 2022. _____. 2018. City of Dublin General Plan.
https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/17928/General-Plan-May-2020- web-version?bidId=. Accessed February 2022.
_____. 2020. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7776/EDSP-2020-Update-FullPDF?bidId=. Accessed February 2022.
County of Alameda. 2017. County of Alameda General Plan Safety Element. https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/documents/SafetyElement.pdf.
Accessed March 2022.
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.dsrsd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/7749/637607511715070000.
Accessed March 2022.
Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA). 2020. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06001C0309G. https://msc.fema.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/mscprintb_gpserver/ jb7062ab157aa4350ba8dc396cae863ce/scratch/FIRMETTE_f3767277-be42-4cd0-9f9df116aaae12cc.pdf. Accessed March 2022. \ United States Census Bureau (US Census). 2021. QuickFact Dublin city, California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/dublincitycalifornia#qf-flag-X. Accessed March 2022.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2022. Polluted Runoff: Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution - Urban Runoff: Low Impact Development. https://www.epa.gov/nps/urban-runoff-low-impact-development. Accessed April 2022.
Zone 7 Water Agency. 2021. Annual Report for the Sustainable Groundwater Management Program 2020 Water Year – Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. https://www.zone7water.com/sites/main/files/fileattachments/gsp2020annrptfinal.pdf?1619988363. Accessed March 2022. 945
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 87
List of Preparers
Principal in Charge Trevor Macenski
Project Manager Anna Radonich
Deputy Project Manager/QA/QC Christine Abraham
Environmental Planner Jennifer Webster
Principal Air Quality Scientist Elena Nuño
Air Quality Scientist Kaitlyn Heck
Senior Environmental Noise Analyst Tracie Ferguson
Principal Traffic Engineer Daryl Zerfass
Senior Transportation Planner Sandhya Perumalla
Graphics Kaela Johnson
946
Appendix A
Air Quality and Energy
CalEEMod Output Sheets
Energy Calculations
947
Dublin Senior Living Project
Alameda County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Project Description. Dwelling Units = # of beds Construction Phase - Applicant provided schedule
Trips and VMT - even numbers
Grading -
Woodstoves - No fireplaces
Operational Off-Road Equipment -
Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Tier 4
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Other Asphalt Surfaces 1.00 Acre 1.00 43,560.00 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 2.30 Acre 2.30 100,188.00 0
Parking Lot 93.00 Space 0.84 37,200.00 0
Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 174.00 Dwelling Unit 1.60 155,829.00 498
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
4 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 63
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2026
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 948
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 10.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 460.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 30.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 949
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 30.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 26.10 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 6.96 152.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 29.58 0.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 1,500.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 174,000.00 155,829.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 10.88 1.60
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 158.78 138.70
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 48.00 46.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 16.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 201.00 186.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 16.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 40.00 38.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 11,336,800.46 9,903,411.89
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 7,147,113.33 6,243,455.32
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 3.48 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 3.48 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 950
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.1355 1.2389 1.1912 2.6900e0030.4644 0.0541 0.5186 0.2200 0.0503 0.2703 0.0000 239.3562 239.3562 0.0485 6.3300e003242.4550 2024 0.2582 2.0647 2.7012 6.3000e0030.2322 0.0829 0.3151 0.0627 0.0780 0.1407 0.0000 563.6483 563.6483 0.0775 0.0211 571.8804 2025 1.2775 1.1283 1.6105 3.6000e0030.1243 0.0434 0.1677 0.0335 0.0408 0.0743 0.0000 321.1864 321.1864 0.0490 0.0106 325.5607 Maximum 1.2775 2.0647 2.7012 6.3000e0030.4644 0.0829 0.5186 0.2200 0.0780 0.2703 0.0000 563.6483 563.6483 0.0775 0.0211 571.8804 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.0419 0.2160 1.3151 2.6900e0030.4644 3.7500e0030.4682 0.2200 3.7100e0030.2237 0.0000 239.3560 239.3560 0.0485 6.3300e003242.4548 2024 0.1084 0.5963 2.8707 6.3000e0030.2322 7.9000e0030.2401 0.0627 7.7500e0030.0705 0.0000 563.6480 563.6480 0.0775 0.0211 571.8800 2025 1.1967 0.3219 1.7431 3.6000e0030.1243 4.6400e0030.1289 0.0335 4.5600e0030.0381 0.0000 321.1861 321.1861 0.0490 0.0106 325.5604 Maximum 1.1967 0.5963 2.8707 6.3000e0030.4644 7.9000e0030.4682 0.2200 7.7500e0030.2237 0.0000 563.6480 563.6480 0.0775 0.0211 571.8800 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 951
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
19.40 74.41 -7.74 0.00 0.00 90.97 16.39 0.00 90.52 31.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 7-10-2023 10-9-2023 0.7796 0.0926
2 10-10-2023 1-9-2024 0.6190 0.1823
3 1-10-2024 4-9-2024 0.5792 0.1777
4 4-10-2024 7-9-2024 0.5738 0.1723
5 7-10-2024 10-9-2024 0.5807 0.1748
6 10-10-2024 1-9-2025 0.5825 0.1801
7 1-10-2025 4-9-2025 0.5361 0.1737
8 4-10-2025 7-9-2025 0.5177 0.1628
9 7-10-2025 9-30-2025 1.2299 1.1076
Highest 1.2299 1.1076
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 952
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.7726 0.0149 1.2916 7.0000e0057.1700e0037.1700e0037.1700e0037.1700e0030.0000 2.1121 2.1121 2.0300e0030.0000 2.1628 Energy 7.8600e0030.0672 0.0286 4.3000e0045.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0030.0000 141.2773 141.2773 0.0118 2.6700e003142.3672 Mobile 0.1770 0.2217 1.6478 3.6200e0030.4042 2.6900e0030.4069 0.1080 2.5100e0030.1105 0.0000 334.1577 334.1577 0.0209 0.0175 339.8865 Stationary 0.0826 0.3691 0.2105 4.0000e0040.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0000 38.3082 38.3082 5.3700e0030.0000 38.4425 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 28.1549 0.0000 28.1549 1.6639 0.0000 69.7524 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.1419 6.9799 10.1218 0.3238 7.7600e00320.5291 Total 1.0400 0.6729 3.1785 4.5200e0030.4042 0.0274 0.4317 0.1080 0.0273 0.1352 31.2968 522.8352 554.1320 2.0278 0.0279 613.1405 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 953
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.7726 0.0149 1.2916 7.0000e0057.1700e0037.1700e0037.1700e0037.1700e0030.0000 2.1121 2.1121 2.0300e0030.0000 2.1628 Energy 7.8600e0030.0672 0.0286 4.3000e0045.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0030.0000 141.2773 141.2773 0.0118 2.6700e003142.3672 Mobile 0.1770 0.2217 1.6478 3.6200e0030.4042 2.6900e0030.4069 0.1080 2.5100e0030.1105 0.0000 334.1577 334.1577 0.0209 0.0175 339.8865 Stationary 0.0826 0.3691 0.2105 4.0000e0040.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0000 38.3082 38.3082 5.3700e0030.0000 38.4425 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 28.1549 0.0000 28.1549 1.6639 0.0000 69.7524 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.1419 6.9799 10.1218 0.3238 7.7600e00320.5291 Total 1.0400 0.6729 3.1785 4.5200e0030.4042 0.0274 0.4317 0.1080 0.0273 0.1352 31.2968 522.8352 554.1320 2.0278 0.0279 613.1405 Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 7/10/2023 8/18/2023 5 30 2 Grading Grading 8/21/2023 9/29/2023 5 30
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 954
3 Building Construction Building Construction 10/2/2023 7/4/2025 5 460 4 Paving Paving 7/7/2025 8/15/2025 5 30
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/18/2025 9/26/2025 5 30 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Residential Indoor: 315,554; Residential Outdoor: 105,185; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area:
10,857 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 45
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 30
Acres of Paving: 4.14
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 955
3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.2949 0.0000 0.2949 0.1515 0.0000 0.1515 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0399 0.4129 0.2737 5.7000e0040.0190 0.0190 0.0175 0.0175 0.0000 50.1760 50.1760 0.0162 0.0000 50.5817 Total 0.0399 0.4129 0.2737 5.7000e0040.2949 0.0190 0.3139 0.1515 0.0175 0.1690 0.0000 50.1760 50.1760 0.0162 0.0000 50.5817 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 6 16.00 0.00 188.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 186.00 46.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 16.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 38.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 956
3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.1000e0044.8000e0046.0000e0032.0000e0052.1300e0031.0000e0052.1500e0035.7000e0041.0000e0055.8000e0040.0000 1.6623 1.6623 5.0000e0055.0000e0051.6774 Total 7.1000e0044.8000e0046.0000e0032.0000e0052.1300e0031.0000e0052.1500e0035.7000e0041.0000e0055.8000e0040.0000 1.6623 1.6623 5.0000e0055.0000e0051.6774 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.2949 0.0000 0.2949 0.1515 0.0000 0.1515 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.9800e0030.0303 0.3130 5.7000e0049.3000e0049.3000e0049.3000e0049.3000e0040.0000 50.1760 50.1760 0.0162 0.0000 50.5817 Total 6.9800e0030.0303 0.3130 5.7000e0040.2949 9.3000e0040.2958 0.1515 9.3000e0040.1525 0.0000 50.1760 50.1760 0.0162 0.0000 50.5817 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 957
3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.1000e0044.8000e0046.0000e0032.0000e0052.1300e0031.0000e0052.1500e0035.7000e0041.0000e0055.8000e0040.0000 1.6623 1.6623 5.0000e0055.0000e0051.6774 Total 7.1000e0044.8000e0046.0000e0032.0000e0052.1300e0031.0000e0052.1500e0035.7000e0041.0000e0055.8000e0040.0000 1.6623 1.6623 5.0000e0055.0000e0051.6774 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1063 0.0000 0.1063 0.0514 0.0000 0.0514 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0257 0.2690 0.2213 4.4000e0040.0116 0.0116 0.0107 0.0107 0.0000 39.0909 39.0909 0.0126 0.0000 39.4070 Total 0.0257 0.2690 0.2213 4.4000e0040.1063 0.0116 0.1179 0.0514 0.0107 0.0621 0.0000 39.0909 39.0909 0.0126 0.0000 39.4070 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 958
3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9000e0040.0124 2.8000e0036.0000e0051.5900e0031.1000e0041.7000e0034.4000e0041.0000e0045.4000e0040.0000 5.4773 5.4773 1.2000e0048.7000e0045.7381 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.3000e0044.3000e0045.3400e0032.0000e0051.9000e0031.0000e0051.9100e0035.0000e0041.0000e0055.1000e0040.0000 1.4776 1.4776 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.4910 Total 8.2000e0040.0128 8.1400e0038.0000e0053.4900e0031.2000e0043.6100e0039.4000e0041.1000e0041.0500e0030.0000 6.9549 6.9549 1.6000e0049.1000e0047.2292 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1063 0.0000 0.1063 0.0514 0.0000 0.0514 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 5.4500e0030.0236 0.2663 4.4000e0047.3000e0047.3000e0047.3000e0047.3000e0040.0000 39.0909 39.0909 0.0126 0.0000 39.4069 Total 5.4500e0030.0236 0.2663 4.4000e0040.1063 7.3000e0040.1071 0.0514 7.3000e0040.0521 0.0000 39.0909 39.0909 0.0126 0.0000 39.4069 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 959
3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9000e0040.0124 2.8000e0036.0000e0051.5900e0031.1000e0041.7000e0034.4000e0041.0000e0045.4000e0040.0000 5.4773 5.4773 1.2000e0048.7000e0045.7381 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.3000e0044.3000e0045.3400e0032.0000e0051.9000e0031.0000e0051.9100e0035.0000e0041.0000e0055.1000e0040.0000 1.4776 1.4776 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.4910 Total 8.2000e0040.0128 8.1400e0038.0000e0053.4900e0031.2000e0043.6100e0039.4000e0041.1000e0041.0500e0030.0000 6.9549 6.9549 1.6000e0049.1000e0047.2292 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0511 0.4675 0.5279 8.8000e0040.0227 0.0227 0.0214 0.0214 0.0000 75.3365 75.3365 0.0179 0.0000 75.7846 Total 0.0511 0.4675 0.5279 8.8000e0040.0227 0.0227 0.0214 0.0214 0.0000 75.3365 75.3365 0.0179 0.0000 75.7846 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 960
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.5100e0030.0654 0.0198 3.0000e0049.8200e0033.9000e0040.0102 2.8400e0033.8000e0043.2200e0030.0000 28.9197 28.9197 3.9000e0044.3300e00330.2200 Worker 0.0158 0.0108 0.1344 4.1000e0040.0478 2.5000e0040.0480 0.0127 2.3000e0040.0129 0.0000 37.2159 37.2159 1.1100e0031.0500e00337.5552 Total 0.0173 0.0762 0.1542 7.1000e0040.0576 6.4000e0040.0583 0.0156 6.1000e0040.0162 0.0000 66.1356 66.1356 1.5000e0035.3800e00367.7752 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0107 0.0726 0.5675 8.8000e0041.3300e0031.3300e0031.3300e0031.3300e0030.0000 75.3365 75.3365 0.0179 0.0000 75.7845 Total 0.0107 0.0726 0.5675 8.8000e0041.3300e0031.3300e0031.3300e0031.3300e0030.0000 75.3365 75.3365 0.0179 0.0000 75.7845 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 961
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.5100e0030.0654 0.0198 3.0000e0049.8200e0033.9000e0040.0102 2.8400e0033.8000e0043.2200e0030.0000 28.9197 28.9197 3.9000e0044.3300e00330.2200 Worker 0.0158 0.0108 0.1344 4.1000e0040.0478 2.5000e0040.0480 0.0127 2.3000e0040.0129 0.0000 37.2159 37.2159 1.1100e0031.0500e00337.5552 Total 0.0173 0.0762 0.1542 7.1000e0040.0576 6.4000e0040.0583 0.0156 6.1000e0040.0162 0.0000 66.1356 66.1356 1.5000e0035.3800e00367.7752 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1928 1.7611 2.1179 3.5300e0030.0803 0.0803 0.0756 0.0756 0.0000 303.7223 303.7223 0.0718 0.0000 305.5179 Total 0.1928 1.7611 2.1179 3.5300e0030.0803 0.0803 0.0756 0.0756 0.0000 303.7223 303.7223 0.0718 0.0000 305.5179 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 962
3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.9400e0030.2645 0.0782 1.1900e0030.0396 1.6100e0030.0412 0.0115 1.5400e0030.0130 0.0000 114.7702 114.7702 1.5900e0030.0172 119.9342 Worker 0.0595 0.0390 0.5052 1.5800e0030.1927 9.5000e0040.1936 0.0513 8.8000e0040.0521 0.0000 145.1558 145.1558 4.0600e0033.9300e003146.4283 Total 0.0655 0.3035 0.5834 2.7700e0030.2322 2.5600e0030.2348 0.0627 2.4200e0030.0651 0.0000 259.9260 259.9260 5.6500e0030.0211 266.3625 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0429 0.2928 2.2873 3.5300e0035.3400e0035.3400e0035.3400e0035.3400e0030.0000 303.7220 303.7220 0.0718 0.0000 305.5175 Total 0.0429 0.2928 2.2873 3.5300e0035.3400e0035.3400e0035.3400e0035.3400e0030.0000 303.7220 303.7220 0.0718 0.0000 305.5175 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 963
3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.9400e0030.2645 0.0782 1.1900e0030.0396 1.6100e0030.0412 0.0115 1.5400e0030.0130 0.0000 114.7702 114.7702 1.5900e0030.0172 119.9342 Worker 0.0595 0.0390 0.5052 1.5800e0030.1927 9.5000e0040.1936 0.0513 8.8000e0040.0521 0.0000 145.1558 145.1558 4.0600e0033.9300e003146.4283 Total 0.0655 0.3035 0.5834 2.7700e0030.2322 2.5600e0030.2348 0.0627 2.4200e0030.0651 0.0000 259.9260 259.9260 5.6500e0030.0211 266.3625 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0909 0.8292 1.0696 1.7900e0030.0351 0.0351 0.0330 0.0330 0.0000 154.2264 154.2264 0.0363 0.0000 155.1328 Total 0.0909 0.8292 1.0696 1.7900e0030.0351 0.0351 0.0330 0.0330 0.0000 154.2264 154.2264 0.0363 0.0000 155.1328 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 964
3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.9500e0030.1342 0.0390 5.9000e0040.0201 8.1000e0040.0209 5.8100e0037.8000e0046.5900e0030.0000 57.2232 57.2232 8.1000e0048.5800e00359.7992 Worker 0.0283 0.0178 0.2403 7.8000e0040.0978 4.6000e0040.0983 0.0260 4.2000e0040.0264 0.0000 71.2144 71.2144 1.8700e0031.8700e00371.8187 Total 0.0313 0.1520 0.2793 1.3700e0030.1179 1.2700e0030.1192 0.0318 1.2000e0030.0330 0.0000 128.4376 128.4376 2.6800e0030.0105 131.6179 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0218 0.1486 1.1611 1.7900e0032.7100e0032.7100e0032.7100e0032.7100e0030.0000 154.2263 154.2263 0.0363 0.0000 155.1326 Total 0.0218 0.1486 1.1611 1.7900e0032.7100e0032.7100e0032.7100e0032.7100e0030.0000 154.2263 154.2263 0.0363 0.0000 155.1326 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 965
3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.9500e0030.1342 0.0390 5.9000e0040.0201 8.1000e0040.0209 5.8100e0037.8000e0046.5900e0030.0000 57.2232 57.2232 8.1000e0048.5800e00359.7992 Worker 0.0283 0.0178 0.2403 7.8000e0040.0978 4.6000e0040.0983 0.0260 4.2000e0040.0264 0.0000 71.2144 71.2144 1.8700e0031.8700e00371.8187 Total 0.0313 0.1520 0.2793 1.3700e0030.1179 1.2700e0030.1192 0.0318 1.2000e0030.0330 0.0000 128.4376 128.4376 2.6800e0030.0105 131.6179 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0137 0.1287 0.2187 3.4000e0046.2800e0036.2800e0035.7800e0035.7800e0030.0000 30.0289 30.0289 9.7100e0030.0000 30.2717 Paving 2.4100e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0161 0.1287 0.2187 3.4000e0046.2800e0036.2800e0035.7800e0035.7800e0030.0000 30.0289 30.0289 9.7100e0030.0000 30.2717 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 966
3.5 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.5000e0043.5000e0044.6600e0032.0000e0051.9000e0031.0000e0051.9100e0035.0000e0041.0000e0055.1000e0040.0000 1.3818 1.3818 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.3935 Total 5.5000e0043.5000e0044.6600e0032.0000e0051.9000e0031.0000e0051.9100e0035.0000e0041.0000e0055.1000e0040.0000 1.3818 1.3818 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.3935 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 4.2100e0030.0182 0.2594 3.4000e0045.6000e0045.6000e0045.6000e0045.6000e0040.0000 30.0289 30.0289 9.7100e0030.0000 30.2717 Paving 2.4100e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.6200e0030.0182 0.2594 3.4000e0045.6000e0045.6000e0045.6000e0045.6000e0040.0000 30.0289 30.0289 9.7100e0030.0000 30.2717 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 967
3.5 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.5000e0043.5000e0044.6600e0032.0000e0051.9000e0031.0000e0051.9100e0035.0000e0041.0000e0055.1000e0040.0000 1.3818 1.3818 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.3935 Total 5.5000e0043.5000e0044.6600e0032.0000e0051.9000e0031.0000e0051.9100e0035.0000e0041.0000e0055.1000e0040.0000 1.3818 1.3818 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.3935 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 1.1347 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.5600e0030.0172 0.0271 4.0000e0057.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 3.8299 3.8299 2.1000e0040.0000 3.8351 Total 1.1373 0.0172 0.0271 4.0000e0057.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 3.8299 3.8299 2.1000e0040.0000 3.8351 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 968
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.3100e0038.2000e0040.0111 4.0000e0054.5100e0032.0000e0054.5300e0031.2000e0032.0000e0051.2200e0030.0000 3.2818 3.2818 9.0000e0059.0000e0053.3096 Total 1.3100e0038.2000e0040.0111 4.0000e0054.5100e0032.0000e0054.5300e0031.2000e0032.0000e0051.2200e0030.0000 3.2818 3.2818 9.0000e0059.0000e0053.3096 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 1.1347 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.5000e0041.9300e0030.0275 4.0000e0056.0000e0056.0000e0056.0000e0056.0000e0050.0000 3.8299 3.8299 2.1000e0040.0000 3.8351 Total 1.1351 1.9300e0030.0275 4.0000e0056.0000e0056.0000e0056.0000e0056.0000e0050.0000 3.8299 3.8299 2.1000e0040.0000 3.8351 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 969
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.3100e0038.2000e0040.0111 4.0000e0054.5100e0032.0000e0054.5300e0031.2000e0032.0000e0051.2200e0030.0000 3.2818 3.2818 9.0000e0059.0000e0053.3096 Total 1.3100e0038.2000e0040.0111 4.0000e0054.5100e0032.0000e0054.5300e0031.2000e0032.0000e0051.2200e0030.0000 3.2818 3.2818 9.0000e0059.0000e0053.3096 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 970
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.1770 0.2217 1.6478 3.6200e0030.4042 2.6900e0030.4069 0.1080 2.5100e0030.1105 0.0000 334.1577 334.1577 0.0209 0.0175 339.8865 Unmitigated 0.1770 0.2217 1.6478 3.6200e0030.4042 2.6900e0030.4069 0.1080 2.5100e0030.1105 0.0000 334.1577 334.1577 0.0209 0.0175 339.8865
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 452.40 509.82 548.10 1,095,387 1,095,387 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 452.40 509.82 548.10 1,095,387 1,095,387
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Congregate Care (Assisted
Living)
10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3
Other Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 971
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Congregate Care (Assisted
Living)
0.571499 0.056472 0.178543 0.111785 0.020654 0.005249 0.014294 0.013034 0.000787 0.000550 0.024393 0.000348 0.002396 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.571499 0.056472 0.178543 0.111785 0.020654 0.005249 0.014294 0.013034 0.000787 0.000550 0.024393 0.000348 0.002396 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.571499 0.056472 0.178543 0.111785 0.020654 0.005249 0.014294 0.013034 0.000787 0.000550 0.024393 0.000348 0.002396 Parking Lot 0.571499 0.056472 0.178543 0.111785 0.020654 0.005249 0.014294 0.013034 0.000787 0.000550 0.024393 0.000348 0.002396
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 63.4508 63.4508 0.0103 1.2400e00364.0783 Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 63.4508 63.4508 0.0103 1.2400e00364.0783 NaturalGas
Mitigated
7.8600e0030.0672 0.0286 4.3000e0045.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0030.0000 77.8264 77.8264 1.4900e0031.4300e00378.2889 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
7.8600e0030.0672 0.0286 4.3000e0045.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0030.0000 77.8264 77.8264 1.4900e0031.4300e00378.2889
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 972
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
1.45841e
+006
7.8600e0030.0672 0.0286 4.3000e0045.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0030.0000 77.8264 77.8264 1.4900e0031.4300e00378.2889 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.8600e0030.0672 0.0286 4.3000e0045.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0030.0000 77.8264 77.8264 1.4900e0031.4300e00378.2889 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 973
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
1.45841e
+006
7.8600e0030.0672 0.0286 4.3000e0045.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0030.0000 77.8264 77.8264 1.4900e0031.4300e00378.2889 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.8600e0030.0672 0.0286 4.3000e0045.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0030.0000 77.8264 77.8264 1.4900e0031.4300e00378.2889 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 974
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
672759 62.2462 0.0101 1.2200e00362.8617
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 13020 1.2047 1.9000e0042.0000e0051.2166
Total 63.4508 0.0103 1.2400e00364.0783
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 975
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
672759 62.2462 0.0101 1.2200e00362.8617
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 13020 1.2047 1.9000e0042.0000e0051.2166
Total 63.4508 0.0103 1.2400e00364.0783
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 976
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.7726 0.0149 1.2916 7.0000e0057.1700e0037.1700e0037.1700e0037.1700e0030.0000 2.1121 2.1121 2.0300e0030.0000 2.1628 Unmitigated 0.7726 0.0149 1.2916 7.0000e0057.1700e0037.1700e0037.1700e0037.1700e0030.0000 2.1121 2.1121 2.0300e0030.0000 2.1628
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.1135 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
0.6203 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0388 0.0149 1.2916 7.0000e0057.1700e0037.1700e0037.1700e0037.1700e0030.0000 2.1121 2.1121 2.0300e0030.0000 2.1628 Total 0.7726 0.0149 1.2916 7.0000e0057.1700e0037.1700e0037.1700e0037.1700e0030.0000 2.1121 2.1121 2.0300e0030.0000 2.1628 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 977
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.1135 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
0.6203 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0388 0.0149 1.2916 7.0000e0057.1700e0037.1700e0037.1700e0037.1700e0030.0000 2.1121 2.1121 2.0300e0030.0000 2.1628 Total 0.7726 0.0149 1.2916 7.0000e0057.1700e0037.1700e0037.1700e0037.1700e0030.0000 2.1121 2.1121 2.0300e0030.0000 2.1628 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 978
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 10.1218 0.3238 7.7600e00320.5291
Unmitigated 10.1218 0.3238 7.7600e00320.5291
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
9.90341 /
6.24346
10.1218 0.3238 7.7600e00320.5291
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 10.1218 0.3238 7.7600e00320.5291
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 979
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
9.90341 /
6.24346
10.1218 0.3238 7.7600e00320.5291
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 10.1218 0.3238 7.7600e00320.5291
Mitigated
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 980
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 28.1549 1.6639 0.0000 69.7524
Unmitigated 28.1549 1.6639 0.0000 69.7524
Category/Year
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
138.7 28.1549 1.6639 0.0000 69.7524
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 28.1549 1.6639 0.0000 69.7524
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 981
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
138.7 28.1549 1.6639 0.0000 69.7524
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 28.1549 1.6639 0.0000 69.7524
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Emergency Generator 1 0 100 1006 0.73 Diesel
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 982
11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number
10.1 Stationary Sources
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Equipment Type tons/yr MT/yr
Emergency
Generator -
Diesel (750 -
9999 HP)
0.0826 0.3691 0.2105 4.0000e0040.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0000 38.3082 38.3082 5.3700e0030.0000 38.4425 Total 0.0826 0.3691 0.2105 4.0000e0040.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0000 38.3082 38.3082 5.3700e0030.0000 38.4425 Unmitigated/Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 36 of 36 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PM Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 983
Phase Name Phase Type Phase Start Date Phase End Date Num Days/Week Total Work Days Site Preparation Site Preparation 2023/07/10 2023/08/18 5 30 Grading Grading 2023/08/21 2023/09/29 5 30
Building
Construction
Building
Construction 2023/10/02 2025/07/04 5 460
Paving Paving 2025/07/07 2025/08/15 5 30
Architectural
Coating
Architectural
Coating 2025/08/18 2025/09/26 5 30
Total Trips
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length Days per Phase Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number Worker Trips Vendor Trips Hauling Trips Worker Trips Vendor Trips Hauling Trips Total Site Preparation 18 0 0 10.8 7.3 20 30 540 0 0 5,832.00 0.00 0.00 219.46 0.00 0.00 219.46 Grading 16 0 188 10.8 7.3 20 30 480 0 188 5,184.00 0.00 3,760.00 195.07 0.00 589.55 784.62 Building
Construction 186 46 0 10.8 7.3 20 460 85560 21160 0 924,048.00 154,468.00 0.00 34,771.57 23,639.92 0.00 58,411.49 Paving 16 0 0 10.8 7.3 20 30 480 0 0 5,184.00 0.00 0.00 195.07 0.00 0.00 195.07 Architectural
Coating 38 0 0 10.8 7.3 20 30 1140 0 0 12,312.00 0.00 0.00 463.30 0.00 0.00 463.30 60,073.94
Phase Name
Fuel Consumption
gallons Trips per Day Construction Trip Length (Miles) Trips per Phase VMT per Phase Construction
Project Component Phase
Offroad Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Onroad Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Total Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Site Preparation 703.78 219.46 923.24
Site Grading 3,880.36 784.62 4,664.98
Building
Construction 15,923.33 58,411.49 74,334.82
Paving 843.63 195.07 1,038.70
Architectural
Coating 116.02 463.30 579.32
Total 21,467.12 60,073.94 81,541.06
Dublin Senior Living Facility
985
Phase Name Phase Type Phase Start Date Phase End Date Num Days/Week Total Work Days Site Preparation Site Preparation 2023/07/10 2023/08/18 5 30 Grading Grading 2023/08/21 2023/09/29 5 30
Building
Construction
Building
Construction 2023/10/02 2025/07/04 5 460
Paving Paving 2025/07/07 2025/08/15 5 30
Architectural
Coating
Architectural
Coating 2025/08/18 2025/09/26 5 30
Phase Name Equipment Type Amount Hours per day Horse Power (HP) Load Factor Number of Days HP Hours Fuel (gallons/HPhour) Diesel Fuel Usage Total Rubber Tired
Dozers 3 8 247 0.4 30 71,136.00 0.02048249 1,457.04
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes 4 8 97 0.37 30 34,454.40 0.019127164 659.01 2,116.06 Excavators 1 8 158 0.38 30 14,409.60 0.019761453 284.75 Graders 1 8 187 0.41 30 18,400.80 0.021223655 390.53
Rubber Tired
Dozers 1 8 247 0.4 30 23,712.00 0.02048249 485.68
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes 3 8 97 0.37 30 25,840.80 0.019127164 494.26 1,655.23 Cranes 1 7 231 0.29 460 215,707.80 0.014920585 3,218.49 Forklifts 3 8 89 0.2 460 196,512.00 0.010380794 2,039.95 Generator Sets 1 8 84 0.74 460 228,748.80 0.017395293 3,979.15 Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes 3 7 97 0.37 460 346,697.40 0.019127164 6,631.34 Welders 1 8 46 0.45 460 76,176.00 0.025825776 1,967.30 17,836.23 Pavers 2 8 130 0.42 30 26,208.00 0.021528159 564.21
Paving Equipment 2 8 132 0.36 30 22,809.60 0.018396208 419.61 Rollers 2 8 80 0.38 30 14,592.00 0.019411734 283.26 1,267.08 Architectural CoatinAir Compressors 1 6 78 0.48 30 6,739.20 0.027583337 185.89 185.89 185.89 Grand Total 23,060.48
Site Preparation
Grading
Building
Construction
Paving
2,116.06
1,655.23
17,836.23
1,267.08
986
Vehicle Type Fleet Mix
Percentage
Daily VMT
Traveled
Annual VMT
Traveled
Average Fuel
Economy
(miles/gallon)
Total Daily Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Total Annual Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Passegner Cars
(LDA) 57% 1,715 626,013 30 57 20,665
Light Trucks and
Medium Duty
Vehicles (LDT1,
LDT2, MDV)
35% 1,041 379,880 24 43 15,652
Light-Heavy to
Heavy-Heavy
Diesel Trucks
(LHD1, LHD2,
MHDT, HHDT)
5% 160 58,309 10 17 6,090
Motorcycle 2% 73 26,720 41 2 649
Other (OBUS,
UBUS, SBUS, MH) 0% 12 4,466 7 2 604
Total 100% 3,001 1,095,387 120 43,660
987
Electricity
Land Size
Title 24
Electricity
Energy
Intensity
(KWhr/
size/
Nontitle
24 Electricity
Energy
Intensity
(KWhr/
size/
Lighting
Energy
Intensity
(KWhr/
size/
Total
Electricity
Energy
Demand
(KWhr/ size/
Total
Electricity
Demand
Use (beds) year) year) year) year) (KWhr/
year)
Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 174 70.89 3,054.10 741.44 3,866 672,759 Parking Lot 93 spaces 0 0 0.35 140 13,020
685,779
Natural Gas
Total
Natural
Gas
Energy
Demand
Total Natural
Gas Demand
(KBTU/siz
e/year) (KBTU/year)
Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 174 5,226.68 3,155 8,382 1,458,410.00 Parking Lot 93 spaces 0 0 0 0
Land Use Size
(beds)
Title 24
Natural
Gas Energy
Intensity
(KBTU/size
/year)
Nontitle
24 Natural
Gas
Energy
Intensity
(KBTU/siz
e/year)
988
Model Output: OFFROAD2021 (v1.0.1) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: County
Region: Alameda
Calendar Year: 2023
Scenario: All Adopted Rules - Exhaust
Vehicle Classification: OFFROAD2021 Equipment Types
Units: tons/day for Emissions, gallons/year for Fuel, hours/year for Activity, Horsepower-hours/year for Horsepower-hours Region Calendar YeVehicle Category Horsepowe Fuel Fuel Consu Total_ActivTotal_PopuHorsepower_Hours_hhpy Gallons/HP-hr Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Cranes 100 Diesel 7955.485 6084.555 13.55138 535714.6788 0.01485 Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Cranes 175 Diesel 24391.06 11188.64 24.2118 1634725.385 0.014921 Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Cranes 300 Diesel 41833.82 12762.96 26.77753 2809691.34 0.014889 Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Excavators 175 Diesel 125011.2 43320.39 72.40401 6326012.22 0.019761 Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Graders 175 Diesel 75981.31 24080.21 50.57283 3580029.486 0.021224 Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Graders 300 Diesel 157578.3 34655.89 45.21198 7447959.682 0.021157 Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Pavers 100 Diesel 10430.89 6021.143 15.08496 487420.3115 0.0214 Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Pavers 175 Diesel 16521.65 4861.306 12.45058 767443.9424 0.021528 Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Paving Equipment 100 Diesel 6484.522 3956.916 8.485344 352492.3057 0.018396 Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Paving Equipment 175 Diesel 6991.246 2622.278 5.636022 381527.4763 0.018324 Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Rollers 100 Diesel 39873.79 23538.66 70.13184 2054107.728 0.019412 Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Rubber Tired Dozers 100 Diesel 3563.827 2047.869 2.332572 173025.1124 0.020597 Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Rubber Tired Dozers 175 Diesel 4946.659 1708.017 2.148421 241810.4849 0.020457 Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Rubber Tired Dozers 300 Diesel 5570.461 1246.099 1.749429 271962.0908 0.020482 Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 100 Diesel 613242.4 385075.6 607.7834 32061335.46 0.019127 Alameda 2023 Industrial - Forklifts 100 Diesel 404016.2 472113.9 611.9807 38919590.88 0.010381 Alameda 2023 Portable Equipment - Rental Generator 50 Diesel 990.7755 1355.309 0.932487 56956.52564 0.017395 Alameda 2023 Light Commercial - Misc - Welders 50 Diesel 220952.8 185989.4 289.58 8555512.4 0.025826 Alameda 2023 Light Commercial - Misc - Air Compressors 50 Diesel 48139.85 47168.95 57.95 1745251.15 0.027583 989
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.1) Emissions Inventory 1000
Region Type: County
Region: Alameda
Calendar Year: 2023
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC202x Categories
Units: miles/year for CVMT and EVMT, trips/year for Trips, kWh/year for Energy Consumption, tons/year for Emissions, 1000 gallons/year for Fuel Consumption Region Calendar YeVehicle CatModel Year Speed Fuel Population Total VMT Fuel Consu Total Fuel
Consumption
Fuel Efficiency
Miles/Gallon VMT*Fuel Efficiency
Alameda 2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 554013.6559 6952763722 236841.5 236841462.7 29.36 2.04107E+11 Alameda 2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2383.835981 23182397.92 548.2887 548288.6905 42.28 980183583.5 Alameda 2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 13516.12352 212056459.4 3552.318 3552317.924 59.70 12658760543 Alameda 2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 53163.53646 616546408.5 24867.39 24867393.47 24.79 15286261277 Alameda 2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 32.09604679 136099.9655 5.650852 5650.851512 24.08 3277948.567 Alameda 2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 36.5913159 663720.1595 10.09441 10094.41008 65.75 43640435.34 Alameda 2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 246364.5187 3292647588 138943.1 138943126.2 23.70 78028531771 Alameda 2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 848.1394293 11844235.72 374.6452 374645.1686 31.61 374450097.1 Alameda 2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 1432.968339 24937142.39 396.8967 396896.6777 62.83 1566808456 Alameda 2023 LHD1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 18928.50477 232090482.3 24465.94 24465944.11 9.49 2201672322 Alameda 2023 LHD1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 8925.7439 115368157.4 7274.712 7274712.107 15.86 1829599790 Alameda 2023 LHD2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2690.871471 32083518.75 3803.457 3803457.415 8.44 270635914.5 Alameda 2023 LHD2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 3758.314721 49940164.61 3777.594 3777593.988 13.22 660213895.3 Alameda 2023 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 26178.52112 52579446.09 1276.345 1276344.627 41.20 2166027961 Alameda 2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 132134.9696 1683451490 86193.31 86193312.49 19.53 32879684473 Alameda 2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1855.50252 25222998.73 1039.838 1039837.674 24.26 611825942.3 Alameda 2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 813.1677445 13486793.84 223.6708 223670.8378 60.30 813220042 Alameda 2023 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1923.03689 5703713.265 1291.84 1291840.361 4.42 25182945.2 Alameda 2023 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 683.9458547 2258090.722 240.5537 240553.7111 9.39 21196819.97 Alameda 2023 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 636.5060868 10615877 2227.55 2227549.502 4.77 50592296.3 Alameda 2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 79.55036005 1384198.617 137.8335 137833.5477 10.04 13900866.98 Alameda 2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 400.8352809 3137341.357 387.8393 387839.3123 8.09 25378837.27 Alameda 2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 24.87981978 207213.2782 37.7349 37734.90276 5.49 1137868.115 Alameda 2023 T6 CAIRP C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4.889398437 101216.5235 11.44484 11444.83628 8.84 895144.707 Alameda 2023 T6 CAIRP C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 6.563839349 138864.0511 15.68035 15680.34751 8.86 1229770.238 Alameda 2023 T6 CAIRP C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 20.66527462 362641.9437 40.38293 40382.92659 8.98 3256553.955 Alameda 2023 T6 CAIRP C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 35.70751246 2275978.214 237.9441 237944.0565 9.57 21770145.93 Alameda 2023 T6 Instate D Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1037.818153 11006699.17 1350.425 1350424.804 8.15 89710605.37 Alameda 2023 T6 Instate D Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 2.880470739 33669.38339 5.008046 5008.045501 6.72 226361.2377 Alameda 2023 T6 Instate D Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 759.4191167 8253377.046 1008.564 1008564.011 8.18 67539820.85 Alameda 2023 T6 Instate D Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 1.548828596 18184.64435 2.639428 2639.427827 6.89 125285.2178 Alameda 2023 T6 Instate D Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2706.309591 29486843.62 3614.239 3614239.121 8.16 240569015.3 Alameda 2023 T6 Instate D Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 4.499153957 51842.05274 7.547649 7547.649283 6.87 356084.1702 Alameda 2023 T6 Instate D Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 604.6256233 10498446.58 1269.639 1269639.368 8.27 86809989.81 Alameda 2023 T6 Instate D Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 15.43568634 271482.9183 39.57289 39572.88861 6.86 1862461.334 Alameda 2023 T6 Instate O Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1052.120582 13514069.64 1591.845 1591844.583 8.49 114728586.1 Alameda 2023 T6 Instate O Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 2.093063282 30285.14567 4.095876 4095.875735 7.39 223930.1452 Alameda 2023 T6 Instate O Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2248.902588 31003796.11 3666.603 3666603.018 8.46 262159652.5 Alameda 2023 T6 Instate O Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 4.784465251 65793.32252 8.578319 8578.319031 7.67 504616.4957 Alameda 2023 T6 Instate O Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2314.669396 31184646.65 3660.957 3660956.762 8.52 265636075.5 Alameda 2023 T6 Instate O Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 4.109362782 55658.84215 7.254839 7254.839193 7.67 427012.4571 Alameda 2023 T6 Instate O Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1231.38533 19018782.27 2192.791 2192790.596 8.67 164956051.8 Alameda 2023 T6 Instate O Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 30.34923813 500091.3806 64.50665 64506.65268 7.75 3876985.994 Alameda 2023 T6 Instate T Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 9.917334462 155285.5714 17.90496 17904.96098 8.67 1346755.724 Alameda 2023 T6 Instate T Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 0.01827918 327.9723048 0.04351 43.51045032 7.54 2472.183853 Alameda 2023 T6 Instate T Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 528.7189266 10575082.62 1154.691 1154690.974 9.16 96850477.75 Alameda 2023 T6 Instate T Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 12.69169844 265137.8211 33.4367 33436.70018 7.93 2102422.302 Alameda 2023 T6 OOS Cla Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2.643901143 54233.67778 6.128496 6128.495993 8.85 479936.9713 Alameda 2023 T6 OOS Cla Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 3.534106623 74398.85341 8.398724 8398.723749 8.86 659051.2504 Alameda 2023 T6 OOS Cla Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 11.16369083 194406.3325 21.62988 21629.88074 8.99 1747296.834 Alameda 2023 T6 OOS Cla Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 18.14601325 1413575.78 146.9895 146989.4721 9.62 13594146.96 Alameda 2023 T6 Public C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 117.9446511 1206810.82 160.3947 160394.7088 7.52 9080052.375 Alameda 2023 T6 Public C Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 2.18082717 29363.18628 4.337148 4337.147773 6.77 198793.4822 Alameda 2023 T6 Public C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 247.4262739 2874749.534 372.8538 372853.8378 7.71 22164677 Alameda 2023 T6 Public C Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 18.68176372 243843.4426 37.49106 37491.05564 6.50 1585968.266 Alameda 2023 T6 Public C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 184.2901321 2039023.825 265.229 265229.0231 7.69 15675577.69 Alameda 2023 T6 Public C Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 14.82977502 194584.1539 30.2248 30224.80259 6.44 1252712.663 Alameda 2023 T6 Public C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 430.4306417 6039357.048 777.7935 777793.5008 7.76 46893980.87 Alameda 2023 T6 Public C Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 20.64329042 351402.3334 52.18109 52181.0889 6.73 2366443.524 Alameda 2023 T6 Utility C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 204.6294071 2600599.844 295.3229 295322.9152 8.81 22900761.17 Alameda 2023 T6 Utility C Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 2.871697697 35418.42137 4.863059 4863.059078 7.28 257957.9133 Alameda 2023 T6 Utility C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 38.92168268 491127.2627 55.57534 55575.3369 8.84 4340162.41 Alameda 2023 T6 Utility C Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 0.56868693 7026.829464 0.958059 958.0589724 7.33 51537.88414 Alameda 2023 T6 Utility C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 44.01771047 679537.7738 76.57954 76579.53978 8.87 6029960.318 Alameda 2023 T6 Utility C Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 0.944461711 12918.47643 1.755231 1755.231045 7.36 95079.8095 Alameda 2023 T6TS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1683.243274 28331533.52 6087.749 6087748.685 4.65 131851006.6 Alameda 2023 T7 Single C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 154.0948435 3393221.382 577.8155 577815.5141 5.87 19926691.25 Alameda 2023 T7 Single C Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 9.147650575 206700.7095 36.23284 36232.84475 5.70 1179183.793 Alameda 2023 T7 Single D Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 744.9051091 14391037.4 2472.154 2472153.607 5.82 83773903.42 Alameda 2023 T7 Single D Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 43.89060817 890193.0746 163.794 163793.9804 5.43 4838051.486 Alameda 2023 T7 Tractor Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4236.091115 104683861.3 17232.3 17232303.66 6.07 635939978.8 Alameda 2023 T7 Tractor Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 562.6153484 14113245.5 2511.117 2511117.125 5.62 79320751.94 Alameda 2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 254.2405543 6798312.773 804.6188 804618.7519 8.45 57439696.06 Alameda 2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 691.1833752 24855413.71 3148.185 3148185.128 7.90 196237376.6 Alameda 2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 91.10189943 2635140.167 383.5 383499.9621 6.87 18106817.17 13750016501 593,660,070
990
WORKER
Total VMT*Fuel Economy
Total VMT
Weighted Average Fuel Economy
VENDOR
Total VMT*Fuel Economy
Total VMT
Weighted Average Fuel Economy
HAUL
Total VMT*Fuel Economy
Total VMT
Weighted Average Fuel Economy
LDT1 LHD1 LHD2
Total VMT*Fuel Economy 15333179661 34304730457 *Fuel Economy 4031272112 Total VMT*Fuel Economy 930849809.7 Total VMT 617346228.6 1722161282 Total VMT 347458640 Total VMT 82023683.37 Weighted Average Fuel Economy 24.83724521 19.91958059 e Fuel Economy 11.602164 Weighted Average Fuel Economy 11.34854924
HHD MCY SBUS
Total VMT*Fuel Economy 2533369942 271783889.8 *Fuel Economy 2166027961 Total VMT*Fuel Economy 40417572.36 Total VMT 353420374 34288866.65 Total VMT 52579446.1 Total VMT 4728753.253 Weighted Average Fuel Economy 7.168149116 7.926301344 e Fuel Economy 41.1953362 Weighted Average Fuel Economy 8.547194198 MH
Total VMT*Fuel Economy 21196819.97
Total VMT 2258090.722
Weighted Average Fuel Economy 9.38705419
LDA LDT1, LDT2, MDV LHD1, LHD2, MHDT, HHDT
Total VMT*Fuel Economy 2.17746E+11 Total VMT*Fuel Economy el Economy Total VMT 7188002580 Total VMT Total VMT
Weighted Average Fuel Economy 30.29292441 Weighted Average Fuel Economy el Economy Other
Total VMT*Fuel Economy 383990578.4
Total VMT 51891587.62
Weighted Average Fuel Economy 7.399861829
991
tblFleetMix
FleetMixLa LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Congregate 0.571499 0.056472 0.178543 0.111785 0.020654 0.005249 0.014294 0.013034 0.000787 0.00055 0.024393 0.000348 0.002396 Other Asph 0.571499 0.056472 0.178543 0.111785 0.020654 0.005249 0.014294 0.013034 0.000787 0.00055 0.024393 0.000348 0.002396 Other Non- 0.571499 0.056472 0.178543 0.111785 0.020654 0.005249 0.014294 0.013034 0.000787 0.00055 0.024393 0.000348 0.002396 Parking Lot 0.571499 0.056472 0.178543 0.111785 0.020654 0.005249 0.014294 0.013034 0.000787 0.00055 0.024393 0.000348 0.002396
992
Appendix B
Transportation Analysis
993
Memo
\\us1304-f02\workgroup\1857\active\185705826\03_data\analytical\traffic\report\mem_dublin_asst_living_ta_20220413.docx To: Gaspare Annibale From: Sandhya Perumalla, and
Daryl Zerfass PE, PTP
City of Dublin Stantec
File: 185705826 Date: April 13, 2022
Reference: Transportation Analysis of the Dublin Senior Living Project in the City of Dublin, California This memo presents the findings of a transportation analysis conducted to determine the potential effects of the proposed Dublin Senior Living development (Project) located at 5751 Arnold Road in the City of Dublin, California. The proposed Project consists of construction of a two-story residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE)—a licensed assisted living and a memory care facility of approximately 155,517 square feet with approximately 174 beds/rooms. The site is located east of the existing T-intersection of Arnold Road and Horizon Parkway. See Figure 1 for the Project location. Primary access to the project would be via two driveways on Arnold Road, one existing and one new driveway proposed as the new fourth leg of the Arnold Road/Horizon Parkway intersection. See Figure 2 for the Site Plan. The Project proposes to provide a total of 93 surface parking spaces.
Project Background
A traffic study for the Project area was previously approved by the City as part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)1 prepared in December, 1992. The 5601 Arnold Road parcel, just south of the project site, was developed with a four-story office building (approximately 126,000 square feet), whereas the 5751 Arnold Road parcel remained undeveloped. The 5751 north parcel is now proposed to be developed to the Dublin Senior Living Project instead of the previously approved office use (see previously referenced Figure 2 for the proposed Site Plan). The purpose of this memo is to present the reassessment of the Project’s new land use and access.
Trip Generation
Table 1 below summarizes the anticipated trip generation of the proposed Project with a comparison to the previously approved use. For this analysis, the previously approved office use is assumed to be of the same size as the existing office building just south of the Project site. Trip generation rate for the proposed use, Assisted Living (254) and previously approved use, General Office Building (710) are standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 11th Edition trip generation rates for uses of these types.
As shown in Table 1, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 452 average daily trips (ADT), with 32 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 41 trips occurring during the PM peak hour. For comparison, the trip generation of the previously approved office use is also shown in the table. As shown, the proposed Senior Living use would generate 912 fewer daily trips, 159 fewer AM peak hour trips and 140 fewer PM peak hour trips, which is significantly lower than the previously approved office use.
The City’s guidelines require a traffic analysis to be completed for any proposed project that would generate more than 50 peak hour trips. Since the proposed Project does not generate more than 50 peak hour trips, a traffic analysis is not required. However, a site access analysis at the Arnold Road and Horizon Parkway intersection is provided since the Project is proposing to alter the configuration of the intersection. 1Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, EIR, December 1992. 994
April 13, 2022
Gaspare Annibale
Reference: Transportation Analysis of the Dublin Senior Living Project in the City of Dublin, California \\us1304-f02\workgroup\1857\active\185705826\03_data\analytical\traffic\report\mem_dublin_asst_living_ta_20220413.docx Table 1 Project Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Amount Unit
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates
General Office Building (710) - TSF 1.34 0.18 1.52 0.24 1.20 1.44 10.84 Assisted Living (254) - Beds 0.11 0.07 0.18 0.09 0.15 0.24 2.60 Trip Generation
Existing (approved use)
General Office 125.847 TSF 168 23 191 31 150 181 1,364
Proposed
Assisted Living 174 Beds 19 13 32 16 25 41 452
Net New Trips -149 -10 -159 -15 -125 -140 -912
Note:
ADT - Average Daily Traffic
TSF - Thousand square feet
Trip Rate Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 11th Edition, 2021, with ITE code in parentheses Site Access Analysis
The intersection of Arnold Road and Horizon Parkway is currently a three-legged signalized intersection with a crosswalk on each of the three legs. See Figure 3 below for an aerial view of the existing intersection. Arnold Road is an approximately one-mile-long collector road that runs in the north-south direction. It begins north of Broder Boulevard at Alameda County Fire department and terminates at Altamirano Avenue, just north of I-580.
It is a two-lane roadway north of Dublin Boulevard and is primarily a four-lane divided roadway, south of Dublin Boulevard. It has a Class 2 bike lane on both sides. On-street parking is not permitted. In the vicinity of the Project site a sidewalk is present only on the east side of the street, and the speed limit is 40 mph.
Horizon Parkway is a collector roadway that runs in the east-west direction. It intersects with Arnold Road and is the third leg of the T-intersection. It is approximately 0.8 miles in length and currently terminates just east of Scarlett Drive, where it is ultimately planned to connect. It is a two-lane roadway and has a painted median and left-turn pockets. Sidewalks are present on both sides and on-street parking is not allowed.
Access to the Project would be via two driveways on Arnold Road. The primary access would be via a new driveway that would align with Horizon Parkway as the fourth leg of the signalized intersection. Secondary access would be via an existing driveway approximately 320 feet south of the intersection, which would continue to operate with restricted right-turn-in/right-turn-out access only. Pedestrians can access the Project site via sidewalks on the east side of Arnold Street and on both sides of Horizon Parkway and crosswalks across the north and south legs of the Arnold Street/Horizon Parkway intersection. As mentioned above, there’s an existing Class II bicycle lane on both sides of Arnold Road for bicyclists to access the Project site. Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) operates Tri-Valley Wheels bus service that provides fixed route bus services in the Cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and unincorporated portions of Alameda County. The nearest bus stop is within a quarter mile of the Project site on Gleason Drive, east of Arnold Road. The Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station is the closest BART station in the Project vicinity.
Existing AM and PM Peak hour turning movement volumes at the Horizon Parkway and Arnold Road intersection were collected in February 2022. The traffic counts were utilized to determine peak hour delay values and level of service (LOS) for existing conditions using the HCM Sixth edition delay methodology for 995
April 13, 2022
Gaspare Annibale
Reference: Transportation Analysis of the Dublin Senior Living Project in the City of Dublin, California \\us1304-f02\workgroup\1857\active\185705826\03_data\analytical\traffic\report\mem_dublin_asst_living_ta_20220413.docx signalized intersections, which is summarized in Table 2. The traffic count worksheets are provided in Attachment A. See Figure 4 for the existing intersection lane geometry and the corresponding AM and PM peak hour volumes for the intersection. As shown in Table 2, the intersection currently operates at an acceptable LOS A during AM and PM peak hour conditions.
Table 2 Intersection LOS Summary - Existing Conditions
Int
# Intersection Name
Control
Type
Existing Existing plus Project
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour Increase
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM PM
1 Arnold Road &
Horizon Parkway Signal 6.4 A 5.6 A 7.4 A 7.7 A 1.0 2.1
Note:
Delay - Average vehicle delay (seconds)
LOS - Level of Service
The Project’s anticipated trip distribution percentages were derived based on the Project site’s location in relation to the surrounding uses while taking into account the proposed driveway location, lane geometry, existing traffic flow patterns, and engineering judgement. Approximately 80 percent of the Project trips are expected to be oriented towards the south on Arnold Road, 10 percent of the Project trips are expected to be oriented towards the north on Arnold Road and 10 percent of the project trips oriented towards west on Horizon Parkway. See previously referenced Figure 4 for the Project trip distribution, AM and PM peak hour project trips.
The total volume of trips generated by the proposed Project are added to the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic counts to obtain existing plus Project volumes. For the existing plus Project conditions analysis, a new driveway that would align with Horizon Parkway as a fourth (east) leg is included as proposed by the Project, which would include one lane into the project site and two-lanes—an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane—exiting the project site. The intersection’s southbound approach is assumed to be restriped to add a left-turn lane. See previously referenced Figure 4 for the new intersection lane geometry and the corresponding AM and PM peak hour volumes under existing conditions without and with-Project.
Peak hour delay and LOS that correspond with the existing conditions without and with-Project traffic are summarized in Table 2, above, which provides a comparison between the without-Project and the with-Project conditions. As shown, the Project driveway is anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS A during AM and PM peak hour for conditions with the Project. The evaluation of the intersection is based on HCM Sixth edition methodology using Synchro software. Queue analysis results of the existing plus Project conditions show that the proposed westbound left-turn (WBL) lane has a queue length of 31 feet and 41 feet during AM and PM peak hour, respectively. Detailed LOS and queue length calculation worksheets are provided in Attachments B and C, respectively.
Peak hour turning movement volumes for Project buildout conditions for the Project driveway under the cumulative conditions were derived and utilized to determine peak hour delay values and LOS for the new project driveway at Horizon Parkway and Arnold Road intersection. Estimates of long-range buildout condition traffic volumes were derived using traffic volume forecasts from the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan2 to establish cumulative conditions without the Project. Based on the increase in traffic volumes on Arnold Road, the growth rate during AM and PM peak hour is 33 percent and 40 percent, respectively. Similarly, based on the increase 2Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Draft EIR, June 2013
996
April 13, 2022
Gaspare Annibale
Reference: Transportation Analysis of the Dublin Senior Living Project in the City of Dublin, California \\us1304-f02\workgroup\1857\active\185705826\03_data\analytical\traffic\report\mem_dublin_asst_living_ta_20220413.docx in traffic volumes on Horizon Parkway, the growth rate during AM and PM peak hour is 479 percent and 869 percent, respectively.
The total volume of trips generated by the proposed Project are added to the cumulative conditions AM and PM peak hour volumes to obtain cumulative with-Project volumes. For the cumulative with-Project conditions analysis, as mentioned for existing plus project conditions, a new driveway that would align with Horizon Parkway as a fourth (east) leg is included as proposed by the Project, which would include one lane into the project site and two-lanes—an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through and right-turn lane—exiting the project site. The intersection’s southbound approach is assumed to be restriped to add a left-turn lane. See previously referenced Figure 4 for the new intersection lane geometry and the corresponding AM and PM peak hour volumes under cumulative conditions without and with-Project.
Peak hour delay and LOS that correspond with the cumulative conditions without and with-Project traffic forecasts are summarized in Table 3, which provides a comparison between the without-Project and the withProject conditions. As shown, the Project driveway is anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS B during AM and PM peak hour for conditions with the Project. The evaluation of the intersection is based on HCM Sixth edition methodology using Synchro software. Detailed LOS and queue length calculation worksheets are provided in Attachments B and C, respectively.
Table 3 Intersection LOS Summary - Cumulative Conditions Int
# Intersection Name
Control
Type
Cumulative without Project Cumulative with-Project
Increase
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM PM
1 Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway Signal 10.8 B 11.7 B 11.8 B 13.5 B 1.0 1.8 Note:
Delay - Average vehicle delay (seconds)
LOS - Level of Service
As noted above, the Project proposes adding a fourth (east) leg to the existing Arnold Road/Horizon Parkway intersection. The proposed site plan includes a driveway that is approximately 32 feet wide and, based on this analysis, the proposed driveway is recommended to be configured with a single lane inbound and an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through/ right-turn lane outbound. Queue analysis results show that the WBL lane has a queue length of 36 feet and 46 feet during AM and PM peak hour, respectively.
To accommodate southbound left-turns from Arnold Road to the Project site, the addition of a left-turn lane is recommended. The north leg of the intersection is approximately 48 feet wide curb-to-curb and, as shown in Figure 3, is currently configured with a northbound bike lane, a narrow-painted buffer between the bike lane and the northbound through lane, a narrow-painted median, a southbound through lane and a southbound right-turn lane. The existing right-turn and through lanes vary between 10 to 11 feet in width. Adding a southbound leftturn lane would require elimination of the existing painted bike lane buffer and the painted median, resulting in an approximately 10-foot wide left-turn lane and 10-foot wide northbound through lane. The new southbound left-turn lane is recommended to be 75 feet in length, which is equivalent to the existing northbound left-turn lane length. Queue analysis results show that the southbound left-turn lane has a queue length of 11 feet during AM and PM peak hour, which is less than the recommended 75 feet. Preparation of a preliminary signing and striping plan is recommended to confirm the lane widths and intersection geometry. 997
April 13, 2022
Gaspare Annibale
Reference: Transportation Analysis of the Dublin Senior Living Project in the City of Dublin, California \\us1304-f02\workgroup\1857\active\185705826\03_data\analytical\traffic\report\mem_dublin_asst_living_ta_20220413.docx Conclusion
This traffic memo was prepared to evaluate the proposed Project’s effect on traffic conditions in accordance with the City’s traffic analysis guidelines. As discussed above, the proposed Dublin Senior Living Project generates fewer trips than the previously approved office use and would generate fewer than 50 peak hour trips. Primary access to the project would be via two driveways on Arnold Road, one existing and one new driveway proposed as the new fourth (east) leg of the Arnold Road/Horizon Parkway intersection. The Project was evaluated under Existing conditions, long-range buildout cumulative conditions without the proposed Project, and existing and cumulative conditions with the Project.
Based on this analysis, the new east leg of the Arnold Road/Horizon Parkway intersection is recommended to consist of one inbound lane and an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane as an outbound lane. A new southbound left-turn lane is also recommended on the north leg of the intersection to allow for leftturns into the project site. The north leg of the intersection would need to be restriped to accommodate the new left-turn lane. Preparation of a preliminary signing and striping plan is recommended to confirm the lane widths and intersection geometry.
An LOS analysis that has been prepared based on the recommended configuration of the Arnold Road/Horizon Parkway intersection indicates that the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS B during AM and PM peak hours.
Please feel free to contact Sandhya or Daryl if you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the above material.
Sincerely,
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Daryl Zerfass PE, PTP Sandhya Perumalla ENV SP
Principal, Transportation Planning & Traffic Engineering Senior Transportation Planner Phone: 949 923 6058 Phone: 949 923 6074
[email protected] [email protected] Attachment: Figure 1 - Project Site Location
Figure 2 -Project Site Plan
Figure 3 - Aerial View of Arnold Road and Horizon Parkway Intersection Figure 4 - Existing and Cumulative Conditions Lane Configuration, Existing Counts, Project trips, and Existing and Cumulative with Project Volumes
Attachment A- Traffic Count Worksheets
Attachment B - Synchro LOS Worksheets
Attachment C - Queue Worksheets
998
!
STERLING
HACIENDA
IRON HORSE
ARNOLD
CENTRAL
HORIZON
DUBLIN
GLEASON
Figure 1
C:\Users\emazzella\Documents\dublin senior living\proposed_study_ints3.mxd ´
DUBLIN ASSISTED LIVING
TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
Legend
Project site
! Study intersection
Project Location Map
PROPOSED NEW
DRIVEWAY
EXISTING
DRIVEWAY
999
DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS Figure 2 ´ Project Site Plan c:\users\emazzella\documents\dublin senior living\exhibits_v3.dwg Source: SmithGroup 1000
DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS Figure 3 Aerial View of Arnold Road and Horizon Parkway Intersection c:\users\emazzella\documents\dublin senior living\exhibits_v3.dwg HORIZON PKWY ARNOLD RD ´ PROJECT SITE Source: Google Earth
1001
´ Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Volumes 020 00
15 002 Project-Only Peak Hour Volumes Cumulative with-Project Peak Hour Volumes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ARNOLD HORIZON
ARNOLD HORIZON
ARNOLD HORIZON
ARNOLD HORIZON DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS c:\users\emazzella\documents\dublin senior living\exhibits_v3.dwg Figure 4 Intersection Lane Configurations and Peak Hour Volumesx 1111 020 00 12 002 2221 1512 127
104
265
15 238
442 2 1111 1262 271
126
413
12 97
290 2 2221 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Existing AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ARNOLD HORIZON Intersection Lane Configurations ARNOLD HORIZON With-Project Existing Peak Hour Volumes 2622 18 200
41 333 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ARNOLD HORIZON
ARNOLD HORIZON 1328
13 295
10 207 26222
18 200
15 41
333 2
ARNOLD HORIZON
ARNOLD HORIZON 1111 13228
13 295
12 10
207 2 2221
1002
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Arnold Rd -- Horizon Pkwy QC JOB #: 15719501
CITY/STATE: Dublin, CA DATE: Thu, Feb 24 2022
374 0.64 226
41 333 0
59 26 0 0
0.6 0 0.78 0 0
48 22 0 0
18 200 0
0.72 355 218
Peak-Hour: 7:45 AM -- 8:45 AM
Peak 15-Min: 8:00 AM -- 8:15 AM
1.3 5.3
0 1.5 0
1.7 0 0 0
0 0
10.4 22.7 0 0
5.6 6 0
2.8 6
7 0 0
4 6 1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
15-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
Arnold Rd
(Northbound)
Arnold Rd
(Southbound)
Horizon Pkwy
(Eastbound)
Horizon Pkwy
(Westbound) Total Hourly
Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 6 17 0 0 0 59 5 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 91
7:15 AM 2 39 0 0 0 23 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 69
7:30 AM 0 19 0 0 0 61 4 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 87
7:45 AM 3 34 0 0 0 107 7 0 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 159 406
8:00 AM 2 37 0 0 0 124 22 0 17 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 205 520
8:15 AM 6 60 0 0 0 54 8 0 4 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 140 591
8:30 AM 7 69 0 0 0 48 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 136 640
8:45 AM 4 46 0 0 0 45 2 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 108 589
Peak 15-Min
Flowrates
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 8 148 0 0 0 496 88 0 68 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 820 Heavy Trucks 0 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 16
Buses
Pedestrians 8 8 0 0 16
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 4 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
Scooters
Comments:
Report generated on 3/2/2022 4:47 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
ATTACHMENT A
1003
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Arnold Rd -- Horizon Pkwy QC JOB #: 15719502
CITY/STATE: Dublin, CA DATE: Thu, Feb 24 2022
217 0.75 308
10 207 0
23 13 0 0
0.79 0 0.77 0 0
41 28 0 0
13 295 0
0.63 235 308
Peak-Hour: 4:00 PM -- 5:00 PM
Peak 15-Min: 4:15 PM -- 4:30 PM
0.9 0
0 1 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
2.4 3.6 0 0
0 0 0
1.3 0
0 1 7
3 2 0 0
9 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
15-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
Arnold Rd
(Northbound)
Arnold Rd
(Southbound)
Horizon Pkwy
(Eastbound)
Horizon Pkwy
(Westbound) Total Hourly
Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 2 66 0 0 0 57 2 0 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 139
4:15 PM 3 120 0 0 0 46 2 0 5 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 184
4:30 PM 3 74 0 0 0 35 3 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 124
4:45 PM 5 35 0 0 0 69 3 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 119 566
5:00 PM 5 61 0 0 0 62 2 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 135 562
5:15 PM 3 53 0 0 0 67 7 0 7 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 147 525
5:30 PM 6 65 0 0 0 51 2 0 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 133 534
5:45 PM 6 69 0 0 0 55 4 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 140 555
Peak 15-Min
Flowrates
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 12 480 0 0 0 184 8 0 20 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 736 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Buses
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 20
Scooters
Comments:
Report generated on 3/2/2022 4:47 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
ATTACHMENT A
1004
1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway Existing AM Peak Hour
Dublin Senior Living Project Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 26 22 18 200 333 41
Future Volume (veh/h) 26 22 18 200 333 41
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 28 24 20 217 362 45
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 109 97 46 1030 619 525
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.55 0.33 0.33
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 28 24 20 217 362 45
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.4 3.7 0.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.4 3.7 0.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 109 97 46 1030 619 525
V/C Ratio(X) 0.26 0.25 0.43 0.21 0.58 0.09
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1688 1502 384 2337 1571 1332
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.4 10.4 11.1 2.6 6.4 5.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 1.3 6.2 0.1 0.9 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.6 11.7 17.3 2.7 7.3 5.4
LnGrp LOS B B B A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 52 237 407
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.6 4.0 7.1
Approach LOS B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.3 5.9 5.1 12.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 22.0 5.0 19.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 2.3 2.3 5.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.2 0.1 0.0 2.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.4
HCM 6th LOS A
1005
1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway Existing PM Peak Hour
Dublin Senior Living Project Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 28 13 295 207 10
Future Volume (veh/h) 13 28 13 295 207 10
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 14 30 14 321 225 11
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 97 86 33 932 478 405
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.50 0.26 0.26
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 14 30 14 321 225 11
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 0.4 0.2 2.1 2.0 0.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 0.4 0.2 2.1 2.0 0.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 97 86 33 932 478 405
V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.35 0.42 0.34 0.47 0.03
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1949 1734 443 2698 1814 1537
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.1 9.2 9.8 3.1 6.3 5.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 2.4 8.2 0.2 0.7 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.7 11.6 18.0 3.3 7.1 5.6
LnGrp LOS A B B A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 44 335 236
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.0 3.9 7.0
Approach LOS B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.5 5.6 4.9 9.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 22.0 5.0 19.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 2.4 2.2 4.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.9 0.1 0.0 1.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 5.6
HCM 6th LOS A
1006
1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway Existing plus Project AM Peak Hour Dublin Senior Living Project Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 26 2 22 11 1 1 18 200 15 2 333 41 Future Volume (veh/h) 26 2 22 11 1 1 18 200 15 2 333 41 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 28 2 24 12 1 1 20 217 16 2 362 45
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 402 9 112 381 65 65 46 628 46 7 639 542
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1415 123 1480 1385 858 858 1781 1721 127 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 28 0 26 12 0 2 20 0 233 2 362 45
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1415 0 1604 1385 0 1716 1781 0 1848 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.2 0.0 3.8 0.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.2 0.0 3.8 0.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 402 0 122 381 0 130 46 0 674 7 639 542 V/C Ratio(X) 0.07 0.00 0.21 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.43 0.00 0.35 0.27 0.57 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1608 0 1488 1560 0 1592 404 0 1592 1329 2583 2189 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.6 0.0 10.5 10.8 0.0 10.4 11.6 0.0 5.6 12.1 6.5 5.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.3 18.8 0.8 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.7 0.0 11.4 10.8 0.0 10.4 17.9 0.0 5.9 30.8 7.3 5.5 LnGrp LOS B A B B A B B A A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 54 14 253 409
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.0 10.8 6.8 7.2
Approach LOS B B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.6 13.4 6.3 5.1 12.8 6.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.1 20.9 22.5 5.5 33.5 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 4.2 2.5 2.3 5.8 2.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 2.5 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.4
HCM 6th LOS A
1007
1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway Existing plus Project PM Peak Hour Dublin Senior Living Project Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 2 28 21 2 2 13 295 12 2 207 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 13 2 28 21 2 2 13 295 12 2 207 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 14 2 30 23 2 2 14 321 13 2 225 11
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 431 8 122 406 70 70 33 566 23 8 563 477
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1412 100 1500 1377 858 858 1781 1785 72 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 14 0 32 23 0 4 14 0 334 2 225 11
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1412 0 1600 1377 0 1716 1781 0 1857 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.4 0.0 2.2 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.4 0.0 2.2 0.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.04 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 431 0 130 406 0 140 33 0 589 8 563 477 V/C Ratio(X) 0.03 0.00 0.25 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.42 0.00 0.57 0.25 0.40 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1695 0 1562 1638 0 1675 403 0 1771 1422 2854 2419 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.7 0.0 9.7 10.1 0.0 9.5 10.9 0.0 6.4 11.2 6.3 5.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 8.3 0.0 0.9 15.9 0.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.7 0.0 10.7 10.1 0.0 9.6 19.2 0.0 7.3 27.1 6.7 5.6 LnGrp LOS A A B B A A B A A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 46 27 348 238
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.4 10.1 7.8 6.8
Approach LOS B B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.6 11.6 6.3 4.9 11.3 6.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 21.5 22.0 5.1 34.4 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 5.4 2.4 2.2 4.2 2.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.8 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.7
HCM 6th LOS A
1008
1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway Cumulative No Project AM Peak Hour Dublin Senior Living Project Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 151 127 104 265 442 238
Future Volume (veh/h) 151 127 104 265 442 238
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 164 138 113 288 480 259
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 281 250 170 1092 671 569
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.58 0.36 0.36
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 164 138 113 288 480 259
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 2.8 2.1 2.6 7.7 4.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 2.8 2.1 2.6 7.7 4.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 281 250 170 1092 671 569
V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.55 0.66 0.26 0.72 0.46
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1125 1001 281 1558 1021 865
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.6 13.5 15.2 3.6 9.6 8.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.9 1.9 4.4 0.1 1.4 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.1 0.9 0.4 2.4 1.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.5 15.4 19.6 3.7 11.1 9.1
LnGrp LOS B B B A B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 302 401 739
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.5 8.2 10.4
Approach LOS B A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.8 10.0 7.8 17.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 22.0 5.5 19.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.6 5.0 4.1 9.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.7 0.8 0.0 2.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.8
HCM 6th LOS B
1009
1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway Cumulative No Project PM Peak Hour Dublin Senior Living Project Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 126 271 126 413 290 97
Future Volume (veh/h) 126 271 126 413 290 97
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 137 295 137 449 315 105
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 459 409 187 910 476 403
Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.49 0.25 0.25
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 137 295 137 449 315 105
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 6.0 2.6 5.7 5.3 1.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 6.0 2.6 5.7 5.3 1.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 459 409 187 910 476 403
V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.72 0.73 0.49 0.66 0.26
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1112 989 328 1539 955 809
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.5 11.9 15.3 6.1 11.8 10.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 2.4 5.5 0.4 1.6 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 5.3 1.2 1.4 1.9 0.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.9 14.3 20.8 6.5 13.4 10.8
LnGrp LOS B B C A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 432 586 420
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.2 9.9 12.7
Approach LOS B A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.7 13.6 8.2 13.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 22.0 6.5 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.7 8.0 4.6 7.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.8 1.2 0.1 1.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.7
HCM 6th LOS B
1010
1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway Cumulative with Project AM Peak Hour Dublin Senior Living Project Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 151 2 127 11 1 1 104 265 15 2 442 238 Future Volume (veh/h) 151 2 127 11 1 1 104 265 15 2 442 238 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 164 2 138 12 1 1 113 288 16 2 480 259 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 447 4 288 319 158 158 163 808 45 5 696 590
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1415 23 1566 1249 858 858 1781 1755 98 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 164 0 140 12 0 2 113 0 304 2 480 259 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1415 0 1589 1249 0 1716 1781 0 1853 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 0.0 3.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 4.1 0.0 8.3 4.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 0.0 3.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 4.1 0.0 8.3 4.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 447 0 292 319 0 315 163 0 853 5 696 590 V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.00 0.48 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.69 0.00 0.36 0.41 0.69 0.44 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1000 0 913 808 0 987 442 0 1041 838 1466 1243 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.4 0.0 14.0 15.5 0.0 12.8 16.9 0.0 6.7 19.0 10.2 9.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.3 46.7 1.2 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.1 2.7 1.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.0 0.0 15.2 15.5 0.0 12.8 22.1 0.0 6.9 65.7 11.4 9.5 LnGrp LOS B A B B A B C A A E B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 304 14 417 741
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.1 15.1 11.0 10.9
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.6 22.1 11.5 8.0 18.7 11.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 21.5 22.0 9.5 30.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 6.1 6.1 4.4 10.3 5.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.5 1.1 0.1 3.9 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.8
HCM 6th LOS B
1011
1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway Cumulative with Project PM Peak Hour Dublin Senior Living Project Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 126 2 271 21 2 2 126 413 12 2 290 97 Future Volume (veh/h) 126 2 271 21 2 2 126 413 12 2 290 97 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 137 2 295 23 2 2 137 449 13 2 315 105 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 577 3 430 308 234 234 182 652 19 5 488 414
Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1412 11 1576 1082 858 858 1781 1809 52 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 137 0 297 23 0 4 137 0 462 2 315 105 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1412 0 1587 1082 0 1716 1781 0 1861 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 0.0 6.2 0.7 0.0 0.1 2.8 0.0 7.8 0.0 5.5 1.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 0.0 6.2 6.9 0.0 0.1 2.8 0.0 7.8 0.0 5.5 1.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 577 0 433 308 0 468 182 0 670 5 488 414 V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.00 0.69 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.75 0.00 0.69 0.41 0.65 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1034 0 946 659 0 1023 601 0 1075 865 1358 1151 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.9 0.0 12.1 15.2 0.0 9.8 16.2 0.0 10.1 18.4 12.2 10.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 1.3 46.6 1.4 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 1.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 2.5 0.1 2.0 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.1 0.0 14.0 15.3 0.0 9.8 22.4 0.0 11.4 65.1 13.6 11.2 LnGrp LOS B A B B A A C A B E B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 434 27 599 422
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.1 14.5 13.9 13.2
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.6 17.8 14.6 8.3 14.2 14.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 21.4 22.1 12.5 26.9 22.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 9.8 8.2 4.8 7.5 8.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.3 2.0 0.2 2.1 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.5
HCM 6th LOS B
1012
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak Hour
Existing plus Project SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway
Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L L TR T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 36 21 25 30 45 94 12
Average Queue (ft) 19 12 9 16 24 57 5
95th Queue (ft) 43 28 31 41 70 107 22
Link Distance (ft) 338 334 311
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 60 75 75
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1
1013
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak Hour
Existing plus Project SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR L TR L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 20 24 34 17 18 83 6 58 6
Average Queue (ft) 9 12 14 3 4 33 1 26 1
95th Queue (ft) 29 30 41 19 20 87 10 66 10
Link Distance (ft) 338 134 334 311
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 60 75 75 75
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
1014
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak Hour
Cumulative with Project SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR L TR L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 81 66 33 6 83 107 6 234 99
Average Queue (ft) 56 32 10 2 57 71 1 141 67
95th Queue (ft) 100 70 36 15 91 125 11 274 113
Link Distance (ft) 338 132 334 312
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 60 75 75 75
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0 0 6 4 17 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 0 17 4 41 2
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 65
1015
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak Hour
Cumulative with Project SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR L TR L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 78 86 38 12 85 156 6 147 62
Average Queue (ft) 44 55 17 2 64 96 1 98 34
95th Queue (ft) 85 99 46 16 96 166 11 165 80
Link Distance (ft) 338 127 334 311
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 60 75 75 75
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 9 7 11 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0 38 9 11 0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 59
1016
Dublin Senior Living Project
Memorandum on CEQA Addendum
Planning Application Number: PLPA-2021-00042
May 13, 2022
This is a memorandum regarding the Dublin Senior Living Project (Project) Addendum to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (1993) (1993 GPA/SP EIR). In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Project Addendum was reviewed and approved by the City Planning Commission on May 10, 2022. During the course of the City Planning Commission’s review and approval, several minor revisions to the Addendum were made. These revisions were made to the specific number of trees to be removed, preserved and planted as part of Project implementation. No other revisions were made or required. As these revisions are editorial in nature, they do not affect the outcome of the environmental analysis conducted or increase related impacts that were evaluated in the Addendum. No additional environmental analysis would be required as a result of these revisions. These revisions and their locations are presented as errata below.
Errata
The errata are listed by location in the Addendum, where new text is underlined and removed text is shown in strike-out, as follows:
• Page 5, Open Space and Landscaping, last sentence: “Within the Project site, 8682 trees are proposed to be removed, two of which are dead and none of which are protected or heritage trees. The Project would preserve 3243 trees during construction and operation, one of which is a heritage tree, and plant 87107 new trees.” • Page 34, Biological Resources, second full paragraph, third and fourth sentences:
“Ornamental trees and one heritage tree currently exist within the parking areas surrounding the Project site, and 8682 trees are proposed to be removed, two of which are dead and none of which are protected or heritage trees. The Project would preserve 3243 trees during construction and operation and plant 87107 new trees, thereby providing more roosting/nesting opportunities in the future.” • Page 34, Biological Resources, fourth full paragraph, second sentence: “While the removal of 8682 ornamental trees may temporarily impede the movement of migratory birds, 3243 trees would be preserved and 87107 new trees would be planted, thereby affording more use opportunities in the future for migratory birds.” 1017
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Dublin Senior Living Project
Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Date April 28, 2022
Project Name Dublin Senior Living Project (PLPA-2021-00042) Project Location The project site is located at 5751 and 5601 Arnold Road (APN# 986-14-13) in the City of Dublin, CA.
Project Applicant South Bay Partners, LLC
State Clearinghouse
Number
n/a
Contact Gaspare Annibale
Associate Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Phone: 925/833-6610
[email protected]
1018
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all public agencies establish monitoring and/or reporting procedures for mitigation measures (MMs) adopted as part of the project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant project impacts.
The MMRP identifies the following for each MM:
Timing. In each case, a timeframe for performance of the mitigation measure, or review of evidence that mitigation has taken place, is provided. The measures are designed to ensure that impact-related components of Project implementation do not proceed without establishing that the mitigation is implemented or assured. All activities are subject to the approval of all required permits from local, State, and federal agencies with permitting authority over the specific activity.
Responsible Party or Designated Representative. In each case, unless otherwise indicated, the applicant is the Responsible Party for implementing the mitigation. The City or a Designated Representative will also monitor the performance and implementation of the mitigation measures. To guarantee that the mitigation measure will not be inadvertently overlooked, a supervising public official acting as the Designated Representative is the official who grants the permit or authorization called for in the performance.
Where more than one official is identified, permits or authorization from all officials shall be required.
The numbering system corresponds with the numbering system used in the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Final EIR (1993 GPA/SP EIR). The last column of the MMRP table will be used by the parties responsible for documenting when implementation of the MM has been completed. The ongoing documentation and monitoring of mitigation compliance will be completed by the City of Dublin. The completed MMRP will be kept on file at the City of Dublin Community DevelopmentDepartment.
1019
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
Air Quality
During project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 (fugitive dust): The City of Dublin shall:
▪ Require watering in late morning and at the end
of the day; the frequency of watering should
increase if wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Watering
should include all excavated and graded areas
and material to be transported off-site. Use
recycled or other non-potable water resources
where feasible.
▪ Require daily cleanup of mud and dust carried
onto street surfaces by construction vehicles.
▪ Require excavation haul trucks to use tarpaulins
or other effective covers.
▪ Require that, upon completion of construction,
measures shall be taken to reduce wind erosion.
Replanting and repaving should be completed as
soon as possible.
▪ Require that unnecessary idling of construction
equipment is avoided.
▪ Require that, after grading is completed, fugitive
dust on exposed soil surfaces shall be controlled
using the following methods:
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Dublin Public Works
Department
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
1020
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
• All inactive portions of the construction
site should be seeded and watered until
grass growth is evident.
• Require that all portions of the site shall
be sufficiently watered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust.
• Require that, at all times, the following
procedures should be followed:
▪ On-site vehicle speed shall be
limited to 15 mph.
▪ Use of petroleum-based palliative
shall meet the road oil
requirements of the Air Quality
District. Non-petroleum-based
tackifiers may be required by the
Public Works Director.
▪ The Public Works Department will
handle all dust complaints. The
Public Works Director may require
the services of an air quality
consultant to advise the City on
the severity of the dust problem
and additional ways to mitigate
impacts on residents, including
temporarily halting project
construction. Dust concerns in
adjoining communities as well as
1021
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
the City of Dublin shall be
controlled. Control measures shall
be related to wind conditions. Air
quality monitoring of PM levels
shall be provided as directed by
the Public Works Director in
Dublin.
During project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.11/2.0 (construction traffic):
Minimize construction interference with regional nonproject traffic movement by:
▪ Scheduling receipt of construction materials to
non-peak travel periods.
▪ Routing construction traffic through areas of
least impact sensitivity.
▪ Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak
travel periods.
▪ Providing ride-share incentives for contractor and
subcontractor personnel.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
During project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.11/3.0 (construction equipment):
Require emissions control from on-site equipment
through a routine mandatory program of low-emissions
tune-ups.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
1022
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.11/4.0 (impact reduction plan):
Require preparation of a construction impact reduction
plan that incorporates all proposed air quality mitigation strategies which clearly defined responsibilities for plan implementation and supervision.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Biological Resources
During project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.7/1.0 (tree removal):
Direct disturbance or removal of trees or native
vegetation cover should be minimized and be restricted
to those areas actually designated for the construction of improvements.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Qualified
Biologist/Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Cultural Resources
During project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.9/5.0 (archaeological resources):
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. ▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Qualified
Archaeologist/ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.9/6.0 (archaeological resources):
The City of Dublin will require the following series of actions as part of the application process for
development in eastern Dublin: Site sensitivity
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
1023
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
determination; detailed research and field
reconnaissance by a certified archaeologist;
development of a mitigation plan pursuant to the
policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and current CEQA guidelines.
▪ Qualified
Archaeologist/ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Geology and Soils
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 (ground shaking): The
primary effects of ground shaking to structures and
infrastructures can be reduced to a generally acceptable level below failure/loss-of-life by using modern seismic design for resistance to lateral forces in construction.
Building in accordance with Uniform Building Code and
applicable County and City code requirements should
reduce the potential for structural failure, major
structural damage, and loss-of-life. However, some
structural damage may occur, and it is possible that
some residences/structure and infrastructures will not
be safe for occupation/use after a large earthquake.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6/2.0 (unstable soils): In relatively flat areas which can be developed with minimal grading
(the southern portion of the Project site and along
Tassajara and Cottonwood Creeks):
▪ locate improvements off (setback from) unstable
and potentially unstable landforms such as
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
1024
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
landslides, colluvium-filled swales, creek banks,
and steep hill slopes.
▪ remove, stabilize, or reconstruct potentially
unstable landforms, or
▪ employ modern design, including appropriate
foundation design, and applicable codes and
policies, in the construction of improvements
that must be located on potentially unstable
landforms or in areas underlain by alluvium with
shallow groundwater levels which could be
locally susceptible to liquefaction.
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6/4.0 (soil stability): Engineered retention structures and surface and subsurface
drainage improvements should be used as appropriate
to improve the stability of sidehill fills and potentially unstable materials, particularly colluvium, not entirely removed by grading.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6/5.0 (seismic settlement):
Seismically-induced fill settlement can be substantially reduced if fills are properly designed with keyways and subsurface drainage, and are adequately compacted (i.e. minimum 90% relative compaction as defined by the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test
method Dl557 ).
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
1025
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6/6.0 (unstable soils): Design
roads, structural foundations, and underground utilities to accommodate estimated settlement without failure,
especially across transitions between fills and cuts.
Potentially unstable stock pond embankments should be
removed in development areas, unless they are
reconstructed to current earthquake design standards.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6/7.0 (geotechnical
investigations): Final design of improvements in the
Project site should be made in conjunction with a designlevel geotechnical investigations and the reports should be submitted to the City for review prior to issuing any permits. These investigations should incorporate stability analysis of both natural slopes that could impact planned improvements, and planned engineered (cut and fill)
slopes, assuming saturated conditions and earthquake
shaking. Significant slopes should achieve a minimum
factor of safety against failure of 1.5 for static conditions (where 1.0 is failure) and 1.2 under design pseudo-static earthquake loading. A displacement analysis should be
performed for critical slopes to confirm the effectiveness of mitigation measures.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6/14.0 (expansive soils): The
potential impact of expansive soils and rock with respect to Project improvements can be significantly reduced, or ▪ Dublin Planning
Division
1026
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
in many cases prevented by the recognition and
characterization of site-specific conditions, and the
formulation of appropriate design criteria and mitigation measures during detailed design-level geotechnical
investigation, conducted for each specific proposed
project.
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6/15.0 (expansive soils): The
potential for shrink and swell of expansive soils and rock can be reduced by controlling moisture and by
treatment through measures listed below. Subsurface
drainage alone is not generally effective against the
effects of regional wet/drought cycles. Required
measures for a specific project should be based on the
recommendation of the project geotechnical consultant
and approved by the City and include:
▪ Moisture conditioning prior to construction;
▪ Construction of surface and subsurface drainage
to control infiltration after construction;
▪ Lime treatment, which can be used to produce
non-expansive fill.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6/16.0 (expansive soil): The
potential effects of expansive soil and rock can be
reduced by appropriate foundation and pavement
design, including those design elements listed below.
Adjustable foundation systems are not generally
effective against the effects of regional wet/drought
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
1027
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
cycles and are considered undesirable because the
systems require periodic maintenance, and their use
should be discouraged.
Appropriate design criteria should be developed by the
project geotechnical consultant and approved by the
City.
▪ Founding structural foundations below the zone
of seasonal moisture change;
▪ Use of structurally supported floors; and
▪ Removal and replacement with non-expansive fill
beneath structure slabs and asphaltic concrete.
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 (erosion): The potential
impacts of short-term construction-related erosion and
sedimentation can be reduced by timing grading
activities to avoid the rainy season as much as possible, and by implementing one or more of the following
interim control measures, which are designed to prevent concentration of runoff, control runoff velocity, and trap silt. Required measures for a specific project will be
determined by the City and be a requirement of the
grading permit.
▪ Water bars;
▪ Mulch-and-net blankets on exposed slopes;
▪ Straw bale dikes;
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
1028
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
▪ Temporary culverts and swales;
▪ Sediment traps; and/or
▪ Silt fences.
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0 (erosion): The potential
impacts of long-term erosion and sedimentation can be
reduced by the appropriate design, construction, and
continued maintenance of surface and subsurface
drainage of one or more of the following long-term
control measures. Required measures for a specific
project should be based on the recommendations of the
project geotechnical consultants, and approved by the
City.
▪ Construction of sediment catch basins at
strategic locations to prevent of/site
sedimentation from existing and/or potential
onsite sources;
▪ Design and construction of storm sewer systems
that incorporate the cumulative effects of project
buildout;
▪ Creek bank stabilization and repair of existing
gullies;
▪ Revegetation and continued maintenance of
graded slopes;
▪ Construction of drainage ditches or cut and fill
slopes and/or natural slopes above developed
areas;
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
1029
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
▪ Closed downspout collection systems for
individual structures;
▪ Design of cut and fill slopes to minimize, as much
as possible, natural low velocity sheet flow
runoff; and
▪ Periodic homeowner/landowner maintenance
(see MM 3.6/ 18)
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0
(paleontological resources): Mitigation measures
3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0 described above would be required.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Qualified
Paleontologist/Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Hydrology and Water Quality
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 3.6/28.0 (erosion):
Mitigation measures 3.6/27.0 and 3.6/28.0 described
above would be required.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.5/44.0 (drainage facilities):
Require drainage facilities that will minimize any
increased potential for erosion or flooding.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
1030
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0 (storm drainage master
plan): Require a Master Drainage Plan be prepared for
each development application prior to development
approval. The plan shall include:
▪ Hydrologic studies of entire related upstream
watersheds.
▪ Phase approaches and system modeling.
▪ Documentation of existing conditions.
▪ Design-level analysis of the impacts of proposed
development on the existing creek channels and
watershed areas.
▪ Detailed analysis of effects of development on
water quality of surface runoff.
▪ Detailed drainage design plans for each phase of
the proposed project.
▪ Design features to minimize runoff flows within
existing creeks/ channels in order to alleviate
potential erosion impacts and maintain riparian
vegetation.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.5/47.0 (flood control): Require
development in the Planning Area to provide facilities to alleviate potential downstream flooding due to project
development. These facilities shall include:
▪ Retention/ detention facilities as appropriate to
control peak runoff discharge rates.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
1031
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
▪ Energy dissipators at discharge locations to
prevent channel erosion, as per Zone 7
guidelines. Energy dissipators should be designed
to minimize adverse effects on biological
resources and the visual environment; in
particular, widespread use of rip-rap should be
avoided.
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.5/51.0 (water quality
investigation): Require a specific water quality
investigation be submitted with each development
application to demonstrate existing water quality and
impacts that urban runoff would have. The water quality investigation should address the quantity of runoff and the effects from discharged pollutants from surface
runoff into creeks and detention facilities.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Noise and Vibration
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0 (noise study): Require that an acoustical study be submitted with all residential
development projects located within the future
community noise equivalent level (CNEL) 60 contour. The goal of the acoustical study is to show how the interior noise level will be controlled to a CNEL of 45 dB as
required by Title 24, Part II. The Title 24 goal of CNEL 45 should be applied to single- family housing.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
1032
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0 (noise study): Require an
acoustical study prior to future development in the
Tassajara Foothill Residential, Tassajara Village Center, County Center and Hacienda Gateway sub-area to
determine if future noise impact from Parks Reserve
Forces Training Area (RFTA) or the County Jail will be
within acceptable limits. The goal of the study will be to identify all potential noise-generating operations and
determine if future noise levels will exceed the
acceptable levels as defined by the City and Army.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.10/4.0 (construction noise
management plan): Developers shall submit to the City a Construction Noise Management Program that identifies
measures to be taken to minimize impacts on existing
planning area residents. The program will include a
schedule for grading and other major noise-generating
activities that· will limit these activities to the shortest possible number of days. Hours of construction activities shall be limited in keeping with Dublin ordinances. The Program for construction vehicle access to the site shall minimize construction truck traffic through residential areas. If construction traffic must travel through
residential areas, then a mitigation plan should be
developed. The Program may include barriers, berms or
restrictions on hours.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
1033
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
During project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.10/5.0 (noise minimization): In
order to minimize the impact of construction noise, all operations should comply with local noise standards
relating to construction activities. When construction
occurs near residential areas, then it should be limited to normal daytime hours to minimize the impact.
Stationary equipment should be adequately muffled and
located as far away from sensitive receptors as possible. ▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Public Services
During project
operation
Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0 (police protection): 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.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division/Dublin Police
Department
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.4/2.0. (police service planning):
Coordinate with the City Police Department regarding
the timing of annexation and proposed development, so
that the Department can adequately plan for the
necessary expansion of services to the area.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division/Dublin Police
Department
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
1034
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.4/3.0 (project design approval):
Incorporate into the requirements of project approval
Police Department recommendations on project design
that affect traffic safety and crime prevention.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division/Dublin Police
Department
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.4/4.0 (budgeting for police
services): Upon annexation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment areas, police services
would become the responsibility of the City of Dublin's Police Department. This will necessitate the City
preparing a budget strategy to hire the required
additional personnel and implement a "beat" system.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division/Dublin Police
Department
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.4/5.0. (police review of proposed
projects) As a part of the development approval process in Eastern Dublin, the City shall require the Police
Department to review and respond to the planned
development with respect to:
▪ Project design layout relating to visibility, security and safety.
▪ Project circulation system and access issues.
▪ Project implications for emergency response
times.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division/Dublin Police
Department
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
1035
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
Prior to final approval of non-residential development
and improvement plans, the City Police Department shall review the proposed use, layout, design, and other
project features for police surveillance/ access, security devices, such as alarms and lighting, visibility, and any other police issues or concerns.
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0 (design review for fire
safety): Incorporate 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 DRFA design standards are
incorporated where appropriate:
▪ Use of non-combustible roof materials in all new
construction.
▪ Available capacity of 1,000 gallons per minute
(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.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division/Dublin Fire
Prevention Bureau
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
1036
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
▪ A buffer zone along the backs of homes which are
contiguous with the wildland area. This buffer
zone is to be landscaped with irrigated (wet
banding) or equivalent fire-resistive vegetation.
▪ Automatic fire alarm systems and sprinklers in all
nonresidential structures for human use.
▪ Compliance with DRFA minimum road widths,
maximum street slopes, parking
recommendations, and secondary access road
requirements.
▪ Require residential structures outside the DRFA's
established response time and zone to include
fire alarm systems and sprinklers.
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0 (wildfire management
plan): The City, in consultation with DFRA and a qualified wildlife biologist, shall prepare a wildfire management plan for the project area.
▪ The plan objective should be to reduce the risk of
open land wildfire to the lowest practical level
consistent with reasonable protection of wildlife
habitat and other open space values.
▪ The plan should define how the open lands of the
project will be owned, used and maintained
(consistent with the open space management
plan), what wildfire hazard mitigation measures
will be implemented, and how vegetation and
▪ Dublin Planning
Division/Dublin Fire
Prevention Bureau
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
1037
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
wildlife habitat are likely to change over time as a
result.
▪ The selection or formation of an entity
responsible for maintenance of the open lands
should be subject to the Fire Chief's approval,
and any financial obligations of property owners
to the maintenance entity should be disclosed to
potential purchasers.
▪ Where open lands are to be removed from
grazing use, one or a combination of brush
control measures, such as mowing, discing,
herbicide application or the removal of
combustible materials, should be selected to
achieve the objectives of the plan.
▪ Where new landscape planting is proposed, fireresistant qualities should be a major consideration. New planting near structures
should be irrigated. As a basic rule, a minimum of
thirty feet shall be provided between new or
existing homes and non-irrigated grassland.
▪ The plan should specify who will be responsible
for its implementation, and how its
implementation will be paid for.
Since the scientific basis for wildland management is still inexact, it is also important that the plan provide for periodic monitoring of vegetation growth, wildlife
habitat and fire risk, and for the adoption of
1038
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
amendments if necessary to achieve the objectives of
the plan on an ongoing basis.
Utilities and Service Systems
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.5/4.0 (water service): Require a
"will-serve" letter from Dublin-San Ramon Services
District (DSRSD) prior to permit approval for grading.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division/Dublin San
Ramon Services
District
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.5/5.0. (wastewater system
design standards): Require that design and construction of all wastewater systems be in accordance with DSRSD
standards.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division/Dublin San
Ramon Services
District
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.5/26.0 (water conservation):
Require the following as conditions of project approval in eastern Dublin:
▪ Use of water-conserving devices such as low-flow
shower heads, faucets, and toilets.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division Dublin
Planning
Division/Dublin San
Ramon Services
District
1039
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
▪ Support implementation of the DSRSD Water Use
Reduction Plan where appropriate.
▪ Water efficient irrigation systems within public
rights-of-way, median islands, public parks,
recreation areas and golf course areas (see
Program 9B on Water Recycling).
▪ Drought resistant plant palettes within public
rights-of-way, median islands, public parks,
recreation areas and golf course areas.
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.5/27.0 (recycled water): Require
the following as conditions of project approval in eastern Dublin:
▪ Implementation of DSRSD and Zone 7 findings
and recommendations on uses of recycled water
to augment existing water supplies.
▪ Work with DSRSD to explore use of recycled
water in eastern Dublin through potential
construction of a recycled water distribution
system. Construction of such a recycled water
system will require approval of the use of
recycled water for landscape irrigation by DSRSD,
Zone 7 and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division Dublin
Planning
Division/Dublin San
Ramon Services
District
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
1040
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.5/37.0 (water infrastructure
design standards): Require that design and construction of all water system facility improvements be in
accordance with DSRSD standards.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division Dublin
Planning
Division/Dublin San
Ramon Services
District
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.5/38.0 (water distribution):
Require a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD prior to grading permit approval.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division Dublin
Planning
Division/Dublin San
Ramon Services
District
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
1041
Reso. No. 22-07, Item 6.1, Adopted 05/10/2022 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 22-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER AN ADDENDUM TO THE
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE
ZONING MAP, A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT WITH A RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A SITE DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE
DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING PROJECT
PLPA 2021-00042
(APN 986-0014-013-00)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, South Bay Partners, LLC., proposes to develop a community care facility located at 5751 Arnold Road. The proposed project consists of a two-story, 155,517-square-foot building with 152 units, including 114 assisted living units, 38 memory care units and a total of 174 beds. Common space amenity areas, and associated site, frontage and landscape improvements are also proposed. Requested approvals include a Planned Development Rezoning with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review Permit. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “Dublin Senior Living Project” or the “Project;” and
WHEREAS, the Project site is approximately 5.74 acres located on the east side of Arnold Road, north of Central Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the project site has a General Plan land use designation of Campus Office and is located in a Planned Development Zoning District (Ordinance No. 30-98); and
WHEREAS, the proposed community care facility is consistent with the Campus Office land use designation but requires amendments to the Planned Development Zoning; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the CEQA Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report and an addendum on August 22, 1994 (1993 GPA/SP EIR), which identified impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin Specific 1042
Reso. No. 22-07, Item 6.1, Adopted 05/10/2022 Page 2 of 3 Plan. The City Council adopted mitigation measures, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53-93, incorporated herein by reference); and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine whether supplemental environmental review was required for the proposed Project under CEQA standards. The Initial Study examined whether there were substantial changes to the proposed development, substantial changes in circumstances, or new information, any of which would result in new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, or whether any standards for supplemental environmental review were met; and
WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study, it was determined that there were no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Project and, therefore, an Addendum to the 1993 EIR was prepared; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated May 10, 2022, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit, and Addendum to the 1993 GPA/SP EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, on May 10, 2022, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance attached as Exhibit A considering the CEQA Addendum and approving a Planned Development Zoning District with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan based on findings, as set forth in Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Resolution attached as Exhibit B approving the Site Development Review Permit, based on the findings and conditions of approval, as set forth in Exhibit B.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of May 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Benson, Grier, Thalblum
NOES: Tyler, Wright
ABSENT:
1043
Reso. No. 22-07, Item 6.1, Adopted 05/10/2022 Page 3 of 3 ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Assistant Community Development Director
5101209.1
1044
Dublin Senior Living Project
Planned Development Rezone & Site
Development Review Permit
City Council Meeting
June 7, 2022
1045
Project Location/Background
Project
Location
COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL
1046
Proposed Project
• Licensed Residential Care Facility for Elderly
▪ Two-story 155,517 s.f. facility
▪ 152 units (174 beds total),
▪ 114 assisted living units and
▪ 38 memory care units
▪ Amenities & support facilities
1047
Project Entitlements
• Planned Development Rezone
• Site Development Review Permit
1048
Planned Development Rezone
• Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan
– Development Standards
– Architectural Standards
– Allowable Uses
– Landscaping
– Phasing
1049
Site/Landscape Plan
Arnold Road
1050
Architectural Rendering
View from Arnold Road looking southeast
1051
Architectural Rendering
View from project entrance off Arnold Road looking southeast 1052
Architectural Rendering
View from Arnold Road looking northeast
1053
West Elevation
1054
West Elevations
1055
Environmental Review
• Initial Study
– Determined that no subsequent or supplemental EIR or
Negative Declaration is required
• Addendum to the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP EIR
1056
Recommendation
• Disclose ex-parte contacts, conduct the public
hearing, deliberate and:
1) Waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance
Amending the Zoning Map and Approving a Planned
Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan for the Dublin Senior Living
Project; and
2) Adopt the Resolution Approving a Site Development
Review Permit for the Dublin Senior Living project.
1057
1058
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Item 6.2
DATE: June 7, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Budget for Fiscal Years 2022-23 and 2023-24 Prepared by: Lisa Hisatomi, Director of Administrative Services EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider approval of the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Years 2022-23 and 2023-24 and related salary plans.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and adopt the following: 1) Resolution Adopting a Budget for the City of Dublin for Fiscal Year 2022-23; 2) Resolution Establishing a Salary Plan for FullTime Personnel in Accordance with the Personnel Rules; 3) Resolution Establishing a Salary Plan for Management Positions Exempt from Competitive Services.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Proposed Budget includes citywide revenues of $139.0 million in Fiscal Year 2022-23 and $140.6 million in Fiscal Year 2023-24 (in all funds, including internal service funds). Expenditure proposals total $141.6 million and $125.7 million in Fiscal Years 2022-23 and 2023-24, respectively (in all funds, including capital funds and internal service funds). The total citywide fund balance is projected at $324.4 million and $339.4 million in Fiscal Years 2022-23 and 2023- 24, respectively.
The Proposed General Fund Budget is balanced in both years, with a projected addition to reserves of $3.7 million in the first year, and $11.6 million in the second year.
All fund balances are projected in the positive, except for grant funds, which are reimbursed after expenditures are incurred, and the Public Facility Fees Fund, due to the timing difference in the collection of fees and the construction of parks and facilities.
DESCRIPTION:
1059
The attached Proposed Budget for Fiscal Years 2022-23 and 2023-24 includes a Transmittal Letter (Section B) from the City Manager, which provides a holistic discussion of the financial health of the City, the two-year budget, reserve changes, Capital Improvement Program appropriations, and factors used in the 10-Year Forecast. As such, the Transmittal Letter is attached here separately (Attachment 1) that it may serve to introduce and summarize the budget document itself.
The Proposed Budget includes the budget for one Maintenance Coordinator in Public Works Department, a new classification responsible for coordinating planned and preventative maintenance operations and activities, performing contractor field performance review, and managing customer service for maintenance issues. Staff will bring forward the job description to the City Council for consideration and approval at a later meeting.
The Proposed Budget document (Attachment 2) is organized as follows:
A. Table of Contents
B. Transmittal Letter - Discussion of the City’s overall financial picture C. Strategic Plan
D. Introductory - Community profile and description of budget process E. Funds Summary - Definition of fund classifications; projection for all funds F. General Fund Summary - General Fund revenues and expenses G. Departments - Departmental projections, including accomplishments and goals H. Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) - Summary of CIP appropriations for Fiscal Years 2022-23 and 2023-24, with funding sources
I. Proprietary Funds - Internal Service Fund projections J. Fiduciary Funds - Projections in funds for which the City is a fiscal agent K. Appendix - Historical revenue information, Human Services grants, and Position Allocation Plan
While the document contains Capital Improvement Program (CIP) appropriations for Fiscal Years 2022-23 and 2023-24, the full 2022-2027 CIP proposal is presented in a separate document and adopted by the City Council separately at a public hearing on tonight’s agenda. Any changes made by the City Council during that public hearing will be incorporated into the final adopted budget.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
The development of the Budget is directly associated with the Two-Year Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2022-23 and 2023 -24.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A Budget Hearing Notice was posted on June 3, 2022 and the City Council Agenda was posted.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) City Manager's Transmittal Letter
1060