Dublin City Council
November 15, 2022

every five years; therefore, the additional 2023-2031 Housing Element requirement would be included in the next UWMP.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Dublin 2023-2031 Housing Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration Document. If you have any questions about this letter, please feel free to contact Irene Suroso at (925) 875-2253 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Steven Delight
Engineering Services Director
IS/SVD
cc: Dan McIntyre, General Manager
Jan Lee, Assistant General Manager
Irene Suroso, Senior Engineer, Planning and Asset Management 852
November 2, 2022
Michael P. Cass
Principal Planner
City of Dublin Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568
Phone: 925/833-6610
Sent be email: [email protected]
Re: Dublin 2023-2031 Housing Element IS/ND
Michael,
Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7, or Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District) has reviewed the referenced document in the context of Zone 7’s mission to "Deliver safe, reliable, efficient, and sustainable water and flood protection services" within the Livermore-Amador Valley. Below are our comments for your consideration.

Hydrology and Water Quality Section

1. Consider the following updates to text on Page 32 item B:

Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, known as Zone 7, extracts groundwater from the Livermore Valley Main Groundwater Basin (Main Basin), which contains high-yielding aquifers and good quality groundwater. The Main Basin has an estimated storage capacity of approximately 254,000 acre feet (af). The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has not identified the Main Basin as a basin in overdraft or a basin expected to be in overdraft. The Main Basin is considered a storage facility by Zone 7 and not a long-term source of water supply because Zone 7 only pumps groundwater it has artificially recharged using its surface water supplies. In any given year, Zone 7 serves a combination of surface water and groundwater. DSRSD, which serves the City of Dublin, does have access to the natural yield of the groundwater basin (‘groundwater pumping quota [GPQ]’) in the amount of 645 af; this amount is pumped by Zone 7 on behalf of DSRSD.
853

Zone 7, as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency, manages the Main Basin in accordance with its Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Alt GSP). Groundwater extraction activities will be managed by Zone 7 to meet current and future water supply demands from DSRSD while meeting groundwater sustainability goals. The water supply demand for the project has not been evaluated in DSRSD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Zone 7’s 2020 UWMP.

As such, future water sources would rely on surface water supplies from the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and not local groundwater supplies. The project is required to support Zone 7’s groundwater recharge program to only pump groundwater it artificially recharges using its imported surface water or locally-stored runoff from Arroyo del Valley. Compliance with this requirement would maintain groundwater at a no net loss for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin.

Therefore, the project would not directly result in a net increase in groundwater extraction from Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, and there would be no impact (statement needs further evaluation).

2. Consider the following updates to text on Page 33 item D:

DSRSD, the City of Pleasanton, the City of Livermore, and the California Water Service Company have agreements with Zone 7 to limit limiting their combined allocated extraction to limit at the long-term sustainable naturally recharged yield of the Main Basin. This agreement, along with Zone 7’s other groundwater management activities, keeps the groundwater budget in balance under average hydraulic conditions. Each of these entities, known as retailers, has a groundwater pumping quota (GPQ) and are responsible for a replenishment fee if they pump in excess of their GPQ.

As long as groundwater extraction is operated under Given these agreements, future development projects would not result in groundwater overdraft, substantial local groundwater level drawdown, or substantially redirect stormwater such that natural basin recharge would be precluded.

3. On Page 46 item B, the following statements are made:
a. “DSRSD has master planned their water supply capacity, water distribution system, reservoirs and pumping in the project area in accordance with the General Plan demand levels and buildout projections as documented in the current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP, 2020).”
854

b. “The UWMP anticipates adequate water supply for meeting projected future demand during the Housing Element planning period. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact to water supply, and there would be no impact.” Note that the 2023-2031 Housing Element was released after DSRSD’s 2020 UWMP was published. Therefore, DSRSD’s 2020 UWMP does not evaluate the water supply impacts of the additional housing units required by the 2023-2031 Housing Element (nor does Zone 7’s UWMP).

4. It should be noted that the project is located within the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin subject to sustainable groundwater management as per the Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan (https://www.zone7water.com/sites/main/files/fileattachments/alt_gw_sustainability_plan-4.pdf?1656015908) and all relevant sustainable groundwater management actions and policies.

5. The hydrology section of the IS/ND should reflect information available in our 2021 Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan (https://www.zone7water.com/alternativegroundwater-sustainability-plan-and-updates) or with information from staff.

6. On page 31, Arroyo Del Valley should be spelled as Arroyo del Valle.

Utilities and Service Systems Section

7. General Plan Guiding Policy 12.3.1.A.1 requires the City to work with Zone 7 and DSRSD to secure an adequate water supply for, and provide water delivery to, existing and future customers in Dublin. Please confirm water supply impacts with DSRSD. As noted in item 3, the 2023-2031 Housing Element was released after DSRSD’s 2020 UWMP was published.

Therefore, DSRSD’s 2020 UWMP does not evaluate the additional housing units required by the 2023-2031 Housing Element (nor does Zone 7’s 2020 UWMP).

8. In January California adopted an emergency regulation that prohibits certain wasteful water use practices statewide and encourages Californians to monitor their water use more closely while building habits to use water wisely. A second emergency regulation came into effect regarding watering non-functional lawns in commercial, industrial, and institutional areas, including common areas of homeowners’ associations (HOAs).

Like much of the state, the Tri-Valley continues to battle unprecedented drought conditions.

Zone 7 Water Agency declared a Drought Emergency and Stage 2 Water Shortage Emergency, which included mandatory 15% water conservation from all Tri-Valley water 855

service providers. We support a range of water conservation requirements, and we ask that everyone take steps to comply.

Flood Protection

9. Developments creating new impervious areas within the Livermore-Amador Valley are subject to the assessment of the Development Impact Fee for Flood Protection and Storm Water Drainage. These fees are collected for Zone 7 by the local governing agency: 1) upon approval of final map for public improvements creating new impervious areas; and/or 2) upon issuance of a building or use permit required for site improvements creating new impervious areas. Fees are dependent on whether post-project impervious area conditions are greater than pre-project conditions.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions on this letter, please feel free to contact me at (925) 454-5005 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Elke Rank
cc: Carol Mahoney, Amparo Flores, Ken Minn, file
856
Dublin 2023‐2031 Housing Element
Initial Study / Negative Declaration
October 3November 15, 2022
Planning Application Number: PLPA‐2022‐00036
857
City of Dublin Dublin 2023‐2031 Housing Element
Initial Study | Page 32
11/15/22

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant Impact No Impact
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Violate water quality or waste discharge requirements The Housing Element is a policy‐level document that encourages the provision of a range of housing types and affordability levels but does not include specific development proposals. Any future development project, including development on the Remaining Needs Sites, would be required to be designed to treat all of its stormwater runoff for water quality and hydromodification management to meet current Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, Provision C.3 requirements as prescribed in the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Therefore, the project would not directly violate water quality or waste discharge requirements, and there would be no impact.
(b) Substantially deplete or interfere with groundwater supplies The project is within the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, which extends about 14 miles from the Pleasanton Ridge east to the Altamont Hills and about three miles from the Livermore Upland north to the Orinda Upland. The Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, known as Zone 7, extracts groundwater from the Livermore Valley Main Groundwater Basin (Main Basin), which contains high‐yielding aquifers and good quality groundwater. The Main Basin has an estimated storage capacity of approximately 254,000 acre feet (af). The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has not identified the Main Basin as a basin in overdraft or a basin expected to be in overdraft. The Main Basin is considered a storage facility by Zone 7 and not a long‐term source of water supply because Zone 7 only pumps groundwater it has artificially recharged using its surface water supplies. In any given year, Zone 7 serves a combination of surface water and groundwater. DSRSD, which serves the City of Dublin, does have access to the natural yield of the groundwater basin (‘groundwater pumping quota [GPQ]’) in the amount of 645 af; this amount is pumped by Zone 7 on behalf of DSRSD.

Zone 7, as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency, manages the Main Basin in accordance with its Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Alt GSP). Groundwater extraction activities will be managed by Zone 7 to meet current and future water supply demands from DSRSD while meeting groundwater sustainability goals. The water supply demand for the project has not been evaluated in DSRSD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Zone 7’s 2020 UWMP; but will be included in the next UWMP update, which occurs every five years. 858
City of Dublin Dublin 2023‐2031 Housing Element
Initial Study | Page 33
11/15/22
As suchHowever, future water sources would rely on surface water supplies from the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and not local groundwater supplies. The project is required to support Zone 7’s groundwater recharge program to only pump groundwater it artificially recharges using its imported surface water or locally‐stored runoff from Arroyo del Valley.

Compliance with this requirement would maintain groundwater at a no net loss for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin.

Furthermore, all future development projects are required to comply with the sustainable groundwater management actions and policies as per Zone 7’s Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan (2021).

Therefore, the project would not directly result in a net increase in groundwater extraction from Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, and there would be no impact. (c) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns
Future development would not significantly change existing drainage patterns and proposed storm drain facilities would be required to be adequately sized for project runoff. All future development projects would be required to comply with the City’s drainage system planned improvements and Watercourse Ordinance with appropriate sizing and construction of downstream facilities. Additionally, General Plan Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.2 requires the City to review development proposals to ensure site design that minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff. In addition, General Plan Guiding Polices 12.3.5.A.1 through

12.3.5.A.3 include provisions to protect the quality and quantity of surface water, and minimize stormwater runoff, and provide adequate stormwater facilities.

Furthermore, future developments creating new impervious areas within the Livermore‐ Amador Valley are subject to the assessment of the Development Impact Fee for Flood Protection and Storm Water Drainage.  These fees are collected for Zone 7 by the local governing agency: 1) upon approval of final map for public improvements creating new impervious areas; and/or 2) upon issuance of a building or use permit required for site improvements creating new impervious areas.  Fees are dependent on whether post‐project impervious area conditions are greater than pre‐project conditions.

Therefore, the project would not directly substantially alter existing drainage patterns, and there would be no impact.
(g) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
The City is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche. The risk of potential mudflow is considered low since no historic landslides or mudflows have been identified in the City.

Therefore, the project would not directly result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, and there would be no impact.
859
City of Dublin Dublin 2023‐2031 Housing Element
Initial Study | Page 34
11/15/22
(h) Conflict with water quality control or groundwater management plans Future development would be required to incorporate and comply with the drainage system master planned improvements as designed and approved by state and local agencies.

Applicable regulations include but are not limited to the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Provision C.3 Requirements (MRP), and the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit). All future development projects would also be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the requirements of the statewide Construction General Permit. General Plan Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.1 requires the City to enforce these and other applicable water quality control regulations for all new development projects.

DSRSD, the City of Pleasanton, the City of Livermore, and the California Water Service Company have agreements with Zone 7 limiting to limit their combined allocated extraction of to limit the long‐term sustainable naturally recharged yield of the Main Basin. This agreement, along with Zone 7’s other groundwater management activities, keeps the groundwater budget in balance under average hydraulic conditions. Each of these entities, known as retailers, has a groundwater pumping quota (GPQ) and are responsible for a replenishment fee if they pump in excess of their GPQ.

Given As long as groundwater extraction is operated under these agreements, future development projects would not result in groundwater overdraft, substantial local groundwater level drawdown, or substantially redirect stormwater such that natural basin recharge would be precluded.

Therefore, the project would not directly conflict with water quality control or groundwater management plans, and there would be no impact.

Land Use and Planning

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant Impact No Impact

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
X
860
City of Dublin Dublin 2023‐2031 Housing Element
Initial Study | Page 46
11/15/22

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant Impact No Impact
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
X
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, c) Wastewater treatment requirements and facilities The Housing Element is a policy document and would not result in the approval of any physical improvements.

Wastewater associated with future development would be accommodated within the DSRSD Wastewater Treatment Plant. Per the DSRSD 2017 Wastewater Treatment and Biosolids Facilities Master Plan, DSRSD’s Wastewater Treatment Plant has a total capacity of 75is permitted to operation up to 17 million gallons per day (mgd) on average dry weather flow.

Future development associated with land use changes represent a delta from their existing commercial, or mixed‐use land use designation and this incremental change is not considered significant in context to the City’s General Plan buildout assumptions. Furthermore, as discussed in the Population and Housing Section, the additional population associated with the project would be consistent with the General Plan buildout projections. The As such, the DSRSD Master Plan anticipateds adequate wastewater treatment capacity to meeting projected future demand during the Housing Element planning period. Furthermore, before approval of any future development project, confirmation of the wastewater treatment capacity from DSRSD would be required.

General Plan Guiding Policy 12.3.1.A.1 requires the City to work with Zone 7 and DSRSD to secure an adequate water supply for, and provide water delivery to, existing and future customers in Dublin.

General Plan Implementing Policy 4.5.1.B.1 requires that prior to project approval, developers demonstrate that adequate capacity exists in sewage treatment and disposal facilities for their projects prior to the issuance of building permits.

Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Program 9Q: Connection to Public Sewers requires all developments within the Specific Plan area to be connected to public sewers. Exceptions to this requirement, in particular septic tank systems, are allowed upon receipt of written approval from Alameda County Environmental Health Department and DSRSD. 861
City of Dublin Dublin 2023‐2031 Housing Element
Initial Study | Page 47
11/15/22
Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact to wastewater treatment requirements and facilities, and there would be no impact. (b) Sufficient water supplies
The Housing Element is a policy document and would not result in the approval of any physical improvements.

DSRSD has master planned their water supply capacity, water distribution system, reservoirs and pumping in the project area in accordance with the General Plan demand levels and buildout projections as documented in the current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP, 2020). Connection fees are based on these master plans.

General Plan Guiding Policy 12.3.1.A.1 requires the City to work with Zone 7 and DSRSD to secure an adequate water supply for, and provide water delivery to, existing and future customers in Dublin.

Per SB 610, a residential project with 500 or more units is required to prepare a Water Supply Assessment to determine water supply sufficiency for a 20‐year projection in addition to the demand of existing and other planned future uses. Per SB 221, future development projects would be required to obtain written verification from DSRSD that sufficient water supply is available. This may include the use of recycled water as a way of water conservation.

Future development associated with land use changes represent a delta from their existing commercial, or mixed‐use land use designation and this incremental change is not considered significant in context to the City’s General Plan buildout assumptions. Furthermore, as discussed in the Population and Housing Section, the additional population associated with the project remains consistent with the General Plan buildout projections. The Therefore, the 2020 UWMP anticipateds adequate water supply for meeting projected future General Plan buildout demand during the Housing Element planning period. The additional 2023‐2031 Housing Element housing allocation would be included in the next UWMP update, which is prepared every five years.

Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact to water supply, and there would be no impact.
(d, e) Solid waste disposal and regulatory compliance
Approval of future development projects would incrementally increase the generation of solid waste. Over the long term, the annual rate of solid waste reaching the landfill would decrease as a result of statewide regulations mandating increased recycling and organics diversion.

General Plan Implementing Policy 4.4.1.B.3 requires that prior to project approval, the applicant must demonstrate that capacity exists in solid waste disposal facilities for their project. In addition, future development projects would be required to comply with the Dublin Municipal Code regarding solid waste, which includes DMC Chapter 5.32 ‐ Solid Waste 862

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Agenda Item 6.2
DATE: November 15, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: SCS Dublin (PLPA-2022-00005)
Prepared by: Amy Million, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider the SCS Dublin project which includes development of up to 650 residential units and up to 265,000 square feet of retail commercial development on a 76.9-acre parcel. The SCS Dublin project is the first step in implementing the Preferred Vision for the SCS Property approved by the City Council on February 15, 2022. Requested approvals include General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, a Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, and a Development Agreement. The City Council will also consider certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct a public hearing, deliberate, and take the following actions: 1) adopt the Resolution Certifying an Environmental Impact Report and Adopting Environmental Impact Findings, Findings Regarding Alternatives, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the SCS Dublin Project; 2) adopt the Resolution Amending the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Related to the SCS Dublin Project; 3) waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map and Approving a Planned Development Zoning District with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans For the SCS Dublin Project; and 4) waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement Between the City of Dublin and SCS Development Company Related to the SCS Dublin Project.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The project is estimated to generate approximately $3.6 million in annual tax revenues to the City’s General Fund and over $41 million in one-time construction-related revenues, which includes $39.4 million in restricted development impact fees and $1.7 million in sales and transfer taxes to the General Fund. All costs associated with the processing of the application are paid by 863

the applicant.

DESCRIPTION:

Background
The subject 76.2-acre property, known as the SCS Property, is located north of I-580 between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street and extends to the north of Gleason Drive (refer to Figure 1).

On February 15, 2022, the City Council approved the Preferred Plan for the SCS Property, which stemmed from an extensive City-led community outreach process to engage the community in appropriate land uses for the property. The outreach process included a 14-member Community Advisory Committee that held three meetings plus a series of additional meetings with individual committee members, three community meetings with a total of 75 attendees, and three community surveys with a total of 476 responses. In addition, the Planning Commission and City Council held a combined total of seven public meetings during the outreach process in which a total of 18 oral and written comments from the community were received.

The Preferred Plan, as shown in Figure 2, focuses on the following concepts:
864

 Integrate Paseo and Town Square Concepts
A town square concept, to anchor the shops and
restaurants on Finnian Way, is located on the grand
paseo opening views to Mt. Diablo. To accommodate
a variety of activities (e.g., recreation, public
gardening, and native plant/pollinator meadows)
and compliment adjacent land uses, the width of the
grand paseo varies from 25 feet to 110 feet.
 Improve Visibility and Access to the Paseo
A new north/south street located between
Brannigan Street and Tassajara Road is provided
along the east side of the grand paseo creating
greater access and activity to the public open space.

The paseo widens towards Tassajara Road inviting
pedestrians and bikes off the major arterial onto the
paseo. Generous bike and pedestrian paths connect
Gleason Drive to Dublin Boulevard.
 Diversify Housing Types
Housing throughout the site is varied with entrylevel housing, affordable housing, and family housing, all of which may accommodate senior
residents. Types range from traditional single-family
homes, courtyard homes, and townhomes, to
affordable apartments. The Preferred Plan envisions
a range of 500 to 550 market rate units and a 2.5-
acre site for affordable housing (70 to 150 units) for
a total of 570 to 650 units.
 Dedicated Affordable Housing Site
A parcel to be dedicated for construction of
affordable housing is included. The site location, at
the prominent corner of Tassajara Road and Dublin
Boulevard, will serve as a gateway to the larger
neighborhood. The site is large enough to permit a
variety of affordable housing solutions, allowing the
design and amount of affordable housing to be tailored to the community’s needs. The number of units could vary substantially to respond to those needs and available funding sources. For example, units in a senior affordable housing project are typically smaller than units in a family affordable housing project and, thus, a senior project may have greater density than a family project.
 Pedestrian-Focused Entertainment District
The entertainment district south of Dublin Boulevard is set around a large pedestrian plaza (roughly 120 feet by 300 feet,) creating a regional dining and family entertainment destination.

City Council Resolution No. 16-22 approving the Preferred Plan included the following criteria:
865

1. Market rate residential housing not to exceed 550 units.

2. Finnian Way and Aviano Way extended through the project site from Brannigan Street to Tassajara Road.

3. Finnian Way frontage limited to commercial uses on the ground floor, which may be provided through a “Shop House” concept with substantive commercial space (not less than 400 square feet).

4. Housing types throughout the site that vary with entry level housing, affordable housing, and family housing. Types range from traditional single-family homes, courtyard homes, town homes, and affordable apartments.

5. A combination of inclusionary for-sale units and a Public/Semi-Public parcel dedicated for affordable housing. Note: The addition of inclusionary for-sale units requires consideration of the economic impacts. The combination of a dedicated site and inclusionary units could require alternative funding sources to make the Preferred Plan an economically viable plan.

This funding could come from a variety of sources and would be negotiated as part of the future development application.

6. A town square concept to anchor the shops and restaurants on Finnian Way. The town square is located on the grand paseo opening views to Mt. Diablo. The paseo connects the square to the residential areas south and north of Finnian Way.

7. The entertainment district south of Dublin Boulevard is set around a large pedestrian plaza (roughly 120 feet by 300 feet) creating a regional dining and family entertainment destination.

Proposed Project
The proposed project takes the first step in implementing the Preferred Plan for the property. SCS Development Co. (the Applicant) is seeking the following entitlements:
 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) Amendments  Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans  Development Agreement
The project includes a combination of commercial/retail and residential uses, including two types of retail experiences. The first is a neighborhood, main-street experience. This area can accommodate up to 40,000 square feet of small retail shops along an extended Finnian Way, which would then connect to the Shops at Waterford. The second is envisioned to be a more regional, retail experience focused on entertainment uses, south of Dublin Boulevard. This area is proposed for up to 225,000 square feet of uses. In total, the proposed project includes development of up to 265,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses.

A variety of housing types are proposed by the Applicant, including affordable housing, singlefamily units, and housing for entry-level buyers, with up to 550 market rate units and up to 100 affordable units.

Additional discretionary approvals are required to implement the project; however, they are not requested at this time. Those include approval of: 1) Vesting Tentative Maps by the Planning 866

Commission to create the individual development parcels and identify those areas that would be reserved as open and/or common space, easements to provide access through the project site, preliminary grading, drainage, stormwater management and utilities, and adjacent right-of-way improvements; 2) Site Development Review Permits by the Planning Commission for the architectural and site plan details; and 3) a Master Sign Program/Site Development Review Permit by the Community Development Director for the commercial signage.

Analysis
General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments
The project site has several existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) land use designations as shown in Figure 3 and Table 1 below. Most of the site is currently designated General Commercial with varying densities of residential along Brannigan Street and Gleason Drive. The General Plan and EDSP allow a density range 565,627-1,672,704 square feet of commercial development and 151-464 residential units on the subject property, not including the Public/Semi-Public parcel. As summarized in Table 1 below, the EDSP assumed mid-density for residential development of 261 units and 902,563 square feet of commercial uses.

Figure 3. Existing Land Use Designations
Table 1. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Anticipated Development Land Use Designations Acres Res. Units Commercial sq. ft.

General Commercial 60.3 -- 846,153
Neighborhood Commercial 3.7 -- 56,410
Medium Density Residential 4.3 43 --
Medium High Density Residential 5.3 106 --
High-Density Residential 3.2 112 --
Public/Semi-Public 3.3 -- --
Total 80.11 261 902,563
1The actual project acreage is 76.2 acres.
867

To accommodate the proposed project and implement the Preferred Plan, the Applicant proposes to modify the existing land use designations. The proposed new General Plan and EDSP land use designations include the following: General Commercial, Medium Density Residential, MediumHigh Density Residential, Parks/Public Recreation and Public/Semi-Public. The location and densities of the proposed land uses are shown in Figure 4 and Table 2 below.

Figure 4. SCS Dublin Proposed Land Uses
Table 2. SCS Dublin Proposed Land Uses
Land Use Designations
Gross
Acres
Res.

Units Du/Acre
Floor Area
Ratio Commercial sq. ft.

General Commercial 29.4 40 -- 0.19 - 0.38 265,000
Medium Density
Residential 17 150 8.8 --
Medium High Density
Residential 21.1 360 17.1 --
Parks/Public Recreation 2.5 -- -- --
Public/Semi-Public 3.8 100 26.3 --
Total 73.81 650 265,000
1 The actual project acreage is 76.2 acres which includes the proposed public streets (Finnian Way, Aviano Way and Diablo View Drive).

In addition to the changes to the land use designations, other minor amendments to the General Plan and EDSP are necessary for consistency. The amendments include modifications to the public rights-of-way, such as the vacation of Northside Drive, extension of Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard, extensions to Finnian Way and Aviano Way through the project site, and the addition of a new public street along the Park/Public Recreation land use (e.g., the grand paseo).

The resolution approving these amendments is included as Attachment 8.

Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans The property is currently zoned Planned Development (PD) (Resolution No. 104-94) adopted with the EDSP. The PD established allowable land uses and densities for each land use designation.

Development of the property is limited to the Interim Agricultural Designation until a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan is adopted. The Applicant has proposed PD Rezone with Stage 1 and 2 Development Plans for the entire project site. 868

Dublin Municipal Code (DMC) Chapter 8.32 establishes the intent, purpose, and requirements of Planned Development Zoning Districts. The proposed PD Zoning contains requirements that ensure the project components will be developed as a cohesive and complementary project. The Development Plan establishes the following regulations for use of the subject property in accordance with the requirements of the DMC: permitted and conditionally permitted uses; development regulations, including setbacks, densities, height limits, and parking requirements; standards and design guidelines; site plan; and other requirements which regulate the improvement and maintenance of the property. An overview of the Planned Development Zoning District for the subject property is provided below. The draft Ordinance providing the details of the proposed zoning is included as Attachment 10.

Figure 5 below shows a conceptual site plan, which organizes the property into four primary Planning Areas (PAs). The conceptual site plan serves as the Planned Development Stage 1 and 2 Site Plan. As previously noted, Vesting Tentative Tract Maps and Site Development Review Permits will be required prior to development of each residential neighborhood and commercial area and are subject to Planning Commission review and approval. Detailed design and elevation drawings will be provided at that time.

Figure 5. Conceptual Site Plan and Planning Areas
The maximum amount of development allowed by the proposed Planned Development Zoning District is 265,000 square feet of commercial uses and 650 residential units. The 265,000 square feet includes the following:
 40,000 square feet of retail uses along Finnian Way
 225,000 square feet of commercial uses south of Dublin Boulevard o 30,000 square feet of family/entertainment uses
o 40,000 square feet of retail shops/restaurants
o 75,000-square-foot hotel(s) with 140 rooms
o 80,000 square feet of recreational facility
The residential units are separated into 100 affordable units and a maximum of 550 market rate units.
869

Site Plan and Development Standards
Planning Area 1: The Development Plan envisions PA-1 as an entertainment district with a combination of regional- and community-serving retail, service, and office uses, restaurants, family entertainment uses, and outdoor plazas for a total of 225,000 square feet of commercial uses. Of this, an approximately 80,000-square-foot entertainment driving range is envisioned (based on the Applicant’s preliminary discussions with Topgolf, a private sports entertainment company). PA-1 may also include a 140-room hotel.

Access to PA-1 would be provided directly from Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. Brannigan Street, which is currently a private road south of Dublin Boulevard that serves the Grafton Station shopping center, may become a public street to accommodate this access as part of the project.

Northside Drive, which currently extends east from Tassajara Road to the stormwater detention basin on the south side of Grafton Plaza is proposed to be vacated; however, access to the project site where Northside Drive intersects with Tassajara Road would be maintained as a project entrance.

Buildings along Dublin Boulevard would be built around an outdoor plaza to promote outdoor dining and community gathering. A large entertainment use (potentially Topgolf) is envisioned to occupy the southern half of PA-1. The maximum height for the buildings in PA-1 would be 74 feet, which is intended to accommodate the potential hotel. The typical commercial tenant surrounding the outdoor plaza would likely be under 40 feet in height. The poles and netting associated with the Topgolf facility would be up to 190 feet in height.

The parking requirement for the mix of uses would default to the requirements for each land use as stated in the Zoning Ordinance. The parking in PA-1 is intended to be shared by all commercial users.

Planning Area 2: The commercial area of PA-2 focuses on the neighborhood main street experience anchored by a town square. This area would accommodate up to 40,000 square feet of small retail shops, small office spaces, and specialty restaurants along the extension of Finnian Way, which would then connect to the Shops at Waterford. Up to 40 residential units would be located above or behind the retail shops along Finnian Way.

The town square is located at the end of the grand paseo which runs through PA-2 and PA-3 to the north. The grand paseo is envisioned to accommodate a variety of activities and complement adjacent land uses. A midblock pedestrian crossing on Central Parkway is proposed to provide direct pedestrian access linking the grand paseo in PA-2 and PA-3.

Vehicular access to PA-2 would be from Tassajara Road, Central Parkway, Branigan Street, and Finnian Way. No vehicular access from Dublin Boulevard is proposed.

The residential area of PA-2 consists of 290 attached townhomes, 40 shophouse units along Finnian Way and 100 multi-family affordable housing units. A shophouse is a building type serving both as a residence and ground floor commercial business and the proposed shophouse units have been incorporated to support activation of the commercial area along Finnian Way. As outlined by 870

City Council Resolution No. 16-22 in their approval of the Preferred Plan, the minimum size of the commercial spaces associated with the shophouses was to be 400 square feet. The Planned Development proposes to reduce this requirement to 350 square feet.

Planning Area 3 and 4: PA-3 and PA-4 are designed to support residential and the northern portion of the grand paseo. Collectively they consist of up to 150 single family residences and 70 townhomes. Access to PA-3 would be provided off Brannigan Street, Central Parkway and Tassajara Road. Aviano Way would extend through PA-3 from Brannigan Street to Tassajara Road and intersect with the new north/south street along the grand paseo. Access to PA-4 would be from a single driveway on Gleason Drive.
871

Permitted, Conditional, and Temporary Land Uses
The permitted and conditionally permitted uses would vary between the different Planning Areas.

An overview of the types of uses for each Planning Area is provided in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Overview of Allowed Uses
Planning
Area (PA) Permitted Uses Conditional Uses Temporary Uses PA-1 Offices
Restaurants
Personal Services
Indoor/Outdoor Recreation
Plant Nursery
Laboratory
Health Services/Clinic
Comedy Club
Hotel/Motel
Service Station
Theater
General Retail
Animal Hospital
Car Wash/Detail
Repair Shop
Arts and Craft Fair
Christmas Tree Lot
Farmer’s Market
Festival/Street Fair
Outdoor Skating Rink
Pumpkin Sales Lot
PA-2 Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Accessory Dwelling Units
Restaurants
Personal Services
General Retail
Office
Indoor Recreation
Outdoor Recreation
Plant Nursery
Laboratory
Animal Day Care
Comedy Club
Arts and Craft Fair
Christmas Tree Lot
Farmer’s Market
Festival/Street Fair
Outdoor Skating Rink
Pumpkin Sales Lot
PA-3 and
PA-4
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Accessory Dwelling Units
Home Occupations
Community Facility
Bed and Breakfast Model Home Complex
In response to a concern raised at the Planning Commission meeting on October 25, 2022, regarding allowing night clubs as a conditionally permitted use in PA-2c, this use has been removed from the list of conditional uses.

Architectural Standards
The proposed architectural standards provide the framework for future Site Development Review Permits. The architecture for the project is characterized by clean, simple lines using natural materials and neutral color palette. The architectural criteria highlight the nuances of each Planning Area, but also require that the development, as a whole, reflects the following standards:
872

 Employ high quality materials to provide visual interest in the project and to complement its surroundings.
 Use diversity of textures in the building finishes providing a varied and interesting base form for the buildings.
 Incorporate features such as different wall planes, heights, wall textures, roof elements, roof forms, light fixtures, and landscaping to contribute layers of detail at the pedestrian level.
 Employ architectural details that extend around all sides of buildings, including rear elevations when visible to perimeter public streets.

Conceptual architecture for the residential and commercial areas is included in the PD and is provided in Figures 6 and 7 below.

Figure 6. Residential Conceptual Architecture
Figure 7. Commercial Conceptual Architecture
Project Phasing
The project is proposed to be constructed in two primary phases as shown in Figure 8 below. 873

Figure 8. Phasing Plan
The first phase would include the commercial area of PA-2, followed by development of the residential portion of PA-2, PA-3 and PA-4 and the commercial area of PA-1. The proposed phasing plan addresses the development needs of the Applicant and the interests of the City. To ensure that the residential portions of the project do not wholly develop in advance of the retail/commercial corridor along Finnian Way, a restriction has been imposed in the Planned Development Zoning and Development Agreement that no building permits shall be issued for a for-sale, market rate residential unit on any portion of the site until a building permit has been issued for the construction of a non-residential building within the Finnian Way commercial area in PA-2c.

Depending on market conditions, the development of each area within Phase 2 may not happen simultaneously.

Inclusionary Zoning Regulations
Pursuant to the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code), developments of more than 20 residential units are required to set aside 12.5% of the units in the project as affordable units. The Inclusionary Zoning Regulations allow the payment of fees in-lieu of constructing 40% of the inclusionary units and provides additional alternative methods of compliance with these requirements. As previously stated, the City Council’s approval of the Preferred Plan included criteria to include a combination of inclusionary for-sale units and a Public/Semi-Public parcel dedicated for affordable housing.

The proposed project includes up to 550 market rate units, which generates an inclusionary requirement of 69 affordable units. The proposed Development Agreement establishes the Applicant’s proposed method of satisfying the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The proposed “alternative method of compliance” for the 69 affordable units includes: 1) the option of constructing five moderate income, for-sale, townhome units on-site or through the payment to a first-time homebuyer program specifically used for this project; 2) production of and deed restriction of approximately 100 (and not less than 85) detached accessory dwelling units with half in the moderate-income category and half in the low-income category; and 3) the option of either the completion of an affordable housing project on the Public/Semi-Public site or the dedication of the Public/Semi-Public site to the City or the City’s designee. Prior to dedication, the developer would be required to complete the rough grading of the site and associated improvements including street frontage improvements such as curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscape, 874

irrigation, and access roadways.

The draft Ordinance approving a Planned Development Zoning District with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the SCS Dublin Project is included as Attachment 9.

Development Agreement
The Applicant has requested approval of a Development Agreement for the project. The Development Agreement would provide security to the Applicant that the City will not change its zoning and other laws applicable to the project for a stated period of time. Additionally, it is a mechanism for the City to obtain commitments from the Applicant that the City might not otherwise be able to obtain. The details of the Development Agreement can be found in Attachment 11. The main points are highlighted below.

Affordable Housing
The Development Agreement establishes the project’s proposed “alternative method of compliance” for the 69 affordable units as outlined in the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations section above.

Community Benefit Payment
The Development Agreement includes a community benefit payment with an initial installment of $1,500,000. The amount of subsequent community benefit payments is based on whether a Community Facilities District (CFD) is created. A CFD is a special tax district which would allow the property owner to impose a tax to fund services, public improvements, or infrastructure. If a CFD is created, the amount of the subsequent installments would be 10% of the aggregate face value of any bonds issued.

Community Center
The Development Agreement establishes a requirement for the project to provide a community center, which would include dedication of a fully improved retail space on Finnian Way to be used by the City as event space and for City programming. This space will contribute to the City’s effort to develop community event space and indoor recreational space as identified in the City’s Public Facility Fee Program and Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The event space is required to be approximately 1,800 square feet.

Vacation of Northside Drive
As part of the Development Agreement, the City would agree to vacate Northside Drive for the acquisition of the land by the Applicant at fair market value.

Extension of Brannigan Street
The Development Agreement would require the Applicant to construct the extension of Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard, which includes acquiring the necessary rights from the property owner.

Project Phasing
The Development Agreement reinforces the construction phasing requirements for the project as 875

outlined in the Project Phasing section above.

The draft Ordinance approving the Development Agreement is included as Attachment 10 with the Development Agreement itself as Attachment 11.

Fiscal Analysis
The General Plan requires that the “fiscal impact of new residential development in the Eastern Extended Planning Area supports itself and does not draw upon and dilute the fiscal base of the remainder of the city.”
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan expands upon this policy through the following Financing Goal:
“New development in the Specific Plan area should pay the full cost of infrastructure needed to serve the area and should fund the costs of mitigating adverse impacts on the City’s existing infrastructure and services.” To thoroughly evaluate the fiscal impact of the proposed SCS Dublin project, the City engaged the services of Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) to prepare a Fiscal Analysis of the project. The Fiscal Analysis (Attachment 12) confirmed that the project would be fiscally neutral or better.

Project Consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and ESDP as amended. The General Plan allows for a variety of residential and commercial uses in this area of Dublin which the proposed project will achieve. The General Plan encourages projects to relate well to surrounding development, and the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood that includes residential, public park, commercial retail, and office uses.

The proposed project is consistent with the EDSP which states that regionally oriented commercial uses should be located south of Dublin Boulevard and near freeway interchanges where convenient vehicular access will limit traffic impacts to the rest of Dublin. The EDSP provides for a variety of commercial uses as outlined in the Town Center – Commercial subarea and a mix of housing types, which is strongly encouraged in the Town Center – Residential subarea.

Airport Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District
The majority of the site, excluding the most northerly portion, is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District. This area is designated as an area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, and/or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The AIA is a designation by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC).

All permitted and conditionally permitted uses set forth in a Planned Development Zoning District that was adopted and in effect prior to August 2012 are considered to be “Existing Land Uses” pursuant to the Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). This would include all uses allowed by the existing Planned Development Zoning Resolution No. 104-94. The Alameda County ALUC has no authority over Existing Land Uses unless changes to an Existing Land Use results in an increase of nonconformity with ALUCP policies. The proposed Planned Development Zoning District does not include any new land uses beyond what was allowed in the 876

existing Planned Development Zoning District. More specifically, the existing and proposed Planned Development Zoning District allows a variety of residential and commercial uses, including assembly land uses such as a hotel, recreational facilities, and other similar uses.

Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Standards and Policies – EDSP The Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document was adopted by the City Council in 1996 as a means of implementing the requirements of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.

The Scenic Corridor policies establish standards for projects within the scenic corridor viewshed.

Along the I-580 corridor, the document identified three critical viewpoints of Dublin’s “Visually Sensitive Ridgelands,” of which Viewpoint 2 looking northeast to the ridgelands from the Tassajara Road/I-580 overpass applies to the project.

Viewpoint 2 requires that developments maintain generally uninterrupted views and have structures that do not extend above the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands and block the view of more than 25% of the total horizon line. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project provides a detailed analysis of the project’s impacts to the viewpoint and finds that the proposed development (including the potential Topgolf facility and tallest building at 74 feet, the hotel) does not obscure the view of the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands.

As shown in updated Figure 5-1: Rendering of Topgolf Building Massing for Viewpoint 2, contained in the EIR, the Topgolf poles and netting are semi-transparent and extend above the Visually Sensitive Ridgeland providing a direct view to the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands for more than 25% of the total horizon line.

Semi-Public Facilities Policy - EDSP
In 2004, the City Council adopted a Semi-Public Facilities Policy that requires the consideration of opportunities for cultural, education and other community services when reviewing amendments to the land use map of the General Plan and EDSP. The purpose of the Semi-Public Facilities Policy, among others, was to create a greater sense of community, enrich community identify, increase public access to community services and anticipate the needs of Dublin’s diverse community.

The policy applies to all General Plan and EDSP Amendments which involve 150 or more singlefamily housing units and/or 250 or more medium density or greater units. The policy establishes various standards which encourage, but do not require, the inclusion of a Semi-Public Facilities at a rate of one acre per 1,000 residences. The proposed project is estimated to generate a population of 1,755 persons (1.75 acres). To meet the intent of the City’s policy, the proposed project proposes approximately 3.8 gross acres in PA-2 north of Dublin Boulevard on the Tassajara Road frontage for Public/Semi-Public uses. Public/Semi-Public allows for a combination of public facility and semi-public facility land uses including the development of housing when it is developed by a non-profit entity and serves to meet affordable housing needs of an underserved economic segment of the community. Affordable housing within the Public/Semi-Public designation would consist of up to 100 residential units.

Town Center Priority Development Area
The proposed project is located within the Dublin Town Center Priority Development Area (PDA).

This PDA is comprised of a mix of housing types, including single-family detached, town homes, and apartments and surrounds the commercial core for eastern Dublin. The proposed project 877

supports the goals of the PDA through the development of residential and commercial uses.

Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
The City of Dublin Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines require a local transportation analysis (LTA) for all General Plan Amendments to evaluate potential impacts on the circulation network focusing primarily on local access and circulation in proximity to a project site. Per the TIA Guidelines, this analysis is required for conditions of approval and is outside the CEQA review process. Although the currently requested entitlements do not allow for the inclusion of conditions of approval, an LTA was completed to evaluate the proposed land use changes. The recommended improvements include adjusting signal timing and cycle lengths at four intersections as outlined in the LTA and will be considered with the review of future Site Development Review Permit(s) and Tentative Tract Map(s) and made conditions of approval at that time. The LTA is included as Attachment 13 with the Appendices available for review on the City’s Development Activity webpage under the SCS Dublin project: https://dublindevelopment.icitywork.com/.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

On April 2, 2022, the City issued a Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and held a public scoping meeting on April 13, 2022. The City received nine letters regarding the scope of the EIR. Subsequently, a Draft EIR (Attachment 2) was prepared for the proposed project and circulated for a 45-day public review period. The comment period was open from July 22, 2022, to September 6, 2022. The City received eight comment letters during the public review period. Reponses have been prepared for each of the comments received by the City.

The Draft EIR, comments and associated responses, and changes and clarifications to the Draft EIR constitute the Final EIR (Attachment 3).

The Draft EIR examined potential environmental impacts resulting from the project in the following topic areas:
 Aesthetics *
 Biological Resources *
 Cultural and Tribal Resources *
 Geology and Soils *
 Noise & Vibration *
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials *
 Energy
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Land Use & Planning
 Population and Housing
 Public Services and Utilities
 Air Quality
 Transportation
878

The Draft EIR classifies the environmental impacts as follows:
 Class I are significant and unavoidable
 Class II can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation  Class III are less than significant and do not require mitigation The Draft EIR excluded the two topics, Agricultural and Forestry Resources and Mineral Resources, from detailed analysis as the project site does not support agricultural and forestry resources or mineral resources. In summary, the Draft EIR concludes that the project will have potentially significant impact in six of the 16 topic areas (noted above with an asterisk) and mitigation measures have been prepared to reduce the impacts in these areas to a level that is less than significant (Class II).

There were no potentially significant impacts identified for the six topics areas (underlined above) and, therefore, no mitigation is required (Class III).

Similar to other infill projects of this size, impacts were identified where, even with the implementation of mitigation measures, the effects to the environment would still be expected to be significant (Class I). The identified impacts, noted in italics above, include air quality and transportation. Although mitigation measures were prepared to reduce the level of the impact, the impacts could not be fully reduced to less than significant in all instances.

An overview of all the topic areas is provided below.

Aesthetics
To address potential aesthetic impacts that might result from the project, a photo simulation from the I-580 overcrossing looking northeast to the ridgelands was prepared and compared to existing conditions. The Draft EIR concluded that the project would not adversely impact views from a scenic vista or substantially alter the existing visual character because the building heights, massing and materials are generally consistent with the surrounding land uses. In addition, the EIR concluded that the project would not result in impacts to Visually Sensitive Ridgelands identified in the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. Potential impacts associated with light and glare were identified. The Draft EIR identifies mitigation measure to reduce the impact to a level of less than significant.

Air Quality
The Draft EIR identifies potentially significant impacts to air quality and includes mitigation measures. Although mitigation measures were prepared to reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level, the impacts could not be fully mitigated in all instances. The project’s construction air quality emissions would exceed air quality thresholds established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. The predominant source of NOx emissions would be construction activities (i.e., emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the project site, emissions produced on-site as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials and workers to and from the site) and mobile sources (i.e., project generated vehicle trips). The project also results in operational air 879

quality emissions exceeding air quality thresholds established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG) emissions. To reduce the emissions associated with mobile sources, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan is required for all uses.

Biological Resources
The project site contains approximately 77 acres of non-sensitive ruderal habitat comprised primarily of disced and mowed areas of disturbed vegetation. These biological communities are not considered sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat. The Draft EIR identifies other biological resources such as wetlands and special status species (e.g., Congdon tarplant, saline clover, burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, etc.) that would be impacted by the project and, therefore, identifies mitigation measures to reduce the project’s impact on these biological resources to a level of less than significant.

Cultural and Tribal Resources
The project site is not listed as a historic site or a tribal resource. Nonetheless, there is always the possibility that previously unknown historic resources exist below the ground surface within the project site. As such, development of the project site was determined to have a potentially significant impact. The Draft EIR identifies mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a level of less than significant.

Energy
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for energy and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Geology and Soils
Geologic-related impacts from development are site-specific and, if properly designed, would not result in worsening of the environment or public health and safety impacts. As part of the building permit application, the Applicant is required to submit a design-level geotechnical report. This report would provide recommendations on the appropriate level of soil engineering and building design necessary to minimize ground-shaking hazards. The Draft EIR builds off these existing requirements and requires the Applicant to submit a design-level geotechnical report to the City of Dublin for review and approval and implement recommendations under the approved report. The implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure that the project impacts would be less than significant.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for greenhouse gas emissions and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As previously noted, the project site is vacant except for seasonal uses. The Draft EIR identified a limited amount of hazardous materials on the project site, including two five-gallon buckets of petroleum hydrocarbon, stained soils, and solid waste debris. As such the Draft EIR identified a mitigation measure to reduce this impact to less than significant. 880

Hydrology
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for hydrology and, therefore, no mitigation is required. Projects, such as the proposed project, involving construction on sites that are one acre or more are required by regulation to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that specifies how the discharger will protect water quality during construction activities
Land Use
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for land use and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Noise
The Draft EIR identified potentially significant noise impacts related to project construction in the short term as well as longer-term noise exposure of future residents to traffic noise from the adjacent City streets. Accordingly, the Draft EIR identifies mitigation measures, including the regulation of construction equipment and the requirement for an acoustical study demonstrating all residential units would meet the City’s noise standards. These mitigation measures would reduce the project noise impacts to a level of less than significant.

Population and Housing
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for population and housing and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Public Services and Utilities
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for public services and utilities and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Transportation
Starting on July 1, 2020, agencies analyzing transportation impacts of new projects must now look at a metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of level of service (LOS). VMT measures how much actual auto travel (additional miles driven) a proposed project would create on California roads. If the project adds excessive car travel onto roads, the project may cause a significant transportation impact.

The project includes a mix of residential, local-serving retail and regional retail/recreation. The market-rate residential component of the project is anticipated to be below the established VMT threshold and, therefore, considered to result in a less than significant impact. In addition, per City of Dublin TIA Guidelines Section 4.2.2, if a project contains less than 100% affordable housing, the portion that is affordable housing should be screened out of needing a detailed VMT analysis.

Therefore, the impact on VMT from the affordable housing component of the project is less than significant. Local-serving retail primarily serves preexisting needs (i.e., it does not generate new trips because it meets existing demand). Essentially, the assumption is that someone would travel to a newly constructed local-serving store because of its proximity and, therefore, this trip on the roadway network becomes shorter. As a result, local serving retail would most likely provide shorter trip options to pre-existing and on-site project induced needs for these goods and services. 881

The Topgolf component of the project is categorized as regional retail/recreation and would result in an increase in VMT to the planning area resulting in a significant impact. To address the impact, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan is required for the Topgolf facility. Although mitigation measures were prepared to reduce the impact, it could not be fully reduced to less than significant in all instances.

The City Council resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report is included as Attachment 1. To approve the project, the City Council must make findings regarding significant impacts and mitigation measures (Attachment 4), findings concerning infeasibility of alternatives and potential additional mitigation measures (Attachment 5) and will need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) (Attachment 6) that identifies all environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated and explains why the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable environmental impacts. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is included as Attachment 7. The SOC is required in order to approve the project, if desired by a majority of the City Council.

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:

The Planning Commission held a study session on September 27, 2022 and received presentations by Staff and the Applicant on the proposed project. The Planning Commission then held a public hearing and considered the project at their regular meeting on October 25, 2022. The Commission asked questions regarding the affordable housing proposal, mitigation measures for impacts to biological resources, fiscal analysis, and water supply. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 22-13 (Attachment 14) unanimously recommending the City Council certify the Final EIR and approve the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and 2 Development Plans and a Development Agreement related to the SCS Dublin Project.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

Two City-led Community Meetings were held on September 14 and 15, 2022 to provide Dublin residents with information about the proposed SCS Dublin project. In addition to Staff and the Applicant, 24 residents attended the meeting on September 14. Six residents attended the meeting on September 9. Staff provided a presentation that included an overview of the City’s development review process and the proposed project. Questions were asked about the number of students the project would generate and general impacts on the schools, parking, potential for increasing the commercial area, and potential impacts to access of Grafton Station, Lowe’s, and the water quality basin at the terminus of Northside Drive.

In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project to advertise the project and upcoming public hearing. A public notice was also published in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout 882

the City. A Planning Application sign was posted on the project site and the project was also included on the City’s Development Projects webpage. A copy of this Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant and the City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Certifying an Environmental Impact Report and Adopting Environmental Impact Findings, Findings Regarding Alternatives, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the SCS Dublin Project 2) Exhibit A to the Resolution – Draft Environmental Impact Report 3) Exhibit B to the Resolution - Final Environmental Impact Report 4) Exhibit C to the Resolution – Findings Concerning Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5) Exhibit D to the Resolution – Findings Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Potential Additional Mitigation Measures
6) Exhibit E to the Resolution - Statement of Overriding Considerations 7) Exhibit F to the Resolution – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 8) Resolution Amending the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Related to the SCS Dublin Project
9) Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map and Approving a Planned Development Zoning District with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans For the SCS Dublin Project 10) Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement Between the City of Dublin and SCS Development Company Related to the SCS Dublin Project
11) Exhibit A to the Ordinance - Development Agreement
12) Fiscal Analysis
13) Local Transportation Analysis
14) Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-13
883
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 1 of 3 Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. XX – 22

AN RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT FINDINGS, FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES, A STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM FOR THE SCS DUBLIN PROJECT
PLPA 2022-00005
(APNS 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, AND 985-0052-025) WHEREAS, the Property Owner, SCS Development Company, is requesting approval of the SCS Dublin Project including up to 550 market rate residential units and up to 100 affordable units, up to 265,000 square feet of retail commercial development, and related infrastructure and landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals include a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, a Planned Development Zoning District with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, and a Development Agreement, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “SCS Dublin Project” or the “Project;” and
WHEREAS, the Project site is 76.2 acres generally bound by Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street and I-580 (APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985- 0052-024, and 985-0052-025); and
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, City Council approved the Preferred Plan for the SCS Property, which stemmed from an extensive City-led Community Outreach process to engage the community on appropriate land uses for the property; and WHEREAS, the proposed Project takes the first step in implementing the Preferred Plan for the SCS Property; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. It was determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared to analyze the Project; and WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation, dated March 30, 2022, to public agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the EIR. The City also conducted a public scoping meeting on April 13, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft EIR, dated July 2022, for the proposed Project that reflected the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project (SCH No. 2022040022). The Draft EIR is attached as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period from July 22, 2022 through September 6, 2022; and
884
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the City received seven comment letters from State, regional, and local agencies as well as interested individuals and organizations during the public review period and one additional letter from the Alameda County Transportation Commission after the close of the comment period. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the comments received during the public comment period and also included the letter from the Alameda County Transportation Commission; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Final EIR, dated October 2022, for the proposed Project, which includes an annotated copy of each comment letter identifying specific comments, responses to each specific comment, and clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in the Draft EIR. The Final EIR is attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution and is incorporated herein by reference. The complete SCS Dublin Project EIR incorporates the Draft EIR and the Final EIR together. The responses to comments provide the City’s good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects anticipated as a result of the Project such as, aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, population and housing, public services and utilities, energy and transportation, most of which can be substantially reduced through mitigation measures; therefore, approval of the Project must include impact and mitigation findings as set forth in attached Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, some of the impacts cannot be lessened to a level of less than significant; therefore, approval of the Project must include findings regarding alternatives as set forth in attached Exhibit D, and must include a Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in attached Exhibit E; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project on October 25, 2022, at which time they reviewed and considered the Draft and Final EIRs, and all reports, recommendations and testimony before them. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 22-13 recommending the City Council approve the project and certify the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission minutes and recommendation, a staff report, the Draft and Final EIRs, and all written and oral testimony at a duly noticed public hearing on November 15, 2022; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated November 15, 2022, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project and Draft and Final EIR for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Draft and Final EIRs reflect the City’s independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts and constitute the Environmental Impact Report for the SCS Project; and
WHEREAS, the Draft and Final EIRs are separately bound documents, incorporated herein by reference, and are available for review in the City of Dublin Community Development Department, file PLPA-2022-00005. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the SCS Dublin Project is the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA 94568; and 885
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 3 of 3 WHEREAS, a Mitigation and Monitoring Program, as required by CEQA, is contained in attached Exhibit F.

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 Dublin City Council certifies the following.

A. The EIR for the SCS Dublin project has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures.

B. The EIR for the SCS Dublin project was presented to and reviewed by the City Council prior to taking action on the SCS Dublin project.

C. The EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis as to the potential environmental effects of the SCS Dublin project. The EIR provides information to the decision-makers and the public on the environmental consequences of the Project.

D. The EIR adequately describes the Project, its significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures and a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council certifies the EIR consisting of the Draft EIR as set forth in Exhibit A and the Final EIR as set forth in Exhibit B, adopts the impact and mitigation findings set forth in Exhibit C, the findings regarding alternatives set forth in Exhibit D, the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit E, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Exhibit F, which exhibits A, B, C, D, E and F are incorporated herein by reference
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 15th day of November 2022, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
886
SCS Dublin
Draft EIR | July 2022
SCS Dublin
Draft EIR | July 2022
887
SCS Dublin
Draft EIR |July 2022
State Clearinghouse No. 2022040022
888
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Table of Contents | Page i
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary 1
2 Introduction 2-1
3 Project Description 3-1
4 Introduction to Environmental Analysis 4-1
5 Aesthetics 5-1
6 Air Quality 6-1
7 Biological Resources 7-1
8 Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources 8-1
9 Geology & Soils 9-1
10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 10-1
11 Hazards & Hazardous Materials 11-1
12 Hydrology & Water Quality 12-1
13 Land Use & Planning 13-1
14 Noise & Vibration 14-1
15 Population & Housing 15-1
16 Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems 16-1
17 Transportation 17-1
18 Energy Conservation 18-1
19 Alternatives 19-1
20 Other CEQA Considerations 20-1
21 EIR Preparers 21-1
889
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page ii | Table of Contents
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Appendices
A Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters
B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis (supporting technical data)
C Biological Resources Assessment and Supporting Surveys D Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration
E Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
F Noise Analysis (supporting technical data)
G Water Supply Assessment
H Energy Conservation Technical Data
Appendices documents are available in electronic format and are posted on the City of Dublin website at https://dublin-development.icitywork.com/
890
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Table of Contents | Page iii
Draft EIR
7/20/22
List of Figures
Figure 3-1: Project Location
Figure 3-2: Surrounding Land Uses
Figure 3-3: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations Figure 3-4: Existing Zoning
Figure 3-5: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations Figure 3-6: Illustrative Site Plan
Figures 3-7 (a-b): Project Renderings
Figure 3-8: Project Phasing Plan
Figure 5-1: Rendering of Topgolf Building Massing From Viewpoint 2 Figure 7-1: Biological Communities on the Project Site
Figure 7-2: Special-Status Plant Species with Five Miles of the Project Site Figure 7-3: Special-Status Plant Species on the Project Site Figure 7-4: Special-Status Wildlife Species within Five Miles of the Project Site Figure 9-1: Soils on the Project Site
Figure 9-2: Regional Fault Zones
Figure 11-1: Livermore Municipal Airport Safety Compatibility Zones Figure 12-1: Flood Hazard Areas
Figure 14-1: Noise Measurement Locations
Figure 17-1: Study Intersections
Figure 17-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities
Figure 17-3: Existing Transit Facilities
Figure 17-4: Proximity of Project Hotel to Existing Hotels Note: All figures are presented at the end of their respective chapter. 891
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page iv | Table of Contents
Draft EIR
7/20/22
List of Tables
Table 1-1: SCS Dublin Land Use Summary................................................................................................ 2 Table 1-2: Summary of Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project....................................................... 8 Table 2-1: NOP Comment Letters.......................................................................................................... 2-3 Table 2-2: At Dublin Land Use Summary............................................................................................... 2-7 Table 3-1: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Anticipated Project Site Development................................... 3-3 Table 3-2: SCS Dublin Land Use Summary............................................................................................. 3-4 Table 3-3: Grading Requirements (by Planning Area)......................................................................... 3-10 Table 5-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Aesthetics ............................................ 5-17 Table 6-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns.................................................. 6-3 Table 6-2: Current National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................ 6-5 Table 6-3: Attainment Status of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin................................................. 6-7 Table 6-4: Ambient Air Quality Data ..................................................................................................... 6-8 Table 6-5: BAAQMD Significance Thresholds for Construction Emissions.......................................... 6-18 Table 6-6: BAAQMD Significance Thresholds for Operational Emissions........................................... 6-19 Table 6-7: Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures............................. 6-21 Table 6-8: Construction Air Emissions................................................................................................. 6-26 Table 6-9: Project Buildout Operational Emissions – Unmitigated..................................................... 6-29 Table 6-10: Project Buildout Operational Emissions – Mitigated ....................................................... 6-32 Table 6-11: Cumulative Health Risk..................................................................................................... 6-43 Table 6-12: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Air Quality.......................................... 6-47 Table 7-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Biological Resources............................ 7-23 Table 8-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Cultural Resources............................... 8-14 Table 9-1: Regional Faults and Seismicity ............................................................................................. 9-3 Table 9-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Geology & Soils.................................... 9-15 Table 10-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases.................................................................................... 10-3 Table 10-2: Dublin Community-wide 2015 GHG Emissions and Adjusted Forecast by Sector (MTCO2e).............................................................................................................................................. 10-5 Table 10-3: Project Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................. 10-20 Table 10-4: Project Operation-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................. 10-21 892
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Table of Contents | Page v
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Table 10-5: Project Consistency with Applicable City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond Control Measures ...........................................................................................................10-24 Table 10-5: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures...............................10-28 Table 10-6: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Greenhouse Gas Emissions..............10-33 Table 11-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Hazards & Hazardous Materials.......11-15 Table 12-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Hydrology & Water Quality..............12-15 Table 13-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Land Use & Planning ..........................13-9 Table 14-1: Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels......................................................................................14-2 Table 14-2: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations.........................................................................................................................14-4 Table 14-3: Existing Noise Measurements...........................................................................................14-6 Table 14-4: Existing Traffic Noise Levels..............................................................................................14-7 Table 14-5: Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix.............................................................................14-10 Table 14-6: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels................................................................14-15 Table 14-7: Project Construction Noise Levels..................................................................................14-16 Table 14-8: Near Term and Near Term Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels..........................................14-19 Table 14-9: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels..........................................................14-26 Table 14-10: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Predicted Traffic Noise Levels.............................14-30 Table 14-11: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Noise ..............................................14-34 Table 15-1: City of Dublin and Alameda County Existing and Forecasted Population ........................15-2 Table 15-2: Housing Units for City of Dublin and Alameda County.....................................................15-2 Table 15-3: City of Dublin Regional Housing Needs Allocation ...........................................................15-3 Table 15-4: Additional Population Generated by Project....................................................................15-6 Table 15-5: Buildout Potential of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.....................................................15-7 Table 15-6: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Population & Housing ........................15-7 Table 16-1: Alameda County Fire Department Stations in the City of Dublin.....................................16-3 Table 16-2: Dublin School District Existing Student Capacity..............................................................16-4 Table 16-3: Dublin Parks and Sport Facilities Existing Service Levels and Standards..........................16-5 Table 16-4: City of Dublin Community Facilities..................................................................................16-6 Table 16-5: DSRSD Current and Projected Water Supply and Demand ..............................................16-8 Table 16-6: Dublin Unified School District Student Generation Rates by Housing Type ..................16-28 Table 16-7: Estimated Project Student Generation vs. DUSD Projections........................................16-28 893
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page vi | Table of Contents
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Table 16-8: Community and Neighborhood Park Requirements...................................................... 16-31 Table 16-9: Project Potable Water Demand ...................................................................................... 16-32 Table 16-10: Proposed Project Estimated Daily Solid Waste Generation......................................... 16-35 Table 16-11: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems.................................................................................................................................. 16-37 Table 17-1: VMT Analysis Results by Project Land Use..................................................................... 17-19 Table 17-2: Dublin Travel Demand Model Residential VMT Threshold............................................ 17-19 Table 17-3: Dublin Travel Demand Model Residential Project VMT................................................. 17-20 Table 17-4: Average Topgolf Destination Trip Length....................................................................... 17-23 Table 17-5: Regional Recreation Trip Length Comparison................................................................ 17-24 Table 17-6: VMT Range for Topgolf................................................................................................... 17-24 Table 17-7: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Transportation................................. 17-29 Table 18-1: Electricity Consumption in Alameda County 2010-2020 ................................................. 18-4 Table 18-2: Natural Gas Consumption in Alameda County 2010-2020 .............................................. 18-4 Table 18-3: Automotive Fuel Consumption in Alameda County 2010-2020 ...................................... 18-5 Table 18-4: Project Energy Consumption During Construction ........................................................ 18-14 Table 18-5: Project Annual Energy Consumption During Operations............................................... 18-17 Table 18-6: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Energy Conservation........................ 18-21 Table 19-1: Alternative 2 Land Use Summary & Comparison............................................................. 19-4 Table 19-2: Alternative 2 Trip Generation Comparison ...................................................................... 19-5 Table 19-3: Alternative 3 Land Use Summary & Comparison............................................................. 19-7 Table 19-4: Alternative 3 Trip Generation Comparison ...................................................................... 19-8 Table 19-5: Comparison of Alternatives.............................................................................................. 19-8 894
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-1
Draft EIR
7/20/22
1 Executive Summary

1.1 Purpose
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of Dublin for the SCS Dublin development project (the “project” or “proposed project”). The City of Dublin is the “public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving the project,” and as such is the “Lead Agency” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15367. CEQA requires the Lead Agency to consider the information contained in the EIR prior to taking any discretionary action. This EIR is intended to serve as an informational document to be considered by the City and other permitting agencies during deliberations on the project.

This Executive Summary summarizes the requirements of the CEQA Statute and Guidelines, provides an overview of the project and alternatives, outlines the potential impacts of the project and the recommended mitigation measures, and discloses areas of controversy and issues to be resolved.

1.2 Project Description
The 76.2-acre project site is generally bound by Tassajara Road, Interstate 580, Brannigan Street and Gleason Drive. The project site is located in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area and has Planned Development Zoning (Resolution No. 104-94) adopted with the EDSP.

The project site is surrounded by commercial uses to the west, southwest and southeast, a public park to the northwest, and residential uses to the north, northwest and east.

The proposed project is based on the Preferred Plan approved by City Council on February 15, 2022. The project proposes to develop 76.2 acres with a combination of commercial/retail and residential uses, including two types of retail experiences. The first is a more neighborhood main street experience. This area can accommodate up to 40,000 square feet of small retail shops along an extended Finnan Way, which would then connect to the Shops at Waterford.

The second is envisioned to be a more regional retail experience, focused on entertainment uses, south of Dublin Boulevard. This area is proposed for up to 225,000 square feet of uses. In total, the proposed project includes development of up to 265,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses.

A variety of housing types are proposed by the applicant, including affordable housing, and housing for entry level buyers, with up to 550 market rate units plus up to 100 affordable units.

To accommodate the project, the applicant proposes to amend the City of Dublin General Plan (General Plan) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) land use designations, organized into four primary Planning Areas (PAs). The proposed land use designations (described in Chapter 3 Project Description) are consistent with the land use patterns of the surrounding properties. As shown in Table 1-1: SCS Dublin Land Use Summary, the proposed new General Plan and EDSP 895
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22
land use designations are: General Commercial, Medium Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential, Parks/Public Recreation and Public/Semi-Public.

Table 1-1: SCS Dublin Land Use Summary
Land Use Designations Gross Acres Res. Units Du/Acre
Floor Area
Ratio
Commercial
sq. ft.

General Commercial 29.4 40 -- .19-.38 265,000
Medium-Density Residential 17 150 8.8 -- -- Medium-High Density Residential 21.1 360 17.1 -- -- Public/Semi-Public 3.8 100 26.3 -- -- Parks/Public Recreation 2.5 -- -- -- -- Total 73.8 650 -- -- 265,000 Source: City of Dublin, 2022.

1.3 Project Objectives
The following project objectives are identified:

Mix of Uses / Quality of Product

1. Provide a balanced mix of residential and commercial uses in the Eastern Extended Planning Area that integrate into the existing urban systems and provide a safe and attractive environment for living and working as encouraged by General Plan Policy

2.6.4.A.1.

2. Provide uses that meet the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan’s objective to have higherdensity housing, adjacent to commercial and employment opportunities.

3. Provide land uses and high-quality architecture that complement existing, adjacent land uses and development.

Economic Growth

4. Have a positive contribution to the local economy through new capital investment, the creation of new jobs, and the expansion of the tax base.

5. Add commercial, entertainment, and hotel uses that will have a synergy with existing retail in the City.

6. Provide a mix of residential and commercial uses that achieves a financially feasible project.

7. Provide a project that balances housing with job-creating uses.

8. Develop a project that supports the success of the commercial uses through careful site planning and infrastructure design.
896
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-3
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Housing

9. Add to the City’s housing diversity in compliance with Housing Element Program 10 and General Plan Policy 2.6.1.A.1 through a variety of housing including entry-level housing, affordable housing, and family housing, all of which may accommodate senior residents.

Housing products range from traditional single-family homes, courtyard homes, townhomes, and affordable apartments.

10. Expand and improve the City’s housing supply by developing high-quality housing in a portion of a City-designated Priority Development Area, which is a location planned for growth under the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area.

11. Increase housing on the project site beyond what was initially studied under the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR, which will help in state-wide efforts to alleviate California’s housing crisis.

12. Dedicate a parcel at the prominent corner of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard, large enough to permit a variety of affordable housing solutions, allowing the design and amount of affordable housing to be tailored to the community’s needs.

Responsible Growth

13. Develop vacant and underutilized land in an urban area.

14. Locate commercial and residential uses where such uses can take advantage of existing infrastructure and utilities.

15. Provide attractive, well-landscaped commercial uses close to Interstate 580 as a buffer between the highway and residential uses and to further General Plan Policy 10.5.3.E.

16. Enhance the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard consistent with General Plan Goal 10.6.2.

Connectivity

17. Complete existing infrastructure to support General Plan buildout conditions consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.

18. Implement the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety by providing on-site and off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities that link with existing facilities along Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive, Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard.

19. Reconfigure block size and provide publicly accessible parkways, park corridors and paths to improve pedestrian connectivity between residential and commercial uses including the extensions of Finnian Way and Aviano Way.

20. Provide and improve multimodal connections within the project and across adjacent arterial streets to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle activity between neighborhoods and within the development.
897
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22

1.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The project would result in the following significant unavoidable impacts:
 Air Quality. The project would cause construction impacts associated with the release of nitrogen oxides (NOx) that would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment, construction-related NOx emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. The project would also cause operational impacts associated with the release of reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOx that would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds.

Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces, operational emissions from ROG and NOx would remain significant and unavoidable. These impacts would occur through cumulative conditions.
 Transportation. Using either VMT scenario as described in Section 17.5.3, regional Retail/Recreation, including the proposed Topgolf, would result in a net increase in VMT to the planning area. Per City significance criteria, any net increase in VMT to the planning area would constitute a significant impact. Despite implementation of MM AQ2.5: Vehicle Trip Reduction which requires the development of a qualifying Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)/ Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce mobile emissions, as well as VMT for all uses (including the Topgolf development), VMT impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

1.5 Summary of Project Alternatives
The following alternatives to the project are discussed in detail in Chapter 19 Alternatives.

Alternative 1 – No Project
The No Project Alternative would result in the project site remaining undeveloped for the foreseeable future.

Alternative 2 – Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan The Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Alternative would allow development consistent with existing planned land use designations and development densities as described in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. This includes designations of Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, Medium High Density Residential, High Density Residential, and Public/Semi-Public. Most the site is designated General Commercial.

The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan assumed a mid-density development of 261 residential units and 902,563 square feet of commercial.

Alternative 3 – Commercial Development Task Force Land Plan The Commercial Development Task Force Land Plan Alternative would take into consideration the recommendations from the Community Development Task Force Summary and Key 898
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-5
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Recommendations Report dated July 2014. The General Commercial land south of Dublin Boulevard (23 acres) would be developed with Office uses at 0.3 FAR = 300,564 sf. The development proposed north of Dublin Boulevard would remain the same.

1.6 Areas of Controversy
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b), a summary section must address areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public, and it must also address issues to be resolved.

A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project was issued on April 1, 2022. This NOP describing the project and issues to be addressed in the EIR was distributed to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties for a 30-day public review period extending from April 1, 2022, through May 2, 2022. The NOP identified the potential for significant and insignificant impacts on the environment related to the following topical areas:

Included for Detailed EIR Analysis
(Potentially Significant)
Excluded from Detailed EIR Analysis
(Insignificant)
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural and Tribal Resources
Energy Conservation
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
Conservation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise and Vibration
Population and Housing
Public Services, Utilities, and Service
Systems
Transportation
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Mineral Resources
Additionally, a public scoping meeting was held on April 13, 2022, via the Zoom Video Communications platform. A summary of comments made are described in Section 2.2.2 Scoping Meeting, below.
899
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22

1.7 Issues to be Resolved
CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(3) requires the summary section of an EIR to identify any "issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and how to mitigate significant effects."
The following major issues will be resolved by the City of Dublin in its decision process:
 Determine whether the EIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the project;
 Choose among alternatives;
 Determine whether the recommended mitigation measures should be adopted or modified; and
 Determine whether additional mitigation measures need to be applied to the project.

1.8 Public Review of the Draft EIR
Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City of Dublin filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period (Public Resources Code, Section 21161). Concurrent with the NOC, this Draft EIR has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well as all parties requesting a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b)(3). During the public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices, is available for review on the City’s development activity webpage under the SCS Dublin project: https://dublin-development.icitywork.com.

Agencies, organizations, and interested parties may comment on the Draft EIR during the 45- day public review period. Written comments on this Draft EIR should be addressed to:

Amy Million, Principal Planner
City of Dublin, Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Phone: (925) 833-6610
Fax: (925) 833-6628
Email: [email protected]
Upon completion of the public review period, written responses to environmental issues raised will be prepared and made available for review by the commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to the public hearings before the Dublin Planning Commission and Dublin City Council, at which certification of the Final EIR will be considered. Comments received and the responses to comments will be included as part of the record for consideration by decision makers for the project.
900
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-7
Draft EIR
7/20/22

1.9 Impacts of the Project
Table 1-2: Summary of Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project provides a summary of the significant impacts of the project. Impacts that were determined to be less than significant or beneficial (and thus not requiring mitigation) are not included in this table but are addressed in their respective resource chapter. The mitigation measures associated with each impact are to be implemented by the applicant to reduce the environmental impacts to a less than significant level, where possible. In accordance with CEQA, the impacts are classified as follows:

Class I – Significant and unavoidable impacts
Class II – Significant impacts that can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation 901
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22
Table 1-2: Summary of Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
Aesthetics
Impact AES-4: Introduce new light and
glare to the project site and project
area (Class II).

Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control Plan
Impact AES-5: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable aesthetic
impacts (Class II).

Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control Plan
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1: Conflict with
implementation of San Francisco Bay
Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (Class I).

Significant and
Unavoidable
MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered
Construction Equipment
MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating
MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces
Impact AQ-2: Violates air quality
standard or contributes substantially
to an existing or projected air quality
violation (Class I).

Significant and
Unavoidable
MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered
Construction Equipment
MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating
MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces
MM AQ-2.5: Vehicle Trip Reduction
Impact AQ‐5: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable air quality
impacts. (Class I).

Significant and
Unavoidable
MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered
Construction Equipment
MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating
MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces
MM AQ-2.5: Vehicle Trip Reduction
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: Have a substantial
adverse effect on special-status plant
and wildlife species (Class II).

Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM BIO-1.1: Special Status Plant Surveys
MM BIO-1.2: Special-Status Plants Avoidance
and Mitigation
MM BIO-1.3: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and
Exclusion Measures
MM BIO-1.4: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
Impact BIO-3: Have a substantial
adverse effect on wetlands or
jurisdictional features (Class II).

Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM BIO-3.1: Wetland Mitigation Plan
902
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-9
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
Impact BIO-6: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable impacts on
biological resources (Class II).

Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM BIO-1.1: Special Status Plant Surveys
MM BIO-1.2: Special-Status Plants Avoidance
and Mitigation
MM BIO-1.3: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and
Exclusion Measures
MM BIO-1.4: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
MM BIO-3.1: Wetland Mitigation Plan
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CR-1: Cause a substantial
adverse change to a known
archeological resource (Class II).

Less than significant
with mitigation
MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological
Discovery During Construction
Impact CR-2: Directly impact a
paleontological resource or unique
geologic feature (Class II).

Less than significant
with mitigation
MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource
Monitoring
Impact CR-4: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable effects on
cultural resources (Class II).

Less than significant
with mitigation
MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological
Discovery During Construction
MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource
Monitoring
Geology & Soils
Impact GEO-1: Expose people or
structures to potential risk of loss or
injury associated with seismic hazards
(Class II).

Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary
Geotechnical Exploration Recommendations
Impact GEO-2: Trigger or accelerate
substantial soil erosion or loss of
topsoil (Class II).

Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary
Geotechnical Exploration Recommendations
Impact GEO‐3: Expose people or
structures to substantial safety risks
as a result of liquefaction (Class II).

Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary
Geotechnical Exploration Recommendations
Impact GEO‐4: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable effects on
geology and soils (Class II).

Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary
Geotechnical Exploration Recommendations
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1: Would the project
generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment or conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases
(Class III).

Less than Significant
903
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: Exposure to known
hazardous contaminants (Class II).

Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM HAZ- 1.1: Disposal of Deleterious
Materials.

Impact HAZ‐4: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable impacts to
hazards and hazardous materials
(Class II).

Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM HAZ- 1.1: Disposal of Deleterious
Materials.

Hydrology & Water Quality
No significant impacts identified.

Land Use & Planning
No significant impacts identified.

Noise & Vibration
Impact N-1: Would the Project
generate 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? (Class II)
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction
MM N-1.2: Noise Attenuation
Impact N-4: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable impacts on
noise? (Class II)
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction
MM N-1.2: Noise Attenuation
Population & Housing
No significant impacts identified.

Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
No significant impacts identified.

Transportation & Circulation
TRANS-2: Conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b) regarding
Vehicle Miles Traveled (Class I).

Significant and
Unavoidable with
Mitigation
MM AQ-2.5: Vehicle Trip Reduction
MM TRANS-2-1: Implement Bicycle and
Pedestrian Improvements
TRANS 3:Increase hazards due to a
geometric feature or incompatible
uses (Class II).

Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM TRANS-3-1: Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety
Plan
904
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-11
Draft EIR
7/20/22

1.9.1 Cumulative Impacts
Under the CEQA Guidelines, “a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the environmental impact report (“EIR”) together with other projects causing related impacts.” (14 Cal Code Regs §15130(a)(1)). This EIR uses a “list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts.” (14 Cal Code Regs §15130(b)(1)(A)). Reasonably foreseeable projects that could contribute to the cumulative effects scenario are described for each relevant resource as described in this EIR.

The cumulative analysis concludes that the impacts of the project, when combined with impacts from past, present, and reasonable future projects would create impacts that would be considered cumulatively significant.

1.9.2 Growth-Inducing Effects
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) provides the following guidance regarding growth‐inducing impacts: a project is identified as growth inducing if it “could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” As addressed in Chapter 20 Other CEQA Considerations, growth inducing components of the project would include increased housing and population, as well as labor requirements for construction. However, the project site is located within the City of Dublin and has been planned for development as anticipated in the City’s General Plan.

1.9.3 Significant Irreversible Commitment of Resources
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) defines an irreversible impact as an impact that uses nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project. Irreversible impacts can also result from permanent loss of habitat, damage caused by environmental accidents associated with project construction, or operational resource use.

Construction of the project would necessitate some use and long‐term conversion of undeveloped land and vegetation and habitat removal, and the development of the project would, therefore, be considered a significant irretrievable commitment of habitat for threatened and endangered species.

Buildout of the project would commit nonrenewable resources during project construction and ongoing utility services during project operations. During project operations, oil, gas, and other nonrenewable resources would be consumed. Therefore, an irreversible commitment of nonrenewable resources would occur as a result of both short-term and long‐term project operations. Compliance with all applicable building codes, policies and goals, and the mitigation measures identified in this EIR would ensure that all-natural resources are conserved to the extent practical.
905
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Introduction | Page 2-1
Draft EIR
7/20/22
2 Introduction
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to evaluate environmental impacts associated with the SCS Dublin project (the project) in the City of Dublin (State Clearinghouse No. 2022040022).

The City of Dublin is the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving the project, and as such is the Lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15367. CEQA requires the Lead Agency to consider the information contained in the EIR prior to taking any discretionary action. This EIR is intended to serve as an informational document to be considered by the City of Dublin and other permitting agencies during their respective processing of permits for the project.

2.1 Purpose and Authority
This Draft EIR is being analyzed at a project level by the City of Dublin to assess the potential environmental impacts that may arise in connection with actions related to implementation of the project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, the City of Dublin is the Lead Agency for the project and has discretionary authority over the project and project approvals. The Draft EIR is intended to address all public infrastructure improvements and all future development that are within the parameters of the project.

CEQA requires that an EIR contain, at a minimum, certain specific elements. These elements are contained in this Draft EIR and include:
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Executive Summary
 Project Description
 Environmental Setting, Significant Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation Measures  Cumulative Impacts
 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
 Growth-Inducing Impacts
 Effects Found not to be Significant
 Areas of Known Controversy
906
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22

2.1.1 Lead Agency Determination
The City of Dublin is designated as the Lead Agency for the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15367 defines the lead agency as “…the public agency, which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.” Other public agencies may use this Draft EIR in the decision-making or permit process and consider the information in this Draft EIR along with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process.

This Draft EIR was prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., an environmental consulting firm. Prior to public review, it was extensively reviewed and evaluated by the City of Dublin.

This Draft EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Dublin as required by CEQA. Lists of organizations and persons consulted and the report preparation personnel are provided in the references section at the end of each environmental resource analyzed.

2.1.2 Responsible and Trustee Agencies
Other agencies in addition to the City of Dublin will serve as Responsible and Trustee Agencies, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 and Section 15386, respectively. This Draft EIR will provide environmental information to these agencies and other public agencies, which may be required to grant approvals or coordinate with other agencies, as part of project implementation. These agencies may include but are not limited to the following:
 California Department of Transportation
 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Region  Dublin Unified School District
 Dublin-San Ramon Services District
 Zone 7 Water Agency
Actions that are necessary to implement the project that must be taken by other agencies are:
 Issuance of Encroachment Permits (Caltrans)

2.2 Scope of the EIR

2.2.1 Notice of Preparation
This Draft EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the project. The City of Dublin issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the project on April 1, 2022, which circulated between April 1, 2022, and May 2, 2022, for the statutory 30-day public review period. The scope of this Draft EIR includes the potential environmental impacts identified in the NOP and issues raised by agencies and the public in response to the NOP.
907
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Introduction | Page 2-3
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Eight comment letters were received in response to the NOP. These letters are shown in Table 2-1: NOP Comment Letters and provided in Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters.

Table 2-1: NOP Comment Letters
Affiliation Signatory Date Summary of Relevant Comments State
Native American Heritage
Commission
Cody Campagne 4/14/2022 Comply with the tribal consultation requirements of CEQA per Assembly
Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18.

California Department of
Transportation
Mark Leong 4/29/2022 Comply with City Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) requirements for
project analysis. Consider bike and
pedestrian safety, stormwater runoff,
potential floodplain impacts, potential
right-of-way impacts, and construction
noise. Comply with AB 52
requirements.

Department of Toxic
Substances Control
Brian McAloon 5/2/2022 Consider the potential for hazards release, aerially deposited lead,
sampling of backfill material, and
pesticides in the analysis.

Local
Dublin San Ramon
Services District
Ryan Pendergraft 4/22/2022 Consider planned potable water supply, wastewater connection, and
irrigation water supply in the analysis.

City of Pleasanton Ellen Clark 4/22/22 Consider City of Pleasanton intersections and LOS policies,
“Gateway” conditions, operations at
ramps and bicycle and pedestrian
improvements.

Dublin Unified School
District
Chris Funk 4/29/2022 Consider potential effects on schools.

Alameda County
Transportation
Commission
Colin Dentel-Post 5/2/2022 Comply with Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirements.

Consider impacts to the Metropolitan
Transportation System and biking and
walking. Utilize adequate mitigation
measures when required.

Individuals
City of Dublin citizen Tom Evans 4/27/2022
and
4/28/2022
Consider potential effects on schools,
hazards, hydrology and water quality,
land use and planning, noise,
population and housing, public
908
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22
services and utilities, transportation,
and parking. Geology and soils analysis
could be scoped out given compliance
with the California Building Code
(CBC).

2.2.2 Scoping Meeting
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City of Dublin held a public scoping meeting for the project on April 13, 2022. The meeting was held virtually via the Zoom Video Communications platform. Three members of the public attended the meeting. A summary of their comments are as follows:
 Ensure that it is clear to the public that this EIR is a new, separate document from the EIRs that were prepared for previous projects proposed for the project site.  Consider the impact the project would have on schools.  Consider the impact the project would have as a result of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, especially emissions from increased traffic.  Analyze alternatives to the project that would reduce significant unavoidable impacts.  Appropriately notify the public of the EIR process. Expand the radius for nearby property owners and occupants to be noticed beyond the standard 300 feet. Utilize additional digital platforms for noticing.

2.2.3 Environmental Issues Significant Determination
The NOP identified the potential for significant and insignificant impacts on the environment related to the following topical areas:
909
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Introduction | Page 2-5
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Included for Detailed EIR Analysis
(Potentially Significant)
Excluded from Detailed EIR Analysis
(Insignificant)
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural and Tribal Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Energy
Conservation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise and Vibration
Population and Housing
Public Services, Utilities, and Service
Systems
Transportation and Circulation
Agricultural and Forestry
Resources
Mineral Resources

2.3 Required Permits and Approvals
The proposed project contemplates the following permits and approvals from the City of Dublin:
 General Plan Amendment
 Specific Plan Amendment
 Planned Development Rezone (Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan)  Development Agreement
Future permits and approvals from the City of Dublin required for the proposed project include:
 Tentative Tract Map(s) / Parcel Map(s)
 Site Development Review Permit(s)
 Grading and Improvement Plans (Ministerial)
 Building Permits (Ministerial)
910
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22
 Master Sign Program/Site Development Review Permit

2.4 Documents Incorporated by Reference
As permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, this Draft EIR has referenced several technical studies, analyses, and previously certified environmental documentation. Information from the documents, which have been incorporated by reference, has been briefly summarized in the appropriate section(s). The relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the Draft EIR has also been described. The documents and other sources that have been used in the preparation of this Draft EIR include but are not limited to:
 City of Dublin, General Plan 1985, as amended, 2022
 City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 1994, updated 2022  City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment EIR, 1993  City of Dublin, Dublin Municipal Code
 City of Dublin, Streetscape Master Plan, 2005
 Dublin-San Ramon Services District, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, 2021  City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, 1996 These documents are specifically identified in the respective references sections of this Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(b), the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Municipal Code, and the referenced documents and other sources used in the preparation of the Draft EIR are available for review at the City of Dublin Community Development Department.

2.5 Prior Environmental Analysis – At Dublin Project

2.5.1 At Dublin Project Summary
An EIR for the previously proposed “At Dublin” development project was prepared in 2018 for the project site. The EIR analyzed a project that included a number of land uses and conceptual site plan features that are similar to the proposed project but some project features and uses were changed, all of which are described below.

The At Dublin project consisted of up to 680 residential units and up to 454,500 square feet of commercial uses. To accommodate the project, the applicant proposed to redistribute and simplify the six existing General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations to four land use designations, organized into four Planning Areas (PAs). The proposed land use densities are shown in Table 2-2: At Dublin Land Use Summary with the SCS Dublin Project totals added for comparison.
911
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Introduction | Page 2-7
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Table 2-2: At Dublin Land Use Summary
Land Use Designations Gross Acres Res. Units Du/Acre
Floor Area
Ratio
Commercial
sq. ft.

General Commercial 23.7 -- -- .4 370,000
Mixed-Use 16.2 300 -- .7 84,500
Medium-High Density Residential 14.0 200 14.3 --
Medium-Density Residential 23.8 180 7.6 -- --
Total 76.9 680 -- -- 454,500
SCS Dublin Project Total 73.8 650 265,000
Source: City of Dublin, 2018 and 2022.

Other differences between the two projects include changes to roadway and pedestrian circulation surrounding and through the project site, and different park and open space configurations.

2.5.2 Context for this EIR
While the At Dublin project was neither approved nor the EIR certified by the Dublin City Council, a number of technical studies and the environmental analysis prepared for the project remain relevant to the proposed project and have been utilized in the preparation of this EIR.

In particular, the technical studies associated with the following environmental resource sections (as presented in the Appendices to this EIR) were used as part of the CEQA analysis:
 Geology and Soils
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed project is seeking entitlement for a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and a Development Agreement. Subsequent discretionary approvals will include a Site Development Review Permit(s) and Tentative Tract Map(s).

Because the previous At Dublin project and the proposed SCS Dublin project are conceptually similar in their designation of planning areas and land uses and the At Dublin project was analyzed relatively recently (in 2018), some of the technical assumptions associated with the civil engineering elements of the At Dublin project (which have not been defined as yet for the proposed project) were used as the basis of analysis in this EIR. These include grading (which would result in a net import but the actual cut and fill amounts between the two projects may vary) and geotechnical considerations.

Upon EIR certification and project approval by the Dublin City Council, the project applicant will be required to submit detailed civil engineering and architectural plans as part of the Site 912
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22
Development Review Permit and Tentative Tract Map process, which will be required to comply with all applicable City, State, and federal regulations as described in this EIR.

2.6 Documents Prepared for the Project
The following technical studies and analyses were prepared for the proposed project and are included as part of each respective Appendix:

B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis (supporting technical data) C Biological Resources Assessment and Supporting Surveys D Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration
E Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
F Noise Analysis (supporting technical data)
G Water Supply Assessment
H Energy Conservation Technical Data

2.7 EIR Organization
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15120(c), this EIR contains the information and analysis required by CEQA Guidelines Sections 15122 through 15131. Each of the required elements is covered in one of the EIR chapters and appendices, organized as follows.

Executive Summary. A summary description of the project, the alternatives, their respective environmental impacts and the Environmentally Superior Alternative.

Introduction. A discussion of the background, purpose and need for the project, briefly describing the project, and outlining the public agency use of the EIR.

Project Description. Detailed description of the project.

Environmental Analysis. A comprehensive analysis and assessment of impacts and mitigation measures for the project. This section is divided into separate chapters for each environmental resource and contains the environmental settings and impacts of the project. A description of the approach to cumulative impacts analysis is presented in Chapter 4: Introduction to Environmental Analysis, and cumulative impacts are at the end of each environmental resource.

Alternatives. This chapter includes a description of the alternatives evaluation process, as well as a description of alternatives considered but eliminated from further analysis and the rationale thereof. This section also includes an analysis and assessment of impacts for alternatives retained, including the No Project Alternative. 913
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Introduction | Page 2-9
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Other CEQA Considerations. A discussion of growth‐inducing effects, long‐term implications of the project, and significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the project is implemented.

EIR Preparers. Provides a list of City staff and consultants responsible for preparation of this EIR.

Appendices. Copies of project‐related appendices are available on the City of Dublin’s website at: https://dublin-development.icitywork.com/

2.8 Review of the Draft EIR
Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City of Dublin filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period (Public Resources Code, Section 21161). Concurrent with the NOC, this Draft EIR has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well as all parties requesting a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b)(3). During the public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices, is available for review on the City’s development activity webpage under the SCS Dublin project: https://dublin-development.icitywork.com/ and the City of Dublin website.

Agencies, organizations, and interested parties may comment on the Draft EIR during the 45- day public review period. Written comments on this Draft EIR should be addressed to:

Amy Million, Principal Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Phone: (925) 833-6610
Email: [email protected]
Upon completion of the public review period, written responses to all significant environmental issues raised will be prepared and made available for review by the commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to the public hearings on the project, at which the certification of the Final EIR will be considered. Comments received and the responses to comments will be included as part of the record for consideration by decision makers for the project. 914
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Project Description | Page 3-1
Draft EIR
7/20/22
3 Project Description

3.1 Project Location and Setting

3.1.1 Location
As shown in Figure 3-1: Project Location, the approximate 76.2-acre project site is in the City of Dublin, Alameda County, north of Interstate 580 and between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street, extending just north of Gleason Drive. The project site is located on the Livermore, California, United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map Township 2S, Range 1E, and Section 33 (northern portion) and Township 3S, Range 1E, and Section 4 (southern portion).

3.1.2 Existing Setting
The project site is vacant land and is generally flat with a slight slope from a higher elevation at the northerly boundary to a slightly lower elevation towards the southerly boundary. At one time the property was used for agricultural purposes and has remained vacant (except for temporary seasonal uses) with low lying native and non­native grasses turned periodically for the purposes of weed abatement. A small group of trees and shrubs is located near the corner of Tassajara Road and Central Parkway. No grading for development purposes has occurred to date. The project site is bisected by three City streets running generally east-west, Gleason Drive, Central Parkway, and Dublin Boulevard, that were developed to allow for development to the east.

3.1.3 Surrounding Land Uses
As shown in Figure 3-2: Surrounding Land Uses, the project site is surrounded by a broad mix of residential and commercial uses. Single-family residential uses are located to the north. Multifamily residential, general commercial, and a vacant parcel at the southeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan Street are located to the east. Interstate 580 and the City of Pleasanton are located to the south. Multi-family residential, parks/public recreation, general commercial, and campus office uses are located to the west.

3.1.4 Existing Plans and Zoning
Dublin General Plan
As shown in Figure 3-3: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations, the existing General Plan land use designation in the southern and western portions of the project site is General Commercial. The northern and eastern portions of the project site are designated Medium Density Residential, Public/Semi-Public, Medium-High Density Residential, and Neighborhood Commercial. Most of the site, excluding the most northerly portion, is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District. This area is designated as an area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety and/or airspace protection factors may 915
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22
affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The AIA is a designation by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission.

The same portion of the project site within the AIA is also located within Land Use Compatibility Zone 7 of the Livermore Municipal Airport, as established in the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

The following General Plan land use designations surround the project site: Medium-Density Residential to the north; Medium-Density Residential, Medium/High-Density Residential, HighDensity Residential, General Commercial, and General Commercial/Campus Office to the east; and Parks/Public Recreation, General Commercial and Campus Office to the west.

Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93 certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (EDSP EIR, SCH #91103064). The certified EDSP EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum to the EDSP EIR dated May 4, 1993, assessing a reduced development project alternative. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for the reduced area alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994, the City Council adopted a second Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for eastern Dublin. The EDSP EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30-year period. Since certification of the EDSP EIR, many implementing projects have been proposed, relying to various degrees on the certified EDSP EIR.

As part of the certification of the EDSP EIR, the Dublin City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), regional air quality, noise and visual.

In 2005, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) was amended to expand the boundaries eastward to encompass the Fallon Village development. Following the 2005 amendment, the buildout potential of the EDSP is 32,023 residents, 13,913 dwelling units, and 29,424 jobs.

As described in Table 3-1: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Anticipated Project Site Development below, the EDSP anticipated within the mid-density range of development of 261 residential units and 902,563 square feet of commercial on the project site. 916
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Project Description | Page 3-3
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Table 3-1: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Anticipated Project Site Development Land Use Designation Acres 1 Residential Units
Commercial Square
Footage
General Commercial 60.3 -- 846,153
Neighborhood Commercial 3.7 -- 56,410
Medium Density Residential 4.3 43 --
Medium-High Density Residential 5.3 106 --
High Density Residential 3.2 112 --
Public / Semi – Public 3.3 -- --
Total 80.1 261 902,563
Notes:
(1) Acreages shown are approximate and were based on information available at the time the Specific Plan was adopted Source: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, 1993, as amended.

Zoning
As shown in Figure 3-4: Existing Zoning, the project site is zoned Planned Development (PD) Resolution No. 104-94 adopted as part of the EDSP. This PD Pre-zoning allowed for the annexation of 1,538 acres. The purpose of the PD is to allow the flexibility needed to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies and action programs of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are met. More particularly, the PD is intended to ensure the following policies:

A. Allow and encourage mixed use residential and commercial development in order to meet specific housing and employment needs, reduce vehicular trips, and foster pedestrian access to shopping and employment areas.

B. Concentrate development on less environmentally and visually sensitive or constrained portions of the plan area and preserve significant open space areas and natural and topographic landscape features with minimum alteration of landforms.

C. Encourage innovative approaches to site planning, building design and construction to create housing products for all segments of the community, including commercial and office structures.

D. Encourage higher intensity development near transit corridors.

E. Create an attractive, efficient and safe environment.

F. Develop an environment that encourages social interaction and the use of common open areas for neighborhood or community activities and other amenities.

G. Create an environment that decreases dependence on the private automobile. 917
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22

3.2 Project Development Components
The proposed project is based on the Preferred Plan approved by City Council on February 15, 2022. The project proposes to develop 76.2 acres with a combination of commercial/retail and residential uses, including two types of retail experiences. The first retail experience, on approximately 5.8 acres, is a more neighborhood main street experience. This area could accommodate up to 40,000 square feet of small retail shops along an extended Finnan Way, which would then connect to the Shops at Waterford, and up to 40 residential units located above or behind the retail shops.

The second retail experience, on approximately 23.2 acres, is envisioned to be a more regional retail experience, focused on entertainment uses, south of Dublin Boulevard. This area is proposed for up to 225,000 square feet of uses. In total, the proposed project includes development of up to 265,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses.

On the remaining approximately 44.8 acres, the applicant proposes a variety of housing types, including affordable housing and housing for entry level buyers, with up to 550 market rate units plus up to 100 affordable units, along with parks and open space. The project would require an amendment to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to modify the existing land use designations.

To accommodate the project, the applicant proposes to amend the General Plan and EDSP land use designations, organized into four primary Planning Areas (PAs). As shown in Figure 3-5:

Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations, the proposed land use designations are consistent with the land use patterns of the surrounding properties. As shown in Table 3-2:

SCS Dublin Land Use Summary, the proposed General Plan and EDSP land use designations are:

General Commercial, Medium-Density Residential, Medium/High-Density Residential, Parks/Public Recreation and Public/Semi-Public.

Table 3-2: SCS Dublin Land Use Summary
Land Use Designations Gross Acres Res. Units Du/Acre
Floor Area
Ratio
Commercial
sq. ft.

General Commercial 29.4 40 -- .19-.38 265,000
Medium-Density Residential 17 150 8.8 -- -- Medium-High Density Residential 21.1 360 17.1 -- -- Public/Semi-Public 3.8 100 26.3 -- -- Parks/Public Recreation 2.5 -- -- -- -- Total 73.8 650 -- -- 265,000 Source: City of Dublin, 2022.

3.3 Project Objectives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 requires that a clearly written statement of the project’s objectives be presented in an EIR to help lead agencies develop a reasonable range of 918
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Project Description | Page 3-5
Draft EIR
7/20/22
alternatives, and to aid the decision makers in preparing findings of significant effects or a statement of overriding considerations, as necessary.

The project’s objectives are the following:

Mix of Uses/Quality of Product

1. Provide a balanced mix of residential and commercial uses in the Eastern Extended Planning Area that integrate into the existing urban systems and provide a safe and attractive environment for living and working as encouraged by General Plan Policy

2.6.4.A.1.

2. Provide uses that meet the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan’s objective to have higherdensity housing, adjacent to commercial and employment opportunities.

3. Provide land uses and high-quality architecture that complement existing, adjacent land uses and development.

Economic Growth

4. Have a positive contribution to the local economy through new capital investment, the creation of new jobs, and the expansion of the tax base.

5. Add commercial, entertainment, and hotel uses that will have a synergy with existing retail uses in the City.

6. Provide a mix of residential and commercial uses that achieves a financially feasible project.

7. Provide a project that balances housing with job-creating uses.

8. Develop a project that supports the success of the commercial uses through careful site planning and infrastructure design.

Housing

9. Add to the City’s housing diversity in compliance with Housing Element Program 10 and General Plan Policy 2.6.1.A.1 through a variety of housing including entry-level housing, affordable housing, and family housing, all of which may accommodate senior residents.

Housing products range from single-family homes, courtyard homes, townhomes, and affordable apartments.

10. Expand and improve the City’s housing supply by developing high-quality housing in a portion of a City-designated Priority Development Area, which is a location planned for growth under the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area.

11. Increase housing on the project site beyond what was initially studied under the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR, which will help in state-wide efforts to alleviate California’s housing crisis.
919
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22

12. Dedicate a parcel at the prominent corner of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard, large enough to permit a variety of affordable housing solutions, allowing the design and amount of affordable housing to be tailored to the community’s needs.

Responsible Growth

13. Develop vacant and underutilized land in an urban area.

14. Locate commercial and residential uses where such uses can take advantage of existing infrastructure and utilities.

15. Provide attractive, well-landscaped commercial uses close to Interstate 580 as a buffer between the highway and residential uses and to further General Plan Policy 10.5.3.E.

16. Enhance the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard consistent with General Plan Goal 10.6.2.

Connectivity

17. Complete existing infrastructure to support General Plan buildout conditions consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.

18. Implement the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety by providing on-site and off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities that link with existing facilities along Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive, Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard.

19. Reconfigure block size and provide publicly accessible parkways, park corridors and paths to improve pedestrian connectivity between residential and commercial uses including the extensions of Finnian Way and Aviano Way.

20. Provide and improve multimodal connections within the project and across adjacent arterial streets to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle activity between neighborhoods and within the development.

3.4 Land Uses
A conceptual illustration of proposed land uses is shown in Figure 3-6: Illustrative Site Plan.

Conceptual illustrations of the elevations of the various land uses are shown in Figures 3-7 (ab): Project Renderings. These land uses are described below, according to the respective proposed land use designations.

3.4.1 General Commercial
General Commercial is proposed on approximately 29.4 gross acres on the property with up to 265,000 square feet of commercial uses. This includes approximately 23.2 acres within Planning Area 1 (PA-1), south of Dublin Boulevard and north of Interstate 580 and approximately 5.8 acres in PA-2, north of Dublin Boulevard, along the proposed Finnian Way extension. The permitted floor area ratio (FAR) for General Commercial is .20 to .60. 920
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Project Description | Page 3-7
Draft EIR
7/20/22
PA-1 is proposed as an entertainment district with a combination regional- and communityserving retail, service, and office uses, restaurants, family entertainment uses, and outdoor plazas for a total of 225,000 square feet of commercial uses. Of this, an approximately 80,000 square foot entertainment driving range is envisioned (based on preliminary applicant discussions with Topgolf, a private sports entertainment company). PA-1 may also include a 140-room hotel.

The General Commercial area of PA-2 focuses on the neighborhood main street experience anchored by a town square. This area would accommodate up to 40,000 square feet of small retail shops, small office spaces, and specialty restaurants along the extension of Finnan Way, which would then connect to the Shops at Waterford. Up to 40 residential units would be located above or behind the retail shops along Finnian Way.

3.4.2 Medium-Density Residential
Medium-Density Residential is proposed for approximately 17 acres on the northerly portion of the project site within PA-3 and PA-4. The permitted density is 6.1 to 14.0 units per gross acre.

Housing within the Medium-Density Residential designation would consist of up to 150 residential units.

3.4.3 Medium/High-Density Residential
Medium/High-Density Residential is proposed for approximately 21.1 acres in PA-2 and PA-3.

The permitted density is 14.1-25.0 units per gross acre. Housing within the Medium/HighDensity Residential designation would consist of up to 360 residential units.

3.4.4 Public/Semi-Public
Approximately 3.8 gross acres in PA-2 north of Dublin Boulevard on the Tassajara Road frontage is proposed for Public/Semi-Public uses. Public/Semi-Public allows for a combination of public facility and semi-public facility land uses including the development of housing when it is developed by a non-profit entity and serves to meet affordable housing needs of an underserved economic segment of the community. Affordable housing within the Public/SemiPublic designation would consist of up to 100 residential units.

3.4.5 Parks/Public Recreation
As shown in Figure 3-6: Illustrative Site Plan, project development would include plazas, a town square, and a grand paseo.

The Parks/Public Recreation designation is proposed for approximately 2.5 gross acres and includes publicly owned parks and recreation facilities to accommodate the proposed grand paseo. In order to accommodate a variety of activities (e.g., recreation, public gardening, and native plan/pollinator meadows) and complement adjacent land uses, the width of the grand paseo varies from 25 feet to 110 feet.
921
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22

3.5 Site Access and Circulation

3.5.1 Vehicular Circulation
As shown in Figure 3-6: Illustrative Site Plan, the project would contain several ingress/egress points from public roadways. New public streets, including Diablo View Road and extensions to Finnian Way and Aviano Way, as well as private streets would be incorporated into the project to allow for access to the interior residential, commercial and mixed-use developments. Due to the lower traffic volumes and limited vehicular access, private streets may be designed with a narrower profile. Where the blocks are short and would have low traffic volumes, private streets may not include features typically associated with public streets including sidewalks and on-street parking. All internal streets and roadways would be privately owned and maintained by the respective owner association.

A new north/south street located between Brannigan Street and Tassajara Road is proposed along the east side of the grand paseo creating greater access to and activity in the public open space. Generous bike and pedestrian paths along the grand paseo would connect Gleason Drive to Dublin Boulevard. The project would also extend Aviano Way and Finnan Way to Tassajara Road. Therefore, creating additional vehicle and pedestrian access points.

3.5.2 Off-Site Roadway Improvements
The project site is surrounded by public roadways, which would be improved as follows:
 Tassajara Road – Improve the right-of-way along the east edge of the project site, completing the outside travel lane(s), Class II bike lane, and parkway inclusive of a sidewalk. The off-site improvements along the project frontage would vary between intersections to accommodate turn lane requirements. The project would add a fourth leg (east leg) and subsequent lanes and movements into and out of this leg to the existing intersection of Tassajara Road and The Shops. The project also proposes to add right-in/right-out driveways along the east side of Tassajara Road between Dublin Boulevard and the Shops, the Shops and Central Parkway, and two between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive.
 Dublin Boulevard – Improve the right-of-way along the north and south edge of the project site by completing the outside travel lane(s), Class II bike lane, and parkways inclusive of sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. The improvements would vary between intersections to accommodate turn lane requirements. The project also proposes to add a right-in/right-out driveway on the south side of Dublin Boulevard.  Central Parkway – Improve the right‐of‐way to accommodate the completion of the outside travel lane in each direction, Class II bike lane, on‐street parking, and parkways inclusive of a sidewalk on the south side and a multi‐use trail on the north side. The project also includes a proposed mid-block pedestrian crossing on Central Parkway. The project also proposes right-in/right-out driveways on the north and south side of Central Parkway.
922
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Project Description | Page 3-9
Draft EIR
7/20/22
 Gleason Drive – Improve the right‐of‐way, which would include an added travel lane in each direction, Class II bike lane, and parkways inclusive of sidewalk on both sides. The project also proposes a right-in/right-out driveway on the north side of Gleason Drive.  Brannigan Street – Improve the west side of the street to accommodate on‐street parking and a parkway inclusive of a sidewalk. The project proposes to add a fourth leg (west leg) at the intersection of Brannigan Street and Aviano Way. The eastbound approach at this intersection would be stop-controlled with a shared left-right turn lane.

In addition, the project proposes to add a fourth leg (west leg) at the intersection of Brannigan Street and Finnian Way. The eastbound approach at this intersection would be stop-controlled with a shared left-right turn lane. The project proposes to add an additional driveway at the existing bend along Brannigan Street.  Finnian Way (proposed public street) – Extend Finnian Way from Brannigan Street to Tassajara Road. The proposed street section would have two travel lanes, parking, bike lanes and wider than standard sidewalks (approximately 15 feet).  Aviano Way (proposed public street) - Extend Aviano Way from Brannigan Street to Tassajara Road. The proposed street section would have two travel lanes, parking, and sidewalks.
 Diablo View Road (proposed public street) – A new public street fronting along the east side of the grand paseo. The proposed street would have two travel lanes, parking and sidewalks.

Off-site improvements would complete these segments to their designed build-out condition, tying into the existing adjacent improved roadways and parkways.

3.5.3 Bicycles, and Pedestrians
The public roadways surrounding the project site would be completed in accordance with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, including the incorporation of Class II bike lanes along Dublin Boulevard, westbound on Central Parkway and through Finnian Way.

The pedestrian and bicycle-oriented paseo would serve the new development as well as the larger neighborhood. The paseo varies from 25 to 110 feet wide and widens towards Tassajara Road inviting pedestrians and bikes off the major arterial onto the paseo. Bike and pedestrian paths would connect Gleason Drive to Dublin Boulevard.

Walkways would extend along the perimeter of the project, providing connections to the existing pedestrian network.

3.5.4 Public Transit
Bus stops suitable for use by Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) would be constructed on the project frontage streets of Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive, Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard.
923
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22

3.6 Site Preparation and Infrastructure Improvements

3.6.1 Grading
As detailed in Section 2.5.2, Context for this EIR, the grading quantities for the previously proposed At Dublin project are used as anticipated grading quantities for the proposed project as a result of the similarity between the two projects. As shown in Table 3-3: Grading Requirements (by Planning Area), proposed project construction is estimated to require 449,600 cubic yards of cut and 560,800 cubic yards of fill for an estimated net import of 111,200 cubic yards of soil. Excess fill would be utilized on-site to minimize the import of soils.

PA-1 would require the majority of the imported soils, PA-2 would balance, and PA-3 and PA-4 would balance between the two areas. The imported soils would originate from available borrow sites, preferably within the Tri-Valley area.

Table 3-3: Grading Requirements (by Planning Area)
Planning Area Cut (CY) Fill (CY)
PA-1 124,300 235,600
PA-2 171,000 169,500
PA-3 129,500 140,400
PA-4 24,800 15,300
Total 449,600 560,800
Net Import -- 111,200
CY – Cubic Yards
Source: RJA, 2017.

3.6.2 Water
The project site is located within the boundaries of the Dublin-San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), which serves the City of Dublin with potable water and non-potable recycled water.

DSRSD currently has a moratorium on any new recycled water connections and therefore the project would connect to existing underground potable DSRSD water lines located within the right-of-way of the adjacent roadways. Multiple connections would be provided for the purpose of achieving a “looped system.” As such, potable water would be used for domestic use and landscape irrigation.

3.6.3 Wastewater
The project site is located within the boundaries of DSRSD, which provides the City of Dublin with sanitary sewer services. The project would connect to existing underground DSRSD sewer lines located within the right-of-way of the adjacent roadways. Multiple laterals would connect the project to the sewer line.
924
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Project Description | Page 3-11
Draft EIR
7/20/22

3.6.4 Stormwater Management
An on-site storm drainage system would be installed that would collect and convey runoff and ultimately discharge it to the City of Dublin’s municipal storm drainage system which drains into a Regional Water Quality Pond. Drainage for the project site would be designed to maintain the existing watershed drainage pattern to the extent feasible and avoid any impact to downstream watersheds by reducing the post development runoff for the site to the predevelopment condition.

3.6.5 Dry Utilities
Electricity in City of Dublin is provided by East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) and is conveyed to customers through Pacific Gas and Electric’s (PG&E) existing infrastructure. PG&E would serve the project with electricity and natural gas, as allowed. An all-electric new construction will be included with the 2022 California Building Code update. Additionally, portions of the project would include the use of solar power/photovoltaics. The project would also incorporate electric vehicle (EV) charging stations for the commercial areas and multi-family buildings, as applicable.

3.7 Project Construction and Phasing
Project construction activities would include site preparation, grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coating. As shown in Figure 3-8: Project Phasing Plan, the project would be completed in two phases over an estimated construction period of approximately four years. The first phase would include the commercial area of PA-2, followed by development of the residential portion of PA-2, PA-1, PA-3 and PA-4.

The project would utilize an average of 125 workers a year and would generate approximately 458 daily trips, based on 3.05 daily trips per worker, with a 20 percent increase to account for material deliveries, and other trips not directly related to site workers.

3.8 References
City of Dublin. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, adopted October 7, 2014.

City of Dublin. City of Dublin General Plan, 1985, as amended 2022.

City of Dublin. City of Dublin Municipal Code.

City of Dublin. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, 1994, updated 2022. 925
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2022
Not to scale
Gleason Drive
LEGEND
Project Site
Figure 3-1: Project Location
SCS Dublin Project
Environmental Impact Report 926
Not to scale
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2022
James Dougherty
Elementary School
Tassajara Creek
Emerald Glen Park
Waterford Place
Apartments
Shops at Waterford
Hacienda Crossings
Shopping Center
Stanford Health Care
Sorrento at Dublin Ranch
Kolb Elementary School
Devany Square
Bray Commons
Kaiser Medical Center
Grafton Plaza
LEGEND
Project Site
Figure 3-2: Surrounding Land Uses
SCS Dublin Project
Environmental Impact Report 927
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2022
Not to scale
Gleason Drive
LEGEND
Project Site
Figure 3-3: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations SCS Dublin Project
Environmental Impact Report 928
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2022
Not to scale
Gleason Drive
LEGEND
Project Site
Figure 3-4: Existing Zoning
SCS Dublin Project
Environmental Impact Report 929
Source: RJA, 2022
Not to scale
PA-4
MEDIU
DENSr �
h.l
>
n:::
z
0 (J)
h.l
h.l
-1
l:J
PA-3
MEDIUM

DENSITY
PA-3
MEDIUM

DENSITY
PA-3
MEDIUM

DENSITY

IEW DRIVE
PA-3

MEDIUM-HIGH

DENSITY

TASSAJARA ROAD
PA-2

MEDIUM-HIGH

DENSITY
BRAJ\JJ\JJGAJ\J STR££T
>
<
,=:
z
<
z
z
z ___________________ _ h.l
u
• • • • • • • • •
:-• • • • •
•
PA-2

MEDIUM-HIGH

DENSITY
• • • • •
L
IAL

TASSAJARA ROAD

SUMMARY
PA-2

MEDIUM-HIGH

DENSITY
PA-2

PUBLIC-SEMI-PUBLIC
Q
n:::

Lt..1
-1
:::i
0 co
z
7 co
:::i
Q

PROPOSED PROJECT PERMITTED DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED DENISTY LAND USE PLANNING AREA GROSS ACRE1 COMMERIAL ISFI UNIT COUNT F.A.R. DENSITY IDU/ ACI F.A.R.

MEDIUM
MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENllAL PA-3, PA-4 17.0 150 6.1-14
RESIOENllAL
- HIGH DENSITY PA-2, PA-3 21.1 360 14.1-25
PUBUC - SEMI-PUBUC PA-2 3.8 100
GENERAL COMMERCIAL PA-12
, PA-2 29.4 265,000 40 0.2-0.6 0.21
PARKS/PUBLIC RECREA llON PA-2, PA-3 2.5

1. GROSS RESIOENnAL ACREAGE IS CALCULATED PER CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN (1.8.4.4}. GROSS NON-RESIOENnAL ACREAGE IS CALCULATED PER CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN (1.8.1.3}.

2. PA-1 GROSS ACREAGE INCLUDES NORTHS/DE DRIVE AREA WITHIN PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, APPROXIMATELY 1.04 ACRES.

LAND USE EXHIBIT

SCS DUBLIN CITY OF DUBLIN, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR: MISSION VALLEY HOMES

DENISTY IDU/ ACI

8.8 17.1

26.3 BRAJ\JNJGAN STR££T
PA-1

GENERAL

COMMERCIAL

TASSAJARA ROAD
.l..'-721..

RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS
4690 CHABCT DRIVE, SUITE 200 PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: (925) 227-9100 FAX: (925) 227-9300
DAlE: MARCH 30, 2022 JOB NO. 171026 SHEET 1 OF 1
Figure 3-5: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations SCS Dublin Project
Environmental Impact Report 930
Not to scale
Source: Project Application, 2022
Figure 3-6: Illustrative Site Plan
SCS Dublin Project
Environmental Impact Report 931
SCS Dublin Project
Environmental Impact Report
Source: Project Application, 2022
Figure 3-7a: Project Renderings
932
Source: Project Application, 2022
Figure 3-7b: Project Renderings
SCS Dublin Project
Environmental Impact Report 933
SCS Dublin Project
Environmental Impact Report
Not to scale
Source: Project Application, 2022
Figure 3-8: Project Phasing Plan
934
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Introduction to Environmental Analysis| Page 4-1
Draft EIR
7/20/22
4 Introduction to Environmental Analysis

4.1 Environmental Assessment Methodology
The environmental resource analysis below (by chapter) describes the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the project. This analysis considers the comments submitted during the scoping process (see Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters). References to data and/or technical studies are listed at the end of each chapter.

4.1.1 Methodology
The methodology used to determine impacts consists of three key components, summarized below.

Environmental Setting. The environmental setting describes existing conditions in the project site that may change as a result of the construction and operation of the project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (Section 15125(a)), the environmental setting used for the impact analysis reflects the conditions at the time of the issuance of the Notice of Preparation.

Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards. Each issue area includes a description of current public policies, regulations, programs, and standards that apply to the project.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation. This section evaluates the environmental impacts (including cumulative impacts) of the project based on predetermined, specific significance criteria. In determining the significance of impacts, the assessment considers the ability of existing regulations and other public agency requirements to reduce impacts. If an adverse impact is potentially significant despite existing regulations and requirements, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce or avoid the impact, where feasible. Mitigation measures are required only for significant adverse impacts. Once impacts and mitigation measures, as applicable, are presented, the “level of significance after mitigation” is determined.

4.1.2 Impact Significance
While the criteria for determining whether an impact is significant are unique to each issue area, a uniform classification of impacts is used in this EIR. Each impact is categorized based on the following definitions:

Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through implementation of recommended mitigation measures
Class III: Adverse impact; but less than significant, so mitigation is not normally recommended Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required 935
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22
No impact.

4.1.3 Mitigation Measures
Where potentially significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures are identified. Each mitigation measure defines the specific requirements to reduce impacts and defines the timeframe, responsible party, and the mitigation monitoring requirement, if applicable.

Note that due to the location of the proposed uses on the project site, some mitigation measures apply only to one portion (commercial development, mixed use or residential development) of the project. Each mitigation measure indicates whether it applies to specific planning areas, the commercial development, mixed use, residential development or all components of the project.

4.1.4 Mitigation Monitoring
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 establishes two distinct requirements for agencies involved in the CEQA process. Subdivisions (a) and (b) of the section relate to mitigation monitoring and reporting, and the obligation to mitigate significant effects where possible.

Pursuant to subdivision (a), whenever a public agency completes an EIR and makes a finding pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code taking responsibility for mitigation identified in the EIR, the agency must adopt a program of monitoring or reporting which will ensure that mitigation measures are complied with during implementation of the project.

4.2 Effects Not Found to Be Significant
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, “An EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were, therefore, not discussed in detail in the EIR.” This chapter of the Draft EIR describes the resource areas that were found not to pose any potentially significant effects.

Based on the scope of the project, comment letters in response to the NOP, site visits, review of project applicant materials and technical reports, and additional background research on the construction and operational features of the project, the following resource topics were found to not have impacts that would be considered potentially significant. These topics, therefore, are not subject to further detailed analysis in the EIR.

4.2.1 Agricultural Resources
The project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance by the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). It is designated as Grazing Land, land which the existing vegetation is suited to livestock grazing. No Williamson Act contract applies to the project site. The project site does not currently comprise agricultural or forestry uses, and it is designated for a mix of residential and commercial uses 936
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Introduction to Environmental Analysis| Page 4-3
Draft EIR
7/20/22
pursuant to the General Plan and EDSP. There would be no impact to agricultural and forestry resources.

4.2.2 Mineral Resources
The project site lies within Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1), as mapped by the California Department of Mines and Geology (DMG). MRZ-1 zones are “areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral despots are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exits for their presence.” The project site is not a mineral resource recovery site and, therefore, there would be no impact to mineral resources.

4.2.3 Wildfire
The project site is located in an urban setting and is not susceptible to wildfire risk. The site is not located in a State Responsibility Area or located on lands classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. For these reasons, there would be no impact with respect to wildfire risk.

4.3 Cumulative Impacts

4.3.1 CEQA Requirements
Under the CEQA Guidelines, “a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the environmental impact report (“EIR”) together with other projects causing related impacts” (14 CCR §15130(a)(1)). CEQA PRC §21000 et seq., an EIR must discuss cumulative impacts if the incremental effect of a project, combined with the effects of other projects is “cumulatively considerable” (14 CCR §15130(a)). Such incremental effects are to be “viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (14 CCR §15164(b)(1)). Together, these projects compose the cumulative scenario which forms the basis of the cumulative impact analysis.

Cumulative Impact Analysis Methodology
The area within which a cumulative effect can occur varies by resource. For example, air quality impacts generally affect a large area (such as the regional Air Basin), while traffic impacts are typically more localized. For this reason, the geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative impacts is identified for each resource area in the following chapters.

The analysis of cumulative effects considers a number of variables, including geographic (spatial) limits, time (temporal) limits, and the characteristics of the resource being evaluated.

The geographic scope of each analysis is based on the topography surrounding the project site and the natural boundaries of the resource affected, rather than jurisdictional boundaries. The geographic scope of cumulative effects will often extend beyond the scope of the direct effects, but not beyond the scope of the direct and indirect effects of the project.

In addition, future projects that comprise the cumulative condition each have their own implementation schedule, which may or may not coincide or overlap with the project’s 937
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22
schedule. This is a consideration for short‐term impacts from the project. However, to be conservative, the cumulative analysis assumes that all projects in the cumulative scenario are built and operating during the operating lifetime of the project.

4.4 References
CA Department of Conservation. 2018. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Available at http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp. Accessed April 13, 2022.

CALFIRE (California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection). 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones on SRA. Available at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfirepreparedness-and-mitigation/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severityzones-maps/. Accessed April 14,2022.

CALFIRE (California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection). 2008. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Available at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/communitywildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazardseverity-zones-maps/. Accessed April 14,2022.

CA Department of Mines and Geology. 2018. California Geological Survey. Available at http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs. Accessed April 13, 2022. 938
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-1
Draft EIR
7/20/22
5 Aesthetics

5.1 Introduction
This chapter describes effects on aesthetics that would be caused by implementation of the project. Information used to prepare this chapter came from the following resources:
 City of Dublin, General Plan, 1985 as amended 2022
 City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, 1994, updated 2022  City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Standards and Guidelines, 1996  Project application and related materials
 Site Photos
The study area, also known as the viewshed, is defined as the area from which the project would be seen both on and immediately surrounding the project site. The current condition and quality of aesthetic resources within the study area were used as the baseline against which to compare potential aesthetic impacts of the project.

The approach used to evaluate the existing aesthetics conditions consisted of the identification of applicable key viewpoints (KPVs), reviewing the project application including site plans and elevations, development standards, etc.

5.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, no comments regarding aesthetics were raised.

5.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on aesthetic conditions in the study area. The current condition and quality of aesthetic resources was used as the baseline against which to compare potential impacts of the project.

5.3.1 Regional Landscape
The City of Dublin is located on 14.59 square miles in Eastern Alameda County within the TriValley Region. The City is approximately 35 miles east of San Francisco and is generally bound by the City of San Ramon to the north, the City of Livermore to the east, Interstate 580 and the City of Pleasanton to the south, and the City of Castro Valley and the East Bay Hills to the west.

5.3.2 Project Site
The project site is located approximately four miles east of downtown Dublin, within the southeastern portion of the City. The property is bordered by single-family residences to the 939
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22
north, multi-family residential and commercial uses to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, and Emerald Glen Park along with commercial, residential and campus office uses to the west along Tassajara Road.

The site is vacant, with the exception of occasional seasonal uses, and was historically utilized for agricultural purposes. The terrain is generally flat with a slight slope from the north to the south. The majority of vegetation found on-site is low lying native and nonnative grasses that are turned periodically for the purposes of weed abatement. A small group of trees and shrubs is located near the corner of Tassajara Road and Central Parkway. No grading for development purposes has occurred to date.

5.3.3 Scenic Routes
Interstate 580 was designated as a Scenic Route by the County of Alameda in 1966 (the City of Dublin was incorporated in 1982 and recognized this scenic route designation). Tassajara Road is designated as a scenic corridor within Alameda County.

The EDSP maintains that “it is critical that views of major ridgelands be maintained from the scenic corridors.” The City of Dublin General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways Element states that scenic routes “are the places from which people traveling through Dublin gain their impression of the City; therefore, it is important that the quality of views be protected.”

5.3.4 Light and Glare
There are no existing sources of light and glare on the project site. Adjacent sources of light and glare include streetlights on the adjacent roadways and nearby commercial and residential land uses.

5.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards

5.4.1 Federal
None applicable.

5.5 State
CA Scenic Highway Program
In 1963, the California Legislature established the State’s Scenic Highway Program, which is intended to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from changes that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. The state laws governing the Scenic Highway Program are found in the Streets and Highways Code, Section 260 et seq.

The State Scenic Highways program, established by the Streets and Highways Code, is administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The State Scenic Highway System includes highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic highways or have been designated as such.
940
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-3
Draft EIR
7/20/22
A scenic corridor is the land generally adjacent to and visible from the scenic highway and is identified using a motorist’s line of vision. The corridor protection program seeks to encourage quality development that does not degrade the scenic value of the corridor. Minimum requirements for scenic corridor protection include:
 Regulation of land use and density of development
 Detailed land and site planning
 Control of outdoor advertising (including a ban on billboards)  Careful attention to and control of earthmoving and landscaping  Careful attention to design and appearance of structures and equipment

5.5.1 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin’s General Plan contains the following goals, policies and implementation measures associated with aesthetic resources that are relevant to the project:

Goal 10.5.2: Promote a positive regional identity of the City.

Policy 10.5.3.A: Incorporate distinctive design features along regional corridors that reinforce a positive image of Dublin. Both within the right-of-way and on adjacent private development, utilize features such as gateway elements, street trees, median planting, special lighting, separated and ample sidewalks, crosswalks, seating, special signs, street names, landscape, decorative paving patterns, and public art. Consider undergrounding utilities along these roadways.

Policy 10.5.3.B: Maintain views through development to distant vistas (i.e. foothills) and view corridors along regional corridors, wherever feasible.

Policy 10.5.3.C: Incorporate visual screening techniques such as berms, dense and/or fastgrowing landscaping, and appropriately designed fencing where feasible, to ensure that visually challenging features, such as parking lots, loading docks, storage areas, etc. are visually attractive as seen from regional corridors.

Policy 10.5.3.D: Provide landscaping and articulated design to soften the visual appearance of existing and new walls and fences that are adjacent to regional corridors, wherever feasible.

Policy 10.5.3.E: Encourage attractive and high-quality landscaping along the edge of the freeways and development surrounding on- and off-ramps to provide softer and more attractive views both to and from the freeways. Landscaping on private property should complement the buildings and overall site design.
941
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22
Goal 10.6.2: Create a Sense of Arrival at gateways to the City.

Policy 10.6.3.A: Mark gateways with City identification (i.e. signage) and include enhanced landscaping and street improvements to highlight Dublin’s identity, consistent with the City’s Streetscape Master Plan, where feasible (reference: Streetscape Master Plan).

Policy 10.6.3.B: Incorporate dramatic and imaginative landscaping, public art, water features, or other design features when reconstructing streets and/or sidewalks at key gateways into the City, where feasible (reference: Public Art Master Plan).

Policy 10.6.3.C: Encourage signature building architecture at gateways that are oriented toward the gateway to create a sense of place.

Implementation Measure 10.6.4.A: Implement the Streetscape Master Plan.

Implementation Measure 10.6.4.B: Review development adjacent to gateways through the Planned Development Regulations and the Site Development Review Permit process.

Goal 10.7.2: Ensure quality and compatible design of the built form.

Policy 10.7.3.1.A: Encourage diverse, high quality, attractive, and architecturally appealing buildings that create distinctive visual reference points, enrich the appearance of functional gathering spaces, and convey an excellence in architecture, workmanship, quality, and durability in building materials.

Policy 10.7.3.1.B: Encourage buildings with varied massing, heights, articulation techniques, and architectural and signage treatments to create visual interest and ensure compatibility with adjacent uses, in commercial, office, industrial, and mixed-use areas.

Policy 10.7.3.1.C: Ensure that building height, scale and design are compatible with the character of the surrounding natural and built environment, and are varied in their massing, scale and articulation.

Policy 10.7.3.1.D: Encourage a variety of site and building designs that are compatible and consistent with surrounding development, especially where larger scale development is adjacent to smaller scale and/or more sensitive land uses (i.e. residential, schools, and churches) to the greatest extent feasible.

Policy 10.7.3.1.E: Avoid the use of long, continuous, straight (building) walls along roadways by designing appropriate articulation, massing, and architectural features.

Policy 10.7.3.1.F: Create distinctive neighborhoods that exemplify high-quality and varied design while reinforcing Dublin as one integrated community, in residential areas. 942
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-5
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Policy 10.7.3.1.G: Encourage the diversity of garage orientation and setbacks, architectural styles, building materials, color and rooflines, and other design features, on all sides of all buildings, in residential areas.

Policy 10.7.3.1.H: Orient buildings toward major thoroughfares, sidewalks, pedestrian pathways, and gathering spaces, and incorporate clear and identifiable entries where feasible, in campus office areas.

Policy 10.7.3.1.I: Cluster and connect buildings through a series of pedestrian pathways designed to work with each other to form a unified design character and create larger functional spaces, in campus office and commercial areas.

Policy 10.7.3.1.K: Minimize the visual impacts of service/loading areas, storage areas, trash enclosures, and ground mounted mechanical equipment. When feasible, these elements should be located behind or to the sides of buildings and screened from views through a combination of walls/fencing, and/or landscaping.

Policy 10.7.3.1.L: Minimize the visual impacts of roof mounted mechanical equipment. When feasible, such elements should be consolidated and housed in architecturally articulated enclosures.

Policy 10.7.3.2.A: Utilize more formal landscaping treatments in more densely developed (urban) areas and utilize more natural landscaping treatments in less dense (suburban) areas, as appropriate.

Policy 10.7.3.2.B: Achieve neighborhood identities by applying streetscape and landscape design, entry treatments, signage, and architectural detailing standards, in residential areas (reference: Streetscape Master Plan).

Policy 10.7.3.2.C: Incorporate setbacks and landscaped buffers for development along collector and arterial roadways to minimize the impacts from roadway noise, where appropriate.

Policy 10.7.3.2.D: Ensure that landscaping along and adjacent to the public realm is well maintained and retains a natural appearance.

Policy 10.7.3.2.E: Encourage distinctive landscaping and signage that is aesthetically appealing from the public realm (reference: Streetscape Master Plan).

Policy 10.7.3.2.F: Encourage the use of landscaping on walls to soften and screen their visual appearance (reference: Streetscape Master Plan).

Policy 10.7.3.2.G: Increase the width of existing narrow parkway strips when the opportunity arises and encourage all new development and redevelopment projects to provide appropriately sized landscaped parkway strips (reference: Streetscape Master Plan). 943
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22
Policy 10.7.3.2.H: Preserve mature trees and vegetation, with special consideration given to the protection of groups of trees and associated undergrowth and specimen trees (reference:

Heritage Tree Ordinance).

Policy 10.7.3.2.I: Preserve views of creeks, hillsides, skylines, or other natural or man-made landmarks during site planning of new developments, whenever feasible.

Policy 10.7.3.3.A: Encourage gathering spaces and amenities such as mini plazas, courtyards, benches, seating, shade, trash receptacles, and water fountains, in commercial and office areas.

Policy 10.7.3.3.B: Design attractive gathering spaces with pedestrian amenities such as landscaping, benches, shade structures, fountains, public art, and attractive lighting.

Policy 10.7.3.3.C: Encourage design treatments that enhance the attractiveness of the streetscape, public spaces, landscaped areas, and open space.

Policy 10.7.3.4.A: Ensure that perimeter areas incorporate appropriate planting, lighting, and signage.

Policy 10.7.3.4.B: Ensure that signs are constructed of high quality materials, are compatible with their surroundings, and make a positive visual contribution to the character of the community.

Policy 10.7.3.4.D: Incorporate public art where feasible (reference: Public Art Master Plan).

Policy 10.7.3.4.E: Design and locate outdoor lighting around buildings, in parking lots, and along streets that minimize the effects of glare on adjacent properties, particularly in residential areas.

Policy 10.7.3.5.A: Provide convenient but not visually dominating parking that incorporates extensive landscaping to provide shade, promote wayfinding, visually soften views from the street and surrounding properties, and reduce the heat island effect (generally characterized with large expanses of paved and under-landscaped surfaces).

Policy 10.7.3.5.B: Buffer and screen large expanses of parking areas from the street, where practical.

Policy 10.7.3.5.C: Encourage the use of integrated circulation and parking facilities that are shared among surrounding properties.

Policy 10.8.3.A: Provide safe, visually pleasing, and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle connections between destinations within a project area by providing wide multi-use paths, generous sidewalks, and dedicated bicycle lanes on Class I and II Collector and Arterial streets.

Policy 10.8.3.B: Provide clear, identifiable, and ample pedestrian and bicycle pathways that connect sidewalks, parking areas, building entrances, trails and other site features by using 944
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-7
Draft EIR
7/20/22
wayfinding techniques such as signage, landscaping, hardscape, and prominent building entrances, where feasible (reference: Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan).

Policy 10.8.3.C: Provide a continuous and ample network of pedestrian and bicycle routes within a project area and logical connections to the exterior of the project area and thereby create safe routes of travel to transit facilities, public gathering spaces, trails, parks, community centers, schools, City villages, gateways and entries (reference: Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan).

Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The project site is located within the following Planning Subareas of the EDSP:
1) Town Center – Commercial, along Tassajara Road south of Gleason Drive and north of Dublin Boulevard. This subarea was envisioned the commercial core for eastern Dublin and is intended to be a high density, pedestrian-oriented commercial, civic, and entertainment center for Dublin and the surrounding communities.
2) Town Center – Residential, along Brannigan Street south of Gleason Drive and north of Dublin Boulevard. This subarea was envisioned for a large community park and open space area on the eastern portion and residential on the western side. 3) Tassajara Gateway, area south of Dublin Boulevard. This area was envisioned for highquality commercial uses that establishes a positive impression on the thousands of travelers travelling along Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road.
4) Foothill Residential for the small area of the project on the north side of Gleason Drive. This area was envisioned for predominantly single-family residential in the lower density range.

The EDSP contains the following goal, policies and program associated with aesthetic resources as it relates to the project:

Visual Resources - General
Goal: To establish a visually distinctive community which preserves the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining views from major travel corridors and public spaces.

Policy 6-28: Preserve the natural open beauty of the hills and other important visual resources, such as creeks and major stands of vegetation.

Policy 6-30: Structures built near designated scenic corridors shall be located so that views of the back- drop ridge (identified in Figure 6.3 as “Visually Sensitive Ridgelands - no development”) are generally maintained when viewed from the scenic corridors.

Policy 6-31: High quality design and visual character will be required for all development visible from designated scenic corridors.
945
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22
Tassajara Road Scenic Corridor
Policy 6-29: Development is not permitted on the main ridgeline that borders the planning area to the north and east, but may be permitted on the foreground hills and ridgelands. Minor interruptions of views of the main ridgeline by individual building masses may be permissible in limited circumstances where all other remedies have been exhausted.

Policy 6-30: Structures built near designated scenic corridors shall be located so that views of the back- drop ridge (identified in Figure 6.3 as "visually sensitive ridgelands - no development") are generally maintained when viewed from the scenic corridors.

Policy 6-31: High quality design and visual character will be required for all development visible from designated scenic corridors.

Program 6R: The City should require projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors to submit detailed visual analysis with development project applications. Applicants will be required to submit graphic simulations and/or sections drawn from affected travel corridors through the parcel in question, representing, typical views of the parcel from these scenic routes. The graphic depiction of the location and massing of the structure and associated landscaping can then be used to adjust the project design to minimize the visual impact.

Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards
The Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document was adopted by the City Council in 1996 as a means of implementing the requirements of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Scenic Corridor policies establish standards for projects within the scenic corridor viewshed. Along the Interstate 580 corridor, the document identified three critical viewpoints of Dublin’s “Visually Sensitive Ridgelands,” including: Viewpoint 1 from Interstate 580 looking north up Tassajara Creek, Viewpoint 2 looking northeast to the ridgelands from the Tassajara Road Interstate 580 overpass, and Viewpoint 3 looking north and northeast from the Fallon Road overpass.

Standard 1.1 states that from these three designated viewpoints, development shall maintain generally uninterrupted views to significant natural features. The viewpoint that is material to this analysis is Viewpoint 2, where the standard is to have structures that do not extend above the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands for more than 25 percent of the total horizon line. The total horizon line is further defined as the limits of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands as seen from Viewpoint 2 (as shown in Figure 7 of the Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document).

Standard 1.2 states that structures adjacent to a scenic corridor, generally within 700 feet of the scenic corridor, should be allowed to obstruct views of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands from Interstate 580 for not more than 50 percent of the developed frontages. Views may be maintained by balancing building heights and setbacks so as to allow views over the buildings, by clustering buildings to allow views through, or by siting parking to preserve views to the hills. 946
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-9
Draft EIR
7/20/22

5.6 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

5.6.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for aesthetics were derived from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been amended or supplemented, as appropriate, to address Lead Agency requirements and the full range of potential impacts related to this project.

An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it would meet one of the following criteria.
 Cause a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.  Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway.  Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
 Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Also, given consideration are any General Plan goals, policies, or designations that are designed to reduce aesthetic impacts. Conflicts with such laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards can constitute evidence of a significant aesthetic impact. Lastly, a significant aesthetic impact could occur if the project’s incremental aesthetic impact would be cumulatively considerable.

Significance Classifications
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.

Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.

Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through implementation of recommended mitigation measures.

Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.

Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.

No Impact.

Impact Assessment Methodology
To determine potential impacts, the impact significance criteria identified above were applied to construction and operation of the project. Impacts are identified as being either short-term or long-term in nature. They are numbered under each impact significance criterion, as are applicable mitigation measures.
947
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22
An adverse aesthetic (visual) impact occurs within public view when: (1) an action significantly changes existing features of the physical environment so that they no longer appear to be characteristic of the subject locality or region; (2) an action introduces new features to the physical environment that are significantly uncharacteristic of the region and/or locale; or (3) aesthetic features of the landscape become significantly less visible (i.e., partially or totally blocked from view) or are removed. Changes that seem uncharacteristic are those that appear out of place, discordant, or distracting. The degree of the aesthetic impact depends upon how noticeable the adverse change may be. The noticeability of an adverse aesthetic impact is a function of project features, context, and viewing conditions (e.g., angle of view, distance, primary viewing directions, and duration of view).

The specific factors considered in determining impacts on aesthetics included the following factors:

1. An understanding of the overall visual sensitivity of the project site;

2. The resulting contrast of the proposed facilities or activities with existing landscape characteristics;

3. The degree to which project components would dominate the view of the observer;

4. The extent to which project features or activities would block views of higher value landscape features; and

5. An understanding of the overall visual change that would occur in the landscape as a result of the project.

The components contributing to the assessment of overall visual change are described below.

Visual Contrast
Visual contrast concerns the degree to which a project’s visual characteristics or elements (e.g., form, line, color, and texture) differ from the same visual elements in the existing landscape.

The degree of contrast can range from low to high. A landscape with forms, lines, colors, and textures similar to those of the project is more visually absorbent; that is, it is more capable of accepting those project characteristics than a landscape in which those elements are absent.

Generally, visual absorption is inversely proportional to visual contrast. Visual contrast ranges from low to high. Contrast can also be exacerbated by visible glare from project components.

Dominance
Dominance is a measure of the proportion of the total field of view occupied by the feature, a feature’s apparent size relative to other visible landscape features, and the conspicuousness of the feature due to its location in the view.

A feature’s level of dominance tends to be lower in a panoramic setting compared to a setting with confined sightlines with a focus on the feature itself. A feature’s level of dominance is higher if it is near the center of the view, elevated relative to the viewer, or has the sky as a 948
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-11
Draft EIR
7/20/22
backdrop. As the distance between a viewer and a feature increases, its apparent size decreases, and consequently its dominance decreases. The level of dominance ranges from subordinate to dominant.

View Blockage
The extent to which any previously visible landscape features are blocked from view constitutes view blockage or impairment. The view is also impaired when the continuity of the view is interrupted. When considering a project’s features, higher quality landscape features can be blocked by lower quality project features, thus, resulting in adverse aesthetic impacts. The degree of view blockage can range from none to high. Public views, not private, are considered under CEQA.

Visual Change
Visual change is derived from the three components described above—contrast, dominance, and view blockage—and is a concluding assessment as to the degree of change that would be caused by a project. The degree of visual change can range from low to high.

5.6.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
There are no “no” impacts nor “beneficial” impacts.

5.6.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact AES-1: Adversely effect a scenic vista (Class III).

The General Plan describes a design vision which is the basis for the City’s goals and policies related to community design. The design vision identifies the need to utilize regional corridors to promote the positive regional identity of the City through attractive development, unique landscaping, and preservation of views to rolling hillsides and other prominent natural features.

The General Plan identifies Tassajara Road as a regional corridor and, therefore, per Policy

10.5.3.B, developments must maintain views through the development to distant vistas wherever feasible.

The General Plan recognizes Tassajara Road as an Alameda County designated scenic route.

The EDSP also recognizes Tassajara Road as a scenic corridor and asserts that views of major ridgelands be maintained from scenic corridors. The EDSP goals and policies, discussed above, encourage development that maintains views from scenic corridors to Visually Sensitive Ridgelands, as shown in EDSP Figure 6.3: Environmental Constraints.

Furthermore, the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards identifies the view looking northeast to the ridgelands from the Tassajara Road overpass as a designated viewpoint within the project area. Per the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, implementation of developments shall maintain generally uninterrupted views and have structures that do not extend above the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands for more 949
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22
than 25 percent of the total horizon line (the limits of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands as seen from Viewpoint 2).

The Visually Sensitive Ridgelands identified in EDSP Figure 6.3 are located approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the project site. Figure 7 of the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards provides a view cone that gives the estimated maximum heights for developments at set distances from Viewpoint 2 that would avoid obstructing views of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelines. This view cone encompasses a significant portion of the project site south of Dublin Boulevard.

The tallest feature proposed for this portion of the project site is an indoor/outdoor recreation facility that is anticipated to function as a Topgolf entertainment driving range. Topgolf facilities typically consist of parking, a three-level building enclosed on three sides with the fourth side open to serve as hitting bays, and an outdoor driving range outfield extending from the open side.

As shown in Figure 5-1: Rendering of Topgolf Building Massing From Viewpoint 2, the building is long and relatively narrow, with a maximum height of 55 feet. It is oriented nearly perpendicular to the distant ridgeline, thereby reducing its visual prominence when seen from Viewpoint 2 as identified in Figure 7 of the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. The majority of the building would be located within the 60-foot height zone as identified in Figure 7. The building’s height and orientation would be consistent with the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards avoid through avoidance of obstructing views of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelines. The outdoor driving range would be enclosed by netting that is 93 percent transparent and supported by poles up to 190 feet tall .The proposed nets and support poles would be substantially taller than any surrounding structures and extend above the maximum height limit. However, they would not obstruct the view as defined in Figure 7 given their semi-transparent appearance, and the fact that the poles and nets would not extend above the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands for more than 25 percent of the total horizon line.

The area south of Dublin Boulevard also includes the potential to develop up to two hotels with a total of 140 rooms. The hotel building(s) would be limited to a maximum height of 74-feet and would be located at the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan Street, outside of the 60-foot maximum height limit.

Furthermore, the project applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of Program 6R of the EDSP by submitting a detailed visual analysis of the Tassajara Road Scenic Corridor for the project as part of the Site Development Review Permit process. Review of this visual analysis will also ensure compliance with EDSP Policies 6-30 and 6-31 and Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards 1.1 and 1.2 which would prevent impacts to Visually Sensitive Ridgelines.
950
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-13
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Based on the above analysis, and the requirement for compliance with City standards and policies, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact to views of a scenic vista.

Impacts would be Class III, less than significant with no mitigation required.

Impact AES-2: Substantially damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway (Class III).

The southern boundary of the project site is immediately adjacent to and within view of I-580 which is an Eligible State Scenic Highway. Viewpoint 2 on the Tassajara Road overpass over I580 overlooks the southern portion of the project site from I-580.

As described in Impact AES-1 above, views of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands from Viewpoint 2 and I-580 identified in the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor would not be significantly impacted by the proposed project, including the proposed Topgolf sports recreation facility. Furthermore, as described in Impact AES-1 above, the project will be required to comply with the requirements of the EDSP and the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards by submitting a visual analysis as part of the Site Development Review Permit process.

Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact to scenic resources within a State scenic highway. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant with no mitigation required.

Impact AES-3: Substantially alter the visual character of the project site and surrounding area (Class III).

The project consists of both commercial and residential development that would be constructed in two phases (see Figure 3-8: Project Phasing Plan). The first phase would include development of the commercial area of PA-2, followed by development of residential area of PA-2, 1, PA-3 and PA-4 in the second phase. Project development would include plazas, linear parks, paseos, and gardens located throughout each of the planning areas along with gathering places for community events.

The project would complete pedestrian walkways and plantings along existing City streets and develop multi-use paths, paseos and pedestrian walkways to provide connections between the residential, commercial and open spaces throughout the site. Varied but complementary plantings and hardscape features would project a modern agrarian aesthetic. The project would utilize setbacks and landscaped buffers for screening throughout the site. Walls would be interior to the project with the exception of the continuation of an existing wall located within PA-4. The continuation of the existing wall in this specific portion of the project would allow for continuity with the existing setbacks, landscaping, and residential lot configuration adjacent to PA-4 along Gleason Avenue.

The City’s General Plan identifies several key entrances to the City, including the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road, as gateways. General Plan Policies 10.6.3.A, 10.6.3.B and

10.6.3.C describe the use of landscaping, architectural features, signage, and consistency with 951
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22
the City’s Streetscape Master Plan as measures that would support General Plan Goal 10.6.2 and assist in creating a sense of arrival to the City.

The project would require a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment to modify the land use designations to accommodate the proposed development. The subject site is currently designated with a combination of General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, Medium, Medium/High, and High-Density Residential land uses. In addition, a small portion of the site north of Gleason Drive is designated for Public/Semi-Public uses. The project implements the City’s new vision for the SCS Property based on the Preferred Plan approved by City Council in February 2022, which includes similar uses as the current land use designations, albeit at different intensities and areas. Accordingly, the project is located in an area with compatible surrounding uses, including commercial, residential, campus office, and parks/public recreation uses.

Per Chapter 8.84 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the project would be required to have a Master Sign Program. Adherence to the Master Sign Program would ensure that project signage would be compatible with the style and character of project and surrounding development and are well related to each other.

Upon EIR certification and project approval by the Dublin City Council for the proposed project, the project applicant will be required to submit detailed civil engineering and architectural plans as part of the Site Development Review Permit process. These plans would be required to conform with all applicable City, State, and federal regulations, including those related to design.

The project would not substantially alter the visual character of the surrounding area; however, the project would alter the visual character of the project site by replacing the undeveloped land with a mix of residential and commercial development. The building heights, massing and materials, setbacks and architectural and landscape criteria are generally consistent with the surrounding land uses and the project site includes landscaping, sidewalks, and signage that creates a consistent streetscape; see Figure 3-7 (a-b): Project Renderings. In addition, the proposed project would be required to undergo site-specific design review to ensure the project is consistent with the City of Dublin design standards and performance standard related to aesthetics and to less the severity of the visual change resulting from the proposed project.

Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact to the visual character of the project site and surrounding area. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

Impact AES-4: Introduce new light and glare to the project site and project area (Class II).

The project site is vacant land with no existing sources of light or glare, with the exception of minimal temporary lighting associated with seasonal uses. Nearby sources of light and glare include street lighting and vehicle traffic along Tassajara Road, Brannigan Street, Dublin Boulevard, Central Parkway, Gleason Drive as well as freeway lighting and vehicle traffic along I 952
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-15
Draft EIR
7/20/22
- 580. Other sources of existing lighting and glare in the surrounding area include surface parking lighting of the commercial uses to the west and southeast, residential uses to the north and east and the public park to the west.

Implementation of the project would include additional sources of residential and commercial indoor lighting, outdoor/security lighting, parking area lighting, and illuminated signage.

Development pursuant to the project would result in a greater intensity of uses as compared to existing conditions due to an increased number of structures (residential units and commercial facilities), additional streets, and other land uses that is typical of an urban density development.

Exterior project lighting would consist of wall- and pole-mounted fixtures around the perimeters of buildings, landscaped areas, pedestrian pathways, streets, and in parking areas on the project site. The open side and driving range outfield of the Topgolf facility would also be illuminated. Typical illumination for a Topgolf includes building mounted sports lighting standards directed downward at the driving range outfield and illuminated round, ground targets in the driving range outfield. Though lighting would be designed to minimize spill, light from these fixtures could spill beyond the project site and result in significant light and glare impacts.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control Plan, would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level (Class II).

Mitigation for Impact AES-4
MM AES-4.1 Exterior Lighting Control Plan
To minimize the adverse impact associated with light and glare, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting control plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit for vertical construction for building lighting or approval of the final landscape plan for all other site lighting.

The exterior lighting control plan shall address the design and installation of all permanent exterior lighting and all temporary construction lighting such that: (a) lamps and reflectors are not directly visible from beyond the project site, as feasible; (b) lighting does not cause excessive reflected glare; (c) direct lighting does not illuminate the nighttime sky; (d) illumination of the project and its immediate vicinity is minimized; and (e) the lighting mitigation plan complies with all relevant local policies and ordinances.

The exterior lighting control plan shall include the following:
 A photometric study that demonstrates spillover horizontal foot-candle (fc) levels do not exceed 1.0 fc at the project site boundary;
 Identification of the location and direction of light fixtures that take the lighting control requirements into account;
953
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22
 Lighting design that considers setbacks of project features from the site boundary to aid in satisfying the lighting control requirements;
 Lighting design that incorporates fixture hoods/shielding, with light directed downward or toward the area to be illuminated;
 Light fixtures that are visible from beyond the project boundary shall have cutoff angles that are sufficient to prevent lamps and reflectors from being visible beyond the project boundary, except where necessary for security;
 Lighting fixtures that have a minimum necessary brightness, consistent with operational safety and security; and
 Where lights in high illumination areas are not occupied on a continuous basis, utilize timer switches or motion detectors so that the lights operate only when the area is occupied.

5.6.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative aesthetic impacts includes the project site viewshed and the visual character of its surroundings in the City of Dublin. Cumulative projects considered are those that could be seen in proximity to the project site and taken together would result in a substantial change to the project site viewshed.

Impact AES-5: Contribute to cumulatively considerable aesthetic impacts (Class II).

The geographic scope of the cumulative aesthetics, light, and glare analysis is the area surrounding the project site. This is the area within view of the project and, therefore, the area most likely to experience changes in visual character or experience light and glare impacts.

The area surrounding the project site is entirely developed with the exception of a vacant parcel just north of Lowe’s which was part of the larger Grafton Station Planned Development.

The project vicinity is characterized by urban development and multi-family residential uses.

Much of the surrounding project area has been developed relatively recently in compliance with the General Plan, the EDSP, and the City’s municipal code requirements related to design and visual character. Compliance with these standards as well as the City’s review and approval role in the planning process will help to create a visually compatible and cohesive development pattern in the surrounding area. Therefore, there is currently no existing cumulatively significant visual aesthetic impact within the project area.

The project would be developed in several phases over a period of approximately four years.

The project would feature buildings as high as three stories and nets and support poles up to 190 feet. However, compliance with the EDSP and the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards and the use of site planning techniques such as setbacks, structure placement, 954
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-17
Draft EIR
7/20/22
and landscaping, the visual appearance of the project would be softened such that it would be compatible with its surroundings.

Therefore, with implementation of MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control Plan, the project in conjunction with other planned and approved projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impact relating to aesthetics, light, and glare.

5.6.5 Level of Significant After Mitigation
Table 5-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Aesthetics summarizes the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the project with regard to aesthetics.

Table 5-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Aesthetics Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact AES-1: Adversely effect a
scenic vista (Class III).

Less than
Significant
None required.

Impact AES-2: Substantially damage
scenic resources within a state
scenic highway (Class III).

Less than
Significant
None required.

Impact AES-3: Substantially alter the
visual character of the project site
and project area, or substantially
change a scenic vista (Class III).

Less than
Significant
None required.

Impact AES-4: Introduce new light
and glare to the project site and
project area (Class II).

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control Plan
Impact AES-5: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable aesthetic
impacts (Class II).

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control Plan

5.7 References
City of Burlingame. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Topgolf Burlingame. 2020.

Available at https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020029042/2. Accessed April 13, 2022.

City of San José. Initial Study Topgolf @ Terra Project. 2016. Available at https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments/planning-building-codeenforcement/planning-division/environmental-planning/environmentalreview/negative-declaration-initial-studies/topgolf-terra-project. Accessed April 13, 2022.
955
SCS Dublin City of Dublin

Draft EIR
7/20/22
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. State Scenic Highway Program.

Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-andcommunity-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed March 31, 2022.

California Department of Finance. 2021. Demographic Research Unit. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State January 1, 2020 and 2021. Available at:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/. Accessed March 31, 2022.

State of California. California Building Code 2019 Vol 1&2. 2019. Available at https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes. Accessed April 13, 2022.

Topgolf. SCS – Dublin Topgolf Overview. April 4, 2022.
956
Source: Project Application, 2022
Figure 5-1: Rendering of Topgolf Building Massing from Viewpoint 2 SCS Dublin Project
Environmental Impact Report 957
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-1
Draft EIR
7/20/22
6 Air Quality

6.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the existing setting of the project site as it relates to air quality; identifies associated regulatory conditions and requirements; presents the criteria used to evaluate potential impacts on air quality; and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid each significant impact. The significance of each impact after the incorporation of identified mitigation measures is included at the end of this chapter.

Information used to prepare this chapter came from the following sources:
 Project application and related materials
 Air quality data provided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)  California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines  Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Clean Air Plan 2017  City of Dublin, General Plan 1985 as amended 2022

6.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, no comments regarding air quality were raised.

6.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on air quality conditions in the project area. The Regional Setting provides information on the baseline conditions in the region. The Project Setting defines the project area and describes baseline conditions for air quality within it.

6.3.1 Climate and Topography
The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin), which includes Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, Napa County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, and Santa Clara County. The Air Basin composes of an area of approximately 5,340 square miles in the San Francisco Bay Area. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is responsible for local control and monitoring of criteria air pollutants throughout the Air Basin.

The climate of the Air Basin is determined largely by a high-pressure system that is almost always present over the eastern Pacific Ocean off the West Coast of North America in the summer. During winter, the Pacific high-pressure system shifts southward, allowing storms to pass through the region. During the summer, the large-scale meteorological condition that 958
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-2 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
dominates the West Coast is a semi-permanent high-pressure cell centered over the northeastern portion of the Pacific Ocean.

Climatological conditions, an area’s topography, and the quantity and type of pollutants released commonly determine ambient air quality. The project site is located in central Alameda County in the San Francisco Bay Area, in the City of Dublin.

Climate, or the average weather condition, affects air quality in several ways. Wind patterns can remove or add air pollutants emitted by stationary or mobile sources. Inversion, a condition where warm air traps cooler air underneath it, can hold pollutants near the ground by limiting upward mixing (dilution). Topography also affects the local climate, as valleys often trap emissions by limiting lateral dispersal.

6.3.2 Air Pollutants of Primary Concern
The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and state laws. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants” and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are criteria pollutants. ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and go on to form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. For example, the criteria pollutant ozone (O3) is formed by a chemical reaction between ROG and NOX in the presence of sunlight. O3 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants. Sources and health effects commonly associated with criteria pollutants are summarized in Table 6-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns.

Ozone, or smog, is not emitted directly into the environment, but is formed in the atmosphere by complex chemical reactions between ROG and NOX in the presence of sunlight. Ozone formation is greatest on warm, windless, sunny days. The main sources of NOX and ROG, often referred to as ozone precursors, are combustion processes (including motor vehicle engines) the evaporation of solvents, paints, and fuels, and biogenic sources. Automobiles are the single largest source of ozone precursors in the Basin. Tailpipe emissions of ROG are highest during cold starts, hard acceleration, stop-and-go conditions, and slow speeds. They decline as speeds increase up to about 50 miles per hour (mph), then increase again at high speeds and high engine loads. ROG emissions associated with evaporation of unburned fuel depend on vehicle and ambient temperature cycles. Nitrogen oxide emissions exhibit a different curve; emissions decrease as the vehicle approaches 30 mph and then begin to increase with increasing speeds.

Ozone levels usually build up during the day and peak in the afternoon hours. Short-term exposure can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the airways. Besides causing shortness of breath, it can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis and emphysema. Chronic exposure to high ozone levels can permanently damage lung tissue.

Ozone can also damage plants and trees, and materials such as rubber and fabrics. 959
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-3
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Table 6-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health Effects
Particulate Matter
(PM10 and PM2.5)
Power plants, steel mills, chemical plants,
unpaved roads and parking lots, woodburning stoves and fireplaces, automobiles and others.

Increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of
the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing;
asthma; chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat;
nonfatal heart attacks; and premature death in
people with heart or lung disease. Impairs visibility.

Ozone (O3) Formed by a chemical reaction between
reactive organic gases/volatile organic
compounds (ROG or VOC)1 and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) in the presence of sunlight.

Motor vehicle exhaust industrial emissions,
gasoline storage and transport, solvents,
paints and landfills.

Irritates and causes inflammation of the mucous
membranes and lung airways; causes wheezing,
coughing, and pain when inhaling deeply; decreases
lung capacity; aggravates lung and heart problems.

Damages plants; reduces crop yield.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) A colorless gas formed when fuel
containing sulfur is burned and when
gasoline is extracted from oil. Examples are
petroleum refineries, cement
manufacturing, metal processing facilities,
locomotives, and ships.

Respiratory irritant. Aggravates lung and heart
problems. In the presence of moisture and oxygen,
sulfur dioxide converts to sulfuric acid which can
damage marble, iron and steel. Damages crops and
natural vegetation. Impairs visibility. Precursor to
acid rain.

Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
An odorless, colorless gas formed when
carbon in fuel is not burned completely; a
component of motor vehicle exhaust.

Reduces the ability of blood to deliver oxygen to vital tissues, affecting the cardiovascular and nervous
system. Impairs vision, causes dizziness, and can lead
to unconsciousness or death.

Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
A reddish-brown gas formed during fuel
combustion for motor vehicles and
industrial sources. Sources include motor
vehicles, electric utilities, and other sources
that burn fuel.

Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart
problems. Precursor to ozone. Contributes to global
warming and nutrient overloading which
deteriorates water quality. Causes brown
discoloration of the atmosphere.

Lead (Pb) Lead is a metal found naturally in the
environment as well as in manufactured
products. The major sources of lead
emissions have historically been motor
vehicles (such as cars and trucks) and
industrial sources. Due to the phase out of
leaded gasoline, metals processing is the
major source of lead emissions to the air
today. The highest levels of lead in air are
generally found near lead smelters. Other
stationary sources are waste incinerators,
utilities, and lead-acid battery
manufacturers.

Exposure to lead occurs mainly through inhalation of
air and ingestion of lead in food, water, soil, or dust.

It accumulates in the blood, bones, and soft tissues
and can adversely affect the kidneys, liver, nervous
system, and other organs. Excessive exposure to lead
may cause neurological impairments such as
seizures, mental retardation, and behavioral
disorders. Even at low doses, lead exposure is
associated with damage to the nervous systems of
fetuses and young children, resulting in learning
deficits and lowered IQ.
1 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs or Reactive Organic Gases [ROG]) are hydrocarbons/organic gases that are formed solely of hydrogen and carbon. There are several subsets of organic gases including ROGs and VOCs. Both ROGs and VOCs are emitted from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. The major sources of hydrocarbons are combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and oil-fueled power plants; other common sources are petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint (via evaporation).

Source: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Health Effects, capcoa.org/health-effects/, accessed February 1, 2022. 960
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-4 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances that can cause short‐term (acute) or long‐term (chronic or carcinogenic, i.e., cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury or illness). TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. They may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, and painting operations. The current California list of TACs includes more than 200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel‐fueled engines.

CARB identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a toxic air contaminant. DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of particles and gases produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. DPM is a concern because it causes lung cancer; many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. DPM includes the particle-phase constituents in diesel exhaust. The chemical composition and particle sizes of DPM vary between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel), and the year of the engine.

Some short-term (acute) effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel exhaust can cause coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung.

6.3.3 Ambient Air Quality
Local air districts and CARB monitor ambient air quality to ensure that air quality standards are met, and if they are not met, to also develop strategies to meet the standards. Table 6-2:

Current National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards shows the federal and State standards for a number of pollutants.
961
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-5
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Table 6-2: Current National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time
Federal Primary Standards California Standard
Concentration
Attainment
Status Concentration
Attainment
Status
Ozone
1-Hour --- N/A5 0.09 ppm N
8-Hour 0.070 ppm N4 0.070 ppm N9
Carbon Monoxide
8-Hour 9.0 ppm A6 9.0 ppm A
1-Hour 35.0 ppm A 20.0 ppm A
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual 0.053 ppm A 0.030 ppm ---
1-Hour 0.10 ppm11 U 0.18 ppm A
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual 0.03 ppm A NA ---
24-Hour 0.14 ppm A 0.04 ppm A
1-Hour 0.075 ppm A 0.25 ppm A
PM10
Annual NA --- 20 µg/m3 N7
24-Hour 150 µg/m3 U 50 µg/m3 N
PM2.5
Annual 12 µg/m3 N 12 µg/m3 N7
24-Hour 35 µg/m3 U/A NA ---
Sulfates 24- Hour 25 µg/m3 A NA ---
Lead
30-Day Average NA A 1.5 µg/m3 ---
Calendar Quarter 1.5 µg/m3 A NA ---
Rolling 3-Month
Average 0.15 µg/m3 --- NA ---
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour NA --- 0.03 ppm (0.15
µg/m3) U
Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour NA --- 0.01 ppm (26
µg/m3) ---
Visibility Reducing
Particles8
8 Hour
(10:00 to 18:00
PST)
--- --- --- U
A = attainment; N = nonattainment; U = unclassified; N/A = not applicable or no applicable standard; ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; – = not indicated or no information available.

1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - PM10, and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1-hour, 8-hour or 24-hour average (i.e., all standards except for lead and the PM10 annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded. In particular, measurements are excluded that CARB determines would occur less than once per year on the average. The Lake Tahoe CO standard is 6.0 ppm, a level one-half the national standard and two-thirds the state standard.

2. National standards shown are the "primary standards" designed to protect public health. National standards other than for ozone, particulates and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1-hour ozone standard is attained if, during the most recent three-year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 4th highest daily concentrations is 0.070 ppm (70 ppb) or less. The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 µg/m3. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles is less than 35 µg/m3. Except for the national particulate standards, annual standards are 962
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-6 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Pollutant Averaging Time
Federal Primary Standards California Standard
Concentration
Attainment
Status Concentration
Attainment
Status
met if the annual average falls below the standard at every site. The national annual particulate standard for PM10 is met if the 3-year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3-year average of annual averages spatially-averaged across officially designed clusters of sites falls below the standard.

3. National air quality standards are set by the EPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety.

4. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. An area will meet the standard if the fourth-highest maximum daily 8-hour ozone concentration per year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than 0.070 ppm. EPA will make recommendations on attainment designations by October 1, 2016, and issue final designations October 1, 2017. Nonattainment areas will have until 2020 to late 2037 to meet the health standard, with attainment dates varying based on the ozone level in the area.

5. The national 1-hour ozone standard was revoked by U.S. EPA on June 15, 2005.

6. In April 1998, the Bay Area was redesignated to attainment for the national 8-hour carbon monoxide standard.

7. In June 2002, CARB established new annual standards for PM2.5 and PM10.

8. Statewide VRP Standard (except Lake Tahoe Air Basin): Particles in sufficient amount to produce an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer when the relative humidity is less than 70 percent. This standard is intended to limit the frequency and severity of visibility impairment due to regional haze and is equivalent to a 10-mile nominal visual range.

9. The 8-hour CA ozone standard was approved by the Air Resources Board on April 28, 2005 and became effective on May 17, 2006.

10. On January 9, 2013, EPA issued a final rule to determine that the Bay Area attains the 24-hour PM2.5 national standard. This EPA rule suspends key SIP requirements as long as monitoring data continues to show that the Bay Area attains the standard. Despite this EPA action, the Bay Area will continue to be designated as “nonattainment” for the national 24-hour PM2.5 standard until such time as the Air District submits a “redesignation request” and a “maintenance plan” to EPA, and EPA approves the proposed redesignation.

11. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100ppm (effective January 22, 2010). The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expects to make a designation for the Bay Area by the end of 2017.

12. On June 2, 2010, the U.S. EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The existing 0.030 ppm annual and 0.14 ppm 24- hour SO2 NAAQS however must continue to be used until one year following U.S. EPA initial designations of the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

13. CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure below which there are no adverse health effects determined.

14. National lead standard, rolling 3-month average: final rule signed October 15, 2008. Final designations effective December 31, 2011.

15. In December 2012, EPA strengthened the annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) from 15.0 to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). In December 2014, EPA issued final area designations for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Areas designated “unclassifiable/attainment” must continue to take steps to prevent their air quality from deteriorating to unhealthy levels. The effective date of this standard is April 15, 2015.

CARB monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air monitoring stations across the state. Air quality monitoring stations usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet above ground level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations.

Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the local air basin is classified as in “attainment” or “non-attainment.” Some areas are unclassified, which means no monitoring data is available. Unclassified areas are considered to be in attainment. Table 6-3: Attainment Status of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin summarizes the State and federal attainment status for criteria pollutants in the Air Basin.
963
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-7
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Table 6-3: Attainment Status of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Pollutant State Standard Federal Standard
Ozone (O3) Non-attainment 1 Non-attainment2
Inhalable Particulates (PM10) Non-attainment3 Unclassified Fine Particulates (PM2.5) Non-attainment3 Unclassified
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Attainment4
Nitrogen Dioxide (NOX) Attainment ---5
Sulfur Dioxide (SOX) Attainment ---6
Lead (Pb) --- Attainment7
Notes:

1. The CARB approved the 8-hour CA ozone standard on April 28, 2005 and became effective May 17, 2006.

2. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. An area will meet the standard if the fourth-highest maximum daily 8-hour ozone concentration per year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than 0.070 ppm. EPA will make recommendations on attainment designations by October 1, 2016, and issue final designations October 1, 2017. Nonattainment areas will have until 2020 to late 2037 to meet the health standard, with attainment dates varying based on the ozone level in the area.

3. In June 2002, the CARB established new annual standards for PM2.5 and PM10

4. In April 1998, the Bay Area was re-designated to attainment for the national 8-hour carbon monoxide standard.

5. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100ppm (effective January 22, 2010). The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expects to make a designation for the Bay Area by the end of 2017.

6. On June 2, 2010, the U.S. EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The existing 0.030 ppm annual and 0.14 ppm 24-hour SO2 NAAQS however must continue to be used until one year following U.S. EPA initial designations of the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA expects to make designation for the Bay Area by the end of 2017.

7. The final rule for rolling 3-month average was signed October 15, 2008. Final designations effective December 31, 2011.

Non-attainment pollutants are highlighted in Bold.

Source: BAAQMD, 2017b. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status.

As shown in Table 6-3: Attainment Status of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, although the BAAQMD is in attainment or unclassifiable as to all NAAQS, it is designated as non-attainment with respect to the more stringent State PM10 standard and the State’s 8-hour ozone standard.

BAAQMD operates 40 air monitoring stations within the nine Bay Area counties. There are seven active monitoring stations within Alameda County: Berkeley Aquatic Park, Hayward, three within Oakland, and two in Livermore. The nearest monitoring station to the project site is the Livermore monitoring station (approximately 4.8 miles east of the project site). However, the Livermore monitoring station does not measure PM10 and therefore the Concord monitoring station summary averages were used. Table 6-4: Ambient Air Quality Data lists the monitored maximum concentrations and number of exceedances of federal or state air quality standards for each year.
964
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-8 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Table 6-4: Ambient Air Quality Data
Pollutant 2018 2019 2020
Ozone (O3) 1
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.099 0.105 0.095
8-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.078 0.078 0.077
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.09 ppm) 2 4 1
NAAQS 8-hour (>0.070 ppm) 3 7 2
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 2
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppb) 64.0 63.7 62.6
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>100 ppb) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour (>18 ppb) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Microns (PM2.5) 2
National 24-hour Maximum Concentration 164.7 29.1 123.8 State 24-hour Maximum Concentration 164.7 29.1 123.8
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>150 µg/m3) 13 0 17
CAAQS 24-hour (>50 µg/m3) NM NM NM
Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns (PM10) 1
National 24-hour Maximum Concentration 172.6 28.8 122.0 State 24-hour Maximum Concentration 172.6 28.8 122.0
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>150 µg/m3) 14 0 17
CAAQS 24-hour (>50 µg/m3) NM NM NM
NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards; ppb = parts per billion; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; NM = not measured
1 Measurements taken at the Livermore-793 Rincon Avenue Monitoring Station (CARB #60344). 2 Measurements taken at the Pleasanton-Owens Court Monitoring Station (CARB #60353).

Source: All pollutant measurements are from the CARB Aerometric Data Analysis and Management system database (arb.ca.gov/adam).

Given that the BAAQMD is designated as non-attainment for State standards for ozone and PM10, these are the primary pollutants of concern for the BAAQMD. As indicated in Table 6-4:

Ambient Air Quality Data, there were several federal ozone exceedances at the nearest BAAQMD monitoring station in 2019 and 2020. The State 1-hour average exceed two days in 2018, four days in 2019, and one day in 2020. The federal standards for PM10 were exceeded 965
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6‐9
Draft EIR
7/20/22
14 days in 2018, zero days in 2019, and 17 days in 2020. The federal standards for PM2.5 were exceeded for 13 days in 2018, zero days in 2019 and 17 days in 2020.

6.3.4 Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Sensitive receptors in proximity to localized sources of toxics are of particular concern.  Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes.

The project site is located in an urban area in City of Dublin. The surrounding land uses are residential to the north, east and west, with commercial uses to the east and west.

The closest sensitive receptors to the project site include residential uses located adjacent to the north, east, and west.

6.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
This analysis has been prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and associated Guidelines (Public Resources Code 21000 et seq.  and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 sections 15000 – 15387) and in accordance with local, State and federal laws, including those administered by BAAWMD, CARB, and the EPA.  The principal air quality regulatory mechanisms include the following:
 Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), in particular, the 1990 amendments;  California Clean Air Act (CCAA);
 California Health and Safety Code (H&SC), in particular, Chapter 3.5 (Toxic Air Contaminants) (H&SC Section 39650 et.  seq.) and Part 6 (Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment) (H&SC Section 44300 et. seq.).  BAAQMD’s Rules and Regulations and air quality planning documents

6.4.1 Federal and State
As discussed below, the federal and State governments have been empowered by FCAA and CCAA, respectively, to regulate the emission of airborne pollutants and have established ambient air quality standards for the protection of public health.  U.S. EPA is the federal agency designated to administer air quality regulation, while CARB is the State equivalent in California.

Local control in air quality management is provided by CARB through county‐level or regional (multi‐county) air pollution control districts (APCDs).  CARB establishes air quality standards and is responsible for control of mobile emission sources, while the local APCDs are responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources.  CARB has established 14 air basins statewide.
966
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-10 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Federal Clean Air Act
U.S. EPA is charged with implementing national air quality programs. U.S. EPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the FCAA. The FCAA was passed in 1963 by the U.S.

Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970 FCAA amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s.

In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including non-attainment requirements for areas not meeting NAAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The 1990 FCAA amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the U.S. The FCAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards
The FCAA requires U.S. EPA to establish primary and secondary NAAQS for a number of criteria air pollutants. The air pollutants for which standards have been established are considered the most prevalent air pollutants that are known to be hazardous to human health. NAAQS have been established for the following pollutants: O3, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb.

Title III of the Federal Clean Air Act
As discussed above, HAPs are the air contaminants identified by the U.S. EPA as known or suspected to cause cancer, other serious illnesses, birth defects, or death. The FCAA requires the U.S. EPA to set standards for these pollutants and reduce emissions of controlled chemicals. Specifically, Title III of the FCAA requires the U.S. EPA to promulgate National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for certain categories of sources that emit one or more pollutants that are identified as HAPs. The FCAA also requires the U.S.

EPA to set standards to control emissions of HAPs through mobile source control programs.

These include programs that reformulated gasoline, national low emissions vehicle standards, Tier 2 motor vehicle emission standards, gasoline sulfur control requirements, and heavy-duty engine standards.

HAPs tend to be localized and are found in relatively low concentrations in ambient air.

However, they can result in adverse chronic health effects if exposure to low concentrations occurs for long periods. Many HAPs originate from human activities, such as fuel combustion and solvent use. Emission standards may differ between “major sources” and “area sources” of the HAPs/TACs. Under the FCAA, major sources are defined as stationary sources with the potential to emit more than 10 tons per year (tpy) of any one HAP or more than 25 tpy of any combination of HAPs; all other sources are considered area sources.

Mobile source air toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 HAPs. Of the 21 HAPs identified by the U.S. EPA as MSATs, a priority list of six HAPs were identified that include: diesel exhaust, benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and 1, 3-butadiene. While vehicle miles traveled in the United States are expected to increase by 45 percent over the period 2010 to 967
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-11
Draft EIR
7/20/22
2050, a combined reduction of 91 percent in the total annual emissions for the priority MSAT is projected for the same time period.1
California Clean Air Act
The CCAA, signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the State to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. CARB is the State air pollution control agency and is a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California, and for implementing the requirements of the CCAA. CARB overseas local district compliance with California and federal laws, approves local air quality plans, submits the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to U.S. EPA, monitors air quality, determines and updates area designations and maps, and sets emissions standards for new mobile sources, consumer products, small utility engines, off-road vehicles, and fuels.

California Ambient Air Quality Standards
The CCAA requires CARB to establish CAAQS. Similar to the NAAQS, CAAQS have been established for the following pollutants: O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, Pb, vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and visibility-reducing particulates. In most cases, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS. The CCAA requires that all local air districts in the State endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. The CCAA specifies that local air districts should focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources and provides districts with the authority to regulate indirect sources.

Tanner Air Toxics Act and Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act TACs 2 in California primarily are regulated through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588) (Hot Spots Act). As discussed above, HAPs/TACs are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (cancer risk). HAPs/TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g. dry cleaners).

Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, State and federal level.

AB 1807 sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Research, public participation, and scientific peer review are necessary before CARB can designate a substance as a TAC. To date, CARB has identified more than 21 TACs and adopted the U.S.

EPA’s list of HAPs as TACs. In 1998, DPM was added to CARB’s list of TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an Airborne Toxic Control Measure for sources that emit that particular 1 Federal Highway Administration, 2016. Updated. Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. 2 TACs are referred to as HAPs under the FCAA. 968
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-12 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
TAC. If a safe threshold exists at which no toxic effect occurs from a substance, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If no safe threshold exists, the measure must incorporate Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to minimize emissions.

The Hot Spots Act requires for existing facilities that emit toxic substances above a specified level to prepare a toxic emissions inventory and a risk assessment if the emissions are significant, notify the public of significant risk levels, and prepare and implement risk reduction measures.

Diesel Exhaust and Diesel Particulate Matter
Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about twothirds of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the statewide average). According to CARB, diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. This mixture makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under State Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs.

CARB reports that recent air pollution studies have shown an association between diesel exhaust and other cancer-causing toxic air contaminants emitted from vehicles and much of the overall cancer risk from TACs in California. DPM was found to compose much of that risk.

CARB has adopted and implemented a number of regulations for stationary and mobile sources to reduce emissions of DPM. Several of these regulatory programs affect medium- and heavyduty diesel trucks that generate the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. These include the solid waste collection vehicle (SWCV) rule, in-use public and utility fleet regulations, and the heavy-duty diesel truck and bus regulations.

The regulation requires affected vehicles to meet specific performance requirements between 2011 and 2023, with all affected diesel vehicles required to have 2010 model-year engines or the equivalent by 2023. These requirements are phased in over the compliance period and depend on the model year of the vehicle. With implementation of CARB’s Risk Reduction Plan, DPM concentrations are expected to be reduced by 85 percent in 2020 from the estimated year-2000 level.3
As emissions are reduced, risks associated with exposure to emissions also are expected to be reduced.

CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook
In April 2005, CARB released the final version of its Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. This guidance document is intended to encourage local land use agencies to consider the risks from air pollution before they approve the siting of sensitive 3 CARB. 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. https://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpFinal.pdf
969
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-13
Draft EIR
7/20/22
land uses (e.g. residences) near sources of air pollution, particularly TACs (e.g. freeway and high traffic roads, commercial distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, dry cleaners, gasoline stations and industrial facilities). These advisory recommendations include general setbacks or buffers from air pollution sources. However, unlike industrial or stationary sources of air pollution, the siting of new sensitive land use does not require air quality permits or approval by air districts, and as noted above, the CARB handbook provides guidance only rather than binding regulations.

CARB 2017 Technical Advisory (Strategies to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure Near High-Volume Roadways)
CARB published a Technical Advisory in 2017 to provide planners and other stakeholders involved in land use planning and decision-making with information on scientifically based strategies to reduce exposure to traffic emissions near high-volume roadways. Near-roadway development is a result of a variety of factors, including economic growth, demand for built environment uses, and the scarcity of developable land in some areas.

The Technical Advisory notes that research has demonstrated the public health, climate, financial, and other benefits of compact, infill development along transportation corridors, and demonstrates that planners, developers, and local governments can pursue infill development while simultaneously reducing exposure to traffic-related pollution. On-site strategies to remove air pollution identified in the Technical Advisory include the use of particle filtration systems (i.e., high efficiency filtration in mechanical ventilation systems), solid barriers, and vegetation.

California Energy Commission - Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as specified in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6, were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2019 Energy Standards include requirements for mandatory mechanical ventilation intended to improve indoor air quality in homes, and requirements for Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 air filtration on space conditioning systems, and ventilation systems that provide outside air to a dwelling’s occupiable space.

The Residential Compliance Manual for the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards notes that air filter efficiencies of at least MERV 13 protect occupants from exposure to the smaller airborne particles (i.e., PM2.5) that are known to adversely affect respiratory health. CCR Title 24 Part 6 requires a particle size efficiency rating equal to or greater than 85 percent in the 1.0 to

0.3 µg range.

6.4.2 Regional
The BAAQMD regulates air quality in the SFBAAB and is responsible for attainment planning related to criteria air pollutants and for district rule development and enforcement. The district 970
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-14 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
inspects stationary sources and responds to citizen complaints, monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implements programs and regulations required by law. It also reviews air quality analyses prepared for CEQA assessments and has published the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines documents for use in evaluation of air quality impacts.

Air Quality Management Plan
The BAAQMD is responsible for developing a Clean Air Plan, which guides the region’s air quality planning efforts to attain the CAAQS. The BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan on April 19, 2017. The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains district-wide control measures to reduce ozone precursor emissions (i.e., ROG and NOx), particulate matter, TACs, and greenhouse gas emissions. The Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan updates the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act to implement “all feasible measures” to reduce ozone; provides a control strategy to reduce ozone, PM, TACs, and greenhouse gases in a single, integrated plan; reviews progress in improving air quality in recent years; and establishes emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in both the short term and through 2050.

The following BAAQMD rules would limit emissions of air pollutants from construction and operation of the project:
 Regulation 6, Rule 3. Wood-Burning Devices. The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions of particulate matter and visible emissions from wood-burning devices used for primary heat, supplemental heat or ambiance.
 Regulation 8, Rule 3. Architectural Coatings. This rule governs the manufacture, distribution, and sale of architectural coatings and limits the reactive organic gases content in paints and paint solvents. Although this rule does not directly apply to the project, it does dictate the ROG content of paint available for use during the construction.
 Regulation 8, Rule 15. Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts. This rule dictates the reactive organic gases content of asphalt available for use during construction through regulating the sale and use of asphalt and limits the ROG content in asphalt. Although this rule does not directly apply to the project, it does dictate the ROG content of asphalt for use during the construction.
 Regulation 9, Rule 8. Organic Compounds. This rule limits the emissions of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide from stationary internal combustion engines with an output rated by the manufacturer at more than 50 brake horsepower.

BAAQMD prepared an Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan to satisfy the federal 1-hour ozone planning requirement because of the Air Basin’s nonattainment for federal and State ozone standards. The U.S. EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard and adopted an 8-hour 971
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-15
Draft EIR
7/20/22
ozone standard. The BAAQMD will address the new federal 8-hour ozone planning requirements once they are established.

CARE Program
Initiated in 2004, the Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program evaluates and reduces health risks associated with exposures to outdoor TACs in the Bay Area. The program examines TAC emissions from point sources, area sources, and on-road and off-road mobile sources with an emphasis on diesel exhaust. The CARE program is ongoing and encourages community involvement and input. The technical analysis portion of the CARE program is being implemented in three phases that include an assessment of the sources of TAC emissions, modeling, and measurement programs to estimate concentrations of TACs, and an assessment of exposures and health risks. Throughout the program, information derived from the technical analyses will be used to focus emission reduction measures in areas with high TAC exposures and a high density of sensitive populations. Risk reduction activities associated with the CARE program are focused on the most at-risk communities in the Bay Area. BAAQMD has identified six affected communities, including Dublin, as in need of immediate action.

For commercial and industrial sources, the BAAQMD regulates TACs using a risk-based approach. This approach uses a health risk assessment to determine what sources and pollutants to control as well as the degree of control. A health risk assessment is an analysis in which human health exposure to toxic substances is estimated and considered together with information regarding the toxic potency of the substances, to provide a quantitative estimate of health risks. As part of ongoing efforts to identify and assess potential health risks to the public, the BAAQMD has collected and compiled air toxics emissions data from industrial and commercial sources of air pollution throughout the Bay Area.

BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines provide recommended procedures for evaluating potential air impacts during the environmental review process, consistent with CEQA requirements, and include recommended thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background air quality information. They also include recommended assessment methodologiesfor air toxics, odors, and greenhouse gas emissions.

In June 2010, the BAAQMD’s Board of Directors adopted CEQA thresholds of significance and an update of the CEQA Guidelines. In May 2011, the updated BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelineswere amended to include a risk and hazards threshold for new receptors and modified procedures for assessing impacts related to risk and hazard impacts.

In May 2017, the BAAQMD published updated Guidelines responding to the 2015 California Supreme Court Decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (S213478) that CEQA does not generally require an agency to consider the effects of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents, such as the effects of toxic air contaminants and fine particulate matter from existing sources on future residents or users of a project. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court stated that lead agencies still 972
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-16 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
must evaluate existing environmental conditions to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present. The Supreme Court did not apply a holding to reach a conclusion on the validity of BAAQMD’s receptor thresholds. Instead, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeal to decide the question in light of the Court’s opinion.

As of the date of this document, BAAQMD has not formally re-instated the thresholds.4 CALGreen
CALGreen is a set of mandatory green building standards for new construction that went into effect throughout California on January 1, 2011 and was most recently updated in 2022 with provisions effective in 2023. These building standards apply to all new public and privatelyconstructed commercial and residential buildings. CALGreen is referred to officially as the California Green Building Standards Code and includes a matrix of mandatory requirements tailored to residential and non-residential building classifications, as well as two sets of voluntary measures (CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2) that provide a host of more stringent sustainable building practices and features.

6.4.3 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin’s General Plan contains the following policies associated with air quality that are relevant to the project:

Implementing Policy 7.5.1.A.1: Request that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District establish an air quality monitoring station in Dublin.

Implementing Policy 7.5.1.A.2: Require an air quality analysis for new development projects that could generate significant air emissions on a project and cumulative level. Air quality analyses shall include specific feasible measures to reduce anticipated air quality emissions to a less than significant California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) level.

Guiding Policy 13.3.2.A

1. Encourage the installation of alternative energy technology in new residential and commercial development.

2. Encourage designing for solar access.

3. Encourage energy efficient improvements be made on residential and commercial properties.
4 The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Carl Moyer Program) provides grant funding for cleaner-than-required engines and equipment. Local air districts administer these grants and select which projects to fund. 973
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-17
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Implementing Policies 13.3.2.B

3. In new commercial and residential parking lots, require the installation of conduit to serve electric vehicle parking spaces to enable the easier installation of future charging stations.

4. Encourage the installation of charging stations for commercial projects over a certain size and any new residential project that has open parking (i.e. not individual, enclosed garages).

6.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

6.5.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for air quality were derived from the Environmental Checklist in the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Exceedance of a CAAQS or NAAQS for any criteria pollutant (as determined by modeling).
 Conflicts with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (i.e. Clean Bay Area 2017).
 Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
 Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.  Result on other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Air Quality Thresholds
Under CEQA, the BAAQMD is an expert commenting agency on air quality within its jurisdiction or impacting its jurisdiction. Under the FCAA, the BAAQMD has adopted Federal attainment plans for ozone (O3) and particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less (PM2.5). The BAAQMD reviews projects to ensure that they would not: (1) cause or contribute to any new violation of any air quality standard; (2) increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any air quality standard; or (3) delay timely attainment of any air quality standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones of any Federal attainment plan.

The BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans Justification Report (April 2022) establishes thresholds based on substantial evidence, and the thresholds are consistent with the thresholds outlined within the 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The thresholds have been developed by the BAAQMD to attain State and Federal ambient air quality standards. 974
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-18 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Construction Emissions
The regional construction emissions associated with the project were calculated using the most recent version of CalEEMod with default inputs for the type and size of proposed land uses, including the types and number of pieces of equipment that would be used on-site during each construction phase and off-site vehicle trips that would result from construction activities on the project site.

CalEEMod is a computer model developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District to estimate air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land use development projects and is based on parameters that include the duration of construction activity, area of disturbance, and anticipated equipment used during construction.

The following significance criteria for air quality were derived from BAAQMD’s 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and are summarized in Table 6-5: BAAQMD Significance Thresholds for Construction and Operational Emissions.

Table 6-5: BAAQMD Significance Thresholds for Construction Emissions Pollutant of Concern Daily Threshold During Construction ROG 54 lbs./ day
NOx 54 lbs./ day
PM10 82 lbs./day (exhaust only)
PM2.5 54 (exhaust only)
PM10 / PM2.5 (fugitive dust) Best Management Practices
Note:

Project-Level emissions
Source: BAAQMD, 2017b. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status Short‐term construction emission thresholds involve identifying the level of construction activity that could result in significant temporary impacts if not mitigated. Construction activities (e.g., excavation, grading, on‐site vehicle movements) that directly exceed BAAQMD criterion for PM10 PM2.5 would have a significant impact on local air quality when they are located nearby and upwind of sensitive receptors (BAAQMD, 2017c). Regarding ozone, construction projects using typical equipment that temporarily emits ozone precursors (i.e., ROG and NOX) are accommodated in the emission inventories of State and federally required air quality management plans and would not have a significant impact on ozone concentrations (BAAQMD, 2017b).

If construction‐related activities exceed the BAAQMD thresholds, the project would be characterized as contributing substantially to existing or new violations of the CAAQS.

The construction activities associated with the project would generate diesel emissions and dust. Construction equipment that would generate criteria air pollutants includes excavators, 975
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-19
Draft EIR
7/20/22
graders, dump trucks, and loaders. It is assumed that this type of equipment would be used during both grading/demolition and construction. It is also assumed that all of the construction equipment used would be diesel-powered.

Complete results from CalEEMod and assumptions can be viewed in Appendix B.

Operational Emissions
As shown in Table 6-6: BAAQMD Significance Thresholds for Operational Emissions, operational emissions associated with on-site development were estimated using CalEEMod. Operational emissions would comprise mobile source emissions, emissions associated with energy consumption, and area source emissions. Mobile source emissions are generated by the increase in motor vehicle trips to and from the project site associated with operation of a project. Emissions attributed to energy use include electricity and natural gas consumption for space and water heating and cooling. Area source emissions are generated by, for example, landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings.

Table 6-6: BAAQMD Significance Thresholds for Operational Emissions Pollutant of Concern Daily Threshold During Operation
Maximum Annual Emissions
During Operations (tpy)
ROG 54 lbs./ day 10
NOx 54 lbs./ day 10
PM10 82 lbs./day 15
PM2.5 54 lbs./day 10
Local CO 9.0 ppm (8- hour average), 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) Note:

Project-Level emissions
Source: BAAQMD, 2017b. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status The criteria for assessing cumulative impacts on localized air quality (i.e. the cumulative impacts of CO and PM10) are identical to those for individual project operation. The criteria for determination of a project's cumulative impact on regional ozone levels depends on consistency with the applicable AQMP. Consistency with the AQMP does not mean that a project will not have a significant project‐specific adverse air quality impact. However, inconsistency with the AQMP is considered a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact.

The Association of Bay Area Governments also provides consistency determinations for population‐related projects. A quantitative CO impact analysis is not required, if the following criteria are met:
 Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. 976
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-20 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
 The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
 The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).

BAAQMD guidelines state that odor impacts would be significant if there have been five complaints per year averaged over three years within certain screening thresholds. If construction or operation of the project would emit pollutants associated with odors in substantial amounts, the analysis should assess the impact on existing or reasonably foreseeable sensitive receptors.

The BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan was prepared to accommodate growth, meet State and Federal air quality standards, and minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, projectrelated emissions that fall below the established construction and operational thresholds should be considered less than significant unless there is pertinent information to the contrary.

If a project exceeds these emission thresholds, the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines states that the significance of a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts should be determined based on whether the rate of growth in average daily trips exceeds the rate of growth in population.

Significance Classifications
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.

Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.

Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through implementation of recommended mitigation measures.

Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.

Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.

No Impact.

Impact Assessment Methodology
The analysis of air quality impacts conforms to the methodologies recommended in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The handbook includes thresholds for emissions associated with both construction and operation of projects. 977
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-21
Draft EIR
7/20/22

6.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
There are no “no” impacts nor “beneficial” impacts.

6.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact AQ-1: Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the San Francisco Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan. (Class I)
The project site is in the City of Dublin, which is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The BAAQMD is responsible for assuring that the National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS and CAAQS) are attained and maintained in the SFBAAB.

The SFBAAB exceeds the state air quality standards for ozone (O3) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The area is designated nonattainment for federal standards of 8-hour ozone, 24- hour PM2.5, and State standards for 24-hour and annual PM10, and annual PM2.5.

The project is consistent with the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan policies that are applicable to the project. As discussed in Table 6-7: Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures, the project would comply with city, state, and regional requirements.

However, as discussed below in Impacts AQ-2 and AQ-5, the project would exceed air quality thresholds with MM AQ-2.1 through AQ-2.5.

Table 6-7: Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures Control Measure Project Consistency
Stationary Source Control Measures
SS21: New Source Review of Toxic
Air Contaminants
Consistent. This EIR has included preparation of a construction health risk analysis (see Impact discussion AQ-3), which found the project’s toxic air contaminant emissions would result in less than significant cancer and non- cancer (acute and chronic) impacts to the nearby sensitive receptors with MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment.

SS25: Coatings, Solvents, Lubricants,
Sealants and Adhesives
Consistent. The project would comply with Regulation 8, Rule 3:

Architectural Coatings, which would dictate the ROG content of paint available for use during construction. The project would also implement MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating per BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3. MM AQ-2.3 also further restricts the ROG content of paint to ensure that BAAQMD thresholds are not exceeded.

SS26: Surface Prep and Cleaning
Solvent
SS29: Asphaltic Concrete Consistent. Paving activities associated with the project would be required to utilize asphalt that does not exceed BAAQMD emission standards in Regulation 8, Rule 15.

SS30: Residential Fan Type Furnaces Consistent. BAAQMD is the responsible party for implementation of this regulation and the project would use the latest central furnaces that comply with the applicable regulations. The project would not conflict with BAAQMD's implementation of that measure.
978
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-22 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Control Measure Project Consistency
SS31: General Particulate Matter
Emissions Limitation
Consistent. Restaurants developed as part of the project would be required to utilize particulate emissions reduction equipment associated with their commercial cooking equipment.

SS32: Emergency Back-up
Generators
Consistent. Use of back-up generators by the project is currently unknown. However, if emergency generators were to be installed, they would be required to meet the BAAQMD’s emissions standards for back-up generators.

SS33: Commercial Cooking
Equipment
Consistent. If any of the restaurants developed as part of the project install a charbroiler, a catalytic oxidizer system must also be installed pursuant to BAAQMD Rule 6-2.

SS34: Wood Smoke Consistent. As per MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces, wood burning fireplaces would be prohibited at the project.

SS36: Particulate Matter from
Trackout
Consistent. Mud and dirt that may be tracked out onto the nearby public roads during construction activities shall be removed promptly by the contractor based on BAAQMD’s requirements.

SS37: Particulate Matter from
Asphalt Operations
Consistent. Paving and roofing activities associated with the project would be required to utilize best management practices to minimize the particulate matter created from the transport and application of road and roofing asphalt.

SS38: Fugitive Dust Consistent. Material stockpiling and track out during grading activities as well as smoke and fumes from paving and roofing asphalt operations shall utilize best management practices to minimize the creation of fugitive dust.

SS40: Odors Consistent. The project would comply with Regulation 7 to strengthen odor standards and enhance enforceability.

Transportation Control Measures
TR2: Trip Reduction Programs Consistent. The project would comply through various design features including using “smart growth” principles as an urban in-fill development with a mix of retail, entertainment, and residential uses adjacent to transit/multi-modal corridors and within two miles of a BART station. The project facilitates the use of existing bus routes with stops adjacent to the project site. The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) runs bus service from the project site (Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road) to the BART station with 15-minute headways during peak commute hours. Additionally, the project would improve and complete pedestrian and bicycle connections around its perimeter and through the project site. Bicycle storage would be provided in the residential buildings as required and bicycle racks would be provided near the commercial uses. The project would also improve and complete bicycle lanes and facilities along the perimeter and through the project site that connect with existing bicycle routes.

The project includes landscaped paseos and pedestrian pathways that would directly connect residents and retail patrons with adjacent open space, surrounding neighborhoods and nearby Emerald Glen Park.

TR8: Ridesharing and Last-Mile
Connections
979
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-23
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Control Measure Project Consistency
Sidewalks on the streets surrounding the project site would be improved and a public multi-use trail would be constructed on the north side of Central Parkway and an on-street bicycle lane along Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road, Central Parkway, and Gleason Drive.

TR9: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access
Facilities
Consistent. The project has existing class II bike lanes along Tassajara and Dublin Boulevard. Gleason Drive and Central Parkway, east and west of the project site have class II bicycle lanes. Additionally, the site has pedestrian connections and crosswalks to adjacent retail and commercial uses (e.g. Shops at Waterford, Grafton Plaza, Emerald Glen Park).

TR10: Land Use Strategies Consistent. The project site is located within 1.5 miles of an existing BART rail station, adjacent to park and ride lot, and proposed infill and mixed-use.

TR13: Parking Policies Consistent. The project is proposing the required amount of parking as per the City of Dublin Municipal Code.

TR19: Medium and Heavy Duty
Trucks
Not Applicable. Although the project does not involve warehousing or industrial uses that would generate substantial truck trips, the project would not conflict with the implementation of this measure.

TR22: Construction, Freight and
Farming Equipment
Consistent. The project would comply through implementation of MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment, which requires all construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower to meet the Tier 4 Final emissions standards.

Energy and Climate Control Measures
EN1: Decarbonize Electricity
Generation
Consistent. The project would be constructed in accordance with the latest building code and green building regulations/ CalGreen. The City of Dublin has a CalGreen Residential Building Checklist that the project would comply with. EN2: Decrease Electricity Demand
Building Control Measures
BL1: Green Buildings Consistent. The project would be constructed in accordance with the latest building code and green building regulations/ CalGreen. The project would comply with the City of Dublin’s CalGreen Residential Building Checklist.

L2: Decarbonize Buildings
BL4: Urban Heat Island Mitigation Consistent. The project would reduce urban heat island effects by providing green common spaces. The project would construct a parking structure shared between uses that would provide shade and reduce surface parking/asphalt and therefore minimize the urban heat island effect.

Natural and Working Lands Control Measures
NW2: Urban Tree Planting Consistent. The project would implement a landscape plan that is required to meet the City’s tree requirements in parking lots in order to reduce the urban heat island phenomenon that occurs in surface parking lots.
980
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-24 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Control Measure Project Consistency
Waste Management Control Measures
WA1: Landfills Consistent. The waste service provider for the project will be required to meet AB 341 and SB 939, 1374, and 1383 requirements that require waste service providers to divert waste.

WA3: Green Waste Diversion Consistent. The waste service provider for the project will be required to meet AB 341 and SB 939, 1374, and 1383 requirements that require waste service providers to divert green waste.

WA4: Recycling and Waste
Reduction
Consistent. The waste service provider for the project will be required to meet AB 341 and SB 939, 1374, and 1383 requirements that require waste to be recycled.

Water Control Measures
WR2: Support Water Conservation Consistent: The project would implement water conservation measures and low flow fixtures as per the requirements of Title 24 and CalGreen. The City of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.88 has WaterEfficient Landscaping Regulations which includes various specifications for plant types, water features, and irrigation design etc.

Source: BAAQMD, 2017. Clean Air Plan and Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2022.

The 2017 Clean Air Plan assumptions for projected air emissions and pollutants in the city are based on the land use and development projection assumptions in the General Plan. The project site currently has a primary land use designation of General Commercial with a small area of Public/Semi-public and Neighborhood Commercial as well as varying densities of residential along Brannigan Street. The project requires a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to accommodate the proposed land use changes.

As described below in Impact AQ-2, construction and operational air quality emissions generated by the project would exceed the BAAQMD’s emissions thresholds despite the implementation of mitigation measures. These thresholds are established to identify projects that have the potential to generate a substantial amount of criteria air pollutants.

Because the project would exceed these thresholds, the project would be considered by the BAAQMD to be a substantial emitter of criteria air pollutants and has the potential to result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards and contribute to non-attainment areas in the SFBAAB.

Therefore, the project would potentially conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and impacts would be significant and unavoidable (Class I).

Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM AQ-2.1 through AQ-2.5, below.
981
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-25
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Impact AQ-2: Violates any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation (Class I).

Construction Impacts
Construction emissions would include the generation of fugitive dust, on-site generation of construction equipment exhaust emissions, and the off-site generation of mobile source emissions related to construction traffic. Short-term air quality impacts are predicted to occur during grading, and construction operations associated with implementation of the project.

Emissions produced during grading and construction activities would cease following completion of the development.

Construction activities would include grading, off-site and on-site infrastructure, paving, building construction, and architectural coating. The resulting total cut and fill of soils for the project site is estimated to be approximately 96,300 cubic yards. Construction equipment includes excavators, rubber-tired dozers, graders, scrapers, trenchers, tractors, and pavers.

Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) program defaults. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on- or off-site.

Maximum daily emissions for each year of construction has been quantified based upon the phase durations and equipment types. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared utilizing the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Refer to Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Technical Data, for the CalEEMod outputs and results. Table 6-8: Construction Air Emissions presents the anticipated daily construction emissions which would remain below their respective thresholds except for ROG and NOX due to the overlap of several construction phases.
982
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-26 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Table 6-8: Construction Air Emissions
Emissions Source
Pollutant (pounds per day)
ROG NOx
PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust)
Year 1
Unmitigated 23.47 253.77 10.25 9.48
Mitigated1 9.66 76.53 2.81 2.63
Year 2
Unmitigated 97.65 385.91 15.66 14.54
Mitigated1 42.39 148.83 4.33 4.08
Year 3
Unmitigated 89.39 285.89 10.82 10.07
Mitigated1 40.02 132.73 3.73 3.51
Year 4
Unmitigated 105.73 196.71 7.35 6.88
Mitigated1 40.66 87.26 2.06 1.97
Year 5
Unmitigated 49.82 78.32 2.43 2.30
Mitigated1 21.14 46.71 0.98 0.93
Year 6
Unmitigated 44.62 40.27 1.30 1.20
Mitigated1 17.24 23.45 0.50 0.47
Maximum Unmitigated 105.73 385.91 15.66 14.54
Maximum Mitigated1 42.39 148.84 4.33 4.08
BAAQMD Significance
Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Threshold Exceeded? No Yes No No
Notes:

1. The reduction/credits for construction emission mitigations are based on mitigation included in CalEEMod and as typically required by the BAAQMD (Basic Control Measures and Regulation 6: Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions). The mitigation includes the following: replace ground cover on disturbed areas quickly, water exposed surfaces twice daily, and proper loading/unloading of mobile and other construction equipment. Additional mitigation involves compliance with an additional control measure requiring the use of CARB Certified low-NOX emissions equipment and the use of low volatile organic compound (VOC) coatings (compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3; Architectural Coatings). Additionally, the mitigated scenario would implement MM AQ-2.2, which would require all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment meet CARB Tier 4 Final emissions standards.

Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2022.
983
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-27
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Fugitive Dust. The project would include grading of the entire project during the initial phase.

Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, cut-and-fill operations, and truck travel on unpaved roadways. Dust emissions also vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions.

Fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the project vicinity.

Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby. The BAAQMD recommends the implementation of all Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, whether or not construction-related emissions exceed applicable significance thresholds; refer to MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures.

Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust. Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on the CalEEMod program defaults. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include: level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces/types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported onsite or offsite.

Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the project site, emissions produced on site as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials and workers to and from the site. Emitted pollutants would include ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Despite the implementation of Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, NOX thresholds would be exceeded during construction. Therefore, MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment would be required to reduce NOX emissions. Despite implementation of MM AQ2.2, NOX emissions would remain above the BAAQMD’s thresholds.

ROG Emissions. In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt and surface coatings creates ROG emissions, which are O3 precursors. In accordance with the methodology prescribed by the BAAQMD, the ROG emissions associated with paving have been quantified with CalEEMod. In addition, based upon the size of the buildings, architectural coatings were also quantified in CalEEMod.

The highest concentration of ROG emissions would be generated during the application of architectural coatings beginning in 2024. As required by law, all architectural coatings for the project structures would comply with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coating.

Regulation 8, Rule 3 provides specifications on painting practices and regulates the ROG content of paint. As indicated in Table 6-8: Construction Air Emissions, project construction would result in an exceedance of ROG thresholds despite the implementation of Basic Construction Measures in MM AQ-2.1. Therefore, compliance with MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating is also included to require the use of low VOC interior architectural coating (paint and primer) products. MM AQ-2.3 requires interior architectural coatings to have a VOC content of 20 grams per liter or less while exterior architectural coating must be less than 100 grams per 984
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-28 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
liter. With implementation of MM AQ-2.3, construction ROG emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds.

Total Daily Construction Emissions. As shown in Table 6-8: Construction Air Emissions, implementation of MM AQ-2.1 through MM AQ-2.3 would reduce construction emissions.

However, NOX emissions would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).

Operation Impacts
The project would result in long-term operational stationary and vehicular emissions.

Operational emissions generated by both stationary and mobile sources would result from normal daily activities on the project site after occupation. Stationary area source emissions would be generated by the consumption of natural gas for space and water heating devices, the operation of landscape maintenance equipment, generators, and the use of consumer products. Mobile emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site. Operational emissions attributable to the project are shown in Table 6-9:

Project Buildout Operational Emissions – Unmitigated and are discussed below. 985
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-29
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Table 6-9: Project Buildout Operational Emissions – Unmitigated Emission Source ROG NOx
PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust)
Annual Emissions (tons per year)
Area 7.55 0.10 0.44 0.44
Energy 0.13 1.18 0.09 0.09
Mobile 4.11 5.39 0.07 0.07
Total Emissions 11.80 6.67 0.60 0.60
BAAQMD Threshold 10 10 15 10
Are Thresholds Exceeded? Yes No No No
Winter Emissions (pounds per day)
Area 392.13 8.16 67.30 67.30
Energy 0.73 6.48 0.50 0.50
Mobile 22.52 31.16 0.36 0.34
Total Emissions 415.38 45.80 68.16 68.14
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54
Are Thresholds Exceeded? Yes No No Yes
Summer Emissions (pounds per day)
Area 392.13 8.16 67.30 67.30
Energy 0.73 6.48 0.50 0.50
Mobile 25.17 27.41 0.36 0.34
Total Emissions 418.03 42.05 68.16 68.14
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54
Are Thresholds Exceeded? Yes No No Yes
Notes:

Area source emissions include natural gas fuel combustion, landscape fuel combustion, consumer products, architectural coatings, and hearth fuel combustion (i.e., wood stoves, wood fireplaces, natural gas fireplace/stoves). (1) Applies to Area Source (Direct) emissions of Carbon Monoxide only.

Source: CalEEMod v. 2020.4.0 and Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2022.

Stationary Source Emissions
Stationary source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for electrical energy for the project’s land use. Energy is generated from power plants utilizing fossil fuels.

Electric power generating plants are distributed throughout the Air Basin and beyond, and their emissions contribute to the total pollutant burden across air basins. The primary use of natural 986
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-30 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
gas within the project would be for combustion to produce space heating, water heating and other miscellaneous heating or air conditioning.

Area Source Emissions
Area source emissions are generally a function of land use (e.g. number of single-family residential units), activity (e.g. fuel use per residential unit), and emission factor (e.g. mass of pollutant emitted per fuel usage). These include the following:
 Natural gas fuel combustion. This source includes natural gas combustion for water and space heating, in residential and non-residential buildings. The project would not include natural gas (see Chapter 10: Greenhouse Gas Emissions for more discussion).  Hearth fuel combustion. This source includes wood stoves, wood fireplaces, and natural gas-fired stoves. The project would not include these amenities per MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces.
 Landscape fuel combustion. This source includes exhaust and evaporative emissions from landscaping equipment, including lawnmowers, rototillers, shredders/grinders, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers, used in residential and commercial applications.
 Consumer products. This source category comprises a wide range of products, including air fresheners, automotive products, household cleaners, and personal care products.  Architectural coatings. This source includes ROG (similar to VOCs) emissions resulting from the evaporation of solvents contained in paints, varnishes, primers, and other surface coatings, from residential and nonresidential structures.

Energy Source Emissions
Energy source emissions would be generated as a result of electricity usage associated with the project. The primary use of electricity by the project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. As discussed in Chapter 10:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions below, the project does not include natural gas per consistency with the City of Dublin’s Climate Action Plan (CAP).

Mobile Source Emissions
Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern (NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3 [photochemical smog], and wind currents readily transport PM10 and PM2.5). However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.

The amount of mobile source emissions that would be associated with the project is based on land use designations (e.g. number of single-family residential units; square footage of various 987
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-31
Draft EIR
7/20/22
recreation, retail, and commercial uses), trip rates (i.e. the number of vehicle trips per day per land use unit), assumptions regarding the vehicle fleet (e.g. analysis year, vehicle type and technology class), trip lengths (i.e. miles traveled per trip), and pollutant emission factors (i.e. mass of pollutant emitted per mile traveled). Project-generated vehicle emissions have been estimated using CalEEMod. Trip generation rates associated with the project were based on the project transportation analysis. Based on this analysis, the project would result in an average of approximately 19,911 new daily weekday vehicle trips.

The project would result in long-term operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and O3 precursors (i.e., ROG and NOX). Project-generated increases in emissions would be predominantly associated with motor vehicle use. As shown in Table 6-9: Project Buildout Operational Emissions – Unmitigated, daily ROG threshold would be exceeded. The predominant source of ROG emissions is fireplaces. Therefore, MM AQ-2.4 is required to prohibit the use of wood burning devices (e.g., fireplaces, wood stoves) and ensure compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 3.

Table 6-9: Project Buildout Operational Emissions – Mitigated shows the project’s operational emissions with the implementation of these mitigation measures. As indicated in Table 6-10:

Project Buildout Operational Emissions – Mitigated, despite the implementation of MM AQ-2.1 through MM AQ-2.4, operational emissions would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I). 988
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-32 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Table 6-10: Project Buildout Operational Emissions – Mitigated Emission Source ROG NOx
PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust)
Annual Emissions (tons per year)
Area 5.52 0.06 0.03 0.03
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile 4.11 5.39 0.07 0.06
Total Emissions 9.63 5.45 0.09 0.08
BAAQMD Threshold 10 10 15 10
Are Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No
Winter Emissions (pounds per day)
Area 31.05 0.62 0.30 0.30
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile 22.52 31.16 0.36 0.34
Total Emissions 53.57 31.78 0.66 0.64
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54
Are Thresholds Exceeded? Yes No No Yes
Summer Emissions (pounds per day)
Area 31.05 0.62 0.30 0.30
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile 25.17 27.41 0.36 0.34
Total Emissions 56.22 28.03 0.66 0.64
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54
Are Thresholds Exceeded? Yes No No No
Notes:

The mitigated scenario would implement MM AQ-2.4 which would prohibit the use of wood burning devices (e.g., fireplaces, wood stoves) and ensure compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 3.

Source: CalEEMod v. 2020.4.0 and Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2022.

Criteria Pollutant Health Effects
On December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion identifying the need to provide sufficient information connecting a project’s air emissions to health impacts or explain why such information could not be ascertained (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502). The Friant Ranch project was a 942-acre Specific Plan that involved a commercial master planned community of approximately 2,500 dwelling units and extensive commercial 989
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-33
Draft EIR
7/20/22
supporting development. The anticipated air quality impacts resulting from this development included significant and unavoidable emissions of multiple criteria pollutants (including significant emissions of one of the primary O3 precursors [ROG]) at levels that exceeded the daily thresholds of significance. As noted above, the project’s operational emissions would exceed the BAAQMD’s ROG significance threshold despite the implementation of mitigation measures, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. However, mitigation measures MM AQ-2.1 through MM AQ-2.4 are included to reduce the impact to the greatest extent possible.

The BAAQMD has set its CEQA significance thresholds based on trigger levels for the federal New Source Review (NSR) Program and BAAQMD’s Regulation 2, Rule 2 for new or modified sources. The NSR Program was created by the FCAA to ensure that stationary sources of air pollution are constructed or modified in a manner that is consistent with attainment of healthbased NAAQS. The NAAQS establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the BAAQMD’s mass emissions thresholds would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and no criteria pollutant health impacts.

NOX and ROG are precursor emissions that form O3 in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight where the pollutants undergo complex chemical reactions. It takes time and the influence of meteorological conditions for these reactions to occur, so O3 may be formed at a distance downwind from the sources. Breathing ground-level O3 can result health effects that include reduced lung function, inflammation of airways, throat irritation, pain, burning, or discomfort in the chest when taking a deep breath, chest tightness, wheezing, or shortness of breath. In addition to these effects, evidence from observational studies strongly indicates that higher daily O3 concentrations are associated with increased asthma attacks, increased hospital admissions, increased daily mortality, and other markers of morbidity. The consistency and coherence of the evidence for effects upon asthmatics suggests that O3 can make asthma symptoms worse and can increase sensitivity to asthma triggers.

Table 6-10: Project Buildout Operational Emissions – Mitigated shows that a large proportion of the project’s ROG emissions are from mobile sources and area sources (specifically from consumer products). Under California law, the local and regional districts are primarily responsible for controlling air pollution from all sources except motor vehicles. Additionally, CARB (a branch of the California EPA) is primarily responsible for controlling pollution from motor vehicles and area sources/consumer products. The air districts must adopt rules to achieve and maintain the State and Federal AAQS within their jurisdictions.

According the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan, the major air quality improvements achieved over the past several decades have greatly benefited public health in the Bay Area, even as the region’s population, the amount of motor vehicle travel, and economic output have all grown substantially. Population exposure to unhealthy ozone levels declined dramatically. In 1986– 1988, the average Bay Area resident was exposed to unhealthy ozone concentrations 213 hours 990
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-34 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
per year. Exposure to unhealthy ozone levels (ozone exceeding the state one-hour standard of 95 parts per billion) has been reduced to less than one hour per year during the 2012–2014 period, an overall reduction of 99.8 percent.5 Ozone levels are decreasing because of the mandated controls on motor vehicles and the replacement of older polluting vehicles with lower-emitting vehicles. NOX emissions (an ozone precursor) from electric utilities have also decreased due to the use of cleaner fuels and renewable energy. The 2017 Clean Air Plan control strategy includes 85 control measures, reduce multiple pollutants and serve both to protect public health and to protect the climate. With continued implementation of the control measures, the 2017 Clean Air Plan projects continued reductions in emissions and ambient concentrations of ozone and PM and decreases in population exposure to the most harmful air pollutants, such as fine PM and TACs, in impacted communities.

Part of the control process of the BAAQMD’s duty to greatly improve the air quality in the SFBAAB is the uniform CEQA review procedures required by BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The single threshold of significance used to assess direct project and cumulative impacts has improved air quality as evidenced by the track record of the air quality in the SFBAAB dramatically improving over the course of the past decades. As stated by the BAAQMD, the thresholds of significance are based on factual and scientific data and are therefore appropriate thresholds of significance to use for the project.

As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in the Friant Ranch case (April 6, 2015) (Brief), the SCAQMD has among the most sophisticated air quality modeling and health impact evaluation capability of any of the air districts in the State, and thus it is uniquely situated to express an opinion on how lead agencies should correlate air quality impacts with specific health outcomes. The SCAQMD discusses that it may be infeasible to quantify health risks caused by individual projects, due to various factors.

It is necessary to have data regarding the sources and types of air toxic contaminants, location of emission points, velocity of emissions, the meteorology and topography of the area, and the location of receptors (worker and residence). Even where a health risk assessment can be prepared, however, the resulting maximum health risk value is only a calculation of risk and it does not necessarily mean anyone will contract cancer as a result of the project.

The Brief also cites the author of the CARB methodology, which reported that a PM2.5 methodology is not suited for small projects and may yield unreliable results. Similarly, SCAQMD staff does not currently know of a way to accurately quantify O3-related health impacts caused by NOX or ROG (VOC) emissions from relatively small projects, due to photochemistry and regional model limitations.
5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Clean Air Plan 2017, page 2/24, 2017. 991
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-35
Draft EIR
7/20/22
The Brief concludes, with respect to the Friant Ranch EIR, that although it may have been technically possible to plug the data into a methodology, the results would not have been reliable or meaningful.

The Brief makes it clear that SCAQMD does not believe that there must be a quantification of a project's health risks in all CEQA documents prepared for individual projects. Any attempt to quantify the proposed Project's health risks would be considered unreliable and misleading.

Also, the project does not generate anywhere near 6,620 pounds per day of NOX or 89,190 pounds per day of ROG (VOC) emissions, which SCAQMD stated was a large enough emission to quantify O3-related health impacts. Therefore, the project’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin-wide level.

Notwithstanding, as previously noted, a site-specific localized impact analysis that does correlate potential project health impacts on a local level to immediately adjacent land uses is included above.

Although it may be misleading and unreliable to attempt to specifically and numerically quantify the project’s health risks, this analysis provides extensive information concerning the project's potential health risks. While the project is expected to exceed the BAAQMD’s numeric regional mass daily thresholds for ROG, this does not in itself constitute a significant health impact to the population adjacent to the project and within the SFBAAB.

The Project’s exceedance of the BAAQMD’s ROG mass emissions thresholds could contribute to the formation of ozone in the atmosphere that could potentially contribute to the SFBAAB’s current ozone air quality violation, thus contributing to potential associated health effects in the region. However, ozone is not formed at the location of emission and the quantity of precursor emissions is not proportional to local ozone concentrations. The emission of ROG do not directly cause health effects; it is the resulting concentration of criteria pollutants, which is influenced by sunlight, chemical reactions, and transport (i.e., regional impacts), that are not feasible to model at the project level.6
In addition, current BAAQMD and CARB regulations will reduce the emissions below what is shown in Table 6-10: Project Buildout Operational Emissions – Mitigated. Additionally, the project would implement MM AQ-2.5, which would include a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce mobile emissions for all uses. However, due to the uncertainty in the relationship between project-level mass emissions and regional ozone formation as well as limitations with currently available technical tools, the resulting health 6 As noted in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Amicus Curiae Brief for Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, the computer models used to simulate and predict and attainment date for ozone or particulate matter NAAQS are based on regional inputs, such as regional inventories of precursor pollutants (NOX, SOX, and VOCs) and atmospheric chemistry and meteorology. The models simulate future ozone or PM levels based on predicted changes in precursor emissions region wide. The goal of these modeling exercises is not to determine whether the emissions generated by a particular factory or development project will affect the NAAQS attainment date. Rather, the air district modeling and planning strategy is regional in nature and based on the extent to which all of emission-generating sources (current and future) must be controlled in order to reach attainment. 992
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-36 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
effects associated with the project cannot be identified. Given this is speculative, it is not considered a significant environmental impact.

As discussed above, neither the BAAQMD nor any other air district currently have methodologies that would provide Lead Agencies and CEQA practitioners with a consistent, reliable, and meaningful analysis to correlate specific health impacts that may result from a proposed project’s mass emissions. Information on health impacts related to exposure to ozone and particulate matter emissions published by the U.S. EPA and CARB have been summarized above and discussed in the Regulatory Framework section. Health studies are used by these agencies to set the Federal and State AAQS. None of the health-related information can be directly correlated to the pounds/day or tons/year of emissions estimated from a single, proposed project. Therefore, without thresholds and standards there is no way to ascertain if there is a significant environmental impact. However, mitigation measures MM AQ-2.1 through MM AQ-2.5 are included to reduce the impact related to air quality to the greatest extent possible.

Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-2.1 BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures During construction, the following BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures air pollution control measures shall be implemented:
 All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
 All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
 Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).

Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 993
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-37
Draft EIR
7/20/22
 Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

MM AQ-2.2 Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment Prior to issuance of any grading permits, and/or building permits (whichever occurs earliest), the project applicant shall prepare and submit a construction operations plan that includes specifications of the equipment to be used during construction to the City of Dublin. The plan shall be accompanied by a letter signed by an air quality specialist, verifying that the equipment included in the plan meets the standards set forth below.  For all construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower operating on the site for more than two days continuously or 20 total hours, shall, at a minimum meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 Final emission standards.

The project applicant shall submit a construction operations plan prepared by the construction contractor that outlines how the contractor will achieve the measures outlined in this mitigation measure. The plan shall be submitted to the City of Dublin for review and approval prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permits (whichever occurs earliest). The plan shall include, but not be limited to the following:
 List of activities and estimated timing.
 Equipment that would be used for each activity.
 Manufacturer’s specifications for each equipment that provides the emissions level; or the manufacturer’s specifications for devices that would be added to each piece of equipment to ensure the emissions level meet the thresholds in the mitigation measure.  How the construction contractor will ensure that the measures listed are monitored.  How the construction contractor will remedy any exceedance of the thresholds.  How often and the method the construction contractor will use to report compliance with this mitigation measure.

MM AQ-2.3 Architectural Coating
The applicant shall require by contract specifications that the interior architectural coating (paint and primer) products used would have a volatile organic compound rating of 20 grams per liter or less while exterior architectural coating must be less than 100 grams per liter.

Contract specifications shall be included in the construction documents for the project, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin.
994
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-38 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
MM AQ-2.4 Prohibition of Wood-Burning Fireplaces
The installation of wood-burning devices shall be prohibited within the development per Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 6, Rule 3. The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions of particulate matter and visible emissions from wood-burning devices used for primary heat, supplemental heat or ambiance. This prohibition shall be noted on the deed for future property owners to obey. Natural gas fireplaces are acceptable.

MM AQ-2.5 Vehicle Trip Reduction
Develop a qualifying Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)/ Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce mobile GHG emissions for all uses. The TDM plan shall be approved by the City of Dublin prior to the issuance of building permits and incorporated into the project’s Codes Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The TDM plan shall discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking. The TDM Plan shall include and implement TDM Best Management Practices (BMPs) for non-residential uses. The TDM obligations shall apply for the lifetime of the project.

TDM Requirements for Non-Residential Uses:
 The Project Applicant shall consult with the local transit service provider on the need to provide infrastructure to connect the project with transit services. Evidence of compliance with this requirement may include correspondence from the local transit provider(s) regarding the potential need for installing bus turnouts, shelters, or bus stops at the site.
 BMPs that target retail employees and customers shall be described in the TDM Plan, including information regarding the direct implementing party (e.g., Project Developer, TMA, City, tenants and employers). The following BMPs shall be considered for inclusion in the TDM Plan for some or all portions of the retail development, to the extent feasible and appropriate:
o Bicycles: Infrastructure improvements; rider encouragement program; parking, repair facilities, showers and lockers; riders guide. Short-term and long-term bicycle parking spaces shall be provided in prominent and convenient locations in all buildings.
o Vehicles: Preferential carpool parking; flexible work schedules for carpools; transportation coordinator(s); designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles; pre-tax commuter incentives; rideshare matching services.
o Transit: On-site shuttle services, shuttle bus stops with shelters, pedestrians path linking buildings and transit stops.
o A website and marketing program to disseminate information on commute options; access to TMA management services.
995
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-39
Draft EIR
7/20/22
o Pedestrian-oriented site design.

TDM Requirements for Residential Units:
 Owner-Occupied Units. Upon a residential dwelling being sold or offered for sale, the applicant shall notify and offer to the buyer or prospective buyer, as soon as it may be done, materials describing public transit, ridesharing, and nonmotorized commuting opportunities available in the vicinity of the project. Such information shall be transmitted no later than the close of escrow. This information shall be submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Division for review and approval, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. The project’s CC&Rs shall require this information to be disclosed no later than the close of escrow for initial and subsequent purchases.

Rental Units. Upon a residential dwelling being rented or offered for rent, the applicant shall notify and offer to the tenant or prospective tenant, materials describing public transit, ridesharing, and nonmotorized commuting opportunities in the vicinity of the development. The materials shall be approved by the City of Dublin. The materials shall be provided no later than the time the rental agreement is executed. This information shall be submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Division for review and approval, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.

Impact AQ-3: Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (Class III).

A sensitive receptor is defined by the BAAQMD as the following: Facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples include schools, hospitals and residential areas. Sensitive receptors closest to the residential project site include residences east and north of the project site.

Localized Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
The primary mobile-source criteria pollutant of local concern is carbon monoxide.

Concentrations of CO are a direct function of the number of vehicles, length of delay, and traffic flow conditions. Transport of this criteria pollutant is extremely limited; CO disperses rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. Under certain meteorological conditions, however, CO concentrations close to congested intersections that experience high levels of traffic and elevated background concentrations may reach unhealthy levels, affecting nearby sensitive receptors. Areas of high CO concentrations, or “hot spots,” are typically associated with intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during the peak commute hours. CO concentration modeling is therefore typically conducted for intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during peak commute hours.

The SFBAAB is designated as attainment for carbon monoxide (CO). Emissions and ambient concentrations of CO have decreased dramatically in the SFBAAB with the introduction of the 996
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-40 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
catalytic converter in 1975. No exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS for CO have been recorded at nearby monitoring stations since 1991.

As a result, the BAAQMD screening criteria notes that CO impacts may be determined to be less than significant if a project is consistent with the applicable congestion management plan (CMP) and would not increase traffic volumes at local intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour, or 24,000 vehicles per hour for locations in heavily urban areas, where “urban canyons” formed by buildings tend to reduce air circulation.

According to the transportation analysis, the project would generate 10,983 net new trips. The project’s effects to existing vehicle distribution and travel speeds would be nominal. Therefore, the project would not involve intersections with more than 24,000 or 44,000 vehicles per hour.

As a result, the project would not have the potential to create a CO hotspot and impacts would be less than significant.

Construction Fugitive Dust
Fugitive dust (PM10) would be generated during construction (grading). As detailed in Impact AQ-2, the project would result in a less than significant dust impact after incorporation of BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures required in MM AQ-2.1. Therefore, the project would not expose adjacent receptors to significant amounts of construction dust after incorporation of mitigation.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generate diesel exhaust, which is a known toxic air contaminants (TAC). Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. The closest sensitive receptor to the project site are the residences to the east and north of the project site. BAAQMD provides guidance for evaluating impacts from TACs in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines document. As noted therein, an incremental cancer risk of greater than 10 cases per million at the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) will result in a significant impact. The BAAQMD considers exposure to annual PM2.5 concentrations that exceed 0.3 μg/m3 from a single source to be significant. The BAAQMD significance threshold for non-cancer hazards is 1.0.

Construction TAC and PM2.5 Health Risks
Construction-related activities would result in project-generated emissions of diesel PM from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., clearing, grading); paving; application of architectural coatings; on-road truck travel; and other miscellaneous activities. For construction activity, diesel PM is the primary toxic air contaminant of concern. On-road diesel-powered haul trucks traveling to and from the construction area to deliver materials and equipment are less of a concern because they would not stay on the site for long durations. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. The closest sensitive receptor to the project site are the residences to the north, east and south. 997
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-41
Draft EIR
7/20/22
CARB identified particulate exhaust emissions from diesel-fueled engines (i.e., diesel PM) as a TAC in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of diesel PM, as discussed below, outweighs the potential for all other health impacts (i.e., non-cancer chronic risk, short-term acute risk) and health impacts from other TACs (CARB 2003), so diesel PM is the focus of this discussion.

Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer. The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be episodic and would occur over several locations isolated from one another. Additionally, construction activities would be subject to and would comply with California regulations limiting idling to no more than five minutes, which would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable diesel PM emissions.

Furthermore, even during the most intense year of construction, emissions of diesel PM would be generated from different locations on the project site rather than in a single location because different types of construction activities (e.g., site preparation and building construction) would not occur at the same place at the same time.

The air dispersion modeling for the mobile source risk assessment was performed using the U.S.

EPA AERMOD dispersion model. AERMOD is a steady‐state, multiple‐source, Gaussian dispersion model designed for use with emission sources situated in terrain where ground elevations can exceed the stack heights of the emission sources (not a factor in this case).

AERMOD requires hourly meteorological data consisting of wind vector, wind speed, temperature, stability class, and mixing height. Surface and upper air meteorological data was obtained from CARB.

Surface and upper air meteorological data from the Livermore Municipal Airport was selected as being the most representative for meteorology based on proximity to the project site. The emission sources in the model are line volume sources (comprised of smaller adjacent volume sources) for the loading dock idling areas, on-site truck circulation, and off-site routes. Heavy duty vehicle emissions were assigned a release height of 12 feet (3.66 meters), a plume height of 20.4 feet (6.22 meters). A release height of 12 feet is the average stack height for trucks and the plume height is based on U.S. EPA guidance for vehicle volume sources.

AERMOD was run to obtain the peak 1‐hour and period (annual average) concentration in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) at the nearby sensitive receptors. The period concentrations were used to calculate the Maximum Individual Cancer Risk (MICR), the maximum chronic HI, and the hourly concentrations were used to calculate the health impact from substances with acute non‐cancer health effects. A receptor grid was placed over the project site to cover the zone of impact. Due to the size of the project site, nearby sensitive receptors were modeled with a 50-meter (164-foot) grid spacing; refer to Appendix B for modeling outputs. Risk levels were calculated using the CARB Hotspot Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) Risk Assessment Standalone Tool (RAST). The calculations are based on the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance document, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines (February 2015). 998
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-42 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Results of this assessment indicate that the maximum concentration of PM2.5 during construction would be 0.01 μg/m3 which is below the BAAQMD 0.3 μg/m3 significance threshold. The highest calculated carcinogenic risk from project construction is 44 per million, which is above the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Therefore, Tier 4 Final construction equipment is required to reduce cancer risk. With MM AQ-2.2 cancer risk would be 4.5 in one million. Non-cancer hazards for DPM would be 0.02 chronic hazard index and an acute hazard index of 1.96 without mitigation. Chronic hazards would be below the BAAQMD significance threshold of 1.0, however acute hazard would be above. However, with MM AQ-2.2, chronic hazard would be 0.002 and acute would be 0.21. Therefore, with mitigation construction risk levels would be less than significant.

Another potential source of TACs associated with construction-related activities is the airborne entrainment of asbestos due to the disturbance of naturally-occurring asbestos-containing soils. The project is not located in an area designated by the State of California as likely to contain naturally-occurring asbestos (DOC 2000). As a result, construction-related activities would not be anticipated to result in increased exposure of sensitive land uses to asbestos.

Mobile Sources
Pursuant to California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, Case No. S213478, agencies are not required to analyze the CEQA impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents, unless the proposed project risks exacerbate those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist.

Nevertheless, the following mobile source health risk analysis has been prepared as an information item for land use decision making but is not a CEQA required analysis condition.

The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that projects be evaluated for community risk when they locate sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of freeways, high traffic volume roadways (10,000 average annual daily trips or more), and/or stationary permitted sources of TACs. The project would not place sensitive receptors within 1,000-feet of the I-580 freeway (a mobile TAC source).

However, the project would locate sensitive receptors (residential dwelling units) along Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard, both of which have traffic in excess of 10,000 average daily trips (ADT). Tassajara Road has an estimated 26,633 ADT and Dublin Boulevard has an estimated 57,315 ADT during the future Cumulative Plus Project Scenario. The other roadways surrounding the project site are Gleason Drive with an estimated 14,480 ADT and Central Parkway with an estimated 16,230 ADT in the future Cumulative Plus Project Scenario. These roadways are all considered high volume roadways under BAAQMD standards.

These roadways were analyzed using BAAQMD’s GIS mapping tool. As shown in Table 6-11:

Cumulative Health Risk below, the primary contributor to the cumulative PM2.5 concentrations are the existing highway sources near the project area (PM2.5 of 0.31 µg/m3). The railway sourcesrepresent approximately 91 percent of the total concentrations and are completely unrelated to the project. Additionally, the primary contributor to the cumulative cancer risk 999
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-43
Draft EIR
7/20/22
concentrations are the existing highway sources near the project area (cancer risk of 18.53 per million and hazard risk of 1.24). The highway sourcesrepresent approximately 99 percent of the total concentrations for cancer risk and are completely unrelated to the project.

Table 6-11: Cumulative Health Risk
Emissions Sources PM2.5 (µg/m3)
Cancer Risk
(per million) Hazard
Major Street Sources1 0.02 1.44 0.08
Highway Sources1 0.31 18.53 1.24
Railway Sources1 0.00 0.71 0.00
Stationary Sources
Name of Facility
Target Corporation Store #T2771 0.01 0.00 0.00
Safeway Inc #1932 0.00 0.01 0.00
Lowe's of Dublin, CA#2273 0.00 4.60 0.00
Aloft Hotel 0.00 0.40 0.00
Pleasanton Car Wash 0.00 0.03 0.00
Cumulative Health Risk Values 0.34 25.72 1.32
BAAQMD Cumulative Threshold 0.8 100 10
Threshold Exceeded? No No No

1. BAAQMD GIS data.

Source: BAAQMD’s Stationary Source Data and GIS Mapping Tools, 2022.

Notes:

1. MEI = Maximally Exposed Individual
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2022.

Furthermore, in May 2016 the BAAQMD released the Planning Healthy Places guidebook that provides air quality and public health information for locations throughout the Bay Area. The BAAQMD also provides web-based interactive maps that show the location of communities and places throughout the region that are estimated to have elevated levels of fine particulates and/or TACs. The maps identify where best practices and further study should be applied.

Based on the mapping, the project site is not located in a best practices or further study area.

As indicated above, the project includes the future development of residences that are located outside of the BAAQMD’s recommended 1,000-foot buffer from freeways. However, residences would be located within 1,000-foot buffer of high-volume roadways. The highest cancer risk for future residences according to the BAAQMD’s GIS mapping tool would be 1.91 per one million and highest PM2.5 would be 0.03 µg/m3. As the project design maximizes the buffer between potential TAC sources and residential units impacts associated with TACs related to the project’s on-site receptors would be less-than-significant. 1000
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-44 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Off-Site Impacts
The project would not be considered a source of toxic air contaminants (TACs) that would pose a possible risk to off-site uses. The project involves the future development of a mixed-use project that would include commercial and residential uses. The project would not include stationary sources that emit TACs and would not generate a significant amount of heavy-duty truck trips (a source of diesel particulate matter [DPM]). Therefore, no impacts to surrounding receptors associated with TACs would occur.

Cumulative Health Risk Analysis
Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.

Worst-case PM2.5 concentrations and chronic hazard levels for the project operations would be well below the BAAQMD’s thresholds. CEQA Guidelines 15065(a)(3) states “… ‘Cumulatively considerable’ means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”
The project is residential and commercial and would not generate any TAC sources. Offsite mobile sources and stationary sources within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site were reviewed using BAAQMD’s Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tools. There are five existing permitted stationary sources located within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site. As shown in Table 6-11: Cumulative Health Risk, cumulative impacts related to cancer risk and hazard would be less than cumulatively considerable and within acceptable limits. Additionally, the project would not be considered a source of toxic air contaminants (TACs) that would pose a possible risk to off-site uses. Therefore, the project would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

The incremental effect of the individual project is less than significant.7 Therefore, the project’s cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Impact AQ-4: Creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people (Class III).

According to the BAAQMD, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. The project does not include any uses identified by the BAAQMD as being associated with odors. 7 CEQA case law has held that any additional emissions in an impacted area does not necessarily create a significant cumulative impact, finding that “the ‘one [additional] molecule rule’ is not the law” (Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 120). 1001
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-45
Draft EIR
7/20/22
The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depends on numerous factors, including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of the receptors. While offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, they can still be unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies. Projects with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors would be deemed to violate the BAAQMD standards.

BAAQMD enforces permit and nuisance rules to control odorous emissions from stationary sources. For instance, BAAQMD Regulation 7 (Odorous Substances) places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds.

Regulation 7 disallows discharge of any odorous substance which causes the ambient air at or beyond the property line to be odorous and to remain odorous after dilution with four parts of odor-free air. Given these regulations, and the fact that there are no odorous emissions existing or proposed on or near the project site, there would be no impact.

6.5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographical area for cumulative air emission impacts is the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which includes Alameda County.

Impact AQ‐5: Contribute to cumulatively considerable air quality impacts (Class I).

Cumulative Construction Emission Impacts
The SFBAAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards and nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for federal standards. As discussed above, even with mitigation identified for the project, MM AQ-2.1 through AQ-2.4, the project’s constructionrelated emissions would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for NOx but not the other three criteria pollutants, refer to Table 6-8: Construction Air Emissions.

Since these thresholds indicate whether an individual project’s emissions have the potential to affect cumulative regional air quality, it can be expected that the project-related construction emissions would have cumulatively considerable impacts for NOx. The BAAQMD recommends Basic Construction Mitigation Measures for all projects whether or not construction-related emissions exceed the thresholds of significance. Compliance with BAAQMD constructionrelated mitigation requirements are considered to reduce cumulative impacts at a Basin-wide level. As a result, construction emissions associated with the project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.

Cumulative Operational Emission Impacts
The BAAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions. The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards.

Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse 1002
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-46 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
air quality impacts. The BAAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which a project’s individual emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the Basin’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the BAAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.

As shown in Table 6-10: Project Buildout Operational Emissions – Mitigated, the project would result in long-term operational stationary and vehicular emissions. The operational emissions for ROG would exceed BAAQMD thresholds. As a result, operational emissions associated with the project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.

With mitigation identified for the project, MM AQ-2.1 through AQ-2.4, and compliance with BAAQMD rules and requirements, the cumulative impacts of the project would be reduced; however, the project’s cumulative contribution to NOX and ROG emissions would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).

6.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 6-12: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Air Quality summarizes the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the project with regard to air quality.
1003
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-47
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Table 6-12: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Air Quality Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact AQ-1: Conflict with
implementation of San Francisco Bay
Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (Class I).

Significant
and
Unavoidable
MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation
Measures
MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction
Equipment
MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating
MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces
Impact AQ-2: Violates air quality
standard or contributes substantially
to an existing or projected air quality
violation (Class I).

Significant
and
Unavoidable
MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation
Measures
MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction
Equipment
MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating
MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces
MM AQ-2.5: Vehicle Trip Reduction
Impact AQ-3: Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations (Class III).

Less than
Significant
None required
Impact AQ-4: Create objectionable
odors (Class III).

Less than
Significant
None required
Impact AQ‐5: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable air quality
impacts. (Class I).

Significant
and
Unavoidable
MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation
Measures
MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction
Equipment
MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating
MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces
MM AQ-2.5: Vehicle Trip Reduction

6.6 References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Planning Healthy Places, 2016.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 2017.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Clean Air Plan, 2017.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status, 2017.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Current Rules, 2017.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans, 2022.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Health Effects, 2018. 1004
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-48 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
7/20/22
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, 2009.

California Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement System (ADAM) Top Four Summaries from 2015 to 2017, 2018.

California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, 2005.

California Air Resources Board, Current Air Quality Standards, 2016.

California Air Resources Board, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, 2000.

City of Dublin. Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond, 2020.

Federal Highway Administration, Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents, 2016.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, 2015.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Ambient Air Quality Standards Table, 2016.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants, 2018.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Policy Assessment for the Review of the Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 2013.
1005
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-1
Draft EIR
7/20/22
7 Biological Resources

7.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the effects on biological resources that would be caused by implementation of the project. It addresses existing environmental conditions in the affected area, identifies and analyzes environmental impacts, and recommends measures to reduce or avoid adverse impacts anticipated from project construction and operation. In addition, existing laws and regulations relevant to biological resources are described. In some cases, compliance with these existing laws and regulations would serve to reduce or avoid certain impacts that might otherwise occur with implementation of the project.

This chapter references the following technical reports that were prepared for the project, which can be found in Appendix C:
 WRA, Biological Resources Assessment, 2022
 WRA, At Dublin Development Project Rare Plant Survey Report, 2018  WRA, At Dublin Development Project Wetland Delineation Report, 2018

7.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, specifically during the public scoping meeting, comments requesting review of impacts to burrowing owl and other special status species were raised.

7.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on existing biological resources conditions in the project area.

The current condition and quality of biological resources was used as the baseline against which to compare potential impacts of the project.

7.3.1 Project Setting
The project site is vacant land and is generally flat with a slight slope from a higher elevation at the northerly boundary to a slightly lower elevation towards the southerly boundary.

Historically, the property was used for agricultural purposes but is currently vacant (except for seasonal temporary uses). The project site is characterized by low lying native and non-native grasses that is turned (disced) periodically for the purposes of weed abatement. A small group of trees and shrubs is located near the corner of Tassajara Road and Central Parkway. No grading for development purposes has occurred to date.
1006
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-2 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
7/20/22

7.3.2 Methodology
Literature Search and Review of Existing Data
The assessment of biological resources for the project began with a review of all available documents and species and habitat data provided by the project applicant, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and other agencies. Biological resource data sources included, but were not limited to, the following:
 CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) to determine special‐status plants, wildlife, and vegetation communities that have been documented within the vicinity of the project site.
 Aerial photographs, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data, United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps.
 Previously prepared reports and regional planning documents (general plan policies, Habitat Conservation Plans [HCPs], Environmental Impact Reports [EIRs], and published scientific literature).

In addition to the literature search and review of existing data, descriptions and analysis in this section are based on the Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) prepared by WRA, provided in Appendix C. The methodology of the BRA is described below.

Biological Resources Assessment
On December 7, 2017, February 22 and March 19, 2018, and April 12, 2022, the project site was traversed on foot to determine: (1) plant communities present within the project site, (2) if existing conditions provided suitable habitat for any special-status plant or wildlife species, and (3) if sensitive habitats are present. All plant and wildlife species encountered were recorded and are summarized in the BRA. Appendix C provides a list of species-status species that have been documented in the vicinity and summarizes the potential for occurrence for each of these species based on observed habitat suitability, proximity of known occurrences, or the direct observation of a species.

Prior to the site visit, online soil survey data for the project area, the USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map for Livermore, USFWS NWI data, rainfall data and WETS precipitation data, and available aerial photographs of the site were reviewed to identify potential sensitive habitats and areas for further investigation during the site visit. Following the site visit, biological communities present in the project area were classified based on existing plant community descriptions described in A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition (CNPS 2022; CDFW 2022). However, in some cases, it was necessary to identify variants of community types or to describe non-vegetated areas that are not described in the literature. Biological communities were classified as sensitive or non-sensitive as defined by CEQA and other applicable laws and regulations.
1007
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-3
Draft EIR
7/20/22

7.3.3 Biological Communities
As shown in Figure 7-1: Biological Communities on the Project Site there are 76.24 acres of non-sensitive ruderal habitat and 0.66 acres of sensitive seasonal wetlands.

Non-sensitive Biological Communities
Ruderal
The project site contains ruderal habitat, comprised primarily of disced and mowed areas of disturbed vegetation. Ruderal areas are primarily composed of ruderal herbaceous vegetation dominated by non-native annual species, such as slim oat (Avena barbata), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (B. hordeaceus), and black mustard (Brassica nigra). Native species, such as common fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia) and tarweed fiddleneck (A. lycopsoides), are also present. The project site has been disced for weed abatement, with small margins of intact ruderal vegetation along the margins and southwest of Northside Drive.

Sensitive Biological Communities
Seasonal Wetland
The 0.66 acres of seasonal wetlands occur as five separate topographic depressions and one flat-to-sloping area where seasonal inundation and/or saturation occurs during the rainy season. Four wetlands had varying levels of apparent regular disturbance, including discing and use as a parking area for vehicles.

Vegetation within these seasonal wetlands is sparse and is dominated by a mixture of nonnative grasses and forbs, all of which are adapted to high levels of disturbance. Commonly observed species include Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), hyssop loosestrife (Lythrum hyssopifolia), and curly dock (Rumex crispus).

Given the highly altered and regularly disturbed nature of the project site, as well as the lack of a dominance by or characteristic presence of species associated with vernal pools, the wetlands are classified as seasonal wetlands rather than vernal pools.

City of Dublin Protected Trees
There are no trees defined as “heritage trees” under the City of Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance present on site. There are several remnant trees located on the abandoned homestead area in the northern portion of the project site. These trees exceed 24 inches in diameter at four (4) feet six (6) inches above natural grade; however, are not species included under the definition of heritage trees.

Additionally, two coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) saplings less than 24 inches in diameter are located north of Gleason Drive. At 24 inches these are too small to be included under the definition of heritage trees.
1008
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-4 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
7/20/22

7.3.4 Special-Status Species
Special Status Plant Species
Based on a review of the resources and databases described above, 59 Statewide special-status plant species were documented in the project area. Species documented in the CNDDB as occurring within a five-mile buffer of the project area are shown in Figure 7-2: Special-Status Plant Species Documented within Five Miles of the Project Site.

Within the project site, three special-status plant species were identified or have the potential to occur, namely:
 State and Local special-status plant, Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii); CNPS Rank 1B.1; Present
 State special-status plant, San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana); CNPS Rank 1B.2; Present
 State special-status plant, Saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum); CNPS Rank 1B.2; Moderate Potential
Local rare plant species, smooth boisduvalia (Epilobium campestre) and woolly marbles (Psilocarphus oregonus) were also identified within the project site; see Figure 7-3: SpecialStatus Plant Species on the Project Site. A small number of smooth boisduvalia individuals were observed in a flat, mesic, grassy area located northwest of the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan Street. A small number of woolly marbles individuals were observed in the same flat, mesic, grassy area northwest of the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan Street.

Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii)
Congdon’s tarplant is an annual herb in the composite family (Asteraceae) that typically blooms from May to October. It often grows in alkaline soils, sometimes described as heavy white clay, in valley and foothill grassland habitats ranging from 0 to 755 feet (0 to 230 meters) in elevation.

As shown in Figure 7-3: Special-Status Plant Species on the Project Site, 371 individuals of Congdon’s tarplant were observed in the seasonal wetland in the southeastern corner, as well as in scattered locations along the eastern boundary of the project site.

San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana)
San Joaquin spearscale is an annual herb in the goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae) that typically blooms from April to October. It often grows in seasonal alkali sink scrub and wetlands in chenopod scrub, alkali meadow, and valley and foothill grassland habitat at elevations ranging from 0 to 2,740 feet. San Joaquin spearscale is known to occur throughout northern California.
1009
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-5
Draft EIR
7/20/22
As shown in Figure 7-3: Special-Status Plant Species on the Project Site, approximately 345 individuals of San Joaquin spearscale were observed in and near the small seasonal wetland in the southeastern portion of the project area, just southwest of the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan Street.

Saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum)
Saline clover is an annual herb in the pea family (Fabaceae) that typically blooms from April to June. It generally grows in mesic, alkali sites in marsh, swamp, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pool habitat at elevations ranging from 0 to 980 feet. Saline clover is also known to occur throughout northern California.

No occurrence of saline clover was observed during the site visit, however there were two CNDDB records found in the project area, and five CCH records in Alameda County. The nearest known occurrence is from May 2002, approximately 0.5 mile east of the project site, which may now be absent. The most recent documented occurrence is from April 2006, in the Springtown area, seven miles east of the project site.

Saline clover has a moderate potential to occur in the project site due to the presence of seasonally inundated depressions and alkaline substrate and the fact that this species has been documented near the project site in disced conditions.

Special Status Wildlife Species
Based on a review of the resources and databases described above, 38 special-status wildlife species were documented in the project area. Of these, 14 species were documented in the CNDDB (CDFW, 2022) as occurring within a five-mile buffer of the project site as shown in Figure 7-4: Special-Status Wildlife Species within Five Miles of the Project Site. Three specialstatus wildlife species were observed or were considered to have moderate or high potential to occur in the project site and are discussed below.

Within the project site, three special-status wildlife species were identified as having the potential to occur, namely:
 Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia); CDFW Species of Special Concern; USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern; High Potential
 Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus); CDFW Species of Special Concern; USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern; Moderate Potential
 White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus); CDFW Fully Protected Species; High Potential Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)
Burrowing owls typically favor flat, open grassland or gentle slopes and sparse shrubland ecosystems. These owls prefer annual or perennial grasslands, typically with sparse or nonexistent tree or shrub canopies. This species is dependent on burrowing mammals to 1010
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-6 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
7/20/22
provide the burrows that are characteristically used for shelter and nesting, and in northern California is typically found in close association with California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). Manmade substrates, such as pipes or debris piles, may also be occupied in place of burrows. Burrowing owls exhibit high site fidelity.

Burrowing owls were documented within the project area (CNDDB occurrence numbers 671 and 2066) in 2004, 2006, 2009, and 2020. During site visits, ground squirrels and ground squirrel burrow complexes were observed throughout the project area. In addition, multiple debris piles were present within the project area, which may provide additional nesting habitat for the species. Vegetation height within the project area is variable and in some areas may be suitable for the species throughout the year, including during nesting season (February 1 – August 31). Although no burrowing owls were observed on the project site during site visits, due to the presence of suitable nesting and foraging habitat, as well as previous occurrences of burrowing owl within the project area, the species has high potential to occur.

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
Loggerhead shrike is a year-round resident or winter visitor in lowlands and foothills throughout California. This species is associated with open country with short vegetation and scattered trees, shrubs, fences, utility lines, and/or other perches. Although they are songbirds, shrikes are predatory and forage on a variety of invertebrates and small vertebrates. Captured prey items are often impaled for storage purposes on suitable substrates, including thorns or spikes on vegetation and barbed wire fences.

The loggerhead shrike nests in trees and large shrubs; nests are usually placed 3 to 10 feet off the ground. The trees located in the northwestern portion of the site provide suitable habitat to support nesting by this species. Grasslands within the project area may also provide sufficient area to support foraging by the species. While the project area is surrounded by development, due to the presence of potentially suitable nesting and foraging habitat, this species has moderate potential to occur.

White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus)
White-tailed kite is a resident in open to semi-open habitats throughout the lower elevations of California, including grasslands, savannahs, woodlands, agricultural areas and wetlands.

Vegetative structure and prey availability seem to be more important habitat elements than associations with specific plants or vegetative communities. Nests are constructed mostly of twigs and are placed in trees, often at habitat edges. Nest trees are highly variable in size, structure, and immediate surroundings, ranging from shrubs to trees greater than 150 feet tall.

This species preys upon a variety of small mammals, as well as other vertebrates and invertebrates.

The Project Area contains open habitat for foraging by this species, as well as shrubs and trees suitable for nesting. A white-tailed kite was observed foraging during the December 7, 2017, site visit. White-tailed kite has a high potential to occur. 1011
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-7
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Special-Status Wildlife Species Unlikely to Occur within the Project Site As described in the BRA, six federally-listed wildlife species have been documented in the vicinity, but are unlikely to inhabit the project site. These are California Red-Legged Frog (Rana draytonii), California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), and Callippe silverspot butterfly (Speyeria callippe callippe).

7.3.5 Critical Habitat
The project site is not located within any units designated as critical habitat according to the Federal Endangered Species Act (described below).

7.3.6 Wildlife Movement Corridor
The project site does not fall within any identified wildlife corridors or natural habitat blocks.

The project site is surrounded by roadways, two of which are multi-lane roadways. However, there is greater than one mile of residential and commercial development separating the project site from the vacant lots, preventing dispersal into the project site.

7.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards

7.4.1 Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) provisions protect federally listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats from unlawful take and ensure that federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Under the ESA, “take” is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any of the specifically enumerated conduct.” USFWS regulations define harm to mean “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife.” Such an act “may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering” (50 CFR § 17.3).

Critical habitat is defined in Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as “(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species, and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species upon a determination by the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.” The effects analyses for designated critical habitat must consider the role of the critical habitat in both the continued survival and the eventual recovery (i.e., the conservation) of the species in question, consistent with the recent Ninth Circuit judicial opinion, Gifford Pinchot Task Force v.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Activities that may result in “take” of individuals are regulated by the USFWS. The USFWS produced an updated list of candidate species December 1012
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-8 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
7/20/22
2, 2016 (72 FR 69034). Candidate species are not afforded any legal protection under ESA; however, candidate species typically receive special attention from federal and State agencies during the environmental review process.

Waters of the United States
Areas meeting the regulatory definition of “Waters of the U.S.” (Jurisdictional Waters) are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1972) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (1899).

These waters may include all waters used, or potentially used, for interstate commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, all interstate waters, all other waters (intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, playa lakes, natural ponds, etc.), all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as “Waters of the U.S.,” tributaries of waters otherwise defined as “Waters of the U.S.,” the territorial seas, and wetlands (termed Special Aquatic Sites) adjacent to “Waters of the U.S.” (33 CFR, Part 328, Section 328.3).

Construction activities within jurisdictional waters are regulated by USACE. The placement of fill into such waters must comply with permit requirements of USACE. No USACE permit would be effective in the absence of State water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. As a part of the permit process USACE works directly with USFWS to assess project impacts on biological resources.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Raptors (e.g. eagles, hawks, and owls) and their nests are protected under both Federal and State regulations. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.

7.4.2 State
California Endangered Species Act
Provisions of California Endangered Species Act (CESA) protect State‐listed Threatened and Endangered species. CDFW regulates activities that may result in “take” of individuals (“take” means “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”).

Habitat degradation or modification is not expressly included in the definition of “take” under the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Code. Additionally, the CDFW Code contains lists of vertebrate species designated as “fully protected” (§§ 3511 [birds], 4700 [mammals], 5050 [reptiles and amphibians], 5515 [fish]). Such species may not be taken or possessed.

In addition to federal and State‐listed species, CDFW also has produced a list of Species of Special Concern to serve as a “watch list.” Species on this list are of limited distribution or the extent of their habitats has been reduced substantially, such that the threat to their populations may be imminent. Species of Special Concern may receive special attention during environmental review, but they do not have statutory protection. 1013
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-9
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Birds of prey are protected under the CDFG Code. Section 3503.5 states it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds of prey (in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction‐related disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “take” by CDFW. Under Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Wildlife Code, activities that would result in the taking, possessing, or destroying of any birds‐ of‐prey, taking or possessing of any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA, or the taking, possessing, or needlessly destroying of the nest or eggs of any raptors or non‐game birds protected by the MBTA, or the taking of any non‐game bird pursuant to CDFG Code Section 3800 are prohibited.

Waters of the State
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is the State agency (together with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards [RWQCB]) charged with implementing water quality certification in California. The project falls under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.

The term “Waters of the State” is defined by the Porter-Cologne Act as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” The SWRCB and nine RWQCB protect waters within this broad regulatory scope through many different regulatory programs. Waters of the State in the context of a CEQA Biological Resources evaluation include wetlands and other surface waters protected by the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State.

The SWRCB and RWQCB issue permits for the discharge of fill material into surface waters through the State Water Quality Certification Program, which fulfills requirements of Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Projects that require a Clean Water Act permit are also required to obtain a Water Quality Certification. If a project does not require a federal permit but does involve discharge of dredge or fill material into surface waters of the State, the SWRCB and RWQCB may issue a permit in the form of Waste Discharge Requirements.

Fish and Game Code (Sections 2050 through 2098)
Sections 2050 through 2098 of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) outline the protection provided to California’s rare, endangered, and threatened species. Section 2080 of the CFGC prohibits the taking of plants and animals listed under the CESA. Section 2081 established an incidental take permit program for state-listed species. Also, the Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (FGC Section 1900, et seq.) gives the CDFW authority to designate state endangered, threatened, and rare plants and provides specific protection measures for designated populations.
1014
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-10 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
7/20/22
The CDFW has also identified many “Species of Special Concern”. Species with this status have habitats that have been reduced substantially, such that their populations may be threatened.

These populations are monitored and may receive special attention during environmental review. While they do not have statutory protection, they may be considered rare under CEQA and thereby warrant specific protection measures.

Sensitive species, which would qualify for listing, but are not currently listed, are also given protection under CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 (“Mandatory Findings of Significance”) identifies a substantial reduction in numbers of a rare or endangered species as a significant effect. CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 (“Rare or Endangered Species”) provides for assessment of unlisted species as rare or endangered under CEQA if the species can be shown to meet the criteria for listing. Unlisted plant species on the California Rare Plant Ranking (CRPR) system lists 1A, 1B, and 2 would typically be considered under CEQA.

7.4.3 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin’s General Plan contains the following policies associated with biological resources that are relevant to the project:

Guiding Policy 7.2.1.A.1: Protect riparian vegetation as a protective buffer for stream quality and for its value as a habitat and aesthetic resource.

Guiding Policy 7.2.1.A.2: Promote access to stream corridors for passive recreational use and to allow stream maintenance and improvements as necessary, while respecting the privacy of owners of property abutting stream corridors.

Guiding Policy 7.3.1.A.1: Maintain natural hydrologic systems.

Guiding Policy 7.4.1.A.1: Protect oak woodlands.

Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The City of Dublin’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains the following policies and programs associated with biological resources that are relevant to the project:

Policy 6-15: Avoid development and potentially destructive activities in areas with high-value habitat including:
 northern riparian forest
 arroyo willow riparian woodland
 freshwater marsh
Exceptions may only be granted where an owner's reasonable beneficial use of the land cannot be otherwise provided.
1015
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-11
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Policy 6-16: To ensure long-term protection, high- value habitat areas either should be dedicated as public open space or restricted from potentially harmful development and activities with deed restrictions and design standards.

Policy 6-17: Impacts to sensitive wildlife species that occur in the planning area will be avoided wherever possible. Mitigation programs will be required as necessary to reduce or eliminate impacts on special status species.

Policy 6-21: Direct disturbance or removal of trees or native vegetation cover should be minimized and should be restricted to those areas actually designated for the construction of improvements.

Policy 6-22: All areas of disturbance should be revegetated as quickly as possible to prevent erosion. Native trees (preferably those species already on site), shrubs, herbs, and grasses should be used for revegetation of areas to remain as natural open space. The introduction of non-native plant species should be avoided.

Program 6K: The City of Dublin shall establish and maintain a liaison with resource management agencies (i.e., California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers) for the purpose of monitoring compliance with specific plan policies.

These agencies should be consulted and involved throughout the planning and development process of individual properties in order to avoid violations of state and federal regulations and ensure that specific issues and concerns are recognized and addressed.

Program 6L: The City shall require development applicants to conduct a pre-construction survey within 60 days prior to habitat modification (clearing construction and road site, etc.) to verify the presence or absence of sensitive species, especially the San Joaquin kit fox, nesting raptors, the red-legged frog, western pond turtles, the California tiger salamander, and other species of special concern.

Program 6N: The use of rodenticides and herbicides within the project area should be restricted to avoid impacts on wildlife. The City shall require any poisoning programs to be done in cooperation with and under supervision of the Alameda County Department of Agriculture.

Herbicides should be used only selectively within the project area, should be carefully applied in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and used only for control of non-native pest plant species.

City of Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance
The City of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 5.60 regulates the preservation of heritage trees through its development review and permit approval process. Sections 5.60.080 to 5.60.100 includes tree protection regulations. Heritage trees are defined as:

Any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye and sycamore tree having a trunk or main stem of twenty-four (24) inches or more in diameter at four (4) feet six (6) inches above natural grade; a tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit, 1016
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-12 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
7/20/22
use permit, site development review of subdivision map; or a tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree.

A tree permit is required for the removal of any heritage tree as defined above on public or private property. Furthermore, the City may require additional conditions barring the issuance of a tree removal permit including that one (1) or more replacement trees be planted of a designated species, size, and location.

East Alameda County Conservation Strategy
The project site is in Conservation Zone 3 (CZ-3) of the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS). The EACCS is intended to provide effective framework to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources. Conservation priorities are described as guidelines to protect the resources known to occur in the conservation zones. Relevant policies for CZ-3 are:
 Protection of known occurrences of San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana) and surveys of other potential habitat
 Protection of known occurrences of Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) and surveys of other potential habitat
 Protection of known California tiger salamander (CTS; Ambystoma californiense) and California red-legged frog (CRLF; Rana draytonii) breeding habitat, sufficient upland habitat surrounding those sites, and connections between breeding and upland habitat  Protection of CTS and CRLF critical habitat

7.4.4 Other Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards California Native Plant Society
The mission of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Program is to develop current, accurate information on the distribution, ecology, and conservation status of California's rare and endangered plants, and to use this information to promote science‐based plant conservation in California. Once a species has been identified as being of potential conservation concern, it is put through an extensive review process. Once a species has gone through the review process, information on all aspects of the species (listing status, habitat, distribution, threats, etc.) are recorded on the online CNPS Inventory. The program currently recognizes more than 2,300 plant taxa (species, subspecies and varieties) as rare or endangered in California (CNPS, 2022).

Vascular plants listed as rare or endangered by the CNPS, but which might not have designated status under State endangered species legislation, are defined as follows:

List 1A – Plants considered by the CNPS to be extinct in California List 1B – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 1017
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-13
Draft EIR
7/20/22
List 2 – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere List 3 – Plants about which we need more information – a review list List 4 – Plants of limited distribution – a watch list
In addition to the list designations above, the CNPS adds a Threat Rank as an extension added onto the CNPS List and designates the level of endangerment by a 1 to 3 ranking, with 1 being the most endangered and 3 being the least endangered and are described as follows:

0.1 – Seriously threatened in California (high degree/immediacy of threat)

0.2 – Fairly threatened in California (moderate degree/immediacy of threat)

0.3 – Not very threatened in California (low degree/immediacy of threats or no current threats known
The combined definition and Threat Rank (such as 1B.1) provides an overall classification of the species.

7.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

7.5.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for aesthetics were derived from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been amended or supplemented, as appropriate, to address Lead Agency requirements and the full range of potential impacts related to this project.

An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it would meet one of the following criteria:
 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS.  Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS.
 Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to marshes, vernal pools, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.  Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
1018
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-14 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
7/20/22
 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinances.
 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state HCP.

The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.

Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.

Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through implementation of recommended mitigation measures.

Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.

Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.

No Impact.

7.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or Other Approved Local, Regional, or State Plan
There are no adopted Habitat Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plans applicable to the project site and therefore there would be no impacts.

Tree Preservation Policy
No protected trees are present on the project site, therefore, there would be no impacts.

7.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact BIO-1: Have a substantial adverse effect on special-status plant and wildlife species (Class II).

Three special-status plant species and three special-status wildlife species have a moderate or high potential to occur within the project site.

Special-Status Plant Species
Of the 59 statewide special-status plant species known to occur in the project area, Congdon’s tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, and the locally rare species needle microseris, smooth boisduvalia, and wooly marbles were observed within the project area. In addition saline clover has moderate potential to occur in the project area, but site visits completed to date were not timed to coincide with the blooming period for this species. Most of the species found in the review of background literature occur in high-quality vernal pool habitat, in different plant communities than those present in the project area, often at higher elevations, or in highquality grassland habitat. Because of the history of disturbance and change in hydrologic 1019
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-15
Draft EIR
7/20/22
regime, the grassland and potential seasonal wetlands in the project site are likely too low in quality to support other special-status plant species.

The proposed project would have a significant impact on Congdon’s tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, and needle microseris. Impacts could occur through direct removal of populations through grading and fill placement, changed land management practices in occupied areas following construction, changes in hydrology, and reduction of populations below viable sizes to sustain on-site occurrences. These are potentially significant impacts. Smooth boisduvalia and wooly marbles were observed as isolated individuals (two and one individual observed, respectively) within the project area. Given the small number of individuals observed, these occurrences do not represent viable long-term populations, and impacts resulting from the project are less than significant.

Special-status plant surveys will be required prior to the start of construction to confirm the presence or absence of any special plant species (MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plant Surveys).

For special status plant species occurring within the project area, MM BIO-1.2: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and Minimization would avoid or minimize impacts to these special status plant species to a less-than-significant level (Class II) Special-Status Wildlife Species
Of the 38 special-status wildlife species known to occur in the project area, three were determined to have a high to moderate potential to occur on the project site, namely western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and white-tailed kite. Loggerhead shrike and white-tailed kite are also described below as nesting birds.

Habitat suitability for other grassland-associated species in the project site has been reduced by repeated discing, surrounding development, and major roads acting as dispersal barriers.

These factors have also dramatically reduced or eliminated the potential for riparian and aquatic species to occur on the project site. Similarly, all seasonal wetland habitat suitable for vernal pool crustaceans have been eliminated through repeated discing. Bats are also unlikely to roost within the project site, due to the lack of suitable thermal conditions and roost structures.

Potential impacts to the three special-status wildlife species with a high to moderate potential to occur on the project site are discussed below.

Western Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl has been documented within the project site and there is a high potential for this species to inhabit ground squirrel burrows present on-site. As determined during the site survey, the project site is not currently inhabited by this species, however, there still is the continued potential to support this species.

Project activities, including vegetation removal and ground disturbance, may affect this species by causing auditory, vibratory, and/or visual disturbance of a sufficient level to cause 1020
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-16 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
7/20/22
abandonment of the site or active nests, or by removing foraging habitat or access to burrows, which are required to support nesting. This would result in a potentially significant impact under CEQA. Implementation of MM BIO-1.3: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Exclusion Measures would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level (Class II).

Nesting Birds
The project has the potential to impact special-status and non-special-status native nesting birds (i.e., loggerhead shrike and white-tailed kites) protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and/or California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). Baseline protections for most native birds under federal law and state codes include active nests (those with eggs or young).

Recently, the U.S. Department of the Interior issued guidance clarifying that the MBTA only applies to intentional/deliberate killing, harm, or collection of covered species (including active nests). According to the guidance, unintentional impacts to birds/nests that occur within the context of otherwise lawful activities are not violations of the MBTA. However, ambiguity remains regarding application of the CFGC, as well as the extent to which minimization and avoidance measures are still required under the MBTA. Therefore, avoidance of nesting birds is considered a “best practice” in the San Francisco Bay region and avoids potential enforcement action by the CDFW. Nesting bird pre-construction survey obligations are a common component of various permits and authorizations, including CEQA documents and even local grading permits, and as such may be deemed applicable to project activities within the project area.

Project activities, such as vegetation removal and ground disturbance associated with development, would have the potential to affect these species by causing direct mortality of eggs or young, or by causing auditory, vibratory, and/ or visual disturbance of a sufficient level to cause abandonment of an active nest. If project activities occur during the nesting season, which extends from February 1 through August 31, nests of both special-status and non-specialstatus native birds could be impacted by construction and other ground disturbing activities.

Implementation of MM BIO-1.4: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level (Class II).

Mitigation for Impact BIO-1
MM BIO-1.1: Special Status Plant Surveys
Prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, a focused survey shall be conducted to determine the presence of any special-status plant species with potential to occur within the project area. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. These guidelines require special-status plant surveys to be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both “evident” and identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with known blooming periods, and/or during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. If no 1021
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-17
Draft EIR
7/20/22
special-status plant species are found, then the project will not have any impacts to the species and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. If any of the species are found on-site and cannot be avoided, implementation of MM BIO-1.2: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and Mitigation shall be required.

MM BIO-1.2: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and Mitigation Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following:

1. If the survey determines that Congdon’s tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, or other special-status species are present within or adjacent to the project site, direct and indirect impacts of the project on the species shall be avoided where feasible through the establishment of activity exclusion zones, where no ground-disturbing activities shall take place, including construction of new facilities, construction staging, or other temporary work areas. Activity exclusion zones for special-status plant species shall be established prior to construction activities around each occupied habitat site, the boundaries of which shall be clearly marked with standard orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its equivalent. The establishment of activity exclusion zones shall not be required if no construction-related disturbances would occur within 250 feet of the areas supporting rare plan species populations.

2. If exclusion zones and avoidance of impacts on Congdon’s tarplant or other specialstatus species within the project area are not feasible, then the loss of individuals or occupied habitat of special-status plants shall be compensated for through the acquisition, protection, and subsequent management of other existing occurrences.

Before the implementation of compensation measures, the project’s applicant shall provide detailed information to the CDFW and Lead Agency on the quality of preserved habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing the areas, the responsible parties involved, and other pertinent information that demonstrates that the compensation. population will be property preserved and managed. A mitigation plan identifying appropriate mitigation ratios at a minimum ratio of 1:1 [one preserved acre for each impacted acre] to ensure no net loss of acreage shall be developed in consultation with CDFW and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any activities that would impact Congdon’s tarplant or other species with potential to occur within the project area. A mitigation plan may include but is not limited to the following: the acquisition of off-site mitigation areas presently supporting the Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species, purchase of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits for special-status plants, or payment of in-lieu fees to a public agency or conservation organization (e.g., a local land trust) for the preservation and management of existing populations of special-status plants. 1022
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-18 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
7/20/22
MM BIO-1.3: Burrowing Owl Avoidance, Exclusion and Required Measures Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following:

Mitigate for Loss of Burrowing Owl Habitat
The majority of project site, with the exception of delineated wetlands, developed areas, and areas with tree cover, has been determined to potentially provide habitat or foraging areas for burrowing owl. Therefore, the project applicant shall implement compensatory mitigation for loss of owl habitat in accordance with the standards set forth in the Required Mitigation Plan section below.

Additional measures below will avoid direct impacts to individuals that may occupy the site during construction and implementation of the project.

Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey
Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct two pre-construction surveys for the Western burrowing owl on the project site.

The first survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing activities and the second survey within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the surveys determine owls are present, then the measures set forth below shall be followed.

Implement Avoidance Measures
If direct impacts to owls can be avoided, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures during all phases of construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls.  A pre-construction survey shall be performed prior to start of ground disturbance activities. This survey will occur regardless of the time of year, as burrowing owls may use the project site during the non-nesting season. The survey shall be performed according to the standards set forth by the Staff Report for Burrowing Owl Mitigation.  The project site should be managed to prevent burrowing owl from occupying the site prior to any project activities
 All suitable burrows should be closed by hand once it has been determined that the burrow is unoccupied.
 Maintenance of the property to ensure burrows are not rebuilt will be necessary throughout the year to preclude the presence of burrowing owl and suitable burrowing owl habitat. Maintenance should occur approximately every 8 weeks, and burrows 1023
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-19
Draft EIR
7/20/22
should be inspected prior to closure to ensure no burrowing owl are present. The frequency of burrow closure may be adjusted based upon ground squirrel and burrow reestablishment progress.
 The debris within the project site should be removed.  If discing is chosen as a preferred method for burrow maintenance, it is recommended that any sensitive biological resources (populations of rare plants, wetland boundaries and any active bird nests, etc.) be flagged by a qualified biologist and avoided.

Conduct Burrow Exclusion
If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, prior to the first grounddisturbing activities, the project applicant, in consultation with the CDFW, shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out as per the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 Staff Report.

Required Mitigation Plan
The project applicant shall consult with the CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation plan that shall include replacement of impacted habitat, number of burrows, and burrowing owl at a ratio approved by CDFW and in compliance with the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Mitigation shall at minimum preserve similar quality habitat at a 1:1 ratio [one preserved acre for each impacted acre] within the boundaries of the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Mitigation areas shall be permanently preserved by a conservation easement held by a third party organization dedicated to ecological stewardship. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by CDFW and the City, and the conservation easement executed prior to the first ground-disturbing activities.

The project applicant shall consult with the CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation plan that shall include replacement of impacted habitat, number of burrows, and burrowing owl at a ratio approved by CDFW to ensure no net loss of species. The mitigation plan shall comply with the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the plan shall be reviewed and approved by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground-disturbing activities.

MM BIO-1.4: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
Prior to grading or development activities from February 1 to August 31, the applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following:

Pre-construction Breeding Bird Surveys
No more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance and vegetation removal during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist 1024
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-20 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
7/20/22
to perform pre-construction breeding bird surveys. If any nests are found, they shall be flagged and protected with a suitable buffer, depending on the species. Buffer distance may vary based on species and conditions, but is typically at least 50 feet, and up to 250 feet for raptors. No construction shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that the young have fledged the nest.

As used in this measure, “suitable” means the distance a qualified biologist determines in necessary to ensure no disturbance to nesting. The buffer distance is measured as the straightline distance between an active nest and the activity, taking both horizontal and vertical distance into account. This mitigation measure does not apply to ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities that occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 to January 31).

Impact BIO-2: Have a substantial adverse effect on sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat (Class III).

As shown in Table 7-1: Summary of Biological Communities in Project Area, the project site contains 76.24 acres of non-sensitive ruderal habitat comprised primarily of disced and mowed areas of disturbed vegetation. These biological communities are not considered sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat, and therefore impacts would be less than significant (Class III).

Impact BIO-3: Have a substantial adverse effect on wetlands or jurisdictional features (Class II).

Development of the project site as proposed would result in direct and permanent impacts to

0.66 acre of seasonal wetlands. The direct loss of these wetland features is considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA. These wetlands are likely within the jurisdiction of the Corps under Section 404 of the CWA and the RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Act. Implementation of MM BIO-3.1: Wetland Mitigation Plan would reduce this potentially significant impact to wetlands to a less-than-significant level (Class II).

Mitigation for Impact BIO-3
MM BIO-3.1 Wetland Mitigation Plan
Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following:

The project applicant shall acquire the appropriate applicable permit(s) (e.g. Section 404, Section 401, Porter-Cologne) from the respective regulating agency(s) (i.e. USACE and/or RWQCB). A wetland mitigation plan shall be prepared that will establish suitable compensatory mitigation based on the concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values or acreages, to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies.
1025
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-21
Draft EIR
7/20/22
The wetland mitigation plan shall include measures for avoidance, minimization and compensation for wetland impacts. Avoidance and minimization measures may include the designation of buffers around wetland features to be avoided or project design measures.

Compensation measures shall include the preservation and/or creation of wetlands or other waters. The final mitigation ratio (the amount of wetlands and other water created or preserved compared to the amount impacted) shall be determined by the applicable resource agency(s) and result in no net loss of wetland habitat value or acreages. The wetland mitigation plan shall include the following:

1. Description of wetland types and their expected functions and values;

2. Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success of the mitigation wetlands over a period of time to be determined by the resource agencies;

3. Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of wetlands to be created or preserved;

4. An implementation schedule showing the construction or preservation of mitigation areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with the initiation of construction; and

5. A description of legal protection of the preserved wetlands (such as dedication of fee title, conservation easement and/or an endowment held by an approved conservation organization, government agency or mitigation bank).

Impact BIO-4: Have a substantial adverse effect on wildlife movement. (Class III).

The project site is surrounded on four sides by roadways which create an anthropogenic barrier to dispersal around the project site and precludes the primary function of a habitat corridor, to link two separated but occupied habitats. Therefore, given that the project site is bounded by urban development, the project site does not function as a wildlife corridor connecting two or more areas of occupied habitat, and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact BIO-5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinances (Class III).

Heritage Tree Ordinance
The project site does not contain any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye or sycamore trees that are 24 inches in diameter as measured 4.5 feet above natural grade. Therefore, the project would not be subject to the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance and no significant impacts would occur.

East Alameda County Conservation Strategy
The project site is in Conservation Zone 3 (CZ-3) of the EACCS. The EACCS is a guidance 1026
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-22 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
7/20/22
document that is used by the City for public projects, but compliance is not mandated for private development as it is not an adopted or approved plan that requires a consistency determination under CEQA. Therefore, no conflicts would occur and impacts would be less than significant.

7.5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographic extent for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to biological resources includes the City of Dublin, which contains suitable and occupied habitat of Congdon’s tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, Saline clover, locally rare plant species, Western Burrowing Owl, Loggerhead shrike, and White-tailed kite. However, based on professional judgement and field surveys, the project site does not support core, critical, or unique populations essential to recovery and long‐term survival of these species.

Impact BIO-6: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on biological resources (Class II).

As stated above, the project would not result in a net loss of riparian habitat and would not result in a loss of any heritage trees.

The project would affect 0.66 acres of seasonal wetlands, which would considerably contribute to the significant cumulative biological impacts associated with past, present, and reasonably future projects. Implementation of MM BIO-3.1 would reduce the project’s contribution to less-than-cumulatively considerable.

The proposed project would have potentially significant impacts related the loss of potential habitat for special-status species, including Congdon’s tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, Saline clover, locally rare plant species, Western Burrowing Owl, Loggerhead shrike, and White-tailed kite. Implementation of MM BIO-1.1, MM BIO-1.2, and MM BIO-1.3 would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Project-related biological impacts are considered and mitigated consistent with local, state and federal regulations, which includes compliance with mitigation for loss of burrowing owl habitat and wetlands. Although past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects may result in impacts to special-status plants and special-status wildlife, such impacts would be site-specific and could be mitigated through adherence to similar standard mitigation. The required mitigation would reduce the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impact on wetlands these species and western burrowing owl habitat to less than cumulatively considerable. As such, cumulative impacts to special-species plants and wildlife species would be less than significant.
1027
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-23
Draft EIR
7/20/22

7.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 7-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Biological Resources summarizes the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the project with regard to biological resources.

Table 7-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Biological Resources Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact BIO-1: Have a substantial
adverse effect on special-status
plant and wildlife species (Class II).

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM BIO-1.1: Special Status Plant Surveys
MM BIO-1.2: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and
Mitigation
MM BIO-1.3: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Exclusion
Measures
MM BIO-1.4: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
Impact BIO-2: Have a substantial
adverse effect on sensitive natural
communities or riparian habitat
(Class III).

Less than
Significant
None required
Impact BIO-3: Have a substantial
adverse effect on wetlands or
jurisdictional features (Class II).

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM BIO-3.1: Wetland Mitigation Plan
Impact BIO-4: Have a substantial
adverse effect on wildlife
movement. (Class III).

Less than
Significant
None required
Impact BIO-5: Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinances
(Class III).

Less than
Significant
None required
Impact BIO-6: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable impacts
on biological resources (Class II).

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM BIO-1.1: Special Status Plant Surveys
MM BIO-1.2: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and
Mitigation
MM BIO-1.3: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Exclusion
Measures
MM BIO-1.4: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
MM BIO-3.1: Wetland Mitigation Plan

7.6 References
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022. Candidate Conservation | Candidate Notice of Review. Available at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/candidatespecies.html. Accessed March 31, 2022. 1028
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-24 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
7/20/22
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2022. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition.

California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Available at:
http://vegetation.cnps.org. Accessed March 31, 2022.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2022. Rare Plant Inventory. Available at https://rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed on March 31, 2022.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2022. California Natural Diversity Database. Biogeographic Data Branch, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, Sacramento, California. Available at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Mapsand-Data. Accessed on March 31, 2022.

WRA, Inc. Biological Resources Assessment for the SCS Dublin Project, 2022.

WRA, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report for At Dublin Development Project, 2018.

WRA, Inc. Rare Plant Survey Report for At Dublin Development Project, 2018. 1029
Not to scale
Source: WRA, 2022
Figure 7-1: ioloŐical Communi�es on the Wroũect Site
SCS Dublin Project
Environmental Impact Report
Biological Communities:

Ruderal (76.24 ac.)
Seasonal Wetland (0.66 ac.)
1030
Not to scale
Source: WRA, 2022
Figure 7-2: Special-Status Plant Species with Five Miles of the Project Site SCS Dublin Project
Environmental Impact Report
1 5
4 9
2 2
6 2
8 2
2 7
2 2
2 2
9 2
2 2
2 2
2 9
2 2
2 2
9 9
9 3
9 9
9 9
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 3 3
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
1, caper-fruited tropidocarpum
2, Congdon's tarplant
3, Diablo helianthella
4, hairless popcornflower
5, long-styled sand-spurrey
6, Mt. Diablo buckwheat
7, prostrate vernal pool navarretia
8, saline clover
9, San Joaquin spearscale
Project Area
5-mile Buffer
<
1031
Not to scale
Source: WRA, 2022
Figure 7-3: ^ƉĞĐŝĂů^ƚĂƚƵƐWůĂŶƚ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐŽŶƚŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚ^ŝƚĞ SCS Dublin Project
Environmental Impact Report 1032
Not to scale
Source: WRA, 2022
Figure 7-4: Special-Status Wildlife Species within Five Miles of the Project Site SCS Dublin ProũĞĐƚ
Environmental Impact Report
6 12
11 4
1 9
4 11
11 3
7 3
1 2
2 3
3 4
4 4
1 3
3 2
11 13
14 4
3 3
2 2
13 4
11 4
3 3
13 2
4 4
4 3
4 3
4 4
8 1
5 3
4 13
4 4 4
4 4
2 4
2 4
2 2
3 2
2 2
4 4
2 13
4 2
3 2
2 4
3 3
2 2
4 2
3 3
3 4
4 3
2 2
4 4
4 2 3
4 2 4
4 2
4 2 3
3 3 2 4
4 4
4 4
2 2
4 2
3 2
4 4
2 3
4 2
4 3
3 3 4
4 4
3 3
3 3
4 4
11 10
3 1. American badger

2. burrowing owl

3. California red-legged frog

4. California tiger salamander

5. ferruginous hawk

6. foothill yellow-legged frog

7. golden eagle

8. pallid bat

9. San Joaquin kit fox

10. Townsend's big-eared bat

11. tricolored blackbird

12. western bumble bee

13. western pond turtle

14. white-tailed kite
Project Area
5-mile Buffer
SensiƟve Occurences:
-Alameda Whipsnake #'s:
10,24,25,38-40,47,49,55,64-67,73,
76-81,90,99,121,123-127,154,167
-American Peregrine Falcon #: 56
-Prairie Falcon #'s:
470,471,467,468,491
<
1033
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources | Page 8-1
Draft EIR
7/20/22
8 Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources

8.1 Introduction
This chapter describes effects on cultural and tribal cultural resources that could be caused by implementation of the project. The following discussion addresses existing environmental conditions in the affected area, identifies and analyzes environmental impacts, and recommends measures to reduce or avoid adverse impacts anticipated from project construction and operation. In addition, existing laws and regulations relevant to cultural and paleontological resources are described. In some cases, compliance with these existing laws and regulations would serve to reduce or avoid certain impacts that might otherwise occur with implementation of the project.

The term “cultural resources” encompasses historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, and burial sites. It includes:

Historic Resources: Historic resources are associated with the recent past. In California, historic resources are typically associated with the Spanish, Mexican, and American periods in the State’s history.

Archaeological Resources: Archaeology is the study of prehistoric human activities and cultures. Archaeological resources are generally associated with indigenous cultures.

Paleontological Resources: Paleontology is the study of plant and animal fossils.

Burial Sites: Burial sites are formal or informal locations where human remains, usually associated with indigenous cultures, are interred.

The term “tribal cultural resources” are either of the following:

1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
(B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code.

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1.

Information used to prepare this chapter came from the following resources:
 City of Dublin, General Plan 1985, as amended 2022
 City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, 1994, updated 2022 1034
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-8-2 | Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft EIR
7/20/22
 California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS)

8.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, the National American Heritage Commission provided general guidance on consultation with California Native American tribes and CEQA requirements.

8.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on cultural resources conditions in the greater project area, which includes the greater Tri-Valley area. The current condition and quality of cultural resources was used as the baseline against which to compare potential impacts of the project.

8.3.1 Prehistory
The Tri-Valley sub-region compromises of the cities of Dublin, San Ramon, Pleasanton, and Livermore, and portions of both Alameda County and Contra Costa County. Existing archaeological records are derived from excavations related to construction in areas south of I580. These archaeological surveys make up the primary source of information on prehistoric life in the greater Livermore-Amador Valley area.

The first discoveries of buried archaeological sites were found in the Arroyo Mocho area south of I-580 on the banks of streams. Analysis of materials taken from these sites indicate that trading occurred with Native American peoples throughout central and northern California.

These prehistoric sites appear to have been abandoned during certain periods mainly due to regular flooding. To date, several village sites on the northern and southern borders of the arroyo’s seasonal marsh, known in historic times as Willow Marsh, were found buried under varying amounts of silt material. The precise retreat of these inhabitants is unclear since similar sites on dry ground are rare for the Livermore and Amador valleys and have not been located in nearby foothills, nor on the project site.

As one possible explanation, there is evidence that the entire Livermore-Amador Valley area was abandoned for several hundred years and the inhabitants migrated south through Sunol and west to the San Francisco Bay. This group of people, presently named the “Meganos” people, have been traced from an early origin in the Sacramento Valley through the Concord drainage and to the San Francisco Bay margin.

By 500 or 600 A.D., the valley and the hills in the EDSP area were repopulated by the ancestors of the modern day Ohlones. Archaeological sites have been found in areas of higher ground near watercourses in Pleasanton and Livermore along the San Ramon drainage. However, none of these sites were located in the EDSP area.
1035
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources | Page 8-3
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Prehistoric Use of the Project Area
For the indigenous population, the EDSP area was likely used for seed gathering from grasses and acorn harvesting, as well as vegetation along the watercourses were denser flowing from the hills into Willow Marsh. Main habitation sites were situated along the marsh edges in the earliest period and then migrated to higher grounds south and west of the marsh approximately 1,500 years ago.

8.3.2 Historic Resources
Considerable alteration to the natural landscape occurred during the period of Anglo-American farming and ranching. All the drainages running through the EDSP area show signs of considerable siltation and erosion caused by cattle grazing and dry farming. Native grasses, mainly bunchgrass, have been replaced with European grasses. Large native trees have been removed or replaced with eucalyptus along drainages and at the locations of the ranches and homes found in the canyons. Oak, cottonwood, and willow trees can be found sporadically throughout the EDSP area.

8.3.3 Archaeological Resources
Six reports were found from previous archaeological surveys inside the EDSP area, concentrating on the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center complex. The Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center is located approximately 0.56 mile west of the project.

8.3.4 Historic Sites
Although the California Archaeological Inventory located at Sonoma State University does not record any historic resources inside the EDSP area, numerous structures are listed in The Thompson and West Historic Atlas of 1878. The 1878 Historic Atlas lists 16 structures within the EDSP area. Twelve of the historic sites identified to date in the EDSP are considered either in-use structures or farming complexes. Of these historic resources inventoried above, none are located within the project site.

8.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards

8.4.1 Federal
National Register of Historic Places Eligibility
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended through 2000) authorizes the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), a program for the preservation of historic properties (“cultural resources”) throughout the Nation. The eligibility of a resource for NRHP listing is determined by evaluating the resource using criteria defined in 36 CFR 60.4 as follows:
 The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local importance 1036
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-8-4 | Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft EIR
7/20/22
that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association, and:
 That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
 That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;  That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction;  That represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or,
 That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.

Unless a site is of exceptional importance, it is not eligible for listing in the NRHP until 50 years after it was constructed.

All properties change over time. Therefore, it is not necessary for a property to retain all its historic physical features or characteristics to be eligible for listing on the NRHP. The property must, however, retain enough integrity to enable it to convey its historic identity; in other words, to be recognizable to a historical contemporary. The National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity:

Location – the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.

Design – the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.

Setting – the physical environment of a historic property.

Materials – the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.

Workmanship – the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.

Feeling – a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

Association – the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property (National Park Service, 1990).
1037
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources | Page 8-5
Draft EIR
7/20/22
To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of these aspects. To properly assess integrity, however, significance (why, where, and when a property is important) must first be fully established. Therefore, the issues of significance and integrity must always be considered together when evaluating a historic property.

Executive Order 11593 (May 13, 1971), 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 8921 as incorporated into Title 7, United States Code
Executive Order 11593, Protection of the Cultural Environment, orders the protection and enhancement of the cultural environment through providing leadership, establishing State offices of historic preservation, and developing criteria for assessing resource values.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Title 42, United States Code, Section 1996 The American Indian Religious Freedom Act protects Native American religious practices, ethnic heritage sites, and land uses.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (1990), Title 25, United States Code
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) defines “cultural items,” “sacred objects,” and “objects of cultural patrimony;” establishes an ownership hierarchy; provides for review; allows excavation of remains under certain conditions, but stipulates return of the remains according to ownership; sets penalties for violations; calls for inventories; and provides for return of specified cultural items.

8.4.2 State
CEQA, Archaeological Resources
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines contain specific standards for determining the significance of impacts to archaeological sites (PRC §21083.2; 14 CCR §15064.5(c)). If the lead agency determines that the project may have a significant effect on unique archaeological resources, the EIR must address those archaeological resources (PRC §21083.2(a)). A “unique archaeological resource” is defined as an “archaeological artifact, object, or site” that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge:
 Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and in which there is a demonstrable public interest;
 Has a special or particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or
 Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. (PRC §21083.2(g)).

Under CEQA, significant impacts on non‐unique archaeological resources need not be addressed in an EIR. (PRC §21083.2(a), (h)).
1038
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-8-6 | Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft EIR
7/20/22
The limitations in PRC §21083.2 relating to unique archaeological resources do not apply to archaeological sites that qualify as “historical resources.” (PRC §21083.2(l)). If a lead agency finds that an archaeological site is a historical resource, impact assessment is governed by PRC §21084.1, which provides standards for identification of historical resources (14 CCR §15064.5(c)(2). See §§13.58, 20.94‐20.98). The CEQA Guidelines also provide that public agencies should seek to avoid effects that could damage a "historical resource of an archaeological nature" when it is feasible to do so (14 CCR §15126.4(b)(3)).

Native American Consultation
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 requires early notice of any project requiring an EIR, Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration for any tribe that has submitted a written request. The City of Dublin received one formal request for trial consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(b)(d) and (e). The City sent a letter to the tribe and no response for consultation was received.

Native American Historic Resource Protection Act; Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Sites; Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites (Pub. Res. Code § 5097-5097.994)
Public Resources Code Section 5097 specifies the procedures to be followed in the event of the unexpected discovery of Native American human remains on non-federal public lands.

California Public Resources Code Section 5097.9 states that no public agency or private party on public property shall “interfere with the free expression or exercise of Native American Religion.” The Code further states that:
“No such agency or party [shall] cause severe or irreparable damage to any Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine…except on a clear and convincing showing that the public interest and necessity so require.”
California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the find or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.
1039
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources | Page 8-7
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Public Resources Code Section 5097.5
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 prohibits excavation or removal of any “vertebrate paleontological site…or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands.” Public lands are defined to include lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the state or any city, county, district, authority or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Section 5097.5 states that any unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historical, or paleontological materials or sites located on public lands is a misdemeanor.

CEQA, Historic Resources
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines contain specific standards for determining the significance of impacts on “historical resources” (PRC §21084.1, 14 CCR §15064.5). A resource listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or determined by the State Historical Resources Commission to be eligible for listing in the Register, must be treated as an “historical resource” for purposes of CEQA. PRC §21084.1; 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1). A resource designated as historically significant in a local register of historical resources, or identified as significant in an approved historical resources survey, is presumed to be significant. The presumption of significance may be overcome if the agency concludes, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the site is not historically or culturally significant (PRC §21084.1; 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(2)).

A lead agency may also find that a site that does not meet any of these criteria should be treated as a historical resource under CEQA (PRC §21084.1; 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(4)). A lead agency may find that “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript” is historically significant or significant in the “cultural annals of California” provided that its determination is “supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record” (14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)). The guidelines also note that a resource ordinarily should be considered historically significant if it meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)).

California Register of Historical Resources
To be determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), a property must be significant at the local, State, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria as defined in Public Resources Code 5024.1 and CEQA Guideline 15064.5(a).
 It is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history and cultural heritage of California and the United States.
 It is associated with the lives of persons important to the nation or to California’s past. 1040
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-8-8 | Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft EIR
7/20/22
 It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
 It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the state and the nation.

In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, a significant property must also retain integrity. Properties eligible for listing in the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character to convey the reason(s) for their significance. Integrity is judged in relation to location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

8.4.3 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin’s General Plan contains the following policy associated with cultural and tribal resources that are relevant to the project:

Guiding Policy 7.7.1.A.2: Follow State regulations as set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 regarding discovery of archaeological sites, and Historical Resources, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code.

Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The City of Dublin’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains the following policies and program associated with cultural and tribal resources that are relevant to the project:

Policy 6-24: The presence and significance of archaeological or historic resources will be determined, and necessary mitigation programs formulated, prior to development approvals for any of the sites identified in the cultural resource survey prepared for this plan.

Policy 6-25: The discovery of historic or prehistoric remains during grading and construction will result in the cessation of such activities until the significance and extent of those remains can be ascertained by a certified archaeologist.

Policy 6-26: All properties with historic resources which may be impacted by future development shall be subjected to in-depth archival research to determine the significance of the resource prior to any alteration.

Policy 6-27: Where the disruption of historic resources is unavoidable, encourage the adaptive re-use or restoration of historic structures (such as the old school house, several barns, and Victorian residences currently in the area) whenever feasible. 1041
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources | Page 8-9
Draft EIR
7/20/22
ACTION PROGRAM: Cultural Resources
Program 6P: The City of Dublin shall require the following actions as part of the application process for development within eastern Dublin:
 Site Sensitivity: Based on the first stage cultural resource survey of the area conducted as background for the Plan, the City will make a determination of whether the subject site has been identified as having prehistoric or historic resources potentially located on it.
 Research: For those sites with potential resources, a second level of detailed research and field reconnaissance will be required to determine the level of archaeological or historical significance. This research will be the responsibility of the development applicant, and be conducted by a qualified archaeologist. The research will be consistent with the guidelines for prehistoric and historic resources provided in the cultural resources survey prepared for eastern Dublin.
 Mitigation: For those sites that contain significant resources, a mitigation plan must be developed which is consistent with the policies in this Specific Plan and current CEQA guidelines concerning cultural resources.

City of Dublin Municipal Code
Section 8.48.020 Archaeology Regulations of the Dublin Municipal Code states that in the event that archaeological resources, prehistoric or historic artifacts are discovered during any construction or excavation, the following regulations shall apply:

A. Cessation of construction activities. Construction and/or excavation activities shall cease immediately and the Department of Community Development shall be notified.

B. Procedure. A qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether any such materials are significant prior to resuming ground breaking construction activities.

Standardized procedures for evaluating accidental finds and discovery of human remains shall be followed as prescribed in Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.

8.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

8.5.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for cultural and tribal resources were derived from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been amended or supplemented, as appropriate, to address Lead Agency requirements and the full range of potential impacts related to this project.
1042
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-8-10 | Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Cultural Resources
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it would meet one of the following criteria.
 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource (CEQA Guideline 15064.5).
 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource (CEQA Guideline 15064.5).
 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature.
 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

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:
 Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or  A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Significance Classifications
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.

Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.

Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through implementation of recommended mitigation measures.

Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.

Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.

No Impact.
1043
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources | Page 8-11
Draft EIR
7/20/22

8.5.2 Impact Assessment Methodology
For cultural resources, this impact assessment is based on a comparison of known resource locations with the placement of ground disturbing project activities that have the potential to remove, relocate, damage, or destroy the physical evidence of past cultural activities. If such ground disturbance overlaps recorded site locations, then a direct impact may occur. Historical buildings and structures may be directly impacted if the nearby setting and context is modified substantially, even if the building or structure itself is not physically affected. Indirect impacts may occur if activities occur near, but not directly on, known cultural resources.

8.5.3 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Known Historical or Archaeological Resources
None of the historic resources inventoried in the 1878 Historic Atlas in the project area are located within the project site. In addition, no historic sites in the area were identified in the NRHP and CRHR databases. The project site also does not qualify as a unique archaeological resource. Additionally, no historic or archaeological resources were identified in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ENGO, 2018). Therefore, the construction of the project would not impact any known historical resources or unique archaeological resources as defined by CEQA, and therefore there would be no impact.

Tribal Cultural Resources
The project site is not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). The City sent a letter to one tribe AB52 and no response for consultation was received. In addition, the City requested a Sacred Land File search by the Native Heritage Commission and the result was negative. Therefore, the project site is not considered to be of cultural value to a California Native American tribe as the construction of the project would not impact any known tribal cultural resources as defined by CEQA, and there would be no impact.

8.5.4 Impacts of the Project
Impact CR-1: Cause a substantial adverse change to a previously unknown historic or archeological resource (Class II).

Of the historic resources inventoried in the 1878 Historic Atlas, none of the historic sites are located within the project site. In addition, no historic sites were identified in the NRHP and CRHR databases. Nonetheless, there is always the possibility that previously unknown historic resources exist below the ground surface within the project site. This is a potentially significant impact.

Implementation of MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During Construction would reduce impacts to a level of less-than-significant level. 1044
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-8-12 | Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Mitigation for Impact CR-1
MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During Construction If buried historic or archaeological resources are discovered during construction, operations shall stop within 50 feet of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to evaluate the resource in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(f), which requires the Lead Agency to make provisions for historical or unique archaeological resource accidently discovered during construction.

The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the resource does not qualify as a significant resource, then no further protection or study is necessary. If the resource does qualify as a significant resource then the impacts shall be avoided by project activities. If the resource cannot be avoided, adverse impacts to the resource shall be addressed. The archaeologist shall make recommendations concerning appropriate mitigation measures that shall be implemented to protect the resources, including but not limited to excavation and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5(f) of the CEQA Guidelines. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the project area should be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria.

Impact CR-2: Directly impact a paleontological resource or unique geologic feature (Class II).

The project site is not located in an area that is considered likely to have paleontological resources present. Fossils of plants, animals, or other organisms of paleontological significance have not been discovered at the project site, nor has the site been identified to be within an area where such discoveries are likely. The type of depositional environment at the project site typically does not present favorable conditions for the discovery of paleontological resources.

Therefore, the project would not result in impacts to paleontological resources or unique geologic features. However, if significant paleontological resources are discovered, implementation of MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource Monitoring would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level (Class II).

Mitigation for Impact CR-2
MM CR-2.1 Paleontological Resource Monitoring
In the event a fossil(s) is discovered during construction for the project, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards.

The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, they shall be avoided by project construction activities and recovered by a qualified paleontologist. Upon completion of the recovery, a paleontological assessment shall 1045
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources | Page 8-13
Draft EIR
7/20/22
be conducted by a qualified paleontologist to determine if further monitoring for paleontological resources is required. The assessment shall include (1) the results of any geotechnical investigation prepared for the project area, (2) specific details of the construction plans for the project area, (3) background research, and (4) limited subsurface investigation within the project area.

If a high potential to encounter paleontological resources is confirmed, a monitoring plan of further project subsurface construction shall be prepared in conjunction with this assessment.

After project subsurface construction has ended, a report documenting monitoring, methods, findings, and further recommendations regarding paleontological resources shall be prepared and submitted to the Director of Community Development.

Impact CR-3: Inadvertently disturb human remains (Class III).

As described in the City of Dublin Specific Plan and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ENGEO, 2018), the project site does not contain any known recorded formal burial sites.

Therefore, no known human remains are located on the project site. Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, if human remains are discovered, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the project applicant has complied with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). These provisions require that the County Coroner be notified immediately.

If the remains are found to be Native American, the County Coroner is required to notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The most likely descendant of the deceased Native American is notified by the Commission and given the chance to make recommendations for the remains. If the Commission is unable to identify the most likely descendent, or if no recommendations are made within 24 hours, remains may be reinterred with appropriate dignity elsewhere on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. If recommendations are made and not accepted, the Native American Heritage Commission will mediate the problem. CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(d) provides additional guidelines subesuquent to the discovery of Native American human remains.

With implementation of existing regulations, the impact would be less than significant (Class III) and no mitigation is required.

8.5.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographic extent of cumulative impacts to cultural resources is dependent on the resource under discussion. For example, a cumulative impact to a historic architectural district would extend across the district, while the cumulative impact to individual archaeological or paleontological resources may accumulate across the City of Dublin, depending on the nature of the resources.
1046
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-8-14 | Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Impact CR‐4: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on cultural resources (Class II).

The project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, could result in significant impacts to paleontological, archeological, or historic cultural resources as a result of inadvertent discovery and accidental destruction during construction.

However, MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During Construction and MM CR2.1: Paleontological Resource Monitoring would apply to the project, ensuring that its contribution to cumulative impacts would not be considerable.

As stated above, project-level impacts to human remains would be less than significant with compliance with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) should human remains be discovered on-site. Standard regulatory requirements and procedures are required of other present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

8.5.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 8-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Cultural Resources summarizes the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the project with regard to cultural resources.

Table 8-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Cultural Resources Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact CR-1: Cause a substantial
adverse change to a known historic,
tribal cultural, or archeological
resource (Class II).

Less than
significant
with
mitigation
MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During
Construction
Impact CR-2: Directly impact a
paleontological resource or unique
geologic feature (Class II).

Less than
significant
with
mitigation
MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource Monitoring
Impact CR-3: Inadvertently disturb
human remains (Class III).

Less than
significant
None required
Impact CR-4: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable effects on
cultural resources (Class II).

Less than
significant
with
mitigation
MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During
Construction
MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource Monitoring

8.6 References
City of Dublin, General Plan, 1985, amended 2022.

ENGEO, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 2018
1047
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources | Page 8-15
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Native American Heritage Commission, Sacred Lands File response letter, April 19, 2022 1048
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-1
Draft EIR
7/20/22
9 Geology & Soils

9.1 Introduction
This chapter describes effects on geology and soils that would be caused by implementation of the project. Information used to prepare this chapter came from the following resources:
 ENGEO, At Dublin Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, 2018 (see Appendix D) 8  City of Dublin, General Plan 1985, as amended 2022
 Online reference materials

9.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, one comment that analysis of geology and soils could be scoped out of the EIR assuming compliance with the California Building Code was received.

9.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on geology and soils conditions in the project area. The current soils condition was used as the baseline against which to compare potential impacts of the project.

9.3.1 Subsurface Conditions
Dublin is located in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province, which is characterized as near parallel, northwest trending mountain ranges and valleys. As shown in Figure 9-1: Soils on the Project Site, the online soil survey of the project site from the California Soil Resources Lab (CSRL, 2018) indicates that the project site contains four native soil mapping units: Clear Lake, Sycamore, Linne and Sunnyvale.

Clear Lake Series. The Clear Lake series consists of very deep, poorly drained soils located on plains and flat basins, which formed in alluvium derived from sandstone and shale. A representative profile for the series consists of a very dark gray (N 3/0) clay layer, 39 inches thick, with few faint redoximorphic concentrations in the upper 13 inches. A light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4) clay layer with light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) masses of iron accumulations occurs below this layer to a depth of approximately 60 inches. This soil is a very hard, firm, and very sticky clay. This soil type is listed as hydric (USDA 2018b), but the two soil mapping units in this series that are present within the project area are drained (Clear Lake clay, drained, 3 to 7 8 This report was prepared on behalf of the project applicant for the At Dublin Development Project and peer reviewed by Kimley-Horn & Associates.
1049
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-9-2 | Geology & Soils
Draft EIR
7/20/22
percent slopes, and Clear Lake clay, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 14), and any hydric soil indicators observed within these mapping units may be relict.

Sycamore Series. The Sycamore series consists of poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium from sedimentary rock on floodplains. Typically, Sycamore soils contain grayish-brown (2.5Y 5/2), slightly acidic, slightly clay loam A horizons that are approximately 15 inches thick; grayish brown and light brownish-gray (2.5Y 4/4), distinctly mottled, mildly to moderately alkaline, silt loam B horizons that extend to a depth of 27 inches; and stratified light brownish-gray and pale brown (10YR 6/3) mottled loam, fine sandy loam and loamy fine sand calcareous C horizons.

This soil type is listed as hydric (USDA, 2018b).

Linne Series. The Linne series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils on hills with slopes of 5 to 75 percent. They formed in material weathered from fairly soft shale and sandstone and have medium to very rapid runoff and moderately slow permeability. In a typical profile, the surface layer is composed of black (10YR 2/1), moderately alkaline clay loam that extends nine inches in depth. This soil is underlain by black to very dark gray (10YR 3/1), moderately alkaline clay loam that extends up to 29 inches in depth. From 29 to 32 inches, the soil is composed of gray and light brownish gray (10YR 5/1 and 6/2), moderately alkaline sandy clay loam. From 32 to 36 inches, the soil is composed of very pale brown and white (10YR 7/2 and 8/2) moderately alkaline fine sandy loam. Lastly, from 36 to 51 inches, the soil is comprised of light gray and pale yellow (2.5Y 7/2 and 8/4) moderately alkaline mudstone. This soil type is listed as hydric.

Sunnyvale Series. The Sunnyvale series consists of poorly drained, calcareous soils on nearly level valley floors north of Pleasanton. The surface soil is gray, granular, slightly calcareous, heavy clay loam. Sunnyvale soils are often used for irrigated row crops, for pasture, and for dry-farmed grain. A representative profile for the Sunnyvale series consists of an Ap horizon from 0 to 6 inches with dark gray to very dark grey (N4/ - N3/) silty clay. Similar colors are seen in an Alc2 horizon of silty clay from 6 to 14 inches in depth. A Clca horizon extends from 14 to 34 inches in depth, with light grey to dark grey (N7/ - N3/) silty clay. This soil type is listed as hydric.

9.3.2 Seismicity
The San Francisco Bay Area contains numerous active earthquake faults. The active faults mapped within 20 miles of the site are listed in Table 9-1: Regional Faults and Seismicity. An active fault is defined by the State Mining and Geology Board as one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years) (Bryant and Hart, 2007).

Figure 9-2: Regional Fault Zones shows the approximate locations of these faults and significant historic earthquakes recorded within the San Francisco Bay Region. 1050
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-3
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Table 9-1: Regional Faults and Seismicity
Fault Segment
Distance from Project
Site (miles)
Direction from Project Site
(miles)
Maximum Characteristic
Magnitude
Mount Diablo Thrust 2.8 North 6.7
Calaveras 3.6 West 7.0
Greenville 8.2 Northeast 7.0
Hayward-Rodgers 10.4 West 7.3
Green Valley 14.8 Northwest 6.8
Great Valley 19.0 East 6.9
Source: ENGEO, 2018
The bedrock formations in the area south of Mount Diablo and north of the Livermore Valley have been folded and cut by thrust faults that typically dip toward the north, according to geologic mapping by Crane (1995) and Graymer, et al. (1996). Geologic studies by Unruh and Sawyer (1997) suggest that the core of Mount Diablo may be underlain at depth (several thousand feet) by an active “blind” thrust fault system (a “blind” thrust fault does not extend to the surface).

According to Unruh and Sawyer (1997), movement on the blind thrust fault system is responsible for the uplift of Mount Diablo and the folding of the rocks in the site vicinity. Unruh and Sawyer believe that surface effects of the deeply buried blind thrust fault system are typically relatively slow, diffuse, and distributed vertical movements associated with the growth of folds. According to their cross sections, the leading edge of the buried Mount Diablo thrust fault may exist at depths of three to five miles somewhere near the Tassajara Anticline, located approximately four miles to the north of the site.

Seismic Hazards
Fault Rupture
Fault rupture is a seismic hazard that affects structures sited above an active fault. The hazard from fault rupture is the movement of the ground surface along a fault during an earthquake.

Typically, this movement takes place during the short time of an earthquake, but it also can occur slowly over many years in a process known as creep. Most structures and underground utilities cannot accommodate the surface displacements of several inches to several feet commonly associated with fault rupture or creep.

Ground Shaking
The severity of ground shaking depends on several variables such as earthquake magnitude, epicenter distance, local geology, thickness, seismic wave-propagation properties of 1051
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-9-4 | Geology & Soils
Draft EIR
7/20/22
unconsolidated materials, groundwater conditions, and topographic setting. Ground shaking hazards are most pronounced in areas near faults or with unconsolidated alluvium.

Based on observations of damage from recent earthquakes in California (e.g., San Fernando 1971, Whittier-Narrows 1987, Landers 1992, Northridge 1994), ground shaking is responsible for 70 to 100 percent of all earthquake damage. The most common type of damage from ground shaking is structural damage to buildings, which can range from cosmetic stucco cracks to total collapse. The overall level of structural damage from a nearby large earthquake would likely be moderate to heavy, depending on the characteristics of the earthquake, the type of ground, and the condition of the building. Besides damage to buildings, strong ground shaking can cause severe damage from falling objects or broken utility lines. Fire and explosions are also hazards associated with strong ground shaking.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction tends to occur in loose, saturated fine-grained sands, course silts, or clays with low plasticity. The liquefaction process typically occurs at depths less than 50 feet below the ground surface, although liquefaction can occur at deeper intervals, given the right conditions.

The most susceptible zone occurs at depths shallower than 30 feet below the ground surface.

Liquefaction can lead to several types of ground failure, depending on slope conditions and the geological and hydrological settings, of which the four most common types of ground failure are: 1) lateral spreads, 2) flow failures, 3) ground oscillation, and 4) loss of bearing strength.

A liquefaction potential analysis was conducted by ENGEO for the project site indicating that the interbedded layers of clay sand and sandy clay will settle approximately three inches due to cyclic softening and liquefaction.

Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a failure within a nearly horizontal soil zone that causes the overlying soil mass to move toward a free face or down a gentle slope. Generally, the effects of lateral spreading are most significant at a free face or the crest of a slope and diminish with distance from the slope. Based on the lack of a laterally continuous layer of potentially liquefiable soil at the site and general flatness of the project site, the risk of lateral spreading is low.

Ground Lurching
Ground lurching is a result of the rolling motion imparted to the ground surface during energy released by an earthquake. Such rolling motion can cause ground cracks to form in weaker soils. The potential for the formation of these cracks is considered greater at contacts between deep alluvium and bedrock. Such an occurrence is possible at the project site as in other locations in the Bay Area region, but based on the site location, the offset is expected to be minor.
1052
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-5
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Flooding
Portions of the parcel to the south of Dublin Boulevard are in a Special Flood Hazard Area with a designation Zone AH.

Expansive Soils
Samples of existing near-surface soil were tested for plasticity index (PI) to estimate expansive potential. The existing near-surface soil samples tested yielded PIs ranging from 11 to 55, which indicate moderately high expansion potential.

Expansive soil can change in volume with changes in moisture. They can shrink or swell and cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. Building damage due to volume changes associated with expansive soil can be reduced by: (1) using a rigid mat foundation that is designed to resist the settlement and heave of expansive soil, (2) deepening the foundations to below the zone of moisture fluctuation, i.e. by using deep footings or drilled piers, and/or (3) using footings at normal shallow depths, but bottomed on a layer of select fill having a low expansion potential.

9.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards

9.4.1 Federal
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program was established by the U.S. Congress when it passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, Public Law 95–124. In establishing the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, Congress recognized that earthquake-related losses could be reduced through improved design and construction methods and practices, land use controls and redevelopment, prediction techniques and early warning systems, coordinated emergency preparedness plans, and public education and involvement programs. The four basic goals remain unchanged:

1. Develop effective practices and policies for earthquake loss reduction and accelerate their implementation.

2. Improve techniques for reducing earthquake vulnerabilities of facilities and systems.

3. Improve earthquake hazards identification and risk assessment methods, and their use.

4. Improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects.

Several key federal agencies contribute to earthquake mitigation efforts. There are four primary National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program agencies:

1. National Institute of Standards and Technology of the Department of Commerce

2. National Science Foundation

3. United States Geological Survey (USGS) of the Department of the Interior 1053
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-9-6 | Geology & Soils
Draft EIR
7/20/22

4. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security
Implementation of National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program priorities is accomplished primarily through original research, publications, and recommendations to assist and guide state, regional, and local agencies in the development of plans and policies to promote safety and emergency planning.

International Building Code
Published by the International Code Council, the scope of this code covers major aspects of construction and design of structures and buildings, except for 3‐story one‐ and two-family dwellings and town homes. The 2012 International Building Code replaced the 1997 Uniform Building Code and contains provisions for structural engineering design. Published by the International Conference of Building Officials, the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) addresses the design and installation of structures and building systems through requirements that emphasize performance. The IBC includes codes governing structural as well as fire‐ and life‐safety provisions covering seismic, wind, accessibility, egress, occupancy, and roofs.

9.4.2 State
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC) provides building codes and standards for design and construction of structures in California.

Chapter 16 of the CBC contains definitions of seismic sources and the procedure used to calculate seismic forces on structures. Chapter 33 of the CBC contains requirements relevant to the construction of underground transmission lines. Building permits for all projects are reviewed to ensure compliance with the CBC.

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Public Resources Code (PRC), Section 2621-2630 (formerly the Special Studies Zoning Act), regulates development and construction of buildings intended for human occupancy to avoid the hazard of surface fault rupture. This Act categorizes faults as active, potentially active, and inactive. Historic and Holocene age faults are considered active, Late Quaternary and Quaternary age faults are considered potentially active, and pre‐Quaternary age faults are considered inactive. These classifications are qualified by the conditions that a fault must be shown to be “sufficiently active” and “well defined” by detailed site‐specific geologic explorations to determine whether building setbacks should be established.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, PRC, Sections 2690–2699, of 1990 directs the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology [now called California Geological 1054
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-7
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Survey (CGS)] to delineate Seismic Hazard Zones. The purpose of the act is to reduce the threat to public health and safety and to minimize the loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards.

Cities, counties, and State agencies are directed to use seismic hazard zone maps developed by CGS in their land‐use planning and permitting processes. The act requires that site-specific geotechnical investigations be performed prior to permitting most urban development projects within seismic hazard zones.

9.4.3 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin’s General Plan contains the following policies associated with geology and soils that are relevant to the project:

Guiding Policy 7.3.1.A.1: Maintain natural hydrologic systems.

Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.1: Enforce the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit for stormwater issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board or any subsequent permit as well as Chapter 7 (Public Works) and Chapter 9 (Subdivisions) of the Dublin Municipal Code for maintenance of water quality and protection of stream courses.

Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.2: Review development proposals to insure site design that minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff.

Guiding Policy 8.2.1.A.1: Geologic hazards shall be mitigated or development shall be located away from geologic hazards to preserve life, protect property, and reasonably limit the financial risks to the City of Dublin and other public agencies that would result from damage to poorly located public facilities.

Implementing Policy 8.2.1.B.1: Structural and Grading Requirements  All structures shall be designed to the standards delineated in the Dublin Building Code and Dublin’s Grading Ordinance. A “design earthquake” shall be established by an engineering geologist for each structure for which ground shaking is a significant design factor.
 Structures intended for human occupancy shall be at least 50 feet from any active fault trace; freestanding garages and storage structures may be as close as 25 feet. These distances may be reduced based on adequate exploration to accurately locate the fault trace.
 Generally, facilities should not be built astride potential rupture zones, although certain low-risk facilities may be considered. Critical facilities that must cross a fault, such as oil, gas, and water lines, shall be designed to accommodate the maximum expected offset 1055
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-9-8 | Geology & Soils
Draft EIR
7/20/22
from fault rupture. Site specific evaluations shall determine the maximum credible offset.
 A preliminary geologic hazards report must be prepared for all subdivisions. Any other facility that could create a geologic hazard, such as a road or a building on hillside terrain, must also have such a study. Each of the hazards described in the Seismic Safety and Safety Element must be evaluated. This hazard analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineering geologist.
 Detailed geologic studies will be required at the tentative subdivision map stage for all projects within the Landslide Hazard Area Boundary on the Geologic Hazards and Constraints map, and for other projects if the preliminary investigation indicates a potential geologic hazard. Proposals for mitigation should be included at this stage. The detailed analysis for projects in the Landslide Hazard Area Boundary must consider:
o Cumulative effect of new development on a partially developed slide; o Effects of septic leach systems, garden watering, and altered drainage patterns; o Impact of a maximum credible earthquake;
o Where applicable, passage of the Calaveras Fault through or under landslide deposits;
o Debris flow and other downslope hazards (especially common east of Dublin). Care must be taken not to locate structures in the path of potential debris flows. o Where published maps identify or show “ancient” or Quaternary slides on sites of proposed development, their stability must be analyzed, and effects of the proposed development on the area's stability must be evaluated by a soils engineer. o If the preliminary report indicates liquefaction potential, an engineering analysis and design, if necessary, to mitigate liquefaction hazards, shall be required for all structures planned for human occupancy.
o Evaluation for shrink-swell potential shall be included with all soils reports and design recommendations formulated where the potential is present. These analyses and recommendations shall include public streets and utilities, to reduce future public repair costs.
o A surface fault rupture evaluation, as outlined by the State of California for Special Studies Zones (Alquist-Priolo Act), shall be required for all development within the Revised Special Studies Zones as shown on the Geologic Hazards and Constraints map.
o The fault rupture evaluation should be conducted after building sites are specifically defined. Sites situated outside of this zone but within the Preliminary Zones (Slossen, 1973) shall be evaluated if proposed for multifamily dwellings or for public or recreational facilities.
1056
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-9
Draft EIR
7/20/22
o Any changes in grading or building design that would be significantly affected by geologic hazards or soils conditions, or in turn would significantly alter geologic or soils conditions, shall be accompanied by a re-analysis of those conditions. In addition, any conditions discovered during excavation or grading that significantly depart from the previously described geologic and soils setting shall be evaluated.

Implementing Policy 8.2.1.B.3J: Post-earthquake or damage reconstruction of existing structures shall be permitted only if mitigating factors are incorporated.

Implementing Policy 8.2.1.B.4: Data Review and Collection  All required reports and data shall be reviewed by the Alameda County Geologist or a consulting engineering geologist. This individual shall participate in the review process from the earliest proposal stage to completion of the project.  A file of all geologic and soils reports and grading plans shall be maintained as reference material for future planning and design on each site as well as on adjacent sites.  City and developer shall endeavor to fully disclose hazards to present and future occupants and property owners.

Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The City of Dublin’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains the following policy and program associated with geology and soils that are relevant to the project:

Policy 6-43: New development shall be designed to provide effective control of soil erosion as a result of construction activities and the alteration of site drainage characteristics.

Program 6H: The City should enact and enforce an erosion and sedimentation control ordinance establishing performance standards to ensure maintenance of water quality and protection of stream channels. The ordinance should regulate grading and development activities adjacent to streams and wetland areas and require revegetation of all ground disturbances immediately after construction to reduce erosion potential. Until such an ordinance is in place, the City shall require project applicants to provide a detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan as part of the project submittal.

Dublin Municipal Code
Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 7.32 adopts the 2019 CBC; as such, all new construction within the city limits is required to adhere to its seismic safety standards. The City of Dublin Community Development Department, Building and Safety Division, is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Building Code.
1057
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-9-10 | Geology & Soils
Draft EIR
7/20/22

9.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

9.5.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for geology & soils were derived from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been amended or supplemented, as appropriate, to address Lead Agency requirements and the full range of impacts related to the project.

An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it would meet one of the following criteria:
 Result in triggering or acceleration of geologic processes, such as landslides, substantial soil erosion, or loss of topsoil during construction.
 Expose people or structures to potential risk of loss or injury where there is high potential for seismically induced ground shaking, landslides, liquefaction, settlement, lateral spreading, and/or surface cracking.
 Expose people or structures to potential risk of loss or injury where there is high potential for earthquake-related ground rupture near major fault crossings.  Expose people or structures to potential risk of loss or injury where corrosive, expansive or other unsuitable soils are present.
 Result in soils that are unable to support an on‐site wastewater disposal system (septic).

The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.

Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.

Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through implementation of recommended mitigation measures.

Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.

Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.

No Impact.

9.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Exposure to Earthquake-Related Ground Rupture
The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map as mapped by the State Geologist. The closest known fault to the project site is the Mount Diablo Thrust fault, located approximately 2.8 miles north of the project site. There are no known or potentially active faults located within or adjacent to the project site. Based on the distance of 1058
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-11
Draft EIR
7/20/22
the project site from the Mount Diablo Thrust fault, the project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving fault rupture, and therefore there would be no impact.

Landslide Susceptibility
The project site is relatively flat and is not located in an area that would be affected by a landslide. Therefore, there would be no impact.

On‐site Wastewater Disposal System
The project would involve disposal of wastewater via a sanitary sewer, and there would be no septic systems under the project. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Extraction of Mineral Resources
There are no mines or quarries within 1,000 feet of the project site; nor is the project site within a known mapped oil or gas field, and therefore there would be no impact.

9.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact GEO-1: Expose people or structures to potential risk of loss or injury associated with seismic hazards (Class II).

Ground Shaking
An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the San Francisco Bay Region could cause considerable ground shaking at the site, similar to that which has occurred in the past. To mitigate the shaking effects, all structures will be required to be designed using sound engineering judgment and the current California Building Code (CBC) requirements, as a minimum.

As part of the project applicant’s building permit application, they would be required to submit a design-level geotechnical report specific to the project. This report would provide recommendations on the appropriate level of soil engineering and building design necessary to minimize ground-shaking hazards. Accordingly, MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Report Recommendations is proposed, requiring the applicant to submit a designlevel geotechnical report to the City of Dublin for review and approval. The implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure that the project is not exposed to strong ground shaking hazards and impacts would be less than significant.

Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction, Lateral Spreading, and Ground Lurching The Preliminary Geotechnical Report prepared for the At Dublin project indicated that based on the lack of a laterally continuous layer of potentially liquefiable soil and the general flatness of the project site, the risk of lateral spreading is low. In addition, based on the site location, the occurrence of ground lurching is expected to be minor.
1059
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-9-12 | Geology & Soils
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Liquefaction tends to occur in loose, saturated fine-grained sands, course silts, or clays with low plasticity. The liquefaction potential analysis indicated that interbedded layers of clay sand and sandy clay will settle approximately three inches due to cyclic softening and liquefaction. Based on the high end of the calculated total liquefaction settlements, site improvements on the project site should be designed to withstand a differential settlement of 1½ inches over a 30- foot distance and perform as intended. To mitigate the differential settlement for structures, the Preliminary Geotechnical Report recommends post-tensioned mat foundations for the residential structures and commercial structures.

With incorporation of MM GEO-1.1 Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Report Recommendations to implement geotechnical report recommendations into the final project design and construction documents for the project, and compliance with the CBC and General Plan policies, impacts would be less than significant (Class II).

Mitigation for Impact GEO-1
MM GEO-1.1 Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Recommendations The project applicant shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a designlevel geotechnical investigation that incorporates the recommendations in the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration. The design-level geotechnical report shall address, but not be limited to, site preparation and grading, building foundations, and CBC seismic design parameters. A design-level geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted in conjunction with Building Permit application(s) and reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin. Recommendations from the design-level geotechnical report shall be incorporated into the final project design and construction documents for each phase of the project.

Impact GEO-2: Trigger or accelerate substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil (Class II).

The project would involve grading, building construction, and paving activities that could result in erosion and sedimentation. Based on site elevation and distance from water sources, flooding is not expected to occur at the project site.

The topsoil is expected to have a low to moderate permeability level for stormwater infiltration in grassy swales or permeable pavers, unless subdrains are installed. Thus, limited stormwater infiltration is assumed to occur on the project site. However, the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration recommends a Civil Engineer review pertinent information relating to possible flood levels for the project site based on final pad elevations and provide appropriate design measures for development of the project, if recommended.

Projects involving construction on sites that are one acre or more are required to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies how the discharger will protect water quality during construction activities. These measures include, but are not limited to: design and construction of cut and fill slopes in a manner that will minimize erosion, protection of exposed slope areas, control of surface water flows over exposed soils, use of 1060
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-13
Draft EIR
7/20/22
wetting or sealing agents or sedimentation ponds, limiting soil excavation in high winds, construction of beams and runoff diversion ditches, and use of sediment traps, such as hay bales. (Also see Chapter 12: Hydrology & Water Quality.) Because the near-surface soil is moderately to highly expansive, the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration recommends restricting the amount of surface water infiltration near structures, pavements, flatwork, and slabs-on-grade. This may be accomplished by:
 Selecting landscaping that requires little or no watering, especially within three feet of structures, slabs-on-grade, or pavements.
 Using low precipitation sprinkler heads.
 Regulating the amount of water distributed to lawn or planter areas by installing timers on the sprinkler system.
 Providing surface grades to drain rainfall or landscape watering to appropriate collection systems and away from structures, slabs-on-grade, or pavements.  Preventing water from draining toward or ponding near building foundations, slabs-ongrade, or pavements.  Avoiding open planting areas within three feet of the building perimeter.

With incorporation of MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Report Recommendations to implement the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration recommendations into the final project design and construction documents for the project, and compliance with the CBC and General Plan policies, impacts would be less than significant (Class II).

Impact GEO-3: Expose people or structures to substantial safety risks as a result of liquefaction or expansive soils (Class II).

Ground Failure Including Liquefaction
Laboratory samples of soils in the project area exhibit moderate to high shrink/swell potential with variations in moisture content. The Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration includes recommendations including the use of post-tensioned mat foundations, keeping exposed soils moist prior to placement of concrete for foundation construction, and recommendations for compaction of clay soil to reduce the swell potential of the clay.

With incorporation of MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Report Recommendations to implement these Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration recommendations into the final project design for the project, and compliance with General Plan policies, expansive soil conditions would be abated, and impacts would be less than significant (Class II). 1061
SCS Dublin City of Dublin
Page-9-14 | Geology & Soils
Draft EIR
7/20/22

9.5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Because geologic impacts are site-specific and highly dependent upon the structural characteristics of individual projects, cumulative geologic hazards and soils impacts are generally confined to the project site and immediate vicinity.

Impact GEO‐4: Contribute to cumulatively considerable effects on geology and soils (Class II).

Most geologic-related impacts from development are site-specific and, if properly designed, would not result in worsening of the environmental or public health and safety. Cumulative development would be subject to site-specific geologic and/or soils constraints; pursuant to the City of Dublin requirements, a registered geotechnical engineer would investigate site-specific conditions and minimize exposure to hazards or constraints with implementation of their recommendations.

Cumulative development would also involve the exposure of an increased number of people and/or structures to risk of earthquakes and their associated geologic hazards. New construction would be required to comply with the most current CA Building Code (CBC), which establishes building standards to minimize risk based on the geologic and seismic conditions of the region in which a project is located.

With administration of these requirements, the incorporation of MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Report Recommendations to implement Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration recommendations, and adherence to the CBC, cumulative geologic and soils impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

9.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 9-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Geology & Soils summarizes the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the project with regard to geology & soils.
1062
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-15
Draft EIR
7/20/22
Table 9-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Geology & Soils Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact GEO-1: Expose people or
structures to potential risk of loss or
injury associated with seismic
hazards (Class II).

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical
Exploration Recommendations
Impact GEO-2: Trigger or accelerate
substantial soil erosion or loss of
topsoil (Class II).

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical
Exploration Recommendations
Impact GEO‐3: Expose people or
structures to substantial safety risks
as a result of liquefaction (Class II).

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical
Exploration Recommendations
Impact GEO‐4: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable effects on
geology and soils (Class II).

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical
Exploration Recommendations

9.6 References
CGS (California Geological Survey). 2018. Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, CGS Special Publication #42. Available at
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/SpecialPublications/SP_042.pdf. Accessed April 4, 2022.

ENGEO Inc. 2018. At Dublin Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration.

USDA - NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2018a.

WETS Station Livermore NCDC #4997, 1971-2000 analysis. Available at http://ipm.ucanr.edu/calludt.cgi/WXSTATIONDATA?STN=LIVERMOR.C. Accessed April 4, 2022.

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2018b. National List of Hydric Soils. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available at
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/. Accessed April 4, 2022.

USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2018. Earthquake Hazards Program, National Seismic Hazard Map website. Available at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/. Accessed April 4, 2022.
1063

ORTIGALITA

GREENVILLE

SAN GREGORIO

SAN ANDREAS

HAYWARD

POINT REYES

SAN ANDREAS

CONCORD

GREEN VALLEY
VACA

SAN JOAQUIN
OR
TOLAY

RODGERS CREEK

CORDELIA
MIDWAY

SILVER CREEK

SAN JOSE

MONTE VISTA SHANNON BERROCAL

ZAYANTE

VERGELES

SARGENT

DUNNIGAH HILLS

MAACAMA

CALAVERAS

CARNEGIE CORAL HOLLOW

WEST NAPA

BENNETT VALLEY

HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA

ALEXANDER-REDWOOD HILL

GEYSER PEAK

COLLAYOMI ANTIOCH

BEAR MOUNTAINS BEAR MOUNTAINS

MELONES
NTAINS

RRA FRONTAL

L L E Y F A U L T

G R E A T V A L L E Y F A U L T

SAN ANDREAS
Santa Cruz Santa Clara
Merced
San Mateo
Mariposa
Alameda
Stanislaus
Contra Costa
San Joaquin
Marin
Tuolumne
Calaveras
Solano
Amador
Sacramento
Napa Sonoma Alpine
Yolo
El Dorado
Lake
San
Francisco SITE
MAGNITUDE 7+
MAGNITUDE 6-7
MAGNITUDE 5-6

HISTORIC FAULT

HOLOCENE FAULT

QUATERNARY FAULT

HISTORIC BLIND THRUST FAUL
ZONE
Source: ENGEO, 2022
Figure 9-2: Regional Fault Zone
SCS Dublin Project
Environmental Impact Report
Not to scale
1064
City of Dublin SCS Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-1
Draft EIR
7/20/22
10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

10.1 Introduction
This section describes effects on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions that would be caused by implementation of the project. Information used to prepare this section came from the following resources:
 Project application and related materials
 Air quality data provided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)  California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines  Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Clean Air Plan 2017  City of Dublin, General Plan, 1985 amended 2022
 City of Dublin, Climate Action Plan 2030 And Beyond, 2020 The study area for climate change and the analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is broad because climate change is influenced by world‐wide emissions and their global effects.

However, the study area is also limited by the CEQA Guidelines [Section 15064(d)], which directs lead agencies to consider an “indirect physical change” only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact that may be caused by the project. This analysis limits discussion to those physical changes to the environment that are not speculative and are reasonably foreseeable.

10.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, one comment was made that greenhouse gas emissions be analyzed, particularly in context to traffic.

10.3 Environmental Setting

10.3.1 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected toward space. This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Because the earth has a much lower temperature than the sun, it emits lower-frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This 1065
SCS Dublin City of Dublin