Agenda packet — Dublin City Council, March 7, 2023 (part 2 of 4)

SM‐BIO‐27: The territory of the golden eagle nesting pair shall be included in and protected and enhanced by implementation of a Resource Management Plan, as
outlined in Mitigation Measure SM‐BI0‐1. The protected golden eagle foraging territory affects areas in the northern portion of the Project area designated for Rural 317
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 54

Residential/ Agricultural uses. Development standards and uses for these areas shall incorporate the following measures:
 Homesites in this portion of the Project area shall be located in valley bottoms adjacent to existing or planned residential development.  Permitted agricultural uses shall be limited to grazing to maintain suitable golden eagle foraging habitat.
 Rodent control in this portion of the Project area shall be prohibited.

SM‐BIO‐28: If construction is scheduled during the nesting season (February 1 ‐ August 31), preconstruction survey should be conducted on the entire Project area and within 150 meters (500 feet) of the Project area prior to any ground disturbance. To avoid take of over‐wintering birds, all burrows should be surveyed 30 days prior to ground
disturbance between the months of September 1 and January 31. If ground disturbance is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the preconstruction survey, the site should be resurveyed.

SM‐BIO‐29: If over‐wintering birds are pres
ent no disturbance should occur within 150
feet of occupied burrows. If owls must be moved away from the disturbance area, passive relocation techniques, following CDFG 1995 guidelines, should be used rather than trapping. If no over‐wintering birds are observed, burrows may be remo ved prior to the nesting season.

SM‐BlO‐30: Maintain a minimum buffer (at least 250 feet) around active burrowing owl nesting sites identified by pre‐construction surveys during the breeding season to avoid direct loss of individuals (February 1‐ September 1).

SM‐BIO‐31: If removal of unoccupied potential nesting burrows prior to the nesting season is infeasible and construction must occur within the breeding season, a nesting burrowing owl survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to construction. Owls present on site after
February 1 will be assumed to be nesting on site
or adjacent to the site. All active burrows shall be identified.

SM‐BIO‐32: All
active nesting burrows shall have an established 250‐foot exclusion zone around the burrow.

SM‐BIO‐33: If construction is scheduled during summer, when young are not yet fledged, a 250‐foot exclusion zone around the nest shall be established or construction shall be dela
yed until after the young have fledged, typically by August 31.

318
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 55

SM‐BIO‐34: When destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable, existing unsuitable burrows should be enhanced (enlarged or cleared of debris) or new burrows created (by installing artificial burrows) at a 2:1 ratio on protected lands, as provided for below.

SM‐BIO‐35: A minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per pair or unpaired resi dent bird, shall be acquired, and permanently preserved and protected. The protected lands shall be adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat and at a location acceptable to CDFG.

SM‐BIO‐36: The project proponent shall provide funding for long‐term management and monitoring of the protected lands. The monitoring plan should include success criteria, reme
dial measures, and an annual report to CDFG.

SM‐BIO‐37: Burrowing owl habitat shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO‐SM‐1.

SM‐BIO‐38: If construction is scheduled to occur during the nesting season (February 1‐ August 15), all potential nesting
sites and structures (i.e., shrubs and tules) within the footprint of development should be removed prior to the beginning of the nesting season. However, because the removal of grassland habitat is infeasible, mitigation for impacts to California horned lark are addressed more particularly in Mitigation
Measures SM‐BI0‐39 to SM‐BI0‐41, below.

SM‐BIO‐39: If removal of nesting trees and shrubs within the footprint of development is infeasible and construction must occur within the breeding season, a nesting bird survey should be performed by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to construction.

These surveys shall cover
grassland habitat for potential nesting California horned lark.

Birds present on site after February 1 will be assumed to be nesting on‐site or adjacent to the site.

SM‐BIO‐40: All active nests shall be identified by flagging and a buffer zone, depending on the species, shall be established around the nest site. Bu ffer zones can range
between 75 feet to 100 feet.

SM‐BIO‐41: If construction is scheduled during summer, when young have not yet fledged, an exclusion zone around the nest shall be established or construction shall be delayed until after the young have fledged, typically by July 15.

319
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 56

SM‐BIO‐42: Habitat for nesting passerines shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan as outlined in SM‐ B10‐1.

SM‐BI0‐43: A qualified bat biologist shall conduct occupancy surveys of the Project area to determine whether any mature trees, snags or suitable buildings that would be rem
oved during future project construction provide hibernacula or nursery colony roosting habitat.

SM‐BI0‐44: If presence is observed, removal of roost habitat should be conducted at specific times of the year. Winter roosts are generally occupied between October 15 through January 30 and maternity colonie
s are generally occupied between February 15
and July 30. If bats are using roost sites that need to be removed, the roosting season of the colony shall be determined, and the removal shall be conducted when the colony is using an alternate roost.

SM‐BI0‐45: Habitat for these bat
species shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan as outlined in Mitigation Measure SM‐B10‐1.

The following supplemental mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project site:

SSM‐BIO‐1 (revised). If special‐status plants cannot be avoided, then the area containing the plant that is to be impacted, and the approximate number of plants to be impacted, must be determined, and the followin
g steps must be taken:
a) Harvest seeds from the plants to be lost, or use seeds from another source within the in Livermore and Amador valleys, and their surrounding watersheds, and seed an area suitable for supporting the plant, either within the Project area or off‐site, at a level sufficient to replace the im
pacted individuals at a 1:1 ratio
on an individual plant and basis, and at a ratio no less than 0.5:1 on an occupied habitat basis. The mitigation site shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity.

If the mitigation site fails to support at least as many plants as were impacted within a five‐year period, then step "b" below must be implemented. 320
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 57

b) Permanently preserve, through use of a conservation easement or other similar method, an equal amount of acreage either within the Project area or off‐site that contains the plant.

Prior to submission of a Stage 2 development plan or tentative map, the developer shall submit a written report to the City for its review and approval demonstrating how the developer will comply with
this mitigation measure,
including the steps it will take to ensure that transplanting or seeding will be successful.

SSM‐BIO‐2 (revised) (burrowing owl). During the breeding season (February 1‐August 31) prior to submittal of Stage 2 development proposals for a particular parcel, or during a subsequent breeding season but prior to the initiation of construction, a survey shall be conducted according to CDFG protocols to determine whether Burrowing Owls are present, and if present, the number of nesting pairs of Burrowing Owls present on the parcel.

SSM‐BIO‐3 (revised) (burrowing owl). Pre‐construction surveys for burrowing owls shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to an
y ground disturbance between
September 1 and January 31. If ground disturbance is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the survey, the site should be re‐surveyed. If no over‐wintering birds are pres
ent, burrows should be removed prior to the nesting season. If over‐wintering birds are present, no disturbance should occur within 150 feet of occupied burrows. If owls must be moved away from the disturbance area during this period, passive relocation measures must be prepared according to current CDFG burrowing owl guidelines, approved by CDFG, and completed prior to construction.

SSM‐BIO‐4 (revised) (burrowing owl). If construction is scheduled during the nesting season (February 1‐August 31), pre‐construction surveys should be conducted on the entire site‐specific Project area and within 500 feet of such Project area prior to any ground disturbance. A minimum buffer (at least 250 feet) shall be mai ntained during the
breeding season around active burrowing owl nesting sites identified in pre‐construction surveys to avoid direct loss of individuals. Owls present on‐site after February 1 will be assumed to be nesting on or adjacent
to the site unless evidence indicates otherwise. All
active burrows shall be identified. If construction around active nests is scheduled to occur when nests are active (i.e., if they contain, or are assumed to contain, eggs or un‐ fledged young), a 250‐foot exclusion zone around the nest shall be established or construction shall be delayed until after
the young have fledged, typically by August 31.

If owls are present during the early part of the breeding season, and evidence indicates that they have not yet begun nesting, they may be passively relocated from the site if authorized by CDFG.
321
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 58

SSM‐BIO‐5 (revised) (burrowing owl). If destruction of occupied (breeding or non‐ breeding season) burrows, or any burrows that were found to be occupied during pre‐ construction surveys, is unavoidable, a strategy will be developed to replace such burrows by enhancing existing burrows or creating artificial burrows at a 2:1 ratio on permanently protected lands adjacent to occupied burrowin g owl habitat, and will
include permanent protection of a minimum of 6.5 acres of burrowing owl habitat per pair or unpaired resident owl. A plan shall be developed and approved by CDFG describing creation or enhancement of burrows, maintenance of burrows and management of foraging habitat, monitoring procedures and significance criteri a,
funding assurance, annual reporting requirements to CDFG, and contingency and remediation measures.

Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM‐BI0‐1 (loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitats). Impacts to central coast riparian scrub habitat shall be mitigated through the restoration or enhancement of riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio (on an acreage basis), preferably within the propose
d aquatic and buffer zone or corridor zone
management areas on‐site. If mitigation within the Project area is not feasible, then the developer shall mitigate impacts to central coast riparian scrub through the restoration or enhancement of riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio (measured by acreage) at an off‐site location acce
ptable to the City. Any riparian mitigation areas shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. Restored habitat shall be monitored for a period of five years including preparation of an annual report each year.

Supplemental Mitigation Measure SSM‐BI0‐2 (California red‐legged frog). If avoidance is infeasible, then mitigation lands
providing similar or better habitat for CRLF shall be
preserved and protected in perpetuity. Mitigation will be required at a 3:1 replacement ratio for essential aquatic habitat (including verified aquatic breeding habitat) and associated upland habitat within 100 m of essential aquatic habitat, and at a 1.5:1 replacement ratio for dispersal habitat as defined herein (Figure 3.3‐D Exhibit 4.7.4).

Alternately, the latter ratio may be reduced at the discretion of the City if additional essential aquatic habitat is provided. The amount of reduction shall be proportional to the amount of additional essential habitat provided, up to a maximum reduction of fifty percent. Be
cause aquatic breeding habitat and perennial water bodies providing summer refugia are expected to limit CRLF population size in the dry eastern Alameda/Contra Costa region more than the availability of suitable upland habitat, flexibility in this mitigation requirement
(i.e., to allow for the creation of ponds to serve
as partial mitigation for impacts to upland habitat) provides an opportunity to create greater benefit to CRLF populations on a landscape level. This mitigation shall be proposed in a mitigation and monitoring plan submitted to the City. In selecting off‐site mitigation lands, preference shall be given to preserving large blocks of ha bitat rather
322
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 59

than many small parcels, selecting mitigation land within the Livermore and Amador valleys, and their surrounding watersheds, to account for local loss of proposed critical habitat, linking preserved areas to existing open space and other high‐quality habitat, and excluding or limiting public use within preserved areas.

Supplemental Mitigation Measure SSM‐B10‐3 (California tiger salamand er). To compensate for the permanent loss of up to 1.31 acres of aquatic CTS breeding habitat, developers of individual parcels will create and/or enlarge suitable breeding ponds at a 2:1 ratio (mitigation to impact, on an acreage basis), in or adjacent to areas currently supporting CTS and with sufficient surrounding upland habitat to provide a high likelihood of establishment and
persistence of a breeding population. In selecting off‐ site mitigation lands, preference shall be given to preserving one large block of habitat rather than many small parcels, selecting mitigation land within the Livermore and Amador valleys, and their surrounding watersheds, to account for local loss of proposed critical habitat, linking preserved areas to existing open space and other high‐quality habitat, and excluding or limiting public use within preserved areas. Land selected for mitigation shall be permanently preserved through use of a conservation easement or similar method and shall be managed for use by CTS by a conservation entity. This mitigation shall be proposed in a mitigation and monitoring plan submitted to the City for approval.

Supplemental Mitigation Measure SSM‐BIO‐4 (California tiger salamander). To compensate for the permanent loss of up to 658.3 acres of upland CTS habitat, developers of individual parcels will acquire, preserve, and manage suitable upland habitat at a 1:1 ratio (mitigation to impa
ct, on an acreage basis), in or adjacent to areas
currently supporting CTS and within 2200 feet of a suitable breeding pond. Alternately, this ratio may be reduced (i.e., to less than 1:1 mitigation for lost upland habitat), at the discretion of the City, if additional aq
uatic breeding habitat (beyond that required by
SM‐BIO‐11) is provided. The amount of reduction shall be proportional to the amount of additional essential habitat provided, up to a maximum reduction of fifty percent.

Because aquatic breeding habitat is expected to limit CTS population size in the dry eastern Al
ameda/Contra Costa region more than the availability of suitable upland habitat, flexibility in this mitigation requirement (i.e., to allow for the creation of breeding ponds to serve as partial mitigation for impacts to aestivation habitat) ma y benefit CTS populations on a landscape level. This mitigation requirement may be combined with SM‐BIO‐11 from the 2002 SEIR so that the overall mitigation results in creation/restoration and preservation of breeding ponds (to mitigate impacts to aquatic breeding habitat according to SM‐BIO‐11) and preservation of associated upland habitat (to mitigate impacts to upla
nd habitat according to SM‐BIO‐12). In selecting off‐site mitigation lands, preference shall be given to preserving one large block of habitat rather than many small parcels, selecting mitigation land within the in Livermore and 323
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 60

Amador valleys, and their surrounding watersheds, to account for local loss of proposed critical habitat, linking preserved areas to existing open space and other high‐quality habitat, and excluding or limiting public use within preserved areas. Land selected for mitigation shall be permanently preserved through use of a conservation easement or similar method and shall be managed for
use by CTS by a conservation entity. This
mitigation shall be proposed in a mitigation and monitoring plan submitted to the City for approval.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive, or special status species Rare plant surveys were conducted April 9 and 10, 2020, September 29, 2020, and March 25 and April 29, 2021, for early blooming species. The purpose of these surveys was to conduct protocol‐level, floristic surveys for special‐status plants that were determined to have potential to occur on the site. No special‐status plants were observed during the protocol‐level surveys conducted on the project site. Please refer to Appendix B.

In December 2021, a memorandum3 was prepared to provide the project applicant and owner of the adjacent Righetti property with the acreages of impacts to California red‐legged frog (Rana draytonii) and California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) habitat that would result from development of various portions of the project site by the adjacent Trumark development, the Dublin Boulevard Extension project, the proposed project and the proposed Righetti deve
lopment. In addition, the memorandum describes how mitigation would be provided for the areas being affected by each of these projects, and how incidental take approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) would be obtained for
the lands impacted by these various projects. The
memorandum is provided in Appendix D.

The Fallon Village SEIR identified potentially significant impacts to several special‐status wildlife species on the project site, including California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense), California red‐legged frog (CRLF) (Rana aurora draytonii), burrowing owl (Ath ene cunicularia hypogea), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), and white‐tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) and American badger (Taxidea taxus). These species are discussed in further detail below.

California tiger salamander. As described in the Fallon Village SEIR, pools in the vicinity of the project site provide suitable breeding habitat for CTS, which aestivate in upland areas

3 H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2021c. Branaugh and Righetti Property Development – Listed Species Impacts, Mitigation and Take Approval Summary. December 8.
324
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 61

surrounding the ponds. Adult or juvenile CTS have been observed in terrestrial areas on the project site and the Fallon Village SEIR determined that approximately 29.43 acres of upland habitat for CTS on the project site would be impacted by proposed development. The proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 throug h 3.7/22.0, as
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, SM‐BIO‐18, as identified in the 2002 SEIR, and SM‐BIO‐8 and SM‐BIO‐9, as identified in the Fallon Village SEIR. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to CTS would be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level.

California red‐legged frog. A 2001 site assessment and
focused survey for CRLF detected no
CRLF or any evidence of CRLF breeding on the project; however, suitable dispersal and upland habitats were considered present in isolated wetland areas and uplands adjacent to aquatic features. Given their ability to disperse long distances, the dispersion of known or potential breeding ponds, and the potential habitat for CRLF in Doolan Canyon to the east, dispersing CRLF could occur on the project site. Per
the recent memorandum prepared for the proposed
project,4 development of the proposed project would result in impacts to 31.41 acres of upland habitat, including USFWS‐designated critical habitat for CRLF, 0.096 acre of wetland habitat and

0.129 acre of stream habitat for CRLF. The proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 through 3.7/22.0, as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, SM‐BIO‐ 11, SM
‐BIO‐12, SM‐BIO‐13, and SM‐BIO‐15 of the 2002 SEIR, and SM‐BIO‐2, as identified in the Fallon Village SEIR. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to CRLF would be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level.

Burrowing owl. Technical studies conducted within the Fallon Village Project area dete rmined
that potential foraging habitat is present in grassland, wetlands, and ruderal habitats throughout the project area, and the project site could provide potential nesting habitat.

Development of the proposed project could result in the loss of suitable burrowing owl nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat, and potentially the loss of owls and their nests in occupied burrows. The propos
ed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures SM‐BIO‐ 28 through SM‐BIO‐37, as identified in the 2002 SEIR, as well as, SM‐BIO‐2, SM‐BIO‐3, and SM‐ BIO‐4, as identified in the Fallon Village SEIR to mitigate impacts to burrowing owls.

Implementation of thes
e measures would ensure impacts to burrowing owls are reduced to less‐than‐significant levels.

Golden eagle. As described in the Fallon Village SEIR, a pair of golden eagles has successfully nested northwest of the project site at least since 1990. Documented primary foraging areas for this pair are to the north and east and the Dublin Ranch project has established a conservation area that includes this nesting pair of eagles and considerable foraging habitat. In addition, these eagles also forage over the Fallon Village Project area (especially the northern por tion).

The Eastern Dublin EIR and 2002 SEIR identified potentially significant impacts to this species

4 H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2021c. op. cit.
325
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 62

due to loss of foraging habitat, impacts to the nesting site, and potential electrocutions. As described in the Fallon Village SEIR, it is unlikely that the project site is used for nesting; however, the site provides suitable foraging habitat for this species. Mitigation Measures

3.7/25.0 and 3.7/23.0, identified in the East Dublin EIR, and SM‐BIO‐27, as described in the 2002 SEIR, establish a golden eagle protec
tion zone, including protected open space land, to
provide suitable foraging habitat for this species. Implementation of these measures would ensure impacts are reduced to a less‐than‐significant level.

Loggerhead shrike and other nesting birds. As described in the Fallon Village SEIR, loggerhead shrikes have been observed on numerous occasions on and adjacent to the Fallon Village Project area. Suitable breeding habitat for this species occurs within central coast riparian scrub habitat and in trees and shrubs in the area. Suitable foraging habitat is present on the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measures SM‐BIO‐38 through SM‐BIO‐42, identified in the 2002 SEIR, which require a preconst
ruction nesting bird survey be conducted during the nesting bird season, and establishment of buffer zones around nest sites would reduce potential impacts to loggerhead shrike and other nesting bird species to a less than significant level.

Pallid bat, Yuma myotis and other
bat species. Barns and other structures with appropriate roosting sites, and possibly crevices within loose tree bark, may supply roosting habitat for pallid bat and other bat species. Although these species have not been observed within the project area, based on the availability of suitable roosting habitat, bats could potentially roost and/or forage on the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measures SM ‐BIO‐43 through SM‐BIO‐45, identified in the 2002 SEIR, which require that a preconstruction survey be conducted and limits on removal of potential roosting habitat, would reduce potential impacts to bat species to a less than significant level.

White‐tailed kite and other raptors. White‐tailed kites forage in grasslands throughout the Fallon Village Project area and are expected to nest in scattered trees within the project site.

While not specifically described in the EDSP EIRs, impacts to the white‐tailed kite were evaluated as a protected raptor in the Eastern Dublin EIR (IM 3.7 / O) and the 2002 SEIR (SEIR p.

3.3‐10). Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7/25.0, identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR,
and SM‐BIO‐20 through SM‐BIO‐26, identified in the 2002 SEIR, would reduce potential impacts to white‐tailed kite and other raptor species to less than significant levels.

American badger. American badger could occur in the grasslands on the project site and could be affected by destruction of burrows by construction activities such as grading, clearing, and movement of heavy equipment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7/20.0 and 3.7/27.0 identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR would reduce potential impacts to American badger to a less‐than‐significant level.
326
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 63

(b) Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other natural community The project site consists primarily of undeveloped grazing ranchland and open space, but also includes some rural development in the northwest and southern portion. As previously discussed, five habitat types were identified within the project area during the plant surveys:

California annual grassland (31.41 acre), seasonal wetland (0.18 acre), developed (8.2 3 acre),
culvert (0.1 acre), and ephemeral stream (0.04 acre). According to the Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters (Appendix C), approximately 0.028 acre of habitat associated with an excavated ditch would be considered jurisdictional by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); however, while the ditch
has a bed and banks, no woody riparian vegetation is
present.

As described further below, the project would permanently impact 0.225 acre of jurisdictional waters, including seasonal wetlands and other waters present on the project site.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures SM‐BIO‐5 through SM‐BIO‐8, as identified in the 2002 SEIR and SM‐BIO‐1, as identified in the Fallon Village SEIR, would reduce potential impacts to
sensitive natural communities to a less‐than‐significant level. (c) Substantial adverse effect on wetlands
A delineation of wetlands and other waters was conducted on April 9 and 10, 2020, to assess the extent
of jurisdictional waters that may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) administered by the USACE, as well as waters of the state that may be subject to regulation under Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter Cologne Water Quality Contr
ol Act administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and CDFW.

The Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters is provided in Appendix C.

In total, approximately 0.124 acre of potentially jurisdictional features as defined by the USACE were identified within the project, consisting of approximately 0.124 acre of seasonal wetland, which would also be considered waters of the state. A portion of the 0.124 acre includes 0.028 acre of CDFW jurisdiction. The potentially jurisdictional features identified and delineated during the April 2020 surveys include two regulatory wetlands and waters features that were previously mapped on the project site as part of a larger delineation fo r the Dublin Boulevard‐ North Canyons Parkway Extension Project and were verified by USACE. These features are located in the center of the project site, have not appreciably changed since the area was verified in 2019, and include 0.053 acre of seasonal wetlands, and 0.048 acre of other waters (ephemeral stream/culvert). Table E below provides a summary of jurisdictional waters and wetlands within the project site.

327
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 64

Table E: Summary of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands within the Project Site Feature Acres
Section 404 Wetlands
Seasonal Wetland 0.124
Total Section 404 Waters of the U.S. 0.124

Section 401 Waters of the State
Seasonal Wetland 0.124
CDFW Jurisdictional Habitats 0.028
Total Section 401 Waters of the State 0.124

Wetlands and Waters Previously Verified by the USACE 0.101 Total Jurisdictional Area 0.225
Source: H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2021

Implementation of the proposed project would permanently impact 0.225 acre of jurisdictional waters, including seasonal wetlands and other waters present on the project site. The 2002 SEIR identified potentially significant impacts to seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams and included mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a less‐than‐significant level.

Consistent with Mitigation Measures SM‐BIO‐6 and SM‐BIO‐7, identified in the 2002 SEIR, the proposed project would be required to mitigate impac
ts to wetlands at a 2:1 ratio through the
creation, restoration or enhancement of wetlands, intermittent streams or other waters either on‐site (SM‐BIO‐6) or off‐site (SM‐BIO‐7). With implementati on of Mitigation Measures SM‐ BIO‐6 and SM‐BIO‐7, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to wetlands would occur.
(d) Interfere or impede the movement of migratory fish or wildlife The majority of the study area consists of California annual grassland habitat. Much of this grassland is currently dominated by a suite of non‐native grasses. A single ephemeral drainage
runs parallel to the fence that bounds the property to the west. This drainage does not form a connection with any areas of natural habitat as it is connected to culverts at both ends.

As described above, CRLF and
CTS may disperse across the project site to breeding habitat off‐ site. In addition, structures and large hollow trees present on the project site could support bat maternity roosts and vegetation on or adjacent to the project site could provide nesting habitat for some species of native birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Ac t and the
California Fish and Game Code. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds and bat roosts to a less than significant level. (e) Conflict with local policies or ordinance include tree preservation The project
site is mostly vacant on the northern portion of the site, with agriculture and some rural residential development in the southern portion of the site. The existing vegetation 328
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 65

consists mostly of grasses, with a few clusters of trees in the far north portion and far south portion of the site.

Heritage trees and approved street trees are protected under the Dublin Municipal Code, specifically Sections 7.56, Street Trees, and 5.60, Heritage Trees.

As defined in the Dublin Municipal Code, approved street trees include:

1. Any tree planted within any street right‐of‐way or adjacent easeme nt, which conforms to
the approved streetscape master plan;

2. Any existing tree within the right‐of‐way or adjacent easement, which conforms to the established species and location in any given area, and which was planted as a required street tree under the provisions of any improvement agreement, or as otherwise approved by the City; or

3. Any tree of the approved species and in an acceptable location, which was or may be planted as a replacement.

Heritage trees include any of the following:

1. 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 measured at four (4) feet six (6) inches above natural grade.

2. A tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review, or subdivision
map;

3. A tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree.

For private development projects, a permit is required from the City for the removal of any heritage tree and the removal/pruning of any approved street tree. In addition, for any property containing one or more heritage trees, a plan to protect heri tage trees must be
prepared and submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a demolition, grading, or building permit.

Implementation of the proposed project would likely require removal or disturbance of trees to accommodate proposed development. New trees would
be planted as part of the proposed
project, which would replace any trees to be removed. There are no heritage trees or street trees on the project site.
329
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 66

(f) Conflict with adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans The project site is located in Conservation Zone 4 of the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS). The City of Dublin utilizes the EACCS as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource
. However, the EACCS is neither a Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan, but is a document intended to provide guidance during the project planning and permitting process to ensure that impacts are offset in a biologically effective manner. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified above, the project woul
d be consistent with the EACCS. The project site is not subject to any other adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified biol
ogical resources impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to biological resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for
supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
Dublin, City of. 2017. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of November 21, 2017).

Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stag e 1 Development Plan and
Annexation. March.

Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November.

H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2021a. Results of Protocol‐level Special‐Status Plant Surveys in Support of the Branaugh Property Development (Project # 4423‐01). May 27. 330
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 67

H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2021b. Lands of Branaugh Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters Alameda County, California. January 11.

H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2021c. Branaugh and Righetti Property Development – Listed Species Impacts, Mitigation and Take Approval Summary. December 8.

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September
20, 2016).

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.

December 7.

331
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 68

Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact
Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5? X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
X
Environmental Setting
Background research consisting of a records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a review of historical maps and aerial photographs, a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) at the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a review of published geological information were conducted to determine the potential sensitivity for bur ied historic and archaeological sites. In addition, a Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE) was prepared to evaluate the potential significance of the historic‐period farm complex containing four buildings over 50 years old. These two studies are provided in Appendix E and F, respectively.

A cultural resources records search was conducted on November 6, 2021, by staff at the NWIC of the California Historic
al Resources Information System to identify previous archaeological site records and cultural resource studies within the project site and vicinity. The NWIC, an affiliate of the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), is the official State repository of cultural resources records
and reports for Alameda County. The search encompassed the project site and surrounding 0.5‐mile radius.

The project site contains a historic‐period farm complex (the Collier Ranch) consisting of four buildings over 50 years old: a circa 1958 shed and two‐story, three‐bay barn, and two mid‐20th century single‐family homes. Th
ese buildings were evaluated for significance as a historical resource and were found to be not eligible, either individually or as a group, for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The other structures on the project site, consisting of several modern sheds and a circa 1980 single‐story single‐family residence, have not yet reache d sufficient age to warrant
evaluation for significance.
332
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 69

Three previous cultural resource studies overlapped the current project site, and another seven were conducted within a half‐mile radius. No archaeological resources are recorded within the project boundaries or within a half‐mile of the project site.

A request was submitted to the NAHC to search the Sacred Lands File (SLF) for Native American cultural
resources that may be impacted by the proposed project. The NAHC maintains the SLF database and is the official State repository of Native American sacred‐site location records in California. Cody Campagne, NAHC Cultural Resources Analyst, responded to the SLF search request on February 4, 2022, stating that the results were negative and that there were no known Native American cultural resources in the project site. The letter noted, however, that “the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area.”
Background research indicated that buildings were present as early as 1949 in the area of the extant historic‐period farm complex, and also in the southeast corner of the project site. It is unclear if the former were later demolished or incorporated into the extant farm complex. The structure in the southeast corner of the project site was rem oved between 1966 and 1968.

There is high potential for any of these past or existing historical structures to have associated features, such as wells, refuse deposits, and structural remnants, buried within the project site.

Holocene‐age alluvial deposits are mapped along the bottom of the drainage in the northern half of the project site, as well as on the valley floor in the southern half of the project site. Soils
information indicates that the alluvium on the valley floor could reach considerable depths. The project site straddles the interface between the valley floor and adjacent uplands but does not appear to have been historically in
close proximity to a stream. Based on the age of the
landforms present and position in the landscape, there is general potential for the portions of the project site in the bottom of drainage and on the valley floor to contain (possibly deeply) buried pre‐contact archa
eological deposits. However, these areas likely have relatively low sensitivity given the distance to the closest historically documented stream.

Previous CEQA Documents
Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to the disruption or destruction of identified and unidentified prehistoric resources, and disruption or destruction of identified and unidentified historic resources.

Mitigation measures were identified to reduce
potential impacts to a less‐than‐significant level. The following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed project:

MM 3.9/1.0 All locations of prehistoric resources will need a program of mechanical and/or hand subsurface testing to determine the presence or absence of midden deposits associated with the surface indictors of aboriginal presence. 333
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 70

MM 3.9/2.0 All locations containing either midden components or concentrations of cultural materials located on the surface will be recorded on State of California site survey forms. The borders of any midden deposits or concentrations of cultural materials (other than single isolated artifact discoveries) will be staked so that accurate location maps can be produced by profession
al survey teams.

MM 3.9/3.0 If it can be demonstrated that these recorded and mapped locations will be impacted in any manner by future construction or indirectly impacted as a result of increased access to the area, a plan of evaluative testing of each resource will have to be devised in order to prepare responsive mitigation measures. Evaluative testing will
consist of the collection and analysis of any surface concentrations of cultural materials, and the hand excavation and analysis of the scientific content of any midden components discovered during present or absence testing.

MM 3.9/4.0 The City shall retain the services of a qualified archaeologist to develop a
protection program for prehistoric sites which contain either a surface or subsurface deposit of cultural materials or information which qualify under Appendix K of CEQA as “significant” and which are located in areas of the project site where development will significantly alter the cur
rent conditions of the prehistoric resource.

MM 3.9/5.0 The discovery of historic or prehistoric remains during grading and construction will result in the cessation of such activities until the significant and extent of those remains can be ascertained by a certified archaeologist.

MM 3.9/6.0 The City of Dublin will require the fo
llowing series of actions as part of
the application process for development in eastern Dublin: site sensitivity determination; detailed research and field reconnaissance by a certified archaeologist; development of a mitigation plan pursuant to the policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and current CEQA gu idelines.

MM 3.9/7.0 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 resources prior to any alteration.
2002 SEIR
Cultural resources were addressed in the Initial Study for the 2002 SEIR. No potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures were identified. 334
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 71

Fallon Village SEIR
The Fallon Village SEIR determined that although the Fallon Village Project proposed a similar type and density of development analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2002 SEIR, due to changes in the project design and identification of new historic resources not identified in the EDSP EIRs, new impacts to cultural resources, including potential impacts on unknown prehistoric reso
urces on the Fallon Enterprises, Jordan and Chen Properties, potential impacts to the historic Fallon House and at the historic Croak Ranch Homestead could occur. An assessment of the Collier Canyon Ranch determined that no structures eligible for the CRHR exist there. Supplemental mitigation measures wer
e identified to reduce potential impacts to
cultural resources on these properties to a less‐than‐significant level; however, none of these supplemental mitigation measures apply to the proposed project site.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Historic resources
For a cultural resource to be considered a historical resource (i.e., eligib le for listing in the CRHR), it generally must be 50 years or older. Under CEQA, historical resources can include precontact (i.e., Native American) archaeological deposits, historic‐period archaeological deposits, historic buildings, and historic districts. CEQA requires agencies considering projects that are subject to discretionary action to consider the potential impacts on cultural re sources that may occur from project implementation (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5).

As described above, the project site does contain a historic‐period farm complex (the Collier Ranch) consisting of four buildings over 50 years old. These buildings were evaluated for significance as a historical resource. They were found to be not eligible, either individually or as a group, for inclusion on the CRHR or the NRHP. Although these ex isting buildings would be
demolished as part of the proposed project, this impact would be less than significant as these buildings do not qualify as historical resources for the purposes of CEQA.

Howev
er, there is high potential for past or existing historical structures to have associated features, such as wells, refuse deposits, and structural remnants, buried within the project site.

These features could be uncovered during ground disturbing activities associated with the proposed project. Due to the high potential for historic‐period archae ological deposits, Mitigation Measure 3.9/4.0 from the Eastern Dublin EIR, as modified below, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

MM 3.9/4.0 The City shall retain the services of a qualified archaeologist to develop a protection program for prehistoric and/or historic‐period sites which contain either a surface or subsurface deposit of cultural materials or information which qualify under Appendix K of CEQA as “significant” and which are located in areas of the project site where development will significantly alter the current conditions of the prehistoric resource. Following demolition of the existing structures, an archaeological monitor 335
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 72

shall observe ground‐disturbing construction activities, including grading, utility trenching, and foundation‐related excavation, in two areas of the project site: the general vicinity of the extant historic‐period farm complex and the southeast corner of the project site).
(b) Archaeological resources
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(1), “When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource.” Those archaeological sites that do not qualify as historical resources shall be assessed to determine if they qualify as “unique archaeological resources” pursuant to California Public Resour
ce Code (PRC) Section 21083.2.

Although no archaeological resources have been identified at the project site, it cannot be entirely ruled out that archaeological cultural resources could be encountered during project construction at the project site. Should archaeological deposits be encountered during project ground disturbance, a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource would occur from its demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of the resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1)). If such resources are encountered, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9/5.0 as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR would reduce any potential impacts to archaeologic al and/or Native American resources to a less‐than‐significant level.
(c) Human remains
Based on previous archaeological investigation and analysis, there is a low potential for the disturbance of archaeological cultural resources or human remains. However, in the event that human remains are encountered at any time during project work, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native Ameri
can, the County Coroner would notify the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC would determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) per PRC 5097.98. With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD’s recommendations may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials, preservation of Native American human remains and associated items in place, relinquishment of Native American human remains and associated items to the descendants for treatment, or any other culturally appropriate treatment.

Compliance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and PRC Section 5097.98 regarding the treatment of human remains would ensure that potential impacts to human remains would be less than significant.
336
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 73

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified cultural resources impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.

With adherence to applicable re
gulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as modified above, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to cultural resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
Dublin, City of. 2017. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of November 21, 2017).

Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March.

Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November.

LSA, 2021. Historical Resource Evaluation of the Branaugh Property at 1881 Collier Canyon Road, Dublin, Alameda County, California (LSA Project No.: DUB2101.02). November.

LSA, 2022. Cultural Resource Study for the Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Project, Dublin, Alameda County, California (LSA Project No. DUB2101.02, Phase 2).

February.

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016).

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.

December 7.

337
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 74

Energy
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact
Identified in the
EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs

13. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
X
Environmental Setting
The project site is located within Fallon Gateway of the EDSP. Commercial and industrial land within Fallon Gateway, east of Fallon Road, is required to incorporate the following sustainability practices:
 Build off the City’s Complete Streets Policy and incorporate complete streets concepts within the private development’s circulation system to ensure strong bicycle, pedestrian and transit conn
ections within and between the private
developments and connections to the City's streets and existing and future transit hubs.
 Strong bicycle and pedestrian connections per the vision and goals of the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
 Electric vehicle charging stations within each development.  Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) measures to reduce the demand of
single occupancy vehicles, such as transit subsidy programs, shuttles, showers/lockers, bike share programs, parking, mobility and micromobility hubs.  Buildings and related private infrastructure to help with electric grid management, by incorporating load shifting technologies, solar panels, battery storage and micro‐ grids.
 Reduce cons
umption of materials through reuse or recycling of all municipal solid waste materials back into nature or the marketplace in a manner that protects human health and the environment toward zero‐waste goals. 338
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 75

 Incorporate smart cities technology infrastructure, and fiber‐optic communications infrastructure.
 Street infrastructure for private drive aisles and streets and public streets certified as Greenroads.org Gold level or greater, ASCE Envision Rating of Gold or greater or similar equivalent.
 Design and construct buildings that meet the requirements to achieve LEED Gold status
or above.

Electricity
Electricity is a man‐made resource. The production of electricity requires the consumption or conversion of energy resources (including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, or nuclear resources) into energy. Electricity is used for a variety of purposes (e.g., lighting, heating, cooling, and refrigeration, and for operating appliances, computers, electronics, machinery, and public transportation systems).5 In 2020, California consumed approximately 279,510 gigawatt‐hours (GWh) or 279,510,007,246 kilowatt‐hours (kWh).6 Of this total, Alameda County consumed 10,247 GWh or 10,247,410,444 kWh.7 Natural Gas
Natural gas is a non‐renewable fossil fuel. Fossil fuels are formed when layers of decomposing plant and animal matter are exposed to intense heat and pressure under the surface of the Earth over many years. Natural gas is a combustible mixture of hydrocarbon compounds (primarily methane) that is used as a fuel source. Natural gas is found in naturally occurring reservoirs in deep underground rock formations. Natural gas is used for a variety of uses (e.g.,
heating buildings, generating electricity, and powering appliances such as stoves, washing machines and dryers, gas fireplaces, and gas grills).8 In 2020, California consumed approximately 12,331 million therms or 12,331,530,178 therms, while Alameda County consumed approximately 366 million therms or approximately 366,465,038 therms.9

5   California Energy Commission, 2018. 2018 Total System Electric Generation. Website:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data‐reports/energy‐almanac/california‐electricity‐data/2019‐total‐system‐ electric‐generation/2018 (accessed November 2021).
6    California Energy Commission, 2021. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Electricity Consumption by County. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed November 2021). 7    Ibid.
8    U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2019. Natural Gas Explained‐Use of Natural Gas. Website:
eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=natural_gas_use (accessed November 2021). 9    California Energy Commission, 2021. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Gas Consumption by County. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (accessed November 2021). 339
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 76

Fuel
Petroleum is also a non‐renewable fossil fuel. Petroleum is a thick, flammable, yellow‐to‐black mixture of gaseous, liquid, and solid hydrocarbons that occurs naturally beneath the earth's surface. Petroleum is primarily recovered by oil drilling. It is refined into a large number of consumer products, primarily fuel oil and gasoline. Gasoline is the most used transportation fuel in California, with
97 percent of all gasoline being consumed by light‐duty cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles. Based on fuel consumption obtained from EMFAC2021, vehicle trips in Alameda County in 2021 are anticipated to consume 133,053,883 gallons of diesel fuel and 530,048,591 gallons of gasoline.

Previous CEQA
Documents
Eastern Dublin EIR
At the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was prepared, the Environmental Checklist Form (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) did not include energy. Therefore, the Eastern Dublin EIR did not specifically analyze impacts to energy. Utilities and service systems impacts and mitigation measures, so
me of which are related to the demand for energy of additional service systems, were identified and found that the demand for utility extensions and consumption of non‐ renewable natural resources would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. The following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed project:

MM 3.4/45.0 Demonstration Projects. The City shall require major dev elopers in
eastern Dublin to provide one or more demonstration projects of cost‐effective energy conservation techniques. Demonstration of techniques such as photovoltaics, which are not currently cost‐effective, shall be encouraged but not required. The developer shall be encouraged to coordinate efforts with PG&E in planning and design of demonstration projects. Options for demonstration projects may include:
 Model Ho
mes. Solar water heating, space heating, and demonstration of thermal mass. Demonstration landscaping for energy and water conservation. Use of trellises and arbors for shading.
 Public Facilities. Use of solar water heating, space heating, and thermal mass.

Possible use of photovoltaics, wind power, or innovative cooling technology.

MM 3.4/46.0 Site Planning, Building Design, and Landscaping. The City shall require project applicants to demonstrate that specific site planning, building design, and landscaping measures have been incorporated into their projects to conserve the use of energy during construction and long‐term operation. Such measures might include orientation of lots; buildings and windows; protection of solar access; active and passive solar applications; use of energy efficient materials; and function of landscaping. These 340
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 77

measures will be incorporated into an energy conservation plan and shall be reviewed and approved by the City as part of specific development proposals. 2002 SEIR
A review of potential utilities impacts, including energy supply, was conducted as part of the 2002 SEIR. The 2002 SEIR determined that no additional utilities/energy supply impacts would occu
r beyond those identified at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified. However, the 2002 SEIR identified the following supplemental mitigation measures that would be applicable to the proposed project:

SM‐UTS‐1 Require discretionary City review prior to the installation and use of distributed generators, including emergency generat ors.

SM‐UTS‐2 Prior to approval of future subdivision maps or Site Development Review applications (as may be applicable) by the City of Dublin, project developers shall submit “will serve” letters from PG&E indicating that adequate electricity and natural gas services are available to serve the proposed development project.

Fallon Village SEIR
No additional impacts or mitigation were identified in the Fallon Village SEIR.

The City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant unavoidable impacts described above, which includes the project.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Wasteful consumption of energy resources
The EDSP EIRs determined that development of the EDSP area would result in a significant and unavoidable impact due to the consumption of non‐renewable natural resources, including energy consumption. Mitigation measures are identified in the EDSP EIRs to minimize this impact. Since preparation of the EDSP EIRs, the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards contain
ed in Title 24 in the California Code of Regulations have been revised and updated to include more stringent requirements to prevent the unnecessary consumption of energy. Any future development on the project site would be required to comply with these standards. In addition, Chapter 7.94, Green Building, of the City of Dublin Municipal Code en courages sustainable construction in the following categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, materials conservation and resource efficiency and environmental quality. Furthermore, commercial and industrial land within Fallon Gateway, east of Fallon Road, is required to incorporate the sustainability practices, as described above. 341
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 78

(b) Conflict with local plan for renewable energy
The proposed project does not contain any features that would conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and is required to comply with state and local energy regulations, as described above.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial change
s that were not previously analyzed in the
EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified energy impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in
the EDSP EIRs there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to energy resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
California Energy Commission, 2017. California Gasoline Data, Facts, and Statistics. Website:
www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/gasoline (accessed November 2021).

California Energy Commission, 2018. 2018 Total System Electric Generation. Website:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data‐reports/energy‐almanac/california‐electricity‐ data/2019‐total‐system‐electric‐generation/2018 (accessed November 2021).

California Energy Commission, 2021. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Electricity Consumption by County. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed November 2021).

California Energy Commission, 2021. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Gas Consumption by County. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (accessed November 2021).

California Public Utilities Commission. 2008. California Long‐Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan. September. Website: cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=4125 (accessed November 2021).

California Public Utilities Commission. 2019. Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. Website:
cpuc.ca.gov/rps (accessed November 2021).

Dublin, City of. 2017. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of November 21, 2017).
342
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 79

Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March.

Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November.

PG&E, 2020. Exploring Clean Energy Solutions. June. Website:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/about‐pge/environment/what‐we‐are‐doing/clean‐ energy‐solutions/clean‐energy‐solutions.page?WT.mc_id=V anity_cleanenergy (accessed
November 2021).

U.S. Department of Transportation, 2017. “Table 4‐23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles.” Website:
www.bts.gov/archive/publications/national_transportation_statistics/table_04_23 (accessed November 2021).

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2019. Natural Gas Explained‐Use of Natural Gas.

Website: eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=natural_gas_use (accessed November 2021).

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016).

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.

December 7.
343
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 80

Geology and Soils
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact
Identified in the
EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs

6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault?
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?   X
iii) Seismic‐related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides?   X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?   X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
X
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of wastewater?
X
f)   Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
X
344
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 81

Environmental Setting
The project site is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province of Northern California.

This province is generally characterized by northwest‐trending mountain ranges and intervening valleys, which are a reflection of the dominant northwest structural trend of the bedrock in the region.

The Calaveras Fault separates the lowlands of the Dublin Valley from the hill areas to the west.

The Pleasanton fault zone is locate
d approximately 450 feet west of the project site. Other active faults in the vicinity of the project site include the San Andreas, Hayward, and Greenville faults, which are all considered active faults. The project site is not located within a State‐ designated Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.

The project
site straddles a north‐south oriented drainage and extends onto the valley floor south of the drainage. Elevations range from 580 feet above sea level at the highest points in the drainage, down to approximately 370 feet above sea level on the valley floor. Published geologic data identify Pliocene to early Pleistocene Livermore Gravel (Qtlg) deposits along the hillslopes flanking the drainage in the northern half of the project site. The bottom of the drainage is mapped as Holocene alluvium (Qa), which extends onto the valley floor in the southern half of the project site.

Soils in the drainage in the northern half of the project site are mapped as Linne clay loam ,
which typically consists of clay loam extending to bedrock at 36 to 40 inches below surface.

Soils on the valley floor in the southern half of the project site include Rincon cla y loam, typically consisting of clay loam, sandy clay, and stratified sandy to clay loam horizons extending at least 60 inches below surface, and Diablo clay that typically features clay and silty clay extending at least 60 inches below surface.

Previous CEQA Documents
Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially sign
ificant impacts related to earthquake ground
shaking, alteration of landforms, expansive soils, landslide and slope stability, and erosion and sedimentation. With the exception of the primary effects associated with seismic ground shaking, which was determined to be significant and unavoidable, all other impacts related to geology and soils
would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measure identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed project:

MM 3.6/1.0 The primary effects of ground shaking to structures and infrastructures can be reduced to a generally accept able level below failure/loss of life by using modern seismic design for resistance to lateral forces in construction. Building in accordance 345
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 82

with Uniform Building Code and applicable County and City code requirements should reduce the potential for structural failure, major structural damage, and loss of life.

However, some structural damage may occur, and it is possible that some residences/structures and infrastructures will not be safe for occupation/use after a large earthquake.

MM 3.6/2.0 In relatively flat areas which can be developed with minimal grading (the
southern portion of the Project site and along Tassajara and Cottonwood Creeks):
 Locate improvements off (setback from) unstable and potentially unstable landforms such as landslides, colluvium filled swales, creek banks, and steep hill slopes.
 Remove, stabilize or reconstruct potentially unstable landforms, or  Employ mod
ern design, including appropriate foundation design and applicable codes and policies, in the construction of improvements that must be located on potentially unstable landforms or in areas underlain by alluvium with shallow groundwater levels which could be locally susceptible to liquefaction.

MM 3.6/4.0 Engineered retention structures and surface an d subsurface drainage
improvement should be uses as appropriate to improve the stability of sidehill fills and potentially unstable materials, particularly colluvium not entirely removed by grading.

MM 3.6/5.0 Seismically induced fill settlement can be substantially reduced if fills are properly designed with keyways and subsurface drainage, and are adequ ately
compacted (i.e., minimum 90 percent relative compaction as defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test method D1557).

MM 3.6/6.0 Design roads, structural foundations, and underground utilities to accommodate estimated settlement without failure, especially across transitions between fills and cuts. Potentially unstable stock pond embankments should be removed in
development areas, unless they are reconstructed to current earthquake design standards.

MM 3.6/7.0 Final design of improvements in the Project site should be made in conjunction with a design‐level geotechnical investigations and the reports should be submitted to the City of review prior to issuing any permits. These investigations should incorp
orate stability analysis of both natural slopes that could impact planned improvements, and planned engineered (cut and fill) slopes, assuming saturated conditions and earthquake shaking. Significant slopes should achieve a minimum factor of safety against failure of 1.5 for static conditions (where 1.0 is failure) and 1.2 under 346
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 83

design pseudo‐static earthquake loading. A displacement analysis should be performed for critical slopes to confirm the effectiveness of mitigation measures.

MM 3.6/14.0 The potential impact of expansive soils and rock with respect to Project improvements can be significantly reduced, or in many cases prevented by the recognition and characterization of site‐specific conditions, and the formulation of appropriate design‐level geotechnical investigation conducted for each specific proposed project.

3.6/15.0 The potential for shrink and swell of expansive soils and rock can be reduced by controlling moisture and by treatment through measures listed below.

Subsurface drainage alone is not generally effective against the effects of regional wet/drought cycles.

Required measures for a specific project should be based on the recommendation of the project geotechnical consultant and approved by the City and include:
 Moisture conditioning prior to construction;
 Construction of surface and subsurface drainage to control infiltration after construction;
 Lime treatment, which can be used to produce non‐expansive fill.

3.6/16.0 The potential effects of expansive soil can be reduced by appropriate foundation and pavement design, including those design elements listed below.  Adjustable foundation systems are not generally effective against the effects of regional wet/drought cycles and are considered undesirable because the systems requ
ire periodic maintenance, and their use should be discouraged.

Appropriate design criteria should be developed by the project geotechnical consultant and approved by the City:
 Founding structural foundations below the zone of seasonal moisture change;  Use of structurally supported floors; and
 Removal and replacement with non‐expansive fill beneath structure slabs and asphaltic concrete.

MM 3.6/27.0 The potential impacts of short‐term construction‐related erosion and sedimentation can be reduced by timing grading activities to avoid the rainy season as much as possible, and by implementing one or more of the following interim control measures, which are designed to prevent concentration of runoff, control runoff 347
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 84

velocity, and trap silt. Required measures for a specific project will be determined by the City and be a requirement of the grading permit.
 Water bars;
 Mulch‐and‐net blankets on exposed slopes;
 Straw bale dikes;
 Temporary culverts and swales;
 Sediment traps; and/or
 Silt fences.

MM 3.6/28.0 The potential impacts of long‐term erosi
on and sedimentation can be
reduced by the appropriate design, construction, and continued maintenance of surface and subsurface drainage of one or more of the following long‐term control measures.  Required measures for a specific project should be based on the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultants and approved by the
City.
 Construction of sediment catch basins at strategic locations to prevent off site sedimentation from existing and/or potential on‐site sources;  Design and construction of storm sewer systems that incorporate the cumulative effects of project buildout
 Creek bank stabilization and repair of existing gullies;  Revegetation and continued maintenance of graded slopes;  Construction of drainage ditches or cut and fill slopes and/or natural slopes above developed areas;
 Closed downspout collection systems for individual structures;  Design of cut and fill slopes to minimize, as much as possible, natural low velocity sheet flow runoff; and
 Periodic homeowner/landowner maintenance.
2002 SEIR
Geology and soils were addressed
in the Initial Study for the 2002 SEIR. No potentially
significant impacts or mitigation measures were identified. 348
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 85

Fallon Village SEIR
The Fallon Village SEIR determined that although the Fallon Village Project proposed a similar type and density of development analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2002 SEIR, due to proposed changes in grading policies and an increase in the proposed urbanized area, new impacts related to geology and soils could occur. Potentially significant impacts relate d to soil
hazards/landslides and increased development were identified. Supplemental mitigation measures were identified to reduce potential impacts to a less‐than‐significant level. The following supplemental mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project:

SM GEO‐1 (potential soil hazards due to alteration in the extent of Project grading).

Prior
to construction, design level geotechnical report(s) and corrective grading plan(s) depicting the locations and depths of landslide repairs, keyways and subsurface drains is required. The corrective grading plans shall identify appropriate mitigation for graded slopes. In order to stabilize slopes where unstable geologic materials extend at beyond proposed devel
opment area, geotechnical corrective grading may extend beyond the limits of improvements and into open space areas. Grading in open space areas shall be limited to excavations that remove unstable soils and landslide debris and backfilling excavations with compacted, drained engineer fills. To provide stable construction slopes, the back slopes of excavated areas may extend up slope and beyond the limits of mapped slides. The corr
ective measures used will be typical and configured to conform at natural slope contours with materials and compaction at the approval of a geotechnical engineer. This may vary from original grade within repair envelope due to geotechnical and
slope drainage considerations.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Seismic hazards
Potential impacts related to seismic hazards are described below.

Fault Rupture. The project site is not located within or adjacent to an Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to fault rupture.

Ground Shaking. The project site and the entire San Francisco Bay Area are located in a seismically active region subject to strong seismic ground shaking. Ground shaking is a general term referring to all aspects of motion of the earth’s surface resulting from an earthquake and is normally the major cause of damage in seismic events. The extent of ground‐shaking is controlled by the magnitude and intensity of the earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and local
geologic conditions. The magnitude of a seismic event is a measure of the energy released by an earthquake; it is assessed by seismographs that measure the amplitude of seismic waves.

The intensity of an earthquake is a subjective measure of the perceptible effects of a seismic event at a given point. The Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale is the most co mmonly used
349
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 86

scale to measure the subjective effects of earthquake intensity. It uses values ranging from I to XII.

Mapping has been compiled by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for the likely shaking intensities in the Bay Area that would have a 10 percent chance of occurring in any 50‐year period. A large earthquake (magnitude 6.7 or greater) on one of the major
active faults in the region would generate
severe (MMI 8) ground shaking at the project site.

The most significant adverse impact associated with strong seismic shaking is potential damage to structures and improvements. The risk of ground shaking impacts is reduced through adherence to the design and materials standards set forth in building codes. The City of Dublin has adopted the 2019 CBC (Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations), which provides for stringent construction requirements on projects in areas of high seismic risk. The design and construction for the proposed project would
be required to conform with, or
exceed, current best standards for earthquake resistant construction in accordance with the most recent CBC adopted by the City and with the generally accepted standards of geotechnical practice for seismic design in Northern California, consistent with Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0, identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. In addition, implementati on of Mitigation Measure 3.6/7.0,
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and SM GEO‐1, identified in the Fallon Village SEIR, which require the preparation and implementation of design level geotechnical report(s) and corrective grading plan(s), would ensure this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Liquefaction. Liquefaction is the transformation of loose, fine‐grained sediment to a fluid‐like state similar to quicksand. This phenomenon occurs due to strong seismic activity and lessens the soil’s ability to support a structural foundation. The primary factors affecting the possibility of liquefaction in soil are: (1) intensity and duration of earthquake shaking; (2) soil type and relative density; (3) overburden pressures; and (4) depth to groundwater. Soil most susceptible to liquefaction is clean, loose, fin
e‐grained sands and non‐plastic silts that are saturated.

The California Geological Survey (CGS) has mapped Seismic Hazard Zones that delineate areas susceptible to liquefaction and/or landslides that require proposed new developments in these areas to conduct additional investigation to determine the extent and magnitude of potential ground failure. Acco
rding to mapping by CGS, the project site is located in an area mapped as a liquefaction hazard zone. As noted above, Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 requires the project design to comply with the CBC. The CBC provides for stringent construction requirements on projects in areas of high seismic risk, including liquefaction zones. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6/7.0, identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and SM GEO‐1, identified in
the Fallon Village SEIR, which require the preparation and implementation of design level geotechnical report(s) and corrective grading plan(s), would ensure this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.
350
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 87

Landslide. As described in the Fallon Village SEIR, the Eastern Dublin area contains documented landslides ranging from active to dormant and include debris slides and flows, mud flows and slump rotational slides. The project site is also mapped by the CGS as a landslide zone.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6/7.0, identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and SM GEO‐1, identified in the Fallon Village SEIR, which require the preparation and implementation of design level geotechnical report(s) and corrective grading plan(s), would ensure impacts related to landslides would be reduced to a less than significant level. (b) Erosion/topsoil loss
The potential for soil erosion exists during the period of earthwork activities and between the time when earthwork is completed, and new vegetation is established or hardscape is installed.

Exposed soils could be entrained in stormwater runoff and transported off the project site.

Construction specifications require the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to any ground disturbance activities as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES
) General Permit (GP) for Construction (Order 2009‐009‐ DWQ). The SWPPP would provide the details of the erosion control measures to be applied on the project site during the construction period, including Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion control that are recognized by the RWQCB. Additional details regarding the SWPPP are provided in
Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 and Mitigation Measure

3.6/28.0 identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, to reduce short‐ and long‐term erosion and sedimentation associated with project construction and operation. (c‐d) Soil stability
Expansive soils are
characterized by the potential for shrinking and swelling as the moisture content of the soil decreases and increases, respectively. Shrink‐swell potential is influenced by the amount and type of clay minerals present and can be measured by the percent change of the soil volume. Soils underlying the project site are primarily composed of Linne clay loam (3 to 15
percent slopes and 15 to 30 percent slopes), Rincon clay loam (0 to 3 percent slopes and 3 to 7 percent slopes), and Diablo clay (very deep, 3 to 15 percent slopes), according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Natural Resources Conservation Service Web
Soil Survey. All of these soil types are classified as moderately to highly expansive.

The proposed project would be designed and constructed consistent with the most current earthquake resistance standards for Seismic Zone 4 in the CBC, which includes specifications for site preparation, such as compaction requiremen
ts for foundations. Therefore, the project site
is not anticipated to become unstable as a result of the proposed project, or potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslides, liquefaction, lateral spreading or settlement. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measures (MM 3.6/4.0, MM 3.6/5.0, MM 3.6/6.0, MM 3.6/7.0, MM 3.6/14.0, MM 3.6/15.0, MM 3.6/16.0) identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and described 351
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 88

above would reduce potential impacts associated with unstable soils to a less‐than‐significant level.
(e) Soil capability to support wastewater disposal, including septic The proposed project would connect to the existing wastewater conveyance system. On‐site treatment and disposal of wastewater is not proposed for the project; therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts associated with
soils incapable of supporting alternative
wastewater disposal systems.
(f) Paleontological/unique geological resources
No paleontological resources or unique geologic features are known to exist within the project site and ground disturbance for the proposed project is not expected to extend deep enough to affect native soils or to impac t scientifically important paleontological resources. If such resources are encountered during ground‐disturbing activities, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9/5.0 as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR would reduce any potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less‐than‐significant level.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previou sly analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified geology and soils impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in
the EDSP EIRs there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to geology and soils beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environ mental review is required.

Source(s)
California Geological Survey. 2019. California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. Website:
maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed June 21, 2022).

Dublin, City of. 2017. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of November 21, 2017).

Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stag e 1 Development Plan and
Annexation. March.
352
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 89

Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments. 2018.

Probabilistic Earthquake Shaking Hazard Map. Website: mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/ webappviewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29b35dfcd086fc8 (accessed June 21, 2022).

United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. Website: websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (access ed
June 21, 2022).

United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Soil Survey of Alameda County, Western Part. Available online at: www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/ FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/california/CA610/0/alameda.pdf (accessed June 21, 2022).

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016).

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, Stat e Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.

December 7.

353
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 90

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact
Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified in
the EDSP EIRs

7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR, and Fallon Village SEIR, the issue of the contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of Assembly Bill 32 in 2006 and Senate Bill 32 in 2016.

Because the EDSP EIRs have been certified, the de
termination of whether greenhouse gasses
and climate change need to be analyzed for this project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be an alyzed under those standards unless it constitutes “new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EDSP EIRs were certified as complete” (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3)).

Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts were not analyzed in the EDSP EIRs; however, these impacts
are not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time these previous EIRs were certified. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was widely known prior to the certification of these EIRs. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulati on of greenhouse gas
emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.

Conclusion
Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was know n at the time of the certification of the EDSP EIRs. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires 354
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 91

analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a‐b) Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or conflict with GHG plans or regulations As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA G
uidelines section 15162.

Source(s)
Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016).

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.

December 7.

355
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 92

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact
Identified in the
EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe
Impact than
Identified in
the EDSP EIRs

8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
X
356
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 93

Environmental Setting
The project site consists primarily of undeveloped grazing ranchland and open space, but also includes some rural residential development, including several houses, a barn and several sheds, located in the southern portion of the property and a house located in the northwestern portion of the property. The farm complex in the southern portion of the property includes several structures, including the barn,
shed and house that were constructed circa 1958. A
second house in this area was constructed circa 1965.

According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the East Dublin Properties, several storage tanks were observed on the project site, associated with the residence and the former use of the site as Bran
augh Excavating. In addition, unlabeled 55‐
gallon drums were observed on the property located within the Golden State Landscaping Company’s storage and maintenance yard. Numerous potentially hazardous materials and petroleum‐based product containers were observed across the property. The project site contains four
existing septic systems and several wells. In addition, due to the age of the existing structures on the project site, the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment determined that it is conceivable that asbestos‐ containing materials (ACMs) and/or lead‐containing materials (e.g., lead‐based paint [LBP]) may be present within the structures.

Previous CEQA Documents
Eastern Dublin EIR
The East
ern Dublin EIR did not include a discussion of hazards and hazardous materials as an identified environmental topic area; however, the Eastern Dublin EIR did discuss the potential for hazardous materials releases as part of the analysis of solid waste disposal and fire prote
ction. Mitigation measures identified for solid waste disposal are included in Section 18, Utilities and Service Systems. The Eastern Dublin EIR did identify potentially significant impacts related to wildfire and fire hazards. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce potential impacts to a less‐than‐significant level. Th e following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed project:

MM 3.5/9.0 Incorporate DRFA recommendations on project design related to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention into the requirements for development approval. Required that the following DRFA design standards are incorporated where appropriate:
 Use of non‐combustible roof materi als in all new construction.  Available capacity of 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) at 20 pounds per square inch (PSI) fire flow from project fire hydrants on public water mains. For groupings of one‐family and small two‐family dwellings not exceeding two 357
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 94

stories in height, the fire flow requirements are a minimum of 1,000 gpm. Fire flow requirements for all other buildings will be calculated based on building size, type of construction, and location.
 A buffer zone along the backs of homes which are contiguous with the wildland are. This buffer zone is to be landscaped with irrigated (wet banding) or equivalent fire‐resistive vegetation.
 Complian
ce with DRFA minimum road widths, maximum street slopes, parking recommendations, and secondary access road requirements.  Require residential structures outside the DRFA’s established response time and zone to include fire alarm systems and sprinklers.
2002 SEIR
Hazards and hazardous materials were addressed in the Initial Study for the 2002 SEIR.

No
potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures were identified.

Fallon Village SEIR
The Fallon Village SEIR determined that because the Fallon Village Project proposed several land uses changes, including converting the former "Future Study Area" land use designation to non‐residen
tial land uses, new impacts to related to hazards and hazardous materials could occur. Potentially significant impacts were identified including the potential for hazards from release of hazardous materials into the atmosphere from demolition of existing buildings and remediation of potentially contaminated sites. Supplemental mitigation measures were identified to reduce po
tential impacts to a less‐than‐significant level. The following supplemental mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project:

SM‐HAZ‐1. Prior to the demolition of any structures identified in the Environmental Site Assessments as potentially containing ACM's or lead‐based paints, Project developer(s) shall undertake comprehensive asbestos and LBP surveys of those structures and implement appropriate ACM and LBP handling an
d disposal methods based on those
surveys. As recommended in the ENGEO 2005 report, an environmental professional shall be present during demolition and pre‐grading activities to inspect for potential environmental contaminants.

SM HAZ‐2 (potential for soil/groundwater contamination and exposure hazards from existing hazardous materials). As identified in
the Environmental Site Assessments for
each property, all observed hazardous or potentially hazardous materials and potential containers of those materials shall be removed from the properties by licensed waste contractors prior to building demolition. If no building demolition is required, this removal shall be completed
prior to any grading activities on an individual site. The 358
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 95

contents of potential hazardous material containers shall be identified and disposed of accordingly, including specific methods to preclude airborne release of materials. All dumped scrap and miscellaneous material and equipment shall be removed from the site prior to any on‐site development activities. If recommended in the ESA (i.e., Mandeville, Anderson, and Fallon Enterprises properti es), an environmental professional shall view the property during demolition and pre‐grading activities to ensure compliance with this measure.

SM‐HAZ‐3a (potential for soil/groundwater contamination from subsurface contamination). A Phase II ESA shall be conducted for the former gas station site north and west of Croak Road to obtain information with regard to operation, demolition, and removal of the former gasoline service station in order to better assess the likelihood of this use having a detrimental impact to soils and water quality at the EBJ Partners site and adjacent sites. This Assessment shall be completed and approved by the Alameda County Fire Department prior
to any demolition or site grading, whichever is first.

Additionally, a limited subsurface investigation shall be conducted for the EBJ parcel and adjacent areas of the Anderson and Chen/Tseng properties to better assess whether impacts to soil and shallow groundwater have resulted from the former gas station.

SM‐HAZ 3b (potential for soil/grou
ndwater contamination from subsurface
contamination). All identified potentially contaminated areas on the Jordan Ranch site shall be remediated as identified in the Phase I ESA. In addition, as identified in the Phase II ESA, the Jordan Ranch owner shall inform the Alameda County Environmental Health Se
rvices Department (ACEHSD) of an unauthorized release of fuel hydrocarbons as diesel and gasoline in the vicinity of the removed underground fuel tank at the site.

The property shall be subject to further subsurface investigations to evaluate the lateral and horizontal extent of the contamination, and to evaluate whether ground water has been affected, and shall be remediat
ed as directed by the ACEHSD. Further site
assessment, including soil and groundwater sampling and testing, shall be conducted to evaluate the horizontal and lateral extent of impact to underlying soils and groundwater. A limited Phase II ESA, including soil and groundwater sampling, shall be conducted to evaluate the potential impact on underlying soils and groundwater within the area of the diesel storage drums, weed killer,
and other storage containers in Barn 2,
as well as in the vicinity of the stored fuel containers and farm equipment in Barn 1.

During removal of hazardous material contaminant sources at the Jordan Ranch site, a qualified en
vironmental assessor shall be present to observe the removal and conditions exposed during that removal. After the removal of these sources from the site, and any excavation to remove contaminated soil, additional soil sampling and laboratory testing shall be conducted to confirm that the conta
minated materials have been removed. If
potentially hazardous substances are identified, remediation plan(s) shall be prepared 359
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 96

by a qualified consulting and approved by an appropriate oversight agency. A worker safety plan shall be included in all remediation plans.

SM‐HAZ 3c (potential for soil/groundwater contamination from subsurface contamination). A Phase II ESA shall be conducted for the portion of the Fallon Enterprises property where the buried household garbage dump is located. Th e assessment shall include soil sampling and testing to evaluate the potential impact to underlying soils. The assessment shall be completed and approved by the Alameda County Fire Department prior to site grading operations. If potentially hazardous substances are identified in the Phase II ESA, remediation plan(s) shall be prepar ed by a qualified consulting and approved by an appropriate oversight agency. A worker safety plan shall be included in all remediation plans.

SM‐HAZ 3d (potential for soil/groundwater contamination from subsurface contamination). A Phase II ESA shall be conducted for the portion of the Anderson property used by Pleasanton Trucking and Materials. That assessment shall include soil sampling and groundwater testing to evaluate the potential impact to underlying soils. If potentially hazardous substances are identified in the Phase II ESA, remediation plan(s) shall be prepared by a q
ualified consulting and approved by an appropriate oversight agency. A work er safety plan shall be included in all remediation plans.

SM‐HAZ 3e (potential for soil/groundwater contamination from subsurface contamination). A Phase II ESA shall be conducted for the portion of the Branaugh properties used by Branaugh Excavating, Branaugh Transportation, and the Golden State/Executive Landscaping Companies. That assessment shall include soil sampling and
groundwater testing to evaluate the potential impact to underlying soils. If potentially hazardous substances are identified in the Phase II ESA, remediation plan(s) shall be prepared by a qualified consulting and approved by an appropriate oversight agency. A worker safety plan shall be included in all remediation plans.

SM‐HAZ 3f (poten
tial for soil/groundwater contamination from subsurface contamination). Upon development of each site, all existing wells shall be abandoned under permit from Zone 7 Water Agency and in accordance with all applicable regulations.

SM‐HAZ 3g (potential for soil/groundwater contamination from subsurface contamination). When, or prior to, the existing structures are demolished, all existing septic systems and associated le
ach fields shall be pumped out and removed under
permit from the Alameda County Health Department.
360
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 97

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Exposure to hazardous materials, upset/accident, near school, hazardous materials list The proposed project would result in the construction of residential and industrial uses.

Residential uses typically do not involve transport, use, or disposal of significant quantities of hazardous materials. However, the proposed industrial park could include manufacturing, processing, assembly, fabrication, research and
development, printing, warehouse and
distribution, and wholesale and heavy commercial uses, or other uses permitted under the City’s IP designation that may involve the use, handling, and storage of commercially available hazardous materials associated with building maintenance, on‐site vehicle use, and landscaping. These materials would likely include fuels, paints, flammable liquids, pesticides, and herbicides. However, hazardous materials stored and used at the site would be required to be managed in accordance with applicable local, State, and federal hazardous materials regulations that would reduce risks associated with leakage, explosions, fires, or the escape of harmful gases. The prop
osed project would generate quantities of hazardous materials similar in nature, type, and volume to the uses anticipated to be used as part of other foreseeable residential and industrial development projects anticipated in the EDSP EIRs. (b) Upset/accident
The Fallon Village SEIR identified potentially significant impacts related to the potential for an accidental re
lease of hazardous materials associated with historic uses on the project site, including potential ACM and lead‐based paint within the existing site structures, existing septic systems and wells, and existing hazardous materials containers (e.g., storage tanks, drums) present on the project site. However, the Fallon Village SEIR determined that implementation of Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM
‐HAZ‐1, SM‐HAZ‐2, SM‐HAZ‐3e, SM‐HAZ‐3f, and SM‐
HAZ‐3g would reduce this impact to a less‐than‐significant level through pre‐construction environmental investigations for hazardous materials, appropriate removal of hazardous materials containers and septic systems, appropriate abandonment of existing wells, and implementation of appropriate ACM and
LBP handling and disposal methods. Conditions on the
project site have not substantially changed since the certification of the Fallon Village SEIR.

During construction, hazardous materials such as fuel, lubricants, paint, sealants, and adhesives would be transported and used at the project site. Management of these materials at the project site would
be subject to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit. Compliance with the Construction General Permit would require preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to reduce the risk of spills or leaks from reaching the environmen
t. The SWPPP would also include a Spill Response Plan to address minor spills of hazardous materials. Compliance with SWPPP requirements would ensure that potential significant hazards associated with routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during and after construction would be less than significant. 361
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 98

0.75 mile to the northwest, and Jose Maria Amador Elementary School, located approximately

1.1 mile to the northwest. No schools are located within 0.25 mile of the project site. As described in Section 8.b, the proposed project woul
d be required to implement Supplemental
Mitigation Measures SM‐HAZ‐1, SM‐HAZ‐2, SM‐HAZ‐3e, SM‐HAZ‐3f, and SM‐HAZ‐3g, which require pre‐construction environmental investigations for hazardous materials, appropriate removal of hazardous materials containers and septic systems, appropriate abandonment of existing wells, and implementation of appropriate ACM and LBP handling and disposal methods.
(d) Hazardous materials list
Government Code Section 65962.5 states that the California Department of Toxic Substances shall compile and maintain annually a list of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action as part of the Health and Safety Code. This list is commonly re ferred to as the Cortese List. The project site is not located on the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Leaking Underground Tank Cleanup Site (LUST) or any other Cleanup Program Sites (formerly known as spills, leaks, investigations, and cleanups or SLIC). These two components comprise the State Cortese List of known hazardous mat
erials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5.
(e) Proximity to a public airport
The Livermore Municipal Airport, a public utility airport operated by the City of Livermore, is located approximately 0.3‐mile south of I‐580, just south and east of the project site. The entire project site is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) and the southern portion of the
site, designated for industrial park use is located within the Airport Protection Area (APA). The site is located within Safety Zone 6, as designated in the Livermore Municipal ALUCP. New residential land use designations, or the intensification of exis ting residential land uses, are
prohibited within the APA. Nonresidential land uses may be allowed within the APA provided they are consistent with the criteria set forth in the ALUCP. Per Table 3‐2, Safety Compatibility Criteria in the ALUCP, manufacturing, research and development and industrial uses are permitted in Safety Zone 6.

The project
site is also located within the City’s Airport Overlay Zoning District, which is coterminous with the AIA, as established by the Livermore Municipal Airport ALCUP. All permitted and conditionally permitted uses set forth in a PD Zoning District that was adopted and in effect prior to August 2012 are consider
ed Existing Land Uses consistent with the ALUCP
and do not require review by the ALUC, unless changes to the existing land use results in an increase of non‐conformity with ALUCP policies or the change would increase the intensity or density of use.
362
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 99

other uses are limited to the maximum FAR of 0.35.

Therefore, the proposed project would not be an incompatible land use, would not add structures of a height such that it would create a hazard or obstruction, and would not result in the addition of a charact
eristic that would create a hazard to air navigation.
(f) Impair implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan The Tri‐Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed in compliance with State requirements and also meets the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the City’s local hazard mitigation plan. The Tri‐Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan provides a uniform hazard mitigation strategy for the Tri‐Valley area, addressing a range of hazards including, but not limited to, earthquakes, floods and wildland fire. The City of Dublin also has an adopted Comprehensiv
e Emergency Management Plan and a Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan to assess hazards and mitigate risks prior to a disaster event.

The proposed project would result in the subdivision of the 40.2‐acre site into four parcels to accommodate proposed residential and industrial development. The proposed project would be designed to provide adequate access to the site for fire/police/emergency medical service personnel in the event of an emergency at the project site. In the event of an emergency on the site, employees and residents could exit the site via Croak Road via the proposed Central Parkway Ext
ension and the future Dublin Boulevard Extension. Once off the project site, employees and residents could access I‐580 to exit the City and region. The proposed project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Because the proposed project would not substantially alter or block the adjacent roadways , the proposed project would not be expected to impair the function of nearby emergency evacuation routes.
(g) Expose people or structures to wildland fires
A wildland fire is a fire occurring in a suburban or rural area which contains uncultivated land, timber, range, brush, or grasslands. Wildland fires are primarily a concer n in areas where there is a mix of developed and undeveloped lands. The project site is not identified as an area of moderate, high, or very high fire hazard severity for the Local Responsibility Area. It is identified as an area of moderate fire hazard sever ity for the State Responsibility Area, as mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). The proposed project would be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the CBC, California Fire Code, and the City’s Wildfire Management Plan. In addition, consistent with the City’s entitlement process and Mitigation Measure 3.5/9.0 in the Eastern Dublin EIR, project plans would be reviewed by
363
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 100

the Alameda County Fire Department to ensure that required fire protection elements are incorporated into final building plans, including provision of adequate water supply and pressure, and use of appropriate landscape and building materials.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major
changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified hazards and hazardous materials impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs there
would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
Dublin, City of. 2017. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of November 21, 2017).

Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stag e 1 Development Plan and
Annexation. March.

Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin Municipal Code. Chapter 8.35 Airport Overlay Zoning District.

ENGEO, 2005. Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, East Dublin Properties, Dublin, California. May 27.

ESA, 2012. Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. August.

Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November.

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September
20, 2016).

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.

December 7.
364
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 101

Hydrology and Water Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact
Identified in the
EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP
EIRs

9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

X
(i). Result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐ site;
X
(ii). Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on‐
or offsite;
X
(iii). Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
X
(iv). Impede or redirect flood flows?   X
d)   In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
X
e)   Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
X
365
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 102

Environmental Setting
The project site is located within the Alameda Creek watershed which drains to the San Francisco Bay. The 660‐square‐mile Alameda Creek watershed is the largest watershed in the Bay Area, extending from Mount Hamilton north to Mount Diablo, east to the Altamont Hills and west to San Francisco Bay. The proj
ect site is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). The northern portion of the site is hilly and transitions to relatively flat areas immediately adjacent to the I‐580 freeway.

The project site is located within the San Francis
co Bay Hydrologic Region. The San Francisco
Bay RWQCB Basin Plan identifies the Project as being within the Livermore Valley groundwater basin (Basin ID 2‐10). As defined in DWR Bulletin 118 Update 2003 (California’s Groundwater), the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR Basin 2‐10) extends from the Pleasanton Ridge east to the Altamont Hills and from the Livermore Uplands north to the Tassajara Uplands. The Geotechnical Update (ENGEO, 2004)
prepared for the EDPO Project indicates that groundwater depths range from 14 to 40 feet. The Water Quality Report prepared for the Eastern Dublin Extension Project confirms that groundwater levels are 20 to 25 feet below grade with higher groundwater levels (10 feet below grade) occurri
ng in the area northwest of the existing I‐
580/Fallon Road interchange. Shallower groundwater may be present along major drainages, in colluvium‐filled swales, and associated with existing stock ponds.

As described in Section 4, Biological Resources, a single ephemeral drainage exists ne ar the center of the project site and runs parallel to the fence that bounds the property to the west.

This segment of ephemeral drainage is rock‐lined and is fed by a culvert. This segment of ephemeral stream is approximately 100 feet long and 10 feet wide and is connected at the downstream end by a culvert which conveys flows under a road to a seasonal wetland at its downstream end.

Based on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) published by the Federal Emerge ncy
Management Agency (FEMA) [06001C0329G, dated August 3, 2009], the project site is located within a 500‐year
flood plain.

Previous CEQA Documents
Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to the overdraft of potential flooding, reduced groundwater recharge, and non‐point sources of pollution.

Mitigation measures were identified to reduce potential impacts to a less‐than‐significant level.

The following mitigation measures wo
uld apply to the proposed project:
366
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 103

MM 3.5/44.0 Require drainage facilities that will minimize any increased potential or erosion or flooding.

MM 3.5/45.0 Require channel improvements consisting of natural creek bottoms and side slopes with natural vegetation where possible to meet Policy 9.7 above.

MM 3.5/46.0 Storm Drainage Master Plan. Require a Master Drainage Plan be prepared for each development application prior to development approval. The plan shall include:
 Hydrologic studies of entire related upstream watersheds.  Phase approach and system modeling.
 Documentation of existing conditions.
 Design‐level analysis of the impacts of proposed development of the existing creek channels and watershed areas.
 Detailed analysis of effects of development on water quality of surface runoff.  Detailed
drainage design plans for each phase of the proposed project.  Design features to minimize runoff flows within existing creeks/channels in order to alleviate potential erosion impacts and maintain riparian vegetation.

MM 3.5/47.0 Flood Control. Require development in the Planning Area to provide facilities to alleviate potential downstream flooding due to project development. These facilities shall include:
 Retention/detention facilities as appropriate to control peak runoff discharge rates.
 Energy dissipators at discharge locations to prevent channel erosion, as per Zone 7 guidelines. Energy dissipators should be designed to minimize adverse effects on biological resources and the visual environment; in particular, widesp read use of riprap should be avoided.

MM 3.5/49.0 Plan facilities and select management practices in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR area that protect and enhance water quality.

MM 3.5/50.0 Zone 7 supports ongoing groundwater recharge program from the Central Basin.

MM 3.5/51.0 Develop community‐based programs to educate local residents and businesses on methods to reduce non‐point sources of pollution. Coordinate such programs with current
Alameda County programs. Such programs include:
367
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 104

 Increased availability of liquid recycling centers (i.e., oil, greases, etc.) to reduce potential for dumping into storm drains.
 Programs that educate the public that catch basins and storm drains flow to creeks, to potable groundwater basins, and to the San Francisco Bay, including a potential program to paint labels at each catch basi n and storm drain to alert people to these facts.
2002 SEIR
Hydrology and water quality were addressed in the Initial Study for the 2002 SEIR. No potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures were identified.

Fallon Village SEIR
The Fallon Village SEIR identified two potentially significant impacts associated with an increase in imperviou
s surfaces, resulting in increased stormwater runoff, which may not comply with the most recent surface water quality standards and hydromodification standards and, as a result, could add pollutants to nearby bodies of water. Supplemental mitigation measures were identified to reduce potential impacts to a less‐than‐significant level. The following supplemental mitigation measures ar
e applicable to the proposed project:

SM‐ SD‐1 (changed surface water quality standards). The Stage 1 Development Plan shall require that the water quality source control and hydrologic design recommendations of the report prepared by ENGEO, Inc. (February 28, 2005) be implemented for all individual development projects within the Project ar ea.

SM‐ SD‐2 (changed surface water quality hydromodification standards). Development within the Project area shall comply with the hydromodification provisions of the Alameda County Clean Water Program as approved by the RWQCB and administered by the City of Dublin. If no Alameda County Clean Water Program permit has been adopted at the time individual development proposals
are approved by the City the applicant
may be required to submit hydrology and hydrologic analyses to identify specific increases in storm water runoff into downstream receiving waters. Such reports will be reviewed by both the City of Dublin and Zone 7 Water Agen cy. Development projects will also be required to pay the then‐current Zone 7 Special Drainage Area fee (SDA7‐1) in effect at the time of development.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Violate water quality or waste discharge requirements or degrade surface or groundwater quality
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would cause disturbance of soil during
excavation work, which could adversely impact water quality. Contaminants from 368
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 105

construction vehicles and equipment and sediment from soil erosion could increase the pollutant load in runoff being transported to receiving water during development. Although surface runoff from the site would likely decrease with the proposed project (due to proposed stormwater treatment measures), runoff from the proposed landscaped areas may contain residual pesticides and nutrients
(associated with landscaping) and sediment and trace metals (associated with atmospheric deposition) during operation of the project. Implementation of mitigation measures Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 and Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0, as described in Section 6, Geology and Soils, would ensure that potential water quality impacts associated with project construction are reduced to a less‐than‐significant level. Th e project would be required to comply with these mitigation measures.

In addition, because the project would result in the disturbance of greater than one acre of soil, project implementation is required to comply with the Construction General Permit, which requires preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of BMPs to reduce the discharge of construction‐related stormwater p
ollutants. A SWPPP must include a detailed description of controls to reduce pollutants and outline maintenance and inspection procedures. Typical sediment and erosion BMPs include protecting storm drain inlets, establishing and maintaining construction exits and perimeter controls to avoid tracking sediment off‐sit e onto adjacent roadways. A SWPPP also defines proper building material staging and storage areas, paint and concrete washout areas, describes proper equipment/vehicle fueling and maintenance practices, measures to control equipment/vehicle washing and allowable non‐stormwater discharges, and includes a spill prevention and response plan. Compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and implementation of mitigation measures Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 and Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0 ensure that the proposed project would result in less‐than‐significant impacts to water quality during construction.

As the site is currently largely undeveloped, the proposed project would increase the total amount of impervious surf
ace on the project site. The increase in impervious surface could result in increased stormwater runoff (both flow rate and volume) from the project site relative to pre‐project conditions, which may result in hydromodification impacts (i.e., increased potential for erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollution ge neration, or other adverse impacts on beneficial uses due to increased erosive force). Hydromodification is the alteration of the natural flow of water through a landscape, and often takes the form of creek channel erosion. Hydromodification is one of the leading sources of impairment in streams, lakes, and estuaries.

The propose
d project is subject to the conditions of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) (Order No. R2‐2022‐0018 NPDES Permit No. CAS612008). The C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance updated in February 2021 as per the Alameda County Clean Water Program, outlines low impact development (LID) provisions that the MRP permit holders can use during planning of development
activities to manage and reduce occurrences of stormwater runoff pollutant 369
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 106

discharges. These low impact development methods aim to preserve existing natural landscapes to minimize imperviousness and water quality impacts.

The proposed project would be considered a “regulated project” under the MRP. Provision C.3 of the MRP requires new development and redevelopment projects that would replace more than 5,000 square feet of existing impervious surfaces to include post‐construction stormwater control
in project designs, including measures for site design, source control, runoff reduction, stormwater treatment, and baseline hydromodification management. Under the C.3 requirements, the preparation and submittal of a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) would be required for the project site. The purpose of a SCP is to detail the design elements and implem
entation measures necessary to meet the post‐construction stormwater control requirements of the MRP. In particular, SCPs must include LID design measures, which reduce water quality impacts by preserving and recreating natural landscape features, minimizing imperviousness, and using stormwater as a resource, rather than a waste product. The proposed project would
also be required to prepare a Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan to ensure that stormwater control measures are inspected, maintained, and funded for the life of the project. Compliance with the C.3 requirements of the MRP would ensure that operation‐per iod impacts to water quality would be less than significant.

As outlined in the project description, the proposed project would include approximately 43,151 square feet of bioretention space on the project site that would be used for stormwater quality control. The proposed project would include multiple bioretention basins and storm drains throughout the project site, which would
connect to downstream hydromodification
facilities prior to discharging to existing/proposed storm drain pipes. Hydromodification vaults would be included on‐site to provide flow duration controls for the project.

In addition, Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0, identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, which requires preparation of a storm drainage plan for the proposed project, and Mitigation Measure SM‐SD‐ 2, identified in the Fallon Village SEIR, which requires compliance with Alameda County C.3 requirements, would ensure that potential impacts associated with stormwater runoff would be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level.
(b) Substantially decrease or interfere with groundwater supplies Although the proposed project woul
d result in a net increase in impervious surface coverage compared to the existing condition, the proposed project would include the use of LID, including multiple bioretention basins and storm drains throughout the site that would retain and clean stormwater on‐site before discharging it into the municipal stormwater syste m, consistent with Provision C.3 of the MRP.

The proposed project would connect to the existing water lines within the vicinity of the project site and would not require the use of groundwater. Due to the depth of groundwater and the 370
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 107

shallow excavations required for project construction, dewatering is not anticipated during construction activities.
(c) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns re: erosion/siltation, re: flooding, or degrade water quality
The proposed project would create new landscaped areas and impermeable pavement surfaces, which would alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site. However, as discussed above, the proposed project
would be required to comply with the C.3 requirements
of the MRP, standard City development requirements related to stormwater, and mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Fallon Village SEIR, including Mitigation Measure 3.5/47.0, which requires preparation of a flood control plan for the proposed project.

As noted in Section

8.b and 9.a, the proposed project would be required to prepare a SWPPP as required by the Construction General Permit and consistent with Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 and Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0, identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, to reduce short‐ and long‐term erosion and sedimentation associated with project construction and operation.

Required compliance with applicable regulations, implementation of City policies, and the mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, would reduce potential impacts of the project related to changes in drainage patterns to a less‐than‐significant level. (d) Flood hazard, seiche, or tsunami
As described above, the project site is not located within a flood hazard area mapp ed by FEMA,
or a mapped tsunami inundation area for Alameda County, and no seismically induced seiche waves have ever been documented in the San Francisco Bay area. Additionally, the proposed project would implement various design features to ensure contaminants would be contained. (e) Water Quality
As noted above, the proposed project would implement various design features to ensure the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to water quality, including multiple bioretention basins and storm drains throughout the site that would retain and clean stormwater on‐site before discharging it into the municipal stormwater system, consistent with

Provision C.3 of the MRP. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with groundwater recharge in the vicinity of the project site.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major
changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified hydrology and water quality impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
371
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 108

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to hydrology and water quality resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no furt her
environmental review is required.

Source(s)
California, State of. 2019. California Official Tsunami Inundation Maps. Website:
www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps (accessed June 21, 2022).

Dublin, City of. 2017. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of November 21, 2017).

Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stag e 1 Development Plan and
Annexation. March.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2021. FEMA Flood Map Service Center (map).

Website:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=1881%20Collier%20Canyon%20Roa d%2C%20Dublin%2C%20CA#searchresultsanchor (accessed June 21, 2022).

Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November.

Wallace Roberts & Todd.
2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016).

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.

December 7.

372
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 109

Land Use and Planning
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP
EIRs

10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
X
Environmental Setting
The project site consists primarily of undeveloped grazing ranchland and open space, but also includes some rural residential development in the northwest and southern portion. Existing structures on the project site include several houses, a barn and several sheds, located in the southern portion of the property and a house located in the northwestern portion of the property.

The project site has General Plan land use designations of Medium Density Residential (9.8 acres
) and Industrial Park (30.29 acres). The Medium Density Residential designation allows attached residential units and typically includes detached, zero‐lot line, duplex, townhouse, and garden apartment development at a density of 6.1 to 14.0 units per gross residential acre.

The Industrial Park designation allow
s a wide variety of minimum‐impact, light industrial uses.

Uses allowed within this designation include, but are not limited to, the following:
manufacturing, processing, assembly, fabrication, research and development, printing, warehouse and distribution, and wholesale and heavy commer cial uses provided the activities do not have significant external effects in the form of noise, dust, glare, or odor. Uses requiring outdoor storage and service yards are permitted in this designation as long as they do not have adverse effects on surrounding uses. A maximum FAR of 0.35 and an employee density of 590 square feet per
employee are allowed within the Industrial Park designation.

The project site is zoned Planned Development (PD) Ordinance No. 32‐05. The intent of the PD zoning district is to create a more desirable use of the land, a more coherent and coordinated development,
and a better physical environment than would otherwise be possible under a single zoning district or combination of zoning districts. A PD district is established through an adopted Development Plan, which establishes regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the property within the PD district and consists of two 373
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 110

stages. The project site is governed by the Stage 1 Development Plan adopted as part of the Fallon Village Project.

Previous CEQA Documents
Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified less than significant impacts related to the substantial alteration to existing land use, on‐site project land use conflicts, conversion of non‐urban lands, potential conflicts with land uses to the south, east and north. A potentially significant impact was identified related to potential conflicts
with land uses to the west, which was determined
to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1/1.0, which requires the City to coordinate with the Army regarding future development proposals in the vicinity of the U.S. Army’s Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks RFTA). This mitigation measure does not apply to the proposed project.
2002 SEIR
Land use and planning was addressed in the Initial Study for the 2002 SEIR. No potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures were identified.

Fallon Village SEIR
The Fallon Village SEIR dete
rmined that the expansion of the EDSP planning boundary and the designation of land uses resulting from the Fallon Village project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan. No supplemental impacts related to land use and planning were identified.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Physicall
y divide an established community
The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and
outlying areas. For instance, the construction of an interstate highway through an existing community may constrain travel from one side of the community to another; similarly, such construction may also impair travel to areas outside of the community.

The proposed project would subdivide
the 40.2‐acre site into four parcels to accommodate
proposed residential and industrial development. Primary access into the residential neighborhood would be via the proposed extension of Central Parkway to the north, within the proposed East Ranch (Croak property) development. Primary access to the IP parcels would be provided by the future Dublin Boulevard extension, which is being planned and implemented by
the City of Dublin. The proposed project would not result in the realignment or closure of any 374
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 111

existing roads. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the physical division of an established community or adversely affect the continuity of land uses in the vicinity. (b) Conflict with land use plan, policy, or regulation
The proposed project would subdivide the 40.2‐acre site into four parcels to accommodate proposed residential and industrial development. The proposed project would be consistent with
the Medium Density Residential land use designation in that number and type of residential units proposed is consistent with the density allowed under the City of Dublin General Plan, the EDSP, and subsequent planning entitlements. In addition, the proposed residential devel
opment would be compatible with the mix and intensity of uses located to the north of the project site, which generally consist of residential and public uses associated with the East Ranch development approved in December 2021.

As outlined in the project description, the project proposes a 0.40 floor area ratio (F AR) for the IP portion of the project site, which is an increase from the maximum 0.35FAR allowed in the Fallon Village Stage 1 PD approval and an increase from the maximum 0.28 FAR evaluated under the EDSP EIRs. The EDSP provides discretion to the City Council to approve a higher FAR if the proposed uses meet one or mo
re of the following criteria:
 Unique project characteristics which result in reduced impacts relative to other uses in the same area (e.g., lower traffic generation);
 Unique project building requirements (e.g., warehouse uses that have large land coverage requirements but low employment densities); or  Extraordinary benefits to the City.

As part of the project entitlements and consistent with the EDSP, the City may grant a Planned
Development Rezone to allow for the increased FAR. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations.

Conclusion
The project does not pr
opose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified land use and planning impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.

There are no applicable regulatory requirements or mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs that are
applicable to land use and planning and there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to land use and planning beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
375
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 112

Source(s)
Dublin, City of. 2017. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of November 21, 2017).

Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March.

Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Repo rt,
State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November.

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016).

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.

December 7.

376
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 113

Mineral Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact
Identified in the
EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs

11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
X
Environmental Setting
Minerals are any naturally occurring chemical element or compound, or groups of elements and compounds, formed from inorganic processes and organic substances including, but not limited to, coal, peat and oil‐bearing rock, but excluding geothermal resources, natural gas and petroleum. Rock, sand, gravel and earth are also considered minerals by the Department of Conservation when extracted by surface mining operations.

Neither
the State Geologist nor the California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG) have classified any areas in the City as containing mineral deposits that are either of Statewide significance or the significance of which requires further evaluation.

Previous CEQA Documents
None of the EDSP EIRs indicate that significant mineral resource deposits exist on the project
site. Therefore, no impacts related to mineral resources were identified.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a‐b) Loss of known or identified mineral resource
The project site does not have any mineral extraction areas so there would be no new or substantially more severe impacts to mineral resources. The proposed pro ject would not result
in the loss of available of a known mineral resource that would be of value of the region and residents of the state or the loss of availability of any known loca lly important mineral resource recovery site.
377
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 114

Conclusion
Because the City does not have any mineral areas, there would be no impact, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
Dublin, City of. 2017. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of November 21, 2017).

Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stag e 1 Development Plan and
Annexation. March.

Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November.

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September
20, 2016).

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.

December 7.

378
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 115

Noise
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact
Identified in the
EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP
EIRs

12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X
Environmental Setting
Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep. Several noise measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relativ e intensity of a sound. Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10‐fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness; and
similarly, each 10 dB decrease in sound level is
perceived as half as loud. Sound intensity is normally measured through the A‐weighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A‐weighted sound level is the basis for 24‐hour sound measurements that
better represent human sensitivity to sound at night.

As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy so that the farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level would be. Geom etric spreading causes the sound level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in the noise level for each doubling of distance from a single point source of noise to the noise sensitive receptor of concern.
379
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 116

Vibration refers to ground‐borne noise and perceptible motion. Ground‐borne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem where the motion may be discernible, but there is less adverse reaction without the effects associated with the shaking of a building. Vibration energy propagates from a source through intervening soil and rock layers to the foundations of nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder
of the structure. Building vibration may be perceived
by occupants as motion of building surfaces, the rattling of items on shelves or hanging on walls, or a low‐frequency rumbling noise, otherw ise referred to as ground‐borne noise.

Typically, sources that have the potential to generate ground‐borne noise are likely to produce airborne noise impacts that mask the radiated ground‐borne noise. The rumbling noise is caused by the vibrating walls, floors, and ceilings radiating sound waves. Annoyance from vibration
often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by 10 dB or less.

This is an order of magnitude below the damage threshold for normal buildings.

Typical sources of ground‐borne vibration are construction activities (e.g., blasting, pile driving, and operating heavy‐duty earthmoving equipment) and occ asional traffic on rough roads.

Problems with ground‐borne vibration and noise from these sources are usually localized to areas within approximately 100 feet of the vibration source, although there are examples of ground‐borne vibration causing interference out to distances greater than 200 feet. When roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic, even heavy truc ks, is rarely perceptible. For most projects, it is assumed that the roadway surface will be smooth enough that ground‐borne vibration from street traffic will not exceed the impact criteria; however, construction of the project could result in ground‐borne vibration that could be perceptible and annoying.

Previous CEQA Documents
Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified that
impacts related to the exposure of existing and proposed development to airport noise would be less than significant. The Eastern Dublin EIR also found that impacts related to exposure of proposed housing to future roadway noise, exposure of existing and proposed residences to construction noise, and noise conflicts due to the
adjacency of diverse land uses permitted by plan policies supporting mixed‐use development would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. In addition, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified that impacts associated with exposur
e of existing residences to future roadway noise and exposure of proposed residential development to noise from future military training activities at Camp Parks RFTA and the County jail would be significant and unavoidable. The following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed project:

MM 3.10/1.0 Require that an acoustical study be submitted with all residential development projects located within the future CNEL 60 contour. The goal of the acoustical study is to show how the interior noise level will be controlled to a CNEL of 45 380
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 117

dB as required by Title 24, Pat II. The Title 24 goal of CNEL 45 should be applied to single‐family housing.

MM 3.10/2.0 Require that development projects provide for noise barriers or berms near existing residences to control noise in outdoor use spaces. One possibility is the construction of solid fences around outdoor use areas. The noise control for existing residences should be evaluated on a case‐by‐case basis.

MM 3.10/3.0 Require an acoustical study prior to future development in the Tassajara Foothill Residential, Tassajara Village Center, County Center and Hacienda Gateway sub‐ area to determine if future noise impact from Parks RFT A or the County jail will be within acceptable limits. The goal
of the study will be to identify all potential noise‐
generating operations and determine if future noise levels will exceed the acceptable levels as defined by the City and Army.

MM 3.10/4.0 Developers shall submit to the City a Construction Noise Management Program that identifies measures to be taken to minimize impacts on existing planning
area residents. The program will include a schedule for grading and other major noise‐ generating activities that will limit these activities to the shortest possible number of days. Hours of construction activities shall be limited in keepi ng with Dublin ordinances.

The Program for construction vehicle access to the site shall minimize construction truck traffic through residential areas. If construction traffic must travel through residential areas, then a mitigation plan should be developed. The Program may include barriers, berms or restrictions on hours.

MM 3.10/5.0 In order to minimize the impact of construction noise, all op erations
should comply with local noise standards relating to construction activities. When construction occurs near residential areas, then it should be limited to normal daytime hours to minimize the impact. Stationary equipment should be adequately muffled and located as far away from sensitive receptors as possible.

3.10/6.0 Noise management plans shall be prepared and reviewed as part of development application for all mixed‐use projects in which residential units would be combined with commercial, office, or other urban non‐residential uses. The objective of the noise management plan would be to provide a high‐quality acoustic environment for
residents and nonresidential tenants/ owners by taking steps to minimize or avoid potential noise problems. The plan would be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant. The plan would take into account the concerns of residents, nonresidential tenants/ owners, and maintenance personnel. The plan should be prepared at an early stage of the design process. Ideally, the acousti
cal consultant should provide input to
381
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 118

the architect at a preliminary site plan stage, to make maximum use of detailed site planning to avoid noise conflicts.
2002 SEIR
A review of potential impacts related to the exposure of proposed and existing housing to noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan, exposure of future commercial, office and in
dustrial uses to noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan, and exposure of people to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels was conducted as part of the 2002 SEIR. The 2002 SEIR determined that no additional noise impacts would occur beyond th ose identified at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified. However, the 2002 SEIR identified the following supplemental mitigation measures that would be applicable to the proposed project:

SM‐NOISE‐1 Require a noise insulation plan for general commercial (including any proposed office‐type uses) and industrial land uses to be submitted for all such development projects located within the future CNEL 70 dBA contour. The plan shall
show how interior noise levels would be controlled to acceptable levels. The acceptable level will depend on the type of use as set forth in the noise insulation plan. Interior noise levels could be controlled adequately by using sound‐rated windows in windows
closest to the streets and the freeway.

SM‐NOISE‐2 Except for local deliveries, restrict heavy truck traffic to designated arterial roadways and truck routes within the Project area and limit the hours of local deliveries to daytime hours as established by the City.

Fallon Village SEIR
No additional impacts were id
entified in the Fallon Village SEIR. However, the Fallon Village SEIR identified the following supplemental mitigation measures that would be applicable to the proposed project:

SM‐NOISE‐1 (aircraft flyovers). All occupants of the residential dwellings within the proposed Project shall rece
ive written notification at the time of sale, rental or lease of the potential for aircraft overflights of the Fallon Village Project area. Written notices shall be approved by the Dublin Community Development Director.

SM‐NOISE‐2 (future roadway noise affecting proposed residential development). An acoustical study must be prepared for the project. The study shal l show how the project
will meet an indoor goal of 45 dBA CNEL. In addition, the study must show how noise in outdoor areas will meet the level of a CNEL of 60 dBA (CNEL of 65 dBA at City's discretion). Based on preliminary site development information it is likely that the project can meet the indoor goal with
regular double‐glazed windows (no special sound
382
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 119

rating). A noise barrier may be required if backyards or other primary outdoor use spaces are located adjacent to either Croak Road or Upper Loop Road.

SM‐NOISE‐3 (compatibility of school and neighborhood park with future roadway noise). The design of the elementary school and neighborhood park shall consider noise reduction measur
es to comply with City exterior noise exposure limits including but not limited to appropriate siting of improvements, use of noise barriers and similar noise reduction techniques as may be needed.

SM‐NOISE‐4 (noise from Upper Loop Road affecting existing residences). Noise from Upper Loop Road is expected to generate a CNEL in exc ess of 60 dBA. The existing homes along the existing alignment of Fallon Road are currently exposed to an Ldn of about 56 to 59 dBA. It is unlikely but possible that the noise from Upper Loop Road would cause noise levels to increase by more than 6 dBA at these existing homes.

However, an evaluation of noise from Upper Loop Road on existing dwellings shall be made and if it is found that the road would increase noise by more than 6 dBA in backyards of those existing homes, the
n appropriate noise mitigation measures (i.e.,
roadway alignment or noise barrier) shall be included in the new roadway design.

The City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant unavoidable impacts described above.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Generate noise
exceeding standards
The short‐term construction and long‐term noise impacts associated with the proposed project are described below.

Short‐Term Construction Noise Impacts. Project construction would result in short‐term noise impacts on the nearby sensitive receptors. Maximum construction noise would be short‐term, generally intermittent depending on the construction phase, and variable depending on receiver distance from the active construction zone. The duration of noise impacts generally would be from one day to several days depending on the phase of construction. The level and types of noise impacts tha
t would occur during construction are described below.

Table F lists typical construction equipment noise levels (Lmax) recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor, obtained from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model. Construction‐related short‐term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels currently in the project area but would no longer occur once construction of the project is completed
.
383
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 120

Two types of short‐term noise impacts could occur during construction of the proposed project.

The first type involves construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site, which would incrementally raise noise levels on roadways leading to the project site. Two main categories of trips would be generated by construction activities: (1) worker commute trips; and (2) haul/delivery tr uck trips. Heavy equipment would
not be hauled to/from the project site daily; it would be hauled in at the beginning of construction and hauled out upon completion of construction. Construction trips would occur throughout the day, but because the hauling trucks are not expected to pass sensiti ve uses, there would be no impacts to sensitive uses.

The second type of short‐term noise impact is related to noise generated during site preparation and the construction of the proposed project. The proposed project would include phased construction, which would consist of a demolition phase from 2023 to 2024, grading phase from 2024 to 2025 and building construction from 2025 to 2026. Overall, construction of the propos
ed project is anticipated to last approximately 30 months. Construction would be undertaken in discrete steps, each of which would have its own mix of equipment, and consequently its own noise characteristics. These
various sequential phases would change the
character of the noise generated on the project site. Therefore, the noise levels would vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction‐related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.

Table F lists the maximum noise levels from the Highway Construction Noise Handbook recommended for noise impact assessments for the loudest anticipated construction that would be used for the project based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise recept
or. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one to two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings.

384
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 121

Table F: Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels (Lmax) Type of Equipment Acoustical
Usage Factor
Suggested Maximum Sound Levels
for Analysis (dBA Lmax at 50 ft)
Air Compressor 40 80
Backhoe 40 80
Crane 16 85
Dozers 40 85
Excavator 40 85
Forklift 20 85
Generator 50 80
Grader 40 85
Loader 40 80
Paver 50 85
Roller 20 85
Scraper 40 85
Skid Steer Loader 40 80
Tractor 40 84
Trencher 50 82
Water Truck 40 84
Source: Highway Construction Noise Handbook (FHWA 2006). dBA = A‐weighted decibel
FHWA = Federal Highway Administration
ft = foot/feet
HP = horsepower
Lmax = maximum noise level

Each piece of construction equipment operates as an individual point source. Utilizing the following equation, a composite noise level can be calculated when multiple sources of noise operate simultaneously:

𝐿𝑒𝑞 ሺ𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒ሻ ൌ 10 ∗ logଵ଴ ൭෍ 10
௅௡
ଵ଴
௡
ଵ
൱
Table G shows the composite noise levels of the two loudest pieces of equipment for each construction phase, at a distance of 50 feet from the construction area.

Once composite noise levels are calculated, reference noise levels can then be adjusted for distance using the following equation:

𝐿𝑒𝑞 ሺ𝑎𝑡 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑋ሻ ൌ𝐿 𝑒 𝑞 ሺ𝑎𝑡 50 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑡ሻ െ 20 ∗ lo gଵ଴ ൬ 𝑋 50൰
In general, this equation shows that doubling the distance would decrease noise levels by 6 dBA while halving the distance would increase noise levels by 6 dBA. 385
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 122

Table G: Equipment Noise by Construction Phase
Construction Phase Loudest Equipment Composite Noise Level at (dBA Leq at 50 ft)
Demolition Excavator 88 Dozer
Grading Excavator 88 Grader
Building Construction Crane 88 Forklift
Paving Paver 88 Roller
Architectural Coating Air Compressor 80
Sources: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (2021). Construction Noise Handbook (FHWA 2006). dBA = A‐weighted decibel
FHWA = Federal Highway Administration
ft = foot/feet
Lmax = maximum noise level

According to the construction schedule, the phases of construction include: (1) demolition; (2) grading; (3) building construction; (4) paving; and (5) architectural coating. To provide a conservative estimate, the noise levels were calculated from the edge of the project site, whereas the construction activities would cover the entire site and often be further from sensitive receptors
. Based on the typical construction equipment noise levels shown in Table G, noise levels associated with these pieces of construction equipment operating simultaneously would be approximately 88 dBA Leq at 50 feet.

The closest sensitive receptors to the project site include the residence located approximately 710 feet east of the project site along Collier Canyon Road, resulting in short‐term noise levels of approximately 65 81 dBA Leq.

Construction equipment would operate at various locations throughout project site and construction activities at any one receptor location would occur for a limited duration. While construction‐related short‐term noise levels have the potential to be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project area, the noise impacts would no longer occur onc e project construction is completed.

As compared to the EDSP EIRs, the proposed project would generate similar noise levels during construction and would implement the previously required mitigation measures, Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 3.10/5.0, to reduce construction related impacts to a less‐than‐ significant level. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed project would not result in any new or mo
re severe impacts compared to those identified in the EDSP EIRs.
386
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 123

Long‐Term Off‐Site Traffic Noise Impacts. The EDSP EIRs identified the sources of major noise affecting the EDSP area to be vehicular traffic stemming from I‐580. The proposed project is estimated to generate an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 2,630. The EDSP EIRs identified a potentially significant impact for future roadway noise as a result of the build out of the EDSP, which includes the proposed project. Implementation of mitigation meas ures within the EDSP EIRs reduces this impact to an insignificant level.

Long‐Term Off‐Site Operation‐Related Noise Impacts. Noise impacts associated with the long‐ term operation of the project must comply with the noise standards specified in the City’s Municipal Code, which sets a 50 dBA Leq standard for residential land uses. Stationary noise generated by the proposed project include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, parking lot activities, and truck delivery and truck unloading activities.

Parking Lot and Loading Activities. Of the on‐site stationary noise sources during operation of the project, noise generated by delivery truck activity would generate the highest maximum noise levels. Typical parking
lot activities, such as people conversing or doors slamming, would generate noise levels of approximately 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet, while delivery truck loading and unloading activities would result in maximum noise levels generate a noise level of 75 dBA Lmax at 50 feet based on measurements previously conducted by LSA.

The proposed industrial park uses could include loading activities, which could generate potential noise sources that could affect noise‐sensitive receptors in the project site vicinity.

However, as discussed above, the closest off‐site sensitive receptors to the project site includes the residence located
approximately 710 feet east of the project site along Collier Canyon Road.

At this distance, loading and unloading activities would only result in maximum noise levels generate a noise level of 52 dBA Lmax. Peak noise levels from loading and unloading would be intermittent and when averaged over one hour, these sources would not exceed the City’s 50 dBA Leq standard for residential land uses.
387
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 124

Mechanical Equipment. In addition, adjacent off‐site land uses would be potentially exposed to stationary‐source noise impacts from HVAC equipment proposed with the project. The project is expected to have HVAC units serving each building of the project site. The HVAC equipment could operate 24 hours per day. One HVAC unit would generate a noise level of 72 dBA Leq at

3.3 feet, based on manufacturer testing of typical equipment for such uses. However, based on the distance of 710 feet, the noise level associated with the operation of the proposed HVAC equipment would be well below the City’s 50 dBA Leq exterior noise standard for mechanical equipment. Therefore, the project would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or any other applicable standards.

Land Use Compatibility. The EDSP EIRs evaluated the noise compatibilit y of future development and found that depending on the location of new land uses that may be constructed, future noise levels within some portions of the Project Area could be incompatible with such uses.

Therefore, the EDSP EIRs identified Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0, 3.10/3.0, 3.10/6.0 and Supplemental Measures SM‐NOISE‐1, SM‐NOISE‐2 (future roadway noise affecting proposed residential de
velopment), SM‐NOISE‐3 (compatibility of school and neighborhood park with future roadway noise), and SM‐NOISE‐4 (noise from Upper Loop Road affecting existing residences) to reduce future roadway noise and exposure of proposed residential development to noise.

The City sets forth normally acceptable noise level standards for land use compatibility and interior noise exposure of new development. The normally acceptable exterior noise level for residential land uses is up to 60 dBA CNEL. Noise levels of 61 to 70 dBA CNEL are considered conditionally acceptable when a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements is made and needed nois
e insulation features included in the design. Noise levels between 71 and 75 dBA CNEL are considered normally acceptable and noise levels over 75 dBA CNEL are considered clearly unacceptable. The normally acceptable interior noise level for residential land uses is 45 dBA CNEL. For industrial land uses, the normally acceptable exterior noise level for residential land uses is up to 70 dB
A CNEL. Noise levels of 71 to 75 dBA CNEL are considered conditionally acceptable and noise levels over 75 dBA CNEL are considered normally unacceptable.

The noise environment at the project site is dominated by vehicle traffic noise on I‐580. Based on Figure 9‐2 of the City of Dublin General Plan, traffic nois e levels on the project site are
between 60 and 70 dB CNEL. Based on the City’s noise and land use compatibility standards, this noise level is considered conditionally acceptable for residential land uses and normally acceptable for industrial land uses. Therefore,
the proposed project would be required to
comply with Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0, 3.10/6.0, Supplemental Measure SM‐NOISE‐1, and Supplemental Measure SM‐NOISE‐2 (future roadway noise affecting proposed residential development).
388
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 125

Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0 requires an acoustical study be submitted with all residential development projects located within the CNEL 60 contours. Mitigation Measure 3.10/6.0 requires preparation of noise management plans as part of development application for all mixed‐use projects in which residential units would be combined with commercial, office, or other urban non‐residential uses. Su
pplemental Measure SM‐NOISE‐1 requires a noise
insulation plan for general commercial and industrial land uses to be submitted for all such development projects located within the CNEL 70 dBA contour. Supplemental Measure SM‐ NOISE‐2 (future roadway noise affecting proposed residential development) requires an acoustical study be prepared to show how reside
ntial development will meet indoor noise
levels of 45 dBA CNEL and outdoor noise levels of 60 dBA CNEL. Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0, Supplemental Measure SM‐NOISE‐3 (compatibility of school and neighborhood park with future roadway noise), and Supplemental Measure SM‐NOISE‐4 (noise from Upper Loop Road affecting existing residences) would not be applicable to the proposed project based on the project site lo
cation and proposed land uses.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0, 3.10/6.0, Supplemental Measure SM‐ NOISE‐1, and Supplemental Measure SM‐NOISE‐2 (future roadway noise affecting proposed residential development), the proposed project would achieve an acceptable interior and exterior nois
e level in accordance with the land use compatibility guidelines of the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan.
(b) Generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise Construction of the proposed project could result in the generation of groundborne vibration.

This construction vibration impact analy
sis assesses the potential for building damages using
vibration levels in peak particle velocity (in/sec PPV). The criteria for environmental impacts resulting from ground‐borne vibration are based on the maximum levels for a single event. The guidelines within the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Manual have been used to determine vibration impacts (refer to Table H, below).

Table H: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.50 Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.30
Non‐engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.20
Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018), Table 12‐3.

FTA = Federal Transit Administration
in/sec = inches per second

PPV = peak particle velocity

The FTA Manual guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.2 in/sec PPV is considered safe for non‐engineered timber and masonry buildings and would not result in any construction 389
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 126

vibration damage. Therefore, in order to be conservative, the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold has been used when evaluating vibration impacts at the nearest structures to the site.

Table I shows the PPV values at 25 feet from a construction vibration source. Bulldozers and other heavy‐tracked construction equipment (except for vibratory rollers) generate approximately 0.089 in/sec
PPV of groundborne vibration when measured at 25 feet.

Table I: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment Equipment Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 feet
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Hoe Ram 0.089
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Sources: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2018). in/sec = inches per second

PPV = peak particle velocity

Construction vibration, similar to vibration from other sources, would not have any significant effects on outdoor activities (e.g., those outside of residential buildings in the project vicinity).

While vibration from construction activity was not assessed in the EDSP EIRs, the proposed project is expected to include the use of heavy equipment similar to a large bulldozer. The distance to the nearest buildings for
vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest off‐site buildings and the project disturbance areas because vibration impacts occur normally within the buildings. The formula for vibration transmission is provided below.

PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
The closest structure to the project site includes the residence located approximately 710 feet east of the project site along Collier Canyon Road. At this distance, the closest structure would experience vibration levels of approximately 0.001 in/sec PPV with the use of heavy equipment at the property line. Based on this analysis, vibration levels would not exceed any of the established guidelines consider
ed for damage potential. In addition, short‐term construction impacts related to ground‐borne vibration or ground‐borne noise would be minimal and temporary in nature and would cease upon construction.

Once operational, increased traffic on I‐580 and project area roadways also could increase groundborne vibration
caused by the passage of heavy trucks or equipment along nearby streets. As such, implementation of Supplemental Measure NOISE‐2 was identified to reduce groundborne vibration from increased levels of heavy traffic to less than significant. With implementation of Measure SM‐NOISE‐2, the proposed project result in less‐than‐significant operational vibration impacts.
390
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 127

(c) Excessive noise level near an airport
The project site is located approximately 0.5‐mile northwest of the Livermore Municipal Airport. Aircraft noise is occasionally audible at the project site; however, no portion of the project site lies within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of this airport nor does any portion of the project site lie within two miles of any other
airfield or heliport. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would
require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified noise impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs there
would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to noise beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
Dublin, City of. 2017. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of November 21, 2017).

Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stag e 1 Development Plan and
Annexation. March.

Dublin, City of. 2020. Municipal Code. December.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Highway Construction No ise Handbook.

Roadway Construction Noise Model, FHWA‐HEP‐06‐015. DOT‐VNTSC‐FHWA‐06‐02. NTIS No. PB2006‐109012. August
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Office of Planning and Environment. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA Report No. 0123. September.

Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Repo rt, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November.

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016).
391
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 128

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.

December 7.

392
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 129

Population and Housing
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact
Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact than
Identified in the
EDSP EIRs

13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
X
Environmental Setting
According to the City of Dublin General Plan, in 2010, Dublin’s total population was estimated at 46,036 and represented 17 percent of the 269,437 residents in the Tri‐Valley area. Data from the 2020 United States Census indicates that Dublin’s total population has grown to 72,589 and 24,426 housing units.

The project site consists of approximately 32 acres of undeveloped grazing ranchland and open space and 8 acres of developed rural residential development, consisting of three residential units, a barn, several sheds and outdoor storage areas used as part of a landscape contractor business located
in the southern portion of the property.

Previous CEQA Documents
Eastern Dublin EIR
Section

3.2 in the Eastern Dublin EIR provides the demographics, housing and employment context for the EDSP. The Eastern Dublin EIR provided a program‐level analysis of the development potential envisioned for the EDSP Area, including the increased development potential in the City, the Tri‐valley area, and the entire San Fran cisco Bay Area. The Eastern Dublin EIR specifically evaluated new development potential in the EDSP Area of up to 17,970 residential units and approximately 12 million square feet of non‐residential space, including approximately 5 million square feet of commercial, 4 million square feet of office, and 2 million square feet of industrial park. No impacts relat
ed to population or displacement of existing
housing were identified. Growth‐inducing impacts associated with implementation of the EDSP were evaluated in Section 5.2 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Growth‐inducing impacts were identified for utilities and community services.
393
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 130

2002 SEIR
The 2002 SEIR identified no supplemental impacts resulting from the EDPO project because population growth associated with the EDPO would not be beyond that anticipated or planned for in the City of Dublin General Plan and the EDSP.

Fallon Village SEIR
No additional impacts or mitigation were identified in the Fallon Village SEIR.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Populatio
n growth
The site is identified in the General Plan and the EDSP for residential and industrial development and the proposed density and intensity of development is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation. The extension of infrastructure onto the project site, including roadways and utilities that would only serve the proposed dev elopment, would not
contribute to or cause additional growth to occur outside of the City boundaries or elsewhere within the vicinity of the project site, as the project site is surrounded by other properties that have been designated for development in the City’s General Plan, EDSP and subsequent planning documents.

The proposed project would generate housing‐related population growth by developing up to 97 residential dwelling units at the project site, which is consistent with the number of residential units considered and approved as part of the EDSP EIRs. According to the U.S.

Census date, between 2016 and 2020, the City had an average of 2.99 persons per househ old.

Based upon an average of 2.99 persons per household, and with up to 97 proposed residential units, the proposed project would increase the City’s population by approximately 290 residents. Based on population estimates prepared for Plan Bay Area 2050,10 this increase represents about 0.51 percent of the City’s total estimated 2015 population (56,165). The estimated population generated by the project (290 residents) would represent approximately

0.35 percent of the City’s projected 2040 population (83,595). The population growth anticipated between 2010 and 2040 is expected to be 36,915; population associated with the project would repres
ent 0.78 percent of the anticipated growth. The amount of residential development proposed as part of the current project is consistent with the population growth anticipated in the City’s General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the Fallon Village project approvals. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth.

10 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2018. Plan Bay Area Projections 2040. May.
394
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 131

In addition, the proposed project would result in development of 527,773 square feet of IP
uses, which is an increase of 155,771 square feet from that considered and approved as part of the EDSP EIRs. Per the City’s General Plan, the allowed employee density within the IP land use designation is 590 square feet per employee. Therefore, the proposed project could provide employment opportunities for up to 894 employees at the project site or 264 additional employees than previously approved. According to the United States Census Bureau,
approximately 90 percent of Dublin residents worked outside of the City, while 10 percent of Dublin residents both live and work within the City limits. Using this estimate, approximately 26 additional employees generated by the proposed project woul d require housing within the City
or would move to the City solely for reasons of employment. These 26 employees could be accommodated by the residential development proposed as part of the project, other residential development nearby (e.g., East Ranch, Righetti project), or residential development being constructed elsewhere
in the City.

The project site is designated as IP, which is intended to provide for a wide variety of minimum‐ impact, light industrial uses. Because it is anticipated that uses within the IP designation would provide employment, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area.

The proposed project would not induce substantial unanticipated population growth in the City,
and the population increase would fall within the increase identified in the City’s General Plan, including the Housing Element, the EDSP, and the Fallon Village Project approvals. (b) Housing and resident displacement
The project site contains four existing residences and various agricultural out‐buildings. The EDSP EIRs determined tha
t due to the limited number of current residents, development of the project site would not displace substantial number of existing housing units or people; therefore, no impact was identified.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial change s that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified population and housing impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.

There are no applicable regulatory requirements or mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs that are
applicable to population and housing and there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to population and housing beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met.

Therefore, no further environmental review is required. 395
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 132

Source(s)
Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2018. Plan Bay Area Projections 2040. May.

Dublin, City of. 2017. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of November 21, 2017).

Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and

Annexation. March.

Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. QuickFacts, Dublin city website:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/dublincitycalifornia/PST040221 (accessed July 21, 2022).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. Longitudinal Employer‐Household Dynamics Origin‐Destination Employment Statistics (2002‐2019). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal‐ Employer Ho
usehold Dynamics Program, accessed on June 20, 2022, at https://onthemap.ces.census.gov. LEHD Origin‐Destination Employment Statistics Version 7.5
Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016).

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.

December 7.

396
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 133

Public Services
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues

New Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact
Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified in
the EDSP EIRs

14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?   X
b) Police protection?   X
c) Schools?   X
d) Parks?   X
e) Other public facilities?   X
Environmental Setting
The proposed project is located within the City of Dublin and is served by the following existing public services.

Fire Protection
Fire suppression, emergency medical and rescue services, and other life safety services are provided to the project area and site by the Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD). There are three fire stations in Dublin, with the closest to the project sit e being Fire Station No. 18 at
4800 Fallon Road, approximately 4.4 miles northwest. Back up service to the Project area would be provided by Fire Station 17, located at 6200 Madigan Road in Dublin.

Police Protection
The Alameda County Sherriff’s Office provides contracte d police protection to the project area and project site. The Dublin Police Services headquarters are located at 6361 Clark Avenue, west of the project site.

Schools
The project site is served by the Dublin Unified School District, which operates seven elementary, two middle, one K‐8, one comprehe nsive high school, and one continuation high 397
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 134

school, within the City of Dublin. The closest schools to the project site include Fallon Middle School, Jose Maria Amador Elementary School, and Cottonwood Creek K‐8 School.

Parks
The City’s Public Works Department oversees the maintenance of parks and recreational facilities throughout the City.

Library Services
The Dublin Library is operated by Alameda
County Library, with additional funding from the City
of Dublin. The Dublin Public Library is located at 200 Civic Plaza, southwest of the project site.

Previous CEQA Documents
Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to increased demand for police and fire protection services, fire response to outlying areas, exposure to wildlands hazards, increased demand for schools and school overcrowding, increased demand for parks and impacts on existing park and trail facilities. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce potential impacts to a less‐than‐significant level. The following mitigation measures would be applicable to the proposed project:

MM 3.4 / l .0 (Policy 8‐4). Provide additional personnel and facilities and revise "beats" as needed in order to establish and maintain City standards for police protection service
in Eastern Dublin.

MM 3.4/2.0 (Action Program 8D). Coordinate with the City Police Department regarding the timing of annexation and proposed development, so that the Department can adequately plan for the necessary expansion of services to the area.

MM 3.4/3.0 (Action Program 8E). Incorporate into the requirements of project approval Police Department recommendations on project design that affect traffic safety and crime prevention.

MM 3.4/5.0 Police Review of Proposed Projects. As a part of the development approval process in
Eastern Dublin, the City shall require the Police Department to review and respond to the planned development with respect to:
 Project design layout relating to visibility, security and safety.  Project circulation system and access issues.
 Project implications for emergency response times.
398
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 135

Prior to final approval of non‐residential development and improvement plans, the City Police Department shall review the proposed use, layout, design, and other project features for police surveillance/ access, security devices, such as alarms and lighting, visibility, and any other police issues or concerns.

MM 3.4/7.0 (Program 8F). Establish appropriate funding mechanisms (e.g., Mello Roos District, dev
eloper financing with reimbursement agreements, etc.) to cover up‐front costs of capital improvements (i.e., fire stations and related facilities and equipment).

MM 3.4/9.0 (Program 8H). Incorporate DRFA recommendations on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention into the requirements for development
approval. Require that the following DRF A design standards are incorporated where appropriate:
 Use of non‐combustible roof materials in all new construction.  Available capacity of 1,000 GPM at 20 PSI fire flow from project fire hydrants on public water mains. For groupings of one‐family and small two‐family dwellings not exceedi
ng two stories in height, the fire flow requirements are a minimum of 1,000 GPM. Fire flow requirements for all other buildings will be calculated based on building size, type of construction, and location.  A buffer zone along the backs of homes, which are contiguous with the wildland area. This buffer zone is to be landscaped with
irrigated (wet banding) or
equivalent fire‐resistive vegetation.
 Automatic fire alarm systems and sprinklers in all nonresidential structures for human use.
 Compliance with DRF A minimum road widths, maximum street slopes, parking recommendations, and secondary access road requirements.  Require residential structures outside the DRFA's established response time and zone to include fire alarm systems and sprinklers.

MM 3.4/17.0 (Policy 8‐3). Ensure that new development in Eastern Dublin, including both residential and non‐residential development, fully mitigates the impact of such growth on school facilities.

MM 3.4/29.0 (Policy 4‐29). Ensure, as part of the approval process, that each new development provide its fair share of planned open space, parklands and trail corridors.

399
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 136

MM 3.4/31.0 (Action Program 4N). Calculate and assess in‐lieu park fees based on the City's parkland dedication ordinance. Credit toward parkland dedication requirements will only be given for level or gently sloping areas suitable for active recreation use. 2002 SEIR
The 2002 SEIR did not identify any potentially significant supplemental impac ts associated with fire and police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities.

Fallon Village SEIR
The Fallon Village SEIR did not identify any potentially significant supplemental impacts related to public services.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Fire protection
The Fallon Village SEIR determined that the additional residential development proposed as part of the Fallon Village project was assumed as part of the Eastern Dub lin EIR and that the
amount of additional non‐residential development could be accommodated with existing fire personnel and facilities. The proposed project would include development of up to 97 residential units and approximately 527,773 square feet of industrial use on the project site, resulting in approximately 155,771 square feet of industrial use and 264 additional employees than were analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. Development of this additional square footage of non‐ residential use could incrementally increase demand for fire protection services. However, the proposed project is required to adhere to the CBC, the Calif ornia Fire Code and City of Dublin codes, ordinance and regulations to minimize fire hazards, including fire prevention and suppression measures; fire hydrants and sprinkler systems; emergency access; and other similar requirements. ACFD would continue to provide services to the project site and would not require additional firefighters to serve the proposed project. The demand for fire protection
services resulting from the proposed project would not require the construction of new or alteration of existing fire protection facilities to maintain an adequate level of fire protection service. No physical impacts associated with the provision of fire protection services would occur.
(b) Police protection
The Fallon Village SEIR determined that the addition of 1,081,725 square feet of non‐residential land within the Project area would result in an increased number of calls for service to the Dublin Police Department, primarily related to traffic violations and burglary/ theft. However, the addition of the non‐residential square footag
e, in and of itself, would not cause the need to
construct new or expanded Police buildings or other facilities that would result in a supplemental impact. Therefore, no supplemental impacts were identified. 400
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 137

The proposed project would include development of up to 97 residential units and approximately 527,773 square feet of industrial use on the project site, resulting in approximately 155,771 square feet of industrial use and 264 additional employees than were analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. The increased demand for police protection services resulting from the propose
d project would not be substantial compared to the level of service identified in the prior environmental review and would not require the construction of new or alteration of existing police protection facilities to maintain an adequate level of police protection service.

No physical impacts associated with the provision of police protecti on services would occur. (c) Schools
The Fallon Village SEIR determined that the number of students expected to be generated by dwelling units from the Fallon Village Project is below the number of students based on student generation rates used in the Eastern Dublin EIR analysis; therefore, no supplemental impa cts related to student generation, or the number of students were identified. In addition, the Fallon Village SEIR determined that adequate facilities have been planned in the Eastern Dublin area to accommodate students anticipated to be generated by the Fallon Village Project.

The number of residential units proposed as part of the current project are consistent with those assumed
in the EDSP EIRs. Appropriate developer impact fees, as required by State law, would be assessed and paid by the project applicant to offset any impact to school facilities, consistent with Mitigation Measure 3.4/17.0 identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. (d) Parks
The Fallon Village SEIR dete
rmined that the number, location and size of proposed parks would be sufficient to meet City of Dublin standards and would be consistent with the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Further, developers within the Fallon Village Project area would be required to pay Public Facility Fees to the City of Dublin for individual developments that do not meet City park dedication standards, consistent with Mitigation Measure 3.4/31.0 in the Eastern Dublin EIR. As described above, the number of residential units proposed as part of the current project area consistent with those assumed in the EDSP EIRs. The increase in
non‐residential use resulting from the proposed project would not generate significant demand for additional parks or recreation facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a substantial increase in the population necessitating either construction of new or alteration of existing park facilities to maintain an adequate level of se rvice. No physical
impacts associated with the provision of park services would occur. (e) Other public facilities
Residents served by the proposed project would likely patronize public facilities such as local library branches operated by the Alameda Co unty Library. However, as described above these residents are within the population assumptions evaluated and approved as part of the EDSP 401
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 138

EIRs; therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to increase the number of library patrons utilizing public facilities.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity
of the previously identified public services impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to public services beyond what has been analyzed in the previous
EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA
standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
Dublin, City of. 2017. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of November 21, 2017).

Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stag e 1 Development Plan and
Annexation. March.

Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November.

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September
20, 2016).

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.

December 7.

402
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 139

Recreation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified in
the EDSP EIRs

15. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
Environmental Setting
The City of Dublin has a variety of recreational facilities including neighborhood parks, community parks, community facilities, a senior center, open space areas and a series of trail networks. According to the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the City of Dublin currently has 18 parks, five deeded park sites, and six school parks and City‐owned open space areas that account for nearly 233 acres of dedicated open space and developed park land. In addition, the City has over 59 acres of undeveloped parkland that has either been offered for dedication by landowners or acquired by the City. In addition, the East Bay Regional Park District (EB
RPD) operates the Dublin Hills Regional Park, a large open space park with regional trail connections. The Iron Horse Trail runs along the Union Pacific/Southern Pacific Railroad right‐of‐way, connecting Dublin, the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and the City of Pleasanton.

Previous CEQA Documents
Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially sign
ificant impacts related to increased demand
for park facilities, fiscal impacts associated with the provision of new park and recreation facilities and impacts on the regional trail system and open space connections. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. The following mitigation measures would be applicable to the proposed project:

MM 3.4/29.0 (Policy 4‐29). Ensure, as part of the approval process, that each new development provide its fair share of planned open space, parklands and trail corridors.

403
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 140

MM 3.4/31.0 (Action Program 4N). Calculate and assess in‐lieu park fees based on the City's parkland dedication ordinance. Credit toward parkland dedication requirements will only be given for level or gently sloping areas suitable for active recreation use. 2002 SEIR
Impacts to existing recreation facilities were addressed in the Initial Study for the 2002 SEIR. No potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures were identified.

Fallon Village
SEIR
The Fallon Village SEIR evaluated the adequacy of parkland proposed as part of the Fallon Village Project relative to the City’s requirements. The Fallon Village SEIR determined that the location and sizes of community and neighborhood parkland proposed as part of the Fallon Village Project was consistent with
the current City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan so there would be no significant supplemental impacts with regard to provision of City parks.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Increase the use of existing recreation facilities causing deterioration As discussed in Section 14.d, implem
entation of the proposed project, which would provide up to 97 residential units consistent with the level of residential development evaluated in the EDSP EIRs. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase the demand for park and recreation facilities. Similarly, the proposed project would not increase the use of existing neig
hborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. (b) Propose, require new facilities that cause physical effect The proposed project would not include construction of recreational facilities nor is it required to construct or expand re
creational facilities.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified recreat
ion impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to recreation impacts beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for
supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
404
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 141

Source(s)
Dublin, City of. 1985. City of Dublin General Plan. February 11. (Amended November 21, 2017).

Dublin, City of. 2015. City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March.

Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Repo rt,
State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November.

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016).

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.

December 7.

405
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 142

Transportation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact
Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified in
the EDSP EIRs

16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Environmental Setting
The following section describes the existing conditions of the study area, including roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian networks. The information provided below is summarized from the Transportation Impact Review provided in Appendix G.

Roadway Network
The roadway network surrounding the project site is described in the following section.

Freeways
Interstate 580 (I‐580) is a generally east‐west freeway that runs south of the project site. I‐580 connects the San Francisco Bay Area to the west and the City of Livermore to the east. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the project is 65 miles per hour (mph). Express lanes are present in
both directions and are in effect Monday through Friday from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 406
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 143

Arterials/Collectors/Local Roadways
Dublin Boulevard is a six‐lane divided east‐west roadway that extends west of the project site.

Dublin Boulevard is classified in the City’s General Plan11 as an arterial between its western limits and Tassajara Road and classified as a collector between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road (as well as the proposed extension to North Canyons Parkway). On‐street parking is not permitted along this roadway and the posted speed limit is 45 mph in the vicinity of the project.

Dublin Boulevard is proposed to be extend
ed connecting from its current terminus at Fallon
Road to North Canyons Parkway in Livermore.

Central Parkway is a two‐lane divided east‐west roadway that extends west from Croak Road west of the project to Sterling. The roadway generally runs through residential land uses and provides access to Cottonwood
Creek K‐8 School near the project. Central Parkway is classified as an arterial between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and as a collector for its remaining extent. On‐street parking is permitted east of Sunset View Drive near the project and in other segments abutting residential land uses. The posted speed limit is 25 mph in vicinity of the project. Central Parkway would be extended wit
h the project to provide a connection to the
transportation network for the residential portion.

Croak Road is a north‐south roadway that is currently not accessible to the public near the project site. Croak Road connects to Fallon Road near I‐580, Central Parkway at its eastern
terminus, and Terracina Drive. The roadway is classified as a local residential roadway between Central Parkway and Positano Parkway. Once the Dublin Boulevard extension is constructed, Croak Road will connect Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway.

Fallon Road/El Charro Road is a north‐south divided roadway that widens from four lanes south of Central Parkway to six lanes to the north; south of I‐580, Fallon Road becomes El Charro Road within the City of Pleasanton. Fallon Road is classified as an arterial roadway near the project site. The roadway primarily serves residential land uses within the City of Dublin, with some retail located near I‐580. On‐street parking is not permitted along this roadway. The posted speed limit is 45 mph in the vicinity of the project.

Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard is an east‐west roadway located south of I‐580; the roadway is Stoneridge Drive within the City of Pleasanton and Jack London Boulevard within the City of Livermore. Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard is classified as an arterial between Foothill Road and its eastern limits. On‐street parking is not permitted along this roa dway. Class II bicycle lanes are present along much of its length. The posted speed limit is 40 mph in the City of Pleasanton (Stoneridge Drive) and increases to 45 mph in the City of Livermore (Jack London

11 The City of Dublin General Plan. Chapter 5: Land Use and Circulation – Circulation and Scenic Highways Element. Amended 2022. https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7799/Chapter‐5‐May‐ 2020?bidId=
407
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 144

Boulevard). Stoneridge Drive is a 4 to 6‐lane roadway; Jack London Boulevard varies from 2 to 6 lanes.

Tassajara Road is a major north‐south roadway in Dublin that connects to Fallon Road/Camino Tassajara to the north and the City of San Ramon and Contra Costa County to the south.

Tassajara Road is classified as an arterial roadway within the City of Dublin; south of I‐580 within the City of Pleasanton, the roadway becomes Santa Rita Road . The roadway varies from
two lanes to five lanes and is divided along its southern portion, between Stoneridge Drive and Dublin Ranch Drive. On‐street parking is not permitted along this roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 mp
h within the study area. Class II bicycle lanes are present, except for on the overpass over I‐580.

Hacienda Drive is a north‐south roadway that provides access to office, residential, and retail land uses such as Hacienda Crossings and Persimmon Place. Hacienda Drive is classified as an arteri
al and ranges from 3 lanes to 6 lanes. On‐street parking is not permitted. The posted speed limit is 35 mph within the study area.

North Canyons Parkway is an east‐west arterial roadway that will connect to the planned Dublin Boulevard
extension at its present western terminus at Doolan Road. The roadway merges with Portola Avenue at Collier Canyon Road. It is a four‐lane, divided road with a posted speed limit of 40 mph near the study area. On‐street parking is generally prohibited and a bicycle lane is present on both sides of the road
. North Canyons Parkway provides access to
commercial and office land uses east of the project site, including several hotels and a Costco Wholesale warehouse.

Airway Boulevard is a north‐south roadway in Livermore that provides access to I‐580 and the Livermore Municipal Airport and connects
to North Canyons Parkway at its northern terminus.

It is classified as an arterial roadway and is a divided six‐lane road north of Kitty Hawk Rd/I‐580 EB off‐ramp. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Class II bicycle lanes are present, excep t for on the overpass over I‐580.

Transit Facilities
The project area is served by Tri‐Valley Wheels, which provides fixed‐route bus service operated by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) to Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and neighboring communities. Wheels also offers a Dial‐A‐Ride Paratransit service to eligible patrons in Dublin, available wherever fixed‐route service is op erating. Three routes
directly serve the area surrounding the project – Route 2, Route 30R (Rapid), and Route 501 (School Route). Currently, Route 30R follows Dublin Boulevard to Fallon Road, where it detours to I‐580 before connecting to North Canyons Parkway. With the extension of Dublin Boulevard, this route is likely to use the extension and directly serve the non‐residential portions of the project which have access via Dublin Boulevard.
408
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 145

The area is also served by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), with the nearest station being Dublin/Pleasanton which is located approximately four miles west of the site. Table J provides details about the bus service that serves the project area.

Table J. Existing Transit Facilities
Route Route
Type Major Destinations Day Times Frequency
2 Fixed
Route
E. Dublin/Pleasanton BART,
Dublin Ranch, Emerald Glen Park,
Fallon Middle School
Weekdays
One AM and one
PM trip to serve
Fallon Middle School
(effective August
2021)
2 per day
30R Rapid
Route
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, East Ave., Livermore
Transit Center, Portola Park and
Ride, Las Positas College, N.

Canyons, Dublin Blvd, E. Dublin
BART, Dublin Civic Center, W.

Dublin BART
Weekdays 5:00 AM to 11:00
PM
Every 30
minutes
Weekends 5:00 AM to 11:00
PM Hourly
501
(A, B, and
C)
School
Route
Positano, Fallon Road, Silvera
Ranch, Tassajara Road, Central
Pwky, Dublin HS
Weekdays
One AM and one
PM trip for each
route
2 per day
Source: wheelsbus.com

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Existing bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site include:
 Fallon Road has Class II facilities that begin north of Dublin Boulevard  Dublin Boulevard generally has Class II facilities west of Fallon Road but are sometimes Class III facilities near major intersections such as the eastbound approach to the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road.
 Central Parkway generally has Class II
facilities east and west of Fallon Road. However,
there is a Class III facility on Central Parkway eastbound between Fallon Road and Sunset View Drive.
 Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard has Class II facilities east and west of El Charro Road.
 Airway Boulevard has Class II bicycle facilities south of the I‐580 interchange but there are no facilities between I‐580 and N. Canyons Parkway. 409
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 146

 N. Canyons Parkway has Class II facilities east of Airway Boulevard Proposed improvements to the bicycle network in the vicinity of the project site primarily include:
 Class I shared use‐pathways on the Dublin Boulevard extension and Croak Road  Class II bicycle lanes on Dublin Boulevard extension, Croak Road, and Fallon Road between Dublin Bouleva
rd and the I‐580 eastbound ramp terminal intersection.
 Class III facilities are proposed along an unconstructed roadway along the north side of I‐580 east of Fallon Road.

Sidewalks are generally provided along both sides of the road in the vicinity of the project exce
pt at the following locations:
 Fallon Road has discontinuous sidewalks on one side of the road or another between Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard and Fallon Gateway. North of Fallon Gateway, sidewalks are only provided on the west side of the road until Central Parkway.  Airway Boulevard does not contain sidewalks along the west side of the road. Similarly, no sidewalk
exists along the south side of N. Canyons Parkway between Doolan Road and Airway Boulevard.

Sidewalks are also proposed on both sides of the Dublin Boulevard extension and Croak Road reconstruction when they are built out.

Previous CEQA Documents
Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially sign
ificant impacts related to increased traffic
associated with implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, including impacts to freeway, intersection, and roadway operations, transit service extensions, and potential safety hazards for pedestrians and bicycles at street crossings. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce most transportation impacts to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures require construction of new roadwa
ys, widening of existing roadways, and improvements to
local freeway facilities to accommodate increased vehicle traffic associated with proposed development in Eastern Dublin.

Several traffic impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable, even with implem
entation of mitigation. These impacts include impacts to I‐580 between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard (Impact 3.3/B), cumulative freeway impacts (Impact 3.3E), impacts to the Santa Rita Road/I‐580 eastbound ramps (Impact 3.3/I) and cumulative impacts to Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3/N). Applicable mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR include:
410
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 147

MM 3.3/2.0 (Policy 5‐21). Require all non‐residential projects with 50 or more employees within the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area to participate in a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program. A TSM program would include strategies to reduce the use of single‐occupant vehicles such as on‐site distribution of transit information and passes, provision of shuttle services to and from
BART stations, participation in regional ridesharing services, preferential parking for vanpools and carpools, and flexible or staggered work hours.

MM 3.3/2.1 The Project shall contribute a proportionate amount to regional transportation mitigation programs as determined by the current study by the Tri‐Valley Transportati
on Council. Regional mitigation measures may include implementation of enhanced rail and feeder bus transit services, construction or upgrading of alternative road corridors to relieve demand on the I‐580 and l‐680 freeways.

MM 3.3/3.0 The Project shall contribute to the construction of auxiliary lanes on l‐580 between Tassajara
Road and Airway Boulevard. The auxiliary lanes would provide LOSE operations between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, and LOS D operations between Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard.

MM 3.3/4.0 The Project should contribute a proportionate share to planned improvements at the l‐580 /I‐680 interchang e and the associated mitigation on adjacent local streets. The improvements would provide additional capacity on I‐680 north of I‐ 580 and would provide LOS D operations.

MM 3.3/5.0 Local jurisdictions shall require that future developments participate in regional transportation mitigation programs as determined by the current study by the Tri‐Valley Transportati
on Council.

MM 3.3/6.0 The City of Dublin shall coordinate construction of additional lanes on all approaches at the intersection. The required lanes on the northbound approach on Dougherty Road include two left‐turn lanes, three through lanes (one more than existing) and one right‐turn lane (one more than existing). The required lanes on the southbound approach on Dougherty Road include two left‐turn lanes (one more than existing), three through lanes (one more than existing) and one right‐turn lane. The required lanes on the eastbound approach on Dublin Boulevard include one left‐turn lane, three through‐lanes
(one more than existing) and one right‐turn lane. The required lanes on the westbound approach on Dublin Boulevard include two left‐turn lanes, three through‐lanes and one right‐turn lane. The Project shall contribute a proportionate share of the improvement costs. The improvements would provide LOS D operation s.

MM 3.3/7.0 The City of Dublin shall coordinate with the City of Pleasanton and Ca/trans to restripe the I‐580 eastbound off‐ramp to provide two left‐turn lanes and one right‐ 411
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 148

turn lanes (existing lanes are one left‐turn lane and two right‐turn lanes). The Project shall contribute a proportionate share of the improvement costs. The improvements would provide LOS C operations.

MM 3.3/8.0 The City of Dublin shall coordinate with Ca/trans to widen the l‐580 westbound off‐ramp to provide two left‐turn lanes and two right‐turn lanes, and to modify the northbound approach to provide three through lanes. The Project shall contribute a proporti
onate share of the improvement costs. The improvements would provide LOS B operations.

MM 3.3/9.0 The City of Dublin shall coordinate with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans to widen th
e l‐580 eastbound off‐ramp to provide two left‐turn lanes and two right‐turn lanes. These improvements would provide LOS E operations. Further improvement to the level of service could be provided by prohibiting left turns from southbound Santa Rita Road to eastbound Pimlico Drive during peak periods. This left‐turn prohibition would require out‐of‐direction travel for drivers wishing to access Pimlico Drive but would provide level of service D operations. The Project shall be required to contribute a proportionate share of the improvement costs.

MM 3.3/ 10.0 The City of Dublin shall coordinate with the Cit y of Livermore to modify the intersection to provide three through‐lanes and a right‐turn lane eastbound, and two left‐turn lanes and two through‐lanes westbound. The Project shall contribute proportionate share of the improvement costs. The improvements would provide LOS operations.

MM 3.3/ 11.0 The City of Dublin shall coordinate with the City of Livermore and Caltrans to widen the Airway Boulevard overcrossing of l‐580 by 12 feet to provide adequate storage for northbound left‐turns and widen of the off‐ramp to provide one left and one left‐right lane. The Project shall contribute a proportionate amount toward the cost of these improvements. Th
e improvements would provide LOS D operations.

MM 3.3/ 12.0 The City of Dublin shall coordinate with Ca/trans to ensure that modifications to the l‐580 interchange at Fallon Road/El Charro Road include provisions for unimpeded truck movements to and from El Charro Road. The Project shall contribute a proportion
ate share of improvement costs.

MM 3.3/ 15.2 The Project shall contribute a proportionate amount to the capital and operating costs of transit service extensions.

MM 3.3/ 16.1 Locate pedestrian and bicycle paths so that their crossings of major arterial streets coincide with signalized street i ntersections, providing a signalized pedestrian and bicycle crossing of the major street.
412
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 149

2002 SEIR
The 2002 SEIR identified potentially significant impacts for several intersections within and outside of the EDPO project area, as well as roadway segments in the project area. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce intersection and roadway impacts to a less‐than‐significant level. In addition, the 2002 SEIR identified cumulative impact s to the Dougherty Road/Dublin
Boulevard intersection, the Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection, and the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection. Mitigation Measures SM‐Traffic‐6, SM‐Traffic‐7, and SM‐ Traffic‐8 were identified to reduce these cumulative impacts; however, the 2002 SEIR determined that these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

SM‐TRAFFIC‐1: Project developers shall contribute a pro‐rata share to the widening of the I‐580 eastbound off‐ramp approach at Hacienda Drive to add a third eastbound left turn lane.

SM‐TRAFFIC‐2: Project developers shall contribute a pro‐rata share to the widening of the northbound Hacienda Drive overcrossing from 3 lanes to 4 lanes including three through lanes and one auxiliary lane that leads exclusively to the I‐580 westbound loop on‐ramp. The westbound loop on‐ramp shall be modified as necessary to meet Caltrans' standards and design criteria. Project developers also shall contribute to widening the westbound off ramp approach to add a third westbound lef t‐turn lane.

SM‐ TRAFFIC‐3: Project developers shall contribute a pro‐rata share to construction which converts the eastbound Santa Rita off‐ramp through lane to a shared left turn/through lane. Project developers also shall contribute to a traffic signal upgrade which includes a westbound right
‐turn overlap from Pimlico Drive.

SM‐TRAFFIC‐4: The Project developers shall install a traffic signal at the Dublin Boulevard/Street D intersection at the time development occurs in this area utilizing this intersection.

SM‐TRAFFIC‐5: The Project developers shall install a traffic signal at the Fallon Road/Proje
ct Road intersection at the time development occurs in this area utilizing this intersection.

SM‐TRAFFIC‐6: Project developers shall contribute a pro‐rata share to configure the eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach to include 1 left‐turn lane, three through lane and two right turn lanes. Project developers shall contribute a pro‐rata shar e to
configure the west bound Dublin Boulevard approach to include three left‐turn lanes, two through lanes, and one shared through/right‐turn lane. Project developers shall contribute a pro‐rata share to configure the northbound Dougherty Road approach to include three left‐turn lanes, three through lanes and two right‐turn lanes. Project 413
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 150

developers shall contribute a pro‐rata share to configure the southbound Dougherty Road approach to include two left turn lanes, three through lanes, and one shared through/right‐turn lane. The I‐580 westbound diagonal on‐ramp from Dougherty Road shall be widened as necessary to include two single‐occupancy vehicle lanes. In addition, the City will monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis, as described below, and will apply appropriate Project conditions based on the results of such monitoring.

SM‐TRAFFIC‐7: The Project developers shall construct
an additional through lane on
northbound Fallon Road (for a total of four through lanes), construct an additional left‐ turn lane on westbound Dublin Boulevard (for a total of three left‐turn lanes) and construct an additional through lane on southbound Fallon Road (for a total of four through lanes). In addition, the City will monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes

on a periodic basis, as described below, and will apply appropriate Project conditions based on the results of such monitoring.

SM‐TRAFFIC‐8: In addition to the above additional lane configurations (in Supplemental Mitigation Traffic 7), the Project devel
opers shall pay studies to assess the feasibility of
locating the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection farther north to allow for a signalized Project intersection between the I‐580 westbound ramps/Fallon Road intersection and the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection (the "auxiliary intersection"). This new Project auxiliary intersection should consist of seven northbound Fallon Road lanes (2 left, 4 through, 1 right), seven southbound Fallon Road lanes (2 left turn, 4 through, 1 right turn), and 4 lanes for the new Project street; in the westbound direction three left turn lanes and a shared through/right turn lane; and in the eastbound
direction, two right‐turn lanes, one through and two left turn lanes. If the studies show that a new Project auxiliary intersection in such location is feasible, the Project developers shall construct such intersection.

SM‐ TRAFFIC‐9: The Project developers shall be responsible for widening Fallon Road between 1‐580 and Dublin Road to its ultimate eight lanes and shall be responsible fo r
widening Fallon Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway to its ultimate six lane width. The Project developers shall be responsible for widening Fallon Road between Central Parkway and Project Road to four lanes. The Project developers also shall be responsible for
widening the Fallon Road overcrossing (between the eastbound and westbound 1‐580 ramps) from four lanes to six lanes.

SM‐TRAFFIC‐10: The Project developers shall be responsible for widening Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road from two lanes to four lanes. 414
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 151

Fallon Village SEIR
The Fallon Village SEIR determined that buildout of the Fallon Village Project area would result in potential impacts to local roadways, impacts to nearby freeways and impacts to transit services. Supplemental impacts were identified for the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection, the Santa Rita Road/1‐580 EB Ramps intersection, the westbound left turn movement from Central Parkway ont
o southbound Hacienda Drive. Supplemental Mitigation
Measures SM‐TRA‐1, SM‐TRA‐2, and SM‐TRA‐3 were identified to reduce intersection impacts associated with the Fallon Village Project; however, the Fallon Village SEIR determined that even with mitigation, the impact to the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection would remain significant and
unavoidable.

The Fallon Village SEIR identified cumulative impacts to freeway segments on I‐580 and I‐680 in the project area and determined that even with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and other improvements proposed by the City of Dublin, impacts to near
by freeways would remain significant and unavoidable. In addition, the Fallon Village SEIR determined that traffic generated by the proposed project on I‐580 and I‐680 would exceed the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency monitoring standards for volumes along these freeways; this impact would also remain significant and unavoidable. The following supplemental mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project:

SM‐TRA‐1 (Project contribution to impact to Dublin/Dougherty intersection). Project developers shall have the following obligations:
a) Advance to the City applicable monies for acquisition of right‐of‐way and construction of the planned improvements at Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard.

The amount of money advanc
ed to the City shall be based on the developer's fair
share of the deficit (spread over those projects which are required to make up the deficit) between funds available to the City from Category 2 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee funds and
the estimated cost of acquiring the right‐of‐way and
constructing the improvements. The City should provide credit for Category 2 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees to the developer for any advance of monies made for the improvements planned for the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection.
b) Pay a pro‐rata
share of the cost to construct the planned improvements at Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard through payment of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. The City of Dublin will implement these improvements.

SM‐TRA‐2 (Project contribution to impact to Santa Rita Road/I‐580 eastbound ramps).

Project developers shall contribute a pro‐rata share of the cost to widen the I‐580 eastbound off‐ramp approach at Sant
a Rita Road to include a third eastbound left turn
lane.
415
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 152

SM‐TRA‐3 (Project contribution to impact at Central Parkway and Hacienda Drive).

Project developers shall contribute a pro‐rata share of the cost to modify the westbound approach on Central Parkway at Hacienda Drive to include two left turn lanes, one through and one right turn lane.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Conflict with applicable transportation plans standards, in cluding bicycle and pedestrian
facilities
Potential conflicts with applicable transportation plans standards, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities are described below.

Trip Generation
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition was used to estimate the number of trips the proposed project would generate. As described in the Branaugh Property Trip Generation Comparison Technical Memorandum (provided in Appendix G), the proposed project including 69 single family dwelling units, 28 multifamily dwelling units and about 528,000 square feet of industrial uses (based on a 0.40 FAR) would generate approximately 2,636 trips per day, as shown in Table K.

Table K. Estimated Trip Generation for the Branaugh Property Based on 2022 Proposed Project ITE Code Amount Unit Daily Rate1 Daily Trip
Generation
Single Family Detached 210 69 DU 9.44 652
Multifamily 220 28 DU 7.32 205
Industrial 130 527.773 KSF 3.37 1,779
Total 2,636
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2022
1Daily Rate from ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition DU = Dwelling Unit
KSF = Thousand Square Feet

The traffic study for the Fallon Village SEIR used the ITE Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition to estimate trip generation for Fallon Village. The four land use categories used and the associated daily trip generation rate from the ITE Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition include:
• Single Family Residential (ITE Code 210 with a daily rate of 9.57 trips per dwelling unit) • Multifamily Residential (ITE Code 220 with a daily rate of 6.72 trips per dwelling unit) 416
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 153

• Retail (ITE Code 820 with a daily rate of 42.94 trips per thousand square feet) • Office/Service (ITE Code 710 with a daily rate of 11.01 trips per thousand square feet) In the Fallon Village SEIR, the residential component of the Branaugh property was listed as medium density residential (6.1 to 14 dwelling units per acre), which is most similar to the multifamily residential land use from the ITE Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition. For the non‐ residential po
rtion of the property, 136,000 square feet was assumed to be retail and 236,000 square feet was assumed to be office. Based on these land uses, the estimated daily trip generation for the Branaugh property in
the Fallon Village SEIR was 9,091 daily vehicle trips.

Table L. Estimated Trip Generation for the Branaugh Property Based on Fallon Village SEIR ITE Code Amount Unit Daily Rate1 Daily Trip
Generation
Multi‐family Residential 220 97 DU 6.72 652
Retail 820 136 KSF 42.94 5,840
Office 710 236 KSF 11.01 2,599
Total 9,091
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2022
1Daily Rate from ITE Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition DU = Dwelling Unit
KSF = Thousand Square Feet
As shown in Tables K and L, the proposed project would generate 6,455 fewer daily vehicle trips compared to the assumptions from the Fallon Village SEIR. Therefore, no new transportation impacts not previously disclosed would be anticipated based on daily trip generation of the Branaugh property.

417
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 154

Transit, Bicycle and Pedestrian Impacts
The proposed project is not anticipated to result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to transit service, bicyclists and bicycle facilities or pedestrians and pedestrian facilities.

The proposed project is not anticipated to interfere with any plans or policies for transit usage in the area such as the Dublin Boulevard Extension project, which will have bus pull outs, bus pads, and passenger pads along the roadway. The project would not construct any off‐site improvements; therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with the construction of transit amenities proposed as part of the Dublin Boulevard Extension or affect plans for transit service in the area.

New bicycle facilities are proposed on the future Dublin Boul evard extension and Croak Road,
which would serve the project site and the proposed project does not include any off‐site improvements that would affect the construction of these facilities.

Both Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard are proposed to be extended to provide access to the project s
ite. These facilities have planned sidewalks on both sides of the road and the proposed project does not include any off‐site improvements that would affect installation of these facilities.
(b) Conflict with CEQA Section 15064.3 (b)
The topic of the project’s contribution to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was not analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. This
impact is not required to be analyzed unless it constitutes new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous environmental documents were certified as complete (Public Reso urces Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163). VMT was known at the time of the certification of these EDSP EIRs and could have been analyzed. A change in regulations for impact analysis under CEQA is not a trigger for further environmental review under supplemental review standards. The impact of increase d traffic was analyzed using other methods (LOS) at the time of certification of the EDSP EIRs. Under CEQA standards, it is not considered new information that requires analysis in a Supplemental EIR or negative declaration.
(c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature Primary access into the residential neighborhood would
be via the proposed extension of
Central Parkway to the north, within the proposed East Ranch (Croak property) development.

Primary access to the IP parcels would be provided by the future Dublin Boulevard extension.

There would be no direct vehicular or pedestrian circulation between the residential uses in the northern portion of the project site and the IP uses to the south. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation between the residential and industrial uses would be provided indirectly via Central Expressway, Croak Road and Dublin Boulevard. The design, construction, and maintenance of 418
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 155

project site access locations, as well, as internal roadways within the project site would be required to be in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code. (d) Result in inadequate emergency access
The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Emergency vehicle access to the residential component of the proposed project would be provided via Central Parkway, wh
ile the industrial component of the proposed project would be accessed via the proposed Dublin Boulevard Extension project that will connect Dublin Boulevard from Fallon Road to North Canyons Parkway in Livermore. The design, construction, and maintenance of project site access locations would be in complian ce with the City’s Municipal Code and would be required to meet all emergency access standards. In addition, through Site Development Review, emergency services would review proposed plans to ensure that emergency vehicle access and circulation is adequate.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified transportation impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to transportation beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
Dublin, City of. 2017. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of November 21, 2017).

Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stag e 1 Development Plan and
Annexation. March.

Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Repo rt, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November.

Kittelson & Associates. 2022. Branaugh Property Trip Generation Comparison Technical Memorandum. December 15.

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016).
419
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 156

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.

December 7.

420
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 157

Tribal Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact
Identified in the
EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs

17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
X
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the 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
.

X
Environmental Setting
As described in Section 5, Cultural Resources, three previous cultural resource studies overlapped the current project site, and another seven were conducted within a half‐mile radius. No archaeological resources are recorded within the project boundaries or within a half‐ mile of the project site.

A request was submitted to the NAHC to search the Sacred Lands File (SLF) for Native American cultural
resources that may be impacted by the proposed project. The NAHC maintains the SLF database and is the official State repository of Native American sacred‐site location records in California. Cody Campagne, NAHC Cultural Resources Analyst, responded to the SLF search request on February 4, 2022, stating that the results were negative and that there were no
known Native American cultural resources in the project site. He noted, however, that “the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area.”
421
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 158

Previous CEQA Documents
The topic of the project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources was not specifically analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. Since certification of the EDSP EIRs, the topic of Tribal Cultural Resources has been added as a new category in the CEQA checklist. However, the Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR and Fallon Village SEIR, a
nalyzed prehistoric and historic resources and
included mitigation measures related to historical and archaeological resources. These measures are listed in the cultural resources section of this Initial Study Checklist.

Because the Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR, and Fallon Village SEIR have been certified, the determination of whether tribal cult ural resources need to be analyzed for this proposed project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). Tribal cultural resources are not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known an
d could not have been known at the time the
previous EIR was certified as complete” (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3)).

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources As described in Section 5, Cultural Resources, the project site does contain a historic‐period farm compl
ex (the Collier Ranch) consisting of four buildings over 50 years old. These buildings were evaluated for significance as a historical resource. However, these resources were determined to be not eligible, either individually or as a group, for inclusion on the CRHR or the NRHP. Alth
ough these existing buildings will be demolished as part of the proposed project, these buildings do not qualify as historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. (b) Significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1
No archaeol
ogical resources were identified on the project site as part of the cultural resources study. Therefore, the City, in its role as lead agency, has determined that the project site is not a resource significant to a California Native American tribe. Development proposed as part of the current project would be consistent with the development previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. As described in
Section 5, Cultural Resources, implementation of Mitigation Measure

3.9/5.0 as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR would reduce any potential impacts to archaeological and/or Native American resources to a less‐than‐significant level.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial change s that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified tribal cultural, nor result in new significant impacts. 422
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 159

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to tribal cultural resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
Dublin, City of. 2017. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of November 21, 2017).

Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114,
East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and
Annexation. March.

Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Repo rt, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November.

LSA, 2021. Historical Resource Evaluation of the Branaugh Property at 1881 Collier Canyon Road, Dublin, Alameda County, California (LSA Project No.: DUB2101.02). November.

LSA, 2022. Cultural Resource Study for the Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Project, Dublin, Alameda County, California (LSA Project No. DUB2101.02, Phase 2).

February.

Wallace Roberts & Todd.
2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016).

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.

December 7.

423
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 160

Utilities and Service Systems
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact
Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs

18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X
Environmental Setting
As outlined in the Project Description, the project site is currently served by overhead electric and communication lines and by sanitary sewer septic systems and on‐site well water. Existing and proposed utility connections are discussed below.

Water
The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) provides water service at the project site.

DSRSD is responsible for
providing both potable and recycled water to the City of Dublin, and the Dougherty Valley area of the City of San Ramon in Contra Costa County. DSRSD’s water service area also includes Camp Parks, the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI), and Alameda County’s Santa Rita Jail. Zone 7 supplies treated potable wat er to DSRSD. Treated potable water 424
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 161

enters DSRSD’s distribution system from five metered turnouts from the Zone 7 transmission system.

To reduce the demand for potable water, DSRSD promotes water recycling and is a member of the WaterReuse Association. In 1995, DSRSD and EBMUD, through a joint powers agreement, formed the DSRSD‐EBMUD Recycled Water Authority (DERWA). DERWA serv es as a wholesaler
to deliver recycled water to DSRSD and EBMUD, who in turn deliver the recycled water to their respective service areas. DERWA’s San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Project (SRVRWP) provides a backbone distribution system that delivers recycled water to both DSRSD and EBMUD distribution systems. DSRSD’s recycled water treatment facilities deliver recycled water to the SRVRWP. Recycled water is produced at DS
RSD’s wastewater treatment plant at the
Recycled Water Treatment Facility (RWTF). The RWTF produces recycled water that meets the California Title 22 requirements for unrestricted reuse.

Wastewater
Wastewater collection and treatment services are also provided by DSRSD for the City of Dublin, City of Pleasanton, Camp Parks, FCI, Santa Rita Jail, and the southern portion of San
Ramon. DSRSD owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant in Pleasanton that has a capacity of 17 million gallons per day (MGD). The existing wastewater service area encompasses approximately 13,340 acres, or 20.85 square miles. Within the wastewater service are
a there are currently 207 miles of gravity mains, one permanent lift station, and one temporary lift station. The permanent lift station has 26 feet of force main.

Stormwater
Drainage and flood control in the Eastern Dublin area is the responsibility of the City of Dublin and Zone 7. Zone 7 is responsible for
master planning, overseeing construction coordination
and maintaining major storm drain channels and culverts in Eastern Dublin. The City has jurisdiction and maintenance responsibility for local storm drains that discharge to the Zone 7 flood control system. Runoff from the project area drains mo stly via overland flow, which eventually collects just north and east of the Fallon Road/I‐580 Interchange where it then flows, via a double box culvert west under Fallon Road.

Electricity
The East Bay Community Energy provides electricity to Dublin over PG&E’s distribution system.

PG&E provides natural gas service to the San Francisco Bay region and serv es the project site.

Solid Waste
The City of Dublin has a Collection Services Agreement with a private solid waste collection company for residential and commercial garbage collection. The City also has comprehensive recycling and organics collection programs. All single‐family residences are provided with three stream collection containers (landfill, recycle, organics) and most commercial and multi‐family 425
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 162

residences subscribe to three‐stream collection service. Beginning January 1, 2022, all service accounts (with a few exceptions) will be required to subscribe to three‐stream collection services due to State legislation (SB 1383).

Solid waste generated within the City is deposited at the Altamont Landfill which has a total estimated perm
itted capacity of 62 million cubic yards. The Altamont Landfill is approximately 26 percent full and is estimated to reach capacity in January 2029.

Previous CEQA Documents
Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potential significant impacts related to lack of a wastewater collection system, extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new developments, limited treatment plant capacity and wastewater disposal capacity, increased energy use for wastewater treatment and wastewater disposal, potential failure of the export disposal system, pump station noise and odors, storage basin odors and potential failure, recycled water system operations, recycled water storage failure, loss of recycled water system pressure, and secondary
impacts from recycled water system operation. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce most wastewater impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts associated with increased energy use for wastewater treatment and disposal were determined to be significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of mitigation. The following mitigation measures would
apply to the proposed project:

MM 3.5/1.0 (Program 9P). Connection to Public Sewers. Require that all development in the Specific Plan area be connected to public sewers. Exceptions to this requirement, in particular septic tank systems, will only be allowed upon receipt of written approval from the Alameda County Environmental Health
Department and DSRSD.

MM 3.5/4.0 (Program 9M). DSRSD Service. Require a "will‐serve" letter from DSRSD prior to permit approval for grading.

MM 3.5/5.0 (Program 9N). DSRSD Standards. Require that design and construction of all wastewater systems be in accordance with DSRSD standards.

The Eastern Dublin EIR also identified potential significant impacts relat ed to overdraft of local
groundwater resources, increased demand for water, additional treatment plant capacity, lack of a water distribution system, inducement of substantial growth, increase in energy usage through operation of the water distribution system, potential water storage reservoir failure, potential loss of system pressure, and potential pump station noise. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce most water impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts associated with increased energy use for water distribution and population growth were determined to be 426
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 163

significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of mitigation. The following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed project:

MM 3.5/25.0 Encourage all developments in the Specific Plan and Project to connect to the DSRSD water system.

MM3.5/26.0 (Program 9A). Water Conservation. Require the following as conditions of project approval in eastern Dublin:
 Use of water‐conserving devices such as low‐flow shower head s, faucets, and
toilets.
 Support implementation of the DSRSD Water Use Reduction Plan where appropriate.
 Water efficient irrigation systems within public rights‐of‐way, median islands, public parks, recreation areas and golf course areas (see Program 9B on Water Recycling).
 Drought
resistant plant palettes within public rights‐of‐way, median islands, public parks, recreation areas and golf course areas.

MM3.5/27.0 (Program 9B). Water Recycling. Require the following as conditions of project approval in eastern Dublin:
 Implementation of DSRSD and Zone 7 findings and recommendations on uses of recycled water to augment existing water supplies.
 Work with
DSRSD to explore use of recycled water in eastern Dublin through potential construction of a recycled water distribution system. Construction of such a recycled water system will require approval of the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation by DSRSD, Zone 7 and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.

MM 3.5/37.0 (Program 9E). DSRSD Standards. Require that design and construction of all water system facility improvements be in accordance with DSRSD standards.

MM 3.5/38.0 (Program 9G). DSRSD Service. Require a "will‐serve" letter from DSRSD prior to grading permit approval.

Potentially significant impacts related to storm
drainage identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR are
described in Section 9.0, Hydrology and Water Quality.
427
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 164

2002 SEIR
The 2002 SEIR did not identify any potentially significant supplemental impacts associated with water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, or other utilities/service systems.

The 2002 SEIR found that the mitigation measures in place from the Eastern Dublin EIR were adequate and that no new mitigation measures were necessary.

Fallon Village SEIR
The Fallon Village SIER identified no additional impacts related to water supply, wastewater collection, wastewater treatment capacity, wastewater disposal systems. Two impacts were identified relative to stormwater drainage, including the potential for stormwater runoff to add potential pollutants to nearby water bodies and would fail to comply with current hydromodification standards and surface water
quality standards. Mitigation measures were
identified to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.

SM‐ SD‐2 (changed surface water quality hydromodification standards). Development within the Project area shall comply with the hydromodification provisions of the Alameda County Clean Water Program as approved by the RWQCB and administered by the City of Dublin. If no Alameda
County Clean Water Program permit has been adopted
at the time individual development proposals are approved by the City the applicant may be required to submit hydrology and hydrologic analyses to identify specific increases in storm water runoff into downstream receiving waters. Such reports will be reviewed by both the Cit
y of Dublin and Zone 7 Water Agency. Development projects will also be required to pay the then‐current Zone 7 Special Drainage Area fee (SDA7‐1) in effect at the time of development.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Require relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas or telecommunications facilities
The proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities beyond that which was already anticipated in the EDSP EIRs.

As outlined in the Project Description, new sanitary sewer lines and water lines would be installed wit
hin the project site and would connect to proposed sanitary sewer mains, potable water and recycled water mains within the future Dublin Boulevard Extension and the future 428
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 165

Central Parkway Extension to the northwest (within East Ranch). The proposed project would also include connections to proposed electricity and natural gas lines within the future Dublin Boulevard Extension and future Central Parkway Extension (within East Ranch).

The project site is currently largely undeveloped and covered in non‐native grassland and, therefore, contains mini
mal impervious surfaces. Upon construction of the proposed project, approximately 60 percent of the project site would be covered with impervious surfaces, and the remaining 40 percent would be covered by pervious surfaces, consisting of the landscaped areas. The proposed project would include approximately 43,151 square feet of bioretention space on the project site that would be used for
stormwater quality control. The proposed
project would include multiple bioretention basins and storm drains throughout the project site, which would connect to downstream hydromodification facilities prior to discharging to existing/proposed stormdrain pipes. Hydromodification vaults would be included on‐site to provide flow duration controls for the project. Proposed storm drainage fa cilities would
conform to the Alameda County C.3 Stormwater Technical guidelines and requirements. Runoff from the proposed project would drain to future Dublin Boulevard Extension and Collier Canyon Road and ultimately to the G3 box culvert along Fallon Road.

On‐site utility infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed project—including water, sanitary sewer, drainage, water quality treatment, and dry utilities (e.g., electricity, natural gas, cable)— would be installed within the project site and would connect to the proposed utility lines within adjacent roadways, which have already been planned and addressed in the EDSP EIRs. (b) Sufficient water supply
The Fallon Village SEIR dete
rmined that the Fallon Village Project was accounted for in the DSRSD’s Final Water Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin as well as the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), and therefore there would be sufficient water supply with existing entitlements. Since the adoption of the Fallon Village SEIR, the DSRSD has updated the UWMP (in 2020), which accounts
for build out of the Eastern Dublin Area, including the project site.

The 2020 UWMP determined that there would be adequate water supplies to meet demand through 2040 with existing entitlements. Additionally, consistent with the DSRSD District Code, the project applicant woul
d be required obtain a certificate of capacity rights from DSRSD, prior to issuance of a building permit. The certificate of capacity rights, which is part of the entitlement review process, ensures the DSRSD can adequately serve the proposed project.

Currently, DSRSD’s primary water supply source is purchased potable water from Zone 7, augmented by recycled water produced at DSRSD’s RWTF. DSRSD also has a groundwater pumping quota (GPQ) from the local groundwater basin, pumped on its behalf by Zone 7, the local groundwater basin manager. Imported water from the State Water Project, which is owned and operated by the Department of Water
Resources, is by far Zone 7’s largest water
source, providing approximately 90 percent of the treated water supplied to its customers on 429
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 166

an annual average basis. The proposed project would be served by these systems. DSRSD anticipates the same water supply mix to be available through 2040. With the projects and programs implemented by DSRSD and Zone 7, water supplies are projected to meet demands.

The proposed project would be consistent with the type and intensity of development assumed for the project site in the City’s General Plan,
including the EDSP and accounted for in the
UWMP. As stated in the UWMP, DSRSD can meet its water demand under multiple dry years with diversified supply and conservation measures.
(c) Sufficient wastewater capacity
The Fallon Village SEIR dete rmined that potential development associated with the Fallon Village Project, including the proposed project, would be within the assumptions included in DSRSD’s 2005 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update. Since the adoption of the Fallon Village SEIR, the DSRSD has updated the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (in 2017), which accounts fo
r build out of the project site. The proposed project would be consistent with the type and intensity of development assumed for the project site in the City’s General Plan and accounted for in DSRSD’s Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. (d‐e) Adequate landfill and compliance
Solid waste generated at the project site would be collecte d by Amador Valley Industries (AVI) and transferred to Altamont Landfill. The 2002 SEIR evaluated the capacity of solid waste service providers and disposal facilities to handle solid waste generated by proposed development in the East Dublin area. The 2002 SEIR determined that the Altamont Landfill had over 25 years of capacity
. According to Cal Recycle, Altamont Landfill (01‐AA‐0009), currently has a maximum permitted capacity of 11,150 tons per day and a remaining capacity of 65,400,000 tons. The landfill continues to have sufficient capacity to accommodate level of residential and industrial development proposed as part of the project. Disposal of solid waste would be required to comply with all federal state, and local statutes and regulations
associated with solid waste. This would include providing receptacles for green waste, recyclables, and garbage.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified utilities and service system impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in
the EDSP EIRs there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to utilities and service systems beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no 430
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 167

other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
CalRecycle, 2019. Facility/Site Summary Details: Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery (01‐ AA‐0009). Website: www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/7?siteID=7 (accessed August 23, 2021).

Dublin, City of. 2017. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of November 21, 2017).

Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stag e 1 Development Plan and
Annexation. March.

Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November.

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September
20, 2016).

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.

December 7.

West Yost. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June. Available online at:
www.dsrsd.com/about‐us/library/plans‐studies (accessed June 12, 2022).

West Yost
. 2019. 2017 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. December. Available online at: www.dsrsd.com/about‐us/library/plans‐studies (accessed June 12, 2022).

West Yost. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June. Available online at:
www.dsrsd.com/about‐us/library/plans‐studies (accessed June 12, 2022).

431
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 168

Wildfire
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs

18. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
X
Environmental Setting
As described in Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is not identified as an area of moderate, high, or very high fire hazard severity for the Local Responsibility Area. It is identified as an area of moderate fire hazard severity for the State Responsibility Area, as mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protecti on (CAL FIRE).

Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs did not specifically analyze impacts for wildfires as it was not a separate topic for analysis when the Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR and Fallon Village SEIR were completed. Public services impacts and mitigation measures, some of which relate to the provision of fire services pertain to wildfires, were identified and are discussed in the public services section. 432
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 169

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Impair an emergency response plan
As described above, the project site is located within a moderate hazard severity zone as identified by CALFIRE. The proposed project would be designed to provide adequate access to the site for fire/police/emergency medical service personnel in the event of an emergency at the project si
te. In the event of an emergency on the site, employees and residents could exit the site via Croak Road via the proposed Central Parkway Extension and the future Dublin Boulevard Extension. Once off the project site, employees and residents could access I‐580 to exit the City and region
. The proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
(b) Exposure to wildfire
As described in Section 6, Geology and Soils, elevations on the project site range from approximately 370 feet to approximately 580 feet above sea level. The topography of the project site ranges from relatively flat
in the southern portion near I‐580, to gently rolling hills to the northeast. A slope is proposed between the residential and industrial portion of the site to provide a buffer between the uses. Prevailing winds are typically from the west between February and November and
from the north from November to February in the City.

Consistent with City requirements, a Geologic Hazard and Abatement District (GHAD) would be established. The GHAD would own and maintain improvements and landscape within the wildfire management area, located within the proposed residential lots adjacent to undeveloped open space. These areas would
include fire safe plants and materials. Seasonal
mowing and trimming maintenance would be performed by the GHAD. GHAD would also maintain the slope area and fire access road.

The proposed project would not include any design features that could increase the potential for a wildfire. The proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
(c) Require installation or maintenance of infrastructure As discussed above, the project site is located outside of a VHFHS zone as identified by CALFIRE.

All propos
ed project components including infrastructure, would be located within the boundaries of the project site and impacts associated with the development of the proposed project within the project site have been analyzed herein. Additionally, through Site Development Review, emergency services would review proposed plans to ensure that emergency vehicle access and circulation is adequate.
433
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 170

(d) Exposure to flooding or landslides
As described in Section 6, Geology and Soils, the topography of the project site ranges from relatively flat in the southern portion near I‐580, to gently rolling hills to the northeast. A slope is proposed between the residential and industrial portion of the site to provide a buffer between the uses. As part of the proposed
project, the project site would be graded to flatten
the site, where necessary, to allow for intended future users. Further, as discussed in Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would be required to implement erosion control measures during and
post‐construction. Following project construction, proposed on‐site bioretention basins would limit the release of stormwater from the site; therefore, the project site would not expose people to flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post‐fire slope instability or drainage changes.

Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial change s that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified wildfire impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in
the EDSP EIRs there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to wildfires beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
CAL FIRE. 2020. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Website: egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed June 20, 2022).

Dublin, City of. 2017. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of November 21, 2017).

Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stag e 1 Development Plan and
Annexation. March.

Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November.

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016).
434
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 171

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.

December 7.

435
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 172

Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact
Identified in the
EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP
EIRs

18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project:
a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
X
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
X
c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X

Significant Impacts
As discussed and analyzed in this document, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment. Additionally, for reasons discussed in the Biological Resources section, the proposed project, with mitigation, would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, or reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Further, for the reasons discussed in the Cultural Resources section, the proposed project, with mitigation, would not eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory. Therefore, impl ementation of the proposed
project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area.

436
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Page 173

Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project has the potential to result in incremental environmental impacts that are part of a series of approvals that were anticipated under the EDSP EIRs. The EDSP EIRs considered the project’s cumulatively considerable impacts where effects had the potential to degrade the quality of the environment as a result of build‐out of the EDSP. Implementation of the propose
d project, with mitigation, would not result in any new cumulative impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant cumulative impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental
review is required for this impact area.

Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings
The proposed project would not create adverse environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project would allow for residential and industrial development. These uses or activities would not result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, as
discussed throughout this document. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met .

Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area.

437
SOURCE: ESRI World Street Map (03/20).

I:\DUB2101.02\Maps\Figure 1_Regional Location.mxd (9/8/2021) FIGURE 1
Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development
Regional Location
Project Site
Project Location
0 1000 2000
FEET
438
Collier Canyon RdCollier Canyon Rd
Livermore Outlets Dr
W
olf House Dr
W Jack London BlvdW Jack London Blvd
Freisman RdFreisman Rd
Croak RdCroak Rd
Croak RdCroak Rd
Croak RdCroak Rd
Central PkwyCentral Pkwy
Collier Canyon Rd
Livermore Outlets Dr
W
olf House Dr
W Jack London Blvd
Freisman Rd
Croak Rd
Croak Rd
Croak Rd
Central Pkwy
Las Positas
Golf Course
Commercial
580
Project Site Boundary
10000 500
FEET
SOURCES: Nearmap, 5/22/2021; LSA, 2021
P:\DUB2101.02 Branaugh\PRODUCTS\ Graphics\Figure_2.ai (2/4/2022) FIGURE 2
Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Project
Aerial Photograph of the Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses 439
Collier Canyon RdCollier Canyon Rd
Freisman RdFreisman Rd
Croak RdCroak Rd
Collier Canyon Rd
Freisman Rd
Croak Rd
Parcel 1
Parcel 2
Parcel 3
Parcel 4
580

FUTURE DUBLIN BLVD
Project Site Boundary
Parcel Boundaries (approximate)
10000 500
FEET
SOURCES: Nearmap, 5/22/2021; LSA, 2021
P:\DUB2101.02 Branaugh\PRODUCTS\ Graphics\Figure_3.ai (2/4/2022) FIGURE 3
Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Project
Proposed Parcel Layout
440
FEET
2000 100
SOURCE: MacKay & Somps, 4/26/2022
P:\DUB2101.02 Branaugh\PRODUCTS\ Graphics\Figure_4.ai (7/20/2022) FIGURE 4
Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Project
Overall Site Plan
441

PERPENDICULAR

PARKING

TRAVEL LANDSCAPE/

SIDEWALKPARKINGLANDSCAPE/

SIDEWALK

PERPENDICULAR
FC
FC

LANDSCAPE/

SIDEWALK

LANDSCAPE/

SIDEWALK
FC

TRAVEL TRAVEL
NTS
C
NTS
B
NTS
A
NTS
D

PERPENDICULAR

TRUCK PARKING

TRAVEL LANDSCAPE/

SIDEWALKPARKINGLANDSCAPE/

SIDEWALK

PERPENDICULAR
FC
FC

TRUCK PARKING

MANEUVER ZONE
ROW
ROW

SIDEWALKSIDEWALK LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE

INDUSTRIAL

LANDSCAPE

EASEMENT

LANDSCAPE

EASEMENT
FC

INDUSTRIAL
*STREET SECTION SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND DIFFERS FROM STAGE I PD. FINAL DESIGN TO BE DETERMINED DURING DESIGN PHASE OF THE DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT.

FEET
2000 100
SOURCE: MacKay & Somps, 7/7/2021
P:\DUB2101.02 Branaugh\PRODUCTS\ Graphics\Figure_5.ai (9/8/2021) FIGURE 5
Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Project
CirculaƟon Plan and Street Sec Ɵons - Industrial
442

PARKING TRAVEL TRAVEL PARKING
FC FC
ROW

S/WL/S L/S
ROW
S/W

PARKING TRAVEL TRAVEL PARKING
FC FC
S/W
BNTS
ROW
S/W
ROW
NTS

TRAVELTRAVELBIKE LANE BIKE LANE L/S S/W

ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY
FC FC
S/W

ROW ROW

ULTIMATE TRAVEL WAY
C
ANTS

MOTORCOURT
BC
BC
NTS D
PSE
FEET
10005 0
SOURCE: MacKay & Somps, 7/7/2021
P:\DUB2101.02 Branaugh\PRODUCTS\ Graphics\Figure_6.ai (9/8/2021) FIGURE 6
Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Project
CirculaƟon Plan and Street Sec Ɵons - Residen Ɵal
443
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Appendices

Appendix A
CalEEMod Output Sheets

444
Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - The project would subdivide the 40.2-acre site into four parcels to accommodate proposed residential and industrial development. A total of 78 residential units are proposed with the potential to provide up to 97 units within 9.87 acres designated Medium-Density Residential in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Approximately 527,773 square feet of industrial use is proposed on 30.29 acres designated Industrial Park in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.

Construction Phase - The proposed project would include phased construction, which would consist of a demolition phase from 2023 to 2024, grading phase from 2024 to 2025 and building construction from 2025 to 2026. Overall, construction of the proposed project is anticipated to last approximately 30 months, and is anticipated to be fully improved by 2026.

Grading -
Demolition - The proposed project would demolish the existing onsite buildings.

Vehicle Trips - Based on the Proposed Transportation Analysis Methodology

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 69.00 Dwelling Unit 9.57 124,200.00 197 Apartments Mid Rise 27.00 Dwelling Unit 0.30 27,000.00 77 Industrial Park 527.77 1000sqft 30.29 527,773.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
4 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2026Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 0.033CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 1 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 445
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Assuming compliance with BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures and use of Tier 2 construction equipment.

Area Mitigation - Assuming only natural gas hearth.Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 5.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 5.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 2 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 446

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 740.00 305.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 50.00 90.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 260.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/6/2026 3/6/2026
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/5/2026 3/6/2026
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/10/2023 1/5/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/4/2023 1/3/2025
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/21/2026 3/6/2026
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/22/2026 12/22/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/5/2023 1/6/2025
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/2/2023 9/4/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/22/2023 1/8/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/6/2026 12/22/2025 tblLandUse LotAcreage 22.40 9.57
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.71 0.30
tblLandUse LotAcreage 12.12 30.29
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.44 7.33
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.44 9.45
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 3 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 447

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.0981 0.9170 0.8496 1.7100e-
003

9.9000e-
003

0.0424 0.0524 2.1200e-
003

0.0395 0.0416 0.0000 149.6543 149.6543 0.0406 3.0000e-
004
150.7605
2024 0.4254 4.2169 3.6657 8.2400e-
003

1.2083 0.1741 1.3824 0.4756 0.1602 0.6358 0.0000 724.8966 724.8966 0.2294 4.2000e- 004
730.7576
2025 0.8308 2.2927 3.0208 8.2900e-
003

0.7783 0.0762 0.8545 0.1461 0.0716 0.2178 0.0000 759.3021 759.3021 0.0857 0.0405 773.4970 2026 3.3379 0.6321 0.9376 2.1500e-
003

0.0770 0.0243 0.1013 0.0208 0.0228 0.0436 0.0000 195.4823 195.4823 0.0303 7.4100e- 003
198.4487
Maximum 3.3379 4.2169 3.6657 8.2900e-
003

1.2083 0.1741 1.3824 0.4756 0.1602 0.6358 0.0000 759.3021 759.3021 0.2294 0.0405 773.4970 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 4 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 448

7.4200e-
003

0.0389 0.0463 1.7400e-
003

0.0389 0.0406 0.0000 149.6542 149.6542 0.0406 3.0000e-
004
150.7603
2024 0.2421 6.6701 4.8346 8.2400e-
003

0.5551 0.1737 0.7288 0.2170 0.1737 0.3907 0.0000 724.8958 724.8958 0.2294 4.2000e- 004
730.7568
2025 0.7921 3.8085 3.2781 8.2900e-
003

0.5458 0.1262 0.6720 0.1189 0.1259 0.2448 0.0000 759.3017 759.3017 0.0857 0.0405 773.4966 2026 3.3302 1.1920 1.0440 2.1500e-
003

0.0770 0.0400 0.1170 0.0208 0.0400 0.0608 0.0000 195.4822 195.4822 0.0303 7.4100e- 003
198.4486
Maximum 3.3302 6.6701 4.8346 8.2900e-
003

0.5551 0.1737 0.7288 0.2170 0.1737 0.3907 0.0000 759.3017 759.3017 0.2294 0.0405 773.4966 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

5.81 -62.09 -20.61 0.00 42.83 -19.46 34.57 44.40 -28.70 21.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 3 7-2-2023 10-1-2023 0.2388 0.3405
4 10-2-2023 1-1-2024 0.7848 1.1193
5 1-2-2024 4-1-2024 1.1164 1.6617
6 4-2-2024 7-1-2024 1.1594 1.7266
7 7-2-2024 10-1-2024 1.1721 1.7456
8 10-2-2024 1-1-2025 1.1707 1.7459
9 1-2-2025 4-1-2025 0.6173 0.9648
10 4-2-2025 7-1-2025 0.6191 0.9700
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 5 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 449
11 7-2-2025 10-1-2025 0.6260 0.9808
12 10-2-2025 1-1-2026 1.2256 1.6303
13 1-2-2026 4-1-2026 3.8658 4.4029
Highest 3.8658 4.4029

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 3.5242 0.0186 1.3941 1.4300e-
003

0.1015 0.1015 0.1015 0.1015 10.0016 3.8329 13.8345 0.0197 5.8000e- 004

14.5001
Energy 0.0572 0.5142 0.3925 3.1200e-
003

0.0395 0.0395 0.0395 0.0395 0.0000 1,464.490
6 1,464.490
6 0.1562 0.0280 1,476.737
0 Mobile 0.9477 1.0675 9.0456 0.0193 2.2014 0.0140 2.2155 0.5882 0.0131 0.6012 0.0000 1,833.864 2 1,833.864
2 0.1136 0.0851 1,862.057
2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 152.1600 0.0000 152.1600 8.9924 0.0000 376.9700 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 40.7042 65.5107 106.2148 4.1913 0.1000 240.7976 Total 4.5291 1.6003 10.8322 0.0238 2.2014 0.1551 2.3565 0.5882 0.1541 0.7423 202.8658 3,367.698 4 3,570.564
1 13.4731 0.2137 3,971.061
9 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 6 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 450

4.4500e-
003

0.0000 8.1099 8.1099 1.2700e-
003

1.3000e-
004

8.1796
Energy 0.0572 0.5142 0.3925 3.1200e-
003

10.34 0.27 6.23 5.67 0.00 62.58 4.12 0.00 62.97 13.08 4.93 -0.13 0.16 0.14 0.21 0.16 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 7 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 451
4 Paving Paving 12/22/2025 3/6/2026 5 55
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 12/22/2025 3/6/2026 5 55 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Residential Indoor: 306,180; Residential Outdoor: 102,060; Non-Residential Indoor: 791,660; Non-Residential Outdoor: 263,887; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 780
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 8 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 452

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 4.5100e-
003

0.0000 4.5100e-
003

6.8000e-
004

0.0000 6.8000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0964 0.9131 0.8348 1.6500e-
003

0.0424 0.0424 0.0394 0.0394 0.0000 144.4663 144.4663 0.0405 0.0000 145.4778 Total 0.0964 0.9131 0.8348 1.6500e-
003

4.5100e-
003

0.0424 0.0469 6.8000e-
004

0.0394 0.0401 0.0000 144.4663 144.4663 0.0405 0.0000 145.4778 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 44.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 266.00 97.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 53.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 9 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 453

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 4.0000e-
005

2.8200e-
003

6.6000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

3.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

1.2000e-
004

0.0000 1.2400 1.2400 4.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
004

1.2996
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.6300e-
003

1.1200e-
003

0.0141 4.0000e-
005

5.0400e-
003

3.0000e-
005

5.0600e-
003

1.3400e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.3600e-
003

0.0000 3.9480 3.9480 1.1000e-
004

1.1000e-
004

3.9832
Total 1.6700e-
003

3.9400e-
003

0.0148 5.0000e-
005

5.3900e-
003

5.0000e-
005

5.4300e-
003

1.4400e-
003

4.0000e-
005

1.4800e-
003

0.0000 5.1880 5.1880 1.5000e-
004

3.1000e-
004

5.2827
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.0300e-
003

0.0000 2.0300e-
003

3.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0536 1.3882 1.0486 1.6500e-
003

0.0388 0.0388 0.0388 0.0388 0.0000 144.4661 144.4661 0.0405 0.0000 145.4776 Total 0.0536 1.3882 1.0486 1.6500e-
003

2.0300e-
003

0.0388 0.0409 3.1000e-
004

0.0388 0.0391 0.0000 144.4661 144.4661 0.0405 0.0000 145.4776 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 10 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 454

2.8200e-
003

6.6000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

3.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

1.2000e-
004

0.0000 1.2400 1.2400 4.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
004

1.2996
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.6300e-
003

1.1200e-
003

0.0141 4.0000e-
005

5.0400e-
003

3.0000e-
005

5.0600e-
003

1.3400e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.3600e-
003

0.0000 3.9480 3.9480 1.1000e-
004

1.1000e-
004

3.9832
Total 1.6700e-
003

3.9400e-
003

0.0148 5.0000e-
005

5.3900e-
003

5.0000e-
005

5.4300e-
003

1.4400e-
003

4.0000e-
005

1.4800e-
003

0.0000 5.1880 5.1880 1.5000e-
004

3.1000e-
004

5.2827
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.2 Demolition - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.7000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

0.0000 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 5.6100e-
003

0.0522 0.0493 1.0000e-
004

2.4000e-
003

2.2300e-
003

0.0000 8.4990 8.4990 2.3800e-
003

0.0000 8.5585
Total 5.6100e-
003

0.0522 0.0493 1.0000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

2.4000e-
003

2.6700e-
003

4.0000e-
005

2.2300e-
003

2.2700e-
003

0.0000 8.4990 8.4990 2.3800e-
003

0.0000 8.5585
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 11 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 455

3.2 Demolition - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 1.7000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0718 0.0718 0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0753
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

7.8000e-
004

0.0000 3.0000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

0.0000 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2265 0.2265 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.2284
Total 9.0000e-
005

2.3000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

0.0000 3.2000e-
004

9.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2983 0.2983 1.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.3037
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.2000e-
004

0.0000 1.2000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1500e-
003

0.0817 0.0617 1.0000e-
004

2.2800e-
003

0.0000 8.4990 8.4990 2.3800e-
003

0.0000 8.5585
Total 3.1500e-
003

0.0817 0.0617 1.0000e-
004

1.2000e-
004

2.2800e-
003

2.4000e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.2800e-
003

2.3000e-
003

0.0000 8.4990 8.4990 2.3800e-
003

0.0000 8.5585
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 12 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 456

4.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0718 0.0718 0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0753
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

7.8000e-
004

0.0000 3.0000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

0.0000 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2265 0.2265 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.2284
Total 9.0000e-
005

2.3000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

0.0000 3.2000e-
004

9.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2983 0.2983 1.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.3037
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.1874 0.0000 1.1874 0.4700 0.0000 0.4700 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.4135 4.1604 3.5624 7.9800e-
003

0.1716 0.1716 0.1579 0.1579 0.0000 700.5759 700.5759 0.2266 0.0000 706.2404 Total 0.4135 4.1604 3.5624 7.9800e-
003

1.1874 0.1716 1.3590 0.4700 0.1579 0.6279 0.0000 700.5759 700.5759 0.2266 0.0000 706.2404 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 13 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 457

3.3 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.1600e-
003

4.0200e-
003

0.0533 1.7000e-
004

0.0203 1.0000e-
004

0.0204 5.4000e-
003

9.0000e-
005

5.4900e-
003

0.0000 15.5234 15.5234 4.2000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

15.6551
Total 6.1600e-
003

4.0200e-
003

0.0533 1.7000e-
004

0.0203 1.0000e-
004

0.0204 5.4000e-
003

9.0000e-
005

5.4900e-
003

0.0000 15.5234 15.5234 4.2000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

15.6551
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.5343 0.0000 0.5343 0.2115 0.0000 0.2115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2327 6.5842 4.7189 7.9800e-
003

0.1713 0.1713 0.1713 0.1713 0.0000 700.5750 700.5750 0.2266 0.0000 706.2395 Total 0.2327 6.5842 4.7189 7.9800e-
003

0.5343 0.1713 0.7057 0.2115 0.1713 0.3828 0.0000 700.5750 700.5750 0.2266 0.0000 706.2395 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 14 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 458

4.0200e-
003

0.0533 1.7000e-
004

0.0203 1.0000e-
004

0.0204 5.4000e-
003

9.0000e-
005

5.4900e-
003

0.0000 15.5234 15.5234 4.2000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

15.6551
Total 6.1600e-
003

4.0200e-
003

0.0533 1.7000e-
004

0.0203 1.0000e-
004

0.0204 5.4000e-
003

9.0000e-
005

5.4900e-
003

0.0000 15.5234 15.5234 4.2000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

15.6551
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Grading - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.4226 0.0000 0.4226 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.3500e-
003

0.0419 0.0395 9.0000e-
005

1.7000e-
003

1.5600e-
003

0.0000 8.1759 8.1759 2.6400e-
003

0.0000 8.2420
Total 4.3500e-
003

0.0419 0.0395 9.0000e-
005

0.4226 1.7000e-
003

0.4243 0.0496 1.5600e-
003

0.0512 0.0000 8.1759 8.1759 2.6400e-
003

0.0000 8.2420
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 15 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 459

3.3 Grading - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

5.8000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1769 0.1769 0.0000 0.0000 0.1783
Total 7.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

5.8000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1769 0.1769 0.0000 0.0000 0.1783
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1902 0.0000 0.1902 0.0223 0.0000 0.0223 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.7200e-
003

0.0769 0.0551 9.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
003

0.0000 8.1759 8.1759 2.6400e-
003

0.0000 8.2420
Total 2.7200e-
003

0.0769 0.0551 9.0000e-
005

0.1902 2.0000e-
003

0.1922 0.0223 2.0000e-
003

0.0243 0.0000 8.1759 8.1759 2.6400e-
003

0.0000 8.2420
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 16 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 460

4.0000e-
005

5.8000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1769 0.1769 0.0000 0.0000 0.1783
Total 7.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

5.8000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1769 0.1769 0.0000 0.0000 0.1783
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

0.0681 0.0681 0.0640 0.0640 0.0000 299.1761 299.1761 0.0703 0.0000 300.9343 Total 0.1764 1.6086 2.0749 3.4800e-
003

0.0681 0.0681 0.0640 0.0640 0.0000 299.1761 299.1761 0.0703 0.0000 300.9343 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 17 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 461

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0126 0.5545 0.1674 2.4500e-
003

0.0821 3.2800e-
003

0.0854 0.0238 3.1400e-
003

0.0269 0.0000 238.8276 238.8276 4.9800e-
003

0.0353 249.4740
Worker 0.0773 0.0484 0.6675 2.1400e-
003

0.2711 1.2700e-
003

0.2724 0.0721 1.1700e-
003

0.0733 0.0000 202.3128 202.3128 5.0400e-
003

5.0900e-
003
203.9565
Total 0.0899 0.6029 0.8349 4.5900e-
003

0.3533 4.5500e-
003

0.3578 0.0959 4.3100e-
003

0.1002 0.0000 441.1405 441.1405 0.0100 0.0404 453.4305
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1394 3.0385 2.3057 3.4800e-
003

0.1166 0.1166 0.1166 0.1166 0.0000 299.1757 299.1757 0.0703 0.0000 300.9339 Total 0.1394 3.0385 2.3057 3.4800e-
003

0.1166 0.1166 0.1166 0.1166 0.0000 299.1757 299.1757 0.0703 0.0000 300.9339 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 18 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 462

0.0821 3.2800e-
003

0.0854 0.0238 3.1400e-
003

0.0269 0.0000 238.8276 238.8276 4.9800e-
003

0.0353 249.4740
Worker 0.0773 0.0484 0.6675 2.1400e-
003

0.2711 1.2700e-
003

0.2724 0.0721 1.1700e-
003

0.0733 0.0000 202.3128 202.3128 5.0400e-
003

5.0900e-
003
203.9565
Total 0.0899 0.6029 0.8349 4.5900e-
003

0.3533 4.5500e-
003

0.3578 0.0959 4.3100e-
003

0.1002 0.0000 441.1405 441.1405 0.0100 0.0404 453.4305
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0321 0.2930 0.3780 6.3000e-
004

0.0124 0.0124 0.0117 0.0117 0.0000 54.5011 54.5011 0.0128 0.0000 54.8214 Total 0.0321 0.2930 0.3780 6.3000e-
004

0.0124 0.0124 0.0117 0.0117 0.0000 54.5011 54.5011 0.0128 0.0000 54.8214 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 19 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 463

0.1004 0.0301 4.4000e-
004

0.0150 5.9000e-
004

0.0156 4.3300e-
003

5.7000e-
004

4.9000e-
003

0.0000 42.7104 42.7104 9.0000e-
004

6.3100e-
003

44.6135
Worker 0.0133 8.0200e-
003

0.1150 3.8000e-
004

0.0494 2.2000e-
004

0.0496 0.0131 2.0000e-
004

0.0133 0.0000 36.0179 36.0179 8.4000e-
004

8.8000e-
004

36.3002
Total 0.0156 0.1084 0.1451 8.2000e-
004

0.0644 8.1000e-
004

0.0652 0.0175 7.7000e-
004

0.0182 0.0000 78.7283 78.7283 1.7400e-
003

7.1900e-
003

80.9136
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0254 0.5535 0.4200 6.3000e-
004

0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0000 54.5010 54.5010 0.0128 0.0000 54.8213 Total 0.0254 0.5535 0.4200 6.3000e-
004

0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0000 54.5010 54.5010 0.0128 0.0000 54.8213 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 20 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 464

0.1004 0.0301 4.4000e-
004

0.0150 5.9000e-
004

0.0156 4.3300e-
003

5.7000e-
004

4.9000e-
003

0.0000 42.7104 42.7104 9.0000e-
004

6.3100e-
003

44.6135
Worker 0.0133 8.0200e-
003

0.1150 3.8000e-
004

0.0494 2.2000e-
004

0.0496 0.0131 2.0000e-
004

0.0133 0.0000 36.0179 36.0179 8.4000e-
004

8.8000e-
004

36.3002
Total 0.0156 0.1084 0.1451 8.2000e-
004

0.0644 8.1000e-
004

0.0652 0.0175 7.7000e-
004

0.0182 0.0000 78.7283 78.7283 1.7400e-
003

7.1900e-
003

80.9136
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 3.6600e-
003

0.0343 0.0583 9.0000e-
005

1.6700e-
003

1.5400e-
003

0.0000 8.0077 8.0077 2.5900e-
003

0.0000 8.0725
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 3.6600e-
003

0.0343 0.0583 9.0000e-
005

1.6700e-
003

1.5400e-
003

0.0000 8.0077 8.0077 2.5900e-
003

0.0000 8.0725
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 21 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 465

3.5 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.4000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

1.1700e-
003

0.0000 4.7000e-
004

0.0000 4.8000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

0.0000 1.3000e-
004

0.0000 0.3538 0.3538 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.3566
Total 1.4000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

1.1700e-
003

0.0000 4.7000e-
004

0.0000 4.8000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

0.0000 1.3000e-
004

0.0000 0.3538 0.3538 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.3566
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 3.7200e-
003

0.0805 0.0692 9.0000e-
005

2.6700e-
003

0.0000 8.0077 8.0077 2.5900e-
003

0.0000 8.0724
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 3.7200e-
003

0.0805 0.0692 9.0000e-
005

2.6700e-
003

0.0000 8.0077 8.0077 2.5900e-
003

0.0000 8.0724
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 22 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 466

8.0000e-
005

1.1700e-
003

0.0000 4.7000e-
004

0.0000 4.8000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

0.0000 1.3000e-
004

0.0000 0.3538 0.3538 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.3566
Total 1.4000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

1.1700e-
003

0.0000 4.7000e-
004

0.0000 4.8000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

0.0000 1.3000e-
004

0.0000 0.3538 0.3538 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.3566
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0215 0.2017 0.3426 5.4000e-
004

9.8400e-
003

9.0500e-
003

0.0000 47.0453 47.0453 0.0152 0.0000 47.4256
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0215 0.2017 0.3426 5.4000e-
004

9.8400e-
003

9.0500e-
003

0.0000 47.0453 47.0453 0.0152 0.0000 47.4256
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 23 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 467

3.5 Paving - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.5000e-
004

4.5000e-
004

6.4900e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.7900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.8000e-
003

7.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.5000e-
004

0.0000 2.0311 2.0311 5.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

2.0470
Total 7.5000e-
004

4.5000e-
004

6.4900e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.7900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.8000e-
003

7.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.5000e-
004

0.0000 2.0311 2.0311 5.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

2.0470
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0219 0.4727 0.4065 5.4000e-
004

0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0000 47.0452 47.0452 0.0152 0.0000 47.4256 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0219 0.4727 0.4065 5.4000e-
004

0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0000 47.0452 47.0452 0.0152 0.0000 47.4256 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 24 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 468

4.5000e-
004

6.4900e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.7900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.8000e-
003

7.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.5000e-
004

0.0000 2.0311 2.0311 5.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

2.0470
Total 7.5000e-
004

4.5000e-
004

6.4900e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.7900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.8000e-
003

7.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.5000e-
004

0.0000 2.0311 2.0311 5.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

2.0470
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.5800e-
003

7.2400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.0213 1.0213 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0227
Total 0.5558 4.5800e-
003

7.2400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.0213 1.0213 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0227
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 25 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 469

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.8000e-
004

3.0000e-
004

4.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.6800e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.6800e-
003

4.5000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.2499 1.2499 3.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

1.2601
Total 4.8000e-
004

3.0000e-
004

4.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.6800e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.6800e-
003

4.5000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.2499 1.2499 3.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

1.2601
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.5551 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.6000e-
004

9.4100e-
003

7.3300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.8000e-
004

0.0000 1.0213 1.0213 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0227
Total 0.5556 9.4100e-
003

7.3300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.8000e-
004

0.0000 1.0213 1.0213 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0227
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 26 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 470

3.0000e-
004

4.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.6800e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.6800e-
003

4.5000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.2499 1.2499 3.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

1.2601
Total 4.8000e-
004

3.0000e-
004

4.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.6800e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.6800e-
003

4.5000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.2499 1.2499 3.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

1.2601
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

0.0269 0.0425 7.0000e-
005

1.2100e-
003

0.0000 6.0002 6.0002 3.3000e-
004

0.0000 6.0083
Total 3.2653 0.0269 0.0425 7.0000e-
005

1.2100e-
003

0.0000 6.0002 6.0002 3.3000e-
004

0.0000 6.0083
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 27 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 471

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.6500e-
003

1.6000e-
003

0.0229 8.0000e-
005

9.8400e-
003

4.0000e-
005

9.8900e-
003

2.6200e-
003

4.0000e-
005

2.6600e-
003

0.0000 7.1765 7.1765 1.7000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

7.2328
Total 2.6500e-
003

1.6000e-
003

0.0229 8.0000e-
005

9.8400e-
003

4.0000e-
005

9.8900e-
003

2.6200e-
003

4.0000e-
005

2.6600e-
003

0.0000 7.1765 7.1765 1.7000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

7.2328
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 3.2613 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6800e-
003

0.0553 0.0431 7.0000e-
005

2.2300e-
003

0.0000 6.0001 6.0001 3.3000e-
004

0.0000 6.0083
Total 3.2639 0.0553 0.0431 7.0000e-
005

2.2300e-
003

0.0000 6.0001 6.0001 3.3000e-
004

0.0000 6.0083
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 28 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 472

1.6000e-
003

0.0229 8.0000e-
005

9.8400e-
003

4.0000e-
005

9.8900e-
003

2.6200e-
003

4.0000e-
005

2.6600e-
003

0.0000 7.1765 7.1765 1.7000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

7.2328
Total 2.6500e-
003

1.6000e-
003

0.0229 8.0000e-
005

9.8400e-
003

4.0000e-
005

9.8900e-
003

2.6200e-
003

4.0000e-
005

2.6600e-
003

0.0000 7.1765 7.1765 1.7000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

7.2328
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 29 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 473
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.9477 1.0675 9.0456 0.0193 2.2014 0.0140 2.2155 0.5882 0.0131 0.6012 0.0000 1,833.864 2 1,833.864
2 0.1136 0.0851 1,862.057
2 Unmitigated 0.9477 1.0675 9.0456 0.0193 2.2014 0.0140 2.2155 0.5882 0.0131 0.6012 0.0000 1,833.864 2 1,833.864
2 0.1136 0.0851 1,862.057
2 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 197.91 132.57 110.43 406,672 406,672 Industrial Park 1,778.60 1,340.54 654.44 4,078,051 4,078,051 Single Family Housing 652.05 658.26 589.95 1,487,539 1,487,539 Total 2,628.56 2,131.37 1,354.82 5,972,262 5,972,262
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 Industrial Park 9.50 7.30 7.30 59.00 28.00 13.00 79 19 2 Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.554285 0.058871 0.188253 0.120585 0.022598 0.005697 0.010798 0.007525 0.000977 0.000545 0.026246 0.000848 0.002771 Industrial Park 0.554285 0.058871 0.188253 0.120585 0.022598 0.005697 0.010798 0.007525 0.000977 0.000545 0.026246 0.000848 0.002771 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 30 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 474
Single Family Housing 0.554285 0.058871 0.188253 0.120585 0.022598 0.005697 0.010798 0.007525 0.000977 0.000545 0.026246 0.000848 0.002771

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 898.1050 898.1050 0.1453 0.0176 906.9856 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 898.1050 898.1050 0.1453 0.0176 906.9856 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0572 0.5142 0.3925 3.1200e-
003

0.0395 0.0395 0.0395 0.0395 0.0000 566.3857 566.3857 0.0109 0.0104 569.7514 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0572 0.5142 0.3925 3.1200e-
003

0.0395 0.0395 0.0395 0.0395 0.0000 566.3857 566.3857 0.0109 0.0104 569.7514

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 31 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 475

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
226305 1.2200e-
003

0.0104 4.4400e-
003

7.0000e-
005

8.4000e-
004

0.0000 12.0765 12.0765 2.3000e-
004

2.2000e-
004

12.1483
Industrial Park 8.54992e
+006

0.0461 0.4191 0.3521 2.5100e-
003

0.0319 0.0319 0.0319 0.0319 0.0000 456.2564 456.2564 8.7400e- 003

8.3600e-
003
458.9677
Single Family
Housing

1.83744e
+006

9.9100e-
003

0.0847 0.0360 5.4000e-
004

6.8500e-
003

0.0000 98.0527 98.0527 1.8800e-
003

1.8000e-
003

98.6354
Total 0.0572 0.5142 0.3925 3.1200e-
003

0.0395 0.0395 0.0395 0.0395 0.0000 566.3857 566.3857 0.0109 0.0104 569.7514 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 32 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 476

0.0104 4.4400e-
003

7.0000e-
005

8.4000e-
004

0.0000 12.0765 12.0765 2.3000e-
004

2.2000e-
004

12.1483
Industrial Park 8.54992e
+006

0.0461 0.4191 0.3521 2.5100e-
003

0.0319 0.0319 0.0319 0.0319 0.0000 456.2564 456.2564 8.7400e- 003

8.3600e-
003
458.9677
Single Family
Housing

1.83744e
+006

9.9100e-
003

0.0847 0.0360 5.4000e-
004

6.8500e-
003

0.0000 98.0527 98.0527 1.8800e-
003

1.8000e-
003

98.6354
Total 0.0572 0.5142 0.3925 3.1200e-
003

0.0395 0.0395 0.0395 0.0395 0.0000 566.3857 566.3857 0.0109 0.0104 569.7514 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 33 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 477

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
104394 9.6589 1.5600e-
003

1.9000e-
004

9.7544
Industrial Park 9.06186e
+006
838.4377 0.1356 0.0164 846.7284
Single Family
Housing
540492 50.0084 8.0900e-
003

9.8000e-
004

50.5029
Total 898.1050 0.1453 0.0176 906.9856
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 34 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 478
Use only Natural Gas Hearths

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
104394 9.6589 1.5600e-
003

1.9000e-
004

9.7544
Industrial Park 9.06186e
+006
838.4377 0.1356 0.0164 846.7284
Single Family
Housing
540492 50.0084 8.0900e-
003

9.8000e-
004

50.5029
Total 898.1050 0.1453 0.0176 906.9856
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 35 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 479
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 3.0559 0.0142 0.7195 8.0000e-
005

4.4500e-
003

0.0000 8.1099 8.1099 1.2700e-
003

1.3000e-
004

8.1796
Unmitigated 3.5242 0.0186 1.3941 1.4300e-
003

0.1015 0.1015 0.1015 0.1015 10.0016 3.8329 13.8345 0.0197 5.8000e- 004

14.5001

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.3816 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

2.6517 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.4690 0.0104 0.6772 1.3900e-
003

0.0975 0.0975 0.0975 0.0975 10.0016 2.6591 12.6607 0.0186 5.8000e- 004

13.2979
Landscaping 0.0218 8.2500e-
003

0.7170 4.0000e-
005

3.9700e-
003

0.0000 1.1738 1.1738 1.1400e-
003

0.0000 1.2023
Total 3.5242 0.0186 1.3941 1.4300e-
003

0.1015 0.1015 0.1015 0.1015 10.0016 3.8329 13.8345 0.0197 5.8000e- 004

14.5001
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 36 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 480

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.3816 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

2.6517 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 7.0000e-
004

5.9900e-
003

2.5500e-
003

4.0000e-
005

4.8000e-
004

0.0000 6.9361 6.9361 1.3000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

6.9773
Landscaping 0.0218 8.2500e-
003

0.7170 4.0000e-
005

3.9700e-
003

0.0000 1.1738 1.1738 1.1400e-
003

0.0000 1.2023
Total 3.0559 0.0142 0.7195 8.0000e-
005

4.4500e-
003

0.0000 8.1099 8.1099 1.2700e-
003

1.3000e-
004

8.1796
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 37 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 481
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 106.2148 4.1913 0.1000 240.7976
Unmitigated 106.2148 4.1913 0.1000 240.7976

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.75916 /

1.10903

1.7980 0.0575 1.3800e-
003

3.6466
Industrial Park 122.047 /
0 99.8221 3.9868 0.0951 227.8319
Single Family
Housing

4.49563 /

2.8342

4.5948 0.1470 3.5200e-
003

9.3191
Total 106.2148 4.1913 0.1000 240.7976
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 38 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 482

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.75916 /

1.10903

1.7980 0.0575 1.3800e-
003

3.6466
Industrial Park 122.047 /
0 99.8221 3.9868 0.0951 227.8319
Single Family
Housing

4.49563 /

2.8342

4.5948 0.1470 3.5200e-
003

9.3191
Total 106.2148 4.1913 0.1000 240.7976
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 39 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 483
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 152.1600 8.9924 0.0000 376.9700
Unmitigated 152.1600 8.9924 0.0000 376.9700
Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

12.42 2.5212 0.1490 0.0000 6.2460
Industrial Park 654.43 132.8434 7.8508 0.0000 329.1138
Single Family
Housing

82.74 16.7955 0.9926 0.0000 41.6101
Total 152.1600 8.9924 0.0000 376.9700
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 40 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 484

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

12.42 2.5212 0.1490 0.0000 6.2460
Industrial Park 654.43 132.8434 7.8508 0.0000 329.1138
Single Family
Housing

82.74 16.7955 0.9926 0.0000 41.6101
Total 152.1600 8.9924 0.0000 376.9700
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

11.0 Vegetation
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:16 PMPage 42 of 42 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 486
Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - The project would subdivide the 40.2-acre site into four parcels to accommodate proposed residential and industrial development. A total of 78 residential units are proposed with the potential to provide up to 97 units within 9.87 acres designated Medium-Density Residential in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Approximately 527,773 square feet of industrial use is proposed on 30.29 acres designated Industrial Park in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.

Grading -
Demolition - The proposed project would demolish the existing onsite buildings.

Vehicle Trips - Based on the Proposed Transportation Analysis Methodology

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
4 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2026Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 0.033CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 1 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 487
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Assuming compliance with BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures and use of Tier 2 construction equipment.

Area Mitigation - Assuming only natural gas hearth.Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 5.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 5.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 2 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 488

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 740.00 305.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 50.00 90.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 260.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/6/2026 3/6/2026
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/5/2026 3/6/2026
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/10/2023 1/5/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/4/2023 1/3/2025
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/21/2026 3/6/2026
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/22/2026 12/22/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/5/2023 1/6/2025
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/2/2023 9/4/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/22/2023 1/8/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/6/2026 12/22/2025 tblLandUse LotAcreage 22.40 9.57
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.71 0.30
tblLandUse LotAcreage 12.12 30.29
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.44 7.33
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.44 9.45
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 3 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 489

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 2.3107 21.5716 20.0175 0.0402 0.2380 0.9987 1.2367 0.0511 0.9291 0.9802 0.0000 3,888.459 7 3,888.459
7 1.0532 7.6800e-
003
3,917.080
4 2024 3.2687 32.4047 28.1684 0.0635 9.3679 1.3362 10.7041 3.6973 1.2293 4.9266 0.0000 6,151.900 9 6,151.900
9 1.9470 7.4400e-
003
6,201.536
5 2025 142.1232 27.9679 40.7233 0.0940 9.3679 1.1316 10.4995 3.6973 1.0411 4.7384 0.0000 9,401.105 6 9,401.105
6 1.9462 0.3518 9,541.523
5 2026 142.0769 26.6996 40.3171 0.0929 3.4007 1.0347 4.4354 0.9169 0.9678 1.8848 0.0000 9,310.854 5 9,310.854
5 1.4184 0.3434 9,448.636
7 Maximum 142.1232 32.4047 40.7233 0.0940 9.3679 1.3362 10.7041 3.6973 1.2293 4.9266 0.0000 9,401.105 6 9,401.105
6 1.9470 0.3518 9,541.523
5 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 4 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 490

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 1.3033 32.7510 25.0480 0.0402 0.1796 0.9147 1.0943 0.0423 0.9146 0.9569 0.0000 3,888.459 7 3,888.459
7 1.0532 7.6800e-
003
3,917.080
4 2024 1.8611 51.2664 37.1682 0.0635 4.3059 1.3341 5.6400 1.6878 1.3340 3.0218 0.0000 6,151.900 9 6,151.900
9 1.9470 7.4400e-
003
6,201.536
5 2025 141.7956 51.2636 45.2533 0.0940 4.3059 1.7034 5.6400 1.6878 1.7013 3.0218 0.0000 9,401.105 6 9,401.105
6 1.9462 0.3518 9,541.523
5 2026 141.7493 50.5243 44.8472 0.0929 3.4007 1.7027 5.1034 0.9169 1.7006 2.6176 0.0000 9,310.854 5 9,310.854
5 1.4184 0.3434 9,448.636
7 Maximum 141.7956 51.2664 45.2533 0.0940 4.3059 1.7034 5.6400 1.6878 1.7013 3.0218 0.0000 9,401.105 6 9,401.105
6 1.9470 0.3518 9,541.523
5 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

1.06 -71.02 -17.87 0.00 45.51 -25.63 34.97 48.17 -35.59 23.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 5 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 491

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 99.4736 1.7139 115.1169 0.2029 15.2039 15.2039 15.2039 15.2039 1,632.118 2 540.6118 2,172.730
0 2.0618 0.1152 2,258.604
0 Energy 0.3136 2.8176 2.1508 0.0171 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 3,421.004 4 3,421.004
4 0.0656 0.0627 3,441.333
7 Mobile 6.4257 6.0019 55.0687 0.1240 13.9780 0.0858 14.0638 3.7230 0.0799 3.8030 13,014.35 26 13,014.35
26 0.7182 0.5444 13,194.52
27 Total 106.2129 10.5334 172.3364 0.3439 13.9780 15.5064 29.4844 3.7230 15.5005 19.2236 1,632.118 2 16,975.96
88 18,608.08
70 2.8456 0.7223 18,894.46
04 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 16.9895 1.1669 8.4239 7.2900e-
003

0.1310 0.1310 0.1310 0.1310 0.0000 1,387.035
4 1,387.035
4 0.0403 0.0252 1,395.541
3 Energy 0.3136 2.8176 2.1508 0.0171 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 3,421.004 4 3,421.004
4 0.0656 0.0627 3,441.333
7 Mobile 6.4257 6.0019 55.0687 0.1240 13.9780 0.0858 14.0638 3.7230 0.0799 3.8030 13,014.35 26 13,014.35
26 0.7182 0.5444 13,194.52
27 Total 23.7288 9.9864 65.6434 0.1484 13.9780 0.4335 14.4115 3.7230 0.4276 4.1507 0.0000 17,822.39 23 17,822.39
23 0.8241 0.6322 18,031.39
77 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 6 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 492

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/4/2023 1/5/2024 5 90
2 Grading Grading 1/8/2024 1/3/2025 5 260
3 Building Construction Building Construction 1/6/2025 3/6/2026 5 305 4 Paving Paving 12/22/2025 3/6/2026 5 55
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 12/22/2025 3/6/2026 5 55 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

77.66 5.19 61.91 56.86 0.00 97.20 51.12 0.00 97.24 78.41 100.00 -4.99 4.22 71.04 12.46 4.57 Residential Indoor: 306,180; Residential Outdoor: 102,060; Non-Residential Indoor: 791,660; Non-Residential Outdoor: 263,887; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 780
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 7 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 493

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 44.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 266.00 97.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 53.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 8 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 494

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.1062 0.0000 0.1062 0.0161 0.0000 0.0161 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.2691 21.4844 19.6434 0.0388 0.9975 0.9975 0.9280 0.9280 3,746.984 0 3,746.984
0 1.0494 3,773.218
3 Total 2.2691 21.4844 19.6434 0.0388 0.1062 0.9975 1.1037 0.0161 0.9280 0.9441 3,746.984 0 3,746.984
0 1.0494 3,773.218
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.0500e-
003

0.0639 0.0155 2.9000e-
004

8.5500e-
003

5.4000e-
004

9.0900e-
003

2.3400e-
003

5.1000e-
004

2.8600e-
003

32.1489 32.1489 1.0600e-
003

5.0900e-
003

33.6935
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0406 0.0233 0.3586 1.0700e-
003

0.1232 6.1000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 5.6000e-
004

0.0333 109.3267 109.3267 2.7600e-
003

2.5900e-
003
110.1686
Total 0.0416 0.0872 0.3741 1.3600e-
003

0.1318 1.1500e-
003

0.1329 0.0350 1.0700e-
003

0.0361 141.4757 141.4757 3.8200e-
003

7.6800e-
003
143.8621
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 9 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 495

0.0000 7.2400e-
003

0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.2617 32.6638 24.6739 0.0388 0.9135 0.9135 0.9135 0.9135 0.0000 3,746.984 0 3,746.984
0 1.0494 3,773.218
3 Total 1.2617 32.6638 24.6739 0.0388 0.0478 0.9135 0.9613 7.2400e- 003

0.9135 0.9208 0.0000 3,746.984
0 3,746.984
0 1.0494 3,773.218
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.0500e-
003

0.0639 0.0155 2.9000e-
004

8.5500e-
003

5.4000e-
004

9.0900e-
003

2.3400e-
003

5.1000e-
004

2.8600e-
003

32.1489 32.1489 1.0600e-
003

5.0900e-
003

33.6935
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0406 0.0233 0.3586 1.0700e-
003

0.1232 6.1000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 5.6000e-
004

0.0333 109.3267 109.3267 2.7600e-
003

2.5900e-
003
110.1686
Total 0.0416 0.0872 0.3741 1.3600e-
003

0.1318 1.1500e-
003

0.1329 0.0350 1.0700e-
003

0.0361 141.4757 141.4757 3.8200e-
003

7.6800e-
003
143.8621
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 10 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 496

3.2 Demolition - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.1062 0.0000 0.1062 0.0161 0.0000 0.0161 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.2437 20.8781 19.7073 0.0388 0.9602 0.9602 0.8922 0.8922 3,747.422 8 3,747.422
8 1.0485 3,773.634
5 Total 2.2437 20.8781 19.7073 0.0388 0.1062 0.9602 1.0664 0.0161 0.8922 0.9083 3,747.422 8 3,747.422
8 1.0485 3,773.634
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.0400e-
003

0.0639 0.0156 2.9000e-
004

8.5500e-
003

5.4000e-
004

9.0900e-
003

2.3400e-
003

5.2000e-
004

2.8600e-
003

31.6486 31.6486 1.0600e-
003

5.0200e-
003

33.1698
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0379 0.0208 0.3342 1.0300e-
003

0.1232 5.8000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 5.4000e-
004

0.0332 106.6142 106.6142 2.4900e-
003

2.4200e-
003
107.3970
Total 0.0389 0.0847 0.3498 1.3200e-
003

0.1318 1.1200e-
003

0.1329 0.0350 1.0600e-
003

0.0361 138.2627 138.2627 3.5500e-
003

7.4400e-
003
140.5668
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 11 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 497

0.0000 7.2400e-
003

0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.2617 32.6638 24.6739 0.0388 0.9135 0.9135 0.9135 0.9135 0.0000 3,747.422 8 3,747.422
8 1.0485 3,773.634
5 Total 1.2617 32.6638 24.6739 0.0388 0.0478 0.9135 0.9613 7.2400e- 003

0.9135 0.9208 0.0000 3,747.422
8 3,747.422
8 1.0485 3,773.634
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.0400e-
003

0.0639 0.0156 2.9000e-
004

8.5500e-
003

5.4000e-
004

9.0900e-
003

2.3400e-
003

5.2000e-
004

2.8600e-
003

31.6486 31.6486 1.0600e-
003

5.0200e-
003

33.1698
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0379 0.0208 0.3342 1.0300e-
003

0.1232 5.8000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 5.4000e-
004

0.0332 106.6142 106.6142 2.4900e-
003

2.4200e-
003
107.3970
Total 0.0389 0.0847 0.3498 1.3200e-
003

0.1318 1.1200e-
003

0.1329 0.0350 1.0600e-
003

0.0361 138.2627 138.2627 3.5500e-
003

7.4400e-
003
140.5668
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 12 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 498

3.3 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.2181 32.3770 27.7228 0.0621 1.3354 1.3354 1.2286 1.2286 6,009.748 7 6,009.748
7 1.9437 6,058.340
5 Total 3.2181 32.3770 27.7228 0.0621 9.2036 1.3354 10.5390 3.6538 1.2286 4.8823 6,009.748 7 6,009.748
7 1.9437 6,058.340
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0505 0.0278 0.4456 1.3800e-
003

0.1643 7.8000e-
004

0.1651 0.0436 7.1000e-
004

0.0443 142.1522 142.1522 3.3200e-
003

3.2200e-
003
143.1960
Total 0.0505 0.0278 0.4456 1.3800e-
003

0.1643 7.8000e-
004

0.1651 0.0436 7.1000e-
004

0.0443 142.1522 142.1522 3.3200e-
003

3.2200e-
003
143.1960
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 13 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 499

3.3 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 4.1416 0.0000 4.1416 1.6442 0.0000 1.6442 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8106 51.2386 36.7226 0.0621 1.3333 1.3333 1.3333 1.3333 0.0000 6,009.748 7 6,009.748
7 1.9437 6,058.340
5 Total 1.8106 51.2386 36.7226 0.0621 4.1416 1.3333 5.4749 1.6442 1.3333 2.9775 0.0000 6,009.748 7 6,009.748
7 1.9437 6,058.340
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0505 0.0278 0.4456 1.3800e-
003

0.1643 7.8000e-
004

0.1651 0.0436 7.1000e-
004

0.0443 142.1522 142.1522 3.3200e-
003

3.2200e-
003
143.1960
Total 0.0505 0.0278 0.4456 1.3800e-
003

0.1643 7.8000e-
004

0.1651 0.0436 7.1000e-
004

0.0443 142.1522 142.1522 3.3200e-
003

3.2200e-
003
143.1960
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 14 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 500

3.3 Grading - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.9012 27.9429 26.3311 0.0621 1.1309 1.1309 1.0404 1.0404 6,008.281 4 6,008.281
4 1.9432 6,056.861
4 Total 2.9012 27.9429 26.3311 0.0621 9.2036 1.1309 10.3345 3.6538 1.0404 4.6942 6,008.281 4 6,008.281
4 1.9432 6,056.861
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0475 0.0250 0.4176 1.3300e-
003

0.1643 7.4000e-
004

0.1650 0.0436 6.8000e-
004

0.0443 138.7377 138.7377 3.0100e-
003

3.0200e-
003
139.7137
Total 0.0475 0.0250 0.4176 1.3300e-
003

0.1643 7.4000e-
004

0.1650 0.0436 6.8000e-
004

0.0443 138.7377 138.7377 3.0100e-
003

3.0200e-
003
139.7137
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 15 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 501

3.3 Grading - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 4.1416 0.0000 4.1416 1.6442 0.0000 1.6442 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8106 51.2386 36.7226 0.0621 1.3333 1.3333 1.3333 1.3333 0.0000 6,008.281 4 6,008.281
4 1.9432 6,056.861
4 Total 1.8106 51.2386 36.7226 0.0621 4.1416 1.3333 5.4749 1.6442 1.3333 2.9775 0.0000 6,008.281 4 6,008.281
4 1.9432 6,056.861
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0475 0.0250 0.4176 1.3300e-
003

0.1643 7.4000e-
004

0.1650 0.0436 6.8000e-
004

0.0443 138.7377 138.7377 3.0100e-
003

3.0200e-
003
139.7137
Total 0.0475 0.0250 0.4176 1.3300e-
003

0.1643 7.4000e-
004

0.1650 0.0436 6.8000e-
004

0.0443 138.7377 138.7377 3.0100e-
003

3.0200e-
003
139.7137
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 16 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 502

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Total 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1000 4.1468 1.2773 0.0190 0.6570 0.0254 0.6824 0.1891 0.0243 0.2134 2,039.518 7 2,039.518
7 0.0427 0.3013 2,130.386
7 Worker 0.6313 0.3325 5.5543 0.0177 2.1851 9.8800e-
003

2.1950 0.5796 9.0900e-
003

0.5887 1,845.211
2 1,845.211
2 0.0401 0.0402 1,858.192
4 Total 0.7314 4.4793 6.8316 0.0367 2.8421 0.0353 2.8774 0.7687 0.0334 0.8021 3,884.729 9 3,884.729
9 0.0828 0.3415 3,988.579
1 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 17 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 503

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0809 23.5544 17.8738 0.0270 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Total 1.0809 23.5544 17.8738 0.0270 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1000 4.1468 1.2773 0.0190 0.6570 0.0254 0.6824 0.1891 0.0243 0.2134 2,039.518 7 2,039.518
7 0.0427 0.3013 2,130.386
7 Worker 0.6313 0.3325 5.5543 0.0177 2.1851 9.8800e-
003

2.1950 0.5796 9.0900e-
003

0.5887 1,845.211
2 1,845.211
2 0.0401 0.0402 1,858.192
4 Total 0.7314 4.4793 6.8316 0.0367 2.8421 0.0353 2.8774 0.7687 0.0334 0.8021 3,884.729 9 3,884.729
9 0.0828 0.3415 3,988.579
1 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 18 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 504

3.4 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Total 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0979 4.1226 1.2589 0.0186 0.6570 0.0253 0.6823 0.1892 0.0242 0.2133 2,002.136 1 2,002.136
1 0.0425 0.2957 2,091.301
6 Worker 0.5962 0.3028 5.2455 0.0172 2.1851 9.4100e-
003

2.1945 0.5796 8.6600e-
003

0.5883 1,803.106
4 1,803.106
4 0.0366 0.0380 1,815.344
4 Total 0.6940 4.4254 6.5044 0.0358 2.8421 0.0347 2.8768 0.7688 0.0328 0.8016 3,805.242 5 3,805.242
5 0.0791 0.3337 3,906.646
0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 19 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 505

3.4 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0809 23.5544 17.8738 0.0270 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Total 1.0809 23.5544 17.8738 0.0270 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0979 4.1226 1.2589 0.0186 0.6570 0.0253 0.6823 0.1892 0.0242 0.2133 2,002.136 1 2,002.136
1 0.0425 0.2957 2,091.301
6 Worker 0.5962 0.3028 5.2455 0.0172 2.1851 9.4100e-
003

2.1945 0.5796 8.6600e-
003

0.5883 1,803.106
4 1,803.106
4 0.0366 0.0380 1,815.344
4 Total 0.6940 4.4254 6.5044 0.0358 2.8421 0.0347 2.8768 0.7688 0.0328 0.8016 3,805.242 5 3,805.242
5 0.0791 0.3337 3,906.646
0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 20 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 506

3.5 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9152 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9152 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0356 0.0188 0.3132 1.0000e-
003

0.1232 5.6000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 5.1000e-
004

0.0332 104.0533 104.0533 2.2600e-
003

2.2700e-
003
104.7853
Total 0.0356 0.0188 0.3132 1.0000e-
003

0.1232 5.6000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 5.1000e-
004

0.0332 104.0533 104.0533 2.2600e-
003

2.2700e-
003
104.7853
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 21 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 507

3.5 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9311 20.1146 17.2957 0.0228 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9311 20.1146 17.2957 0.0228 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0356 0.0188 0.3132 1.0000e-
003

0.1232 5.6000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 5.1000e-
004

0.0332 104.0533 104.0533 2.2600e-
003

2.2700e-
003
104.7853
Total 0.0356 0.0188 0.3132 1.0000e-
003

0.1232 5.6000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 5.1000e-
004

0.0332 104.0533 104.0533 2.2600e-
003

2.2700e-
003
104.7853
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 22 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 508

3.5 Paving - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9152 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9152 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0336 0.0171 0.2958 9.7000e-
004

0.1232 5.3000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 4.9000e-
004

0.0332 101.6789 101.6789 2.0600e-
003

2.1400e-
003
102.3691
Total 0.0336 0.0171 0.2958 9.7000e-
004

0.1232 5.3000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 4.9000e-
004

0.0332 101.6789 101.6789 2.0600e-
003

2.1400e-
003
102.3691
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 23 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 509

3.5 Paving - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9311 20.1146 17.2957 0.0228 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9311 20.1146 17.2957 0.0228 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0336 0.0171 0.2958 9.7000e-
004

0.1232 5.3000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 4.9000e-
004

0.0332 101.6789 101.6789 2.0600e-
003

2.1400e-
003
102.3691
Total 0.0336 0.0171 0.2958 9.7000e-
004

0.1232 5.3000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 4.9000e-
004

0.0332 101.6789 101.6789 2.0600e-
003

2.1400e-
003
102.3691
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 24 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 510

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 138.7770 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e-
003

0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 138.9479 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e-
003

0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1258 0.0663 1.1067 3.5300e-
003

0.4354 1.9700e-
003

0.4374 0.1155 1.8100e-
003

0.1173 367.6549 367.6549 7.9900e-
003

8.0100e-
003
370.2413
Total 0.1258 0.0663 1.1067 3.5300e-
003

0.4354 1.9700e-
003

0.4374 0.1155 1.8100e-
003

0.1173 367.6549 367.6549 7.9900e-
003

8.0100e-
003
370.2413
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 25 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 511

0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 138.8909 2.3524 1.8324 2.9700e-
003

0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1258 0.0663 1.1067 3.5300e-
003

0.4354 1.9700e-
003

0.4374 0.1155 1.8100e-
003

0.1173 367.6549 367.6549 7.9900e-
003

8.0100e-
003
370.2413
Total 0.1258 0.0663 1.1067 3.5300e-
003

0.4354 1.9700e-
003

0.4374 0.1155 1.8100e-
003

0.1173 367.6549 367.6549 7.9900e-
003

8.0100e-
003
370.2413
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 26 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 512

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 138.7770 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e-
003

0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 138.9479 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e-
003

0.4354 1.8800e-
003

0.4373 0.1155 1.7300e-
003

0.1172 359.2656 359.2656 7.2900e-
003

7.5700e-
003
361.7040
Total 0.1188 0.0603 1.0452 3.4200e-
003

0.4354 1.8800e-
003

0.4373 0.1155 1.7300e-
003

0.1172 359.2656 359.2656 7.2900e-
003

7.5700e-
003
361.7040
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 27 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 513

0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 138.8909 2.3524 1.8324 2.9700e-
003

0.4354 1.8800e-
003

0.4373 0.1155 1.7300e-
003

0.1172 359.2656 359.2656 7.2900e-
003

7.5700e-
003
361.7040
Total 0.1188 0.0603 1.0452 3.4200e-
003

0.4354 1.8800e-
003

0.4373 0.1155 1.7300e-
003

0.1172 359.2656 359.2656 7.2900e-
003

7.5700e-
003
361.7040
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 28 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 514

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 6.4257 6.0019 55.0687 0.1240 13.9780 0.0858 14.0638 3.7230 0.0799 3.8030 13,014.35 26 13,014.35
26 0.7182 0.5444 13,194.52
27 Unmitigated 6.4257 6.0019 55.0687 0.1240 13.9780 0.0858 14.0638 3.7230 0.0799 3.8030 13,014.35 26 13,014.35
26 0.7182 0.5444 13,194.52
27 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.3136 2.8176 2.1508 0.0171 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 3,421.004 4 3,421.004
4 0.0656 0.0627 3,441.333
7 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.3136 2.8176 2.1508 0.0171 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 3,421.004 4 3,421.004
4 0.0656 0.0627 3,441.333
7 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 30 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 516

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid
Rise
620.015 6.6900e-
003

0.0571 0.0243 3.6000e-
004

4.6200e-
003

72.9429 72.9429 1.4000e-
003

1.3400e-
003

73.3764
Industrial Park 23424.4 0.2526 2.2965 1.9291 0.0138 0.1745 0.1745 0.1745 0.1745 2,755.817 1 2,755.817
1 0.0528 0.0505 2,772.193
6 Single Family
Housing
5034.08 0.0543 0.4639 0.1974 2.9600e-
003

0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 592.2444 592.2444 0.0114 0.0109 595.7638 Total 0.3136 2.8176 2.1508 0.0171 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 3,421.004 4 3,421.004
4 0.0656 0.0627 3,441.333
8 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 31 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 517
Use only Natural Gas Hearths

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

0.620015 6.6900e-
003

0.0571 0.0243 3.6000e-
004

4.6200e-
003

72.9429 72.9429 1.4000e-
003

1.3400e-
003

73.3764
Industrial Park 23.4244 0.2526 2.2965 1.9291 0.0138 0.1745 0.1745 0.1745 0.1745 2,755.817 1 2,755.817
1 0.0528 0.0505 2,772.193
6 Single Family
Housing

5.03408 0.0543 0.4639 0.1974 2.9600e-
003

0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 592.2444 592.2444 0.0114 0.0109 595.7638 Total 0.3136 2.8176 2.1508 0.0171 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 3,421.004 4 3,421.004
4 0.0656 0.0627 3,441.333
8 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 32 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 518
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 16.9895 1.1669 8.4239 7.2900e-
003

0.1310 0.1310 0.1310 0.1310 0.0000 1,387.035
4 1,387.035
4 0.0403 0.0252 1,395.541
3 Unmitigated 99.4736 1.7139 115.1169 0.2029 15.2039 15.2039 15.2039 15.2039 1,632.118 2 540.6118 2,172.730
0 2.0618 0.1152 2,258.604
0 6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

2.0912 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

14.5300 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 82.6099 1.6223 107.1505 0.2024 15.1598 15.1598 15.1598 15.1598 1,632.118 2 526.2353 2,158.353
5 2.0479 0.1152 2,243.878
6 Landscaping 0.2425 0.0916 7.9664 4.2000e-
004

0.0441 0.0441 0.0441 0.0441 14.3765 14.3765 0.0140 14.7255 Total 99.4736 1.7139 115.1169 0.2029 15.2039 15.2039 15.2039 15.2039 1,632.118 2 540.6118 2,172.730
0 2.0618 0.1152 2,258.604
0 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 33 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 519

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

2.0912 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

14.5300 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.1258 1.0753 0.4576 6.8600e-
003

0.0869 0.0869 0.0869 0.0869 0.0000 1,372.658
8 1,372.658
8 0.0263 0.0252 1,380.815
9 Landscaping 0.2425 0.0916 7.9664 4.2000e-
004

0.0441 0.0441 0.0441 0.0441 14.3765 14.3765 0.0140 14.7255 Total 16.9895 1.1669 8.4239 7.2800e-
003

0.1310 0.1310 0.1310 0.1310 0.0000 1,387.035
4 1,387.035
4 0.0403 0.0252 1,395.541
3 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 34 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 520

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:17 PMPage 35 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 521
Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - The project would subdivide the 40.2-acre site into four parcels to accommodate proposed residential and industrial development. A total of 78 residential units are proposed with the potential to provide up to 97 units within 9.87 acres designated Medium-Density Residential in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Approximately 527,773 square feet of industrial use is proposed on 30.29 acres designated Industrial Park in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.

Grading -
Demolition - The proposed project would demolish the existing onsite buildings.

Vehicle Trips - Based on the Proposed Transportation Analysis Methodology

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
4 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2026Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 0.033CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 1 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 522
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Assuming compliance with BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures and use of Tier 2 construction equipment.

Area Mitigation - Assuming only natural gas hearth.Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 5.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 5.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 2 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 523

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 740.00 305.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 50.00 90.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 260.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/6/2026 3/6/2026
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/5/2026 3/6/2026
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/10/2023 1/5/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/4/2023 1/3/2025
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/21/2026 3/6/2026
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/22/2026 12/22/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/5/2023 1/6/2025
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/2/2023 9/4/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/22/2023 1/8/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/6/2026 12/22/2025 tblLandUse LotAcreage 22.40 9.57
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.71 0.30
tblLandUse LotAcreage 12.12 30.29
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.44 7.33
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.44 9.45
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 3 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 524

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 2.3117 21.5807 20.0025 0.0401 0.2380 0.9987 1.2367 0.0511 0.9291 0.9802 0.0000 3,880.740 7 3,880.740
7 1.0536 8.0900e-
003
3,909.489
0 2024 3.2702 32.4112 28.1511 0.0634 9.3679 1.3362 10.7041 3.6973 1.2293 4.9266 0.0000 6,141.846 1 6,141.846
1 1.9475 7.8000e-
003
6,191.638
1 2025 142.1457 27.9737 40.5156 0.0924 9.3679 1.1316 10.4995 3.6973 1.0411 4.7384 0.0000 9,240.569 2 9,240.569
2 1.9467 0.3601 9,383.640
2 2026 142.1007 27.0282 40.1364 0.0914 3.4007 1.0348 4.4355 0.9169 0.9679 1.8848 0.0000 9,154.258 1 9,154.258
1 1.4249 0.3512 9,294.546
0 Maximum 142.1457 32.4112 40.5156 0.0924 9.3679 1.3362 10.7041 3.6973 1.2293 4.9266 0.0000 9,240.569 2 9,240.569
2 1.9475 0.3601 9,383.640
2 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 4 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 525

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 1.3043 32.7602 25.0330 0.0401 0.1796 0.9147 1.0943 0.0423 0.9146 0.9569 0.0000 3,880.740 7 3,880.740
7 1.0536 8.0900e-
003
3,909.489
0 2024 1.8626 51.2729 37.1509 0.0634 4.3059 1.3341 5.6400 1.6878 1.3340 3.0218 0.0000 6,141.846 1 6,141.846
1 1.9475 7.8000e-
003
6,191.638
0 2025 141.8181 51.2695 45.0456 0.0924 4.3059 1.7035 5.6400 1.6878 1.7014 3.0218 0.0000 9,240.569 2 9,240.569
2 1.9467 0.3601 9,383.640
2 2026 141.7731 50.8528 44.6664 0.0914 3.4007 1.7028 5.1035 0.9169 1.7007 2.6176 0.0000 9,154.258 1 9,154.258
1 1.4249 0.3512 9,294.546
0 Maximum 141.8181 51.2729 45.0456 0.0924 4.3059 1.7035 5.6400 1.6878 1.7014 3.0218 0.0000 9,240.569 2 9,240.569
2 1.9475 0.3601 9,383.640
2 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

1.06 -70.79 -17.93 0.00 45.51 -25.63 34.97 48.17 -35.60 23.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 5 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 526

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 99.4736 1.7139 115.1169 0.2029 15.2039 15.2039 15.2039 15.2039 1,632.118 2 540.6118 2,172.730
0 2.0618 0.1152 2,258.604
0 Energy 0.3136 2.8176 2.1508 0.0171 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 3,421.004 4 3,421.004
4 0.0656 0.0627 3,441.333
7 Mobile 5.7869 6.8860 58.8708 0.1171 13.9780 0.0859 14.0638 3.7230 0.0800 3.8030 12,290.94 76 12,290.94
76 0.8071 0.5947 12,488.35
37 Total 105.5741 11.4175 176.1384 0.3370 13.9780 15.5064 29.4844 3.7230 15.5006 19.2236 1,632.118 2 16,252.56
39 17,884.68
21 2.9345 0.7727 18,188.29
15 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 16.9895 1.1669 8.4239 7.2900e-
003

0.1310 0.1310 0.1310 0.1310 0.0000 1,387.035
4 1,387.035
4 0.0403 0.0252 1,395.541
3 Energy 0.3136 2.8176 2.1508 0.0171 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 3,421.004 4 3,421.004
4 0.0656 0.0627 3,441.333
7 Mobile 5.7869 6.8860 58.8708 0.1171 13.9780 0.0859 14.0638 3.7230 0.0800 3.8030 12,290.94 76 12,290.94
76 0.8071 0.5947 12,488.35
37 Total 23.0900 10.8705 69.4455 0.1415 13.9780 0.4336 14.4115 3.7230 0.4277 4.1507 0.0000 17,098.98 74 17,098.98
74 0.9129 0.6826 17,325.22
87 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 6 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 527

78.13 4.79 60.57 58.02 0.00 97.20 51.12 0.00 97.24 78.41 100.00 -5.21 4.39 68.89 11.65 4.75 Residential Indoor: 306,180; Residential Outdoor: 102,060; Non-Residential Indoor: 791,660; Non-Residential Outdoor: 263,887; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 780
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 7 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 528

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 44.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 266.00 97.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 53.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 8 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 529

0.0676 0.0157 3.0000e-
004

8.5500e-
003

5.4000e-
004

9.0900e-
003

2.3400e-
003

5.1000e-
004

2.8600e-
003

32.1792 32.1792 1.0600e-
003

5.1000e-
003

33.7252
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0416 0.0288 0.3434 9.9000e-
004

0.1232 6.1000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 5.6000e-
004

0.0333 101.5775 101.5775 3.1300e-
003

2.9900e-
003
102.5455
Total 0.0426 0.0963 0.3592 1.2900e-
003

0.1318 1.1500e-
003

0.1329 0.0350 1.0700e-
003

0.0361 133.7567 133.7567 4.1900e-
003

8.0900e-
003
136.2707
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 9 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 530

0.0000 7.2400e-
003

0.0676 0.0157 3.0000e-
004

8.5500e-
003

5.4000e-
004

9.0900e-
003

2.3400e-
003

5.1000e-
004

2.8600e-
003

32.1792 32.1792 1.0600e-
003

5.1000e-
003

33.7252
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0416 0.0288 0.3434 9.9000e-
004

0.1232 6.1000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 5.6000e-
004

0.0333 101.5775 101.5775 3.1300e-
003

2.9900e-
003
102.5455
Total 0.0426 0.0963 0.3592 1.2900e-
003

0.1318 1.1500e-
003

0.1329 0.0350 1.0700e-
003

0.0361 133.7567 133.7567 4.1900e-
003

8.0900e-
003
136.2707
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 10 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 531

0.0676 0.0158 2.9000e-
004

8.5500e-
003

5.4000e-
004

9.0900e-
003

2.3400e-
003

5.2000e-
004

2.8600e-
003

31.6788 31.6788 1.0600e-
003

5.0200e-
003

33.2014
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0390 0.0257 0.3212 9.6000e-
004

0.1232 5.8000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 5.4000e-
004

0.0332 99.0731 99.0731 2.8400e-
003

2.7800e-
003

99.9731
Total 0.0400 0.0933 0.3370 1.2500e-
003

0.1318 1.1200e-
003

0.1329 0.0350 1.0600e-
003

0.0361 130.7519 130.7519 3.9000e-
003

7.8000e-
003
133.1746
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 11 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 532

0.0000 7.2400e-
003

0.0676 0.0158 2.9000e-
004

8.5500e-
003

5.4000e-
004

9.0900e-
003

2.3400e-
003

5.2000e-
004

2.8600e-
003

31.6788 31.6788 1.0600e-
003

5.0200e-
003

33.2014
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0390 0.0257 0.3212 9.6000e-
004

0.1232 5.8000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 5.4000e-
004

0.0332 99.0731 99.0731 2.8400e-
003

2.7800e-
003

99.9731
Total 0.0400 0.0933 0.3370 1.2500e-
003

0.1318 1.1200e-
003

0.1329 0.0350 1.0600e-
003

0.0361 130.7519 130.7519 3.9000e-
003

7.8000e-
003
133.1746
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 12 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 533

0.1643 7.8000e-
004

0.1651 0.0436 7.1000e-
004

0.0443 132.0975 132.0975 3.7900e-
003

3.7100e-
003
133.2975
Total 0.0520 0.0342 0.4283 1.2800e-
003

0.1643 7.8000e-
004

0.1651 0.0436 7.1000e-
004

0.0443 132.0975 132.0975 3.7900e-
003

3.7100e-
003
133.2975
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 13 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 534

3.3 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 4.1416 0.0000 4.1416 1.6442 0.0000 1.6442 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8106 51.2386 36.7226 0.0621 1.3333 1.3333 1.3333 1.3333 0.0000 6,009.748 7 6,009.748
7 1.9437 6,058.340
5 Total 1.8106 51.2386 36.7226 0.0621 4.1416 1.3333 5.4749 1.6442 1.3333 2.9775 0.0000 6,009.748 7 6,009.748
7 1.9437 6,058.340
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0520 0.0342 0.4283 1.2800e-
003

0.1643 7.8000e-
004

0.1651 0.0436 7.1000e-
004

0.0443 132.0975 132.0975 3.7900e-
003

3.7100e-
003
133.2975
Total 0.0520 0.0342 0.4283 1.2800e-
003

0.1643 7.8000e-
004

0.1651 0.0436 7.1000e-
004

0.0443 132.0975 132.0975 3.7900e-
003

3.7100e-
003
133.2975
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 14 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 535

0.1643 7.4000e-
004

0.1650 0.0436 6.8000e-
004

0.0443 128.9424 128.9424 3.4500e-
003

3.4800e-
003
130.0645
Total 0.0490 0.0308 0.4025 1.2400e-
003

0.1643 7.4000e-
004

0.1650 0.0436 6.8000e-
004

0.0443 128.9424 128.9424 3.4500e-
003

3.4800e-
003
130.0645
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 15 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 536

3.3 Grading - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 4.1416 0.0000 4.1416 1.6442 0.0000 1.6442 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8106 51.2386 36.7226 0.0621 1.3333 1.3333 1.3333 1.3333 0.0000 6,008.281 4 6,008.281
4 1.9432 6,056.861
4 Total 1.8106 51.2386 36.7226 0.0621 4.1416 1.3333 5.4749 1.6442 1.3333 2.9775 0.0000 6,008.281 4 6,008.281
4 1.9432 6,056.861
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0490 0.0308 0.4025 1.2400e-
003

0.1643 7.4000e-
004

0.1650 0.0436 6.8000e-
004

0.0443 128.9424 128.9424 3.4500e-
003

3.4800e-
003
130.0645
Total 0.0490 0.0308 0.4025 1.2400e-
003

0.1643 7.4000e-
004

0.1650 0.0436 6.8000e-
004

0.0443 128.9424 128.9424 3.4500e-
003

3.4800e-
003
130.0645
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 16 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 537

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Total 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0962 4.3880 1.3220 0.0190 0.6570 0.0255 0.6825 0.1891 0.0244 0.2135 2,042.562 9 2,042.562
9 0.0424 0.3021 2,133.645
5 Worker 0.6523 0.4101 5.3533 0.0165 2.1851 9.8800e-
003

2.1950 0.5796 9.0900e-
003

0.5887 1,714.934
4 1,714.934
4 0.0459 0.0462 1,729.857
7 Total 0.7485 4.7980 6.6753 0.0355 2.8421 0.0354 2.8775 0.7687 0.0335 0.8022 3,757.497 3 3,757.497
3 0.0883 0.3483 3,863.503
2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 17 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 538

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0809 23.5544 17.8738 0.0270 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Total 1.0809 23.5544 17.8738 0.0270 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0962 4.3880 1.3220 0.0190 0.6570 0.0255 0.6825 0.1891 0.0244 0.2135 2,042.562 9 2,042.562
9 0.0424 0.3021 2,133.645
5 Worker 0.6523 0.4101 5.3533 0.0165 2.1851 9.8800e-
003

2.1950 0.5796 9.0900e-
003

0.5887 1,714.934
4 1,714.934
4 0.0459 0.0462 1,729.857
7 Total 0.7485 4.7980 6.6753 0.0355 2.8421 0.0354 2.8775 0.7687 0.0335 0.8022 3,757.497 3 3,757.497
3 0.0883 0.3483 3,863.503
2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 18 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 539

3.4 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Total 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0939 4.3626 1.3032 0.0187 0.6570 0.0253 0.6824 0.1892 0.0242 0.2134 2,005.175 1 2,005.175
1 0.0422 0.2964 2,094.549
5 Worker 0.6183 0.3734 5.0663 0.0160 2.1851 9.4100e-
003

2.1945 0.5796 8.6600e-
003

0.5883 1,675.971
6 1,675.971
6 0.0419 0.0437 1,690.038
8 Total 0.7122 4.7359 6.3695 0.0346 2.8421 0.0348 2.8769 0.7688 0.0329 0.8017 3,681.146 7 3,681.146
7 0.0841 0.3401 3,784.588
3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 19 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 540

3.4 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0809 23.5544 17.8738 0.0270 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Total 1.0809 23.5544 17.8738 0.0270 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0939 4.3626 1.3032 0.0187 0.6570 0.0253 0.6824 0.1892 0.0242 0.2134 2,005.175 1 2,005.175
1 0.0422 0.2964 2,094.549
5 Worker 0.6183 0.3734 5.0663 0.0160 2.1851 9.4100e-
003

2.1945 0.5796 8.6600e-
003

0.5883 1,675.971
6 1,675.971
6 0.0419 0.0437 1,690.038
8 Total 0.7122 4.7359 6.3695 0.0346 2.8421 0.0348 2.8769 0.7688 0.0329 0.8017 3,681.146 7 3,681.146
7 0.0841 0.3401 3,784.588
3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 20 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 541

0.1232 5.6000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 5.1000e-
004

0.0332 96.7068 96.7068 2.5900e-
003

2.6100e-
003

97.5484
Total 0.0368 0.0231 0.3019 9.3000e-
004

0.1232 5.6000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 5.1000e-
004

0.0332 96.7068 96.7068 2.5900e-
003

2.6100e-
003

97.5484
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 21 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 542

3.5 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9311 20.1146 17.2957 0.0228 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9311 20.1146 17.2957 0.0228 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0368 0.0231 0.3019 9.3000e-
004

0.1232 5.6000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 5.1000e-
004

0.0332 96.7068 96.7068 2.5900e-
003

2.6100e-
003

97.5484
Total 0.0368 0.0231 0.3019 9.3000e-
004

0.1232 5.6000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 5.1000e-
004

0.0332 96.7068 96.7068 2.5900e-
003

2.6100e-
003

97.5484
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 22 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 543

0.1232 5.3000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 4.9000e-
004

0.0332 94.5097 94.5097 2.3600e-
003

2.4600e-
003

95.3029
Total 0.0349 0.0211 0.2857 9.0000e-
004

0.1232 5.3000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 4.9000e-
004

0.0332 94.5097 94.5097 2.3600e-
003

2.4600e-
003

95.3029
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 23 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 544

3.5 Paving - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9311 20.1146 17.2957 0.0228 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9311 20.1146 17.2957 0.0228 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0349 0.0211 0.2857 9.0000e-
004

0.1232 5.3000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 4.9000e-
004

0.0332 94.5097 94.5097 2.3600e-
003

2.4600e-
003

95.3029
Total 0.0349 0.0211 0.2857 9.0000e-
004

0.1232 5.3000e-
004

0.1238 0.0327 4.9000e-
004

0.0332 94.5097 94.5097 2.3600e-
003

2.4600e-
003

95.3029
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 24 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 545

0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 138.9479 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e-
003

0.4354 1.9700e-
003

0.4374 0.1155 1.8100e-
003

0.1173 341.6975 341.6975 9.1400e-
003

9.2100e-
003
344.6709
Total 0.1300 0.0817 1.0666 3.2800e-
003

0.4354 1.9700e-
003

0.4374 0.1155 1.8100e-
003

0.1173 341.6975 341.6975 9.1400e-
003

9.2100e-
003
344.6709
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 25 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 546

0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 138.8909 2.3524 1.8324 2.9700e-
003

0.4354 1.9700e-
003

0.4374 0.1155 1.8100e-
003

0.1173 341.6975 341.6975 9.1400e-
003

9.2100e-
003
344.6709
Total 0.1300 0.0817 1.0666 3.2800e-
003

0.4354 1.9700e-
003

0.4374 0.1155 1.8100e-
003

0.1173 341.6975 341.6975 9.1400e-
003

9.2100e-
003
344.6709
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 26 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 547

0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 138.9479 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e-
003

0.4354 1.8800e-
003

0.4373 0.1155 1.7300e-
003

0.1172 333.9342 333.9342 8.3500e-
003

8.7000e-
003
336.7370
Total 0.1232 0.0744 1.0095 3.1800e-
003

0.4354 1.8800e-
003

0.4373 0.1155 1.7300e-
003

0.1172 333.9342 333.9342 8.3500e-
003

8.7000e-
003
336.7370
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 27 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 548

0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 138.8909 2.3524 1.8324 2.9700e-
003

0.4354 1.8800e-
003

0.4373 0.1155 1.7300e-
003

0.1172 333.9342 333.9342 8.3500e-
003

8.7000e-
003
336.7370
Total 0.1232 0.0744 1.0095 3.1800e-
003

0.4354 1.8800e-
003

0.4373 0.1155 1.7300e-
003

0.1172 333.9342 333.9342 8.3500e-
003

8.7000e-
003
336.7370
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 28 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 549

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 5.7869 6.8860 58.8708 0.1171 13.9780 0.0859 14.0638 3.7230 0.0800 3.8030 12,290.94 76 12,290.94
76 0.8071 0.5947 12,488.35
37 Unmitigated 5.7869 6.8860 58.8708 0.1171 13.9780 0.0859 14.0638 3.7230 0.0800 3.8030 12,290.94 76 12,290.94
76 0.8071 0.5947 12,488.35
37 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.3136 2.8176 2.1508 0.0171 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 3,421.004 4 3,421.004
4 0.0656 0.0627 3,441.333
7 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.3136 2.8176 2.1508 0.0171 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 3,421.004 4 3,421.004
4 0.0656 0.0627 3,441.333
7 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 30 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 551

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid
Rise
620.015 6.6900e-
003

0.0571 0.0243 3.6000e-
004

4.6200e-
003

72.9429 72.9429 1.4000e-
003

1.3400e-
003

0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 592.2444 592.2444 0.0114 0.0109 595.7638 Total 0.3136 2.8176 2.1508 0.0171 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 3,421.004 4 3,421.004
4 0.0656 0.0627 3,441.333
8 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 31 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 552
Use only Natural Gas Hearths

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

0.620015 6.6900e-
003

0.0571 0.0243 3.6000e-
004

4.6200e-
003

72.9429 72.9429 1.4000e-
003

1.3400e-
003

73.3764
Industrial Park 23.4244 0.2526 2.2965 1.9291 0.0138 0.1745 0.1745 0.1745 0.1745 2,755.817 1 2,755.817
1 0.0528 0.0505 2,772.193
6 Single Family
Housing

5.03408 0.0543 0.4639 0.1974 2.9600e-
003

0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 592.2444 592.2444 0.0114 0.0109 595.7638 Total 0.3136 2.8176 2.1508 0.0171 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 3,421.004 4 3,421.004
4 0.0656 0.0627 3,441.333
8 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 32 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 553
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 16.9895 1.1669 8.4239 7.2900e-
003

2.0912 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.0441 0.0441 0.0441 0.0441 14.3765 14.3765 0.0140 14.7255 Total 99.4736 1.7139 115.1169 0.2029 15.2039 15.2039 15.2039 15.2039 1,632.118 2 540.6118 2,172.730
0 2.0618 0.1152 2,258.604
0 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 33 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 554

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

2.0912 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

14.5300 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.1258 1.0753 0.4576 6.8600e-
003

0.0869 0.0869 0.0869 0.0869 0.0000 1,372.658
8 1,372.658
8 0.0263 0.0252 1,380.815
9 Landscaping 0.2425 0.0916 7.9664 4.2000e-
004

0.0441 0.0441 0.0441 0.0441 14.3765 14.3765 0.0140 14.7255 Total 16.9895 1.1669 8.4239 7.2800e-
003

0.1310 0.1310 0.1310 0.1310 0.0000 1,387.035
4 1,387.035
4 0.0403 0.0252 1,395.541
3 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/2/2021 2:18 PMPage 34 of 35 Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 555

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

Appendix B
Special Status Plant Survey Report

557

983 University Avenue, Building D  Los Gatos, CA 95032  408.458.3200  www.harveyecology.com May 27, 2021
Randall Branaugh
Bex Development
19077 Madison Avenue
Castro Valley, CA 94546

Subject: Results of Protocol -level Special-Status Plant Surveys in Support of the Branaugh Property Development (Project # 4423-01)
Dear Mr. Inderbitzen:

H. T. Harvey & Associates is pleased to submit this letter report describing the results of special -status plant surveys conducted on the Branaugh property at 1881 Collier Canyon Rd., Dublin, California (APN 905-1-4-4).

Technical biological studies conducted in support of the Dublin Boulevard -North Canyons Parkway Project by H. T. Harvey & Associates and others identified several special -status plant species that may occur within the alignment including portions that bisect the Branaugh property. In order to support California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis of future development of the property, H. T. Harvey & Associates has conducted two rounds of protocol-level surveys for special -status plant species within the approximately

39.9-acre property. The surveys were conducted according to California Native Plant Society (CNPS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) protocols for assessing project impacts on special -status plant species. No special -status plant species were observed and based on the results of the surveys are considered absent from the property. The following letter report describes the methods and results of our survey.

Methods
The study area considered for this survey included the entirety of the Branaugh property (APN 905-1-4-4) located in the city of Dublin, California, Alameda County, north of I-580, and located between Croak Road to the west and Dolan Road to the east. The study area is located within the Livermore, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle. Elevations within the study area range from approximately 370 to 580 feet (ft) North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) (Google Inc. 2021), with the highest elevations in the north portion of the parcel, and the lowest elevations along the southern fence line of the property.

Prior to conducting field work, H. T. Harvey & Associates ecologists reviewed available background materials including aerial images (Google Inc. 2021), a USGS topographic map, the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2021) , as well previous reports conducted for nearby projects, primarily the Dublin Boulevard-North Canyons Parkway Project (H. T. Harvey & Associates 2019). For the purposes of this report, the “project vicinity” is defined as the area within a 5-mile radius surrounding the project study area. 558

2 H. T. Harvey & Associates
In addition, we reviewed all species on current CNPS California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B lists occurring in the project region, which is defined as the Livermore, California USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles and surrounding eight quadrangles ( Diablo, Tassajara, Byron Hot Springs, Dublin, Altamont, La Costa Valley, Mendenhall Springs, and Niles, California). Quadrangle-level results are not maintained for CRPR 3 and 4 species, so we also conducted a search of the CNPS Inventory records for these species occurring in Alameda County (CNPS 2021). In addition, we queried the CNDDB (2021) for natural communities of special concern that occur within the project study area.

Site Visits
Two rounds of rare plant surveys of the project study area were conducted by H. T. Harvey & Associates .

Surveys occurred on April 9th and 10th, 2020 and September 29th, 2020, and on March 25th and April 29th, 2021 for early blooming species. The purpose of these surveys was to conduct protocol -level, floristic surveys for special-status plants that were determined to have potential to occur on the site. The first round of surveys conducted on April 9 and 10th, 2020 by plant ecologists Jill Pastick, M.S. and Brad Comito, B.S. The surveys were conducted over the course of two days in simultaneous with the jurisdictional wetland delineation. The second round of rare plant surveys was conducted by plant ecologists Jill Pastick, M.S. and Andrew Dilworth, B.S. on September 29 th, 2020 for late flowering species such as Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) and San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana). Prior to the September 29, 2020 survey, a reference site in Santa Clara County (Sunnyvale Baylands Park: CNDDB Occurrence #18) was visited by Ms. Pastick to confirm that Congdon’s tarplant was in bloom and was identifiable.

The special-status plant surveys were conducted according to protocols described by CNPS (2001) and CDFW (2018). This requires that surveys are floristic in nature, i.e. that all species encountered during the survey area identified to species, and that the surveys are conducting during time periods that coincide with blooming times for special-status plants that have potential to occur on the site. During the surveys, the plant ecologists walked the entirety of the study area with meandering transects, approximately 50 -100 feet apart, for full coverage of the site, with a greater intensity of survey effort spent in areas that were less disturbed and represent a higher potential for occurrence of special-status plant species.

Results
The CNPS (2021) and CNDDB (2021) identify 81 special-status plant species as potentially occurring in at least one of the nine USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles containing or surrounding the project alignment for species with a CRPR 1 and 2, or in Alameda County for CRPR 3 and 4 species. Based on a background review of general habitats and geologic substrates of the study area, as well as previous surveys conducted of the project area, a majority of these species were able to be eliminated from consideration for at least one of the following reasons:
(1) absence of suitable habitat types; (2) lack of specific microhabitat or edaphic requirements; (3) the elevation range of the species is outside of the range of the project study area; and/or (4) the species is presumed extirpated from the project region. A previous Caltrans Natural Environment Study (NES) prepared for the Dublin Boulevard-North Canyons Parkway Project (H. T. Harvey & Associates 2019), which includes a central portion of the Branaugh property, determined that twenty-two species were considered to have some potential 559

3 H. T. Harvey & Associates
to occur on or near the study area. Table 1 lists these species along with their habitat requirements, blooming periods, and potential for occurrence within the Branaugh property . These species that were targeted during the two rounds of surveys conducted of the Branaugh parcel. 560

4 Table 1. Special-status Plant Species, Their Status, and Potential Occurrence on the Branaugh Property Name *Status Habitat Results of Survey
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Species
Heartscale
(Atriplex cordulata var.
cordulata)
CNPS
Rank 1B.2
Chenopod scrub, meadows and
seeps with saline or alkaline soils;
valley and foothill grassland in
sandy soils; 0–560 ft.

Species absent. There is marginally suitable habitat in the form of seasonal wetlands. However, these wetlands are of low quality, dominated by non-native hydrophytes and grasses. This species is known primarily from the Livermore Wetlands Preserve in eastern Alameda County. Due to a lack of suitable, high quality valley and foothill grassland, and a lack of sandy soils throughout the study area, this species is determined to be absent from the study area.

Crownscale
(Atriplex coronata var.
coronata)
CNPS
Rank 4.2
Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools in clay
alkaline soils; 0–1,935 ft.

Species absent. There are some seasonal wetlands mapped throughout the study area, however, these wetlands are not alkaline and are of generally low quality, dominated by non- native hydrophytes and grasses. Only a small section of alkaline California annual grassland occurs in the southern portion of the study area. This species is known primarily from the Livermore Wetlands Preserve in eastern Alameda County. Due to a lack of suitable, high quality valley and foothill grassland, and a lack of sandy throughout the study area, this species is determined to be absent from the study area.
561

5 Name *Status Habitat Results of Survey
Brittlescale
(Atriplex depressa)
CNPS
Rank 1B.2
Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools in clay
alkaline soils; 0–1,050 ft.

Species absent. There is marginally suitable habitat throughout the study area in the form of California annual grassland. A nearby CNDDB record, Occurrence #65, in Livermore,
California, showed the species growing in an annual grassland.

However, the California annual grassland within the study area was dominated by ruderal grass species, such as wild oats and bromes, and lacks a diversity of native forbs. Thus, suitable habitat was not present within the study area and the species is determined to be absent in the study area.

Lesser saltscale
(Atriplex minuscula)
CNPS
Rank 1B.1
Chenopod scrub, playas, valley
and foothill grassland in clay
alkaline soils; 45–655 ft.

Species absent. This species is known primarily from the Livermore Wetlands Preserve in eastern Alameda County. There is marginally suitable habitat in the southern portion of the study area in the form of California annual grassland with alkaline soils.

However, the California annual grassland within the study area was dominated by ruderal grass species, such as wild oats and bromes, and lacks a diversity of native forbs. This species is determined to be absent from the study area.

Congdon’s tarplant
(Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii)
CNPS
Rank 1B.1
Valley and foothill grassland in
depressions, swales floodplains with
alkaline soils; usually disturbed
areas; 0–755 ft.

Species absent. The statewide population includes 91
occurrences, and of these, approximately 20 occur within the immediate vicinity of the study area. The CNDDB has recorded up to 114,000 individuals of Congdon’s tarplant to the west of the study area, between Fallon Road and Croak Road (CNDDB Occurrence #11). Congdon’s tarplant was targeted during the September 2020 survey, which was conducted at a time when the species would have been apparent if it were present. No Congdon’s tarplant was observed on-site.
562

6 Name *Status Habitat Results of Survey
Hispid bird's beak
(Chloropyron molle ssp.
hispidum)
CNPS
Rank 1B.1
Saline marshes, playas, and flats
within valley and foothill grassland;
0–510 ft.

Species Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from the study area.

No saline marshes, playas, or flats were mapped within the property. This species is known primarily from the Livermore Wetlands Preserve in eastern Alameda County. A single CNDDB record has been mapped in Alameda County (Occurrence
#15). This occurrence was recorded in an alkali grassland/alkali sink scrub, which was not observed within the study area.

Therefore, this species is determined to be absent from the property.

San Joaquin spearscale
(Extriplex joaquinana)
CNPS
Rank 1B.2
Chenopod scrub, meadows and
seeps, playas, valley and foothill
grassland in alkaline soils; 0–2,740 ft.

Species absent. Marginally suitable habitat and suitable alkaline soils occur near the southern portion of the study area. The statewide population is composed of approximately 111 extant occurrences; and of these, 11 are or were within the immediate vicinity of the study area. The CNDDB has recorded several occurrences near the study area, some of which have likely been extirpated by recent development. The species was not observed in the seasonal wetland habitat in the southern during the April 2020 or September 2020 surveys. Thus, it is determined to be absent from the study area.

Diablo helianthella
(Helianthella castanea)
CNPS
Rank 1B.2
Broadleafed upland forest,
chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, riparian woodland,
valley and foothill grassland
generally in rocky alluvial soils; 195–
4,265 ft.

Species absent. Suitable habitat is absent from the study area.

This species is known from two nearby occurrences of this species are mapped north of the study area in Alameda
County, (CNDDB 2021, Occurrences # 93 and 94) which is
located within a 5-mi radius of the study area. These populations were observed on the north facing slopes of open grassland with scattered shrubs and valley oak trees (CNDDB 2021), which was not observed within the study area. Therefore, this species is determined to be absent from the property.
563

7 Name *Status Habitat Results of Survey
Hogwallow starfish
(Hesperevax caulescens)
CNPS
Rank 4.2
Drying shrink-swell clay of shallow
vernal pools and flats/depressions
in Valley and foothill grassland;
sometimes in alkaline soil; 0–1,655 ft.

Species Absent. Only marginally suitable habitat was mapped within the study area, in the form of depressions in California annual grassland habitat at the southern portion of the study area. This species is known mainly from the Diablo Range in Alameda County. No CNDDB occurrences have been mapped
for this species in Alameda County. This species is determined to be absent from the study area.

Ferris’s goldfields
(Lasthenia ferrisiae)
CNPS
Rank 4.2
Wet saline flats and vernal pools
with clay soils; 65–2,295 ft.

Species Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from the study area.

No saline flats or clay vernal pools were mapped within the study area. Additionally, no CNDDB occurrences have been mapped in the study area vicinity. Therefore, this species is determined to be absent from the study area.

Little mousetail
(Myosurus minimus ssp. apus)
CNPS
Rank 3.1
Wet fields, vernal pools (alkaline
soils), streambanks in valley and
foothill grassland; 65–2,100 ft.

Species absent. Only marginally suitable habitat is present in the study area. No alkaline vernal pools were mapped within the study area, and the mapped drainage did not provide suitable habitat. This species is known primarily from the Livermore Wetlands Preserve and the Diablo range in eastern Alameda County. This species was not detected during the 2020 focused plant surveys and is determined to be absent from the study area.
564

8 Name *Status Habitat Results of Survey
Cotula navarretia
(Navarretia cotulifolia)
CNPS
Rank 4.2
Occurs in wetlands with heavy soils
within chaparral, cismontane
woodland, valley and foothill
grassland; 10–6,005 ft.

Species absent. Only marginally suitable habitat in present in the study area, in the form of California annual grassland throughout the study area. The species is known primarily from the Livermore Wetlands Preserve and the Diablo range in eastern Alameda County. However, the California annual
grassland within the study area was dominated by ruderal grass species, such as wild oats and bromes, and lacks a diversity of native forbs. Thus, suitable habitat was not present within the study area and the species is determined to be absent in the study area.

Adobe navarretia
(Navarretia nigelliformis ssp.
nigelliformis)
CNPS
Rank 4.2
Valley and foothill grassland in clay
depressions, vernal pools; 325–3,280
ft.

Species absent. Only marginally suitable habitat was mapped within the study area in the form of the seasonal wetlands in the central portion of the study area. This species was not observed during the protocol-level surveys that were conducted when this species would have been apparent and identifiable.

Therefore, this species is determined to be absent from the study area.

Prostrate vernal pool
navarretia
(Navarretia prostrata)
CNPS
Rank 1B.1
Coastal scrub, meadows and
seeps, valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools; 5–3,970 ft.

Species absent. A CNDDB occurrence record exists for a small population of prostrate vernal pool navarretia occurring to the west of the study area (CNDDB occurrence #61). This polygon is non-specific, but appears to be centered on a portion of seasonal wetlands near the junction of Fallon Rd. and Croak Rd., east of the study area. Marginally suitable habitat occurs for this species in the seasonal wetlands, though no Navarretia species were observed during the spring 2020 surveys. This species is determined to be absent from the study area. 565

9 Name *Status Habitat Results of Survey
Lobb’s aquatic buttercup
(Ranunculus lobbii)
CNPS
Rank 4.2
Vernal pools and ponds in
cismontane woodland, North Coast
coniferous forest, valley and foothill
grassland; 45–1,540 ft.

Species absent. Suitable habitat for this species is not present on the Branaugh property. This species is determined to be absent from the study area.

Caper-fruited tropidocarpum
(Tropidocarpum
capparideum)
CNPS
Rank 1B.1
Valley and foothill grassland in
alkaline soils; 0–1495 ft.

Species absent. There is marginally suitable habitat within the study area, in the form of steep slopes within the grassland habitat. A single CNDDB occurrence is located within a 5-mi radius of the study area (CNDDB 2021, Occurrence #11),
however, this occurrence is from 1897, and has not been observed since. All other CNDDB occurrences in Alameda
County are historic and recorded east of the project area in the Altamont Hills. This species was not detected during the 202 focused surveys, which were conducted at a time of year when the species would have been blooming and apparent if
present. Due to the dominance of non-native grasses and forbs in the grassland on the site, and only small areas mapped as alkaline soils, suitable habitat for this species is limited. Therefore, this species is determined to be absent from the study area.

Special-Status Species Code Designations
FE = Federally listed Endangered
FT = Federally listed Threatened
FC = Federal Candidate for listing
SE = State listed Endangered
ST = State listed Threatened
SC = State Candidate for listing
CSSC = California Species of Special Concern
SP = State Fully Protected Species
566

10 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Site Conditions
The climate in the vicinity of the study area is coastal Mediterranean, with most rain falling in the winter and spring, and with dry summers. Mild cool temperatures are common in the winter. Hot to mild temperatures are common in the summer. Climate conditions in the study area include a 30-year average of approximately 16.11 inches of annual precipitation with a monthly average temperature range from 48.0ºF to 72.2ºF (PRISM Climate Group 2021). Precipitation in the study area was lower than the normal range of precipitation for the 12-month period leading up to the delineation. Total precipitation recorded in the area from April 2019 through March 2020 was 12.2 inches, which is approximately 75% of the 30-year average (1981-2010) for that same time period (PRISM Climate Group 2021). These conditions were considered when assessing the biotic habitats present within the study area, and the potential for species to occur.

Four soil types occur in the study area: Diablo clay, very deep, 3 to 15 percent slopes ; Linne clay loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes; Linne clay loam 15 to 30 percent slopes, MLRA, and Rincon clay loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes (NRCS 2021). Diablo clay and Linne clay loam soils are alkaline soils, with the former being considered mildly alkaline and the latter being moderately alkaline.

Biotic Habitats
The study area consists primarily of undeveloped grazing ranchland and open space, but also includes some rural development in the northwest and southern portion. The land uses on nearby properties are largely agricultural, with residential, industrial, open space, and commercial uses as well. Five habitat types were identified within the study area during the plant surveys: California annual grassland (31.41 ac), seasonal wetland (0.18 ac), developed (8.23 ac), culvert (0.1 ac), and ephemeral str eam (0.04 ac) . Appendix B provides representative photos of these habitats in the study area.

California Annual Grassland: The majority of the study area consists of California annual grassland habitat (Photos 1, 2, and 3; Appendix B). Much of this grassland is currently is dominated by a suite of non -native grasses, such as meadow barley ( Hordeum murinum), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus ), wild oats (Avena barbata and Avena fatua), and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus). Common weedy (and non-native) forbs include various species of filaree and geranium (Erodium spp. and Geranium spp., respectively), shortpod mustard ( Hirschfeldia incana), and black mustard (Brassica nigra).

Several invasive species occur in the study area, including but not limited to black mustard, wild oat, and Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis). There is even less diversity of species in the southern portion of the study area, where the alkaline soils were mapped, with the small patches of grassland dominated by filaree and geranium spe cies and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus).

Developed: This habitat contained existing structures such as buildings, trailers, driveways, and parking lots.

Man-made drainage ditches were also observed near the parking lot of the developed areas within the study 567

11 H. T. Harvey & Associates
area. This developed habitat type contained little to no vegetation, and was not suitable for any rare plant species.

Ephemeral Drainage and Culvert: A single ephemeral drainage exists near the center of the study area and runs parallel to the fence that bounds the Branaugh property to the west. This segment of ephemeral drainage is rock-lined and is fed by a culvert from which a small amount of water was observed flowing during the spring survey. This segment of ephemeral stream is approximately 100 feet long and 10 feet wide and is connected at the downstream end by a culvert which conveys flows under a road to a seasonal wetland at its downstream end. This stream was verified by the USACE as part of the Dublin Boulevard Extension Project Jurisdictional Determination.

Seasonal wetland: Seven seasonal wetlands were mapped within the study area. Five of the seasonal wetlands are situated in subtle depressions within the study area, located adjacent to or within a swale/saddle between two hills in the northern portion of the study area. Two additional wetlands are in an excavated ditch west of the developed area. At the time of the spring survey, th ese wetlands were saturated with pockets of standing water. The seasonal wetlands were dominated by hydrophytic vegetation, including Mexican rush ( Juncus mexicanus), Italian wild rye (Hordeum murinum), and English plantain (Plantago lancelota). Typical seasonal wetland habitat within this large complex is depicted in Photos 5 (Appendix B).

Results of Special-status Plant Survey
No special-status plants were observed during the protocol -level surveys conducted on the property in 2020.

The winter season preceding the surveys (spring 2020) experienced below average precipitation. Precipitation in the 2019–2020 winter season was approximately 61% of the normal annual precipitation (PRISM Climate Group 2021). Below average precipitation conditions could result in some special -status species, particularly those with an annual life cycle, not being as abundant, and therefore not as apparent. Congdon’s tarplant was observed elsewhere in the bay area in September 2020 just prior to the fall survey conducted on the Branaugh property, therefore if this species were present on -site, we are confident we would have observed it. With respect to the suite of species that are typically found in alkali seasonal wetland, vernal, or valley and foothill grassland habitat (adobe navarretia, cotula navarretia, prostrate vernal pool navarretia, hogwallow starfish, Ferris’s goldfields, brittlescale, crownscale, heartscale, lesser saltscale, hispid bird's beak, little mousetail, and Lobb’s aquatic buttercup), these species are typically found in a particular habitat types, such as those found in the Springtown Alkali Sink ecosystem to the east of the study area. The seasonal wetlands and the alkaline grasslands that were observed on the Branaugh property are not similar to those unique habitats, and characteristic species that are indicative of those habitats were not observed on the property. In addition, the dominance of non-native species such as Italian rye grass and bristly ox-tongue and bur clover, would preclude those vernal pool species listed above in Table 1. Therefore, d espite the below-average rainfall conditions, all special-status plant species are determined to be absent from the site.

568

12 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Please let us know if you have any questions regarding these results.

Sincerely,

Kelly Hardwicke, Ph.D.

Principal Plant Ecologist

569

13 H. T. Harvey & Associates
References
[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. State of California, California Natural Resources Agency. Accessed May 2021 from https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/survey-protocols#377281280-plants [CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Database. 20 21. Rarefind 5.0. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed May 2021 from http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2001. Botanical Survey Guidelines. Accessed May 2021 from https://cnps.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/03/cnps_survey_guidelines.pdf [CNPS] California Native Plant S ociety. 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (7.0 and 9.0 online editions). Accessed May 2021 from http://www.cnps.org/inventory.

Google Inc. 2021. Google Earth Pro (Version 7.1.5.1557 ) [Software]. Available from earth.google.com.

H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2019. Dublin Boulevard -North Canyons Parkway Extension Project, Natural Environment Study. Prepared for Cities of Dublin and Livermore. Regional Transportation Plan Number: 17-01-0048.
[NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2021. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Accessed May 2021 from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.

PRISM Climate Group. 2021. Online PRISM Data Explorer. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Accessed May 2021 from: http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/

570

Branaugh Property
Results of Special Status Plant Survey A-1 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 26, 2021

Appendix A. Plants Observed
Family Scientific Name Common Name
Anacardiaceae Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree
Apiaceae Foeniculum vulgare Fennel

Sanicula bipinnatifida Purple sanicle
Arecaceae Washingtonia robusta Fan palm
Asteraceae Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle
Centaurea solstitialis Yellow star thistle
Cynara cardunculus Cardoon
Erigeron canadensis Horseweed
Helminthotheca echioides Bristly ox-tongue
Hypochaeris glabra Smooth cat's ear
Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce
Matricaria discoidea Pineapple weed
Silybum marianum Milk thistle
Sonchus arvensis ssp. arvensis Field sowthistle
Sonchus asper Sticky sandspurry
Betulaceae Alnus sp. Alder
Boraginaceae Amsinckia menziesii Common fiddleneck
Amsinckia tessellata Bristly fiddleneck
Brassicaceae Brassica nigra Black mustard
Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepard's purse
Hirschfeldia incana Summer mustard
Lepidium nitidum Shining peppergrass
Raphanus sativus Wild radish
Sinapis arvensis Charlock mustard
Caryophyllaceae
Spergularia macrotheca var.
macrotheca Sticky sandspurry
Stellaria media Chickweed
Convolvulaceae Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed
Cyperaceae Carex sp. sedge
571

Branaugh Property
Results of Special Status Plant Survey A-2 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 26, 2021

Family Scientific Name Common Name
Fabaceae Medicago polymorpha Bur medic
Trifolium hirtum rose clover
Trifolium sp. Clover
Vicia sativa Spring vetch
Vicia villosa Vetch
Geraniaceae Erodium botrys Big heron bill
Erodium cicutarium red stemmed filaree
Erodium moschatum Musky stork's bill
Geranium dissectum Cutleaf geranium
Geranium molle Crane's bill geranium
Juncaceae Juncus mexicanus Mexican Rush
Malvaceae Malva nicaeensis Bull mallow
Malvella leprosa Alkali mallow
Myrtaceae Eucalyptus sp. Eucalyptus
Orobanchaceae Castilleja exserta ssp. exserta Owl's clover Plantaginaceae Plantago lanceolata Narrowleaf plantain
Poaceae Avena barbata Slender oats
Avena fatua Wild oat
Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome
Bromus hordeaceus Soft brome
Cynosurus echinatus Annual dogtail
Festuca perennis Italian rye grass
Hordeum murinum Foxtail barley
Stipa tenuissima Mexican feathergrass
Poa annua Annual blue grass
Polemoniaceae Gilia tricolor Bird's eye gilia
Polygonaceae Rumex conglomeratus Clustered dock
Rumex crispus Curly dock
Rubiaceae Sherardia arvensis Field madder
Salicaceae Populus nigra Lombardy poplar
Themidaceae Dichelostemma capitatum Blue dicks
572

Branaugh Property
Results of Special Status Plant Survey A-3 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 26, 2021

Family Scientific Name Common Name
Ulmaceae Ulmus parvifolia/pumila Chinese Elm
Urticaceae Urtica dioica common nettle
573

Branaugh Property
Results of Special Status Plant Survey B-1 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 26, 2021

Appendix B. Photo Documentation

Photo 1. Photo representative of California annual grassland habitat in the southern portion of the study area. View to the southwest.

Photo 2. Photo of California annual grassland habitat located in the central portion of the study area. View to the north.
574

Branaugh Property
Results of Special Status Plant Survey B-2 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 26, 2021

Photo 4. Photo of the ephemeral drainage located along the eastern boundary at the center of the study area. View to the north.

Photo 5. Photo representative of seasonal wetland habitat throughout the swale that runs through the center of the study area. View to the south. 575

Branaugh Property
Results of Special Status Plant Survey B-3 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 26, 2021

576
City of Dublin Branaugh Property Stage 2 Planned Development Initial Study | Appendices

Appendix C
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters

577

983 University Avenue, Building D  Los Gatos, CA 95032  408.458.3200  www.harveyecology.com

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters
Alameda County, California
Project #4423-01

Prepared for:

Randall Branaugh
Bex Development
19077 Madison Avenue
Castro Valley, CA 94546

Prepared by:

H. T. Harvey & Associates

January 11, 2021

578

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters i H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

Executive Summary
On April 9 and 10, 2020, H. T. Harvey & Associates’ biologists performed a delineation of wetlands and other waters on the Branaugh property in Dublin , California within Alameda County, California. Approximately 40 acres were surveyed for jurisdictional waters (wetlands and other waters) that may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The survey also delineated the extent of waters of the state that may be subject to regulation under the Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The on-site determination took into account drier than normal conditions during the 2019/2020 winter season relative to the 30-year normal, and the results are based on the conditions present at the time of the surveys. The study area is located in the San Francisco Bay East (Hydrologic Unit Code 18050004) watershed.

In total, approximately 0.124 acre of potentially jurisdictional features as defined by the USACE were identified within the study area. These include approximately 0.124 acre of Section 404 wetlands as seasonal wetland .

These seasonal wetlands would also be considered waters of the state, subject to regulation by the RWQCB under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and under the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act as well as CDFW jurisdictional features. A swale depicted on National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps as palustrine, emergent, persistent, temporarily flooded bisects the northern portion of the project site, and was investigated as part of this study. The feature does not exhibit surface hydrologic connections to drainages upstream or downstream, indicators of a true bed and banks or indicators of regular surface flows such as the presence of Ordinary High Water Marks were lacking; as such, this feature was not considered jurisdictional, aside from where seasonal wetlands meeting three parameters occurred in the swale.

The potentially jurisdictional features identified and delineated during the April 2020 surveys include two regulatory wetlands and waters features that were previously mapped on the Branaugh property as part of a larger delineation for the Dublin Boulevard-North Canyons Parkway Extension Project, and were verified by USACE to be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act by the USACE (File No. 2017- 00145S) (USACE 2019). These features are located in the center of the study area, have not appreciably changed since the area was verified in 2019, and include 0.053 ac of Section 404 wetlands as seasonal wetlands, and 0.048 ac of Section 404 other waters as ephemeral stream and culvert. 579

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters ii H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

Habitat Type Acres
Total Section 404 Wetlands 0.124
Seasonal wetland 0.124
Total Waters of the U.S. 0.124
Total Section 401 Waters of the State 0.124
Seasonal wetland 0.124
Total CDFW Jurisdictional Habitats 0.028
Wetlands and Waters Verified by USACE in 2019 for the Dublin Boulevard Project on Branaugh Property 0.101
Total Non-jurisdictional Areas 39.642
Wetland Delineation Study Area Total 39.867

580

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters iii H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

Table of Contents
Section 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Study Area Description .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Section 2. Survey Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Identification of Jurisdictional Waters ................................................................................................................. 8

2.1.1 Identification of Section 404 Jurisdictional Wetlands (Special Aquatic Sites) ....................................... 9

2.1.2 Identification of Section 404 Jurisdictional Other Waters...................................................................... 11

2.2 Identification of Waters of the State .................................................................................................................. 12

2.3 Identification of CDFW Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................. 13 Section 3. Survey Results and Discussion ......................................................................................................... 14

3.1 Observations, Rationales, and Assumptions ..................................................................................................... 17

3.1.1 Background Information ............................................................................................................................. 17

3.1.2 Precipitation Data .......................................................................................................................................... 17

3.1.3 Site Conditions and Observations .............................................................................................................. 18

3.1.4 Rationale for Sample Point Choice ............................................................................................................ 18

3.1.5 Photo Points................................................................................................................................................... 20

3.2 Identification of Potential Section 404 Wetlands ............................................................................................. 21

3.2.1 Seasonal Wetlands ......................................................................................................................................... 22

3.3 Identification of Potential Section 404 Other Waters ..................................................................................... 22

3.3.1 Ephemeral Stream ......................................................................................................................................... 23

3.4 Identification of Section 401 Potentially Jurisdictional Waters of the State ................................................ 23

3.5 Identification of CDFW Potentially Jurisdictional Habitats ........................................................................... 23

3.6 Wetlands and Waters Previously Verified by USACE .................................................................................... 24

3.7 Areas Not Meeting the Regulatory Definition of Waters of the U.S. ........................................................... 24 Section 4. Literature Cited .................................................................................................................................... 26

Figures

Figure 1. Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Study Area Map .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3. USGS Topographic Map .............................................................................................................................. 4 Figure

4. NRCS Soils Map ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 5. NWI Map ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 6. Biotic Habitats and Photo Points Map ..................................................................................................... 15 Figure 7. Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands and Waters ................................................................................... 16

Tables

Table 1. Soil Type, Texture, Drainage Classification, and Hydric Soil Status for Soil Types Occurring within the Study Area .................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2. Wetland Indicator Status Categories for Vascular Plants ...................................................................... 10 Table 3. Summary of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands within the Delineation Study Area ...................... 14 Table 4. Summary of Sample Point Locations and Results .................................................................................. 19 Table 5. Coordinates and Rationale for Photo Points........................................................................................... 20

581

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters iv H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

Appendices

Appendix A. Plants Observed in the Study Area ................................................................................................ A-1 Appendix B. NRCS Soil Survey Report for the Study Area .............................................................................. B-1 Appendix C. USACE Arid West Wetland Data Forms and OHWM Datasheets ......................................... C-1 Appendix D. Photos of the Study Area ................................................................................................................ D-1 Appendix E. Aquatic Resources Table ................................................................................................................. E-1 Appendix F. Signed statement from the property owner(s) allowing USACE personnel to enter the property ....................................................................................................................................................... F-1

List of Preparers

Kelly Hardwicke, Ph.D., Principal, Senior Plant and Wetland Ecologist Mark Bibbo, M.S., Senior Plant Ecologist
Jillian Pastick, M.S., Plant Ecologist
Bradley Comito, B.S., Plant Ecologist

582

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters 1 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

Section 1. Introduction

1.1 Study Area Description
The delineation study area is in the city of Dublin , California, Alameda County, north of I -580, in between Croak Road to the west and Dolan Road to the east. (Figure 1). The study area comprises the Branaugh property at 1881 Collier Canyon Rd., Dublin, California (APN 905-1-4-4) (Figure 2). The wetland delineation described in this report focused on the undeveloped, vegetated areas of the property, but the entirety of the Branaugh parcel was surveyed. The study area is located within the Livermore, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

7.5-minute quadrangle (Figure 3). Elevations within the study area range from approximately 370 to 580 feet (ft) North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) (Google Inc. 2020), with the highest elevations in the north portion of the parcel . A portion of the property intersects with the project boundary for the Dublin Boulevard-North Canyons Parkway Extension Project, which was the subject of a wetland delineation study in 2018. USACE issued a preliminary jurisdiction determination (PJD) and a verified delineation map on October 31, 2019 (File No. 2017-00145S) (USACE 2019) for that project, including a portion of the subject property.

The climate in the vicinity of the study area is coastal Mediterranean, with most rain falling in the winter and spring, and summers being dry. Mild cool temperatures are common in the winter. Hot to mild temperatures are common in the summer. Climate conditions in the study area include a 30- year average of approximately

16.11 inches of annual precipitation with a monthly average temperature range from 48.0ºF to 72.2ºF (PRISM Climate Group 2020).

Figure 4 shows the soil units mapped by the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) within the study area, and Table 1 summarizes the associated texture, drainage classification, landform setting, and hydric soil status (NRCS 2020a, b) for the four soil types found within the study area.

583
1 0 10.5
Miles
N:\Projects4400\4423-01\Reports\WetDel\Fig 1 Vicinity Map.mxd akaiser Study Area Location
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
January 2021
Lands of Branaugh - Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters (4423-01) Pacific
Ocean

M O N T E R E Y

S A N T A C L A R A

A L A M E D A

S A N B E N I T O

S T A N I S L A U S

S A N J O A Q U I N

C O N T R A C O S T A

S A N T A C R U Z

S A N M A T E O

M E R C E D

M A R I N

S A N F R A N C I S C O
Salinas
Oakland
San Jose
Stockton
Hollister
Santa Cruz
San Rafael
Redwood City
San Francisco
Detail
California
0 20
Miles
Project
Vicinity
584
Easte
rn
Portio
n
Croak
Rd
580
Collier Canyon Road
Branaugh Property
APN - 905-1-4-4
Figure 2. Study Area Map
January 2021
N:\Projects4400\4423-01\Reports\WetDel\Fig 2 Study Area Map.mxd Lands of Branaugh - Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters (4423-01) 600 0 600300
Feet
Legend
Study Area
585
Figure 3. USGS Topographic Map
January 2021
N:\Projects4400\4423-01\Reports\WetDel\Fig 3 USGS Topographic Map.mxd Lands of Branaugh - Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters (4423-01) 2,000 0 2,0001,000
Feet
Legend
Study Area
Livermore, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle 586
LaD
LaD
LaC
RdA
DvC
RdB
LaC
DvC
YmA
DvC
LaD
CdB
LaC
Figure 4. NRCS Soils Map
January 2021
N:\Projects4400\4423-01\Reports\WetDel\Fig 4 Soils Map.mxd Lands of Branaugh - Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters (4423-01) 600 0 600300
Feet
Legend
Study Area
NRCS Soil Map Units
Soil Code Description
DvC - Diablo clay, very deep, 3 to 15 percent slopes
LaC - Linne clay loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes
LaD - Linne clay loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes
RdA - Rincon clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
RdB - Rincon clay loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes
Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
United States Department of Agriculture
587

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters 6 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

Table 1. Soil Type, Texture, Drainage Classification, and Hydric Soil Status for Soil Types Occurring within the Study Area
Soil
Symbol
Soil Name Soil Texture Drainage
Classification
Landform Hydric
Status
RdB Rincon clay loam, 3 to
7 percent slopes
Clay loam Well drained Fans/footslope/valley
floors/toeslope
Yes
DvC Diablo clay, very
deep, 3 to 15 percent
slopes
Clay Well drained Hills/backslope No
LaC Linne clay loam 15 to
30 percent slopes
Clay loam Well drained Hills/backslope No
LaD Linne clay loam 15 to
30 percent slopes,
MLRA
Clay loam Well drained Hillslopes/mountain
slopes/backslope
No

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the study area is depicted in Figure 5. The NWI identified a single aquatic feature within the study area (NWI 2020). The feature is mapped as a freshwater emergent wetland (PEM1A) and generally aligns with the area mapped as a non- jurisdictional swale in the study area, as well as the six seasonal wetlands associated with the swale. NWI maps are based on interpretation of aerial photography, limited verification of mapped units, and/or classification of wetland types using the classification system developed by Cowardin et al. (1979). These data are available for general reference purposes and do not necessarily correspond to the actual presence or absence of jurisdictional waters.

588
PEM1C
PEM1A
R4SBCx
PEM1A
PEM1A
R4SBC
R4SBA
PEM1A
PEM1Cx
PSSC
PUBHh
R4SBC
R4SBC
1,300 0 1,300650
Feet
N:\Projects4400\4423-01\Reports\WetDel\Fig 5 NWI Map.mxd akaiser Figure 5. National Wetlands Inventory Map
January 2021
Lands of Branaugh - Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters (4423-01) NWI Code Description
PEM1A - Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent
Temporary Flooded
PEM1C - Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent
Seasonally Flooded
PEM1Cx - Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent
Seasonally Flooded, Excavated
PSSC - Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Seasonally Flooded
PUBHh - Palustrine, Unconsolidate Bottom,
Permanently Flooded, Diked/Impounded
R4SBA - Riverine, Intermittent, Streambed,
Temporary Flooded
R4SBC - Riverine, Intermittent, Streambed,
Seasonally Flooded
R4SBCx - Riverine, Intermittent, Streambed,
Seasonally Flooded, Excavated
Legend
Study Area
National Wetlands Inventory
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
Source: NWI 2020
589

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters 8 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

Section 2. Survey Methods
Before the delineation survey was conducted, topographic maps and aerial photos of the study area were obtained and reviewed from several sources, such as the USGS topographic map (Figure 3), NRCS soils map (Figure 4), NWI (Figure 5), Google Earth software (Google Inc. 2020), and UC Santa Barbara Library's collection of historic aerial photography (UCSB 2020).

On April 9th and 10th, 2020, H. T. Harvey & Associates plant ecologist s, Jill Pastick, M.S., and Brad Comito, B.S., surveyed the study area identified in Figures 1 and 2. The purpose of the survey was to identify the extent and distribution of wetlands and other waters that may be subject to regulation by the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. Weather conditions on April 9th and 10th, 2020, were cool to warm, dry, and clear. Approximately three days prior to the survey the region received a significant rain storm event, totaling about one and a half inches over a 72-hour period.

Ms. Pastick and Mr. Comito performed a technical delineation of wetlands and other waters in a 39.9 ac area identified on the accompanying figures as the wetland delineation study area. The delineation was performed in accordance with the Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual (Corps Manual; Environmental Laboratory 1987). Additionally, the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West (Version 2.0) (Regional Supplement) (USACE 2008a) was followed to document site conditions relative to hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Ms. Pastick and Mr. Comito performed preliminary mapping of the extent and distribution of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. that may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as well as waters of the state that may be subject to regulation under the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, whic h is administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The following sections present descriptions of the methods used to identify Section 404 jurisdictional waters (wetlands and other waters).

2.1 Identification of Jurisdictional Waters
The “Routine Determination Method, On-Site Inspection Necessary (Section D)” outlined in the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), and the updated data forms, vegetation sampling methods, and hydric soil and hydrology indicators developed for the Arid West Regional Supplement (USACE 2008a ) were used to examine the vegetation, soils, and hydrology on site. This three-parameter approach to identifying wetlands is based on the presence of a prevalence or dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and we tland hydrology.

In addition to applying these survey methods, we compiled this report in accordance with guidance provided in Updated Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program (USACE 2016a) and Information Requested for Verification of Corps Jurisdiction (USACE 2016b). These documents list the information that must be submitted as part of a request for a jurisdictional determination, including:
590

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters 9 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

• Vicinity map (Figure 1)
• Study area map (Figure 2)
• USGS quadrangle map (Figure 3)
• Soils map (Figure 4)
• NWI map (Figure 5)
• Biotic habitats map (Figure 6)
• Preliminary identification of waters map (Figure 7)
• Plant species observed (Appendix A)
• Current soil survey report (Appendix B)
• Data forms for wetlands sample points and ordinary high water mark (OHWM) datasheets (Appendix C) • Written rationale for sample point choice (Section 3.1, “Observations, Rationales, and Assumptions”) • Color photos (Appendix D)
• Aquatic resources table (Appendix E)
• Signed statement from the property owner allowing access (Appendix F) During the survey, the study area was examined for topographic features, drainages, alterations to site hydrology or vegetation, and recent significant disturbance. A determination was then made as to whethe r normal environmental conditions were present at the time of the field survey. In the field, the techniques used to identify wetlands included digging soil pits to sample soil from various depths, observing the vegetation growing near the soil sample points, and characterizing the current surface and subsurface hydrologic features present near the sample points through both observation of indicators and direct observation of hydrology. Features meeting wetland vegetation, soil, and hydrology criteria were then mapped in the field using a Trimble GeoXT™ GPS unit capable of submeter accuracy.

2.1.1 Identification of Section 404 Jurisdictional Wetlands (Special Aquatic Sites) Where wetland field characteristics were present, the surveyors examined vegetation, soils, and hydrology using the Routine Determination Method outlined in the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the updated data forms, vegetation sampling methods, and hydric soil and hydrology indicators developed for the Arid West Regional Supplement (USACE 2008a).

Hydrophytic Vegetation. Plants that can grow in soils that are saturated or inundated for long pe riods of time, which contain little or no oxygen when wetted, are considered adapted to those soils and are called hydrophytic. There are different levels of adaptation, as summarized in Table 2. Some plants can only grow in soils saturated with water (and depleted of oxygen), some are mostly found in this condition, and some are 591

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters 10 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

found equally in wet soils and in dry soils. Plants observed at each of the sample sites were identified to species, where possible, using The Jepson Manual, Vascular Plans of California, Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). The wetland indicator status of each species was obtained from the Arid West 2016 Regional Wetland Plant List (Lichvar et al. 2016). Wetland indicator species are designated according to their frequency of occurrence in wetlands. For instance, a species with a presumed frequency of occurrence of 67 to 99 % in wetlands is designated a facultative wetland indicator species. The wetland indicator groups, indicator symbol, and the frequencies of occurrence of species within wetlands, provided as a percentage, are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Wetland Indicator Status Categories for Vascular Plants Indicator Category Symbol Frequency (%) of Occurrence in Wetlands1 Obligate OBL >99 (Almost always is a hydrophyte, rarely in uplands)
Facultative wetland FACW 67 – 99 (Usually a hydrophyte but occasionally found in uplands)
Facultative FAC 34 – 66 (Commonly occurs as either a hydrophyte or non-hydrophyte)
Facultative upland FACU 1 – 33 (Occasionally is a hydrophyte, but usually occurs in uplands)
Upland UPL <1% (Rarely is a hydrophyte, almost always in uplands)
Not Listed NI Considered to be an upland species
1 Based on information contained in the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). 2 Plant species that are not listed in the Arid West 2016 Regional Wetland Plant List (Lichvar et al. 2016) are considered UPL species in Appendix A – Plants Observed in the Study Area

Obligate and facultative wetland indicator species are hydrophytes that occur “in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present” (Environmental Laboratory 1987).

Facultative indicator species may be considered wetland indicators when found growing in hydric soils that experience periodic saturation. Plant species that are not on the regional list of wetland indicator species are considered upland species. A complete list of the vascular plants observed within the study area, including their current indicator statuses, has been provided in Appendix A.

Hydric Soils. Up to 18 inches of the soil profil e were examined for hydric soil indicators. The National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) defines a hydric soil as one formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper 12 inches of soil (NRCS 2010). Hydric soils include soils developed under sufficiently wet conditions to support the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. In general, evidence of a hydric soil includes characteristics such as reducing soil conditions, soils with bright mottles and/or low matrix chroma, and soils listed as hydric by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on the National Hydric Soils List (NRCS 2020b).

Reducing soil conditions can also include circumstances where there is evidence of frequent ponding for long 592

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters 11 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

or very long duration. A long duration is defined as a period of inundation for a single event that ranges from 7 days to a month and very long is greater than one month (Environmental Laboratory 1987).

Munsell Soil Notations (Munsell 2009) were recorded for the soil matrix of each soil sample. The Munsell color system is based on three color dimensions: hue, value, and chroma. A brief description of each component of the system is described below, in the order they are used in describing soil color (i.e., hue/value/chroma):

1. Hue. The Munsell Soil Color Chart is divided into five principal hues: yellow (Y), green (G), purple (P), blue (B), and red (R), along with intermediate hues such as yellow -red (YR) and green-yellow (GY).

Example of commonly encountered hue numbers include 2.5YR, 10YR, and 5Y.

2. Value. Value refers to lightness, ranging from white to grey to black. Common numerical values for value in the Munsell Soil Color Chart range from 2 for saturated soils to 8 for faded or light colors. Hydric soils often show low -value colors when soils have accumulated sufficient organic material to indicate development under wetland conditions, but can show high-value colors when iron depletion has occurred, removing color value from the soil matrix. Value numbers are commonly reported as 8/, 2.5/, and 6/.

3. Chroma. Chroma describes the purity of the color, from “true” or “pure” colors to “pastel” or “washed out” colors. Chromas commonly range from 1 to 8, but can be higher for gleys. Soil matrix chroma values that are 1 or less, or 2 or less when mottling is present, are typical of soils that have develo ped under anaerobic conditions. Chroma numbers are listed, for example, as /1, /5, and /8.

The NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2020a) was consulted to determine which soil types have been mapped in the study area (Table 1, Figure 4). Detailed descriptions of these soil types are provided in Appendix B.

Wetland Hydrology. Wetland hydrology encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season. Wetland hydrology indicators provide evidence that the site has a continuing wetland hydrologic regime. Primary indicators might include visual observation of surface water (A1), high water table (A2), soil saturation (B1), and hydrogen sulfide odor (C1). Secondary indicators might include a passing score for the FAC -neutral test (D5) and saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9) . Each of the sample points was examined for positive field indicators (primary and secondary) of wetland hydrology, following the guidance provided in the Regional Supplement.

2.1.2 Identification of Section 404 Jurisdictional Other Waters Surveys were also conducted within the study area for “other waters”, which includes lakes, slough channels, seasonal ponds, tributary waters, non-wetland linear drainages, and salt ponds. Such areas are identified by the (seasonal or perennial) presence of standing or running water and generally lack hydrophytic vegetation. In non-tidal or muted tidal waters, USACE jurisdiction extends to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), which is defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3 as “the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics, such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character 593

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters 12 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation or the presence of litter and debris.” No potentially jurisdictional other waters were mapped within the study area.

In concert with USACE’ s efforts to revise the wetland delineation manuals and make them more specific to different geographic regions of the United States, as described above, efforts have been initiated by USACE to develop an OHWM delineation manual. In particular, two relatively recent publications have attempted to further refine the definition of OHWM and the delineation of the OHWM in the Arid West (including California):
• A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Delineation Manual (USACE 2008b) • Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2010)
For the purposes of the current study, two OHWM transects were surveyed in the field, based on the topography of the site. However, these transects were determined to lack natural geomorphic field indicators to suggest the presence of an OHWM or indicators of regular surface flows. Rather, the feature was designated as a swale, and thus not considered jurisdictional other waters.

2.2 Identification of Waters of the State
The Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter -Cologne) broadly defines waters of the State as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” Because Porter - Cologne applies to any water, whereas the CWA applies only to certain waters, California’s jurisdictional reach overlaps and may exceed the boundari es of waters of the U.S. For example, Water Quality Order No. 2004 - 0004-DWQ states that “shallow” waters of the State include headwaters, wetlands, and riparian areas. Where forested riparian habitat is not present, jurisdiction is taken to the top of bank or levee. Where forested habitat occurs, the outer canopy of any riparian trees rooted within top of bank may be considered jurisdictional as these trees can provide allochthonous input to the channel below.

On April 2, 2019, the SWRCB adopted the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. In these new guidelines, riparian habitats are not specifically described as waters of the state but instead as important buffer habitats to streams that do conform to the State Wetland Definition. The Procedures describe riparian habitat buffers as important resources that may both be included in required mitigation packages for permits for impacts to waters of the state, as well as areas requiring permit authorization from the RWQCBs to impact.

The 2019 Procedures also clarify that wetland-upland boundaries for wetlands comprising waters of the State should be set using the USACE delineation framework (Environmental Laboratory 1987, USACE 2008a), with one important distinction. Some areas in California function as wetlands despite lacking abundant wetland vegetation. For example, non-vegetated playas, tidal flats, and some types of seasonal wetlands provide a variety 594

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters 13 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

of wetland functions, including water filt ration, groundwater recharge, and the support of wetland wildlife.

While USACE procedures require 5% vegetative cover to be considered a wetland rather than “other waters”, the RWQCB has determined that no such minimum vegetative cover is necessary for an area to be considered a wetland under the State Wetland Definition. Waters of the state were identified within the study area.

2.3 Identification of CDFW Jurisdiction
Ephemeral and intermittent streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue line streams on USGS maps, and watercourses with subsurface flows fall under California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdiction.

Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance may also be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream -dependent terrestrial wildlife. A stream is defined in Title 14, California Code of Regulations §1.72, as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and that supports fish and other aquatic life. Jurisdiction does not include tidal areas such as tidal sloughs unless there is freshwater input. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.” Using this definition, CDFW extends its jurisdiction to encompass riparian habitats that function as a part of a watercourse. California Fish and Game Code §2786 defines riparian habitat as “lands which contain habitat which grows close to and which depends upon soil moisture from a nearby freshwater source.” The lateral extent of a stream and associated riparian habitat that would fall under the jurisdiction of CDFW can be measured in several ways, depending on the particular situation and the type of fish or wildlife at risk. At minimum, CDFW would claim jurisdiction over a stream’s bed and bank. Where riparian habitat is present, the outer edge of riparian vegetation is generally used as the line of demarcation between riparian and upland habitats. Though no ephemeral streams were mapped within the new study areas (outside the area already delineated by the USACE) , CDFW jurisdictional habitats (seasonal wetlands) were mapped within the study area within an excavated ditch (SW6).

595

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters 14 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

Section 3. Survey Results and Discussion
The following vegetation/land cover types were mapped within the study area : (1) annual grassland, (2) developed/landscaped, and (3) seasonal wetland. (Figure 6). Fifteen sample points (SPs) and two OHWM transects were examined to identify jurisdictional features (Figure 7; Appendix C). Within the study area , approximately 0.124 ac of potentially jurisdictional wetlands regulated by USACE, RWQCB, and /or CDFW were identified (Table 3). The results of the delineation are described below.

Table 3. Summary of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands within the Delineation Study Area Habitat Type Acres
Total Section 404 Wetlands 0.124
Seasonal wetland 0.124
Total Section 404 Waters of the U.S. 0.124
Total Section 401 Waters of the State 0.124
Seasonal wetland 0.124
Total CDFW Jurisdictional Habitats 0.028
Wetlands and Waters Verified by USACE in 2019 for the Dublin Boulevard Project on Branaugh Property 0.101
Total Non-jurisdictional Areas 39.642
Wetland Delineation Study Area Total 39.867

596
Collier Canyon Rd
580
Photo 18
Photo 19
Photo 9
Photo 8
Photo 7
Photo 6
Photo 5
Photo 4Photo 3
Photo 2
Photo 1
Photo 13Photo 12
Photo 17
Photo 14
Photo 16
Photo 15
Photo 11
Photo 10
Figure 6. Biotic Habitats and Photo Points Map
January 2021
N:\Projects4400\4423-01\Reports\WetDel\Fig 6 Biotic Habitats Map.mxd Lands of Branaugh - Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters (4423-01) 200 0 200100
FeetAerial Source: DigitalGlobe (08/19/17)
Legend
Study Area
Photo Points (Appendix D)
Habitats
California Annual Grassland (31.41 ac)
Culvert (0.01 ac)
Developed (8.23 ac)
Ephemeral Stream (0.04 ac)
Seasonal Wetland (0.18 ac)
Photo 13
Photo 12
Inset 1
Photo 4Photo 3
Photo 11
Photo 10
Inset 2
Inset 3
597
Collier Canyon Rd
580
-121.836103,

37.709222
-121.833401,

37.701535
SW1
SW2
SW3
SW4
SW5
SW6
OHWM 1
OHWM 2
SP4SP3
SP2
SP1
SP5
SP9
SP8SP7
SP6
SP12
SP13
SP10
SP14
SP15
SP11
SW4-2018
ES2-2018
C4-2018
C5-2018
Figure 7. Preliminary Identification of Waters
January 2021
N:\Projects4400\4423-01\Reports\WetDel\Fig 7 Preliminary Identification of Waters.mxd Lands of Branaugh - Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters (4423-01) 200 0 200100
Feet
Aerial Source: DigitalGlobe (08/19/17)
Legend
Study Area
Sample Points
Photo Points
OHWM Transects
Area of Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination by USACE (File No. 2017-00145S)
Upland
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S and State
Other Waters
Culvert
Ephemeral Stream
Wetlands
Seasonal Wetland
SW1
Inset 1
SW6
SP4SP3
Inset 2
Delineated by USACE (File No. 2017-00145S)
1 inch = 200 feet
598

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters 17 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

Additionally, a previous delineation carried out in 2018 and verified by USACE in 2019 for the Dublin Boulevard-North Canyons Parkway Extension Project covers a portion of the study area . This portion of the study area contain s 0.101 ac of jurisdictional wetlands and waters and is shown on Figure 7. The PJD and verified map issued by USACE on October 31, 2019 for that area includes 0.053 ac of seasonal wetland (SW4- 2018 on Figure 7), 0.043 ac of ephemeral stream (ES2-2018), and 0.005 ac of culverts (C4-2018 and C5-2018).

Information assembled during this investigation and pertinent to the identification of jurisdictional wetlands and other waters is presented in the first five appendices of this report. In addition, Appendix E provided at the end of this document is included as an electronic attachment in Microsoft Excel format, per USACE (2016b) guidelines.
• Appendix A—Plants observed in the study area
• Appendix B—NRCS Soil Survey of Alameda County, California • Appendix C—USACE Arid West Wetland Data Forms and OHWM Transect Forms • Appendix D—Photos of the study area
• Appendix E—Aquatic Resources Table
• Appendix F—S igned statement from the property owner(s) a llowing USACE personnel to enter the property and collect samples during normal business hours.

3.1 Observations, Rationales, and Assumptions
Site conditions observed during the delineation survey are reported here, along with pertinent background information and precipitation data.

3.1.1 Background Information
The preliminary delineation assumes that normal circumstances prevailed at the time of the April 2020 survey, and results are based upon the conditions present at the time of the survey . The survey was performed using the “Routine Method of Determination” using three parameters, as outlined in the Regional Supplement.

Elevations in the study area range from approximately 370 ft to approximately 580 ft above sea level (Figure 3) (Google 2020). The topography of the study area ranges from relatively flat in the southern portion near I-580, to gently rolling hills to the northeast. The topography slope s slightly southward, and the ephemeral stream within the study area follows a course similar to other nearby drainages in draining from north to southwest.

The study area is located within the San Francisco Bay East (Hydrologic Unit Code 18050004) watershed.

3.1.2 Precipitation Data
The survey took place in the spring of 2020, a t the end of the rainy season. Relative to the 30 -year climate normal (16.11 inches annually), precipitation in the study area was lower than the normal range of precipitation 599

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters 18 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

for the 12-month period leading up to the delineation. Total precipitation recorded in the area from April 2019 through March 2020 was 12.2 inches, which is approximately 75% of the 30-year average (1981-2010) for that same time period (PRISM Climate Group 2020). Total precipitation recorded in the study area was drier than normal during the 2019/2020 winter season as well, which began with significant rains in November 2019, but then included a drier than usual January, February and March . Total precipitation recorded in the area from November 2019 through March 2020 was 7.4 in, which is approximately 56 % of the 30 -year average (1981- 2010) for that period, and would be considered below the normal range of precipitation (PRISM Climate Group 2020). These conditions were taken into account when assessing the biotic habitats present on the site. A significant rain storm event, totaling about one and a half inches over a 72-hour period had occurred three days prior to the wetland delineation field survey, which allowed for observations of ponding and saturation. Despite the below average annual precipitation, boundaries of wetlands remained clear owing to the presence of hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology indicators. No standing water was observed at the time of the survey.

3.1.3 Site Conditions and Observations
The majority of the study area is Californi a annual grassland and developed/landscaped ( Figure 6).

Developed/landscaped areas consist of parking lots, driveways, a house, and other buildings associated with the property, and landscaping/planted vegetation. A swale bisects the northern half of the property, which follows what was likely a historic drainage through the study area. Aerial imagery dating to 1950 (UCSB 2020) indicates this drainage once conveyed natural and artificial runoff from surrounding upland pastures. However, this swale does not appear to have perennial hydrology and lacks distinct indicators of bed and banks. Two OHWM data t ransects were collected and document a lack of apparent bed and bank channel morphology, despite a topographic position in a saddle between two hills.

There was no water present at the time of the survey in the swale in the northern portion of the property, however water was observed flowing out of a culvert in the central portion of the study area, C4 -2018, into ES2-2018. From ES2-2018 water enters the culvert C5-2018 to discharge into SW4-2018/SW6. Similar flows were observed in April 2019 during the USACE verification visit. Seasonal and perennial wetland vegetation occupies low-lying areas associated with the swale and ES 2-2018 (Figure 6 and 7). These areas likely receive runoff from hillslopes and the nearby driveway located to the west. These s ix wetland features that were observed within or near the swale and within the excavated di tch on the southern portion of the site were mapped as seasonal wetlands.

3.1.4 Rationale for Sample Point Choice
Fifteen s ample points and two OHWM transects were selected to document conditions in representative jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional areas (Figure 7, Appendix C). Rationale and findings for wetland data form sample point locations are summarized in Table 4.

600

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters 19 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

Table 4. Summary of Sample Point Locations and Results
Name Sampling Rationale Hydrophytic
Vegetation?
Hydric Soil? Wetland
Hydrology?
Overall Wetland
Assessment
SP1 Placed to investigate a
slight depression at the
base of man-made
drainage.

No Yes Yes
(Roadside
and irrigation
runoff)
The hydrology
observed in this
location comes
from an adjacent
roadside ditch and
irrigation. The area
does not meet the
three parameter
wetland criteria.

SP2 Placed in the slightly
higher ground adjacent
SP1.

No No No Upland position;
this area does not
meet the three
parameter
wetland criteria.

SP3 Placed to investigate a
depression south of the
previously verified
seasonal wetland.

Yes Yes Yes This area is a three
parameter
wetland.

SP4 Placed in uplands as a
paired point to SP3.

No No No Upland; this area
does not meet the
three parameter
SP5 Placed at the north end
of the mapped culvert
from the USACE
determination.

No No No Upland; this area
does not meet the
USACE wetland
criteria.

SP6 Placed to investigate a
slight depression next to
the driveway.

Yes No No This area does not
meet the three
parameter
wetland criteria.

SP7 Placed in uplands
adjacent SP6.

No No No Upland; this area
does not meet the
three parameter
wetland criteria.

SP8 Placed to investigate a
slight depression in an
area that was historically
saturated, and may have
been a former stock
pond.

No No No This area does not
meet the three
parameter
wetland criteria.

SP9 Placed to investigate
uplands adjacent to SP8.

No No No Upland; this area
does not meet the
three parameter
wetland criteria.

SP10 Placed to investigate a
depression along the
swale.

Yes Yes Yes This area is a three
parameter
wetland.
601

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters 20 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

Name Sampling Rationale Hydrophytic
Vegetation?
Hydric Soil? Wetland
Hydrology?
Overall Wetland
Assessment
SP11 Placed in uplands as a
paired point to SP10.

No No No Upland position;
this area does not
meet the three
parameter
wetland criteria.

SP12 Placed to investigate a
depression along the
swale.

Yes Yes Yes This area is a three
parameter
wetland.

SP13 Placed in uplands as a
paired point to SP12.

No No No Upland; this area
does not meet the
three parameter
wetland criteria.

SP14 Placed to investigate a
depression at the
northernmost end of the
swale.

No No No This area is not a
three parameter
wetland.

SP15 Placed to investigate
uplands in the northern
portion of the study area.

No No No Upland; this area
does not meet the
three parameter
wetland criteria.

OHWM-1 was placed perpendicular to the swale in the northernmost portion of the wetland delineation study area (Appendix C; Appendix D, Photo 16). OHWM-2 was placed perpendicular to the swale in the middle of the wetland delineation study area (Appendix C; Appendix D, Photo 17 ). This feature is a non-jurisdictional swale, with no or very weak indicators of a bed and bank. There was no flowing water was observed at the time of the survey. The swale is slightly wider at the northern end of the study area (OHWM-1), and decreases in width towards the southern end. Field indicators of an OHWM such as obvious bed and banks, shelving, or knick points were lacking. Surfacewater was present at the outlet of the C4-2018 pipe, where it then flows into ES2-2018. C4-2018 connects to an underground pipe for some unknown length. It does not appear that there is a surface hydrologic connection between the swale and ES2-2018 or C4-2018

3.1.5 Photo Points
Photo point labels, coordinates, and rationales for photo documentation are presented in Table 5 and depicted on Figure 6. Photos are presented in Appendix D.

Table 5. Coordinates and Rationale for Photo Points
Label Latitude, Longitude Depiction
Photo 1 37°42'8.18"N , 121°50'4.90"W Area of slight depression in the middle of a corral receiving run-off from a roadside drainage.

Determined not to be a 3-parameter wetland (SP-1).

Photo 2 37°42'8.01"N , 121°50'4.87"W Point taken on slight higher ground in corral adjacent to SP-1 (SP-2).
602

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters 21 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

Label Latitude, Longitude Depiction
Photo 3 37°42'13.22"N , 121°50'4.95"W 3-parameter seasonal wetland on the western boundary of the study area (SP-3, SW6) adjacent to
a seasonal wetland from USACE determination (SW4-
2018).

Photo 4 37°42'13.24"N , 121°50'4.84"W Paired upland point (SP-4).

Photo 5 37°42'18.16"N , 121°50'6.12"W Sample point at the southern end of the previously mapped ephemeral stream. Grassland dominated
by upland grasses and forbs northwest of the swale.

Photo 6 37°42'21.33"N , 121°50'9.29"W Determined not to be a 3-parameter wetland (SP-6).

Photo 7 37°42'21.60"N , 121°50'8.01"W Sample point to investigate uplands (SP-7).

Photo 8 37°42'21.63"N , 121°50'6.49"W Sample point to investigate uplands (SP-8).

Photo 9 37°42'22.19"N , 121°50'6.15"W Sample point to investigate uplands (SP-9).

Photo 10 37°42'24.17"N , 121°50'6.75"W 3 Parameter seasonal wetland (SP10, SW5).

Representative photo of the seasonal wetlands
observed along the swale.

Photo 11 37°42'24.31"N , 121°50'6.45"W Paired upland point to SW-5 (SP-11) Photo 12 37°42'31.23"N , 121°50'6.91"W 3 Parameter seasonal wetland (SP12, SW1).

Representative photo of the seasonal wetlands
observed along the swale.

Photo 13 37°42'31.26"N , 121°50'7.13"W Paired upland point to SP-12 (SP-13).

Photo 14 37°42'33.13"N , 121°50'6.90"W Sample point to investigate uplands in northern portion of the study area (SP-14).

Photo 15 37°42'32.96"N , 121°50'4.70"W Sample point to investigate area at northern end of the swale (SP-15).

Photo 16 37°42'31.99"N , 121°50'6.80"W OHWM-1 transect across the swale in the northern portion of the study area.

Photo 17 37°42'28.67"N , 121°50'7.43"W OHWM-2 transect across the swale in the central portion of the study area.

Photo 18 37°42'20.26"N , 121°50'6.99"W Representative photo of annual grassland habitat within the study area.

Photo 19 37°42'10.03"N , 121°50'3.76"W Representative photo of developed habitat within the study area.

3.2 Identification of Potential Section 404 Wetlands
In general, areas that were considered to be wetlands included stands of hydrophytes and/or areas determined to be ponded and/or saturated for long duration. Approximately 0.0.124 ac of potential USACE jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study area (Figure 7). 603

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters 22 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

3.2.1 Seasonal Wetlands
Seasonal wetlands generally result from spring rain and typically occur in slight depressions in open fields, or at the base of hillslopes. Surface water may be lacking during the summer and fall, but seasonal wetlands typically support hydrophytic plants year-round. Six seasonal wetland features were mapped within the study area.

Seasonal Wetlands (SW1, SW 2, SW3, SW4 , SW5, SW6 , and SW4 -2018). Seven seasonal wetlands were mapped along the ephemeral stream within the study area (Figure 7; Appendix C; Appendix D, Photos 3, 10, and 12). Five of the seasonal wetlands are situated in subtle depressions within the study area, located adjacent to, and within the swale in the northern portion of the study area . Two additional wetlands (SW4-2018 and SW6) are located in the western portion of the study area, in a swale west of the developed area. These two features are mapped as separate features because SW4-2018 was part of the 2019 PJD and SW6 is a continuation of this feature to the south of that original verification boundary (USACE 2019). Both of these mapped features are part of the same wetland that are located in the swale that would have been the continuation of the historic drainage through the property. At the time of the delineation, which took place at the end of the rainy season, these seasonal wetlands were relatively dry, with SW4-2018/SW6 being the exception. At the time of the survey, these wetland was saturated with pockets of standing water. This feature also likely receives additional runoff from the developed area immediately to the east, which includes a landscape supply center that would contribute regular inputs of runoff. E ach of these wetlands contained hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soil features, including redox features.

Vegetation. The seasonal wetlands were dominated by hydrophytic vegetation, including Mexican rush (Juncus mexicanus, FACW), Italian wild rye (Hordeum murinum, FAC), and English plantain (Plantago lancelota, FAC).

Soils. The soils within these wetlands were primarily clay. These soils were considered to be hydric b ased on the presence of redox features , including prominent redox concentrations in the top twelve inches of a dark soil (hydric soil field indicator F6).

Hydrology. At the time of the survey, surface water, a high water table or soil saturation were not observed at SW1, SW2, SW3, SW4, and SW5. Primary hydrology indicators observed at these features include soil cracking, inundation visual on aerials, and water-stained leaves. Additionally, each of these features occurs in a landscape position, a low topographic position and shallow depression, which would suggest the presence of seasonal ponding. At SW6, observed primary indicators of hydrology include presence of surface water and saturation.

3.3 Identification of Potential Section 404 Other Waters Within the study area, no potentially jurisdictional Section 404 other waters were mapped. The othe r waters previously verified by the USACE in 2019 are discussed below. 604

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters 23 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

3.3.1 Ephemeral Stream
In general, areas that were considered to be ephemeral stream include topographically low lying drainages with a bed and a bank, and which convey periodic and intermittent flow occurring immediately following storm events. Ephemeral stream within the study area is limited to the while 0.048 ac previously verified by USACE in 2019 (Figure 7).

Ephemeral Stream ( ES2-2018). A segment of e phemeral stream within the study area (ES2 -2018) was delineated and verified by USACE in 2019. This segment of ephemeral drainage is rock -lined and is fed by a culvert (C4-2018) from which a small amount of water was observed flowing during the 2020 delineation.

During the USACE site visit in April 2019, several days after a previous rain event , water was also observed emanating from this culvert. This segment of ephemeral stream is approximately 100 feet long and 10 feet wide and is connected at the downstream end by a culvert (C5-2018), which conveys flows under a road to a seasonal wetland, SW4-2018, at its downstream end. At the time of the 2020 survey, which took place after more recent rains than in 2019, water was still discharging from C4-2018. It should be noted that ES2-2018 and SW4-2018 may have some connection to groundwater, possibly through the underground piping, and be considered short- term intermittent rather than fully ephemeral.

Downstream of ES2-2018, the ephemeral drainage is apparent south of SW6 where it flows off the Branaugh property and onto the property to the west and north of Interstate 580. The course of its flow when it reaches Interstate 580 could not be determined as part of this wetland delineation survey, because we did not have access to that location.

3.4 Identification of Section 401 Potentially Jurisdictional Waters of the State
The extent of Section 401 waters of the state (RWQCB jurisdiction) in the study area includes a total of 0.297 ac, including areas within Section 404 jurisdiction as described above. Waters of the state within the study area include all waters of the U.S., and cover approximately 0.124 ac of seasonal wetlands (Figure 7). Characteristics of waters of the state within the study area are described above in Sections 3.2 and 3.3.

3.5 Identification of CDFW Potentially Jurisdictional Habitats The extent of CDFW jurisdictional habitats in the new study area includes a total of 0.028 ac, which includes areas within Section 404/401 jurisdiction as described above. The new study area contains the continuation of an excavated ditch that captures flows from ES2 -2018. Though the ditch has a bed and banks, there is no woody riparian habitat as defined by CDFW (Figure 7).
605

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters 24 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

3.6 Wetlands and Waters Previously Verified by USACE
The study area includes a portion of the property in which a previous wetland delineation identified wetlands and waters of the U.S., which were then subsequently verified by USACE to be Section 404 wetlands and waters the U.S. These features are located in the center of the study area, and include ES2-2018, SW4-2018, C4-2018, and C5-2018 as shown on Figure 7 (USACE File No. 2017-00145S; USACE 2019). These areas were inspected by the delineators during the April 2020 surveys and no substantive alterations has occurred since the area was verified.

3.7 Areas Not Meeting the Regulatory Definition of Waters of the U.S.

Approximately 39.642 acres of the study area do not meet the regulatory definition of state or federal waters, wetlands, or riparian habitats . These portions of the study area consist of California annual grassland, developed/landscaped areas, and ditches excavated in uplands and carrying primarily roadside or irrigation runoff (Figure 6). These ditches occur in upland landscape positions and do not meet the USACE or RWQCB criteria for wetlands, or the CDFW criteria for riparian areas.

Twelve of the fifteen wetland data form sample points were in upland areas (Appendix C, SP1, SP2, SP4, SP5, SP6, SP7, SP8, SP9, SP11, SP13, SP14, and SP15). Non-jurisdictional uplands include the following land cover types: annual grassland and developed. These vegetation types occur in upland landscape positions and do not meet the USACE criteria for wetlands or other waters. Vegetation in the annual grassland is typically dominated by upland grass and forb species, such as ripgut brome, wild oats, and black mustard. Soils were observed to be clay and clay loam with no mottles and no other indicators of regular inundation (i.e. , organic buildup or streaking).

OHWM transects were performed to investigate the broad swale in the northern portion of the project site.

Vegetation within this swale is characterized the California annual grassland described above, except where seasonal wetlands are present.

SP1 was dug to investigate a slight depression in the middle of a corral in a largely disturbed and developed portion of the study area. The roughly 300 square foot are is at the base of a ditch used to direct landscaping and agricultural run -off excavated in the southwest corner of the study area. The entire corral area in this location is relatively level (Appendix D, Photo 1, 2). Some ponding was present, as were subtle redox features in the soil. However, hydrophytic vegetation was not dominant, and instead the area was dominated by upland forbs such as filarees ( Erodium spp., UPL) and mallow (Malva nicaeensis , UPL), which appear to be dominant even in years with average rainfall. The depression likely only receives water from stormwater and road run-off for brief periods d uring the heaviest storm events and the sprinkler system associated with the developed portion of the study area. The area surrounding SP1 is not expected to be a wetland. 606

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters 25 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

Man-made drainage ditches were also observed near the parking lot of the developed areas within the study area. These drainages were likely built to collect storm run -off from the parking areas, and were not found to have a connection to the ephemeral streams, or other waters features on site such as SW6. Because they were ditches dug in uplands, draining uplands, and do not appear to re-constructions of historic drainages they were considered to be non-jurisdictional.

607

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters 26 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

Section 4. Literature Cited
Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Ronatti, and D. H. Wilken (eds.). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. 2 nd Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation M anual. Department of the Army.

Google Inc. 2020. Google Earth Pro (Version 7.1.5.1557) [Software]. Accessed April 2020 from http://earth.google.com.

Lichvar, R. W., D. L. Banks, W. N. Kirchner, and N. C. Melvin. 2016. Arid West 2016 Regional Plant List. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Prepared for the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers.

Munsell. 2009. Soil Color Charts, Munsell Color X-rite. Grand Rapids, Michigan. [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the U.S.: A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils (Version 7.0). U.S. Department of Agriculture. Prepared with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2020a. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Accessed April 2020 from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. [NRCS] National Resource Conservation Service. 2020b. National Hydric Soils List. Accessed April 2020 from http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/. [NWI] National Wetlands Inventory. 2020 . Wetlands Mapper. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Accessed April 2020 from http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html. [NOAA NWS] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service . California Nevada River Forecast Center. Observed Precipitation Data. Accessed April 2020 from https://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/
PRISM Climate Group. 2020. Online PRISM Data Explorer. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Accessed April 2020 from http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/. [UCSB] University of California Santa Barbara Library. 2020. Digital Aerial Photo Collections. Accessed April 2020 from https://www.library.ucsb.edu/src/airphotos
608

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters 27 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

[USACE] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008a. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Enginee rs Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). September 2008. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
[USACE] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008b. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Delineation Manual.

ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12.
[USACE] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. ERDC/CRREL TN - 10-1.
[USACE] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2016a. Updated Map and Drawing Standards for the Sou th Pacific Division Regulatory Program.
[USACE] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2016b. Information Needed for Verification of Corps Jurisdiction, San Francisco District. Revised April 2016.
https://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Portals/68/docs/regulatory/2%20-%20Info%20Req.pdf [USACE] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 20 19. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination, Dublin Boulevard- North Canyons Parkway Extension, Alameda County, California (File No. 2017-00145S). Letter from Naomi Schowalter, Senior Project Manager Dated October 31, 2019. 609

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters A-1 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

Appendix A. Plants Observed in the Study Area

610

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters A-2 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

Family Scientific Name Common Name WIC
Anacardiaceae Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree FACU
Apiaceae Foeniculum vulgare Fennel UPL
Sanicula bipinnatifida Purple sanicle UPL
Arecaceae Washingtonia robusta Fan palm FACW
Asteraceae Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle UPL
Centaurea solstitialis Yellow star thistle UPL
Cynara cardunculus Cardoon UPL
Erigeron canadensis Horseweed UPL
Helminthotheca echioides Bristly ox-tongue FAC
Hypochaeris glabra Smooth cat's ear UPL
Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce FACU
Matricaria discoidea Pineapple weed FACU
Silybum marianum Milk thistle UPL
Sonchus arvensis ssp. arvensis Field sowthistle FACU
Sonchus asper Sticky sandspurry FAC
Betulaceae Alnus sp. Alder FACW
Boraginaceae Amsinckia menziesii Common fiddleneck UPL
Amsinckia tessellata Bristly fiddleneck UPL
Brassicaceae Brassica nigra Black mustard UPL
Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepard's purse FACU
Hirschfeldia incana Summer mustard UPL
Lepidium nitidum Shining peppergrass FAC
Raphanus sativus Wild radish UPL
Sinapis arvensis Charlock mustard UPL
Caryophyllaceae Spergularia macrotheca var. macrotheca Sticky sandspurry FAC Stellaria media Chickweed FACU
Convolvulaceae Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed UPL
Cyperaceae Carex sp. sedge FAC-OBL
Fabaceae Medicago polymorpha Bur medic FACU
Trifolium hirtum rose clover UPL
Trifolium sp. Clover UPL
Vicia sativa Spring vetch FACU
Vicia villosa Vetch UPL
Geraniaceae Erodium botrys Big heron bill FACU
Erodium cicutarium red stemmed filaree UPL
Erodium moschatum Musky stork's bill UPL
Geranium dissectum Cutleaf geranium UPL
Geranium molle Crane's bill geranium UPL
Juncaceae Juncus mexicanus Mexican Rush FACW
Malvaceae Malva nicaeensis Bull mallow UPL
Malvella leprosa Alkali mallow FACU
Myrtaceae Eucalyptus sp. Eucalyptus UPL
611

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters A-3 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

Family Scientific Name Common Name WIC
Orobanchaceae Castilleja exserta ssp. exserta Owl's clover UPL Plantaginaceae Plantago lanceolata Narrowleaf plantain FAC Poaceae Avena barbata Slender oats UPL
Avena fatua Wild oat UPL
Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome UPL
Bromus hordeaceus Soft brome FACU
Cynosurus echinatus Annual dogtail UPL
Festuca perennis Italian rye grass UPL
Hordeum murinum Foxtail barley FACU
Stipa tenuissima Mexican feathergrass UPL
Poa annua Annual blue grass FAC
Polemoniaceae Gilia tricolor Bird's eye gilia UPL
Polygonaceae Rumex conglomeratus Clustered dock FACW
Rumex crispus Curly dock FAC
Rubiaceae Sherardia arvensis Field madder UPL
Salicaceae Populus nigra Lombardy poplar UPL
Themidaceae Dichelostemma capitatum Blue dicks FACU
Ulmaceae Ulmus parvifolia/pumila Chinese Elm UPL
Urticaceae Urtica dioica common nettle FAC

612

Lands of Branaugh
Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands/Other Waters B-1 H. T. Harvey & Associates January 11, 2021

Appendix B. NRCS Soil Survey Report for the Study Area

613
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Alameda Area,
California
4423-01 Branaugh Property
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
April 30, 2020614
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community of
ficials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.

Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.

The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (
https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for of
ficial soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 615
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director , Office of
Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 616
Contents
Preface.................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Alameda Area, California................................................................................13 DvC—Diablo clay, very deep, 3 to 15 percent slopes................................. 13 LaC—Linne clay loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes............................................14 LaD—Linne clay loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, MLRA 15.........................16 RdA—Rincon clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes...........................................18 RdB—Rincon clay loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes...........................................19 References............................................................................................................21 Glossary................................................................................................................23 4 617
How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

Currently
, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.

The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology
, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.

Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. T
o construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are suf ficient to
verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).

Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically
. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 618
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.

The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.

These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.

Dublin City CouncilMarch 7, 2023

Dublin City Council
March 7, 2023