Agenda packet — Dublin City Council, July 16, 2024 (part 4 of 8)

The City adopted two addenda documents to the Eastern Dublin EIR as noted above.

East Dublin Properties Supplemental EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114). In 2001, the Eastern Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) requested annexation, Prezoning, and related approvals for a 1,120-acre area within eastern Dublin. The City prepared a Supplemental EIR (2002 SEIR) to the Eastern Dublin EIR to evaluate potential development within this area. The 2002 SEIR was certified by the City on April 2, 2002, by City Council Resolution No. 40-02. The 2002 SEIR analyzed annexation of the property to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a Planned Development (PD) Prezoning, and Stage 1 Development Plan. Following certification of the 2002 SEIR, the City approved a PD Prezoning with related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plans for the site.

The 2002 SEIR analyzed the environmental impacts associated with development of up to 2,526 residential units, 581,090 square feet of commercial use, 840,360 square feet of industrial space, a junior high school, elementary school, parks and open space uses (the EDPO Project).

Based on an Initial Study prepared in 2001, the 2002 SEIR provided updated analyses for agricultural resources, biological resources, air quality, noise, traffic and circulation, schools, and utilities. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 40-02) for the following impacts:
Exceedance of Bay Area Air Quality Management District air quality standards 706
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 5
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Cumulative loss/degradation of sensitive habitats
Cumulative traffic operations at several intersections, including Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard, and Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard
Freeway operations on Interstate 580 (I-580) and I-680 Fallon Village Project Supplemental EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010). A Supplemental EIR was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with amendments to the previous entitlements to include the entire 1,132-acre site within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The EIR also evaluated the impacts associated with modifying the land uses and roadway alignments established in the 2002 Stage 1 Development Plan (PD-1) to allow for future development of up to 3,108 residential units, up to 2,503,175 square feet of commercial, office, light industrial, and mixed-use development, two elementary school sites, parks and open spaces.

The Fallon Village SEIR evaluated the following impacts:
Land Use and Planning
Traffic and Transportation
Community Services and Facilities
Sewer, Water, and Storm Drainage
Soils, Geology, and Seismicity
Biological Resources
Visual Resources
Cultural Resources
Noise
Air Quality
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Parks and Recreation
The Fallon Village SEIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the traffic impacts at the Dublin/Dougherty intersection, cumulative impacts to freeway operations on Interstate 580 (I-580) and I-680, traffic levels exceeding County monitoring standards, demolition of the historic Fallon Ranch House and increase in regional air quality emissions. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 40-02) for these impacts.
707
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 6
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Proposed Project
The proposed project consists of a General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 Planned Development Amendment, Stage 2 Development Plan for the residential parcels, Vesting Tentative Tract Maps, and Development Agreement.

The General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment would eliminate approximately 2.5-acres of designated Public/Semi-Public (P/SP) land use on the project site and amend the land use designation on approximately 42.6-acres from Open Space (OS) to Parks/Public Recreation (P/PR). Implementation of the proposed project would result in the subdivision of the approximately 192-acre site into 11 parcels to accommodate proposed residential, commercial/office, park, and open space uses. A total of 238 residential units are proposed within approximately 13.7-acres designated as Medium High (MH) Density Residential, up to 3,299,670-square feet of commercial/office uses is proposed on approximately 126.3-acres designated as General Commercial/Campus Office (GC/CO), approximately 49.8-acres of parkland is designated as P/PR, and approximately 2.3-acres of OS is designated in the General Pland and EDSP, as shown below in Table A and Figure 3. Additionally, the project applicant has submitted two Small Lot Vesting Tentative Tract Maps (VTTMs) for development of the MH Density Residential with a Stage 2 Development Plan.

Table A: Proposed Development
Parcel
Number Use Number of Units/Building Size Gross Acreage1 Density (dwelling
units/acre)/FAR
1 General Commercial/Campus Office 1,944,780 square feet 74.41 0.60 2 General Commercial/Campus Office 455,550 square feet 17.43 0.60 3 General Commercial/Campus Office 526,902 square feet 20.16 0.60 4 Parks/ Public Recreation (Natural
Community Park)
NA 33.40 NA
5 Parks/ Public Recreation
(Community Park)
NA 7.22 NA
6 Parks/ Public Recreation (Natural
Community Park)
NA 9.19 NA
7 Medium High Density Residential 128 residential units 6.50 19.7 8 Medium High Density Residential 110 residential units 7.20 15.3 9 General Commercial/Campus Office 321,473 square feet 12.30 0.60 10 Open Space NA 2.28 NA
11 General Commercial/Campus Office 50,965 square feet 1.95 NA TOTAL 238 residential units
3,299,670 square feet
192.04
Source: MacKay & Somps (2024)
NA – Not Applicable

In 2005, the City approved the Fallon Village PD-1 and certified the SEIR, establishing the land uses and intensities for the Fallon Village properties. The proposed project would retain the proposed land use designations for the Dublin Fallon property as identified in the General Plan, EDSP and PD-1 with some minor revisions to the proposed acreages and land use designations, as shown in Table B below. Figure 4 illustrates the existing and proposed land use plan.

708
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 7
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Table B: Proposed Uses Compared to Existing Approved Uses Proposed Uses Existing Approved Stage 1 PD and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Land Use Gross
Acreage3
(acre)
Number
of Units/
Building
Size
Density
(dwelling
units/acre)/
FAR
Gross
Acreage3
(acre)
Maximum
Number of
Units/
Building Size
Density
Range/ FAR
(per EDSP)
Density
Range/ FAR
(per Stage 1
PD)
Medium High (MH)
Density Residential

13.70 238 units 17.4 du/acre 13.5 238 units 14.1-25.0
du/acre2

14.1-25.0
du/acre
General
Commercial/Campus
Office (GC/CO)
126.25 3,299,670
square
feet

0.2 - 0.6 FAR 126.4 1,522,161
square feet

0.2 - 0.8FAR2 0.2 - 0.8 FAR
Parks/Public
Recreation (P/PR) -
Community Park

7.22 - - 7.2 - - -
Parks/Public
Recreation (P/PR) –
Natural Community
Park

42.59 - - 0 - - -
Open Space (OS) 2.28 - - 44.9 - - -
Public Semi-Public1
(P/SP)
0 - - 2.5 - - -
Total 192.04 190.41
Source: MacKay & Somps (2024)
1 Public/Semi-Public is a floating land use. Final location to be determined at time of PD-2 approval and acreage will be deducted from affected land use. The Public/Semi-Public site is designated in the 2023-2031Housing Element to yield 74 low-income units 2 Development projections in the EDSP do not represent maximum development potential, but assume lower, more realistic, development potential based on historical evidence of similar development in other communities. The EDSP assumed a density of 20 du/acre for Medium High Density Residential and an FAR of .28 for General Commercial/Campus Office. 3 Acreages from prior General Plan, Specific Plan, and PD1 approvals were based on assumed boundary limits. Proposed Acreages reflected in this application have been updated to match resolved boundary survey data dated January 2017. [Note the discrepancy in total acreages] Residential
The proposed project would consist of the development of 238 residential townhome units consistent with the General Plan MH Density Residential land use designation and a Planned Development Stage 2 Development Plan for the two residential parcels (Parcel 7 and Parcel 8).

Table C shows the existing and proposed residential land uses proposed with the Small Lot VTTMs. Figure 5 shows the proposed site plan for the residential portion of the proposed project.

709
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 8
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Table C: Proposed Residential Uses Compared to Existing Approved Uses Proposed Stage 2 PD Existing Approved Stage 1 PD and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Land Use Gross
Acreage1
Number
of Units
Density
(dwelling
units/acre)/
FAR
Gross
Acreage1
Maximum
Number of
Units/
Building Size
Density
Range/Max
FAR (per
EDSP)
Density
Range/Max
FAR (per
Stage 1 PD)
Parcel 7 – Tract 8666
Medium High (MH)
Density Residential

6.5 128 19.7 6.5 130 14.1-25.0
du/acre

14.1-25.0
du/acre
Parcel 8 – Tract 8667
Medium High (MH)
Density Residential

7.2 110 15.3 7.0 108 14.1-25.0
du/acre

14.1-25.0
du/acre
Total 13.7 238 13.5 238
Source: MacKay & Somps (2024)
1 Acreages from prior General Plan, Specific Plan, and PD1 approvals were based on assumed boundary limits. Proposed Acreages reflected in this application have been updated to match resolved boundary survey data dated January 2017. [Note the discrepancy in total acreages]
Proposed development would consist of three-story (maximum 40 feet in height) townhome units with front doors facing the primary private streets and facing outward toward surrounding uses, as well as front doors located along common landscape paseos. Each unit would have a private two-car garage, accessible from a private alley. Balconies and decks would provide private outdoor space for each unit.

Dublin Municipal Code (DMC) Section 8.68.030 requires the project to construct 12.5 percent of the 238 units as affordable units. Therefore, 30 affordable units are required for this project under the DMC. Pursuant to Section 8.68.040 A, the project proposes to pay a fee in lieu of constructing 40 percent of the required affordable units. Therefore, 18 affordable units would be constructed on the project site. The allocation of income levels for the 18 affordable units would be seven units for low-income households and 11 units for moderate-income households as required by the DMC.

A total of 703 parking spaces (375 parking spaces on Parcel 7 and 328 parking spaces on Parcel 8) would be provided to accommodate the proposed residential development. Of these, 476 parking spaces would be residential in-garage spaces and 228 would be guest parking located primarily along the southern boundary of the two residential parcels with guest parking also dispersed throughout each neighborhood.

General Commercial/Campus Office
The proposed project would include development of general commercial and campus office uses consistent with the GC/CO designation and PD zoning on the five GC/CO parcels (Parcels 1, 2, 3, 9, and 11), totaling approximately 126.3-acres. Consistent with the PD-GC/CO zoning, these parcels could accommodate a range of community and regional serving retail, service and office use, including a compatible mixture of these uses. Future development of these parcels 710
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 9
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
would be consistent with the City’s development standards, including minimum lot area, required setbacks, landscape buffers and a maximum height limit of 45 feet.4 As shown in Table B, the project would include a 0.6 floor area ratio (FAR) for the GC/CO portion of the project site, which is consistent with the FAR allowed in the Fallon Village PD-1 and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and an increase from the 0.28 FAR assumed under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. Based on the 0.6 FAR, the proposed project would result in the development of up to 3,299,670 square feet of general commercial/campus office development compared to the 1,522,161 square feet of development anticipated in the EDSP and evaluated in the EDSP EIRs. Although the FAR limit has been increased, the project applicant has proposed a mix of limited light manufacturing, hotel, retail, and office uses for the GC/CO parcels that is compatible with the surrounding area and falls within the anticipated development intensity (e.g., traffic, air emissions) anticipated in the EDSP EIRs.

Access, Circulation, and Parking
Primary access to Parcel 7 would be via a planned private street connection into the existing Jordan Ranch development at the west and east ends of Pandora Way, respectively. The primary vehicular connection to Pandora Way provides access to nearby arterial roadways via Central Parkway west to Fallon Road and via the planned extension of Central Parkway east to Croak Road (constructed as part of the Francis Ranch project) and on to the future Dublin Boulevard Extension. Pedestrian walkways and bike paths would connect to the adjacent Jordan Ranch project and a landscaped green corridor with an 8-foot multi-use walkway is proposed along the northwest edge of Parcel 7, connecting directly to a future 7.2-acre Community Park immediately to the west. Note: The primary connection to the Community Park will be from Central Parkway, just west of Cottonwood Creek School. Access from Parcel 7 would be secondary access via private streets and public access easements. In addition, due to site topography, Parcel 7 would require the installation of perimeter retaining walls to conform with the existing and proposed elevations surrounding the site.

Primary vehicular access to Parcel 8 would be provided via an east/west private street off of Croak Road, running along the southern edge of Parcel 8. The proposed grades would allow for potential future extension east into the adjacent Righetti property. Pedestrian walkways would connect to a proposed urban pocket park at the north end of Parcel 8 at a proposed EVA fire access with pedestrian connection also provided to the Francis Ranch community to the north, and to Central Parkway through the urban pocket park. Due to site topography, Parcel 8 would require the installation of perimeter retaining walls to conform with the existing and proposed elevations surrounding the site.

Primary access to the GC/CO parcels would be provided by the future Dublin Boulevard Extension. A signalized intersection would provide access to Parcels 1 and 2. Access to Parcels 9 and 3 would be via a right-in/right-out only access point. In addition, a private roadway would 4 The maximum height for General Commercial and Campus Office uses is 45 feet. If the principal structure is within 50 feet of a residential structure, the maximum height limit is 35 feet. 711
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 10
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
be provided off Fallon Road, adding a fourth leg to the existing Fallon Gateway/Fallon Road intersection. Croak Road north of Dublin Boulevard would be widened and provide additional access to the GC/CO parcels. The conceptual circulation plan is shown in Figure 6.

Open Space and Landscaping
The project would include dedication of land for a future 7.2-acre Community Park and 42.6 acres for a Natural Community Park. As outlined in the 2022 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the Community Park amenities include picnic areas with tables, play equipment, restrooms, and three soccer fields. The conversion of 42.6 acres of OS to P/RP would help address the City’s parkland deficit by providing land for a future Natural Community Park designed for low impact use and maintenance, with hiking and walking trails.

The Planned Development Stage 2 Development Plan includes landscape design guidelines and a planting palette to create a unified community aesthetic. The landscape theme would feature vibrant, blossoming plants and evergreens that complement the proposed architecture and encourage pedestrian access and connectivity within the residential development and to adjacent neighborhoods. The entrance to each residential parcel would have its own character, while still fitting in with the surrounding community. Internal streets and sidewalks would be planted with various street trees, placed to maximize solar exposure. Low-growing groundcover would enhance pedestrian connections to the public sidewalks. An urban pocket park is proposed at the north end of Parcel 8 at the EVA and would include decorative hardscape area with surrounding landscape and amenities. This will be designed in conjunction with the location of the connection to Central Parkway and Francis Ranch to the north.

The preliminary landscape plan for the commercial areas will be included in the future Stage 2 Development Plan for those areas.

Utilities and Infrastructure
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 and shown in Figure 7.

Water. Water service would be provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD).

The proposed project would include the installation of new water lines on the site that would connect to the proposed potable water and recycled water (if available) mains within the future Dublin Boulevard Extension and Croak Road and the existing water main at Pandora Way.

Wastewater. Wastewater service would be provided by DSRSD. New sanitary sewer lines would be installed within the project site and would tie into proposed sanitary sewer mains within the future Dublin Boulevard Extension, the sanitary sewer main along Croak Road (proposed with the Francis Ranch project) and the existing sanitary sewer main at Pandora Way.

Stormwater. The project site is currently undeveloped and, therefore, contains minimal impervious surfaces. The proposed project would include bioretention facilities and storm 712
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 11
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
drains on each MH and GC/CO parcel for stormwater quality control. Proposed bioretention and storm drain facilities would discharge to existing/proposed storm drainpipes.

Hydromodification vaults would be included on-site to provide flow duration controls for the project. Proposed storm drainage facilities would conform to the Alameda County C.3 Stormwater Technical guidelines and requirements.

Electricity and Gas. Electricity and gas service would be provided to the project site by the Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). The proposed project would include connections to proposed electricity and natural gas lines within the future Dublin Boulevard Extension and Croak Road and existing lines within Pandora Way.

Grading and Construction
Cut and fill from project grading would be balanced on-site. It is anticipated that the maximum depth of excavation for building pads would be approximately 45 feet and the maximum depth of utility trenching would be approximately 15 feet.

If approved, construction of the proposed project would begin with the residential development on Parcel 7, followed by the residential development on Parcel 8 and concluding with the development of the GC/CO parcels, Natural Community Park, and the Community Park. The proposed project would include phased construction, which would consist of site preparation and grading, building construction and asphalt paving/landscaping. Overall, construction of the proposed project is anticipated to last approximately ten years, with development of the GC/CO pending the completion of the Dublin Boulevard Extension.

Project Entitlements
The City is the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed project and will consider the environmental impacts of the proposed project as part of the project approval. Permits and approvals required for the proposed project include a General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment to eliminate the P/SP land use designation and amend the land use designation on 42.6 acres from OS to P/PR, a Planned Development Zoning with a Stage 1 Development Plan amendment, a Stage 2 Development Plan for the MH Density Residential uses only, a Large Lot VTTM (Tract 8663), two Small Lot VTTMs for development of the MH Density Residential uses (Tracts 8666 and 8667), and a Development Agreement. In addition, subsequent Site Development Review Permits would be required for the project. Ministerial actions would be required for implementation of the project including issuance/approval of grading permits, encroachment permits, improvements plans, and building permits.
713
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 12
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Environmental Setting
Project Site and Existing Facilities
The approximately 192-acre project site is located in the eastern portion of the City of Dublin.

The site is bounded by Jordan Ranch and Francis Ranch5 to the north, the vacant Righetti property 6
to the east, Fallon Road and the existing Fallon Gateway shopping center to the west and Croak Road and Interstate 580 (I-580) to the south. The project site is vacant and is currently used for intermittent cattle grazing activities. The future Dublin Boulevard Extension7 bisects the project site from west to east. Croak Road bisects the site from north to south.

The topography of the project site consists of nearly level ground along the southern portion of the site adjacent to I-580 and Fallon Road, with rolling hills occurring along the northern portion. Hillslopes range from 346 feet to 480 feet above sea level.

The project site supports five habitat types consisting of non-native annual grassland, seasonal wetland/pond, drainages, emergent marsh and riparian woodlands. Rolling hills, located in the northern portion of the project site, contain ephemeral drainages which capture and drain the hills into a more gradually sloped valley floor. An extension of an unnamed intermittent drainage flows through the northwestern corner of the site adjacent to Croak Road. A roadside ditch along Croak Road (located just outside the western boundary of the site) is characterized by cattails (Typha latifolia), willow trees (Salix spp.), and hydrophytic foliage. During wet seasons this ditch overflows onto the project site creating a large complex of perennial marsh and seasonal wetland depression, which provide suitable habitat to many wildlife species. The southern portion of the project site contains several small wetlands intermingled within the grassland. An abandoned quarry pond in the northeast portion of the project site supports a seasonal pond feature and seasonal wetlands bordered by a small band of riparian woodland.

Characteristic grassland vegetation across the project site includes wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), hare barley (Hordeum murinum spp. leporinum), Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), black mustard (Brassica nigra), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), filaree (Erodium spp.), bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), rabbit’s foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), cattail (Typha spp.), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), flatsedge (Cyperuss eragrostis), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and common spike rush (Eleocharis palustris). Common shrubs and trees include coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), cottonwood (Populus fremontii), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Peruvian 5 The Francis Ranch project consists of development of the 165.5-acre site with a 573-unit residential project within six neighborhoods, two neighborhood parks 11.5 acres, and a two-acre Semi-Public Site 6 Current plans for the Righetti property would include development of up to 96 residential units, up to 372,350 square feet of industrial use and up to 321,125 square feet of campus office/light industrial uses. 7 The Dublin Boulevard Extension, which is being planned and implemented by the City of Dublin, would include a new roadway extension between the eastern terminus of Dublin Boulevard in the City of Dublin and the western terminus of North Canyons Parkway in the City of Livermore, traversing land in Dublin and Alameda County before terminating at the western border of Livermore. 714
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 13
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
peppertree (Schinus molle), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), and willow trees. Several ornamental trees are located within the far east-central portion of the project site, which was once developed with a homestead and related farming / ranch out-buildings. 715
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 14
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Environmental Checklist
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected by the Project Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all of the potentially significant effects for the environmental factors listed below have been analyzed adequately in earlier EIRs or other environmental review documents pursuant to applicable standards, and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to earlier EIRs or other environmental review documents, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, there are no significant environmental impacts as a result of the proposed project.

Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry
Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology / Water
Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation / Traffic Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities / Service
Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
Instructions

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question (see Source List, attached). A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
716
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 15
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that any effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated”: applies where incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

5. “Earlier Analysis” may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a. Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sitespecific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).

Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
o The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
o The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than 717
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 16
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
significant

10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?
Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

718
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 17
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant or a potentially significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

CITY OF DUBLIN
_________________________________ _____________________________ Crystal De Castro, Senior Planner Date

719
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 18
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Explanation of Environmental Checklist Responses
Aesthetics

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

1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?

X
Environmental Setting
The project site is located within the southernmost portion of the Eastern Dublin area. As described in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the southern portion of the Eastern Dublin area is flat, open, and covered with grasslands and agricultural field crops. The northern portions include steeper foothills with canyons settled with farms and ranchettes. Much of the Eastern Dublin area has since been developed consistent with the land uses identified in the EDSP and subsequent planning approvals.

The project site is vacant and is currently used for intermittent cattle grazing activities. The future Dublin Boulevard Extension bisects the project site from west to east. The future Croak Road extension bisects the site from north to south.

The topography of the project site consists of nearly level ground along the southern boundary adjacent to Croak Road, with rolling hills occurring along the northern boundary. Hillslopes range 346 feet to 480 feet above sea level.

No designated State scenic highways are located near the project site. However, I-580 located just south of the project site, is an eligible State scenic highway and a designated Alameda County scenic route. The project site is visible from both eastbound and westbound I-580. 720
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 19
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Vehicle head and taillights on area roadways, and lighting associated with I-580, are the existing sources of light and glare in the project area.

Previous CEQA Documents
Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to standardized tract development, obscuring distinctive natural features, alteration of hillsides, ridges, and watercourses, alteration of Dublin’s visual identity as a freestanding city, scenic vistas, and scenic routes. All of these impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR determined that impacts associated with the alteration of the rural/open space visual character of the project area and alteration of the visual character of the flatlands would be significant and unavoidable. The following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed project:

MM 3.8/1.0 Establish a visually distinctive community which preserves the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining views from major travel corridors and public spaces.

MM 3.8/2.0 Implement the land use plan for the Project site which emphasizes retention of the predominant natural features, such as ridgelines and watercourses, and sense of openness that characterize eastern Dublin.

MM 3.8/3.0 Preserve the natural open beauty of the hills and other important visual resources, such as creeks and major stands of vegetation.

MM 3.8/4.0 Visual impacts of extensive grading shall be reduced by sensitive engineering design, by using gradual transition from graded areas to natural slopes and by revegetation.

MM 3.8/4.1 Alterations of existing natural contours shall be minimized. Grading shall maintain the natural topography as much as possible. Grading beyond actual development areas shall be for remedial purposes only.

MM 3.8/4.4 Graded slopes shall be re-contoured to resemble existing landforms in the immediate area. Cut and graded slopes shall be revegetated with native vegetation suitable to hillside environments.

MM 3.8/4.5 The height of cut and fill slopes shall be minimized to the greatest degree possible. Grades for cut and fill slopes should be 3:1 or less whenever feasible. 721
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 20
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
MM 3.8/5.1 Structures shall not be located where they would obstruct scenic views or appear to extend above an identified scenic ridgetop (i.e., silhouetted) when viewed from designated scenic routes.

MM 3.8/6.0 Tassajara Creek and other stream corridors are visual features that have special scenic value for the planning area. The visual character of these corridors should be protected from unnecessary alteration or disturbance and adjoining development should be sites to maintain visual access to the stream corridors.

MM 3.8/7.0 Preserve views of designated open space areas.

MM 3.8/8.1 The City should require that projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors to submit a detailed visual analysis with development project application.

Applicants will be required to submit graphic simulations and/or section drawn from affected travel corridors through the parcel in question, representing typical views of the parcel from scenic routes. The graphic depiction of the location and massing of the structure and associated landscaping can then be used to adjust the project design to minimize the visual impacts.
2002 SEIR
The effects of the Eastern Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) Project on visual resources were addressed in the Initial Study prepared as part of the 2002 SEIR. The Initial Study determined that the EDPO Project would have no impacts beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR because the development footprint and intensity of development was the same as previously analyzed.

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

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Scenic vistas, views
A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. Aesthetic components of a scenic vista generally include: 1) scenic quality; 2) sensitivity level; and 3) view access. The City of Dublin General Plan identifies the visually sensitive ridgelines located in the open space areas in the Western and Eastern Extended Planning Areas of the City as scenic resources. I-580 provides scenic views of these ridgeline areas and is an Alameda County-designated scenic route.

Implementation of the proposed project would subdivide the 192-acre site into eleven parcels to accommodate the proposed development of up to 238 residential units on two residential parcels (Parcel 7 and Parcel 8). The residential units would consist of three-story (maximum 40 feet in height) townhomes with front doors facing the primary private streets and facing outward toward surrounding uses, as well as front doors located along common landscape 722
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 21
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
paseos. The project applicant has submitted two Small Lot Vesting Tentative Tract Maps (VTTMs) for development of the MH Density Residential uses to accommodate the proposed project.

The proposed project would also include up to 3,299,670 square feet of general commercial/campus office uses. The general commercial/campus office uses would be consistent with the GC/CO land use designation and PD zoning on the five GC/CO parcels (Parcels 1, 2, 3, 9 and 11), totaling approximately 126.3-acres. Consistent with the PD-GC/CO zoning, these parcels could accommodate a range of community and regional serving retail, service and office uses, including a compatible mixture of these uses. Future development of these parcels would be consistent with the City’s development standards, including minimum lot area, required setbacks, landscape buffers and a maximum height limit of 45 feet.8 Additionally, the project would include 7.2-acres for a Community Park, 2.3-acres of Open Space, and 42.6-acres for a Natural Community Park.

The proposed development would be visible from public vantage points, including Collier Canyon Road, the future Dublin Boulevard Extension, and I-580, which is an eligible State scenic highway and a designated Alameda County scenic route.

The Eastern Dublin EIR contains Figure 3.8-H, Visually Sensitive Ridgelands, depicting portions of the Eastern Dublin area that contains ridges and ridgelands which are considered to be visually sensitive. As identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the lower and hillside areas located closer to I-580 with topographic elevations generally ranging between approximately 460 and 480 feet above sea level are designated as “Visually Sensitive Ridgelands-restricted development.” As described above, the Eastern Dublin EIR determined that development associated with implementation of the EDSP would alter the character of existing scenic vistas and obscure important sightlines. These impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and listed above.

Consistent with the findings in the Fallon Village SEIR, due to the elevation and existing topography of the project site, proposed development would continue to limit views of the primary ridgeline and affect scenic vistas from I-580 and other public vantage points. Although the density of the proposed general commercial/campus office uses would be greater than previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs, the general type and massing of buildings would not be significantly different than analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. However, consistent with the findings of the Fallon Village SEIR, proposed development would continue to limit views of the primary ridgeline, designated as scenic resource in the Eastern Dublin EIR. 8 The maximum height for General Commercial and Campus Office uses is 45 feet. If the principal structure is within 50 feet of a residential structure, the maximum height limit is 35 feet. 723
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 22
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Consistent with Mitigation Measure 3.8/5.0, identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the proposed project would be required to undergo site-specific design review to ensure the project is consistent with City of Dublin design standards, property development regulations and performance standards related to aesthetics and to lessen the severity of visual changes resulting from the proposed project. Further, the proposed project would be required to implement other Mitigation Measures (MM 3.8/3.0, MM 3.8/4.0, MM 3.8/4.1, MM 3.8/4.4, MM 3.8/4.5, MM 3.8/5.1) identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, which include design features to minimize visual impacts (e.g., sensitive grading, sensitive engineering design, revegetation).

With implementation of the aforementioned Mitigation Measures, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts to scenic vistas and views, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur.
(b) Scenic resources
As described above, I-580 located just south of the project site, is an eligible State scenic highway and an Alameda County designated scenic route. The I-580 scenic corridor is defined as the area which is both within 3,500 feet on each side of the centerline of I-580 and visible from I-580. Per City of Dublin General Plan policies, design review would be required for all projects visible from a designated scenic route in order to enhance a positive image of Dublin as seen by through travelers.

As described in Section 1.a, the proposed project would alter views from I-580 and result in a change in visual conditions, as described in the EDSP EIRs. However, development of the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings, as these resources are not currently present on the project site. Further, the mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs and the visual policies in the City of Dublin General Plan would apply to the proposed project, and the proposed project would be required to undergo site-specific design review to ensure the project is consistent with City of Dublin design standards. With implementation of the aforementioned Mitigation Measures, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to scenic resources, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (c) Substantially degrade the visual character of public views of the site or surrounding area Development of the proposed project would alter the existing visual character of the project area and vicinity by introducing residential, community park, and general commercial/campus office uses onto the existing largely undeveloped parcel. A total of 238 residential units are proposed within approximately 13.7 acres designated MH Density Residential in the General Plan and EDSP. Residential development would be three stories high, with a maximum height of up to 40 feet. Approximately 3,299,670 square feet of general commercial/campus office use is proposed on approximately 126.3-acres. Future development of these parcels would be consistent with the City’s development standards, including minimum lot area, required setbacks, landscape buffers and a maximum height limit of 45 feet. Additionally, the project would include 7.2-acres for a Community Park, 2.3-acres for Open Space, and 42.6-acres for a Natural Community Park.
724
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 23
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
As outlined in the Project Description, the project proposes a 0.6 floor area ratio (FAR) for the GC/CO parcels, which is an increase from the FAR established for these uses in the EDSP EIRs.

However, the proposed project would include establishment of residential and commercial design guidelines to regulate the design of the proposed uses within the project site. Design guidelines for the proposed residential development include variation in roof forms and heights, setbacks for the upper floors, variation in materials, and earth-toned colors to minimize the visual scale of proposed structures and to provide visual interest. Landscaping is proposed to promote a cohesive landscape within the residential areas of the project site, including flowering plant material that complements the site architecture, provides seasonal color, and connects adjacent uses and activities. Similar guidelines would need to be established for the proposed commercial areas of the project site as part of the subsequent approvals. Implementation of these design elements would further mitigate the visual impact of the building heights and massing.

As described above, the Eastern Dublin EIR determined that visual impacts associated with the alteration of the rural/open space character of the project area and alteration of the visual character of the flatlands would be significant and unavoidable. Other impacts to visual resources, including impacts to distinctive natural features, scenic vistas, and scenic routes, and alteration of hillsides, ridges, and watercourses were determined to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Although the density of the proposed general commercial/campus office uses would be greater than previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs, the general type and massing of buildings would not be significantly different. Consistent with the findings of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the proposed project would alter the visual character of the project site, which would be converted from rural development to urban development, with general commercial/campus office uses and residential buildings. Because the general type and massing of the proposed buildings would not be significantly different than those considered in the EDSP EIRs, the difference in density would not substantially increase the severity of this previously identified impact. Therefore, changes to the existing visual environment would be the same as described in the EDSP EIRs.

The mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the visual policies in the City of Dublin General Plan would apply to the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would be required to undergo site-specific design review to ensure the project is consistent with City of Dublin design standards, property development regulations and performance standards related to aesthetics and to lessen the severity of visual changes resulting from the proposed project. With implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to the visual character of the site and surrounding area, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
Similar to the development evaluated in the EDSP EIRs, the proposed project would introduce new light sources to the project site, including new building lighting, light standards along proposed roadways, parking areas and pedestrian pathways, and loading facilities. At night, these new sources of light would be visible from a distance; however, the addition of new light 725
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 24
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
sources associated with the proposed project would generally blend in with lighting of adjacent development projects to the north and west and would represent a continuation of the existing development within this area of the City. Consistent with City requirements, exterior lighting would be shielded so that direct glare and reflections are confined within the boundaries of the project site. Site lighting would be directed downward and away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way such that no light spillover onto adjacent properties or streets would occur.

Glare is caused by light reflections from pavement, vehicles, and building materials such as reflective glass and polished surfaces. During daylight hours, the amount of glare depends on intensity and direction of sunlight. Glare can create hazards to motorists and can be a nuisance for pedestrians and other viewers. Proposed exterior building materials for the residential development would primarily include stone, brick or lap siding. These non-reflective building materials would not result in potential glare impacts within the project site or surrounding areas, and notably at the street level. With adherence to City requirements, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with light and glare, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur.

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 aesthetic 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. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022).

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.

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016).
726
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 25
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.

December 7.
727
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 26
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Agricultural and Forestry 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

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?

X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?

X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?

X
Environmental Setting
The project site is not used for agricultural production and is not designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The surrounding area is characterized by undeveloped open space and residential uses.

The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program categorizes the project site as Grazing Land and Urban and Built-Up Land. Grazing Land is defined as land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. Other Land includes land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than forty acres.

Urban and Built-Up land is occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to

1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel. Common examples include 728
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 27
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures.

Previous CEQA Documents
Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified less than significant impacts related to discontinuation of agricultural uses, loss of farmlands of local importance, indirect impacts resulting from nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, and conversion of non-urban lands. Although the Eastern Dublin EIR determined that the loss of agricultural uses within the Eastern Dublin Area was less than significant, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified the cumulative loss of agricultural lands and open space as a significant and unavoidable impact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this impact.
2002 SEIR
A review of potential prime agricultural soils within the project area was conducted as part of the 2002 SEIR. The 2002 SEIR determined that no additional prime agricultural lands occur in the project area beyond those identified at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified; therefore, no new significant impacts related to prime agricultural soils or cancellation of Williamson Act contracts were identified.

Fallon Village SEIR
No additional impacts or mitigation related to agricultural resources were identified in the Fallon Village SEIR.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (farmland)
As described above, the project site is not used for agricultural production and is not designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.

Therefore, the proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or any other type of farmland to non-agricultural uses.

Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would occur.
(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract The project site is currently classified as Planned Development (PD) Ordinance No. 32-05 on the City’s Zoning Map. The project site is not currently used for agricultural purposes, not zoned for agricultural uses, and is not protected by, or eligible for, a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or Williamson Act contracts. No new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contract would occur. 729
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 28
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
(c) Conversion of land from Farmland or forest use
As described above, the project site is currently classified as Planned Development (PD) Ordinance No. 32-05 on the City’s Zoning Map, which allows for a mix of residential, general commercial/campus office, and limited light manufacturing uses on the project site. Neither the project site nor the surrounding area is zoned for agricultural use, forest land, timberland, or timberland production. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with the conversion of farmland or forest land would occur. (d) Result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest No forest or timberland exists on the project site or in the surrounding area and the proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with the loss or conversion of forest land would occur.
(e) Conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use
None of the project parcels are currently used as farmland or forest land. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of farmland on or off the project site to non-agricultural uses because there are no agricultural uses on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site.

Likewise, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses.

Therefore, the no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with the conversion of farmland or forest land to non-agricultural uses would occur.

Source(s)
California Department of Conservation (DOC). California Farmland Conservancy. California Important Farmland Finder. Website: maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/ (accessed September 13, 2023).

Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022).

Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March.
730
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 29
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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.
731
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 30
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Air 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

3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people? X
Environmental Setting
The proposed project is located in the City of Dublin and is within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which regulates air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area. Air quality conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area have improved significantly since BAAQMD was created in 1955. Ambient concentrations of air pollutants and the number of days during which the region exceeds air quality standards have fallen substantially. In Dublin, and the rest of the Air Basin, exceedances of air quality standards occur primarily during meteorological conditions conducive to high pollution levels, such as cold, windless winter nights or hot, sunny summer afternoons.

Within BAAQMD, ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), and lead (Pb) have been set by both the State of California and federal government. The State has also set standards for sulfate and visibility. BAAQMD is under State non-attainment status for ozone and particulate matter standards. BAAQMD is classified as non-attainment for the federal ozone 8-hour standard and non-attainment for the federal PM2.5 24-hour standard. 732
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 31
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Previous CEQA Documents
Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified that mobile source CO emissions would be less than significant and construction dust emissions 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 construction equipment/vehicle emissions, mobile source reactive organic gasses (ROG) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, and stationary source emissions would be significant and unavoidable. Thus, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. The following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed project:

MM 3.11/1.0 The City of Dublin shall:
Require watering in late morning and at the end of the day; the frequency of watering should increase if wind exceeds 15 mph. Watering should include all excavated and graded areas and material to be transported off-site. Use recycled or other non-potable water resources where feasible. Require daily cleanup of mud and dust carried onto street surfaces by construction vehicles.
Require excavation haul trucks to use tarpaulins or other effective covers. Require that, upon completion of construction, measures shall be taken to reduce wind erosion. Replanting and repaving should be completed as soon as possible.
Require that unnecessary idling of construction equipment is avoided. Require that, after grading is completed, fugitive dust on exposed soil surfaces shall be controlled using the following methods:
o All inactive portions of the construction site should be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident.
o Require that all portions of the site shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
o Require that, at all times, the following procedures should be followed:
On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph.
Use of petroleum-based palliative shall meet the road oil requirements of the Air Quality District. Non-petroleum-based tackifiers may be required by the Public Works Director. The Public Works Department will handle all dust complaints. The Public Works Director may require the services of an air quality consultant to advise the City on the severity of the dust problem and additional ways to mitigate impacts on residents, including temporarily halting project construction. Dust concerns in adjoining communities as well as the City of Dublin shall be 733
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 32
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
controlled. Control measures shall be related to wind conditions.

Air quality monitoring of PM levels shall be provided as directed by the Public Works Director in Dublin.

MM 3.11/2.0 Minimize construction interference with regional non-project traffic movement by:
Scheduling receipt of construction materials to non-peak travel periods. Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity. Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods. Providing ride-share incentives for contractor and subcontractor personnel.

MM 3.11/3.0 Require emissions control from on-site equipment through a routine mandatory program of low-emissions tune-ups.

MM 3.11/4.0 Require preparation of a construction impact reduction plan that incorporates all proposed air quality mitigation strategies with clearly defined responsibilities for plan implementation and supervision.

MM 3.11/5.0 Exercise interagency cooperation with a sub-regional and on a regional basis to integrate air quality planning efforts with transportation, transit, and other infrastructure plans.

MM 3.11/6.0 Maintain consistency among specific development plans and regional transportation and growth management plans.

MM 3.11/7.0 Implement transportation demand management (TDM) techniques to reduce mobile source emissions.

MM 3.11/8.0 Optimize the existing transportation system to reduce congestion and shift travel to non-peak travel periods.

MM 3.11/9.0 Coordinate levels of growth with roadway transportation facilities improvements to accommodate travel demand without inducing demand by providing excess system capacity.

MM 3.11/10.0 Encourage mixed-use development that provides housing, jobs, goods and services in close proximity.

MM 3.11/11.0 Require linkage between growth of housing and job opportunities consistent with a positive sub-regional contribution to jobs/housing ratio balances. 734
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 33
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
MM 3.11/12.0 Stationary source emissions associated with Project development should also be minimized where feasible to reduce overall cumulative impacts. Minimum energy conservation standards are established in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Design practice can achieve a slightly greater level of conservation than the minimum standards. A conservation target level for some fraction of Eastern Dublin development of 10 percent above the minimum should be implemented as an appropriate acknowledgement of the desired "environmentally-friendly" community character for this Project.

MM 3.11/13.0 Solid waste recycling should be included in all development planning to ensure that recycling criteria specified in AB-939 can be most easily met. 2002 SEIR
A review of potential operational air quality impacts was conducted as part of the 2002 SEIR.

The 2002 SEIR determined that no additional operational air quality impacts would occur beyond those identified at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified; therefore, no new significant impacts related to air quality were identified.

Fallon Village SEIR
No additional impacts were identified 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-AQ-1: In addition to the measures identified in Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the City of Dublin shall:
a) Require construction contractors to water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind.
b) Require construction contractors to sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. c) Require construction contractors to install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.

SM-AQ-2: In addition to the measures identified in Mitigation Measure 3.11/5.0-11.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the City of Dublin shall require that the following be implemented:
a) The Project proponent should coordinate with LAVTA for the eventual extension of transit service to the Project area. Project proponents should construct or reserve necessary right-of-way for transit facilities such as bus turnouts/bus bulbs, benches, etc.
b) Bicycle land and/or paths, connected to community-wide network should be provided as part of the Stage 1 Development Plan.
735
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 34
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
c) Sidewalks and/or paths, connected to adjacent land uses, transit stops, and/or community-wide network should be provided as part of the Stage 1 Development Plan.
d) Consider shuttle service to regional transit system or multimodal center. e) Consider providing a satellite telecommute center for Project residents if this is feasible in terms of a convenient location.
f) Provide interconnected street network, with a regular grid or similar interconnected street pattern.

SM-AQ-3: Same as Supplemental Mitigation AQ-2.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Consistency with the applicable clean air plan
BAAQMD’s Clean Air Plan is a comprehensive plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health. The Clean Air Plan defines control strategies to reduce emissions and ambient concentrations of air pollutants; safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that pose the greatest heath risk, with an emphasis on protecting the communities most heavily affected by air pollution; and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to protect the climate. Consistency with the Clean Air Plan can be determined if the project: (1) supports the goals of the Clean Air Plan; (2) includes applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan; and (3) would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan.

As described below, the proposed project: (1) does not support the goals of the Clean Air Plan because the proposed project’s operational emissions would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds; (2) includes applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan because the proposed project would promote the BAAQMD’s initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and would comply with the latest California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) standards; and (3) would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan since the proposed project would include applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan. However, since the proposed project would not support the goals of the Clean Air Plan, the project is not consistent with the Clean Air Plan.

Clean Air Plan Goals.The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable operational emissions in violation of the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds. Therefore, the project would conflict with the Clean Air Plan goals.

The primary goals of the Bay Area Clean Air Plan are to attain air quality standards, reduce population exposure and protect public health in the Bay Area, reduce GHG emissions and protect climate.
736
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 35
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
BAAQMD has established significance thresholds for project construction and operational impacts at a level at which the cumulative impact of exceeding these thresholds would have an adverse impact on the region’s attainment of air quality standards. The health and hazards thresholds were established to help protect public health. If a project exceeds these thresholds, it is not aligned with the Clean Air Plan goals.

Construction Emissions. As discussed below, with implementation of Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1, as modified below, and Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0 and 3.11/3.0 from the Eastern Dublin EIR, the project would result in less-than-significant construction-period emissions.

Operational Emissions. As discussed below, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable operational emissions. Therefore, the project would conflict with the Clean Air Plan goals.

Clean Air Plan Control Measures.The control measures of the Clean Air Plan include measures in the following categories: Stationary Source Measures, Transportation Measures, Energy Measures, Building Measures, Agriculture Measures, Natural and Working Lands Measures, Waste Management Measures, Water Measures, and Super-GHG Pollutants Measures.

The proposed project is consistent with the applicable Clean Air Plan control measures.

Stationary Source Control Measures. The Stationary Source Control Measures, which are designed to reduce emissions from stationary sources such as metal melting facilities, cement kilns, refineries, and glass furnaces, are incorporated into rules adopted by BAAQMD and then enforced by BAAQMD’s Permit and Inspection programs. Since the project would not include any stationary sources of emissions, the Stationary Source Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the project.

Transportation Control Measures.BAAQMD identifies Transportation Control Measures as part of the Clean Air Plan to decrease emissions of criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and GHGs by reducing demand for motor vehicle travel, promoting efficient vehicles and transit service, decarbonizing transportation fuels, and electrifying motor vehicles and equipment. The project would subdivide the 192-acre site into 11 parcels to accommodate proposed residential, limited light manufacturing, hotel, retail and office uses within the project area. The proposed project would increase pedestrian and bicycle connectivity through the site and to adjacent developments. Croak Road and Dublin Boulevard are proposed to be extended to provide access to the project site and would have sidewalks on both sides of the road.

Additionally, new bicycle facilities are proposed on the future Dublin Boulevard Extension and Croak Road, which would serve the project site. 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. As such, the proposed project’s proximity to surrounding uses and the ability for pedestrians and bicyclists to access the project site would support the ability of employees and residents to use alternative modes of transportation. Therefore, the project would not conflict 737
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 36
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
with BAAQMD initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and VMT and would encourage the use of alternate means of transportation through increasing pedestrian and bicyclist access.

Energy Control Measures.The Clean Air Plan also includes Energy Control Measures, which are designed to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by decreasing the amount of electricity consumed in the Bay Area, as well as decreasing the carbon intensity of the electricity used by switching to less GHG-intensive fuel sources for electricity generation.

Since these measures apply exclusively to electrical utility providers and local government agencies (and not individual projects), the Energy Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the project.

Building Control Measures.BAAQMD has authority to regulate emissions from certain sources in buildings such as boilers and water heaters but has limited authority to regulate buildings themselves. Therefore, the strategies in the control measures for this sector focus on working with local governments that do have authority over local building codes, to facilitate adoption of best GHG control practices and policies. The proposed project would be required to comply with the latest CALGreen standards. Therefore, the Building Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the project.

Agriculture Control Measures.The Agriculture Control Measures are designed to primarily reduce emissions of methane. Since the project does not include any agricultural activities, the Agriculture Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the project.

Natural and Working Lands Control Measures. The Natural and Working Lands Control Measures focus on increasing carbon sequestration on rangelands and wetlands, as well as encouraging local governments to enact ordinances that promote urban-tree plantings. The proposed project would plant -trees and landscaping throughout the project site. As described in the Project Description, the project would include dedication of land for a future 7.2-acre Community Park and 42.6 acres for a Natural Community Park. Additionally, the Planned Development Stage 2 Development Plan includes landscape design guidelines and a planting palette to create a unified community aesthetic. The landscape theme would feature blossoming plants and evergreens that complement the proposed architecture and encourage pedestrian access and connectivity within the residential development and to adjacent neighborhoods. In addition, the project site supports five habitat types consisting of non-native annual grassland, seasonal wetland/pond, drainages, emergent marsh and riparian woodlands.

As discussed in Section 4., Biological Resources , with implementation of mitigation measures and regulatory requirements, which require compensatory mitigation for loss of wetlands, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to wetlands, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the Natural and Working Lands Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan.

Waste Management Control Measures. The Waste Management Measures focus on reducing or capturing methane emissions from landfills and composting facilities, diverting organic materials away from landfills, and increasing waste diversion rates through efforts to reduce, reuse, and recycle. The project would comply with local requirements for waste management 738
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 37
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
(e.g., recycling and composting services). Therefore, the project would be consistent with the Waste Management Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan.

Water Control Measures. The Water Control Measures focus on reducing emissions of criteria pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by encouraging water conservation, limiting GHG emissions from publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and promoting the use of biogas recovery systems.

Since these measures apply to POTWs and local government agencies (and not individual projects), the Water Control Measures are not applicable to the project.

Super-GHG Control Measures.The Super-GHG Control Measures are designed to facilitate the adoption of best GHG control practices and policies through BAAQMD and local government agencies. Since these measures do not apply to individual projects, the Super-GHG Control Measures are not applicable to the project.

Clean Air Plan Implementation.As discussed above, the proposed project would implement the applicable measures outlined in the Clean Air Plan, including Transportation Control Measures.

Therefore, the project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of a control measure from the Clean Air Plan.

However, as discussed above and below, the proposed project would conflict with the goals of the Clean Air Plan, due to an exceedance of the operational emission thresholds. The EDSP EIRs did not evaluate consistency with the applicable clean air plan; however, operational emissions were determined to be significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. The proposed project would contribute to this significant and unavoidable impact identified in the EDSP EIRs but would not result in any new or more severe impacts compared to those previously identified in the EDSP EIRs. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with conflict with an air quality plan would occur.
(b) Violate air quality standards or cause cumulatively considerable air pollutants As demonstrated below, construction emissions associated with the project would be less than significant with implementation of the Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1, as identified in the Fallon Village SEIR, and modified below. However, the proposed project would violate air quality standards due to operational-related emissions; therefore, operation of the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants.

The proposed project would contribute to the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EDSP EIRs but would not result in operational impacts that are new or more significant than those analyzed in the EDSP EIRs.

Both State and federal governments have established health-based Ambient Air Quality Standards for six criteria air pollutants: CO, ozone (O3), NO2, SO2, Pb, and suspended particulate matter (PM). These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. As identified above, BAAQMD is under State nonattainment status for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards. The Air Basin is also classified as nonattainment for both the federal ozone 8-hour standard and the federal PM2.5 24-hour standard. 739
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 38
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Air quality standards for the proposed project are regulated by the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, to meet air quality standards for operational-related criteria air pollutant and air precursor impacts, the project must not:
x Contribute to CO concentrations exceeding the State ambient air quality standards; x Generate average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOx, or PM2.5 greater than 54 pounds per day or PM10 exhaust emissions greater than 82 pounds per day; or x Generate average operational emissions of ROG, NOx or PM2.5 of greater than 10 tons per year or 54 pounds per day or PM10 emissions greater than 15 tons per year or 82 pounds per day.

The following sections describe the proposed project’s construction- and operational-related air quality impacts and CO impacts.

Construction Emissions.As discussed above, the EDSP EIRs found that that proposed development would result in significant and unavoidable impacts associated with construction activities. Mitigation Measures 3.11/1.0, 3.11/2.0, 3.11/3.0, and 3.11/4.0, and SM-AQ-1 were identified, but were insufficient to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level and, therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the project.

During construction of the proposed project, construction dust would affect local and regional air quality at various times during build-out period of the project. The dry, windy climate of the area during the summer months combined with the fine, silty soils of the region create a high potential for dust generation. Emissions during the grading phase of construction are primarily associated with exhaust from large earth moving equipment and dust generated by grading activities. Emissions in later stages of construction would primarily be associated with construction employee commute vehicles, asphalt paving, mobile equipment, stationary equipment, and architectural coatings.

The effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of PM10 near the construction activity. Depending on the weather, soil conditions, the amount of activity taking place, and nature of dust control efforts, these impacts could affect existing or future residential areas within or near the project.

Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulting in emission reductions of 50 percent or more. BAAQMD has established standard measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions (PM10). With implementation of these Basic Best Management Practices for Construction-Related Fugitive Dust Emissions, fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would not result in adverse air quality impacts.

In addition to dust related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOx, ROGs and some soot particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic 740
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 39
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
congestion in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles are delayed. These emissions would be temporary and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site.

Construction emissions were estimated for the project using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1, consistent with BAAQMD recommendations. The proposed project would include phased construction, which would consist of Phase 1 from June 2024 to June 2026, Phase 2 from June 2025 to June 2027, and Phase 3 from June 2024 to June 2034.

Overall, construction of the proposed project is anticipated to last approximately 10 years and is anticipated to be fully improved by 2034. Phase 1 would include 128 residential units, 23,090 square feet of parking lot area, 101,780 square feet of total non-parking asphalt, 26,800 square feet of hardscape, and 51,000 square feet of landscaping on approximately 6.5 acres. Phase 2 would include 110 residential units, 11,790 square feet of parking lot area, 60,400 square feet of total non-parking asphalt, 30,980 square feet of hardscape, and 111,000 square feet of landscaping on approximately 7.2 acres. Phase 3 would include the limited light manufacturing, hotel, retail, and office uses on approximately 130 acres. The construction worker and vendor trips per day during Phases 1 and 2 were provided by the project applicant, which was included in CalEEMod. Cut and fill from project grading would be balanced on-site. This analysis also assumes the use of Tier 2 construction equipment, as required by current CARB OFFROAD regulations. Construction-related emissions are presented in Table D. CalEEMod output sheets are included in Appendix A.

Table D: Project Construction Emissions in Pounds Per Day Project Construction ROG NOx
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Dust PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Fugitive
Dust PM2.5
Average Daily Emissions 14.5 31.2 41.3 0.1 10.4 3.2
BAAQMD Thresholds 54.0 54.0 82.0 BMP 54.0 BMP
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: LSA (October 2023).

BMP = Best Management Practices
As shown in Table D, construction emissions associated with the project would be less than significant for ROG, NOx, PM2.5, and PM10 exhaust emissions. BAAQMD requires implementation of BAAQMD’s Basic Best Management Practices for Construction-Related Fugitive Dust Emissions (best management practices) to minimize construction fugitive dust impacts. The EDSP EIRs identified Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 and Supplemental Measure SM-AQ-1 to minimize emission of dust. BAAQMD has since adopted newer and more restrictive dust control measures to reduce construction dust and construction vehicle emissions to which the project applicant must adhere in order to reduce this construction impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1, as identified in the Fallon Village SEIR, has been modified, as shown below (with additions in underline and deletions in strikethrough), to include BAAQMD’s most current best management practices and require that construction equipment meets the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 2 emissions 741
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 40
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
standards equipped with Level 3 diesel particulate filters or equivalent. Mitigation Measures

3.11/2.0 and 3.11/3.0 would still be applicable to the proposed project.

SM-AQ-1: In addition to the measures identified in Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 of the East Dublin EIR, the City of Dublin shall:
a) Require construction contractors to water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind.
b) Require construction contractors to sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. c) Require construction contractors to install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
d) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. e) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
f) All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
g) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. h) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
i) Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
j) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
k) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. l) A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Dublin regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. m) During construction of the proposed project, the project contractor shall ensure all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment of 50 horsepower or more used for the project construction at a minimum meets the California Air Resources Board Tier 742
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 41
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
2 emissions standards equipped with Level 3 diesel particulate filters or equivalent.

Verification shall be provided to the City for confirmation.

With implementation of Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1, as modified above, and Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0 and 3.11/3.0, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to construction period emissions compared to those previously identified in the EDSP EIRs.

Operational Emissions.The EDSP EIRs found that proposed development would result in significant and unavoidable impacts associated with operational activities. Mitigation Measures

3.11/5.0, 3.11/6.0, 3.11/7.0, 3.11/8.0, 3.11/9.0, 3.11/10.0, and 3.11/11.0 and SM-AQ-2 and SMAQ-3 were identified but were insufficient to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level and, therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the project.

Long-term air pollutant emission impacts associated with the proposed project are those related to mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., electricity and natural gas), and area sources (e.g., architectural coatings, the use of landscape maintenance equipment, and the use of consumer products).

PM10 emissions result from running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways. Entrainment of PM10 occurs when vehicle tires pulverize small rocks and pavement, and the vehicle wakes generate airborne dust. The contribution of tire and brake wear is small compared to the other PM emission processes. Gasoline-powered engines have small rates of PM emissions compared with diesel-powered vehicles.

Typically, area source emissions consist of direct sources of air emissions located at the project site, including architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment. Area source emissions associated with the project would include emissions from the use of landscaping equipment and consumer products.

Emission estimates for operation of the project were calculated using CalEEMod. Model results are shown in Table E. Trip generation rates for the project were based on the project’s trip generation estimate, as described in Section 18. Transportation/Traffic, which estimates that the proposed project would generate approximately 22,618 average daily trips associated with the proposed residential, limited light manufacturing, hotel, retail, and office uses. In addition, CalEEMod assumes that the proposed project would not include any wood-burning fireplaces.

When project-specific data were not available, default assumptions (e.g., energy usage, water usage, and solid waste generation) from CalEEMod were used to estimate project emissions.

The primary emissions associated with the project would be regional in nature, meaning that air pollutants would be rapidly dispersed on release or, in the case of vehicle emissions associated with the project; emissions would be released in other areas of the Air Basin. The daily and annual emissions associated with project operational trip generation, energy, and area sources are identified in Table E for ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. 743
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 42
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Table E: Project Operational Emissions
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Project Emissions
Pounds Per Day
Mobile Source Emissions 53.0 46.2 140.2 36.0
Area Source Emissions 105.5 0.8 0.1 0.1
Energy Source Emissions 2.2 39.6 3.0 3.0
Total Project Emissions 160.7 86.6 143.4 39.2
BAAQMD Thresholds 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0
Exceed Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No
Tons Per Year
Mobile Source Emissions 9.7 8.4 25.6 6.6
Area Source Emissions 19.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy Source Emissions 0.4 7.2 0.6 0.6
Total Project Emissions 29.4 15.8 26.2 7.2
BAAQMD Thresholds 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0
Exceed Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No
EDSP EIRs Emissions
EDSP EIR (Mobile Source Emissions) 109.5 102.9 78.9 -
Fallon Village SEIR (Mobile Source Emissions) 116.9 116.6 89.9 - BAAQMD Thresholds 54.0 54.0 82.0 -
Exceed Threshold? Yes Yes Yes -
Source: LSA (October 2023).

The results shown in Table E indicate the project would exceed the significance criteria for daily and annual ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions. As shown in Table E, PM2.5 emissions would be below the thresholds. As discussed above, the EDSP EIRs found that proposed development would result in significant and unavoidable impacts associated with operation activities.

Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0, 3.11/6.0, 3.11/7.0, 3.11/8.0, 3.11/9.0, 3.11/10.0, and 3.11/11.0 and SM-AQ-2 and SM-AQ-3 were identified but were insufficient to reduce impacts to a lessthan-significant level and, therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the project. The EDSP EIRs evaluated emissions estimates using the URBEMIS-2002 emission model, which is now considered outdated and only calculated mobile source emissions; area and energy source emissions were not evaluated. As discussed above, the proposed project would generate approximately 22,618 average daily trips, while buildout of the uses evaluated 744
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 43
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
in the Fallon Village SEIR would generate approximately 45,550 average daily trips. Therefore, although the proposed project’s total emissions are higher than the mobile source emissions identified in the Fallon Village SEIR, area and energy source emissions were not analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. If area and energy source emissions were included in the EDSP EIRs, the total operational emissions would have been higher than the proposed project. Emissions associated with area and energy sources 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 energy sources (e.g., electricity and natural gas) and area sources (e.g., architectural coatings, the use of landscape maintenance equipment, and the use of consumer products) was widely known prior to the certification of these EIRs. As such, although the proposed project would contribute to the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EDSP EIRs, it would not result in operational impacts that are new or more significant than those analyzed in the EDSP EIRs.

Localized CO Impacts.The EDSP EIRs found that the project would generate additional traffic volumes, increasing local levels of carbon monoxide. However, the EDSP EIRs determined that such increases would be below the standard of air quality significance.

Emissions and ambient concentrations of CO have decreased dramatically in the Bay Area with the introduction of the catalytic converter in 1975. No exceedances of the State or federal CO standards have been recorded at Bay Area monitoring stations since 1991. BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include recommended methodologies for screening and quantifying concentrations of localized CO levels for intersections that would be in a project vicinity. A screening level analysis using guidance from the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines was performed to determine the impacts of the project. The screening methodology provides a conservative indication of whether the implementation of a proposed project would result in significant CO emissions. According to BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, a proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following screening criteria are met:
x The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, and the regional transportation plan and local congestion management agency plans. x Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
x The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, or belowgrade roadway).

Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the Alameda County Transportation Commission’s congestion management programs. The proposed project would generate approximately 2,068 AM peak hour trips and 2,523 PM peak hour trips. The project’s contribution to peak hour traffic volumes at intersections in the vicinity of the project site 745
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 44
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
would be well below 44,000 vehicles per hour. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in localized CO concentrations that exceed State or federal standards.

Overall, with implementation of Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1, as modified above, and Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0 and 3.11/3.0, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe impacts associated with the violation of air quality standards as compared to those identified in the EDSP EIRs.
(c) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations With implementation of mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with exposing sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations would occur with implementation of the project.

Sensitive receptors are defined as residential uses, schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, and medical centers. Individuals particularly vulnerable to diesel particulate matter are children, whose lung tissue is still developing, and the elderly, who may have serious health problems that can be aggravated by exposure to diesel particulate matter. Exposure from diesel exhaust associated with construction activity contributes to both cancer and chronic noncancer health risks. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site include residential uses and Cottonwood Creek School located adjacent to the northern border of the project site.

The proposed project site is located in an urban area in close proximity to existing residential uses that could be exposed to diesel emission exhaust during the construction period. As such, to estimate the potential cancer risk from project construction equipment exhaust (including diesel particulate matter), a construction health risk assessment (HRA), which evaluates construction-period health risk to off-site receptors, was performed for the proposed project, and the analysis is presented below. To estimate the potential cancer risk associated with construction of the proposed project from equipment exhaust (including diesel particulate matter), a dispersion model was used to translate an emission rate from the source location to a concentration at the receptor location of interest (i.e., a nearby residence and worksites).

Dispersion modeling varies from a simpler, more conservative screening-level analysis to a more complex and refined detailed analysis. This refined assessment was conducted using the CARB exposure methodology with the air dispersion modeling performed using the USEPA dispersion model AERMOD. The model provides a detailed estimate of exhaust concentrations based on site and source geometry, source emissions strength, distance from the source to the receptor, and meteorological data.

Table F below identifies the results of the analysis utilizing the CalEEMod outputs, assuming the use of Tier 2 construction equipment, consistent with current minimum CARB standards. Model snapshots of the sources are provided in Appendix B.
746
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 45
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Table F: Unmitigated Inhalation Health Risks from Project Construction to Off-Site Receptors Project Construction
Carcinogenic
Inhalation Health
Risk in One Million
Chronic Inhalation
Hazard Index
Acute Inhalation
Hazard Index
Annual PM2.5
Concentration
(μg/m3
)
Maximally Exposed
Residential Receptor

19.20 0.054 0.000 0.268
Maximally Exposed
School Receptor

17.52 0.045 0.000 0.223
Maximally Exposed
Worker Receptor

1.36 0.052 0.000 0.261
Threshold? 10.0 1.0 1.0 0.30
Exceed? Yes No No No
Source: LSA (October 2023).

As shown in Table F, the project’s maximum cancer risk for the residential receptor maximally exposed individual (MEI) would be 19.20 in one million and the school receptor risk would be

17.52 in one million, which would exceed the BAAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. The worker receptor risk would be lower at 1.36 in one million, which would not exceed the BAAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. The chronic hazard index would be

0.054 for the residential receptor MEI, 0.045 for the school receptor MEI, and 0.052 for the worker receptor MEI, which would be below the threshold of 1.0. In addition, the acute hazard index would be nominal (0.000), which would not exceed the threshold of 1.0. The PM2.5 concentration would be 0.268 for the residential receptor MEI, 0.223 for the school receptor MEI, and 0.261 for the worker receptor MEI, which would be below the threshold of 0.3 μg/m3.

However, construction contractors would be required to implement BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures and use construction equipment that meets the CARB Tier 2 emissions standards equipped with Level 3 diesel particulate filters or equivalent as identified in the Fallon Village SEIR and Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1, as modified above.

Table G identifies the results of the analysis with implementation of Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1, as modified above.
747
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 46
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Table G: Mitigated Inhalation Health Risks from Project Construction to Off-Site Receptors Project Construction
Carcinogenic
Inhalation Health
Risk in One Million
Chronic Inhalation
Hazard Index
Acute Inhalation
Hazard Index
Annual PM2.5
Concentration
(μg/m3
)
Maximally Exposed
Residential Receptor

2.90 0.003 0.000 0.062
Maximally Exposed
School Receptor

2.62 0.003 0.000 0.052
Maximally Exposed
Worker Receptor

0.21 0.003 0.000 0.060
Threshold? 10.0 1.0 1.0 0.30
Exceed? No No No No
Source: LSA (October 2023).

As shown in Table G, the project’s maximum cancer risk for the residential receptor MEI would be 2.90 in one million, the school receptor risk would be 2.62 in one million, and the worker receptor risk would be 0.21 in one million, which would be below the BAAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. Therefore, with implementation of modified Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1, construction of the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds and would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. With implementation of modified Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with exposing sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations would occur.
(d) Odors
During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site. The potential for diesel odor impacts is, therefore, considered less than significant. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the land uses established in Planned Development Ordinance No. 32-05 and would not include any activities or operations that would generate objectionable odors and once operational, it would not be a source of odors. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with odors would occur.

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 air quality impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. 748
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 47
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as modified above, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air quality 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)
BAAQMD. 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19. Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-airplan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed October 2023).

BAAQMD. 2023. 2022 CEQA Guidelines. https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-andclimate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines (accessed October 2023).

Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022).

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.

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.
749
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 48
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Biological 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

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

X
Environmental Setting
The following discussion of biological resources within the project site is based on the results of a Biological Resources Assessment, special-status plant survey, listed large brachiopod wet season survey, and arborist report prepared for the proposed project (Appendices C through F, respectively).
750
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 49
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
The project site consists entirely of undeveloped grazing ranchland and open space. The land uses on nearby properties consist of agricultural, residential, open space, and commercial uses as well. Five habitat types were identified within the study area during the plant surveys: nonnative annual grassland, seasonal wetland/pond, drainages, emergent marsh, and riparian woodlands. These habitats are discussed below.

Non-Native Annual Grassland
Most of the project site consists of non-native annual grassland and much of this grassland is currently grazed by cattle. The species include wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), hare barley (Hordeum murinum spp. leporinum), and Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), among others. Common non-native forbs observed during field surveys include black mustard (Brassica nigra), Mediterranean linseed (Bellardia trixago), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), filaree (Erodium spp.), and bur clover (Medicago polymorpha).

Seasonal Wetland/Pond
The seasonal wetlands across the project site are characterized by Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), seaside barley (Hordeum marinum), Baltic rush, (Juncus balticus), bristly oxtongue (Helminthotheca echioides), common toad rush (Juncus bufonius), beardless wild rye (Elymus triticoides), timothy grass (Phleum alpinum), bulrush (Typha latifolia), curly dock (Rumex crispus), tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), hyssop lossestrife (Lythrym hyssopifolia), brass buttons (Cotula coronopifolia), soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), Congdon’s tarplant, and rabbit’s foot grass.

Drainages
Six drainages exist on the project site. One intermittent channel lies within the riparian woodland on the northwestern corner, four drainages are spread within the hills of the central northern part of the project site, and one drainage is located along the eastern project site boundary. Dominant vegetation within the drainage features consist primarily of salt grass (Distichilis spicata), iris leaf rush (Juncus xiphioides) and rabbit’s foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis) with sporadic yerba mansa (Anamopsis californica) and watercress (Nasturtium officinale) within the northwestern corner.

Emergent Marsh
The emergent marsh, located in the southwest corner of the project site, contains water yearround and is primarily characterized by a large stand of cattails (Typha sp.). The cattail stand covers the entire emergent marsh along with a few scattered willow trees (Salix spp.) present along the boundary of Croak Road. Several hydrophytic species are present within the willow undergrowth such as, cutleaf water parsnip (Berula erecta), prickly lettuce, and rabbits foot grass.

Riparian Woodland
A group of willow (Salix sp) and cottonwood trees (Populus fremontii) surround the quarry pond within the northern portion of the project site. Additionally, a dense group of willow, 751
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 50
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
cottonwood, and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees surround the intermittent drainage within the northwestern corner of the site.

Previous CEQA Documents
Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to direct habitat loss, indirect habitat loss due to vegetation removal for construction and development activities, and loss or degradation of sensitive habitat. The Eastern Dublin EIR also identified potentially significant impacts related to special-status wildlife, including San Joaquin kit fox, California redlegged frog (CRLF), California tiger salamander (CTS), western pond turtle, tri-colored blackbird, golden eagle, burrowing owl, American badger, special-status invertebrates and others.

Mitigation measures were identified to reduce significant impacts. One significant and unavoidable impact was identified related to the cumulative loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. The following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed project:

MM 3.7/1.0 Direct disturbance or removal of trees or native vegetation cover should be minimized and be restricted to those areas actually designated for the construction of improvements.

MM 3.7/5.0 All areas of disturbance should be revegetated as quickly as possible to prevent erosion. Native trees (preferably those species already on site), shrubs, herbs, and grasses should be used for revegetation of areas to remains as natural open space.

The introduction of non-native plant species should be avoided.

MM 3.7/14.0 The City should enact and enforce an erosion and sedimentation control ordinance establishing performance standards to ensure maintenance of water quality and protection of stream channels. The ordinance should regulate grading and development activities adjacent to streams and wetland areas and require revegetation of all ground disturbance immediately after construction to reduce erosion potential.

Until such an ordinance is in place, the City shall require project applicants to provide a detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan as part of the project submittal.

MM 3.7/16.0 Existing sensitive habitats shall be avoided and protected where feasible.

MM 3.7/17.0 Construction near drainages shall take place during the dry season.

MM 3.7/19.0 The use of rodenticides and herbicides within the Project area should be restricted to avoid impacts on wildlife. The City shall require any poisoning programs to be done in cooperation with and under supervision of the Alameda County Department of Agriculture.
752
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 51
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
MM 3.7/20.0 The City shall require development applicants to conduct a preconstruction survey within 60 days prior to habitat modification (clearing construction and road site, etc.) to verify the presence of sensitive species, especially the San Joaquin kit fox, nesting raptors, the red-legged frog, the western pond turtle, the California tiger salamander, the tri-colored blackbird and other species of concern.

MM 3.7/22.0 Maintain a minimum buffer (at least 100 feet) around breeding sites of the red-legged frog, California tiger salamander and the Western pond turtle identified by MM 3.7/20.0.

MM 3.7 /23.0 Maintain a natural open space zone (Golden Eagle Protection Zone) around the golden eagle nest located in the northeast corner of the planning area.

Exceptions to this setback will have to be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), based on field examinations of the site to determine what constitutes "harassment" of the eagles at this particular location. Construction within this protection zone will not be allowed unless it is determined that the eagles have ceased to use the nest site for two consecutive years as verified by the USFWS.

MM 3.7 /24.0 During the golden eagle reproductive period (July-January), an additional temporal buffer will be established within 250 feet of the Golden Eagle Protection Zone.

During this period, construction and development activities will not be allowed within this temporal zone.

MM 3.7 /25.0 Partial mitigation for the loss of useable foraging habitat will be provided by MM 3.7 / 23 which establishes a Golden Eagle Protection Zone. Additional mitigation will be provided by the 571.1 acres of Open Space and 2,672.3 acres of Rural Residential land use of the Project. Combined, the Golden Eagle Protection Zone and the 3,243.4 acres of land projected for open space protection or low intensity development would provide suitable foraging habitat.

MM 3.7/27.0 Maintain a minimum buffer (at least 300 feet) around known or those identified by pre-construction surveys (MM 3.7/20.0) nesting sites of the burrowing owl and breeding sites of the American badger during the breeding season to avoid direct loss of individuals (March – September).
2002 SEIR
The 2002 SEIR determined that implementation of the EDPO project would result in potentially significant supplemental impacts to seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams, sensitive habitats not previously analyzed, special-status plant species, San Joaquin kit fox, California redlegged frog (CRLF), special-status invertebrates, California tiger salamander (CTS), nesting raptors, golden eagle, burrowing owl, nesting passerines, and bat species. Supplemental mitigation measures were identified to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The following supplemental mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project:
753
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 52
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
SM-BIO-1 (reference only): A Resource Management Plan (RMP) shall be prepared for the Project area for the City of Dublin’s review and approval prior to or concurrent with submittal of any land use entitlement requests. The RMP shall include all properties in the Project area and any necessary off-site mitigation lands, and address consistency with local policies, such as the Stream Restoration Program and the Grazing Management Plan and mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and this SEIR (for the full text of this mitigation see Chapter 3.3 [in the SEIR]).

SM-BIO-2: Plant surveys, as outlined in United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) protocols, shall be conducted across the Project area in early spring, late spring, and late summer to confirm presence or absence of special-status plant species. Results of these surveys shall be addressed in the RMP (SM-BIO-1) and in project-level environmental review of all subsequent development applications in the Project area.

SM-BIO-3: Once presence is determined for a special-status plant species, areas supporting the species should be avoided to the extent feasible.

SM-BIO-4: If a special-status plant species cannot be avoided, then the area containing the plant species must be measured and one of the following steps must be taken to ensure replacement on a 1:1 ratio (by acreage):
a) 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; or
b) Harvest seeds from the plants to be lost or use seeds from another source within the Tri-valley area and seed an equal amount of area suitable for growing the plant either within the Project area or off-site. Such area shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. If the plants fail to establish after a five-year period, then step “a” above must be implemented.

Prior to submittal 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.

SM-BIO-5: To the extent feasible, implementation of the Project through subsequent preparation of Stage 2 development proposals on a property-by-property basis shall be designed to avoid and minimize adverse effects to waters of the United States (which include seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams) within the Project area. Examples of avoidance and minimization include (1) reducing the size of future individual development projects within the Project area, (2) design future development projects within the Project area so as to avoid and/or minimize impacts to waters of the United 754
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 53
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
States, and (3) establish and maintain wetland or upland vegetated buffers to protect open water such as streams. In order to protect the particularly sensitive Arroyo willow riparian woodland and red-legged frog habitat found in the Fallon Road drainage from Fallon Road upstream to its terminus, future development projects within the Project area either shall completely avoid this drainage or limit impacts to bridge crossings (as opposed to fill) or other such minimally impacting features.

SM-BIO-6: To the extent that avoidance and minimization are not feasible and wetlands, intermittent streams or other waters will be filled, such impacts shall be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio (measures by acreage) within the Project area if feasible, through the creation, restoration or enhancement of wetlands, intermittent streams or other waters. Such mitigation area shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. Prior to submittal of a Stage 2 development plan or tentative map for any property within the Project area, the property owner shall submit a written report to the City for its review and approval demonstrating how the owner will comply with this mitigation measure.

SM-BIO-7: If mitigation within the Project area is not feasible, then the developer shall mitigate the fill of wetlands or other waters at a 2:1 ratio (measured by acreage) at an off-site location acceptable to the City. Such mitigation area shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. Prior to submittal of a Stage 2 development plan or tentative map, the property owner shall submit a written report to the City for its review and approval demonstrating how the owner will comply with this mitigation measure.

SM-BIO-8: Botanically sensitive habitats 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 above.

SM-BIO-9: Future development of properties within the Project area shall comply with the amended Eastern Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan which reflects the latest protocols for kit fox habitat evaluations, presence/absence surveys, preconstruction surveys and precautionary construction measures.

SM-BIO-10: San Joaquin kit fox 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 above.

SM-BIO-11: Focused surveys following USFWS protocol shall be conducted in habitat considered suitable for CRLF on properties within the Project area which have not already been surveyed. The current protocol (USFWS 1997b) requires that two daytime and two nighttime surveys be performed over a suitable four-day period. Results of these surveys shall be submitted to the City for review.

SM-BIO-12: Specific CRLF habitat areas, including the drainage upstream and east of the current Fallon Road alignment shall be included in and protected and enhanced by 755
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 54
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
implementation of the Resource Management Plan, as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-1 above.

SM-BIO-13: To the extent feasible, development on individual properties within the Project area shall avoid all areas of identified suitable CRLF aquatic and dispersal habitat. Specifically, development should avoid aquatic habitat and provide a 300 to 500-foot buffer on each side of any stream which provides CRLF habitat. Limited permanent development may occur within this buffer zone (such as a trail through the length of the buffer zone, or a bridge crossing across the buffer zones) so long as it will have only minor impacts on the habitat. Limited temporary development activity may occur within this buffer zone to create trails, install bridges, etc. and to allow for grading activities along the edge of the buffer zone, so long as such activity will have only minor impacts on the habitat.

SM-BIO-14: If avoidance is infeasible, then mitigation lands providing similar or better habitat for CRLF at a 3:1 replacement ratio or suitable ratio determined by the USFWS, shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. This mitigation, to be proposed in a mitigation and monitoring plan submitted to the City, shall be required prior to submittal of the Stage 2 Development Plans and tentative maps for any specific property within the Project area. In selecting off-site mitigation lands, preference shall be given to preserving large blocks of habitat rather than many small parcels, linking preserved areas to existing open space and other high-quality habitat, and excluding or limiting public use within preserved areas. If the identified mitigation lands have been approved by the City, the following guidelines [outlined in SM-BIO-15] implemented prior to and during construction would reduce impacts to individual CRLF and preserved CRLF habitat.

SM-BIO-15: The following construction-related CRLF avoidance and protection measures shall be followed for all future development activity in the Project area, on a propertyby-property basis:
Prior to construction, a map shall be prepared to delineate upland areas from preserved wetland areas.
The wetland construction boundary shall be fenced to prohibit the movement of CRLF into the construction area and control siltation and disturbance to wetland habitat. Following installation of fencing, its property location shall be verified by a qualified biologist. The biologist shall ensure that at no time during construction is vegetation removed inside of the fenced area. If construction necessitates the removal of vegetation within the fenced area, additional mitigation will be required. Additionally, the biologist shall walk the length of the fence once each construction day to ensure the CRLF are not trapped within the enclosure. The biologist shall walk the length of the fence more than once a day in areas where CRLF are most abundant.
756
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 55
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Pre-construction surveys within the construction zone shall be conducted by a qualified biologist with appropriate permits to handle CRLF. If no CRLF are detected during these surveys then construction activities may proceed. If CRLF are found within the construction disturbance zone, they shall immediately be moved passively, or captured and moved, to suitable upstream sites. All construction employees shall participate in an endangered species/specialstatus habitat education program to be presented by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities. The program shall cover such topics as identifying wetland habitat and areas used by CRLF, identification by CRLF by photos, the state and federal Endangered Species Acts, and the consequence of violating the terms of these acts.
All construction adjacent to wetlands shall be regularly monitored to ensure that impacts do not exceed those included within the protect standards of the mitigations. Work performed within 500 feet of aquatic habitat shall be monitored by the biologist, who shall document pre-project and post-project conditions to ensure compliance.
During construction, the biologist shall be on site whenever construction within any aquatic habitats is to occur. Any construction activity within ordinary high water shall be photo documented by the biologist. In addition, a biologist with the appropriate permits to relocate CRLF shall be available for construction as needed.

SM-BIO-16: Special-status invertebrate 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 above.

SM-BIO-17: The following vernal pool habitat surveys and mitigation shall be implemented for each property within the Project area:
Surveys of potential habitat for special status invertebrates are required. If suitable habitat is identified, then such habitat shall be surveyed to determine whether it is occupied by special-status invertebrates. If impacts to occupied habitat will occur (including direct impact as a result of habitat destruction, and indirect impact due to disturbance of areas within 250 feet of occupied habitat), the following measures shall be followed:
a) Preservation: For every acre of habitat directly impacted at least two vernal pool credits shall be dedicated within a USFWS-approved mitigation bank or, in accordance with USFWS evaluation of site-specific conservation values, three acres of vernal pool habitat may be preserved within the Project area or off-site as approved by the USFWS. 757
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 56
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
b) Creation: For every acre of habitat indirectly impacted, at least one vernal pool credit shall be dedicated within a USFWS-approved mitigation bank, or, in accordance with USFWS evaluation of site-specific conservation values, two acres of vernal pool habitat may be created and monitored within the Project area or on off-site as approved by the USFWS. Vernal pool habitat and associated upland areas which are preserved on site shall be preserved and managed in perpetuity.
All avoided habitat on site shall be monitored by a qualified biologist during the time of construction. The monitoring biologist shall have authority to stop all activities that may result in destruction or take of listed invertebrate species or destruction of their habitat. Resumption of construction shall occur after appropriate corrective measures have been taken. The biologist shall report any unauthorized impacts to USFWS.
Fencing shall be placed and maintained around any and all preserved vernal pool habitat.

All on-site construction personnel shall receive instruction regarding the presence of listed species and their habitat maintained around any and all preserved vernal pool habitat.

SM-BIO-18: California tiger salamander habitat shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of a Resource Management Plan as outlined in Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1.

SM-BIO-19: If avoidance is infeasible, mitigation lands, providing similar or better aquatic and upland habitat for California tiger salamander (CTS) at a 1:1 ratio shall be set aside in perpetuity. Upland habitat shall be mitigated by preserving upland on-site, or if necessary, by preserving currently occupied upland tiger salamander habitat offsite. Aquatic habitat shall be mitigated by creating an equal number (or acreage) of new aquatic California tiger salamander breeding areas within the preserved upland habitat.

This mitigation, included in a mitigation and monitoring plan, shall be submitted to the City prior to submittal of Stage 2 development plans and tentative maps. In selecting off-site mitigation lands, preference shall be given to preserving large blocks of habitat rather than many small parcels, linking preserved areas to existing open space and other high-quality habitat, and excluding or limiting public use within preserved areas.

SM-BIO-20: A qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors. If an active nest is found the following mitigation measures shall also be implemented.

SM-BIO-21: If construction must occur during the nesting season, all potential nesting trees within the footprint of development should be removed prior to the nesting season to prevent occupied nests from being present when construction begins. 758
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 57
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
SM-BIO-22: Construction should occur between August 1 and February 1 to avoid disturbance of nesting raptors during the nesting season. This construction window could be adjusted if monitoring efforts determine that nesting was completed before August 1.

SM-B1O-23: If removal of nesting trees is infeasible and construction must occur within the breeding season, a nesting raptor survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist prior to tree disturbance.

SM-BIO-24: All active nests shall be identified by flagging and a buffer zone, depending on the species, shall be established around the nesting tree. Buffer zones shall be no smaller than 200 feet.

SM-B1O-25: If construction is scheduled when young birds have not yet fledged, an exclusion zone around the nest shall be established or construction shall be delayed until after the young have fledged as determined by a qualified biologist.

SM-BIO-26: Nesting raptor habitat shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan as outlined in Mitigation Measure SM-BI0 1.

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 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 present no disturbance should occur within 150 feet of occupied burrows. If owls must be moved away from the disturbance area, 759
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 58
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
passive relocation techniques, following CDFG 1995 guidelines, should be used rather than trapping. If no over-wintering birds are observed, burrows may be removed 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 delayed until after the young have fledged, typically by August 31.

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 resident 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, remedial 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.
760
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 59
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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. Buffer 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.

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 SMB10-1.

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 removed 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 colonies 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.

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 sensitive habitats not identified in the EDSP EIRs, new impacts to biological resources, including California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, burrowing owl, and western pond turtle were identified. Supplemental mitigation measures were identified to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.

The following supplemental mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project:
761
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 60
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 following 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 impacted 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. 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 any 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 present, 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 maintained during the breeding season around active burrowing owl nesting sites identified in pre-construction 762
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 61
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 unfledged 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.

SSM-BIO-5 (revised) (burrowing owl). If destruction of occupied (breeding or nonbreeding season) burrows, or any burrows that were found to be occupied during preconstruction 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 burrowing 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 criteria, 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 proposed 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 acceptable 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. Because aquatic breeding habitat and perennial water bodies providing summer refugia are expected to limit CRLF population size in the dry eastern 763
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 62
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 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.

Supplemental Mitigation Measure SSM-B10-3 (California tiger salamander). 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 offsite 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 impact, 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 aquatic 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 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 breeding ponds to serve as partial mitigation for impacts to aestivation habitat) may 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 764
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 63
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
(to mitigate impacts to upland 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 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
The Dublin 580 Fallon East: CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan9 (CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan) (Appendix G) outlines the measures that will be implemented by the project applicant in compliance with the mitigation requirements identified in the EDSP EIRs and listed above. Additionally, it was prepared to satisfy SM-BIO-1, identified in the 2002 SEIR, which requires a Resource Management Plan be prepared for the project area prior to or concurrent with submittal of any land use entitlement requests. The Resource Management Plan for East Dublin Properties (East Dublin Properties RMP) was prepared in 2004 and includes the project site. The CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan addresses applicable mitigation measures for the development of the proposed project that are consistent with the East Dublin Properties RMP. (a) Substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive, or special status species Special-status species are defined as follows:
Species that are listed, formally proposed for listing, or designated as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA);
Species that are listed, or designated as candidates for listing, as rare, threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); Plant species on California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) Lists 1A, 1B, and 2 in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants;
Animal species designated as Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW);
Species that meet the definition of rare, threatened, or endangered under Section 15380 of the CEQA guidelines; and
9 WRA, Environmental Consultants. 2024. Dublin 580 Fallon East: CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan. February 22.
765
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 64
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Species considered being a taxon of special concern by the relevant local agencies.

Special Status Plant Species
Based on habitat types and nearby California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) occurrences, a total of 12 special status plant species were determined to have a potential to occur on the project site. Nine of these species were found to be absent from the project site based on the results of the 2017 and 2022 plant surveys. Three special status plants were observed on the project site during the August 2022 survey - Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii), which is a CNPS List 1B species, saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum), and San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquiniana). All three of these species are CNPS List 1B species.

Because these species are present on the project site, development of the proposed project would impact special-status plant species.

Consistent with Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2, identified in the 2002 SEIR, a rare plant survey has been prepared for the proposed project (Appendix D). In addition, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-3 and SM-BIO-4, as identified in the 2002 SEIR, as well as SSM-BIO-1 as identified in the Fallon Village SEIR to mitigate impacts to special status plant species. These measures require permanent preservation of areas that contain special-status plants or replacement planting.

As discussed in the CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan, several special status plant surveys identifying and mapping sensitive plan populations have been completed for the project site. Most of these sensitive populations occur within the proposed grading footprint and cannot be avoided. In order to minimize impacts to special status plant species, a Mitigation Plan consistent with the requirements of SM-BIO-4, SSM-BIO-1, and the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) would be prepared and implemented.

The Mitigation Plan would include the preservation of on- and off-site mitigation measures in perpetuity, and/or seed harvest with subsequent establishment of an equal area for each population 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 within 5 years, preserved in perpetuity. On-site mitigation opportunities may include deed-restricted and preserved creek, wetland, and upland habitat potentially suitable to establish populations of the rare plants impacted by the proposed project. Potential off-site mitigation would include compensatory mitigation on parcels within the same regional watershed and the purchase of mitigation credits from the N3 Ranch10 mitigation bank or other agency-approved alternative mitigation bank or turnkey mitigation site. 10 The N3 Ranch is an approximately 50,000-acre private property located south of the City of Livermore in Alameda, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, and Stanislaus counties. It is a suitable mitigation site for mitigating the proposed project’s impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S and State, as well as a location for speciesspecific mitigation. 766
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 65
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Overall, implementation of these measures would ensure impacts to special-status plant species are reduced to less-than-significant levels.

Special-Status Wildlife
A focused review of literature and data sources was conducted in order to determine which special-status wildlife species had potential to occur in the vicinity of the project site. Current agency status information was obtained from USFWS11 for species listed as Threatened or Endangered, as well as Proposed and Candidate species for listing, under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), and from CDFW12 13 for species listed as Threatened or Endangered by the state of California under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or listed as “species of special concern” by CDFW. A list of special-status wildlife species with potential to occur in the project vicinity is provided in the Biological Resources Assessment (Appendix C). Based on the results of the database search, literature review, and the field survey, 35 special-status wildlife species were evaluated for the project area. Of these species, 21 species were determined to be present or potentially present on the project site due to the presence of suitable habitat and are discussed in detail due to their status and their close proximity of occupied habitat. These species are further discussed below.

Foraging or Nesting Birds. A total of 17 bird species were identified as having potential to occur on the project site. Three species - red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, and Cooper’s hawk were all observed during the August 2022 survey and potentially utilize the project site for foraging and/or nesting. Nine bird species including the tricolored blackbird, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, great horned owl, white-tailed kite, western screech owl, red-shouldered hawk and barn owl were all identified to have a high potential to occur on the site in a nesting and foraging capacity. The northern harrier and California horned lark were identified as having a moderate potential to be present on the project, while the sharp-shinned hawk, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, and the American peregrine falcon have a potential to use the project site for foraging but are unlikely to nest on the project site.

The proposed project has the potential to impact bird species, either directly through the removal of nests and foraging habitat or indirectly from noise or human presence during construction of the proposed project. Breeding seasons vary from year to year depending on the species, weather, and other conditions, but nesting birds could be disturbed anytime from February through August. Within the project area, birds may nest in trees, shrubs, grasslands, bare ground, and on manmade structures and equipment. Breeding birds are most likely to abandon nests early in the nest cycle. If the young birds are forced to fledge early, they could be subject to predation or starvation, which could result in reproductive failure. Construction11 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022a. Endangered and threatened plant and animal species.

Accessed on September 2, 2022. https://www.fws.gov/endangered/ 12 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022a. State and federally listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare plants of California. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109390&inline 13 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022b. Special animals. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406&inline 767
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 66
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
related activities could result in loss or abandonment of an active burrowing nest through direct disturbance of an occupied burrow or through noise, vibration, or visual disturbance. In addition, construction-related activities could result in harm to wintering burrowing owls, should they occur in or near the construction area.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-38 through SM-BIO-42, identified in the 2002 SEIR, which require a preconstruction nesting bird survey be conducted during the nesting bird season and establishment of buffer zones around nest sites would reduce potential impacts to nesting bird species to a less than significant level. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.7/23.0 and 3.7/25.0 identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, and SM-BIO-20 through SM-BIO-27, identified in the 2002 SEIR, would reduce potential impacts to white-tailed kite, golden eagle, and other raptor species to less than significant levels, by requiring preconstruction surveys, establishment of buffer/exclusion zones, and protection of habitat through the Resource Management Plan.

The proposed project would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-28 through SM-BIO-37, identified in the 2002 SEIR, which require preconstruction burrowing owl surveys, the establishment of various exclusionary buffers during construction, details requirements for replacing or enhancing burrows and foraging habitat, and requires funding for long-term management and monitoring of the protected lands. In addition, SSM-BIO-2, SSMBIO-3, SSM-BIO-4, and SSM-BIO-5 identified in the Fallon Village SEIR, which also require preconstruction burrowing owl surveys and establishment of buffers, would also be implemented to mitigate impacts to burrowing owls. Implementation of these measures would ensure impacts to burrowing owls are reduced to less-than-significant levels by requiring preconstruction surveys, establishment of buffer/exclusion zones, and protection of habitat through the RMP.

As discussed in the CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan, available documentation for the project site, including CDFW’s CNDDB, the Biological Resources Assessment, and unpublished results from site visits by biologists over the past years, indicates that the project site has not been occupied by burrowing owl since 2002. Consistent with SSMBIO-2, burrowing owl surveys would be conducted on the project site prior to project construction. If burrowing owl is found to occupy the project site, a Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan would be prepared in coordination with CDFW, and SSM-BIO-3 through SSM-BIO-5 would be implemented.

Overall, implementation of these measures would ensure impacts to foraging and nesting birds, including burrowing owl, are reduced to less-than-significant levels.

Pallid Bat, Yuma myotis and Other Bat Species. Given the presence of suitable on-site habitat, the pallid bat and Yuma myotis have a moderate potential to occur on the project site in a foraging and roosting capacity. The Townsend’s big-eared bat has a low potential to occur on the site due to the nearby human disturbance. Although no evidence of bats was identified during the site survey, the riparian trees and large eucalyptus and oak trees could provide roosting habitat, while the wetlands and drainages could provide foraging opportunities for 768
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 67
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
bats. 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 removal of potential roosting habitat be limited, would reduce potential impacts to bat species to a less than significant level.

California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog. Two amphibian species, the California tiger salamander (CTS) and the California red legged frog (CRLF), have been observed on the project site during various surveys. Both species have been documented within five miles of the project site, including a large population of CRLF just north of the project site within the Jordan Ranch ponds and drainage channel. The northern half of the project site is located within USFWS-designated critical habitat for CRLF; USFWS-designated critical habitat for CTS is located 2 miles northeast of the project site.

CRLF have been observed within the project site and just adjacent to the project site within the ditch along Croak Road. The quarry pond provides suitable breeding habitat for CTS, and CTS were identified during the field survey of the project site in March 2022. The seasonal wetlands and drainages on the project site contain suitable CRLF breeding and dispersal habitat and the multiple ground squirrel burrow complexes provide suitable upland refuge for both species.

CRLF and CTS are present on-site and are likely to continue to utilize the site for breeding, foraging and dispersal. Development of the proposed project would result in the loss of breeding, foraging and upland habitat for CRLF and CTS. To mitigate potential impacts to CTS and 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, SM-BIO-14, SM-BIO-15, SM-BIO-18 and SM-BIO-19, as identified in the 2002 SEIR, and Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-8 and Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-9, as identified in the Fallon Village SEIR.

As discussed in the CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan, the proposed project would mitigate unavoidable impacts to CTS habitat at a 1:1 replacement ratio, pursuant to SM-BIO-19 and consistent with the EACCS, by preserving upland habitat on-site or currently occupied upland CTS habitat off-site. Further, aquatic habitat would be mitigated by creating an equal number (or acreage) of new aquatic CTS breeding areas within the preserved upland habitat, if feasible. Additionally, a CWA Section 404 permit application has been submitted for the proposed project, which requires consultation with USFWS (Endangered Species Act [ESA] Section 7 consultation) defining the adequate compensatory habitat mitigation ratio, acceptable mitigation lands, and/or mitigation credits, as well as avoidance and minimization measures to minimize incidental take of this species. The proposed project would also obtain an Incidental Take Permit from CDFW (California Fish and Game Code Section 2081 et seq.), which would define adequate compensatory mitigation. With implementation of all measures required by the USFWS/United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) through ESA Section 7 consultation, and California Fish and Game Code Section 2081 et seq., the requirements of SM-BIO-19 would be achieved concurrently. 769
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 68
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
In addition, as discussed in the CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan, the proposed project would mitigate unavoidable impacts to CRLF habitat at a 3:1 replacement ratio or suitable ratio determined by the USFWS through ESA Section 7 consultation, pursuant to SM-BIO-14 and consistent with the EACCS, including minimizing indirect impacts to CRLF and CRLF habitat by implementing best management practices such as erosion control, fencing, lighting, noise reduction, and invasive species management; providing habitat restoration, enhancement, creation, and preservation; and monitoring and reporting the effectiveness of mitigation and the status of the CRLF population and habitat. With implementation of all measures required by the USFWS/Corps through ESA Section 7 consultation, and consistency with the EACCS, the requirements of SM-BIO-14 would be achieved concurrently.

With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to CTS and CRLF would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Alameda Whipsnake and Western Pond Turtle The Alameda whipsnake was identified by the CNDDB as occurring within five miles of the project site; however, after an assessment of the site, it was concluded that the site does not provide habitat to support Alameda whipsnake.

Due to the distance of the CNDDB occurrence and the abundance of dispersal barriers, Alameda whipsnake is presumed absent from the project site.

The CNDDB has listed western pond turtle as occurring within five miles of the project site, with the closest occurrence located 0.75 mile east of the project site. The permanent water located within the intermittent drainage in the northwest corner of the project site provides suitable habitat for western pond turtle; therefore, the western pond turtle has a moderate potential to occur on the project site. Development of the proposed project would result in the loss of habitat for western pond turtles. In addition, grading and other construction activities could result in mortality or harm of individual western pond turtles. 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. Implementation of these measures would reduce potential direct impacts to western pond turtle to a less-than-significant level by requiring pre-construction surveys for western pond turtle and establishment of a buffer around identified breeding sites for western pond turtle. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to western pond turtles would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp and Longhorn Fairy Shrimp. The vernal pool fairy shrimp and longhorn fairy shrimp were identified by the CNDDB as occurring within five miles of the project site. The location of the vernal pool fairy shrimp occurrence (Occurrence #99; 2000) is located 4.2 miles northeast of the project site within an alkali sink. The location of the longhorn fairy shrimp occurrence (Occurrence #24; 2018), is located 4.8 miles east of the project site. Suitable habitat in the form of seasonal wetlands/ponds occur on the project site; however, after wet and dry season protocol surveys were conducted in 2018 and 2022 with negative findings, these species are presumed absent. A listed branchiopod survey report was prepared in 2022 as a separate document with no listed vernal pool branchiopods observed on the project site. No impacts to 770
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 69
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
special-status invertebrates would occur. Therefore, no mitigation measures, as identified in the EDSP EIRs would apply.

For the reasons identified above, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts to special-status species, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (b) Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other natural community The project site consists entirely of undeveloped grazing ranchland and open space. As previously discussed, five habitat types were identified within the project site during the plant surveys, including seasonal wetland/pond, drainages, emergent marsh, and riparian woodlands.

The willows and Fremont cottonwoods that surround the quarry pond within the northern portion of the project site and the intermittent drainage within the northwestern corner of the project site qualify as riparian associated trees as they are growing among several wetland features and are species that are associated with the interface between land and water. These riparian trees would be regulated by CDFW. Implementation of the proposed project would require removal of these trees to accommodate proposed development. In addition, as described further below, the proposed project could also permanently impact 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 Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1, as identified in the Fallon Village SEIR, would reduce potential impacts to sensitive natural communities to a less-than-significant level by requiring Stage 2 development proposals be designed to avoid and minimize adverse effects to waters of the United States, detailing the requirements for the creation, restoration or enhancement of wetlands, intermittent streams or other waters if avoidance and minimization is infeasible, implementing the Resource Management Plan, and detailing requirements for either a conservation easement or mitigation site if impacts to special-status plants cannot be avoided.

As discussed in the CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan, the proposed project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse effects of waters of the United States (WOTUS) to the extent feasible, pursuant to SM-BIO-5. Specifically, the size of the proposed grading footprint has been reduced to allow of deed-restricted preservation of approximately 10.4 acres of waters and wetlands, including streams and associated riparian habitat and upland buffers. These avoidance areas include avoidance of the riparian woodland lining the drainage in the northwest corner of the property, along Fallon Road.

The proposed project also includes preservation of on-site willow riparian woodland occurring on the northwest corner of the project site and the widening and daylighting of portions of the downstream reaches of the perennial stream along Fallon Road, a portion of which currently flows through closed culvert pipes. To further address impacts to riparian habitat, a creek enhancement and mitigation design plan has been prepared for Jordan Creek as part of a 771
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 70
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
separate and distinct project 14, which is located at the northwest corner of the project site and extends off-site in a northeast direction.

Additionally, the proposed project would obtain authorization from the Corps, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), CDFW, and USFWS as applicable. The permitting programs administered by these agencies (including compliance with California Fish and Game Codes 1602 and 2081, the CWA, Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and State and Federal ESAs) would require the proposed project to avoid, minimize and compensate for potential impacts to all aquatic resources and special-status species and their habitats, including CRLF as previously discussed. With implementation of the agency-required avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation measures for the proposed project, the requirements of SM-BIO-5 would be achieved concurrently.

With implementation of these mitigation measures and regulatory requirements, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to sensitive natural communities, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur (c) Substantial adverse effect on wetlands
As detailed in the Biological Resources Assessment prepared for the project site in October 2022, the project site contains wetlands and waters that could be considered jurisdictional by the Corps, RWQCB, and the CDFW. As described above, the project site supports four linear drainages that flow from north to south across the central northern portion of the project site.

An additional linear drainage flows north to south along the eastern project site boundary.

Water from an intermittent drainage in the northwestern corner of the project site enters a culvert, which flows under the project site and ultimately discharges into a roadside ditch adjacent to the project site. The roadside ditch and culvert eventually overflow onto the project site, creating a large emergent wetland. A complex of seasonal wetland depressions occurs within the southern portion of the project site and along the southern boundary. Additional wetlands were observed along the fringe of the quarry pond located in the northeastern corner of the project site. All of these features could be considered jurisdictional waters/wetlands by the Corps and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) due to their hydric soils, dominant hydrophytic vegetation and hydrological conditions. In addition, as described above, riparian woodland surrounds the quarry pond and intermittent drainage in the northern portion of the project site. All of these features would be impacted by the proposed project.

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 impacts to wetlands at a 2:1 ratio through 14 ENGEO Incorporated. 2023. GH PacVest Property Mitigation Creek, Dublin, California, Jordan Creek Geomorphic Basis of Design Report. October 11. Revised October 20. 772
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 71
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
the creation, restoration or enhancement of wetlands, intermittent streams or other waters either on-site (SM-BIO-6) or off-site (SM-BIO-7).

As discussed in the CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan, the proposed project would mitigate unavoidable impacts to creeks and wetlands at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (measured by acre), pursuant to SM-BIO-6 and SM-BIO-7 and consistent with the EACCS. EACCS mitigation measures related to wetlands, intermittent streams and other waters are designed to protect and enhance the ecological functions and values of these aquatic resources. Consistent with the EACCS, the proposed project’s mitigation would establish performance standards and success criteria. Mitigation of impacts on creeks and wetlands would be achieved through a combination of on-site creation/preservation, in combination with compensatory mitigation on parcels within the same regional watershed and obtaining credits from N3 Ranch mitigation or other agency-approved alternative mitigation bank or turnkey mitigation site.

Additionally, the proposed project would obtain authorization from the Corps, RWQCB, CDFW, and USFWS as applicable. The permitting programs administered by these agencies (including compliance with California Fish and Game Codes 1602 and 2081, the CWA, Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and State and Federal ESAs) would require the proposed project to compensate for potential impacts to all aquatic resources and are expected to require compensatory mitigation for loss of aquatic resources at a ratio of 2:1 or higher. With implementation of the agency-required compensatory mitigation measures for the proposed project, the requirements of SM-BIO-6 and SM-BIO-7 would be achieved concurrently.

With implementation of these mitigation measures and regulatory requirements, which require compensatory mitigation for loss of wetlands, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to wetlands, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur (d) Interfere or impede the movement of migratory fish or wildlife or adversely affect nursery sites
The majority of the project site consists entirely of undeveloped grazing ranchland and open space. Much of this grassland is currently dominated by native annual grasses. As described above, the project site supports four linear drainages that flow from north to south across the central northern portion of the project site and an additional linear drainage flows north to south along the eastern project site boundary. An intermittent drainage associated with riparian woodland is located in the northwestern corner of the project site. The intermittent drainage enters a culvert, which flows under the project site and ultimately discharges into a roadside ditch adjacent to the project site. The roadside ditch and culvert eventually overflow onto the project site, creating a large emergent wetland.

CRLF have been observed within the project site and just adjacent to the project site within the ditch along Croak Road. The seasonal wetlands and drainages on the project site contain suitable CRLF breeding and dispersal habitat and the multiple ground squirrel burrow complexes provide suitable upland refuge for both species. In addition, CRLF and CTS may 773
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 72
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
disperse across the project site to breeding habitat off-site. CRLF and CTS are present on-site and are likely to continue to utilize the site for breeding, foraging, and dispersal. Development of the proposed project could impact dispersal of the CRLF and CTS across the project site to breeding habitat off-site. To mitigate potential impacts to CTS and CRLF, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 and 3.7/22.0, as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, SM-BIO-11, SM-BIO-12, SM-BIO-13, SM-BIO-14, SM-BIO-15, SM-BIO-18 and SM-BIO-19, as identified in the 2002 SEIR, and Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-8 and Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-9, as identified in the Fallon Village SEIR. These mitigation measures require pre-construction surveys for CRLF and CTS, the establishment of habitat buffers, and details measures to be taken if avoidance is infeasible. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to CTS and CRLF would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

In addition, structures 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 Act 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 by requiring preconstruction surveys, establishment of buffers around active nest/roost sites, and avoidance of these sites during project construction. Overall, with implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to wildlife movement or use of wildlife nursery sites, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur.
(e) Conflict with local policies or ordinance include tree preservation 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 easement, 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:
774
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 73
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)

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 removal/pruning of any approved street tree. In addition, for any property containing one or more Heritage trees, a plan to protect Heritage trees must be prepared and submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a demolition, grading, or building permit.

As described in the Preliminary Arborist Report, 105 trees representing seven species were identified on the project site, 96 trees within the project boundaries and an additional nine trees located along Croak Road near the intersection with Dublin Boulevard. Within the survey area, Fremont cottonwood (31 trees) and red willows (22 trees) were the most common species and represent 50 percent of the trees assessed. Of the 105 trees, three trees have been identified for potential preservation, including two red willow trees and a single Western Sycamore tree. The single Western Sycamore tree, which may qualify as a Heritage tree per the City of Dublin Municipal Code, would be retained as part of the proposed project pursuant to the City’s Heritage Ordinance. However, the Preliminary Arborist Report prepared for the project site noted that due to the trunk damage and low health rating of the Western Sycamore tree, the tree will continue to decline and eventual collapse. The remaining 102 trees would be removed to accommodate proposed development. New trees would be planted as part of the proposed project, which would replace any trees to be removed. Compliance with the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance, including retaining the Western Sycamore tree which may qualify as a Heritage tree per the City of Dublin Municipal Code, would ensure potential impacts related to tree removal would be less than significant and the no conflict with a tree preservation ordinance would occur. Therefore, for the reasons described above, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to conflicts with local policies or ordinance protecting biological resources, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (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 mitigation measures identified above, the project would 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 775
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 74
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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. For the reasons described above, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to conflicts with adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur.

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. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022).

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.

Olberding Environmental Inc. 2022a. Preliminary Arborist Report for the Dublin Fallon East Property, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. May.

Olberding Environmental Inc. 2022b. Biological Resources Analysis Report for the Dublin Fallon East Property, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. October.

Olberding Environmental Inc. 2022c. Special-Status Plant Survey Report for the Dublin Fallon East Property, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. October.

Olberding Environmental Inc. 2022d. Listed Large Brachiopod Wet Season Survey 90-Day Report for the Dublin Fallon East Property, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California.

November.

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016).
776
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 75
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.

December 7.

WRA, Environmental Consultants. 2024. Dublin 580 Fallon East: CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan. February 22.
777
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 76
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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
CEQA defines a “historical resource” as a resource which meets one or more of the following criteria:
x Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register);
x Listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k);
x Identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code; or
x Determined to be a historical resource by a project's lead agency (PRC Section 21084.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a]).

The California Register defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns or local or regional history of the cultural heritage of California or the United States; (2) associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or (4) has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Under CEQA, historical resources can include precontact (i.e., Native American) archaeological deposits, historic-period archaeological deposits, historic buildings, and historic districts.
778
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 77
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
As described in the cultural resources study15 prepared for the proposed project by Peak and Associates Inc. on May 27, 2022, a record search was conducted through the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System on February 23, 2022, 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 0.25-mile radius.

One prehistoric period resource, CA-ALA-508/H (P-01-00214) was recorded in the western portion of the project site in 1988. The site area was used as a pasture and corral in the historic era, and a light scatter of historic period artifacts were present. In May 2009, a program of backhoe trenching was conducted in which 20 trenches were excavated within the reported site area. Of the 20 trenches, 18 were entirely sterile. One trench contained historic period glass fragments. One trench yielded five fragments of a sandstone metate (or mealing stone).

The materials from the site observed in 1988 were no longer present at the site. It was concluded that the site was a low-density surface site with no significant subsurface cultural deposits. As referenced in the cultural resources study prepared by Peak and Associates Inc., numerous other surveys with negative results have been conducted in the project site radius. A complete list of these surveys is provided as Appendix 2 of the cultural resources study.

A request was submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (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 April 8, 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.” In response to a more recent search request, Cody Campagne, NAHC Cultural Resources Analyst, responded on November 3, 2023, stating that the results were negative and that there were no known Native American cultural resources in the project site.

A survey of the project site was conducted from March 8 to 10, 2022. The project site has historically been and is currently used for cattle pasture, and includes remnants of corrals, fencing, and debris from removed dwellings and outbuildings. The portion of the project site east of Croak Road contained the remains of a mine on the north side, and associated equipment and debris radiating outward throughout the north half of the parcel. The age of this operation was determined to be modern. At the former house and building sites depicted on the USGS maps, no structures remain, but various household and building materials were present and may be associated with the former buildings. Brick, terracotta pipe fragments, aqua glass fragments, concrete chunks and windows glass were visible on the surface in all the 15 Peak, Melinda A., Peak & Associates, Inc. 2022. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Chen Anderson Project, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. May 27.
779
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 78
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
building areas. Old lumber and steel hardware was scattered and piled near one location. Two fire hydrants of unknown age and good condition remain near the locations of the two previous buildings east of Croak Road.

Remains of a corral and loading chute, water trough, and associated cattle-tending equipment were identified along the west boundary of the project site. The age of this collection could not be determined due to the wide variety in age of materials and equipment; however, the cultural resources study did not identify the collection as meeting the definition of a historical resource. No other historical or prehistoric resources were encountered.

In summary, no prehistoric or historic cultural resources were found to be present on the project site. However, archaeological cultural resources could still be encountered during construction at the project site.

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.

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 professional 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 780
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 79
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
“significant” and which are located in areas of the project site where development will significantly alter the current 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 following 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 EDSP and current CEQA guidelines.

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.

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 resources on the Fallon Enterprises, Jordan and Chen Properties, potential impacts to the historic Fallon House and at the historic Croak Ranch Homestead could occur.

Supplemental mitigation measures were identified to reduce potential impacts to cultural resources on these properties to a less-than-significant level. The following supplemental mitigation measures apply to the proposed project:

SSM-CUL-3. Prior to approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan for the Jordan and Chen properties, a detailed cultural resources assessment of combined historic/ prehistoric site at the 4J Ranch site (CA-Ala-508/H) shall be conducted to determine if the site is eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources. All mitigation measures identified in that study shall be incorporated into the Stage 2 Development Plan approval conditions.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Historic resources
For a cultural resource to be considered a historical resource (i.e., eligible for listing in the CRHR), it generally must be 50 years or older. Under CEQA, historical resources can include 781
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 80
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 resources that may occur from project implementation (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5).

As described above, no prehistoric or historic cultural resources were found on the project site.

However, it cannot be entirely ruled out that archaeological cultural resources could be encountered during 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 MM

3.9/5.0 and MM 3.9/6.0 identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR would reduce any potential impacts to archaeological and/or Native American resources to a less-than-significant level, by requiring a site sensitivity determination, detailed research, and field reconnaissance by a certified archaeologist, development of a mitigation plan pursuant to the policies of the EDSP and current CEQA guidelines and cessation of construction activities if unanticipated historic or prehistoric remains are uncovered during ground disturbing activities. Therefore, with adherence to MM 3.9/5.0 and MM 3.9/6.0 identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts to historic resources, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur.
(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.” 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 Resource Code Section 21083.2. Archaeological deposits identified during project construction (if any) shall be treated by the City—in consultation with a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology—in accordance with MM 3.9/5.0 and MM 3.9/6.0 identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These measures, which require a site sensitivity determination, detailed research, and field reconnaissance by a certified archaeologist, development of a mitigation plan pursuant to the policies of the EDSP and current CEQA guidelines and cessation of construction activities if unanticipated historic or prehistoric remains are uncovered during ground disturbing activities would reduce potential impacts to any archaeological resources discovered during project construction to a less-thansignificant level. Therefore, with adherence to MM 3.9/5.0 and MM 3.9/6.0 identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and described above, no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to archaeological resources, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur . (c) Human remains
Based on previous archaeological investigation and analysis and summarized above, there is a low potential for the disturbance of archaeological cultural resources or human remains. 782
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 81
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 American, the County Coroner shall notify the NAHC within 24 hours.

The NAHC shall determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) per PRC Section 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 Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 regarding the treatment of human remains, which detail measures to be taken if unanticipated human remains are uncovered during construction of the project, would ensure that potential impacts to human remains would be less than significant. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to human remains, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur.

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 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. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022).

Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March.
783
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 82
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November.

Peak & Associates, Inc. 2022. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Chen Anderson Project, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. May 27.

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.
784
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 83
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 connections within and between 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 consumption 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. Incorporate smart cities technology infrastructure, and fiber-optic communications infrastructure.
785
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 84
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (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).16 In 2022, California consumed approximately 287,826 gigawatt-hours (GWh) or 287,826,110,475 kilowatt-hours (kWh).17 Of this total, Alameda County consumed 10,395 GWh or 10,395,384,395 kWh.18 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).19 In 2022, California consumed approximately 11,711 million therms or 11,710,641,194 therms, while Alameda County consumed approximately 377 million therms or approximately 377,309,788 therms.20 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 16 California Energy Commission, 2022. 2022 Total System Electric Generation. Website:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2022-total-systemelectric-generation (accessed October 2023). 17 California Energy Commission, 2023. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Electricity Consumption by County. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed October 2023). 18 Ibid. 19 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2022. Natural Gas Explained-Use of Natural Gas. Website:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/use-of-natural-gas.php (accessed October 2023). 20 California Energy Commission, 2023. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Gas Consumption by County. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (accessed October 2023). 786
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 85
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
trips in Alameda County in 2023 are anticipated to consume 155.9 million gallons of diesel fuel and 553.9 million 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. Because the EDSP EIRs have been certified, the determination of whether energy impacts 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). Utilities and service systems impacts and mitigation measures, some 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 nonrenewable natural resources would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. The following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed project:

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 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 occur 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 generators.

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 measures were identified in the Fallon Village SEIR. 787
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 86
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
The City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable impact 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 but were insufficient to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level and, therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the project. Since preparation of the EDSP EIRs, the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards contained 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 encourages 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. (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.

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, 2023. California Gasoline Data, Facts, and Statistics. Website:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportationenergy/california-gasoline-data-facts-andstatistics#:~:text=Gasoline%20is%20the%20most%20used,of%20Tax%20and%20Fee%20 Administration%20 (accessed October 2023).
788
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 87
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
California Energy Commission, 2022. 2022 Total System Electric Generation. Website:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricitydata/2022-total-system-electric-generation (accessed October 2023).

California Energy Commission, 2023. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Electricity Consumption by County. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed October 2023).

California Energy Commission, 2023. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Gas Consumption by County. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (accessed October 2023).

Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022).

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. Energy Information Administration. 2022. Natural Gas Explained-Use of Natural Gas.

Website: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/use-of-natural-gas.php (accessed October 2023).

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.
789
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 88
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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
Environmental Setting
The following discussion is based on the results of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the proposed project (Appendix H).
790
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 89
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 reflect the dominant northwest structural trend of the bedrock in the region.

The hill front along the northern portion of the project site is mapped as underlain by PlioPleistocene Livermore Gravels or nonmarine sedimentary units of the Tassajara Formation.

Bedrock bedding is shown generally striking northwest and dipping steeply (85 degrees) to the southwest. At the base of slopes crossing the middle of the site, transitional slopes (mid-level terraces) are mapped as Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits and Holocene floodplain deposits further south extending into the valley portion of the site.

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

The nearest active fault to the project site is the Mount Diablo Thrust, which is located approximately two miles from the site. This fault is considered capable of a moment magnitude earthquake of 6.7. Other active faults in the vicinity of the project site include the HaywardRodgers Creek, San Andreas, 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 ranges in elevation from approximately 355 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the south to approximately 576 feet above msl to the north. The southern portion of the project site is relatively level, transitioning to gently sloping hills in the northern portion.

Previous CEQA Documents
Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant 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 and, therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the project. All other impacts related to geology and soils would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of 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 acceptable level below failure/loss of life by using modern seismic design for resistance to lateral forces in construction. Building in accordance with Uniform Building Code and applicable County and City code requirements should reduce the potential for structural failure, major structural damage, and loss of life.

However, some structural damage may occur, and it is possible that some residences/structures and infrastructures will not be safe for occupation/use after a large earthquake.
791
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 90
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 modern design, including appropriate foundation design and applicable codes and policies, in the construction of improvements that must be located on potentially unstable landforms or in areas underlain by alluvium with shallow groundwater levels which could be locally susceptible to liquefaction.

MM 3.6/4.0 Engineered retention structures and surface and 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 adequately 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 incorporate stability analysis of both natural slopes that could impact planned improvements, and planned engineered (cut and fill) slopes, assuming saturated conditions and earthquake shaking. Significant slopes should achieve a minimum factor of safety against failure of 1.5 for static conditions (where 1.0 is failure) and 1.2 under design pseudo-static earthquake loading. A displacement analysis should be performed for critical slopes to confirm the effectiveness of mitigation measures.

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.
792
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 91
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
MM 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.

MM 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 require periodic maintenance, and their use should be discouraged.

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

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 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.
793
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 92
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
MM 3.6/28.0 The potential impacts of long-term erosion and sedimentation can be reduced by the appropriate design, construction, and continued maintenance of surface and subsurface drainage of one or more of the following long-term control measures. Required measures for a specific project should be based on the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultants and approved by the City.
Construction of sediment catch basins at strategic locations to prevent 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.

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 related 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 development 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 794
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 93
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 corrective 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 commonly used 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 2022 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, the proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the site-specific grading and construction techniques identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration to reduce impacts related to seismic ground 795
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 94
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
shaking to a less-than-significant level. With adherence to regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to ground shaking, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur.

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, fine-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. According to mapping by CGS, portions of the project site are mapped as a liquefaction hazard zone. The proposed project would be designed and constructed consistent with the most current earthquake resistance standards for Seismic Zone 4 in the CBC and the site-specific recommendations identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, which includes specifications for site preparation, such as grading and compaction requirements and foundation design criteria. In addition, implementation of mitigation measures MM 3.6/2.0, MM 3.6/4.0, MM 3.6/5.0, MM 3.6/6.0, and MM 3.6/7.0, identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and described above would reduce potential impacts associated with these hazards to less than significant by requiring minimal grading and avoidance of unstable landforms, use of retention structures to improve slope stability, adequate compaction of fill material, accommodation of estimated settlement, and implementation of site-specific geotechnical recommendations.

With adherence to regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to liquefaction, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur.

Landslide. Portions of the project site are also mapped by the CGS as a landslide zone. However, as described in the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, no known landslides are located within the project site with the exception of over steepened slopes within the former quarry.

Therefore, the landslide risk is considered low. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to landslide, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur.
(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- 796
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 95
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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. Compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs would ensure impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to erosion or loss of topsoil, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (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. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, expansive clay soils were identified near the surface throughout the project site.

The proposed project would be designed and constructed consistent with the most current earthquake resistance standards for Seismic Zone 4 in the CBC and the site-specific recommendations identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, which include specifications for site preparation, such as compaction requirements and foundation design criteria. 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 3.6/2.0, MM

3.6/4.0, MM 3.6/5.0, MM 3.6/6.0, and MM 3.6/7.0, identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and described above would reduce potential impacts associated with unstable soils to a less-thansignificant level by requiring minimal grading and avoidance of unstable landforms, use of retention structures to improve slope stability, adequate compaction of fill material, accommodation of estimated settlement, and implementation of site-specific geotechnical recommendations. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to soil stability, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (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. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (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 797
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 96
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
affect native soils or to impact 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 and listed in Section 5. Cultural Resources, which requires work stoppage in the event of discovery, would reduce any potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level. With implementation of this mitigation measure, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts to paleontological resources, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur.

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 environmental review is required.

Source(s)
California Geological Survey. 2019. California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. Website:
maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed November 2023).

Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022).

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

ENGEO. 2017. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Chen and Anderson Properties, Dublin, California. January 25.

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 October 2023).

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016).
798
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 97
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.

December 7.
799
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 98
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 determination 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 gasses and climate change are not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes “new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EDSP EIRs were certified as complete” (CEQA Guidelines Section 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 regulation 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.

Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gasses on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the EDSP EIRs. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. 800
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 99
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-b) Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or conflict with GHG plans or regulations.

As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

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.
801
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 100
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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
Environmental Setting
The project site consists almost entirely of undeveloped grazing ranchland and open space. The land uses on nearby properties are largely agricultural, with residential, open space, and commercial.
802
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 101
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) have been prepared for the three properties that comprise the project site, referred to as the Anderson, EBJ and Chen Parcels. The findings of these Phase I ESAs are summarized as follows:
x Anderson Property. This property encompasses the approximately 49 acres of the project site located east of Croak Road. As described in the ESA prepared for this property,21 this portion of the project site consists of a rural residential compound and pastureland used for cattle grazing. Review of historical records indicates that this portion of the project site has consisted of a rural residential compound and pastureland since at least 1940. Several structures were observed within the project site during the site reconnaissance in 2016, including a dilapidated single-family house and five barns/sheds. These structures were subsequently demolished in 2017. Additional site improvements consist of bee boxes, fencing, wooden power poles and two fire hydrants. The site reconnaissance and records review did not find documentation or physical evidence of soil, groundwater or soil gas impairments associated with the use or past use of the portion of the project site. However, given the age of the structures on the project site, it is possible that asbestos-containing materials (ACM) or lead-based paint (LBP) materials are present within the structures. x EBJ Property. This property includes approximately 0.84 acre along the southern boundary of the project site, just west of Croak Road. As described in the ESA prepared for this property,22 this portion of the project site is currently vacant, undeveloped land. Review of historical aerials indicates that this portion of the project site was developed with structures in the late 1950s and remained developed until at least 1968. Based on review of the historical aerials, a service station may have been present from the late 1950s to the late 1960s. Due to lack of readily available information, it is unclear if an underground storage tank(s) remain on the project site and/or if contamination is present. x Chen Property. This property encompasses the approximately 135 acres of the project site located between Fallon Road and Croak Road. As described in the ESA prepared for this property,23 this portion of the project site consists of undeveloped pastureland used for cattle grazing. Review of historical records indicates that this portion of the project site consisted of a rural residential compound from at least 1939 to 1973. Two metal storage tanks were observed during the site reconnaissance conducted for the ESA. The two tanks, which appeared heavily rusted and had several punctures, were located near a debris pile in the northwest portion of this property, near Croak Road. The original contents of the tanks are unknown and it was not clear if the tanks were used as aboveground tanks (ASTs) or underground tanks (USTs). The site reconnaissance and records review did not find 21 ENGEO Incorporated. 2016a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Anderson Property, 3457 Croak Road, Dublin, California. November 8. 22 ENGEO Incorporated. 2018. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, EBJ Parcel-Dublin, Dublin, California.

August 10. 23 ENGEO Incorporated. 2016b. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Chen Property, Fallon Road – APN 985- 27-2, Dublin, California. November 8.
803
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 102
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
documentation or physical evidence of soil, soil gas, or groundwater impairments associated with the use or past use of this portion of the project site.

Previous CEQA Documents
Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern 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 protection. 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. The following mitigation measures, as modified, would apply to the proposed project:

MM 3.4/9.0 Incorporate Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DRFA)24 Alameda County Fire District recommendations on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention into the requirements for development approval. Require that the following DRFA design standards are incorporated where appropriate:

Ŷ Use of non-combustible roof materials in all new construction.

Ŷ 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 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.

Ŷ 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.

Ŷ Compliance with DRFA minimum road widths, maximum street slopes, parking recommendations, and secondary access road requirements.

Ŷ Require residential structures outside the DRFA’s established response time and zone to include fire alarm systems and sprinklers.
24 The Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DRFA) was a Joint Powers Authority between the City of Dublin and the City of San Ramon to provide fire services for these two communities. DRFA had three fire stations - two in Dublin and one in San Ramon. DRFA was dissolved in 1997 with the Alameda County services being contracted to Alameda County Fire District and the small portion of San Ramon served by DRFA being annexed into the San Ramon Valley Fire District.
804
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 103
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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-residential 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 potential 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 or LBP, Project developer(s) shall undertake comprehensive asbestos and LBP surveys of those structures and implement appropriate ACM and LBP handling and 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 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 properties), 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 805
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 104
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 3f (potential 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 leach fields shall be pumped out and removed under permit from the Alameda County Health Department.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials The proposed project would demolish the existing structures on the project site and construct residential, general commercial/campus office and park uses. These types of land uses typically do not involve transport, use, or disposal of significant quantities of hazardous materials.

However, the proposed GC/CO uses could include limited light manufacturing, hotel, retail, and office uses as permitted under the City’s GC/CO 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 proposed 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 commercial development projects identified in the EDSP EIRs. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur.
(b) Upset/accident
The Fallon Village SEIR identified potentially significant impacts related to the potential for an accidental release of hazardous materials associated with historic uses on the project site, including existing structures present on the project site that could contain ACM or LBP and potential contamination associated with the former gas station located at the corner of Croak Road and Collier Canyon Road. However, the Fallon Village SEIR determined that implementation of Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-HAZ-1, SM-HAZ-2, SM-HAZ-3a, SMHAZ-3a, SM-HAZ-3f and SM-HAZ-3g would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level through pre-construction environmental investigations for hazardous materials, implementation of appropriate ACM and LBP handling and disposal methods, appropriate removal of septic systems, and appropriate abandonment of existing wells. Since certification of 806
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 105
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
the Fallon Village SEIR, the existing structures on the project site have been removed; therefore, no impacts associated with the exposure of construction workers and others to ACM and LBP would occur. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs would ensure that impacts related to the potential for an accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

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 environment. 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. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to the accidental release of hazardous materials, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (c) Near school
The nearest schools to the project site are Cottonwood Creek K-8 School, which abuts the project to the north, and Kolb Elementary School, which is approximately 0.75 mile to the northwest. As described in Section 8.b, the proposed project would be required to implement Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-HAZ-1, SM-HAZ-2, SM-HAZ-3a, SM-HAZ-3f, and SM-HAZ3g, which require pre-construction environmental investigations for hazardous materials, appropriate removal of septic systems, and appropriate abandonment of existing wells. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to release of hazardous materials in proximity to existing schools beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (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 referred to as the Cortese List. The project would not be located on a RWQCB 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 materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to listing on a hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur.
807
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 106
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
(e) Proximity to a public airport
The Livermore Municipal Airport, a public utility airport operated by the City of Livermore, is located approximately 0.65-mile southeast 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 GC/CO and P/PR uses, is located within the Airport Protection Area (APA). The majority of the project site (except the northwest corner) is located within Airport Safety Zone 6 as designated in the Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). No restrictions on residential development shall apply to the portions of Zone 6 that extend beyond the boundary of the APA. New residential land use designations, or the intensification of existing 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.

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 considered Existing Land Uses consistent with the ALUCP and do not require review by the Airport Land Use Commission (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.

As outlined in the project description, the project proposes a 0.6 floor area ratio (FAR) for the GC/CO portions of the project site, which is an increase from the 0.35 FAR allowed in the EDSP and Fallon Village Stage 1 PD. The EDSP and Stage 1 PD allow an FAR of 0.20-0.80 for GC/CO uses. However, the EDSP (EIR) and Fallon Village SEIR evaluated a maximum 0.28 FAR for GC/CO uses. Although the density of the proposed general commercial uses would be greater than previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs, the types of uses (GC/CO) would be the same as those approved in the EDSP EIRs and are consistent with the uses allowed within the APA and outlined in the ALUCP. Further, the mass and height of proposed buildings would not be significantly different than those approved in the EDSP EIRs. No hazardously tall structure or other hazards to aviation are anticipated to be proposed as part of the project or as part of the Stage 2 Development Plan for the GC/CO uses. Therefore, based on the foregoing analysis, the proposed project would not result in development of an incompatible land use within the ALUCP, 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 characteristic that would create a hazard to air navigation. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to proximity to a public airport, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (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 808
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 107
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
also has an adopted Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to assess hazards and mitigate risks prior to a disaster event.

The project would subdivide the 192-acre site into 11 parcels to accommodate proposed development of up to 238 residential units and up to 3,299,670 square feet of general commercial/campus office uses. 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. Development of the project site requires the construction of the Central Parkway Extension, Croak Road Extension, and Dublin Boulevard Extension to serve the residential development and general commercial/campus office development. In the event of an emergency on the site, employees and residents could exit the site via the Croak Road Extension, 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 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. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (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 concern 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 severity 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 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. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to wildland fires, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur.

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.
809
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 108
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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)
CAL FIRE. 2020. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Website: egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed September 13, 2023).

Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022).

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

Dublin, City of. 2023. 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.

ENGEO Incorporated. 2016a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Anderson Property, 3457 Croak Road, Dublin, California. November 8.

ENGEO Incorporated. 2018. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, EBJ Parcel-Dublin, Dublin, California. August 10.

ENGEO Incorporated. 2016b. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Chen Property, Fallon Road – APN 985-27-2, Dublin, California. November 8ESA, 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.
810
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 109
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 offsite; X (ii). Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onor 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
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 project site is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the 811
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 110
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 I-580.

The project site is located within the San Francisco 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 Department of Water Resources (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 Dublin Boulevard – North Canyons Parkway Extension Project confirms that groundwater levels are 20 to 25 feet below grade with higher groundwater levels (10 feet below grade) occurring 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 above, the project site supports four linear drainages that flow from north to south across the northern portion of the project site. Water from an intermittent drainage in the northwestern corner of the project site enters a culvert, which flows under the project site and ultimately discharges into a roadside ditch adjacent to the project site. The roadside ditch and culvert eventually overflow onto the project site, creating a large emergent wetland. A complex of ten seasonal wetland depressions occurs within the southern portion of the project site and along the southern boundary. Two small wetlands were also identified in the southeastern corner and along the southwestern boundary of the project site. Three other wetlands were observed along the fringe of the quarry pond located in the northeastern portion of the project site. All of these features are considered jurisdictional waters/wetlands by the Corps and RWQCB due to their hydric soils, dominant hydrophytic vegetation and hydrological conditions. In addition, as described above, riparian woodland surrounds the quarry pond and intermittent drainage in the northern portion of the project site. All of these features would be impacted by the proposed project.

Based on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (06001C0328G and 06001C0329G, dated August 3, 2009), the project site is not located within a 500-year or 100-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 would apply to the proposed project:

MM 3.5/44.0 Require drainage facilities that will minimize any increased potential or erosion or flooding.
812
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 111
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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, widespread use of riprap should be avoided.

MM 3.5/49.0 Plan facilities and select management practices in the EDSP 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:
Increased availability of liquid recycling centers (i.e., oil, greases, etc.) to reduce potential for dumping into storm drains.
813
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 112
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 basin 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 impervious 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 are 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 area.

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 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) 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 construction vehicles and equipment and sediment from soil erosion could increase the pollutant load in runoff being transported to receiving waters 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 814
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 113
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
(associated with atmospheric deposition) during operation of the project. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 3.6/27.0 and MM 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. The 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 pollutants. 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-site 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 MM 3.6/27.0 and MM 3.6/28.0 ensure that the proposed project would result in less-thansignificant impacts to water quality during construction.

As the site is currently largely undeveloped, the proposed project would increase the total amount of impervious surface 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 generation, 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 proposed 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 MRP permit holders can use during planning of development activities to manage and reduce occurrences of stormwater runoff pollutant discharges. These LID 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.3 815
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 114
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
requirements, 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 implementation 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-period impacts to water quality would be less than significant.

The proposed project would include bioretention facilities and storm drains on each MH Density Residential and GC/CO parcel for stormwater quality control. Proposed bioretention and storm drain facilities would discharge to existing/proposed storm drainpipes. Proposed storm drainage facilities would conform to the Alameda County C.3 Stormwater Technical guidelines and requirements.

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-SD2, 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.

Because the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable State and local regulations and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to water quality violations, wastewater discharges, or water quality degradation, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur.
(b) Substantially decrease or interfere with groundwater supplies Although the proposed project would result in a net increase in impervious surface coverage compared to the existing condition, the proposed project would include the use of LID methods, including stormwater quality 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. Further, only the southernmost portion of the project site is located within the Livermore Valley groundwater basin; therefore, the increase in impervious surfaces on the project site would not substantially decrease or interfere with groundwater recharge.

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 shallow excavations required for project construction, dewatering is not anticipated during construction activities. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially decrease or interfere with groundwater supplies. This impact would be less than significant. As such, no 816
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 115
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to groundwater supplies, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur.
(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 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 measures MM

3.6/27.0 and MM 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. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to drainage patterns, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur.
(d) Flood hazard, seiche, or tsunami
As described above, the project site is not located within a flood hazard area mapped 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.

No impact would occur. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to flood hazard, seiche or tsunami, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur.
(e) Water Quality
The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan)25 is the master policy document that establishes the water quality objectives and strategies needed to protect designated beneficial water uses in the San Francisco Bay region. The State Water Board and the Regional Water Board enforce compliance with the water quality objectives of the Basin Plan through the issuance of NPDES permits. As noted above, the proposed project would implement various design features to ensure the proposed project would have a less-thansignificant 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 25 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region. 2017. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin. May 4.
817
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 116
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
into the municipal stormwater system, consistent with Provision C.3 of the MRP, with which all projects in the City of Dublin must comply.

The southernmost portion of the project site is located within the Livermore Valley groundwater basin. The sustainable Groundwater Management Act designated the Zone 7 Water Agency as the exclusive Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR Basin No. 2-10) and DWR designated the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin as a medium-priority basin. Zone 7 submitted the 2016 Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan (AGSP) for the Livermore Valley groundwater basin to DWR, which approved the AGSP in 2019. In December 2021, Zone 7 submitted the 2021 Update of the AGSP for review by DWR. As described above, the proposed project would not interfere with groundwater recharge in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan.

Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to water quality, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur.

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 further environmental review is required.

Source(s)
California, State of. 201. California Official Tsunami Inundation Maps – Alameda County.

Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/alameda (accessed September 13, 2023).

Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022).

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

Federal Emergency Management Agency. n.d. FEMA Flood Map Service Center (map). Website:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=Dublin%2C%20CA (accessed September 13, 2023).
818
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 117
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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.
819
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 118
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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?

The project site has General Plan land use designations of Medium High Density Residential (13.5 acres), and General Commercial/Campus Office (126.3 acres), Parks/Public RecreationCommunity Park (7.2 acres), Open Space (44.9 acres), and Public/Semi Public (2.5 acres). The Medium High Density Residential designation allows attached residential units and typically includes detached, zero-lot line, duplex, townhouse, and garden apartment development at a density of 14.1 to 25.0 units per gross residential acre. The General Commercial/Campus Office designation provides flexibility in permitting a range of regional and community-serving retail and office uses. Mixed use projects incorporating retail, service, and office uses are encouraged. An FAR between 0.2 and 0.8 is allowed as specified in the EDSP. The Open Space designation includes areas dedicated as open space on subdivision maps, slopes great than 30 percent, stream protection corridors, woodlands, and grazing lands. The Public/Semi Public designation has a maximum FAR of 0.5 and allows for a combination of non-park public facilities (public schools, libraries, city offices buildings, etc.) and semipublic facilities (childcare centers, youth centers, senior centers).

The project site is zoned Planned Development (PD) Ordinance No. 32-05 and No.13-08. 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 stages. The project site is governed by the Stage 1 Development Plan adopted as part of the Fallon Village Project.
820
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 119
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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, and 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 Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA). 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 determined 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) Physically 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 project would subdivide the 192-acre site into 11 parcels to accommodate proposed development of up to 238 residential units, up to 3,299,670 square feet of general commercial/campus office uses to include limited light manufacturing, hotel, retail, and office uses on approximately 126.3 acres. The proposed project would also include a 7.2 acre Community Park and 42.6 acre Natural Community Park.

Primary access into the residential neighborhoods would be via Pandora Way within the Jordan Ranch development and an east/west private street off of Croak Road. Primary access to the GC/CO parcels would be provided by the proposed Dublin Boulevard Extension. Croak Road north of Dublin Boulevard would be widened and provide additional access to the GC/CO parcels. The proposed project would not result in the realignment or closure of any 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. The proposed project would provide pedestrian connections to adjacent development as well as 821
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 120
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
hiking and walking trails within the proposed Park/Public Recreation lands. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to division of an established community, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (b) Conflict with land use plan, policy, or regulation
The project would subdivide the 192-acre site into 11 parcels to accommodate proposed development of up to 238 residential units and up to 3,299,670 square feet of general commercial/campus office uses to include limited light manufacturing, hotel, retail, and office uses. The proposed project would be consistent with the Medium High 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 development 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 Jordan Ranch and Francis Ranch communities.

As outlined in the project description, the project proposes a 0.6 floor area ratio (FAR) for the GC/CO parcels. The EDSP and PD-1 allow an FAR of 0.20-0.80 for GC/CO uses. However, the EDSP EIR and Fallon Village SEIR evaluated a maximum 0.28 FAR for the GC/CO uses. The EDSP provides discretion to the City Council to approve a higher FAR if the proposed uses meet one or more 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.

The General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment would eliminate the Public/Semi-Public land use which would enable the applicant to utilize the full 6.5-acre site designated Medium/High Density Residential for residential units. While this would not increase the overall number of units on the site, it would enable them to spread those units across a larger area, resulting in a lower density product type.

The Housing Element identifies the Public/Semi-Public portion of the site as an opportunity site that can accommodate 74 lower-income units and is subject to the “No Net Loss” provisions.

There is a site at the Transit Center that is already identified as an opportunity site in the Housing Element. This site has a surplus of units that can serve as an opportunity site to accommodate these 74 units. As a condition of approval for the proposed project, the City will require that these 74 units be transferred to another site (e.g., the Transit Center site) that can accommodate them. With this condition of approval, the proposed project would not conflict with the City’s Housing Element or State housing law.

The conversion of Open Space to Parks/Public Recreation helps address the City’s parkland deficit by providing an additional 42.6 +/- acres of Natural Community Parkland to 822
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 121
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
accommodate a future nature park designed for low impact use and maintenance, with hiking and walking trails. As part of the proposed Development Agreement terms, the Applicant would dedicate this land to the City to address the City’s parkland deficit of approximately 50 acres.

As part of the project entitlements, the City would grant a General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment, Stage I Development Plan amendment to allow for the increased FAR, and Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 2 Development Plan for the MH Density Residential uses. The proposed General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment would eliminate the Public/SemiPublic land use designation on the project site and amend the land use designation on 42.6 acres from Open Space to Parks/Public Recreation.

With approval of the proposed General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment, Stage I Development Plan amendment and Planned Development Rezone, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to conformity with land use plans, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur.

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.

Source(s)
Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022).

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.

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016).
823
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 122
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.

December 7.
824
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 123
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 is not located in a designated mineral resource area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state or the loss of availability of any known locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to mineral resources would occur.

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.
825
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 124
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Source(s)
Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022).

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.

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.
826
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 125
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 relative 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. Geometric 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.

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 827
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 126
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
motion may not 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, otherwise 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 occasional 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 trucks, 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.

To assess existing noise levels, LSA conducted noise monitoring to establish the existing ambient noise environment at the project site. Two long-term (24-hour) noise measurements were conducted at the project site from November 9, 2023, to November 10, 2023. The existing measured noise levels at the project site range from approximately 62.2 dBA CNEL to 63.1 dBA CNEL. Local vehicle traffic on Central Parkway and occasional aircraft noise was reported as the primary noise source. Construction noise on Croak Road also contributed to the noise levels in the vicinity of the project site. Noise measurement sheets are provided in Appendix I. Figure 8 shows the long-term noise monitoring locations.

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 exposure 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 City of Dublin adopted a Statement of 828
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 127
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Overriding Considerations for this significant and unavoidable impact. 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 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) 60 contour. The goal of the acoustical study is to show how the interior noise level will be controlled to a CNEL of 45 dB as required by Title 24, 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 3.10/4.0 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 noisegenerating activities that will limit these activities to the shortest possible number of days. Hours of construction activities shall be limited in keeping with Dublin ordinances.

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

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

MM 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 acoustical consultant should provide input to the architect at a preliminary site plan stage, to make maximum use of detailed site planning to avoid noise conflicts.
829
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 128
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 industrial 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 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-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.

SM-NOISE-1 (aircraft flyovers). All occupants of the residential dwellings within the proposed Project shall receive 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 shall 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 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 measures to comply with City exterior noise exposure limits including but not 830
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 129
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 excess 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, then appropriate noise mitigation measures (i.e., roadway alignment or noise barrier) shall be included in the new roadway design 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 that would occur during construction are described below.

Table H 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.

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 truck 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.

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, and would be undertaken in discrete steps, each of which would have its own mix of equipment, and consequently its own noise characteristics. These various 831
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 130
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 H 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 receptor. 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.

Table H: 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:
ܮ݁ݍሺܿ݋݉ݏ݋݌݅ݐ݁ሻ ൌ ͳͲ כ ଵ଴ ൭෍ ͳͲ௅௡
ଵ଴
௡
ଵ
൱
Table I 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. 832
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 131
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Once composite noise levels are calculated, reference noise levels can then be adjusted for distance using the following equation:
ܮ݁ݍሺܽݐ݀݅ݐݏܽ݊ܿ݁ܺሻ ൌ ܮ݁ݍሺܽݐͷͲ݂݁݁ݐሻ െ ʹͲ כ ଵ଴ ൬
ܺ
ͷͲ൰
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.

Table I: Equipment Noise by Construction Phase
Construction Phase Loudest Equipment Composite Noise Level at (dBA Leq at 50 ft)
Site Preparation Dozer 88 Tractor
Grading
Excavator
88 Grader
Dozer
Scraper
Tractor
Building Construction
Crane
86 Forklift
Generator
Tractor
Welder
Paving
Paver
Paving Equipment 86
Roller
Architectural Coating Air Compressor 74
Sources: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (2023). Construction Noise Handbook (FHWA 2006). dBA = A-weighted decibel
FHWA = Federal Highway Administration
ft = foot/feet
Lmax = maximum noise level
The closest sensitive receptors to the project site include a residence located approximately 200 feet north of Parcel 7 of the project site, measured from the center of the parcel, resulting in short-term noise levels of approximately 74 dBA Leq at the closest residence.

Construction equipment would operate at various locations throughout the 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 once 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, MM 3.10/4.0 and MM 3.10/5.0, to reduce construction related impacts to a less-than-significant level. With 833
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 132
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe impacts compared to those identified in the EDSP EIRs.

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 22,618. The EDSP EIRs identified a potentially significant impact for future roadway noise as a result of build out of the EDSP, which includes the proposed project. Implementation of mitigation measures within the EDSP EIRs would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Long-Term Off-Site Operation-Related Noise Impacts.DMC Section 8.36.060(C)(3) states that for lots 5,000 square feet or larger, mechanical equipment that generates noise when located within a required setback as allowed by this subsection, and within 10 feet of an existing or potential residence, or an existing paved patio area on adjoining property, shall be enclosed as necessary to reduce noise at the property line to a maximum of 50 dBA at any time. As such, this analysis evaluates whether noise impacts associated with the long-term operation of the project comply with the 50 dBA Leq standard. Stationary noise generated by the proposed project includes 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 generate noise levels of 75 dBA Lmax at 50 feet based on measurements previously conducted by LSA.

The proposed commercial 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 proposed commercial uses includes the residence located approximately 500 feet north of the closest commercial parcel of the project site. At this distance, loading and unloading activities would result in maximum noise levels generate a noise level of 55 dBA Lmax. However, 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. 834
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 133
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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, which 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. At 50 feet, the noise level associated with the operation of the proposed HVAC equipment would be below the City’s 50 dBA Leq exterior noise standard for mechanical equipment. Because the proposed HVAC system would be greater than 50 feet from nearby sensitives receptors, as described above, the proposed 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 compatibility 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 MM 3.10/1.0, MM 3.10/3.0, MM

3.10/6.0 and supplemental measures SM-NOISE-1, SM-NOISE-2 (future roadway noise affecting proposed residential development), 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. Exterior noise levels of 61 to 70 dBA CNEL are considered conditionally acceptable when a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Exterior 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.

The noise environment at the project site is dominated by vehicle traffic noise on the roadways surrounding the project site, occasional aircraft noise, and background construction noise. The measured noise levels at the project site range from approximately 62.2 dBA CNEL to 63.1 dBA CNEL. Based on the City’s noise and land use compatibility standards, this noise level is considered conditionally acceptable for residential land uses. Therefore, the proposed project would be required to comply with MM 3.10/6.0, and SM-NOISE-2 (future roadway noise affecting proposed residential development). MM 3.10/1.0, which requires an acoustical study be submitted with all residential development projects located within the CNEL 60 contours would not apply because the project is outside of the CNEL 60 contours.

MM 3.10/6.0 requires preparation of noise management plans for all mixed-use projects in which residential units would be combined with commercial, office, or other urban nonresidential uses. SM-NOISE-1, identified in 2002 SEIR, requires a noise insulation plan be 835
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 134
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
prepared for general commercial uses within the future CNEL 70 dBA contour that demonstrates how interior noise levels would be controlled to acceptable levels. SM-NOISE-2 (future roadway noise affecting proposed residential development) requires an acoustical study be prepared to show how residential development will meet indoor noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL and outdoor noise levels of 60 dBA CNEL.

With implementation of MM 3.10/6.0, SM-NOISE-1, and SM-NOISE-2 (future roadway noise affecting proposed residential development), the proposed project would achieve an acceptable interior and exterior noise level in accordance with the land use compatibility guidelines of the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan and, therefore, there would be no impact. MM 3.10/3.0, 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) would not be applicable to the proposed residential units based on their location.

For the reasons outlined above, with adherence to the aforementioned mitigation measures, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to noise in excess of established standards, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (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 analysis assesses the potential for building damage 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 J, below).

Table J: 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 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 K 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. 836
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 135
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Table K: 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 for the vibration analysis26 includes the residence located approximately 20 feet north of Parcel 7 of the project site. At this distance, the closest structure would experience vibration levels of approximately 0.124 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 considered 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 SM-NOISE-2 was identified to reduce groundborne vibration from increased levels of heavy traffic to less than significant by restricting heavy truck traffic to certain roadways/routes within the EDSP area and limiting deliveries to daytime hours. With implementation of SM-NOISE-2, the proposed project would result in less-thansignificant operational vibration impacts. Therefore, with implementation of this mitigation measure, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to groundborne vibration, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. 26 For vibration, the analysis is conducted based on the distance between the perimeter of construction (edge of parcel) to the nearest adjacent structure, which for this project is 20 feet. For construction noise analyses, the distance is measures from the center of the parcel to the nearest surrounding use. 837
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 136
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
(c) Excessive noise level near an airport
The project site is located approximately 0.65-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 and there would be no impact. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to excessive noise near an airport would occur.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant noise 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.

Sources
Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022).

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

Dublin, City of. 2023. City of Dublin Municipal Code. Chapter 5.28 Noise.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Highway Construction Noise 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 Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November.

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016).
838
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 137
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.

December 7.
839
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 138
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 U.S. Census indicates that Dublin’s total population has grown to 72,589 and 24,426 housing units. The project site is currently undeveloped.

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 Francisco 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 five million square feet of commercial, four million square feet of office, and two million square feet of industrial park. No impacts related 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. As stated in Section 5.2 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, expansion of the water distribution system infrastructure in anticipation of growth beyond the project site was determined to be growth-inducing. This impact was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact. Impacts related to utilities are discussed below in Section 18, Utilities and Service Systems. No mitigation measures were identified related to population and housing.
840
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 139
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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) Population growth
The site is identified in the General Plan and the EDSP for MH Density Residential (13.5 acres), and GC/CO (126.3 acres), Parks/Public Recreation-Community Park (7.2 acres), Open Space (44.9 acres), and Public/Semi Public (2.5 acres). The extension of infrastructure onto the project site, including roadways and utilities that would only serve the proposed development, 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 238 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 data, between 2016 and 2020, the City had an average of 2.99 persons per household.

Based upon an average of 2.99 persons per household, and with up to 238 proposed residential units, the proposed project would increase the City’s population by approximately 712 residents. Based on population estimates prepared for Plan Bay Area 2050,27 this increase represents about 1.2 percent of the City’s total estimated population in 2015 (56,165). The estimated population generated by the project (712 residents) would represent approximately

0.85 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 represent 1.9 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 EDSP, and the Fallon Village project approvals.

Therefore, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth.

In addition, the proposed project would result in development of 3,299,670 square feet of GC/CO uses, which is an increase of 1,777,509 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 GC/CO land use designation is 385 square feet per employee. Therefore, the proposed project 27 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2018. Plan Bay Area Projections 2040. May.
841
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 140
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
could provide employment opportunities for up to 8,571 employees at the project site or 4,617 additional employees than previously approved. According to the U.S. Census approximately 92 percent of Dublin residents worked outside of the City, while eight percent of Dublin residents both live and work within the City limits. Using this estimate, approximately 370 additional employees generated by the proposed project would require housing within the City or would move to the City solely for reasons of employment. These 370 employees could be accommodated by the residential development proposed as part of the project, other residential development nearby (e.g., Francis Ranch, Righetti project, Branaugh project), or residential development being constructed elsewhere in the City.

The portions of the project site designated as GC/CO are intended to provide for a wide variety of regional and community-serving retail and office uses. Because it is anticipated that these uses 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 and, therefore, there would be no impact. No new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to population growth would occur.
(b) Housing and resident displacement
The proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, such that replacement housing would need to be constructed elsewhere, as the site is currently vacant and, therefore, there would be no impact. No new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to housing and resident displacement would occur.

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.

Sources
Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2018. Plan Bay Area Projections 2040. May.
842
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 141
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022).

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 November 15, 2023).

U.S. Census Bureau. n.d. United States Census Bureau OnTheMap Inflow/Outflow Job Counts in 2021. Website: https://onthemap.ces.census.gov. (accessed November 15, 2023).

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.
843
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 142
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 project site by the Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD).

There are three fire stations in Dublin, with the closest to the project site 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 contracted 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 comprehensive high school, and one continuation high 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. 844
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 143
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Parks
The City’s Public Works Department oversees the maintenance of parks and recreational facilities throughout the City. According to the City’s 2022 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the City provides approximately 237.04 acres of parkland across 24 parks, including 18 neighborhood parks, 5 community parks, and one nature park. In addition to these park facilities, the City maintains over 26.26 miles of greenways and trails. Table L summarizes the parks within 1 mile of the project site.

Table L: Existing Parks in the Vicinity of the Project Site Park Park Type Acres Distance from
Project Site Park Amenities
Cottonwood
Creek Park and
School
Neighborhood
Park 10.08
Directly adjacent
to the northern
project site
boundary.

Play equipment and basketball courts.

Jordan Ranch
Park
Neighborhood
Park and Square 4.9

0.3 miles north
of the project
site.

Picnic tables/area, barbeque grills, play
equipment, restrooms, volleyball courts
(grass), walkways/trails, basketball
courts, and drinking fountain.

Sunrise Park Nature Park 10.75

0.04 miles west
of the project
site, across
Fallon Drive.

Nature park/open space.

Clover Park Neighborhood
Square 2.0 0.2 miles west of the project site.

Picnic tables/area, play equipment,
restrooms, walkways/trails, drinking
fountain, and fitness equipment.

Fallon Sports
Park
Active
Community
Park

60.1 0.2 miles
northwest of the
project site.

Picnic tables/area, barbeque grills, play
equipment, restrooms, soccer fields,
softball fields, lighted tennis courts,
volleyball courts (sand), walkways/trails,
fields for rental, basketball courts,
baseball fields, batting cage, bocce ball
courts, BMX course, cricket fields, and
drinking fountain.

Bray Commons Neighborhood
Park and Square 4.8 0.5 miles west of the project site.

Picnic tables/area, barbeque grills, play
equipment, restrooms, volleyball courts
(grass), walkways/trails, basketball
courts, dog run/dog park, and drinking
fountain.

Source: City of Dublin. 2022. Parks and Recreation Master Plan. 845
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 144
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Library Services
The Dublin Library is operated by Alameda County Library, with additional funding from the City of Dublin. The Dublin Library is located at 200 Civic Plaza, west 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.

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, developer financing with reimbursement agreements, etc.) to cover up-front costs of capital improvements (i.e., fire stations and related facilities and equipment). 846
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 145
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
MM 3.4/9.0 (Program 8H). Incorporate Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DRFA)28 Alameda County Fire District recommendations on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention into the requirements for development approval. Require that the following DRFA design standards are incorporated where appropriate:
Use of non-combustible roof materials in all new construction. Available capacity of 1,000 GPM at 20 PSI fire flow from project fire hydrants on public water mains. For groupings of one-family and small two-family dwellings not exceeding two stories in height, the fire flow requirements are a minimum of 1,000 GPM. Fire flow requirements for all other buildings will be calculated based on building size, type of construction, and location. A buffer zone along the backs of homes, which are contiguous with the wildland area. This buffer zone is to be landscaped with irrigated (wet banding) or equivalent fire-resistive vegetation.
Automatic fire alarm systems and sprinklers in all nonresidential structures for human use.
Compliance with DRFA minimum road widths, maximum street slopes, parking recommendations, and secondary access road requirements. Require residential structures outside the DRFA's established response time and zone to include fire alarm systems and sprinklers.

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 provides its fair share of planned open space, parklands and trail corridors.

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. 28 The Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DRFA) was a Joint Powers Authority between the City of Dublin and the City of San Ramon to provide fire services for these two communities. DRFA had three fire stations - two in Dublin and one in San Ramon. DRFA was dissolved in 1997 with the Alameda County services being contracted to Alameda County Fire District and the small portion of San Ramon served by DRFA being annexed into the San Ramon Valley Fire District.
847
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 146
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
2002 SEIR
The 2002 SEIR did not identify any potentially significant supplemental impacts 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 Dublin EIR and that the amount of additional non-residential development could be accommodated with existing fire personnel and facilities. The proposed project would subdivide the 192-acre site into 11 parcels to accommodate proposed development of up to 238 residential units and up to 3,299,670 square feet of GC/CO uses, resulting in approximately 4,617 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 California Building Code (CBC), the California 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, which would reduce potential fire protection impacts. The additional 4,618 employees resulting from implementation of the proposed project would represent a small, approximately 1 percent, increase in the ACFD service population. In addition, the ACFD has a number of implemented and planned programs and projects related to expanding their capacity to provide fire protection services to their service area, including approval of a $30 million Training Center Project to be located in the City of Dubin, a $90 million Fire Safety Bond (Measure X) to repair, upgrade and replace outdated fire stations in unincorporated communities of Alameda County, and ongoing recruitment strategies as ACFD prepares its Strategic Business Plan for the period 2020-2030. ACFD would continue to provide services to the project site and, with implementation of the above approved and planned expansion projects, would not require additional firefighters to serve the proposed project. As such, 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 that would result in physical environmental impacts.

Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to fire protection would occur.
(b) Police protection
The Fallon Village SEIR determined that the addition of 2,878,444 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 footage, in and of itself, would not cause the need to 848
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 147
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
construct new or expanded police buildings or other facilities that would result in a supplemental impact. Therefore, no supplemental impacts were identified.

The proposed project would subdivide the 192-acre site into 11 parcels to accommodate proposed development of up to 238 residential units and up to 3,299,670 square feet of GC/CO uses, resulting in approximately 4,617 additional employees than were analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. The increased demand for police protection services resulting from the proposed project would not be substantial compared to the level of service identified in the EDSP EIRs and would not require the construction of new or alteration of existing police protection facilities to maintain an adequate level of police protection service. In addition, the Dublin Police Department has increased their staffing in 2022 as summarized in the 2022 Annual Report and has plans to further increase staffing. As such, the demand for police protection services resulting from the proposed project would not require the construction of new or alteration of existing police protection facilities to maintain an adequate level of police protection service that would result in physical environmental impacts. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to police protection 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 impacts 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 and would result in similar, less than significant impacts, on school facilities as described in the EDSP EIRs. As described above, 370 additional employees associated with implementation of the proposed project would reside in the City of Dublin; these additional employees could generate a small number of additional students in the City.

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. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to schools would occur. (d) Parks
The Fallon Village SEIR determined 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 is consistent with those assumed in the EDSP EIRs. The increase in 849
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 148
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
non-residential use resulting from the proposed project would not generate significant demand for additional parks or recreation facilities. Further, the proposed project would include the development of a 7.2-acre Community Park and approximately 42.6 acres for a Natural Community Park, which would contribute to the City’s overall acreage of park and recreation facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a substantial increase in population necessitating either construction of new or alteration of existing park facilities to maintain an adequate level of service. No physical impacts associated with the provision of park services would occur. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to parks 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 County Library. However, as described above these residents are within the population assumptions evaluated and approved as part of the EDSP EIRs and the increase in non-residential use resulting from the proposed project would not generate significant demand for other public facilities; therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to substantially increase the number of library patrons utilizing public facilities, such that new or physically altered facilities would be required. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to other public facilities would occur.

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.

Sources
Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022).

Dublin, City of. 2022. 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.
850
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 149
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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.
851
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 150
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 24 parks totaling 237.04 acres. The City of Dublin also maintains over 26.26 miles of greenways and trails. The series of routes stretches throughout the City and ranges from recreational trails to shared-use paths. In addition, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) 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 significant 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.

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, implementation of the proposed project, which would provide 238 residential units, is consistent with the level of residential development evaluated 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. Further, the proposed project would include the development of a 7.2-acre community park and approximately 42.6 acres for a Natural Community Park, which would contribute to the City’s overall acreage of park and recreation facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase the demand for park and recreation facilities beyond what was previously analyzed. Similarly, the proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to increased use of existing recreation facilities would occur. (b) Propose, require new facilities that cause physical effect As outlined in the project description, the proposed project would include dedication of land for a future 7.2-acre Community Park and 42.6 acres for a Natural Community Park. As outlined in the 2022 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the Community Park amenities include picnic areas with tables, play equipment, restrooms, and three soccer fields. The proposed Natural Community Park would be designed for low impact use and maintenance, with hiking and walking trails. Improvements associated with these proposed park uses were considered and evaluated as part of the EDSP EIRs and would be developed consistent with the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan and in compliance with the requirements for provision of park land outlined in the City’s Municipal Code. Potential adverse effects on the environment related to the development of the proposed project have been evaluated in this Initial Study checklist. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to new recreation facilities would occur.

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 853
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 152
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified recreation impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of 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.

Sources
Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985. (Amended as of February 15, 2022).

Dublin, City of. 2022. 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 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.
854
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 153
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 associated with the proposed project, including roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian networks.

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.

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 Plan29 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. 29 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-May2020?bidId= 855
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 154
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Dublin Boulevard is proposed to be extended 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 to Sterling Street. The roadway generally runs through residential land uses and provides access to Cottonwood Creek TK-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 with 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. Croak Road would also be extended with the project to provide a connection to the transportation network for the residential portion.

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 roadway. 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 Boulevard). Stoneridge Drive is a four to six-lane roadway; Jack London Boulevard varies from two to six 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 Pleasanton 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 mph between Dublin Boulevard and I-580 and 40 mph between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Drive within the study area. Class II bicycle lanes are present, except for on the overpass over I-580. 856
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 155
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 arterial and ranges from three lanes to six 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 Road/I580 EB off-ramp. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Class II bicycle lanes are present, except 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 operating. 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.

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 M provides details about the bus service that serves the project area. 857
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 156
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Table M: 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
Parkway, Dublin HS
Weekdays
One AM and one
PM trip for each
route
2 per day
6RXUFH
ZKHHOVEXVFRP
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Existing bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site include:
Fallon Road has Class IIA facilities that begin north of Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard generally has Class IIA/Class IIB facilities west of Fallon Road. Central Parkway generally has Class IIA 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. Central Parkway east of Fallon Road and between Fallon Road and Croak Road also has Class IB sidepaths. 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. 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. 858
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 157
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Class II bicycle lanes on Dublin Boulevard Extension, Croak Road, and Fallon Road between Dublin Boulevard and the I-580 eastbound ramp terminal intersection.
Class III facilities are proposed along Croak Road, which is on the north side of I580 east of Fallon Road.

Sidewalks are generally provided along both sides of the road in the vicinity of the project except 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 North 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 significant impacts related to increased traffic associated with implementation of the EDSP, 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 roadways, 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 implementation 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:

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. 859
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 158
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 Transportation 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 interchange and the associated mitigation on adjacent local streets. The improvements would provide additional capacity on I-680 north of I580 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 Transportation 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 operations.

MM 3.3/7.0 The City of Dublin shall coordinate with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans to restripe the I-580 eastbound off-ramp to provide two left-turn lanes and one rightturn 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 Caltrans 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 proportionate share of the improvement costs. The improvements would provide LOS B operations.
860
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 159
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
MM 3.3/9.0 The City of Dublin shall coordinate with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans to widen the 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 City 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. The improvements would provide LOS D operations.

MM 3.3/ 12.0 The City of Dublin shall coordinate with Caltrans 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 proportionate 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 intersections, providing a signalized pedestrian and bicycle crossing of the major street.
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 impacts 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 SMTraffic-8 were identified to reduce these cumulative impacts; however, the 2002 SEIR determined that these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The following supplemental mitigation measures are applicable to the project:
861
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 160
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 left-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/Project 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 share 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 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 leftturn 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 862
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 161
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 developers 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 I-580 and Dublin Road to its ultimate eight lanes and shall be responsible for 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 I-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.

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/I-580 EB Ramps intersection, the westbound left turn movement from Central Parkway onto 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 nearby 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 863
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 162
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 advanced 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 Santa Rita Road to include a third eastbound left turn lane.

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, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities
Potential conflicts with applicable transportation plans standards, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, associated with the proposed project are described below.

Trip GenerationThe information provided below is summarized from the Dublin Fallon 580 Trip Generation Comparison Technical Memorandum provided in Appendix I.

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition was used to estimate the number of trips the proposed project would generate. The proposed project including 238 multifamily dwelling units, 2,888,400 square feet of advanced manufacturing, a 314-room hotel, 100,000 square feet of retail and 100,000 square feet of office (based on a

0.60 FAR) would generate approximately 22,618 trips per day, as shown in Table N. 864
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 163
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Table N: Estimated Trip Generation for 580 Fallon based on 2022 Proposed Project Description Size Units ITE Daily Trip
Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Multi-Family 238 du 220 1,604 23 73 96 77 45 122
Advanced
Manufacturing 2,888.4 ksf 140 13,720 1,493 472 1,965 663 1,745 2,138 Hotel 314 Rooms 310 2,509 81 64 145 95 91 186
Retail 100 ksf 820 3,701 52 32 84 163 177 340
Office 100 ksf 710 1,084 134 18 152 24 120 144
Total 22,618 1,783 659 2,442 1,022 1,908 2,930
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2023
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 9.44 trips per dwelling unit) • Multifamily Residential (ITE Code 220 with a daily rate of 7.32 trips per dwelling unit) • Service (ITE Code 710 with a daily rate of 10.84 trips per thousand square feet) • Retail (ITE Code 820 with a daily rate of 42.94 trips per thousand square feet) Based on these land uses, the estimated daily trip generation for 580 Fallon in the Fallon Village SEIR was 45,550 daily vehicle trips, as shown in Table O.

Table O: Estimated Trip Generation for 580 Fallon Based on Fallon Village SEIR Description Size Units ITE Daily Trip
Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Single-Family 70 du 210 670 13 40 53 45 26 71
Multi-Family 130 du 220 874 13 54 67 53 28 81
Retail 876.621 ksf 820 37,771 553 354 907 1,584 1,715 3,299 Service 566.379 ksf 710 6,236 773 105 878 143 701 844
Total 45,550 1,352 553 1,905 1,825 2,470 4,295
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2023
1Daily Rate from ITE Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition DU = Dwelling Unit
KSF = Thousand Square Feet
As shown in Tables N and O, the proposed project would generate 22,932 fewer daily vehicle trips compared to the assumptions from the Fallon Village SEIR. Therefore, no new 865
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 164
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
transportation impacts not previously disclosed would be anticipated based on daily trip generation of the for the proposed project.

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. Aside from improvements to project frontages, the project would not construct any addition 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 Boulevard 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.

Croak Road and Dublin Boulevard are proposed to be extended to provide access to the project site. 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.

Therefore, impacts to bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit service providers resulting from implementation of the proposed project would remain less than significant and the proposed project would not result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts related to alternative forms of transportation.
(b) Conflict with CEQA Section 15064.3 (b)
Since certification of the EDSP EIRs, the issue of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of SB 743 in 2013. Previously, CEQA analysis was conducted using a level of service (LOS) measurement that evaluated traffic delay.

As specified under SB 743 and implemented under Section 15064.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines (effective December 28, 2018), VMT is the required metric to be used for identifying CEQA impacts and mitigation. In December 2018, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts, including guidance for VMT analysis. The Office of Administrative Law approved the updated CEQA Guidelines and lead agencies were given until July 1, 2020, to implement the updated guidelines for VMT analysis.

The topic of the project’s contribution to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was not analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. Because EDSP EIRs have been certified, the determination of whether VMT needs to be analyzed for this project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). VMT is not required to be analyzed unless it constitutes new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous environmental 866
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 165
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
documents were certified as complete (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163). VMT was known at the time of the certification of the 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 increased 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. Therefore, no supplemental environmental analysis of the project’s impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. (c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature Primary access into the residential neighborhoods would be via Pandora Way within the Jordan Ranch development and an east/west private street off of Croak Road. Primary access to the GC/CO parcels would be provided by the proposed Dublin Boulevard Extension. Croak Road north of Dublin Boulevard would be widened and provide additional access to the GC/CO parcels. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation between the residential and commercial uses would be provided via Central Parkway, Croak Road and Dublin Boulevard. The design, construction, and maintenance of 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.

Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to design hazards, beyond what has been analyzed in the EDSP EIRs would occur.
(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 an EVA connection into the existing Jordan Ranch development at the west and east ends of Pandora Way, respectively, and via an east/west private street off of Croak Road. The commercial components 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 compliance 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. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts to emergency access would occur.

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. 867
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 166
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022).

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.

Kittelson & Associates. 2023. Dublin Fallon 580 Trip Generation Comparison Technical Memorandum. December 19.

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.
868
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 167
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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, one prehistoric resource was recorded on the project site in 1988 as the site area was used as a pasture and corral area. However, during a 2009 backhoe trenching program and study, materials observed from the 1988 study were no longer present at the site area. The 2009 study concluded that the site contained no significant subsurface cultural deposits. No other resources are recorded within the project boundaries or within 0.25-mile of the project site.

Previous CEQA Documents
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, analyzed prehistoric and historic resources and included mitigation measures related to historical and archaeological resources. These measures are listed in Section 5.

Cultural Resources of this Initial Study Checklist.

Because the Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR, and Fallon Village SEIR have been certified, the determination of whether tribal cultural 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 869
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 168
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)).

The topic of the project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources was not specifically analyzed in the EDSP EIRs; however, the issue of tribal cultural resources was widely known prior to the certification of these EIRs. Section 106 of the National Preservation Act, established in 1966, requires tribal consultation in all steps of the process when a federal agency project or effort may affect historic properties that are either located on tribal lands, or when any Native American tribe or Native Hawaiian organization attaches religious or cultural significance to the historic property, regardless of the property’s location. Further, tribal cultural resources have been considered in the evaluation of impact to historical and archaeological resources since CEQA was enacted.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources The project site is currently undeveloped; therefore, no built historic resources are located on the project site. No archaeological resources were identified on the project site as part of the cultural resources study. 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. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources would occur. (b) Significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1
No archaeological 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. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources would occur.

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 tribal cultural, nor result in new significant impacts. No places, objects, or the like with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe have been previously identified and such artifacts are unlikely to be present. 870
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 169
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022).

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.

Peak & Associates, Inc. 2022. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Chen Anderson Project, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. May 27.

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.
871
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 170
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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’s 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
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 water to DSRSD. Treated potable water 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 Water Reuse Association. In 1995, DSRSD and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), 872
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 171
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
through a joint powers agreement, formed the DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority (DERWA). DERWA serves 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 DSRSD’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 area 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. In its current undeveloped condition, runoff from the project area drains mostly 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
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 serves 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 residences subscribe to three-stream collection service. Beginning January 1, 2022, all service accounts (with a few exceptions) are now 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 permitted capacity of 62 million cubic yards. The Altamont Landfill is approximately 26 percent full and is estimated to reach capacity in January 2029. 873
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 172
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 related 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 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 heads, faucets, and toilets.
874
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 173
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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, Hydrology and Water Quality.
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. The following supplemental mitigation measures were identified to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level:

SM- SD-1 (changed surface water quality standards). The Stage 1 Development Plan shall require that the water quality source control and hydrologic design 875
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 174
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
recommendations of the report prepared by ENGEO, Inc. (February 28, 2005) be implemented for all individual development projects within the Project area.

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 within the project site and would connect to proposed sanitary sewer mains and potable water mains within the future Dublin Boulevard Extension and existing lines along Croak Road and Pandora Way. The proposed project would also include connections to proposed electricity and natural gas lines within the future Dublin Boulevard Extension and existing lines along Croak Road and Pandora Way.

The project site is currently vacant and covered in non-native grassland and, therefore, contains minimal impervious surfaces. Development of the proposed project would increase the extent of impervious surfaces on the project site. As required by Provision C.3 of the MRP, the proposed project would include stormwater quality basins and storm drains throughout the project site to retain stormwater runoff prior to discharge. Hydromodification vaults would be included on-site to provide flow duration controls for the project. Proposed storm drainage facilities would conform to the Alameda County C.3 Stormwater Technical guidelines and requirements.

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. No new or expanded utility lines or facilities are required off-site, except as needed for the utility connections. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts 876
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 175
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas or telecommunications facilities would occur. (b) Sufficient water supply
The Fallon Village SEIR determined 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, 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 would 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 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 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. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to water supply would occur. (c) Sufficient wastewater capacity
The Fallon Village SEIR determined 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, DSRSD has updated the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (in 2017), which accounts for build out of the project site based on acreage and type of land use.

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. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to the wastewater capacity would occur. 877
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 176
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
(d-e) Adequate landfill and compliance
Solid waste generated at the project site would be collected 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 the level of residential and commercial 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. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to solid waste would occur.

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 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 November 15, 2023).

Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022).

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.

Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016).
878
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 177
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 November 15, 2023).

West Yost. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June. Available online at:
www.dsrsd.com/about-us/library/plans-studies (accessed November 15, 2023). 879
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 178
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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 (VHFHS) 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 Protection (CAL FIRE).

Previous CEQA Documents
The previous CEQA documents 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.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Impair an emergency response plan
As described above, the project site is not located within a fire hazard severity zone as identified by CAL FIRE. The proposed project would be designed to provide adequate access to 880
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 179
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
the site for fire/police/emergency medical service personnel in the event of an emergency at the project site. Primary access into the residential neighborhoods would be via Pandora Way within the Jordan Ranch development and an east/west private street off of Croak Road.

Primary access to the GC/CO parcels would be provided by the proposed Dublin Boulevard Extension. Croak Road north of Dublin Boulevard would be widened and provide additional access to the GC/CO parcels. In the event of an emergency on the site, employees and residents could exit the site via Croak Road, Central Parkway, Fallon Road and the proposed Dublin Boulevard Extension. Employees and residents could access I-580 via Fallon Road to exit the City of Dublin and the region. The proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to impairment of an emergency response plan would occur.
(b) Exposure to wildfire
As described in Section 6, Geology and Soils, the topography of the project site consists of nearly level ground along the southern portion of the site adjacent I-580 and Fallon Road, with rolling hills occurring along the northern portion. Hillslopes range 346 feet to 480 feet above sea level. 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 at Parcel 7. 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. If GHAD at Parcel 7 is not established, the Homeowners’ Association would own and maintain improvements and slope area within the wildfire management area.

At Parcel 8, if the project meets the requirements to be GHAD owned/maintained and the project desires a GHAD to be established, consistent with City requirements, 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. If a GHAD is not established at Parcel 8, the Homeowners’ Association would own and maintain improvements and slope area within the wildfire management area.

Within Parcel 4 and Parcel 6 (Nature Park parcels), the City would maintain improvements and landscape within wildfire management areas. These areas would include fire safe plants and materials. Seasonal mowing and trimming maintenance would be performed by the City. The City would also maintain the slope area within the Nature Park parcels.

The proposed project would not include any design features that would increase the potential for a wildfire. The proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose 881
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 180
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to exposure to wildfire would occur.
(c) Require installation or maintenance of infrastructure As discussed above, the project site is located outside of a VHFHS zone as identified by CAL FIRE. All proposed project components, including infrastructure, would be located within the boundaries of the project site and impacts associated with 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. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to installation or maintenance of infrastructure would occur.
(d) Exposure to flooding or landslides
The topography of the project site consists of nearly level ground along the southern portion of the site adjacent to I-580 and Fallon Road, with rolling hills occurring along the northern portion. Hillslopes range 346 feet to 480 feet above sea level. As part of the proposed project, the project site would be graded to flatten the site, where necessary, to allow for intended future users. Additionally, perimeter retaining walls would be installed, where needed, to conform with the existing and proposed elevations surrounding the site. Further, as discussed in Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would be required to implement erosion control measures during and post-construction. The proposed stormwater quality 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. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to exposure to flooding or landslides would occur.

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).
882
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 181
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022).

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.

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.
883
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 182
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
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
a) Degrade quality of environment, reduce habitat, cause population to drop below selfsustaining levels, reduce endangered animals or plants, or eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory.

As discussed and analyzed in this document, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment. Additionally, for 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 Section 5, Cultural Resources, the proposed project, with mitigation, would not eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project with compliance with regulatory requirements and required mitigation measures, 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. 884
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Page 183
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
b) 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 proposed project, with compliance with regulatory requirements and required mitigation measures, would not result in any new cumulative impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant cumulative impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area.
c) 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, general commercial/campus office and park uses. 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. 885
^KhZ
͗h^'^ϳ͘ϱΖYƵĂĚͲ>ŝǀĞƌŵŽƌĞ;ϭϵϴϬͿ͕
:͗ͰhϮϭϬϭ͘ϬϰͰ'/^ͰWƌŽͰƵďůŝŶϱϴϬ&ĂůůŽŶͰƵďůŝŶϱϴϬ&ĂůůŽŶ͘ĂƉƌǆ;ϳͬϭϮͬϮϬϮϯͿ &/'hZ
ϭ
ƵďůŝŶϱϴϬ&ĂůůŽŶ
&2175$
&267$
&2817<
$/$0('$
&2817<
x
x
x

x
]^
]^
]^
]^
]^
^]
WƌŽũĞĐƚsŝĐŝŶŝƚǇ
Ϭ ϭϬϬϬ ϮϬϬϬ
&

d
WƌŽũĞĐƚ>ŽĐĂƟŽŶ
WƌŽũĞĐƚ>ŽĐĂƟŽŶ
886
Fallon
R d
Fallon Rd Fallon Rd
Croak Rd
Central Pkwy Central Pkwy
Central Pkwy
Dublin Blvd
El Charro R d
Stoneridge Dr Stoneridge Dr
W Jack London Blvd W Jack London Blvd
Livermore Outlets D r
Wolf House Dr
Freisman Rd Freisman Rd
Auto Mall Pkwy
Lockhart S t
Gleason Dr
Fal ol
n R d
Positano Pkwy
Fallon Rd
Fallon Rd
Croak Rd
Central Pkwy
Central Pkwy
Dublin Blvd
El Charro
Rd
Stoneridge Dr
W Jack London Blvd
Livermore Outlets Dr
Wolf House
Dr
Freisman Rd
Auto Mall Pkwy
Lockhart St
Gleason Dr
Fal ol n
Rd
Positano Pkwy

MEADOWS
PARK

LAS POSITAS

GOLF COURSE

COMMERCIAL
COTTONWOOD CREEK K-8 SCHOOL
FALLON

SPORTS PARK
JORDAN

RANCH PARK

ARROYO MOCHO

KAISER MEDICAL
KOLB

ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL

COMMERCIAL

JORDAN RANCH

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

JORDAN RANCH

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

RIGHETTI

PROPERTY

IRONGATE

RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT

FALLON GATEWAY

SHOPPING CENTER

FRANCIS RANCH

DEVELOPMENT
0 500 1000
Project Site Boundary
FEET
SOURCE: Google Earth, 3/11/2022
I:\DUB2101.04\G\AerialProjectSiteLU.ai (7/18/2023)
FIGURE 2
Dublin Fallon 580
Aerial Photograph of the Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses 887
600 0 300
FEET
SOURCE: Mackay & SompsI:\DUB2101.04\G\PropParcelLayout.ai (3/12/2024) FIGURE 3
Dublin Fallon 580
Proposal Parcel Layout
888
1200 0 600
FEET
SOURCES: KTGY; Mackay & SompsI:\DUB2101.04\G\ExistPropLandUse.ai (3/12/2024) FIGURE 4
Dublin Fallon 580
ExisƟng and Proposed Land Use
889
320 0 160
FEET
SOURCES: KTGY; Mackay & SompsI:\DUB2101.04\G\ResidenƟalSitePlan.ai (3/12/2024) FIGURE 5
Dublin Fallon 580
Residen
Ɵal Site Plan
890
600 0 300
FEET
SOURCES: KTGY; Mackay & SompsI:\DUB2101.04\G\ConceptCirculaƟonPlan.ai (3/12/2024) FIGURE 6
Dublin Fallon 580
Conceptual CirculaƟon Plan
891
800 0 400
FEET
SOURCES: KTGY; Mackay & SompsI:\DUB2101.04\G\PreliminaryUƟlityPlan.ai (3/12/2024) FIGURE 7
Dublin Fallon 580
Preliminary U
Ɵlity Plan
892
FEET
SOURCE: Google Earth 2023
1000 500 0
FIGURE 8
Central Pkwy
Noise Monitoring Locations
I:\DUB2101.04\G\Noise_Locs.ai (11/15/2023)
Fallon 580 Project
LEGEND
Project Site BoundaryLong-term Noise Monitoring LocaƟŽŶ LT-1 Central Pkwy
Dublin Blvd
Fallon Rd
Croak Rd

Dublin Blvd
Fallon Rd
Livermore Outlets Dr
W Jack London Blvd
Wolf House Dr
LT-1
LT-2
893
City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project
Initial Study | Appendices
580Fallon_FinalDraftIS.docx (4/8/24)
Appendix A
CalEEMod Output Sheets

894
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
7DEOH RI &RQWHQWV %DVLF 3URMHFW ,QIRUPDWLRQ
%DVLF 3URMHFW ,QIRUPDWLRQ /DQG 8VH 7\SHV 8VHU6HOHFWHG (PLVVLRQ 5HGXFWLRQ 0HDVXUHV E\ (PLVVLRQV 6HFWRU (PLVVLRQV 6XPPDU\
&RQVWUXFWLRQ (PLVVLRQV &RPSDUHG $JDLQVW 7KUHVKROGV &RQVWUXFWLRQ (PLVVLRQV E\ <HDU 8QPLWLJDWHG &RQVWUXFWLRQ (PLVVLRQV E\ <HDU 0LWLJDWHG &RQVWUXFWLRQ (PLVVLRQV 'HWDLOV
6LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ

8QPLWLJDWHG 6LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ

0LWLJDWHG )LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ

8QPLWLJDWHG )LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ

0LWLJDWHG 5RXJK *UDGLQJ

8QPLWLJDWHG
895
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
5RXJK *UDGLQJ

0LWLJDWHG )LQH *UDGLQJ

8QPLWLJDWHG )LQH *UDGLQJ

0LWLJDWHG
%XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ

8QPLWLJDWHG %XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ

0LWLJDWHG %XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ

8QPLWLJDWHG %XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ

0LWLJDWHG %XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ

8QPLWLJDWHG %XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ

0LWLJDWHG $VSKDOW 3DYLQJ

8QPLWLJDWHG $VSKDOW 3DYLQJ

0LWLJDWHG $UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJ

8QPLWLJDWHG $UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJ

0LWLJDWHG
8WLOLW\ 7UHQFKLQJ

8QPLWLJDWHG 8WLOLW\ 7UHQFKLQJ

0LWLJDWHG
2SHUDWLRQV (PLVVLRQV 'HWDLOV
6RLO &DUERQ $FFXPXODWLRQ %\ 9HJHWDWLRQ 7\SH
896
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
6RLO &DUERQ $FFXPXODWLRQ %\ 9HJHWDWLRQ 7\SH 8QPLWLJDWHG $ERYH DQG %HORZJURXQG &DUERQ $FFXPXODWLRQ E\ /DQG 8VH 7\SH 8QPLWLJDWHG $YRLGHG DQG 6HTXHVWHUHG (PLVVLRQV E\ 6SHFLHV 8QPLWLJDWHG 6RLO &DUERQ $FFXPXODWLRQ %\ 9HJHWDWLRQ 7\SH 0LWLJDWHG $ERYH DQG %HORZJURXQG &DUERQ $FFXPXODWLRQ E\ /DQG 8VH 7\SH 0LWLJDWHG $YRLGHG DQG 6HTXHVWHUHG (PLVVLRQV E\ 6SHFLHV 0LWLJDWHG $FWLYLW\ 'DWD
&RQVWUXFWLRQ 6FKHGXOH 2II5RDG (TXLSPHQW
8QPLWLJDWHG 0LWLJDWHG
&RQVWUXFWLRQ 9HKLFOHV
8QPLWLJDWHG 0LWLJDWHG
9HKLFOHV
&RQVWUXFWLRQ 9HKLFOH &RQWURO 6WUDWHJLHV
$UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJV
897
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
'XVW 0LWLJDWLRQ
&RQVWUXFWLRQ (DUWKPRYLQJ $FWLYLWLHV &RQVWUXFWLRQ (DUWKPRYLQJ &RQWURO 6WUDWHJLHV &RQVWUXFWLRQ 3DYLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ (OHFWULFLW\ &RQVXPSWLRQ DQG (PLVVLRQV )DFWRUV 9HJHWDWLRQ /DQG 8VH &KDQJH
8QPLWLJDWHG 0LWLJDWHG
%LRPDVV &RYHU 7\SH
8QPLWLJDWHG 0LWLJDWHG
6HTXHVWUDWLRQ
8QPLWLJDWHG 0LWLJDWHG
8VHU &KDQJHV WR 'HIDXOW 'DWD
898
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
%DVLF 3URMHFW ,QIRUPDWLRQ %DVLF 3URMHFW ,QIRUPDWLRQ 'DWD )LHOG 9DOXH3URMHFW 1DPH 'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ&RQVWUXFWLRQ 6WDUW 'DWH /HDG $JHQF\ ²/DQG 8VH 6FDOH 3URMHFWVLWH$QDO\VLV /HYHO IRU 'HIDXOWV &RXQW\:LQGVSHHG PV
3UHFLSLWDWLRQ
GD\V
/RFDWLRQ &RXQW\ $ODPHGD&LW\ 'XEOLQ$LU 'LVWULFW %D\ $UHD $40'$LU %DVLQ 6DQ )UDQFLVFR %D\ $UHD7$= (')= (OHFWULF 8WLOLW\ 3DFLILF *DV (OHFWULF &RPSDQ\*DV 8WLOLW\ 3DFLILF *DV (OHFWULF$SS 9HUVLRQ /DQG 8VH 7\SHV
/DQG 8VH 6XEW\SH 6L]H 8QLW /RW $FUHDJH %XLOGLQJ $UHD
VT IW
/DQGVFDSH $UHD
VT
IW

6SHFLDO /DQGVFDSH$UHD
VT IW

3RSXODWLRQ 'HVFULSWLRQ
$SDUWPHQWV /RZ5LVH
'ZHOOLQJ 8QLW ² ²
899
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
3DUNLQJ /RW VTIW ² ² ²
2WKHU $VSKDOW6XUIDFHV

VTIW ² ² ²
8VHU6HOHFWHG (PLVVLRQ 5HGXFWLRQ 0HDVXUHV E\ (PLVVLRQV 6HFWRU 6HFWRU 0HDVXUH 7LWOH&RQVWUXFWLRQ & 8VH $GYDQFHG (QJLQH 7LHUV (PLVVLRQV 6XPPDU\ &RQVWUXFWLRQ (PLVVLRQV &RPSDUHG $JDLQVW 7KUHVKROGV&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

8Q0LW 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
8QPLW

² 0LW

² 5HGXFHG

² ²
²
² ² ² ² ² ² ²
'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
8QPLW
² 0LW
² 5HGXFHG

² ²
²
² ² ² ² ² ² ²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
900
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
8QPLW

²

0LW
²

5HGXFHG
² ²
²
² ² ² ² ² ² ²
$QQXDO
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
8QPLW

² 0LW

² 5HGXFHG
² ²
²
² ² ² ² ² ² ²
&RQVWUXFWLRQ (PLVVLRQV E\ <HDU 8QPLWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

<HDU 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H'DLO\ 6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²

²

²

²

'DLO\ :LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²

²

²

² $YHUDJH'DLO\ ²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²

²
²

901
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW

²

$QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²

²
² &RQVWUXFWLRQ (PLVVLRQV E\ <HDU 0LWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

<HDU 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H'DLO\ 6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²

² ²

²

'DLO\ :LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²

² ² ² $YHUDJH'DLO\ ²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²

² ²

²

$QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²

² ² 902
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW

² &RQVWUXFWLRQ (PLVVLRQV 'HWDLOV 6LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ

8QPLWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

² ² ²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ²

² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
903
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
² ² ² 2II5RDG (TXLSPHQW
'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ²
9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 6LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ

0LWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H 904
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

² ² ²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ²

² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW ² ² ² 'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
905
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
:RUNHU ²

9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ²
9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² )LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ

8QPLWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ² 'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 906
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

² ² ²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ² 'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 907
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ²
9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² )LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ

0LWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ² 'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

² ² ²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
908
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
² 2QVLWH WUXFN
$QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ² 'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ²
9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 5RXJK *UDGLQJ

8QPLWLJDWHG
909
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
²
²
²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²
910
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ²
+DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 5RXJK *UDGLQJ

0LWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

² ² ²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
911
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
912
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW

:RUNHU ²
9HQGRU ²
+DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² )LQH *UDGLQJ

8QPLWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
²
²
²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
²
²
²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 913
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW ² ² ²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $YHUDJH'DLO\ ²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ²

914
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² )LQH *UDGLQJ

0LWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

² ² ²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

² ² ²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 915
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² $YHUDJH
'DLO\
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ²

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $YHUDJH'DLO\ ²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ²

916
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ²
%XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ

8QPLWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

²
² ²

2QVLWHWUXFN
² $YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

²
² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW ² ² ²

917
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
² 2QVLWH WUXFN
2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU
² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $YHUDJH'DLO\ ²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² %XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ

0LWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
918
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² 'DLO\
:LQWHU
0D[

2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ²

2QVLWHWUXFN
² $YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

² ² ² 2QVLWHWUXFN
² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW ² ² ²

2QVLWHWUXFN
² 2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU
² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $YHUDJH'DLO\ ²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 919
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
$QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² %XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ

8QPLWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

²
² ²

2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

²
² ²

2QVLWHWUXFN
² $YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

²
² ²

2QVLWHWUXFN
² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
²
² ²
920
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU
² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $YHUDJH'DLO\ ²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ²

+DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² %XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ

0LWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² 921
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ²

2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ²

2QVLWHWUXFN
² $YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ²

2QVLWHWUXFN
² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW ² ² ² 2QVLWHWUXFN
² 2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 922
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW

² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² 'DLO\
:LQWHU
0D[

:RUNHU
² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $YHUDJH'DLO\ ²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ²

+DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² %XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ

8QPLWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

²
² ²

2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
923
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

²
² ²

2QVLWHWUXFN
² $YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

² ² ² 2QVLWHWUXFN
² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW ² ² ²

2QVLWHWUXFN
² 2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU

² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU

² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $YHUDJH'DLO\ ²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ²

924
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
+DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ²

9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² %XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ

0LWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ²

2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ²

2QVLWHWUXFN
² $YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ² 2QVLWHWUXFN
² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
925
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

² ² ²

2QVLWHWUXFN
² 2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU

² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU

² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $YHUDJH'DLO\ ²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ²

9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $VSKDOW 3DYLQJ

8QPLWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H 926
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ² 3DYLQJ ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ²

3DYLQJ ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2QVLWHWUXFN
² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW ² ² ² 3DYLQJ ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2QVLWHWUXFN ² 2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 927
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ²
9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $VSKDOW 3DYLQJ

0LWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

² ² ² 3DYLQJ ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
928
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW

² ² ² 2II5RDG (TXLSPHQW
3DYLQJ ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2QVLWHWUXFN
² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW ² ² ² 3DYLQJ ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2QVLWHWUXFN ² 2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ²
9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 929
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
$UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJ

8QPLWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

² ² ² $UFKLWHFWXUDO&RDWLQJV
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ² $UFKLWHFWXUDO&RDWLQJV
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW ² ² ² $UFKLWHFWXUDO&RDWLQJV

² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
930
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
² 2QVLWH WUXFN
2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ²
9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJ

0LWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
931
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
² ² ² 2II5RDG
(TXLSPHQW
$UFKLWHFWXUDO&RDWLQJV
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ² $UFKLWHFWXUDO&RDWLQJV
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW ² ² ² $UFKLWHFWXUDO&RDWLQJV

² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 932
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW

'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ²
9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ²
8WLOLW\ 7UHQFKLQJ

8QPLWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
²
²
²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

² ² ² 933
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
2QVLWHWUXFN
² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW ² ² ² 2QVLWHWUXFN
² 2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ²
9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 8WLOLW\ 7UHQFKLQJ

0LWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H 934
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

² ² ² 2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

² ² ² 2QVLWHWUXFN
² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW ² ² ² 2QVLWHWUXFN
² 2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
935
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² $YHUDJH
'DLO\
:RUNHU ²
9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 2SHUDWLRQV (PLVVLRQV 'HWDLOV 6RLO &DUERQ $FFXPXODWLRQ %\ 9HJHWDWLRQ 7\SH 6RLO &DUERQ $FFXPXODWLRQ %\ 9HJHWDWLRQ 7\SH 8QPLWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

9HJHWDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
7RWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
7RWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²$QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²7RWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² $ERYH DQG %HORZJURXQG &DUERQ $FFXPXODWLRQ E\ /DQG 8VH 7\SH 8QPLWLJDWHG 936
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/DQG 8VH 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
7RWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
7RWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²$QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²7RWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² $YRLGHG DQG 6HTXHVWHUHG (PLVVLRQV E\ 6SHFLHV 8QPLWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

6SHFLHV 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YRLGHG ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
937
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
6XEWRWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
6HTXHVWHUHG
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
6XEWRWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²5HPRYHG ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²6XEWRWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²$QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²$YRLGHG ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²6XEWRWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²6HTXHVWHUHG ²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
6XEWRWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²5HPRYHG ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²6XEWRWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²² 6RLO &DUERQ $FFXPXODWLRQ %\ 9HJHWDWLRQ 7\SH 0LWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

9HJHWDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
7RWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
7RWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²$QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² 938
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
7RWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
$ERYH DQG %HORZJURXQG &DUERQ $FFXPXODWLRQ E\ /DQG 8VH 7\SH 0LWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/DQG 8VH 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
7RWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
7RWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²$QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²7RWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² $YRLGHG DQG 6HTXHVWHUHG (PLVVLRQV E\ 6SHFLHV 0LWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

6SHFLHV 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YRLGHG ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²6XEWRWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²6HTXHVWHUHG ²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
6XEWRWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²5HPRYHG ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²6XEWRWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²$QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²$YRLGHG ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²6XEWRWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²6HTXHVWHUHG ²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
6XEWRWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²5HPRYHG ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²6XEWRWDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²² $FWLYLW\ 'DWD &RQVWUXFWLRQ 6FKHGXOH
3KDVH 1DPH 3KDVH 7\SH 6WDUW 'DWH (QG 'DWH 'D\V 3HU :HHN :RUN 'D\V SHU 3KDVH 3KDVH 'HVFULSWLRQ6LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ 6LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ ²)LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ 6LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ ²5RXJK *UDGLQJ *UDGLQJ ² 940
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
)LQH *UDGLQJ *UDGLQJ

²
%XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ %XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ

²$VSKDOW 3DYLQJ 3DYLQJ

²$UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJ $UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJ ²8WLOLW\ 7UHQFKLQJ 7UHQFKLQJ ²
2II5RDG (TXLSPHQW 8QPLWLJDWHG
3KDVH 1DPH (TXLSPHQW 7\SH )XHO 7\SH (QJLQH 7LHU 1XPEHU SHU 'D\ +RXUV 3HU 'D\ +RUVHSRZHU /RDG )DFWRU6LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ 5XEEHU 7LUHG 'R]HUV 'LHVHO 7LHU 6LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ 7UDFWRUV/RDGHUV%DFNK RHV
'LHVHO 7LHU
)LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ ([FDYDWRUV 'LHVHO 7LHU )LQDO 5RXJK *UDGLQJ ([FDYDWRUV 'LHVHO 7LHU 5RXJK *UDGLQJ *UDGHUV 'LHVHO 7LHU 5RXJK *UDGLQJ 5XEEHU 7LUHG 'R]HUV 'LHVHO 7LHU 5RXJK *UDGLQJ 7UDFWRUV/RDGHUV%DFNK RHV
'LHVHO 7LHU
)LQH *UDGLQJ ([FDYDWRUV 'LHVHO 7LHU )LQH *UDGLQJ *UDGHUV 'LHVHO 7LHU )LQH *UDGLQJ 5XEEHU 7LUHG 'R]HUV 'LHVHO 7LHU )LQH *UDGLQJ 7UDFWRUV/RDGHUV%DFNK RHV
'LHVHO 7LHU
%XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ &UDQHV 'LHVHO 7LHU %XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ )RUNOLIWV 'LHVHO 7LHU %XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ *HQHUDWRU 6HWV 'LHVHO 7LHU %XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ 7UDFWRUV/RDGHUV%DFNK RHV
'LHVHO 7LHU
941
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
%XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ :HOGHUV 'LHVHO 7LHU $VSKDOW 3DYLQJ 3DYHUV 'LHVHO 7LHU $VSKDOW 3DYLQJ 3DYLQJ (TXLSPHQW 'LHVHO 7LHU $VSKDOW 3DYLQJ 5ROOHUV 'LHVHO 7LHU $UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJ $LU &RPSUHVVRUV 'LHVHO 7LHU 8WLOLW\ 7UHQFKLQJ 7UHQFKHUV 'LHVHO 7LHU 0LWLJDWHG
3KDVH 1DPH (TXLSPHQW 7\SH )XHO 7\SH (QJLQH 7LHU 1XPEHU SHU 'D\ +RXUV 3HU 'D\ +RUVHSRZHU /RDG )DFWRU6LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ 5XEEHU 7LUHG 'R]HUV 'LHVHO 7LHU )LQDO 6LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ 7UDFWRUV/RDGHUV%DFNK RHV
'LHVHO 7LHU )LQDO
)LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ ([FDYDWRUV 'LHVHO 7LHU )LQDO 5RXJK *UDGLQJ ([FDYDWRUV 'LHVHO 7LHU )LQDO 5RXJK *UDGLQJ *UDGHUV 'LHVHO 7LHU )LQDO 5RXJK *UDGLQJ 5XEEHU 7LUHG 'R]HUV 'LHVHO 7LHU )LQDO 5RXJK *UDGLQJ 7UDFWRUV/RDGHUV%DFNK RHV
'LHVHO 7LHU )LQDO
)LQH *UDGLQJ ([FDYDWRUV 'LHVHO 7LHU )LQDO )LQH *UDGLQJ *UDGHUV 'LHVHO 7LHU )LQDO )LQH *UDGLQJ 5XEEHU 7LUHG 'R]HUV 'LHVHO 7LHU )LQDO )LQH *UDGLQJ 7UDFWRUV/RDGHUV%DFNK RHV
'LHVHO 7LHU )LQDO
%XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ &UDQHV 'LHVHO 7LHU )LQDO %XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ )RUNOLIWV 'LHVHO 7LHU )LQDO %XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ *HQHUDWRU 6HWV 'LHVHO 7LHU %XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ 7UDFWRUV/RDGHUV%DFNK RHV
'LHVHO 7LHU )LQDO
%XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ :HOGHUV 'LHVHO 7LHU )LQDO 942
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW

$VSKDOW 3DYLQJ 3DYHUV 'LHVHO 7LHU )LQDO $VSKDOW 3DYLQJ 3DYLQJ (TXLSPHQW 'LHVHO 7LHU )LQDO $VSKDOW 3DYLQJ 5ROOHUV 'LHVHO 7LHU )LQDO $UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJ $LU &RPSUHVVRUV 'LHVHO 7LHU )LQDO 8WLOLW\ 7UHQFKLQJ 7UHQFKHUV 'LHVHO 7LHU )LQDO &RQVWUXFWLRQ 9HKLFOHV 8QPLWLJDWHG
3KDVH 1DPH 7ULS 7\SH 2QH:D\ 7ULSV SHU 'D\ 0LOHV SHU 7ULS 9HKLFOH 0L[6LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ ² ² ² ²6LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ :RUNHU /'$/'7/'76LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ 9HQGRU ++'70+'76LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ +DXOLQJ ++'76LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ 2QVLWH WUXFN ² ² ++'75RXJK *UDGLQJ ² ² ² ²5RXJK *UDGLQJ :RUNHU /'$/'7/'75RXJK *UDGLQJ 9HQGRU ++'70+'75RXJK *UDGLQJ +DXOLQJ ++'75RXJK *UDGLQJ 2QVLWH WUXFN ² ² ++'7)LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ ² ² ² ²)LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ :RUNHU /'$/'7/'7)LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ 9HQGRU ++'70+'7)LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ +DXOLQJ ++'7)LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ 2QVLWH WUXFN ² ² ++'7)LQH *UDGLQJ ² ² ² ²)LQH *UDGLQJ :RUNHU /'$/'7/'7 943
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
)LQH *UDGLQJ 9HQGRU ++'70+'7
)LQH *UDGLQJ +DXOLQJ ++'7)LQH *UDGLQJ 2QVLWH WUXFN ² ² ++'7%XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ ² ² ² ²%XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ :RUNHU /'$/'7/'7%XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ 9HQGRU ++'70+'7%XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ +DXOLQJ ++'7%XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ 2QVLWH WUXFN ² ² ++'7$VSKDOW 3DYLQJ ² ² ² ²$VSKDOW 3DYLQJ :RUNHU /'$/'7/'7$VSKDOW 3DYLQJ 9HQGRU ++'70+'7$VSKDOW 3DYLQJ +DXOLQJ ++'7$VSKDOW 3DYLQJ 2QVLWH WUXFN ² ² ++'7$UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJ ² ² ² ²$UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJ :RUNHU /'$/'7/'7$UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJ 9HQGRU ++'70+'7$UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJ +DXOLQJ ++'7$UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJ 2QVLWH WUXFN ² ² ++'78WLOLW\ 7UHQFKLQJ ² ² ² ²8WLOLW\ 7UHQFKLQJ :RUNHU /'$/'7/'78WLOLW\ 7UHQFKLQJ 9HQGRU ++'70+'78WLOLW\ 7UHQFKLQJ +DXOLQJ ++'78WLOLW\ 7UHQFKLQJ 2QVLWH WUXFN ² ² ++'7 0LWLJDWHG
3KDVH 1DPH 7ULS 7\SH 2QH:D\ 7ULSV SHU 'D\ 0LOHV SHU 7ULS 9HKLFOH 0L[6LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ ² ² ² ² 944
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
6LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ :RUNHU /'$/'7/'7
6LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ 9HQGRU ++'70+'76LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ +DXOLQJ ++'76LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ 2QVLWH WUXFN ² ² ++'75RXJK *UDGLQJ ² ² ² ²5RXJK *UDGLQJ :RUNHU /'$/'7/'75RXJK *UDGLQJ 9HQGRU ++'70+'75RXJK *UDGLQJ +DXOLQJ ++'75RXJK *UDGLQJ 2QVLWH WUXFN ² ² ++'7)LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ ² ² ² ²)LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ :RUNHU /'$/'7/'7)LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ 9HQGRU ++'70+'7)LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ +DXOLQJ ++'7)LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ 2QVLWH WUXFN ² ² ++'7)LQH *UDGLQJ ² ² ² ²)LQH *UDGLQJ :RUNHU /'$/'7/'7)LQH *UDGLQJ 9HQGRU ++'70+'7)LQH *UDGLQJ +DXOLQJ ++'7)LQH *UDGLQJ 2QVLWH WUXFN ² ² ++'7%XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ ² ² ² ²%XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ :RUNHU /'$/'7/'7%XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ 9HQGRU ++'70+'7%XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ +DXOLQJ ++'7%XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ 2QVLWH WUXFN ² ² ++'7$VSKDOW 3DYLQJ ² ² ² ²$VSKDOW 3DYLQJ :RUNHU /'$/'7/'7$VSKDOW 3DYLQJ 9HQGRU ++'70+'7 945
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
$VSKDOW 3DYLQJ +DXOLQJ ++'7
$VSKDOW 3DYLQJ 2QVLWH WUXFN ² ² ++'7$UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJ ² ² ² ²$UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJ :RUNHU /'$/'7/'7$UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJ 9HQGRU ++'70+'7$UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJ +DXOLQJ ++'7$UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJ 2QVLWH WUXFN ² ² ++'78WLOLW\ 7UHQFKLQJ ² ² ² ²8WLOLW\ 7UHQFKLQJ :RUNHU /'$/'7/'78WLOLW\ 7UHQFKLQJ 9HQGRU ++'70+'78WLOLW\ 7UHQFKLQJ +DXOLQJ ++'78WLOLW\ 7UHQFKLQJ 2QVLWH WUXFN ² ² ++'7 9HKLFOHV &RQVWUXFWLRQ 9HKLFOH &RQWURO 6WUDWHJLHV &RQWURO 6WUDWHJLHV $SSOLHG 30 5HGXFWLRQ 30 5HGXFWLRQ:DWHU XQSDYHG URDGV WZLFH GDLO\ /LPLW YHKLFOH VSHHGV RQ XQSDYHG URDGV WR PSK 6ZHHS SDYHG URDGV RQFH SHU PRQWK

$UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJV
3KDVH 1DPH 5HVLGHQWLDO ,QWHULRU $UHD &RDWHG

VT IW

5HVLGHQWLDO ([WHULRU $UHD &RDWHG
VT IW

1RQ5HVLGHQWLDO ,QWHULRU $UHD&RDWHG
VT IW

1RQ5HVLGHQWLDO ([WHULRU $UHD&RDWHG
VT IW

3DUNLQJ $UHD &RDWHG
VT IW

$UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJ

'XVW 0LWLJDWLRQ
946
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
&RQVWUXFWLRQ (DUWKPRYLQJ $FWLYLWLHV
3KDVH 1DPH 0DWHULDO ,PSRUWHG
F\
0DWHULDO ([SRUWHG
F\
$FUHV *UDGHG
DFUHV
0DWHULDO 'HPROLVKHG
VT IW
$FUHV 3DYHG
DFUHV
6LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ ² ² ²)LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ ² ² ²5RXJK *UDGLQJ ² ² ²)LQH *UDGLQJ ² ² ²$VSKDOW 3DYLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ (DUWKPRYLQJ &RQWURO 6WUDWHJLHV
&RQWURO 6WUDWHJLHV $SSOLHG )UHTXHQF\
SHU GD\
30 5HGXFWLRQ 30 5HGXFWLRQ:DWHU ([SRVHG $UHD &RQVWUXFWLRQ 3DYLQJ
/DQG 8VH $UHD 3DYHG
DFUHV
$VSKDOW$SDUWPHQWV /RZ 5LVH ² 3DUNLQJ /RW 2WKHU $VSKDOW 6XUIDFHV &RQVWUXFWLRQ (OHFWULFLW\ &RQVXPSWLRQ DQG (PLVVLRQV )DFWRUVN:K SHU <HDU DQG (PLVVLRQ )DFWRU OE0:K

<HDU N:K SHU <HDU &2 &+ 12 947
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
9HJHWDWLRQ /DQG 8VH &KDQJH 8QPLWLJDWHG 9HJHWDWLRQ /DQG 8VH 7\SH 9HJHWDWLRQ 6RLO 7\SH ,QLWLDO $FUHV )LQDO $FUHV 0LWLJDWHG
9HJHWDWLRQ /DQG 8VH 7\SH 9HJHWDWLRQ 6RLO 7\SH ,QLWLDO $FUHV )LQDO $FUHV %LRPDVV &RYHU 7\SH 8QPLWLJDWHG
%LRPDVV &RYHU 7\SH ,QLWLDO $FUHV )LQDO $FUHV
0LWLJDWHG
%LRPDVV &RYHU 7\SH ,QLWLDO $FUHV )LQDO $FUHV
6HTXHVWUDWLRQ 8QPLWLJDWHG
7UHH 7\SH 1XPEHU (OHFWULFLW\ 6DYHG
N:K\HDU
1DWXUDO *DV 6DYHG
EWX\HDU

0LWLJDWHG
7UHH 7\SH 1XPEHU (OHFWULFLW\ 6DYHG
N:K\HDU
1DWXUDO *DV 6DYHG
EWX\HDU

948
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
8VHU &KDQJHV WR 'HIDXOW 'DWD
6FUHHQ -XVWLILFDWLRQ/DQG 8VH 7KH WRWDO VLWH DFUHDJH IRU 3KDVH LV DFUHV 2WKHU DVSKDOW VXUIDFHV LQFOXGH QRQSDUNLQJ DVSKDOW DQG KDUGVFDSH
&RQVWUXFWLRQ
&RQVWUXFWLRQ 3KDVHV 3KDVH FRQVWUXFWLRQ ZRXOG RFFXU IURP IURP -XQH WR -XQH &RQVWUXFWLRQ 2II5RDG (TXLSPHQW 'HIDXOW FRQVWUXFWLRQ HTXLSPHQW DQG WKH XVH RI 7LHU FRQVWUXFWLRQ HTXLSPHQW IRU DOO SKDVHV H[FHSW 8WLOLW\ 7UHQFKLQJ

XVH RI D WUHQFKHU
DQG )LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ
XVH RI D 7LHU H[FDYDWRU

&RQVWUXFWLRQ
7ULSV DQG 907 7KH QXPEHU RI FRQVWUXFWLRQ ZRUNHU DQG YHQGRU WULSV ZHUH SURYLGHG E\ WKH 3URMHFW $SSOLFDQW 949
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
7DEOH RI &RQWHQWV %DVLF 3URMHFW ,QIRUPDWLRQ
%DVLF 3URMHFW ,QIRUPDWLRQ /DQG 8VH 7\SHV 8VHU6HOHFWHG (PLVVLRQ 5HGXFWLRQ 0HDVXUHV E\ (PLVVLRQV 6HFWRU (PLVVLRQV 6XPPDU\
&RQVWUXFWLRQ (PLVVLRQV &RPSDUHG $JDLQVW 7KUHVKROGV &RQVWUXFWLRQ (PLVVLRQV E\ <HDU 8QPLWLJDWHG &RQVWUXFWLRQ (PLVVLRQV E\ <HDU 0LWLJDWHG &RQVWUXFWLRQ (PLVVLRQV 'HWDLOV
6LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ

8QPLWLJDWHG 6LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ

0LWLJDWHG )LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ

8QPLWLJDWHG )LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ

0LWLJDWHG 5RXJK *UDGLQJ

8QPLWLJDWHG
950
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
5RXJK *UDGLQJ

0LWLJDWHG )LQH *UDGLQJ

8QPLWLJDWHG )LQH *UDGLQJ

0LWLJDWHG
%XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ

8QPLWLJDWHG %XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ

0LWLJDWHG %XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ

8QPLWLJDWHG %XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ

0LWLJDWHG %XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ

8QPLWLJDWHG %XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ

0LWLJDWHG 3DYLQJ

8QPLWLJDWHG 3DYLQJ

0LWLJDWHG $UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJ

8QPLWLJDWHG $UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJ

0LWLJDWHG
8WLOLW\ 7UHQFKLQJ

8QPLWLJDWHG 8WLOLW\ 7UHQFKLQJ

0LWLJDWHG
2SHUDWLRQV (PLVVLRQV 'HWDLOV
6RLO &DUERQ $FFXPXODWLRQ %\ 9HJHWDWLRQ 7\SH
951
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
6RLO &DUERQ $FFXPXODWLRQ %\ 9HJHWDWLRQ 7\SH 8QPLWLJDWHG $ERYH DQG %HORZJURXQG &DUERQ $FFXPXODWLRQ E\ /DQG 8VH 7\SH 8QPLWLJDWHG $YRLGHG DQG 6HTXHVWHUHG (PLVVLRQV E\ 6SHFLHV 8QPLWLJDWHG 6RLO &DUERQ $FFXPXODWLRQ %\ 9HJHWDWLRQ 7\SH 0LWLJDWHG $ERYH DQG %HORZJURXQG &DUERQ $FFXPXODWLRQ E\ /DQG 8VH 7\SH 0LWLJDWHG $YRLGHG DQG 6HTXHVWHUHG (PLVVLRQV E\ 6SHFLHV 0LWLJDWHG $FWLYLW\ 'DWD
&RQVWUXFWLRQ 6FKHGXOH 2II5RDG (TXLSPHQW
8QPLWLJDWHG 0LWLJDWHG
&RQVWUXFWLRQ 9HKLFOHV
8QPLWLJDWHG 0LWLJDWHG
9HKLFOHV
&RQVWUXFWLRQ 9HKLFOH &RQWURO 6WUDWHJLHV
$UFKLWHFWXUDO &RDWLQJV
952
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
'XVW 0LWLJDWLRQ
&RQVWUXFWLRQ (DUWKPRYLQJ $FWLYLWLHV &RQVWUXFWLRQ (DUWKPRYLQJ &RQWURO 6WUDWHJLHV &RQVWUXFWLRQ 3DYLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ (OHFWULFLW\ &RQVXPSWLRQ DQG (PLVVLRQV )DFWRUV 9HJHWDWLRQ /DQG 8VH &KDQJH
8QPLWLJDWHG 0LWLJDWHG
%LRPDVV &RYHU 7\SH
8QPLWLJDWHG 0LWLJDWHG
6HTXHVWUDWLRQ
8QPLWLJDWHG 0LWLJDWHG
8VHU &KDQJHV WR 'HIDXOW 'DWD
953
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
%DVLF 3URMHFW ,QIRUPDWLRQ %DVLF 3URMHFW ,QIRUPDWLRQ 'DWD )LHOG 9DOXH3URMHFW 1DPH 'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ&RQVWUXFWLRQ 6WDUW 'DWH /HDG $JHQF\ ²/DQG 8VH 6FDOH 3URMHFWVLWH$QDO\VLV /HYHO IRU 'HIDXOWV &RXQW\:LQGVSHHG PV
3UHFLSLWDWLRQ
GD\V
/RFDWLRQ

&RXQW\ $ODPHGD&LW\ 'XEOLQ$LU 'LVWULFW %D\ $UHD $40'$LU %DVLQ 6DQ )UDQFLVFR %D\ $UHD7$= (')= (OHFWULF 8WLOLW\ 3DFLILF *DV (OHFWULF &RPSDQ\*DV 8WLOLW\ 3DFLILF *DV (OHFWULF$SS 9HUVLRQ /DQG 8VH 7\SHV
/DQG 8VH 6XEW\SH 6L]H 8QLW /RW $FUHDJH %XLOGLQJ $UHD
VT IW
/DQGVFDSH $UHD
VT
IW

6SHFLDO /DQGVFDSH$UHD
VT IW

3RSXODWLRQ 'HVFULSWLRQ
$SDUWPHQWV /RZ5LVH
'ZHOOLQJ 8QLW ² ²
954
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
3DUNLQJ /RW VTIW ² ² ²
2WKHU $VSKDOW6XUIDFHV

VTIW ² ² ²
8VHU6HOHFWHG (PLVVLRQ 5HGXFWLRQ 0HDVXUHV E\ (PLVVLRQV 6HFWRU 6HFWRU 0HDVXUH 7LWOH&RQVWUXFWLRQ & 8VH $GYDQFHG (QJLQH 7LHUV (PLVVLRQV 6XPPDU\ &RQVWUXFWLRQ (PLVVLRQV &RPSDUHG $JDLQVW 7KUHVKROGV&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

8Q0LW 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
8QPLW

² 0LW ² 5HGXFHG

² ²
²
² ² ² ² ² ² ²
'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
8QPLW
²

0LW

²

5HGXFHG

² ²
²
² ² ² ² ² ² ²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
955
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
8QPLW

²

0LW

²

5HGXFHG
² ²
²
² ² ² ² ² ² ²
$QQXDO
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
8QPLW

²
0LW

²
5HGXFHG
² ²
²
² ² ² ² ² ² ²
&RQVWUXFWLRQ (PLVVLRQV E\ <HDU 8QPLWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

<HDU 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H'DLO\ 6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²

²

² ²
'DLO\ :LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²

²

²

² $YHUDJH'DLO\ ²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²

²

²

956
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW

²
$QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²

²

² &RQVWUXFWLRQ (PLVVLRQV E\ <HDU 0LWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

<HDU 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H'DLO\ 6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²

² ² ²
'DLO\ :LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²

²

² ² $YHUDJH'DLO\ ²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²

²
²

² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²

²

957
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW

² &RQVWUXFWLRQ (PLVVLRQV 'HWDLOV 6LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ

8QPLWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

² ² ²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ²

² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
958
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
² ² ² 2II5RDG (TXLSPHQW
'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU
² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 6LWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ

0LWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H 959
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

² ² ²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ²

² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
960
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
:RUNHU
² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² )LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ

8QPLWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ² 'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 961
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

² ² ²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ² 'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ²

962
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² )LQLVKLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJ

0LWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ² 'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

² ² ²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
963
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
² 2QVLWH WUXFN
$QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ² 'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ²
9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 5RXJK *UDGLQJ

8QPLWLJDWHG
964
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
²
²
²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²
965
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU
² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ²
9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 5RXJK *UDGLQJ

0LWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

² ² ²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
966
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 2IIVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²²²²²²²'DLO\6XPPHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU
² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
967
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW

:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ²
9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² )LQH *UDGLQJ

8QPLWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
²
²
²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
²
²
²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 968
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
$YHUDJH'DLO\
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ²

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU
² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $YHUDJH'DLO\ ²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 969
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² )LQH *UDGLQJ

0LWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

² ² ²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 'DLO\:LQWHU
0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW

² ² ²

'XVW )URP0DWHULDO0RYHPHQW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
2QVLWHWUXFN
² 970
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² $YHUDJH
'DLO\
2II5RDG(TXLSPHQW
² ² ²

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU
² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² 'DLO\:LQWHU 0D[

²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $YHUDJH'DLO\ ²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
:RUNHU ² 971
'XEOLQ )DOORQ 3KDVH &RQVWUXFWLRQ &XVWRP 5HSRUW
9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ² $QQXDO ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²:RUNHU ² 9HQGRU ² +DXOLQJ ²
%XLOGLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ

8QPLWLJDWHG&ULWHULD 3ROOXWDQWV
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ WRQ\U IRU DQQXDO
DQG *+*V
OEGD\ IRU GDLO\ 07\U IRU DQQXDO

/RFDWLRQ 52* 12[ &2 62 30( 30' 307 30( 30' 307 %&2 1%&2 &27 &+ 12 &2H2QVLWH ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²'DLO\6XPPHU 0D[

Dublin City CouncilJuly 16, 2024

Dublin City Council
July 16, 2024