The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7.1 - 1842 Ashton at Dublin Station Transit Center Si Page 1 of 5 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL DATE: February 20, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager SUBJECT: Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3) Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit, and Tentative Map 8437 (PLPA 2017-00036) Prepared by: Martha Battaglia, Associate Planner and John Bakker, City Attorney EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will consider a request by the Applicant, Ashton at Dublin Station, to construct a residential project comprised of 220 apartment units, and related amenities including a fitness center, pool, roof top lounge, and 331 structured parking spaces on a 2.36-acre site located within the Dublin Transit Center. Th e proposed mix of residential units includes 22 studio units, 98 one-bedroom units, 96 two-bedroom units and 4 three- bedroom units. The site has a land use designation of High Density Residential (25.1 or greater units per acre). The application includes a Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit, and Tentative Map for condominium purposes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive the reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance Approving a Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan for the Transit Center Site A-3, and adopt the Resolution Approving a Site Development Review Permit and Tentative Map 8437 for the Transit Center Site A-3 Project. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact to the City. All costs associated with this request are borne by the Applicant. DESCRIPTION: The proposed Ashton at Dublin Station project is located at the northwest corner of DeMarcus Boulevard and Campbell Lane within the Transit Center as shown in Figure 1 below. The site has a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation of High Density Residential (25+ units per acre) and Planned Development Page 2 of 5 Zoning with a Stage 1 Development Plan that permits a high density residential development. The subject site is surrounded by residential development on three sides, as shown in Table 1 below. Figure 1. Vicinity Map Table 1. Surrounding Land Uses LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE Building Height North PD High-Density Residential Camellia Place (112 units) 55’3”; 4 stories (3 stories over 1 level parking) South PD Public/Semi- Public PG&E Substation N/A East PD High-Density Residential Elan (257 multi- family townhomes & condominiums) 85’ to peak of elevator tower, 79’ to main roofline; 7 stories above grade (5 stories + mezzanine over 2 levels of parking (1 level is subterranean)) West PD Medium-High Density Residential Tribeca (52 townhomes) 37’; 3 stories *Note: Correction to building heights originally listed in Pla nning Commission Staff Report dated 11/14/17. The Applicant is requesting approval of a Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit and Condominium Map to construct a 220-unit apartment community and related amenities which include a fitness center, pool, roof top lounge, and 331 structured parking spaces. The proposed project includes 3, 4 and 5 story elements that are over 2 levels of parking, and vary in height from 61 feet to 83 feet at the peak of the tallest roof element. The project plans are included as Attachment 1 to this Staff Report. Please refer to the Planning Commission Page 3 of 5 Staff Report dated November 14, 2017 for a complete discussion of the project (Attachment 2). The Planning Commission unanimously reco mmended approval of the project (Attachments 3 & 4). On December 5, 2017, the City Council held a Public Hearing to consider the proposed project (Attachment 5). The City Council directed Staff to prepare a resolution of denial for consideration at a future meeting. Subsequently, the Applicant requested to postpone further consideration of the project until February 6, 2018, in order to give them time to prepare refined design documents and supplemental information to address the concerns expressed by the City Council. On January 9, 2018, the City Council directed Staff to schedule a Study Session to discuss the project. On February 6, 2018, the City Council held a Study Session to further review and discuss the proposed project. The Applicant presented their refined project proposal. The refinements included enhanced drawings to better highlight the project details, enhanced color renderings, and a modified unit mix that reduced the number of 3 bedroom units. The currently proposed mix of units is shown in Table 2 below. Table 2. Unit Mix Unit Type Square Footage # of Units % of Project Jr. 1 Bedroom 640 SF 22 10.0% 1 Bedroom 800 SF 94 42.7% 1+ Bedroom 975 SF 4 1.8% 2 Bedroom 1,120 SF 81 36.8% 2 Bedroom + den 1,240 SF 15 6.8% 3 Bedroom 1,280 SF 4 1.8% Total 220 100% Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Ordinance approving the Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan (Attachment 6) and the Reso lution approving the Site Development Review Permit and Condominium Map (Attachment 7) for the Transit Center Site A-3 project. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Staff, pursuant to the direction given at the December 5 , 2017 City Council meeting, has prepared a resolution denying the application (Attachment 8) for the City Council’s consideration. The basis for the p roposed denial would be several-fold. First, the proposed resolution denies the approval of the Stage 2 Development Plan. The focus of the proposed disapproval of the Stage 2 Development Plan is on the proposed density of the Project. The Stage 1 Development Plan adopted for the entire Transit Center established a net density of the Site A of approximately 64 units per acre , and the net density was later reduced to 52 units per acre. The proposed project would result in a site with a net density of 93 units per acre. Although the Stage 1 Development Plan established density based on Site A as a whole, the City Council could find that the density of the proposed project is inconsistent with the Stage 1 Development Plan, given the Project site would exceed the net density allowed over the entire site by nearly 45% (and by nearly 79% over the revised Stage 1 Development Plan). The disapproval of the Sta ge 2 Development Plan also focuses on the height, Page 4 of 5 massing, and design of the Project and the Project’s incompatibility with existing and future development in the surrounding area. Second, the proposed denial would disapprove the proposed Site Development Review approval and Tentative Map on the grounds that (a) such permits cannot be approved in the absence of a Stage 2 Development Plan and (b) the proposed Project’s design, mass, height, and scale are incompatible with its surroundings. The Applicant and a housing advocacy organization (the California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund (CaRLA)) have asserted that a disapproval of the Project would be unlawful and lead to litigation. In particular, the Applicant asserts that the disapproval would be a breach of the Master Development Agreement Between the City of Dublin and the Surplus Property Authority of Alameda County for the Dublin Transit Center Project, dated May 6, 2003 as amended on October 4, 2005 (“the Development Agreement”), and the Applicant and CaRLA assert that the disapproval would violate the provisions of the Housing Accountability Act. The Development Agreement gives the Developer a “vested right to develop” the Site A-3 property “in accordance with” the existing entitlements. The vested existing entitlements include the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Stage 1 Development Plan, all of which provide for high-density, transit-oriented development on the site. The Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5(j)) prohibits the City from disapproving a housing project that “complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards” unless it finds that the project would have “specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety” that cannot be mitigated. The Applicant has asserted that both the Development Agreement and the Housing Accountability Act compels approval of the project by the City. In litigation challenging a disapproval, the City would, among other things, assert that the proposed denial violates neither the Development Agreement nor the Housing Accountability Act because of the disapproval of the Stage 2 Development Plan, a discretionary legislative zoning approval. The Stage 2 Development Plan, the Site Development Review, and the Tentative Map approvals sought by the Applicant are not vested. Therefore, the City’s decision to disapprove these proposed entitlements because of their inconsistency with one of th e existing entitlements (the Stage 1 Development Plan) is not a breach of the Development Agreement. Similarly, the City would assert that the Housing Accountability Act is inapplicable unless and until the City has adopted the Stage 2 Development Plan; i n the absence of such an approval, a project within the Transit Center cannot be determined to comply with the City’s “applicable, objective . . . zoning . . . standards and criteria.” It is not certain that the City’s defenses would be successful. But, litigation challenging a disapproval appears much more certain, and it would be costly and time consuming for City staff. Although the Development Agreement does not allow monetary damages against the City for breach, the Applicant may be able to seek a court order compelling the City to approve the project. If a lawsuit is brought under the Housing Accountability Act and the petitioner prevails, the City could be liable for civil penalties. In addition, in both cases, the City could potentially be liable to pay the other side’s attorneys’ fees and costs. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Page 5 of 5 Staff recommends that the project be found statutorily exempt from the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) under Government Code section 65457. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of High - Density Residential and is consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan . An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified for the Dublin Transit Center Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning (SCH # 20001120395, City Council Resolution No. 215-02 adopted on November 19, 2002, incorporated herein by reference). The CEQA document in Support of a Specific Plan Exemption finds that no event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code has occurred since the certification of the Dublin Transit Specific Plan EIR that requires preparation of a supplemental CEQA document. Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identify the conditions requiring subsequent envi ronmental review. After a review of these conditions, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required for this project. The CEQA Analysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemption is included as Attachment 9. The 2002 Dublin Transit Center EIR, upon which the exemption relies, is available for review at the Planning Division in City Hall during normal business hours. PUBLIC NOTICING: Although not required, a public meeting notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project and posted at several locations throughout the City. A copy of this Staff Report was provided to the Applicant and was made available on the City’s webpage. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project Plans 2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 14, 2017 without attachments 3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated November 14, 2017 4. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 17-12, 17-13 & 17-14 5. City Council Meeting December 5, 2017 Minutes 6. Ordinance Approving a Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan 7. Resolution Approving a Site Development Review Permit and Tentative Map 8437 8. Resoluton Disapproving the Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review and Tentative Map 9. Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis c BA R C O P Y R I G H T ar c h i t e c t s 2/9/2018 12:29:56 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt A 0 0 - C O V E R S H E E T DU B L I N S T A T I O N EN T I T L E M E N T S R E S U B M I T T A L SI T E D E V E L O P M E N T R E V I E W ( S D R ) PL A N N E D D E V E L O P M E N T Z O N I N G D I S T RI C T S T A G E 2 D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N FE B R U A R Y 9 T H , 2 0 1 8 TE L : CO N T A C T : EM A I L : AR C H I T E C T : 90 1 B A T T E R Y S T R E E T , S U I T E 3 0 0 SA N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 1 0 5 (4 1 5 ) 2 9 3 - 5 7 0 0 DA V I D I S R A E L di s r a e l @ b a r a r c h . c o m BA R A R C H I T E C T S TE L : CO N T A C T : EM A I L : CI V I L E N G I N E E R 46 7 0 W I L L O W R O A D , S U I T E 2 5 0 PL E A S A N T O N , C A 9 4 5 8 8 (9 2 5 ) 3 9 6 - 7 7 5 1 ER I C G I R O D eg i r o d @ b k f . c o m BK F TE L : CO N T A C T : EM A I L : LA N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T : 23 2 5 3 R D S T R E E T SA N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 1 0 7 (4 1 5 ) 4 3 1 - 7 8 7 8 DA V I D F L E T C H E R df l e t c h e r @ f l e t c h e r s t u d i o . c o m FL E T C H E R S T U D I O AS H T O N A T D U B L I N S T A T I O N , L L C BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 12:29:57 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt PROJECT DATA / SHEET LIST16036 A 01DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARDSHEET LIST VI C I N I T Y M A P DU B L I N B L V D IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL DE MARCUS BLVD CAMPBELL LN. SI T E CA M P P A R K S M I L I T A R Y B A S E CA M P B E L L G R E E N CA M P B E L L L N . HAMLET LN. IRON HORSE PKWY I R O N H O R S E P K W Y DU B L I N / P L E A S A N T O N B A R T S T A T I O N AR T H U R H . B R E E D , J R . F W Y PR O J E C T D A T A FRENTITLEMENTS05/24/17 ENT RESUB 08/28/17 ENT RESUB 2 02/09/18 C6.1EROSION CONTROL NOTES AND DETAILSXXC6.0EROSION CONTROL PLANXXC5.1STORMWATER CONTROL DETAILSXC5.0STORMWATER CONTROL PLANXXC4.0UTILITY PLANXXC3.0GRADING PLANXXC2.0CIVIL SITE PLANXXC1.0EXISTING CONDITIONS PLANXXC0.0TITLE SHEETXXCIVIL L6.00CONCEPTUAL LIGHTING PLANXXL5.00CAMPBELL LANE WEST STREETSCAPE PLANXXL4.00CAMPBELL LANE SOUTH STREETSCAPE PLANXXL3.00DEMARCUS BLVD STREETSCAPE PLANXXL2.00SHARED PRIVATE DRIVE STREETSCAPE PLANXXL1.00ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLANXXLANDSCAPE P 01BUILDING MATERIALSXA 25APPENDIXXA 24GREENPOINT CHECKLISTXXA 23GREENPOINT CHECKLISTXXA 22GREENPOINT CHECKLISTXXA 21ENLARGED TYPICAL UNIT PLANSXXA 20BUILDING SECTIONS - EAST/WESTXXA 19BUILDING SECTIONS - NORTH/SOUTHXXA 18ELEVATIONS - NORTH & EASTXXA 17ELEVATIONS - SOUTH & WESTXXA 16FLOOR PLAN - ROOFXXA 15FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 7XXXA 14FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 6XXXA 13FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 5XXXA 12FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4XXXA 11FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3XXXA 10FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2XXXA 09FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL1XXXA 08PERSPECTIVE VIEWXXA 07PERSPECTIVE VIEWXXA 06PERSPECTIVE VIEWXXA 05PERSPECTIVE VIEWXXA 04.3PERSPECTIVE VIEWXA 04.2PERSPECTIVE VIEWXA 04.1PERSPECTIVE VIEWXA 04SITE PLANXXA 03SITE AERIAL DIAGRAMXXA 02EXISTING CONDITIONSXXARCHITECTURAL Ro o f T e r r a c e 9 2 8 Po d i u m L a n d s c a p e : 2 4 , 9 2 0 Le v e l 1 L a n d s c a p e 1 9 , 0 3 0 Si t e A r e a : 10 2 , 6 7 0 Ef f i c i e n c y ( R e s R e n t a b l e G S F / R e s T o t a l G S F ) 75 % To t a l 21 0 , 0 3 3 2 , 5 0 1 5 8 , 3 4 7 27 8 , 4 1 7 00 0 12 6 , 6 5 7 40 5 , 0 7 4 0 1 6, 7 4 0 2 , 5 0 1 2 , 8 5 9 8 4 4 2 8 0 7 , 5 0 1 20 , 7 2 5 00 0 62 , 8 9 6 83 , 6 2 1 2 9, 6 9 8 0 2 8 3 8 , 3 0 0 18 , 2 8 1 00 0 63 , 7 6 1 82 , 0 4 2 3 46 , 1 5 3 0 4 6 4 1 , 8 7 8 1 0 , 0 1 2 58 , 5 0 7 00 0 0 58 , 5 0 7 4 48 , 3 6 1 0 1 0 , 2 5 2 58 , 6 1 3 00 0 0 58 , 6 1 3 5 49 , 0 8 5 0 1 0 , 6 9 6 59 , 7 8 1 00 0 0 59 , 7 8 1 6 28 , 3 5 2 0 9 2 8 6 , 5 5 4 35 , 8 3 4 00 0 0 35 , 8 3 4 7 21 , 6 4 4 0 5 , 0 3 2 26 , 6 7 6 00 0 0 26 , 6 7 6 Le v e l " R e n t a b l e " S F L o b b y Fi t n e s s P o o l L e a s i n g L o u n g e C o n f C l u b R m Co r e G r o s s " R e n t a b l e " C o r e G r o s s G r o s s G S F To t a l R e s . R e s . A m e n i t y R e s . R e s . R e t a i l R e t a i l R e t a i l G a r a g e T O T A L PR E L I M I N A R Y A R E A T A B U L A T I O N S wt 45 . 4 5 % % T w o B e d r o o m s o r L a r g e r % 1 0 . 0 % 4 2 . 7 % 1 . 8 % 3 6 . 8 % 6 . 8 % 1 . 8 % 1 0 0 . 0 % TO T A L 22 9 4 4 8 1 1 5 4 22 0 1 2 7 - - - - 9 2 28 - 2 - - 12 3 42 0 2 1 8 4 - 48 4 32 0 1 2 0 5 - 49 5 42 1 1 2 0 5 - 51 6 41 2 - 13 - 13 0 7 36 - 81 3 2 1 64 0 t y p . S F 8 0 0 t y p . S F 9 7 5 t y p . S F 11 2 0 t y p . S F 1 2 4 0 t y p . S F 1 2 8 0 t y p . S F LE V E L 1 B E D J R 1 x 1 B E D 1 + B E D 2 x 2 B E D 2 x 2 + B E D 3 x 2 B E D T O T A L CO U N T PR E L I M I N A R Y U N I T M I X G 04EGRESS DIAGRAMSXG 03EGRESS DIAGRAMSXA 01.1CODE ANALYSISXA 01PROJECT DATA / SHEET INDEXXXXA 00COVER SHEETXXXGENERAL SCARLETT DR. BU I L D I N G T A B U L A T I O N TY P E I I I A O V E R T Y P E 1 A 4 & 5 S T O R I E S O V E R P A R K I N G TY P E l l l A O V E R T Y P E 1 A ST O R Y / H E I G H T P R O P O S E D 3 S T O R I E S O V E R P A R K I N G ST O R Y / H E I G H T A L L O W E D 5 S T O R I E S O V E R P A R K I N G R- 2 R E S I D E N T I A L U N I T S A- 3 R E S I D E N T I A L A M E N I T I E S OC C U P A N C Y G R O U P S S - 2 P A R K I N G G A R A G E SP R I N K L E R S F U L L Y S P R I N K L E R E D ( N F P A 1 3 S Y S T E M ) CO N S T R U C T I O N T Y P E S I A , 1 1 1 A SE T B A C K R E Q U I R E M E N T S 20 ’ S T O R M W A T E R E A S E M E N T S E T B A C K A T D E MA R C U S B L V D . MA X I M U M H E I G H T 5 S T O R I E S O V E R P A R K I N G DE N S I T Y A B O V E 2 5 . 1 D U / A C SI T E A R E A 1 0 2 , 6 7 0 PR O J E C T U S E RE S I D E N T I A L , R E S I D E N T I A L S U P P O R T A N D PR I V A T E A M E N I T Y , P A R K I N G LA N D U S E H I G H D E N S I T Y R E S I D E N T I A L SP E C I F I C P L A N TR A N S I T C E N T E R D E S I G N A T E D A S P L A N N I N G SU B - A R E A W I T H I N E A S T E R N D U B L I N S P E C I F I C PL A N ZO N I N G D I S T R I C T DU B L I N T R A N S I T C E N T E R - G E N E R A L P L A N / SP E C I F I C P L A N A M E N D M E N T S S T A G E 1 P L A N N E D DE V E L O P M E N T R E Z O N I N G 2 0 0 2 AS S E S S O R S P A R C E L N U M B E R 9 8 6 - 0 0 3 4 - 0 0 9 - 0 0 PR O J E C T A D D R E S S CO R N E R O F D E M A R C U S B L V D . A N D C A M P B E L L LA N E , D U B L I N , C A PR O J E C T N A M E D U B L I N S T A T I O N LA N D S C A P E A R E A S 4 5 , 0 5 9 BI C Y C L E P A R K I N G 1 5 0 PA R K I N G S C H E D U L E 3 3 0 TO T A L U N I T S 2 2 0 LO T C O V E R A G E + / - 8 0 % PR O J E C T D E N S I T Y 9 3 D U / A C R E 13 0 C l a s s 1 b i k e p a r k i n g s t al l s - ( 1 C l a s s I s p a c e s : 1 D U + 1 C l a s s I s p a c e : e v e r y 4 D U o v e r 1 0 0 ) Re q u i r e d ( T i t l e 2 4 ) : 1 3 0 11 , 6 6 5 13 0 LE V E L A R E A T O T A L CO U N T BI C Y C L E P A R K I N G ( W A L L M O U N T E D ) - 3 % o f a l l p r o v i d e d p a r k i n g ( 3 3 0 st a l l s ) = 1 1 E V c h a r g i n g s t a t i o n s th e f o l l o w i n g ( p e r C A G r e e n Bu i l d i n g C o d e S e c t i o n 4 . 1 0 6 ) : El e c t r i c a l V e h i c l e P a r k i n g - p r o v i d e i n f r a s t r u ct u r e f o r f u t u r e E V c h a r g i n g s t a t i o n s f o r EV P A R K I N G To t a l r e q u i r e d H C A c c e s i b l e pa r k i n g : 9 a c c e s s i b l e s t a l l s 2% o f r e s i d e n t i a l p a r k i n g ( 2 8 0 st a l l s ) ; 6 a c c e s s i b l e s t a l l s 5% o f g u e s t p a r k i n g ( 5 0 s t al l s ) : 3 a c c e s s i b l e s t a l l s ii i : A c c e s s i b l e r e q u i r e m e n t s : ii : 3 3 0 s t a l l c o u n t i n c l u d e s a c c e s s i b l e p a r k i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d 1 5 % g u e s t p a r k i n g ( 5 0 s t a l l s ) i: 1 . 5 s p a c e s p e r D U = 1 . 5 x 2 2 0 = 3 3 0 TA R G E T P A R K I N G M I X SP A C E S P E R 1 0 0 0 s q f t o f B U I L D I N G 0 . 8 3 SP A C E S P E R U N I T 1 . 5 0 % 6 . 4 % 3 2 . 1 % 4 9 . 7 % 3 . 3 % 2 . 7 % 1 0 0 . 0 % To t a l R e q u i r e d H C A c c e s s i b l e P a r k i n g 9 TO T A L 21 1 0 6 1 6 4 1 1 9 33 0 Un a s s i g n e d A c c e s s i b l e P a r k i n g 5% 3 Un a s s i g n e d / G u e s t P a r k i n g 15 % 5 0 111 5 5 7 1 1 5 6 15 8 As s i g n e d A c c e s i b l e P a r k i n g 2% 6 210 5 1 9 3 1 5 3 17 2 As s i g n e d P a r k i n g 2 8 0 8' x 1 7 ' 9 ' x 1 7 ' 9 ' x 1 8 ' 9 ' X 1 8 ' LE V E L C O M P A C T S T A N D A R D E V A D A T O T A L CO U N T PE R C E N T T O T A L H C ST A L L S PA R K I N G S C H E D U L E A C C E S S I B L E P A R K I N G C A L C U L A T I O N S 05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL 02.09.18ENT RESUMITTAL 2 BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 12:30:01 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt CODE ANALYSIS16036 A 01.1MSCheckerDUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD BU I L D I N G A N A L Y S I S 1.BUILDING DESCRIPTION THE PROJECT IS COMPOSED OF (1) INDEPENDENT BUILDING ON ONE PARCEL. THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG DUBLIN BLVD BETWEEN DEMARCUS BLVD AND CAMPBELL LANE • COMPOSED OF 2 ABOVE GRADE LEVELS IN TYPE IA CONSTRUCTION, COMPOSED OF A COMBINATION OF S-2 PARKING GARAGE, AMENITIES AND R-2 ACCESSORY SPACES • ABOVE THE PODIUM a. TYPE VA AT LEVELS 3-5 ON THE WEST / SOUTH BUILDING b. TYPE IIIA AT LEVELS 3-7 ON THE EAST AND CENTER TOWERS • BUILDING OCCUPANCIES ARE GROUP R-2, GROUP S-2, GROUP A-3 2.OCCUPANCY AND CONSTRUCTION TYPE (CHAPTER 3)LEVEL 1 & LEVEL 2 – CONSTRUCTION TYPE 1A • PARKING GARAGE (2 STORY)OCCUPANCY: S-2 • RESIDENTIAL AMENITY AND ACCESSORY SPACES OCCUPANCY: R-2, A-3 ACCESSORY LEVEL 3-7 – CONSTRUCTION TYPE IIIA AND VA • RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY: A-3, R-2 3.HORIZONTAL BUILDING SEPARATION ALLOWANCE / SPECIAL PROVISIONS (SECTION 510.2)THE TWO STORIES ABOVE GRADE PLANE (TYPE IA CONSTRUCTION) SHALL BE CONSIDERED A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT BUILDING FROM THE STORIES ABOVE (TYPE IIIA AND VA) FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES:• DETERMINING AREA LIMITATIONS • CONTINUITY OF FIRE WALLS • LIMITATION OF NUMBER OF STORIES • TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION 4.AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM (SECTION 903)PROJECT TO BE FULLY SPRINKLERED, NFPA 13 SYSTEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903 6.MIXED USE AND OCCUPANCY • ACCESSORY OCCUPANCIES SHALL BE INDIVIDUALLY CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 302.1. THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CODE SHALL APPLY TO EACH PORTION OF THE BUILDING BASED ON THE OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION OF THAT SPACE. (SECTION 508.2)• ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE BUILDING CONTAINING THE ACCESSORY OCCUPANCIES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 504 FOR THE MAIN OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING.• THE ALLOWABLE AREA OF THE BUILDING SHALL BE BASED ON THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 506 FOR THE MAIN OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING. AGGREGATE ACCESSORY OCCUPANCIES SHALL NOT OCCUPY MORE THAN 10 PERCENT OF THE FLOOR AREA IF THE STORY IN WHICH THEY ARE LOCATED.7.ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA CALCULATION TYPE lllA CONSTRUCTION: LEVELS 3-7 ON THE EAST AND CENTER TOWERS BUILDING COMPARTMENT 1:FRONTAGE INCREASE CALCULATION:W = (L1 × w1 + L2 × w2 + L3 × w3…)/F W= (128’ x 30’ + 69’-4” x 30)/ 197’-4”W= 30 AMOUNT OF INCREASE:If = [F/P - 0.25]W/30 If = [197’-4”/525’ - 0.25] 30/30 If = 0.13 ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA SINGLE-OCCUPANCY, MULTISTORY BUILDING Aa = [At + (NS × If)] × Sa Aa = [24,000 + (24,000 × 0.13)] × 2 Aa = 54,240 SF = MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA BUILDING COMPARTMENT 2:FRONTAGE INCREASE CALCULATION:W = (L1 × w1 + L2 × w2 + L3 × w3…)/F W = (149’ x 22’ + 75’ x 30’)/224' = 10.218 W= 30 AMOUNT OF INCREASE:If = [F/P - 0.25]W/30 If = [224’/541’’ - 0.25] 30/30 If = 0.16 ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA SINGLE-OCCUPANCY, MULTISTORY BUILDING Aa = [At + (NS × If)] × Sa Aa = [24,000 + (24,000 × 0.16)] × 2 Aa = 55,680 SF = MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA 12 . E X I T I N G P R O V I S I O N S OC C U P A N T L O A D S A B O V E W H I C H RE Q U I R E T W O M E A N S O F E G R E S S A S P E R T A B L E 1 0 0 6 . 2 . 1 OC C U P A N C Y LO A D A- 3 4 9 O C C U P A N T S R- 2 1 0 O C C U P A N T S S- 2 2 9 O C C U P A N T S SE P A R A T I O N D I S T A N C E B E T W E E N S T A I R W A Y S M U S T B E N O L E S S T H A N 1 / 3 RD T H E L E N G T H O F M A X I M U M D I A G O N A L O F T H E AR E A S E R V E D P E R 1 0 0 7 . 1 . 2 E X C E P T I O N 2 , P R O V I D E D T H E B U I L DI N G I S E Q U I P P E D W I T H N F P A 1 3 O R N F P A 1 3 R S P R I N K L E R S CO M M O N P A T H O F E G R E S S T R A V E L ( S E C T I O N 1 0 0 6 . 2 . 1 ) OC C U P A N C Y LE N G T H A- 3 7 5 ’ W I T H N F P A 1 3 S P R I N K L E R S Y S T E M P E R T A B L E 1 0 0 6 . 2 . 1 F O O T N O T E A R- 2 1 2 5 ’ W I T H N F P A 1 3 S P R I N K L E R S YS T E M P E R T A B L E 1 0 0 6 . 2 . 1 F O O T N O T E A S- 2 1 0 0 ’ W I T H N F P A 1 3 S P R I N K L E R S YS T E M P E R T A B L E 1 0 0 6 . 2 . 1 F O O T N O T E A EX I T A C C E S S T R A V E L D I S T A N C E ( S E C T I O N 1 0 1 7 ) OC C U P A N C Y LE N G T H A- 3 2 5 0 ’ W I T H N F P A 1 3 S P R I N K L E R S YS T E M P E R T A B L E 1 0 1 7 . 2 F O O T N O T E B R- 2 2 5 0 ’ W I T H N F P A 1 3 S P R I N K L E R S YS T E M P E R T A B L E 1 0 1 7 . 2 F O O T N O T E B S- 2 4 0 0 ’ W I T H N F P A 1 3 S P R I N K L E R S YS T E M P E R T A B L E 1 0 1 7 . 2 F O O T N O T E C AC C E S S I B L E M E A N S O F E G R E S S AN A C C E S S I B L E M E A N S O F E G R E S S S H A L L BE P R O V I D E D I N A T L E A S T T H E S A M E N U MB E R A S T H O S E S P E C I F I E D I N C H A P T E R 10 0 7 . 1 . 1 A N D 1 0 0 6 . 1 – S E E A B O V E F O R R E Q U I R E D N U M B E R O F E X I T S B A S E D O N O C C U P A N T L O A D . A H O R I Z O N T A L E X I T W I L L B E PR O V I D E D I N L I E U O F E L E V A T O R T O M E E T TH E A C C E S S I B L E M E A N S O F E G R E S S R E Q U I R E M E N T S PE R S E C T I O N 1 0 0 9 . 2 . 1 E X C E P T I O N 1 . H O R IZ O N T A L E X I T S A R E P R O V I D E D A T T H E F I R E W A L L S . S E E P L A N S A N D S E C T I O N 1 2 FO R L O C A T I O N S DE A D E N D C O R R I D O R S PE R 1 0 2 0 . 4 E X C E P T I O N 2 , R - 2 O C C U P A N C I E S A R E A L L O W E D 5 0 F T . D E A D E N D S W H E R E T H E B U I L D I N G I S E Q U I P P E D TH R O U G H O U T W I T H A N A U T O M A T I C S P R I N K L E R S Y S T E M . A 4 8 ” C L E A R W I D T H A T A S T A I R W A Y I S N O T E R E Q U I R E D P E R S E C T I O N 1 0 0 9 . 3 E X C E P T I O N 2 AR E A S O F R E F U G E A R E N O T R E Q U I R E D P E R S E C T I O N 1 0 0 9 . 3 E X C E P T I O N 5 & 8 10 0 9 . 2 – C O N T I N U I T Y O F E X I T S – C H E C K F O R P O D I U M 13 . F I R E W A L L S ( S E C T I O N 7 0 6 ) 14 . A C C E S S I B I L I T Y PR O J E C T I S A P R I V A T E L Y F U N D E D D E V E L O P M E N T , T H E R E F O R E ; § R E S I D E N T I A L O C C U P A N C I E S I N A L L N E W L Y C O N S T R U C T I O N C O V E R E D M U L T I - F A M I L Y D W E L L I N G U N I T S S H A L L M E E T T H E RE Q U I R E M E N T S O F C H A P T E R 1 1 A H O U S I N G A C C E S S I B I L I T Y § R E S I D E N T I A L U N I T B A T H R O O M S : BA T H R O O M S I N 1 - B E D R O O M U N I T S S H A L L C O M P L Y W I T H O P T I O N 2 P E R C B C S E C T I O N 1 1 3 4 A . 2 . 2N D B A T H R O O M S I N 2 - B E D R O O M U N I T S S H A L L C O M P L Y W I T H O P T I O N 2 P E R C B C S E C T I O N 1 1 3 4 A . 2 MA S T E R B A T H R O O M S I N 2 - B E D R O O M U N I T S S H A L L C O M P L Y W I T H I T E M S 7 - 1 2 O F C B C S E C T I O N 1 1 3 4 A . 2 O P T I O N 2 . § C O M M O N U S E F A C I L I T I E S ( S U C H A S L O B B I E S , S H A R E D A M E N I T Y S P A C E S , C O M M O N T O I L E T R O O M S ) S H A L L M E E T T H E RE Q U I R E M E N T S O F C H A P T E R 1 1 2 7 A 15 . L I G H T A N D V E N T I L A T I O N PR O J E C T T O C O M P L Y W I T H C B C S T A N D A R D S F O R L I G H T A N D V E N T I L A T I O N A T H A B I T A B L E R O O M S . P E R S E C T I O N 1 2 0 5 . 2 . 1 N A T U R A L LI G H T I N A N Y R O O M I S P E R M I T T E D T O B E CO N S I D E R E D A S A P O R T I O N O F A N A D J O I N I N G R O O M W H E R E O N E - H A L F O F T H E A R E A O F TH E C O M M O N W A L L I S O P E N A N D U N O B S T R U C T E D A N D P R O V I D E S A N O P E N I N G O F N O T L E S S T H A N 1 / 1 0 TH O F T H E F L O O R A R E A O F TH E I N T E R I O R R O O M O R 2 5 S Q F T , W H I C H E V E R I S G R E A T E R . 16 . P L U M B I N G F I X T U R E C O U N T S CA L I F O R N I A P L U M B I N G C O D E 2 0 1 6 T A B L E A “ O C C U P A N T L O A D F A C T O R " A P P L I E S . * P E R T A B L E 2 9 0 2 . 1 N O T E 3 ; W H E N D E S I G N O C C U P A N T L O A D I S L E S S T H A N 1 0 P E R S O N S , A F A C I L I T Y U S A B L E B Y E I T H E R S E X MA Y B E A P P R O V E D B Y T H E B U I L D I N G O F F I C I A L . 17 . E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N D E R R A D I O C O V E R A G E R E Q U I R E M E N T PE R 2 0 1 6 C A F I R E C O D E S E C T I O N 5 1 0 , PR O J E C T T O P R O V I D E A P P R O V E D R A D I O C O V E R A G E F O R E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N D E R S . PR O J E C T T O A L L O W F O R I N S T A L L A T I O N O F A N E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N D E R S R A D I O C O V E R A G E S Y S T E M . U P O N C O N S T R U C T I O N CO M P L E T I O N , R A D I O T E S T S H A L L B E C O N D U C T E D T O D E T E R M I N E I F A N E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N D E R S R A D I O C O V E R A G E S Y S T E M S H A L L BE I N S T A L L E D . 18 . E M E R G E N C Y E S C A P E A N D R E S C U E W I N D O W S ( P E R C B C S E C T I O N 1 0 3 0 ) § T Y P E V A C O N S T R U C T I O N : R E Q U I R E D I N G R O U P R O C C U P A N C Y S L E E P I N G R O O M S B E L O W T H E F O U R T H S T O R Y A B O V E GR A D E P L A N E , S E E F L O O R P L A N S L E G E N D F O R E M E R G E N C Y E G R E S S S Y M B O L A N D F L O O R P L A N S F O R L O C A T I O N S . § T Y P E 1 & I I I A C O N S T R U C T I O N : E M E R G E NC Y E S C A P E A N D R E S C U E WI N D O W S A R E N O T R E Q U I R ED I N R - 2 O C C U P A N C Y SL E E P I N G R O O M S , P E R 1 0 3 0 E X C E P T I O N 1 § S E E W I N D O W S C H E D U L E G E N E R A L N O T E S F O R W I N D O W S I Z E R E Q U I R E M E N T S 19 . E N C R O A C H M E N T S SE C T I O N 3 2 0 2 . 3 . 3 S T A T E S E N C R O A C H M E N T S 1 5 ’ O R M O R E A B O V E G R A D E S H A L L N O T B E L I M I T E D BU I L D I N G C O M P A R T M E N T 3 : FR O N T A G E I N C R E A S E C A L C U L A T I O N : W = ( L 1 × w 1 + L 2 × w 2 + L 3 × w 3 … ) / F W= ( 1 1 8 ’ x 3 0 ’ ) / 1 1 8 ’ W= 3 0 AM O U N T O F I N C R E A S E : If = [ F / P - 0 . 2 5 ] W / 3 0 If = [ 1 1 8 ’ / 3 7 3 ’ - 0 . 2 5 ] 3 0 / 3 0 If = 0 . 0 6 AL L O W A B L E B U I L D I N G A R E A SI N G L E - O C C U P A N C Y , M U L T I S T O R Y B U I L D I N G Aa = [ A t + ( N S × I f)] × S a Aa = [ 2 4 , 0 0 0 + ( 2 4 , 0 0 0 × 0 . 0 6 ) ] × 2 Aa = 5 0 , 8 8 0 = M A X A L L O W A B L E B U I L D I N G A R E A BU I L D I N G C O M P A R T M E N T 4 : *N O F R O N T A G E I N C R E A S E T A K E N AL L O W A B L E B U I L D I N G A R E A SI N G L E - O C C U P A N C Y , M U L T I S T O R Y B U I L D I N G Aa = [ A t + ( N S × I f)] × S a Aa = [ 2 4 , 0 0 0 + ( 2 4 , 0 0 0 × 0 ) ] × 2 Aa = 4 8 , 0 0 0 = M A X A L L O W A B L E B U I L D I N G A R E A TY P E V A C O N S T R U C T I O N : L E V E L S 3 - 5 O N T H E S O U T H / W E S T B U I L D I N G BU I L D I N G C O M P A R T M E N T 5 : *N O F R O N T A G E I N C R E A S E T A K E N AL L O W A B L E B U I L D I N G A R E A SI N G L E - O C C U P A N C Y , M U L T I S T O R Y B U I L D I N G Aa = [ A t + ( N S × I f)] × S a Aa = [ 3 6 , 0 0 0 + ( 1 2 , 0 0 0 × 0 ) ] × 2 Aa = 7 2 , 0 0 0 = M A X A L L O W A B L E B U I L D I N G A R E A 8. O C C U P A N C Y S E P A R A T I O N ( T A B L E 5 0 8 . 4 ) OC C U P A N C Y SE P A R A T I O N R E Q D SE P A R A T I O N P R O V I D E D S- 2 T O R - 2 1 H R 3 H R S- 2 T O A - 3 N O N E - R- 2 T O A - 3 1 H R 1 H 9. F I R E R E S I S T A N C E R A T I N G R E Q U I R E M E N T S ( T A B L E 6 0 1 A N D 6 0 2 ) FI R E R E S I S T A N C E R A T I N G R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R B U I L D I N G E L E M E N T S ( T A B L E S 6 0 1 ) BU I L D I N G E L E M E N T TY P E I A TY P E I I I A TY P E V A ST R U C T U R A L F R A M E 3 H R 1 H R 1 H R EX T E R I O R B E A R I N G W A L L 3 H R 2 H R 1 H R IN T E R I O R B E A R I N G W A L L 3 H R 1 H R 1 H R EX T E R I O R N O N - B E A R I N G W A L L S E E B E L O W F O R R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R E X T E R I O R W A L L S B A S E D O N S E P A R A T I O N IN T E R I O R N O N - B E A R I N G W A L L 0 H R 0 H R 0 H R FL O O R 2 H R 1 H R 1 H R RO O F 1 . 5 H R 1 H R 1 H R *N O T E : AL L E X T E R I O R W A L L S I N T H E T Y P E I I I A C O N S T R U C T I O N T O B E 2 H R R A T E D AL L E X T E R I O R W A L L F R A M I N G A N D P L Y W O O D S H E A T H I N G I N T H E T Y P E I I I A C O N S T R U C T I O N T O B E F I R E R E T A R D A N T T R E A T E D (F R T ) FI R E R E S I S T A N C E R A T I N G R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R E X T E R I O R W A L L S B A S E D O N S E P A R A T I O N ( T A B L E 6 0 2 ) FI R E S E P A R A T I O N D I S T A N C E ( F T ) T Y P E I A T Y P E I I I A T Y P E V A X < 5 ' 1 H R * 1 H R * 1 H R * 5' T O 1 0 ' 1 H R * 1 H R 1 H R 10 ' T O 3 0 ' 1 H R 1 H R 1 H R 30 ' < X N O N E N O N E N O N E FI R E R E S I S T A N C E R A T I N G B A S E D O N W A L L T Y P E S : WA L L T Y P E T Y P E I A T Y P E I I I A T Y P E V A SH A F T E N C L O S U R E S 2 H R 2 H R 2 H R EX I T E N C L O S U R E S 2 H R 2 H R 2 H R CO R R I D O R W A L L S , A N D 1 H R 1 H R 1 H R WA L L S S E P A R A T I N G D W E L L I N G U N I T S 10 . E X T E R I O R W A L L O P E N I N G P R O T E C T I O N MA X I M U M A R E A O F E X T E R I O R W A L L O P E N I N G B A S E D O N F I R E S E P A R A T I O N D I S T A N C E P E R T A B L E 7 0 5 . 8 FI R E S E P A R A T I O N D I S T . ( F T ) O P E N I N G P R O T E C T I O N A L L O W A B L E A R E A X < 3 ' U P , S N O T P E R M I T T E D 3' T O 5 ' U P , S 1 5 % 5' T O 1 0 ' U P , S 2 5 % 10 ' T O 1 5 ' U P , S 4 5 % 15 ' T O 2 0 ' U P , S 7 5 % 20 ' T O 2 5 ' U P , S N O L I M I T 11 . P A R K I N G G A R A G E S- 2 O C C U P A N C Y R E Q U I R E M E N T S ( S E C T I O N 4 0 6 ) PA R K I N G G A R A G E I S C L A S S I F I E D A S E N C L O S E D ( 4 0 6 . 2 ) VE N T I L A T I O N : M E C H A N I C A L V E N T I L A T I O N S Y S T E M T O B E P R O V I D E D I N A C C O R D A N C E W I T H T H E C A M E C H A N I C A L C O D E . SE E M E C H A N I C A L D R A W I N G S VE H I C L E B A R R I E R S R E Q U I R E D ( S E C T I O N 4 0 6 . 4 . 3 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL UP DN UP DN 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 EXIT STAIR 1 EX I T S T A I R 3 EL E V A T O R S ELEVATORS VE H I C L E E N T R Y * ** * *EXIT STAIR 2 EGRESS SEPERATION 300' - 4" > MIN. 141'-0" MAX. DIAGONAL LENGTH 423'-0" EX I T A T G R A D E E X I T A T G R A D E RESIDENTIAL UNITS R-2 238333 3 3 4 3 3 3 1 5 1 149 2 1 6 6 34 19 17187FITNESS ROOM A-3 LEASING OFFICE B PA R K I N G S- 2 1 SK A - 3 1 a EGRESS SEPARATION 224' - 9" > MIN. 141'-0" MAX. DIAGONAL LENGTH 423'-0" EX I T A C E S S T R A V E L = 1 0 7 ' - 0 " EX I T A C E S S T R A V E L = 1 0 7 ' - 0 " EXIT ACESS TRAVEL = 139'-0"RESIDENTIAL UNITS R-2 3 9 PA R K I N G S- 2 3 3 4 3 3 33 3 5 5 3 1 6 2 163 18 1 14 171 1 SK A - 3 1 a 7 9 '-1 0 " > 1 /3 O F T H E D I A G .E G R E S S S E P A R A T I O N 1 1 1 ' - 2 " > 1 / 3 O F T H E D I A G . E G R E S S S E P A R A T I O N 9 9 '-7 " > 1 /3 O F T H E D I A G . E G R E S S S E P A R A T I O N 103'-0" > 1/3 OF THE DIAG. EGRESS SEPARATION > 1/3 OF THE DIAG. EGRESS SEPERATION EX I T A C E S S T R A V E L = 1 0 7 ' - 0 " EX I T A C E S S T R A V E L = 1 2 9 ' - 7 " EX I T A C E S S TR A V E L = 1 2 6 ' - 6 " EX I T A C E S S TR A V E L = 1 2 8 ' - 0 " EX I T A C E S S TR A V E L = 1 0 0 ' - 6 " EX I T A C E S S TR A V E L = 1 4 2 ' - 0 " EX I T A C E S S TR A V E L = 1 3 8 ' - 0 " RE S I D E N T I A L U N I T S R- 2 6 23 AM E N I T Y R- 2 39 38 444 385 6 5 5 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 3 4 5 5 2 8 AM E N I T Y R- 2 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 7 3 6 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 6 4 6 3 0 61 11 0 10 4 49 33 H. E . H. E . H. E . H. E . H. E . USED FOR FRONTAGE INCREASE 75' - 0" US E D F O R F R O N T A G E I N C R E A S E 15 7 ' - 7 " 1 SK A - 3 1 a 1 0 3 ' - 0 " > 1 / 3 O F T H E D I A G . E G R E S S S E P A R A T I O N EX I T A C E S S T R A V E L = 1 0 7 ' - 0 " EX I T A C E S S T R A V E L = 1 2 9 ' - 7 " EX I T A C E S S TR A V E L = 1 2 8 ' - 0 " RE S I D E N T I A L U N I T S R- 2 23 34 AM E N I T Y R- 2 54445 6 5 5 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 3 4 5 5 3 5 5 5 7 6 3 54 36 14 3 3 3 23 90 OU T D O O R L O U N G E R- 2 EX I T A C E S S TR A V E L = 1 4 7 ' - 0 " 7 9 '-1 0 " > 1 /3 O F T H E D I A G .E G R E S S S E P A R A T I O N 1 1 1 ' - 2 " > 1 / 3 O F T H E D I A G . E G R E S S S E P A R A T I O N 9 9 '-7 " > 1 /3 O F T H E D I A G . E G R E S S S E P A R A T I O N H. E . H. E . H. E . RO O F A C C E S S 2 - H R R A T E D ST A I R E N C L O S U R E NO T E : NO N - S T O R Y NO S E C O N D E G R E S S RE Q U I R E D RO O F A T LE V E L 6 1 SK A - 3 1 a LEGEND 3 HR RATED FIRE BARRIER / FIRE WALL 0 EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE AND COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVELEGRESS ROUTEOCCUPANT LOAD0 COMBINED NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS AT EXIT OCCUPANT LOAD (PER TABLE 1004.1.1)OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR - OCCUPANCY 200 G.S.F. - RESIDENTIAL (R-3)50 G.S.F.- FITNESS (A-3)15 G.S.F.- AMENITY (R-2)100 G.S.F.- LEASING (B)200 G.S.F.- PARKING (S-2)300 G.S.F.- MEP (S-2)HORIZONTAL EXITH.E.CODE REFERENCE KEYNOTES2 HR RATED FIRE BARRIER 1 HR RATED FIRE BARRIER *EXITBARarchitects901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 12:36:00 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt As indicatedEGRESS DIAGRAMS16036 G 03AuthorCheckerDUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD 1 " = 4 0 ' - 0 " G 0 3 1 EX I T D I A G R A M F L O O R P L A N L E V E L 1 1 " = 4 0 ' - 0 " G 0 3 2 EX I T D I A G R A M F L O O R P L A N L E V E L 2 1 " = 4 0 ' - 0 " G 0 3 3 EX I T D I A G R A M F L O O R P L A N L E V E L S 3 - 5 1 " = 4 0 ' - 0 " G 0 3 4 Le v e l 6 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 33SDN 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3333SS SSSSS EX I T A C E S S T R A V E L = 1 0 6 ' - 0 " EX I T A C E S S TR A V E L = 1 2 8 ' - 0 " RE S I D E N T I A L U N I T S R-2 23 22 29 30 EX I T A C E S S TR A V E L = 1 4 7 ' - 0 " 54445119 5 3 4 5 5 3 5 5 5 7 6 3 3 3EXIT ACESS TRAVEL = 78'-0"7 0 '-1 0 " > 1 /3 O F T H E D I A G .E G R E S S S E P A R A T I O N M A X . D I A G O N A L L E N G T H 2 3 4 ' - 6 " M A X . D I A G O N A L L E N G T H 2 0 9 ' - 0 "H.E. H. E . 1 SK A - 3 1 a LEGEND 3 HR RATED FIRE BARRIER / FIRE WALL 0 EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE AND COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVELEGRESS ROUTEOCCUPANT LOAD0 COMBINED NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS AT EXIT OCCUPANT LOAD (PER TABLE 1004.1.1)OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR - OCCUPANCY 200 G.S.F. - RESIDENTIAL (R-3)50 G.S.F.- FITNESS (A-3)15 G.S.F.- AMENITY (R-2)100 G.S.F.- LEASING (B)200 G.S.F.- PARKING (S-2)300 G.S.F.- MEP (S-2)HORIZONTAL EXITH.E.CODE REFERENCE KEYNOTES2 HR RATED FIRE BARRIER 1 HR RATED FIRE BARRIER *EXIT RO O F A C C E S S 2 - H R R A T E D ST A I R E N C L O S U R E NO T E : NO N - S T O R Y NO S E C O N D E G R E S S RE Q U I R E D RO O F A T LE V E L 7 ROOF 1 SK A - 3 1 a BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 12:38:59 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt As indicatedEGRESS DIAGRAMS16036 G 04AuthorCheckerDUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD 1 " = 4 0 ' - 0 " G 0 4 1 EX I T D I A G R A M F L O O R P L A N L E V E L 7 1 " = 4 0 ' - 0 " G 0 4 2 EX I T D I A G R A M R O O F P L A N 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL DRAWNBY C P HECKEDBY ROJECTNO DATE ISSUE DRA C P HE RO DA SCALE:AS NOTED DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 3/16/2017 10:18:30 AM C:\Autodesk\16036 UDR Dublin-CENTRAL_alink.rvt 16036 ENTITLEMENTS DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD ACM JCJ 05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL TITLE SHEET C0.0 NOTES:LEGEND: DRAWNBY C P HECKEDBY ROJECTNO DATE ISSUE DRA C P HE RO DA SCALE:AS NOTED DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 3/16/2017 10:18:30 AM C:\Autodesk\16036 UDR Dublin-CENTRAL_alink.rvt 16036 ENTITLEMENTS DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD ACM JCJ 05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN C1.0 UP UP 6%12% CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCC CCCCCCC CC C C 8% 3' - 0"3' - 0" 0' - 0" 0' - 0"0' - 0" 3' - 0" 3' - 0" 0' - 0" 0' - 0" 6% 1' - 0" 0' - 0" 8% CCC 1' - 7"0' - 8" 1' - 0" 0' - 9" C CCCCCCCCC CC C C CC 1' - 10" 1'-6" 1'-6" CAMPBELL LANE DEMARCUS BOULEVARD CAMPBELL LANE GARAGE FITNESS ROOM LEASING OFFICE LOBBY ELECTRICAL ROOM TRASHTRASHFIRE ROOM WEST FRONTAGE: CAMPBELL LANE 1"=5'A NORTH FRONTAGE: PRIVATE DRIVE 1"=5'B EAST FRONTAGE: DEMARCUS BLVD 1"=5'C SOUTH FRONTAGE: CAMPBELL LANE 1"=5'D SITE PLAN LEGEND: SITE PLAN NOTES: DRAWNBY C P HECKEDBY ROJECTNO DATE ISSUE DRA C P HE RO DA SCALE:AS NOTED DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 3/16/2017 10:18:30 AM C:\Autodesk\16036 UDR Dublin-CENTRAL_alink.rvt 16036 ENTITLEMENTS DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD ACM JCJ 05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL CIVIL SITE PLAN C2.0 UP UP 6%12% CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCC CCCCCCC CC C C 8% 3' - 0"3' - 0" 0' - 0" 0' - 0"0' - 0" 3' - 0" 3' - 0" 0' - 0" 0' - 0" 6% 1' - 0" 0' - 0" 8% CCC 1' - 7"0' - 8" 1' - 0" 0' - 9" C CCCCCCCCC CC C C CC 1' - 10" 1'-6" 1'-6" CAMPBELL LANE DEMARCUS BOULEVARD CAMPBELL LANE LEGEND:GRADING NOTES: DRIVEWAY DETAIL 1"=10' DRAWNBY C P HECKEDBY ROJECTNO DATE ISSUE DRA C P HE RO DA SCALE:AS NOTED DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 3/16/2017 10:18:30 AM C:\Autodesk\16036 UDR Dublin-CENTRAL_alink.rvt 16036 ENTITLEMENTS DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD ACM JCJ 05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL GRADING PLAN C3.0 UP UP 6%12% CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCC CCCCCCC CC C C 8% 3' - 0"3' - 0" 0' - 0" 0' - 0"0' - 0" 3' - 0" 3' - 0" 0' - 0" 0' - 0" 6% 1' - 0" 0' - 0" 8% CCC 1' - 7"0' - 8" 1' - 0" 0' - 9" C CCCCCCCCC CC C C CC 1' - 10" 1'-6" 1'-6" CAMPBELL LANE DEMARCUS BOULEVARD CAMPBELL LANE LEGEND: NOTES: DRAWNBY C P HECKEDBY ROJECTNO DATE ISSUE DRA C P HE RO DA SCALE:AS NOTED DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 3/16/2017 10:18:30 AM C:\Autodesk\16036 UDR Dublin-CENTRAL_alink.rvt 16036 ENTITLEMENTS DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD ACM JCJ 05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL UTILITY PLAN C4.0 SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE S L O P E S L O P E S L O P E S L O P E SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE S L O P E SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE S L O P E SLOPE S L O P E SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE S L O P E SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE S L O P E SLOPE S L O P E SLOPE S L O P E SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE S L O P E SLOPE SLOPE S L O P E S L O P E SLOPE SLOPE S L O P E CAMPBELL LANE DEMARCUS BOULEVARD CAMPBELL LANE NOTES:LEGEND: STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN C5.0 DRAWNBY C P HECKEDBY ROJECTNO DATE ISSUE DRA C P HE RO DA SCALE:AS NOTED DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 3/16/2017 10:18:30 AM C:\Autodesk\16036 UDR Dublin-CENTRAL_alink.rvt 16036 ENTITLEMENTS DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD ACM JCJ 05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL 1 FLOW-THRU PLANTER NTS 2 STORMWATER FILTER NTS STORMWATER CONTROL DETAILS C5.1 DRAWNBY C P HECKEDBY ROJECTNO DATE ISSUE DRA C P HE RO DA SCALE:AS NOTED DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 3/16/2017 10:18:30 AM C:\Autodesk\16036 UDR Dublin-CENTRAL_alink.rvt 16036 ENTITLEMENTS DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD ACM JCJ 05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL UP UP 6%12% CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCC CCCCCCC CC C C 8% 3' - 0"3' - 0" 0' - 0" 0' - 0"0' - 0" 3' - 0" 3' - 0" 0' - 0" 0' - 0" 6% 1' - 0" 0' - 0" 8% CCC 1' - 7"0' - 8" 1' - 0" 0' - 9" C CCCCCCCCC CC C C CC 1' - 10" 1'-6" 1'-6" CAMPBELL LANE DEMARCUS BOULEVARD CAMPBELL LANE x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x xxxx xx xxx x xxx x xxxxxxxx xxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x GARAGE FITNESS ROOM LEASING OFFICE LOBBY ELECTRICAL ROOM TRASHTRASHFIRE ROOM DRAWNBY C P HECKEDBY ROJECTNO DATE ISSUE DRA C P HE RO DA SCALE:AS NOTED DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 3/16/2017 10:18:30 AM C:\Autodesk\16036 UDR Dublin-CENTRAL_alink.rvt 16036 ENTITLEMENTS DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD ACM JCJ 05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL EROSION CONTROL PLAN C6.0 DRAWNBY C P HECKEDBY ROJECTNO DATE ISSUE DRA C P HE RO DA SCALE:AS NOTED DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 3/16/2017 10:18:30 AM C:\Autodesk\16036 UDR Dublin-CENTRAL_alink.rvt 16036 ENTITLEMENTS DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD ACM JCJ 05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL EROSION CONTROL NOTES AND DETAILS C6.1 AS SHOWN 05.24.17 08.28.17 ENTITLEMENTS ENT RESUBMITTAL L1.00 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN PERCENT LANDSCAPING LEGEND GROUND LEVEL: 69.9% HARDSCAPE, 18,850 SF 25.5% PLANTING AREA, 6,881 SF 3.9% BIORETENTION PLANTER, 1,042 SF 0.7% ARTIFICAL TURF, 185 SF PODIUM: 52.2% HARDSCAPE, 12,778 SF 25.8% RAISED PLANTER, 6,308 SF 11.5% BIORETENTION PLANTER, 2,809 SF 5.5% ARTIFICIAL TURF, 1,355 SF 5.0% POOL, 1,210 SF DE M A R C U S B O U L E V A R D EAST PODIUM COURTYARD WEST PODIUM COURTYARD CA M P B E L L L A N E W E S T CAMPBELL LANE SOUTH SHARED PRIVATE DRIVE CAMELLIA PLACE scale: 1” = 20’N PL PL PLPL GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL IRRIGATION AT SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTINGS TO BE DRIP IRRIGATION. INDIVIDUAL BUBBLERS WILL BE PROVIDED AT TREE PLANTINGS. 2. ALL PLANTING AREAS TO INCLUDE 3” LAYER OF 3/8” BLACK MINI-CHIP MULCH 3. SOIL ANALYSIS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN WITH BUILDING PERMIT/IMPROVEMENT PLANS 4. MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FALLS TO OWNER FOR SITE AND SIDEWALK DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING. THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STREET AND ANY MEDIAN ISLANDS L3.00L5.00 L2.00 L4.00 SHARED PRIVATE DR DE M A R C U S B L V D CA M P B E L L L N CAMPBELL LN NTS N KEY PLAN LIMIT OF WORK PROPERTY LINE 05.24.17 08.28.17 ENTITLEMENTS ENT RESUBMITTAL SHARED PRIVATE DRIVE STREETSCAPE PLAN AS SHOWN L2.00 1111 FA C E O F B U I L D I N G 15 1 3 ’ - 4 ” 11’-0” 10’-0” 7’-1”1 4 ’ - 6 ” 6’ - 0 ” 7’ - 9 ” 2’ - 8 ” 14 ’ - 2 ” 8’ - 9 ” 1 1 ’ - 1 0 ” 1 0 ’ - 6 ” 1 Gal, 12” O.C. Sedum rubrotinctum Jelly-bean Sedum Water Usage: L LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN SHARED PRIVATE DRIVE CAMELLIA PLACE scale: 1” = 10’ scale: 1/4” = 1’ 3’-4”5’-0”8’-0” PARALLEL PARKING (PLANTED BULBOUT BEYOND) 6” CURB 30” MAX. PLANTING HT. SIDEWALKCONCRETE PLANTER 3’-4”*PLANTER DEPTH VARIES A A’ PL PR O P E R T Y L I N E 10’-4” TYP3’-7”5’-8”9’-6”6’-0”15’-6”8’-11”16’-9”6’-0”2’-0” TYP.37’-2” 26’-0”22’-6”22’-6” 23’-8” TYP.5’-8”4’-0”50’-9” 20’-0” TYP 8’-0” TYP8’-0” TYP 5’-0” TYP 3’-4” TYP N STREETSCAPE SECTION AA’ MATERIALS PLANT PALETTE Limonium californicum Elymus glaucus Echeveria Western Marsh Rosemary BI O R E T E N T I O N ST R E E T S C A P E Blue Wild Rye Raised Concrete Planter/ Bioretention Planter Integral Color Concrete, Color: Southern Blush Echeveria SITE FURNISHINGS 4 5 559 1012 12 12 9 9 181818 11 11 A’ A Faceted Steel Bench Modular Concrete Unit Pavers, Color: Foundry Faceted Steel Retaining/ Planter Wall 8 29 29 29 PL PL 1 Gal, 18” O.C. Water Usage: L 5 Gal, 12” O.C. Water Usage: L 5 Gal, 1’-0” O.C. Water Usage: L Amphitheatre Stair Seating 3 33 42 2 23 LIMIT OF WORK PROPERTY LINE Water Usage: L 1 Gal, 12” O.C. Festuca rubra Creeping Red Fescue Water Usage: L 5 Gal, 4’ O.C. Lavandula dentata var. candicans Gray Leaved French Lavender SHARED PRIVATE DR DE M A R C U S B L V D CA M P B E L L L N CAMPBELL LN NTS N KEY PLAN STREET TREES Arbutus unedo Strawberry Tree 24” Box Water Usage: L 19191919 KEY SIDEWALK, INTEGRAL COLOR CONC COLOR: SOUTHERN BLUSH FINISH: MED SANDBLAST SIDEWALK, MODULAR CONC UNIT PAVERS MANUF: BELGARD COLOR: FOUNDRY FINISH: SMOOTH SIZE: 6X12 SIDEWALK, CITY STANDARD CONC PARALLEL PARKING TOWNHOME STOOP PUBLIC FLEX SPACE AMPHITHEATRE STAIR SEATING, INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE COLOR: SOUTHERN BLUSH FINISH: MED SANDBLAST FACETED STEEL BENCH, HEIGHT: 18” FLOW THROUGH PLANTER, NATURAL CONCRETE, HEIGHT: 18” FINISH: MED SANDBLAST - 3/8” BLACK MINI-CHIP MULCH, 3” DEEP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PLANTING AREA - 3/8” BLACK MINI-CHIP MULCH, 3” DEEP CITY STD. CROSSWALK (E) RAISED CROSSWALK (E) BULB-OUT (E) UTILITY VAULT UTILITIES (PROPOSED), SCREENED W/PLANTING (E) STREET SIGN (E) LIGHT POLE 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 FACETED STEEL PLANTER HEIGHT: 18” - 3/8” BLACK MINI-CHIP MULCH, 3” DEEP 22 12 (E) PLANTER ISLAND 21 GARAGE ENTRY ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN RAMP DEPRESSED CURB WITH BOLLARDS 13 20 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 MODULAR STEEL RETAINING WALL, HEIGHT VARIES: 0”-18” (E) FIRE HYDRANT TRAFFIC BOLLARD CITY STD. CURB RAMP ARTIFICIAL TURF STOOP PLANTER, NATURAL CONCRETE, HEIGHT: 18” FINISH: MED SANDBLAST - 3/8” BLACK MINI-CHIP MULCH, 3” DEEP 10 STREET TREE: Platanus acerifolia ‘Bloodgood’ (E) STREET TREE: Platanus acerifolia ‘Bloodgood’, TBC STREET TREE: Pyrus calleryana ‘Aristocrat’ STREET TREE: Arbutus unedo (E) STREET TREE: Pyrus calleryana ‘Aristocrat’ (E) STREET TREE: Arbutus unedo PRIVATE REALM TREE: Lagerstroemia indica (E) STREET TREE: Laurus nobilis ‘Saratoga’ FUTURE STREET TREE (N.I.C.) INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE SEATWALL COLOR: SOUTHERN BLUSH FINISH: MED SANDBLAST AS SHOWN 05.24.17 08.28.17 ENTITLEMENTS ENT RESUBMITTAL DEMARCUS BLVD STREETSCAPE PLAN L3.00scale: 1” = 10’N scale: 1/4” = 1’ 20’-0” 2’-6” PLANTING 6’ 11’-0” 10’-0”, VARIES10’-0”, VARIES 5’-0”8’-0” PARALLEL PARKING 6” CURB 11’ WALK WITH 5’X5’ SQ TREE WELL PLANTINGPRIVATE FITNESS AREA STORM DRAIN EASEMENT 1’-6”, MAX PL PR O P E R T Y L I N E STREETSCAPE SECTION BB’ ST R E E T S C A P E 20 20 25 16 16 20’-0” 23’-6” O.C.25’-0” O.C., TYP 25’-0” O.C., TYP FA C E O F B U I L D I N G 4 4 4 SITE FURNISHINGS 5’-0” B 22’-6” O.C.22’-6” O.C.22’-6” O.C.24’-0” O.C.12’-6” O.C., TYP 12’-6” O.C., TYP12’-6” O.C., TYP 12’-6” O.C., TYP 5’-0” TW +0” TW +18” TW +18” TW +18” TW +6” TW +0” TW +6” TW +6” TW +6”TW +0” TW +0” TW +0”TW +0” MATCHLINE, SEE L4.00 TW +18” TW +0” 7’-4” 13’-0” 28’-0” 7’-6”9’-2” 4’-6” 6’-0” 5’-8” 1’-8” 6’-3” 15’-10”20’-0”12’-8” 2’-0”15’-5” 8’-0” 6’-0” 2’-6” B B’ B’ 1 1 11111111 1 2 2 2 2 2222222222 2 3 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 1111 11 1111 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 11 11 11 23 11 11 1119 19 19 19 11 11 11 11 DEMARCUS BOULEVARD SH A R E D P R I V A T E D R I V E CA M P B E L L L A N E PL PL ST R E E T S C A P E Water Usage: M Water Usage: L Water Usage: L Water Usage: L 1 Gal, 36” O.C.5 Gal, 48” O.C.1 Gal, 12” O.C. Lomandra longifolia ‘Tanika’Salvia leucantha ‘Midnight’Sempervivum ‘Purple Beauty’ Tanika Lomandra Purple Mexican Sage Hen and Chicks PLANT PALETTE EA S E M E N T 5 Gal, 24” O.C.1 Gal, 12” O.C. Anigozanthos ‘Bush Tango’Sedum rubrotinctum Orange Kangaroo Paw Jelly-bean Sedum Raised Concrete Planter/ Bioretention Planter Faceted Steel Bench Faceted Steel Retaining/ Planter Wall Amphitheatre Stair Seating 20’-0” STORM DRAIN EASEMENT Water Usage: L 30’-0” VISIBILITY ZONE, S.C.D. SHARED PRIVATE DR DE M A R C U S B L V D CA M P B E L L L N CAMPBELL LN NTS N KEY PLAN LIMIT OF WORK PROPERTY LINE STREET TREES 30” MAX. PLANTING HT. 24” Box Water Usage: M Pyrus calleryana ‘Aristocrat’ Aristocrat Pear Echeveria Echeveria 5 Gal, 1’-0” O.C. Water Usage: L MATCHLINE, SEE L3.00 MATERIALS Integral Color Concrete, Color: Southern Blush Modular Concrete Unit Pavers, Color: Foundry KEY SIDEWALK, INTEGRAL COLOR CONC COLOR: SOUTHERN BLUSH FINISH: MED SANDBLAST SIDEWALK, MODULAR CONC UNIT PAVERS MANUF: BELGARD COLOR: FOUNDRY FINISH: SMOOTH SIZE: 6X12 SIDEWALK, CITY STANDARD CONC PARALLEL PARKING TOWNHOME STOOP PUBLIC FLEX SPACE AMPHITHEATRE STAIR SEATING, INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE COLOR: SOUTHERN BLUSH FINISH: MED SANDBLAST FACETED STEEL BENCH, HEIGHT: 18” FLOW THROUGH PLANTER, NATURAL CONCRETE, HEIGHT: 18” FINISH: MED SANDBLAST - 3/8” BLACK MINI-CHIP MULCH, 3” DEEP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PLANTING AREA - 3/8” BLACK MINI-CHIP MULCH, 3” DEEP CITY STD. CROSSWALK (E) RAISED CROSSWALK (E) BULB-OUT (E) UTILITY VAULT UTILITIES (PROPOSED), SCREENED W/PLANTING (E) STREET SIGN (E) LIGHT POLE 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 FACETED STEEL PLANTER HEIGHT: 18” - 3/8” BLACK MINI-CHIP MULCH, 3” DEEP 22 12 (E) PLANTER ISLAND 21 GARAGE ENTRY ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN RAMP DEPRESSED CURB WITH BOLLARDS 13 20 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 MODULAR STEEL RETAINING WALL, HEIGHT VARIES: 0”-18” (E) FIRE HYDRANT TRAFFIC BOLLARD CITY STD. CURB RAMP ARTIFICIAL TURF STOOP PLANTER, NATURAL CONCRETE, HEIGHT: 18” FINISH: MED SANDBLAST - 3/8” BLACK MINI-CHIP MULCH, 3” DEEP 10 STREET TREE: Platanus acerifolia ‘Bloodgood’ (E) STREET TREE: Platanus acerifolia ‘Bloodgood’, TBC STREET TREE: Pyrus calleryana ‘Aristocrat’ STREET TREE: Arbutus unedo (E) STREET TREE: Pyrus calleryana ‘Aristocrat’ (E) STREET TREE: Arbutus unedo PRIVATE REALM TREE: Lagerstroemia indica (E) STREET TREE: Laurus nobilis ‘Saratoga’ FUTURE STREET TREE (N.I.C.) INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE SEATWALL COLOR: SOUTHERN BLUSH FINISH: MED SANDBLAST LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN 05.24.17 08.28.17 ENTITLEMENTS ENT RESUBMITTAL CAMPBELL LANE SOUTH STREETSCAPE PLAN AS SHOWN L4.00scale: 1” = 20’N PL 7 7 4 4 24 19 24 20 20 18 12 CAMPBELL LANE SOUTH C C’ C’ C 1 1 3 6 11 2121 14 11 3 11 11 11 5’-0” TYP 6’-0” TYP4’-0” 6’-4”8’-0” 20’-0” 7’-0”TYP11’-5”7’-0” 6’-6”6’-11” 11’-0”7’-7” 10’-8” 6’-0” 5’-11” 1’-0” TYP1’-0” TYP 2’-6” TYP LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN PL DE M A R C U S B O U L E V A R D Water Usage: M Water Usage: LWater Usage: L 1 Gal, 6’ O.C.5 Gal, 4’ O.C.1 Gal, 12” O.C. Passiflora incarnata Lavandula dentata var. candicans Festuca glauca Purple Passionflower Gray Leaved French Lavender Douglas Iris 5 Gal, 24” O.C.1 Gal, 12” O.C. Anigozanthos ‘Bush Tango’Sedum rubrotinctum Orange Kangaroo Paw Jelly-bean Sedum Water Usage: L Water Usage: L Raised Concrete Planter/ Bioretention Planter Faceted Steel Bench Faceted Steel Retaining/ Planter Wall Amphitheatre Stair Seating PLANTER ISLAND PARALLEL PARKING (BEYOND) 6” CURB SIDEWALKAT-GRADE PLANTING 2’-6”6’-0”4’-0” 8’-0” 1’6”6” scale: 1/4” = 1’ PR O P E R T Y L I N E STREETSCAPE SECTION CC’PLANT PALETTE ST R E E T S C A P E FA C E O F B U I L D I N G SITE FURNISHINGS 48’-6” SHARED PRIVATE DR DE M A R C U S B L V D CA M P B E L L L N CAMPBELL LN NTS N KEY PLAN LIMIT OF WORK PROPERTY LINE STREET TREES 30” MAX. PLANTING HT. 26 Platanus acerifolia ‘Bloodgood’ London Plane Tree 24” Box Water Usage: M Echeveria Echeveria 5 Gal, 1’-0” O.C. Water Usage: L MA T C H L I N E , S E E L 4 . 0 0 MA T C H L I N E , S E E L 3 . 0 0 MATERIALS Integral Color Concrete, Color: Southern Blush Modular Concrete Unit Pavers, Color: Foundry KEY SIDEWALK, INTEGRAL COLOR CONC COLOR: SOUTHERN BLUSH FINISH: MED SANDBLAST SIDEWALK, MODULAR CONC UNIT PAVERS MANUF: BELGARD COLOR: FOUNDRY FINISH: SMOOTH SIZE: 6X12 SIDEWALK, CITY STANDARD CONC PARALLEL PARKING TOWNHOME STOOP PUBLIC FLEX SPACE AMPHITHEATRE STAIR SEATING, INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE COLOR: SOUTHERN BLUSH FINISH: MED SANDBLAST FACETED STEEL BENCH, HEIGHT: 18” FLOW THROUGH PLANTER, NATURAL CONCRETE, HEIGHT: 18” FINISH: MED SANDBLAST - 3/8” BLACK MINI-CHIP MULCH, 3” DEEP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PLANTING AREA - 3/8” BLACK MINI-CHIP MULCH, 3” DEEP CITY STD. CROSSWALK (E) RAISED CROSSWALK (E) BULB-OUT (E) UTILITY VAULT UTILITIES (PROPOSED), SCREENED W/PLANTING (E) STREET SIGN (E) LIGHT POLE 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 FACETED STEEL PLANTER HEIGHT: 18” - 3/8” BLACK MINI-CHIP MULCH, 3” DEEP 22 12 (E) PLANTER ISLAND 21 GARAGE ENTRY ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN RAMP DEPRESSED CURB WITH BOLLARDS 13 20 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 MODULAR STEEL RETAINING WALL, HEIGHT VARIES: 0”-18” (E) FIRE HYDRANT TRAFFIC BOLLARD CITY STD. CURB RAMP ARTIFICIAL TURF STOOP PLANTER, NATURAL CONCRETE, HEIGHT: 18” FINISH: MED SANDBLAST - 3/8” BLACK MINI-CHIP MULCH, 3” DEEP 10 STREET TREE: Platanus acerifolia ‘Bloodgood’ (E) STREET TREE: Platanus acerifolia ‘Bloodgood’, TBC STREET TREE: Pyrus calleryana ‘Aristocrat’ STREET TREE: Arbutus unedo (E) STREET TREE: Pyrus calleryana ‘Aristocrat’ (E) STREET TREE: Arbutus unedo PRIVATE REALM TREE: Lagerstroemia indica (E) STREET TREE: Laurus nobilis ‘Saratoga’ FUTURE STREET TREE (N.I.C.) INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE SEATWALL COLOR: SOUTHERN BLUSH FINISH: MED SANDBLAST 05.24.17 08.28.17 ENTITLEMENTS ENT RESUBMITTAL CAMPBELL LANE WEST STREETSCAPE PLAN AS SHOWN L5.00 BI O R E T E N T I O N scale: 1” = 20’N PLANT PALETTE BI O R E T E N T I O N LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN 4 4 4 8’-0” 20’-0” 23’-7”4’-0” 9’-8” 22’-0”11’-6”14’-10”TYP 14’-5” 2’-0” 6’-0” 6’-0” 2’-0” 6’-0” 2’-0” 4’-11 ” 4’-0”6’-10”2’-0” 9’-0” 5’-10” 5’-0” TYP TYP ST R E E T S C A P E D’ D 3 3 19 19 19 19 19 11 2828 29 29 1111 11 11 11 9 9 5 9 3 3 3 21 18 1818 23 27 20 24 24 11 11 3 5’-0” TYP 6’-0” TYP 1’-0” TYP 2’-6” TYP 2’-1” 13 ’ - 1 0 ” 9’- 7 ” 5’- 0 ” 21 21 21 CAMPBELL LANE WEST PL CA M P B E L L L A N E S O U T H SH A R E D P R I V A T E D R I V E 5 Gal, 24” O.C.1 Gal, 12” O.C. Anigozanthos ‘Bush Tango’Sedum rubrotinctum Orange Kangaroo Paw Jelly-bean Sedum Water Usage: LWater Usage: L Limonium californicum Western Marsh Rosemary 1 Gal, 18” O.C. Water Usage: L Water Usage: L 5 Gal, 4’ O.C. Lavandula dentata var. candicans Gray Leaved French Lavender Water Usage: L 1 Gal, 12” O.C. Festuca rubra Creeping Red Fescue scale: 1/4” = 1’ STREETSCAPE SECTION DD’ Raised Concrete Planter/ Bioretention Planter SITE FURNISHINGS Faceted Steel Bench Faceted Steel Retaining/ Planter Wall Concrete Amphitheatre Stair Seating PLANTER ISLAND PARALLEL PARKING (BEYOND) 6” CURB SIDEWALKAT-GRADE PLANTING FA C E O F B U I L D I N G D 2’-6”6’-0”4’-0” 8’-0” 1’6”6” D’ PL PR O P E R T Y L I N E 26 26 SHARED PRIVATE DR DE M A R C U S B L V D CA M P B E L L L N CAMPBELL LN NTS N KEY PLAN LIMIT OF WORK PROPERTY LINE STREET TREES 30” MAX. PLANTING HT. Platanus acerifolia ‘Bloodgood’ London Plane Tree 24” Box Water Usage: M Echeveria Echeveria 5 Gal, 1’-0” O.C. Water Usage: L 22 TYP MATERIALS Integral Color Concrete, Color: Southern Blush Modular Concrete Unit Pavers, Color: Foundry KEY SIDEWALK, INTEGRAL COLOR CONC COLOR: SOUTHERN BLUSH FINISH: MED SANDBLAST SIDEWALK, MODULAR CONC UNIT PAVERS MANUF: BELGARD COLOR: FOUNDRY FINISH: SMOOTH SIZE: 6X12 SIDEWALK, CITY STANDARD CONC PARALLEL PARKING TOWNHOME STOOP PUBLIC FLEX SPACE AMPHITHEATRE STAIR SEATING, INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE COLOR: SOUTHERN BLUSH FINISH: MED SANDBLAST FACETED STEEL BENCH, HEIGHT: 18” FLOW THROUGH PLANTER, NATURAL CONCRETE, HEIGHT: 18” FINISH: MED SANDBLAST - 3/8” BLACK MINI-CHIP MULCH, 3” DEEP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PLANTING AREA - 3/8” BLACK MINI-CHIP MULCH, 3” DEEP CITY STD. CROSSWALK (E) RAISED CROSSWALK (E) BULB-OUT (E) UTILITY VAULT UTILITIES (PROPOSED), SCREENED W/PLANTING (E) STREET SIGN (E) LIGHT POLE 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 FACETED STEEL PLANTER HEIGHT: 18” - 3/8” BLACK MINI-CHIP MULCH, 3” DEEP 22 12 (E) PLANTER ISLAND 21 GARAGE ENTRY ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN RAMP DEPRESSED CURB WITH BOLLARDS 13 20 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 MODULAR STEEL RETAINING WALL, HEIGHT VARIES: 0”-18” (E) FIRE HYDRANT TRAFFIC BOLLARD CITY STD. CURB RAMP ARTIFICIAL TURF STOOP PLANTER, NATURAL CONCRETE, HEIGHT: 18” FINISH: MED SANDBLAST - 3/8” BLACK MINI-CHIP MULCH, 3” DEEP 10 STREET TREE: Platanus acerifolia ‘Bloodgood’ (E) STREET TREE: Platanus acerifolia ‘Bloodgood’, TBC STREET TREE: Pyrus calleryana ‘Aristocrat’ STREET TREE: Arbutus unedo (E) STREET TREE: Pyrus calleryana ‘Aristocrat’ (E) STREET TREE: Arbutus unedo PRIVATE REALM TREE: Lagerstroemia indica (E) STREET TREE: Laurus nobilis ‘Saratoga’ FUTURE STREET TREE (N.I.C.) INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE SEATWALL COLOR: SOUTHERN BLUSH FINISH: MED SANDBLAST AS SHOWN 05.24.17 08.28.17 ENTITLEMENTS ENT RESUBMITTAL CONCEPTUAL LIGHTING PLAN L6.00 Stake Mounted LED Path LightPool & Spa LightingPlay LightingTree Uplight Recessed Planter Wall Light String Lights KEY TREE UPLIGHT PLAY LIGHTING POOL & SPA LIGHTING CITY STANDARD STREET LIGHT (E) STAKE MOUNTED LED PATH LIGHT RECESSED PLANTER WALL LIGHT DECORATIVE STRING LIGHTS (STRUNG ALONG TOP OF STEEL TRELLIS & POOL CABANAS) NOTE: LIGHT LOCATIONS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING A PHOTOMETRIC STUDY. WILL BE SUBMITTED IN BUILDING/SITEWORK PERMIT PLAN SUBMITTAL scale: 1” = 20’N CAMELLIA PLACE PL PL PLPL SHARED PRIVATE DR DE M A R C U S B L V D CA M P B E L L L N CAMPBELL LN NTS N KEY PLAN DE M A R C U S B O U L E V A R D CA M P B E L L L A N E W E S T CAMPBELL LANE SOUTH SHARED PRIVATE DRIVE LEGEND LIMIT OF WORK PROPERTY LINE PARCEL 3 PM 8275 280 PM 71 CAMPBELL LN CAMPBELL LN DE MARCUS BLVDSHARED PRIVATE DRIVEBARarchitects901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 12:30:11 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt 1" = 50'-0"EXISTING CONDITIONS16036 A 02DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD 1 - N O R T H E A S T C O R N E R 2 - N O R T H W E S T C O R N E R 3 - S O U T H W E S T C O R N E R 4 - S O U T H E A S T C O R N E R LA N E DE M A R C U S B L V D LA N E CA M P B E L L L N CA M P B E L L L N DE M A R C U S B L V D 1 " = 5 0 ' - 0 " A 0 2 1 SI T E P L A N - E X I S T I N G 2 1 3 3 05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 12:30:16 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt SITE AERIAL DIAGRAM16036 A 03DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD CAMPBELL GREEN DE MARCUS BLVD DU B L I N B L V D . IRON HORSE REGI ON AL TR AI L CA M P B E L L L N CAMPBELL LN HAMLET LN.ELAN AT DUBLIN STATION 7 STORY MULTI-FAMILY AVALON DUBLIN STATION 5 STORY MULTI-FAMILY CA M E L I A P L A C E 4 S T O R Y M U L T I -FA M I L Y DU B L I N T R A N S I T CE N T E R S I T E A -1 3 S T O R Y M U L T I -FA M I L Y PR O P O S E D D E V E L O P M E N T DE MARCUS BLVD DUBLIN BLVD. SH A R E D P R I V A T E D R I V E 05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL UP A1 9 A0 2 A1 5 A1 9 A1 9 A0 5 UT I L I T Y TRASH FITNESS YOGA ROOM TR A S H GA R A G E EL E C T R I C A L RO O M BO I L E R RO O M BI K E ST O R A G E ID F 40 0 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 258' - 3" 36 4 ' - 8 " 50' - 0" 222' - 10 1/2" PA R C E L " A " PM 7 3 9 5 25 4 P M 2 8 PA R C E L 2 PM 8 2 7 5 28 0 P M 7 1 LOT 1 TRACT 7525 279 PM 97 PA R C E L 1 PM 8 2 7 5 28 0 P M 7 1 PA R C E L 3 PM 8 2 7 5 28 0 P M 7 1 IR O N H O RSE REGIO N AL TR AIL CA M P B E L L L A N E CAMPBELL LANE DE MARCUS BLVDRESIDENT LOADING ZONE 18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"100' - 0" 33 5 . 6 5 ± 333.7 LO B B Y 2 ENTRY PLAZA SH A R E D P R I V A T E D R I V E 6' - 3 1 / 2 " 20' - 3"5' - 3 1/2"2' - 4 1/2" 14' - 3" PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E 335.1 ± 333.6± 333.8± 334.0± 334.3 ± 333.5 ± 3 3 5 . 0 33 5 . 9 33 5 . 8 33 5 . 7 5 33 5 . 6 33 5 . 4 33 5 . 3 46 ' - 2 " 17 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " 0' - 0" GA S ME T E R CL O S E T A2 0 PA C K A G E RO O M S01 S01 MAIL LEASINGRESTROOM EL E C T R I C A L RO O M FI R E A C C E S S R O A D 24' - 2 1/2"16' - 2" REMOVE EXISTING MEDIAN26' - 0"14' - 3" FI R E A C C E S S R O A D STAIR 01ELEV 1STAIR 02 ST A I R 0 4 ST A I R 0 3 33 5 . 5 EL E V 2 BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 12:30:30 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt 1" = 20'-0"SITE PLAN16036 A 04•DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD 10 204080'600ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 12:30:34 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt PERSPECTIVE VIEWS16036 A 04.1TEAMTEAMDUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD SO U T H E A S T C O R N E R - CAMPBELL LANE AND DE MARCUS BOULEVARD02.09.18ENT RESUMITTAL 2 BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 1:57:51 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt PERSPECTIVE VIEWS16036 A 04.2AuthorCheckerDUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD SO U T H E A S T E N T R Y L O B B Y - CAMPBELL LANE AND DE MARCUS BOULEVARD02.09.18ENT RESUMITTAL 2 BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 12:30:43 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt PERSPECTIVE VIEWS16036 A 04.3AuthorCheckerDUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD NORTHEAST CORNER - DE MARCUS BOULEVARD02.09.18ENT RESUMITTAL 2 BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 12:30:47 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt PERSPECTIVE VIEWS16036 A 05DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD AE R I A L S O U T H E A S T C O R N E R - CAMPBELL LANE AND DE MARCUS BOULEVARD05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 12:30:52 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt PERSPECTIVE VIEWS16036 A 06DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD SO U T H E A S T C O R N E R - CAMPBELL LANE AND DE MARCUS BOULEVARD05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 12:30:56 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt PERSPECTIVE VIEWS16036 A 07DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD SO U T H E A S T C O R N E R - CAMPBELL LANE AND DE MARCUS BOULEVARD05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 12:31:03 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt PERSPECTIVE VIEWS16036 A 08DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD NO R T H E A S T C O R N E R - DE MARCUS BOULEVARDNORTHWEST CORNER - CAMPBELL LANE SO U T H E A S T C O R N E R - C A M P B E L L L A N E 05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL UP    5. 8 3 % 11 . 4 0 % 1 A 2 0 22' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"17' - 3"18' - 9"24' - 0"17' - 0"2' - 6" 21' - 0" 18' - 0"24' - 2"17' - 0" 17 ' - 0 " 2 4 ' - 0 " 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 BED UT I L I T Y TRASH FITNESS YOGAROOM TR A S H GA R A G E ELECTRICAL ROOM BO I L E R RO O M BI K E ST O R A G E GA R A G E E N T R Y 7' - 8" 8' - 1 0 1 / 2 " CL TYP 2' - 0"CL TYP 3' - 0" R 2 2' - 0 " CL TYP 3' - 0"CL TYP 3' - 0" CL TYP 27' - 0" R 24' - 0" 2 A 1 9 1 A 1 9 2 A 2 0 0' - 0"0' - 0"0' - 0"RESIDENT LOADING ZONE ID F 9' - 0"14' - 0" 5' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 82 1 S F LO B B Y 2 9' - 0"9' - 0" 9' - 0 " 24' - 0" 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 5' - 1 " 4' - 1 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 4' - 1 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 5' - 1 " 4' - 1 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 4' - 1 " 5' - 1 " 9' - 0 " SH E A R W A L L 4.15% 37 1 ' - 1 1 " 28' - 7"170' - 0 1/2"34' - 2" -0'-4"-0'-5"-0'-3"0'-0"- 0'-6" GA R A G E F E N C E , N O TH R O U G H A C C E S S SE C U R I T Y G A T E GU E S T G U E S T G U E S T GU E S T G U E S T G U E S T VAN GU E S T GU E S T GUEST TYP 2' - 0" TYP 2' - 0" TYP 2' - 0" TYP 1' - 0"TYP 26' - 0" PA C K A G E RO O M EN C R O A C H M E N T S A R E A L L O W E D U N D E R C H A P T E R 3 2 O F TH E 2 0 1 6 C B C 20 1 6 C B C 3 2 0 2 . 3 . 3 E N C R O A C H M E N T S 1 5 O R M O R E F E E T AB O V E G R A D E . EN C R O A C H M E N T S 1 5 F E E T ( 4 5 7 2 M M ) O R MO R E A B O V E G R A D E S H A L L N O T B E L I M I T E D . BU I L D I N G A N D R O O F A B O V E GU E S T G U E S T G U E S T GU E S T G U E S T G U E S T GU E S T G U E S T G U E S T GU E S T G U E S T G U E S T GU E S T GU E S T GU E S T G U E S T G U E S T GU E S T G U E S T G U E S T GU E S T G U E S T GU E S T G U E S T G U E S T G U E S T GU E S T G U E S T G U E S T GU E S T G U E S T GU E S T G U E S T GU E S T G U E S T G U E S T GU E S T G U E S T G U E S T 0' - 9 " VA N GU E S T G U E S T GU E S T LEASINGRESTROOMMAIL1 BED JR 1 BED JR REMOVE EXISTING MEDIAN FH 9' - 0 " 7 ' - 6 " 9 ' - 0 " 0'-0" 7' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 9 6 ' - 7 " 9 3 ' - 9 1 / 2 " 11 1 ' - 5 1 / 2 " 3 2 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 4 ' - 1 1 " 3 2 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 2' - 4 1/2"232' - 9 1/2"23' - 0 1/2" 27' - 3 1/2"203' - 11 1/2"27' - 0" 45 ' - 8 " 27 3 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 23' - 6"4' - 9"32' - 6 1/2"20' - 3" 1' - 6 " 1' - 6 " 1 B E D EL E C T R I C A L RO O M GA S ME T E R CL O S E T 50 G U E S T P A R K I N G S P A C E S 96 ' - 7 " CO R R I D O R CO R R I D O R STAIR 01ELEV 1STAIR 02 ST A I R 0 4 EL E V 2 ST A I R 0 3 GU E S T LOBBY 1BARarchitects901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 12:31:23 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt 1/16" = 1'-0"FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 116036 A 09DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD 8'16'32'64'48'005.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL 02.09.18ENT RESUMITTAL 2 DN UP 1 A 2 0 11 . 4 0 % 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 BED1 BED JR 1 BED JR FA N RO O M MAINTENANCE OFFICE 2 BED 2 BED 1 BED GA R A G E FAN ROOM ST O R A G E ST O R A G E 2' - 4 1/2" OPEN TO LOBBY BELOW 2' - 7 " R 2 2' - 0 " 5. 8 3 % R 24' - 0" 2 A 1 9 1 A 1 9 2 A 2 0 ID F TRASH 7' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 37 1 ' - 1 1 " 20' - 3" 2' - 4 1/2"232' - 9 1/2"23' - 0 1/2" 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " -1' - 0" 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 5 ' - 1 " 4' - 1 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 5' - 1 " 4' - 1 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 4' - 1 " 5' - 1 " 9 ' - 0 " 5' - 1 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 4' - 1 " 24' - 0"18' - 0"4' - 2" 17 ' - 0 " 2 4 ' - 0 " 18' - 0"24' - 2"17' - 0"22' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"17' - 3"18' - 9"24' - 0"17' - 0" 9' - 0"5' - 0"9' - 0" 9' - 0 " 9' - 0" 9' - 0 " CL TYP 2' - 0"CL TYP 3' - 0"CL TYP 3' - 0"CL TYP 3' - 0"CL TYP. 3' - 0"CL TYP 3' - 10" TYP 2' - 0" TYP 2' - 0" TYP 2' - 0" TYP 2' - 0" TYP 1' - 0" TYP 2' - 10" 12 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 5 " 12 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 34 6 ' - 0 " 12' - 0"12' - 0" 12 ' - 0 " 19 0 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 14 4 ' - 1 " 4 ' - 1 1 " 3 2 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 27' - 0"203' - 11 1/2"27' - 3 1/2" 45 ' - 8 " 27 3 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 23' - 6"4' - 9"32' - 6 1/2"20' - 3" EL E V 2 AM E N I T Y LO B B Y 2 CONF CONFELEV 1 STAIR 06 CO R R I D O R LOBBY 2BARarchitects901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 2:00:30 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt 1/16" = 1'-0"FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 216036 A 10DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD 8'16'32'64'48'005.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL 02.09.18ENT RESUMITTAL 2 DN 1 A 2 0 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D + 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 2 B E D 1 B E D J R 1+ B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 1 B E D J R 1 B E D J R 1+ B E D 1 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D + 1 B E D J R 2 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 2 BED1 BED 2 BED +1 BED 1 BED 1 BED2 BED2 BED COMMUNITY ROOM ? ? ? 2 A 1 9 1 A 1 9 2 A 2 0 ? 5' - 3 1 / 2 " 1 9 0 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 14 4 ' - 2 " 4 ' - 1 1 " 3 2 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 37 1 ' - 1 1 " 137' - 2 1/2"15' - 10 1/2" 3 7 ' - 8 1 /2 " 1 1 6 ' - 1 " 9 ' - 9 " 6 6 ' - 8 " 3 ' - 5 " 1 8 ' - 1 1 /2 " 28 3 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 37' - 6 1/2"32' - 6 1/2" 13' - 9"39' - 11 1/2"158' - 8 1/2" 7 0 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 13' - 0 1/2"75' - 8"13' - 3 1/2" 14 ' - 3 " PO D I U M C O U R T Y A R D (S E E L A N D S C A P E D R A W I N G S ) PO D I U M C O U R T Y A R D (S E E L A N D S C A P E D R A W I N G S ) 7 0 ' - 1 " 9 ' - 0 " BRIDGE ABOVE 9' - 4 " C L 3 9 ' - 9 " 35 8 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 24 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 35 9 ' - 0 " 359' - 0" 35 9 ' - 0 " 35 9 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 7 " 8 ' - 1 1 " 3 ' - 3 " 2' - 4 1 / 2 " 37 7 ' - 5 " 20' - 3"2 BED +1 BED ST O R A G E ? 1 B E D ? ? BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 2:03:10 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt 1/16" = 1'-0"FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 316036 A 11DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD 8'16'32'64'48'005.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL 02.09.18ENT RESUMITTAL 2 1 A 2 0 2 B E D + 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 BED2 BED 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1+ B E D 2 B E D 1 B E D J R 1 B E D J R 2 B E D + 2 BED +2 BED +1 BED1 BED2 BED 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 BED 1 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D + 1 BED 1 B E D J R OPEN TO BELOW TR A S H TRASH 2 A 1 9 1 A 1 9 2 A 2 0 ID F 27' - 0"204' - 0 1/2"27' - 2 1/2"137' - 2 1/2"15' - 10 1/2" 3 7 ' - 8 1 /2 " 1 1 6 ' - 1 " 9 ' - 9 " 6 6 ' - 8 " 3 ' - 5 " 1 8 ' - 1 1 /2 " 7 0 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 13' - 0 1/2"75' - 8"13' - 3 1/2" 14 ' - 3 " 14 ' - 3 " UN I T A B O V E B R E E Z E W A Y 9 ' - 0 " C L 3 9 ' - 9 " 35 ' - 4 " 50' - 11 1/2" 10 0 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 1 0 ' - 8 " 3 2 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 4 ' - 1 1 " 3 2 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 37 9 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 20' - 2" 34' - 2" 2' - 4"34' - 2"221' - 9" 2' - 4 1 / 2 " 4 3 ' - 2 1 / 2 " 33 4 ' - 3 " 20' - 3" 21 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 2 1 ' - 1 1 " 26 4 ' - 2 " 70' - 1" ST O R A G E ST O R A G E ? ST O R A G E 2 BED 1 BEDELEV 1 EL E V 2 BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 2:07:39 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt 1/16" = 1'-0"FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 416036 A 12DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD 8'16'32'64'48'005.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL 02.09.18ENT RESUMITTAL 2 1 A 2 0 2 B E D + 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 BED2 BED 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1+ B E D 1 B E D J R 1 B E D J R 2 B E D + 2 BED +2 BED +1 BED 1 BED1 BED1 BED2 BED 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 BED 1 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D + 1 BED 1 B E D J R TR A S H TRASH 2 A 1 9 1 A 1 9 2 A 2 0 ID F 23' - 0"4' - 0 1/2"204' - 0 1/2"27' - 2 1/2"137' - 2 1/2" 76 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 15' - 10 1/2" 3 7 ' - 8 1 /2 " 1 1 6 ' - 1 " 9 ' - 9 1 /2 " 6 6 ' - 8 " 3 ' - 5 " 1 8 ' - 1 1 /2 " 7 0 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 13' - 0 1/2"75' - 8"13' - 3 1/2" 14 ' - 3 " 14 ' - 3 " 1 B E D J R 2 1 ' - 5 1 / 2 " 9 ' - 0 " C L 3 9 ' - 9 " 45' - 8"10' - 8"32' - 7 1/2"4' - 11"32' - 7 1/2" 37 9 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 20' - 2" 221' - 9"34' - 2"2' - 4" 34' - 2" 21 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 28 6 ' - 1 " 70' - 1" 2' - 4 1 / 2 " 37 7 ' - 6 " 20' - 1 1/2"50' - 11 1/2"2 BED ST O . ST O R A G E ST O R A G E 2 B E D ELEV 1 EL E V 2 ST O R A G E BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 2:21:03 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt 1/16" = 1'-0"FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 516036 A 13DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD 8'16'32'64'48'005.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL 02.09.18ENT RESUMITTAL 2 1 A 2 0 RESIDENT LOUNGE 3 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 BED2 BED2 BED 1 B E D J R 2 B E D 1 B E D J R 1 B E D J R 2 BED 1 BED1 BED2 BED 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 BED 1 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D + 1 BED 1 B E D TR A S H TRASH 2 A 1 9 1 A 1 9 2 A 2 0 ID F 27' - 0"196' - 9"34' - 6"112' - 4"15' - 10 1/2" 3 7 ' - 8 1 /2 " 1 1 6 ' - 1 " 9 ' - 9 1 /2 " 6 6 ' - 8 " 3 ' - 5 " 7 0 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 1 B E D J R 2 1 ' - 5 1 / 2 " 9 ' - 0 " 56' - 0" 56 ' - 0 " 56' - 0"20' - 3" 10 0 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 1 0 ' - 8 " 3 2 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 4 ' - 1 1 " 3 2 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 7' - 2 1/2"43' - 7 1/2"8' - 2"144' - 11"25' - 3"31' - 7 1/2"33' - 5"5' - 0 1/2" ST O R A G E STAIR 01STAIR 02 ST A I R 0 3 1 BED ME C H A N I C A L EN C L O S U R E ME C H A N I C A L EN C L O S U R E BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 2:26:16 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt 1/16" = 1'-0"FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 616036 A 14DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD 8'16'32'64'48'005.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL 02.09.18ENT RESUMITTAL 2 1 A 2 0 OPEN TO RESIDENT LOUNGE BELOW1 BED 1 BED 1 BED 1 BED2 BED3 BED3 BED 3 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 1 B E D J R 2 B E D 2 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D J R 2 B E D 2 B E D + 1 B E D J R 1 B E D ? TRASH 2 A 1 9 1 A 1 9 2 A 2 0 DS DS ? ME C H A N I C A L EN C L O S U R E ME C H A N I C A L EN C L O S U R E OPEN TO DECK BELOW B R I D G E B E L OW 3 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 6 6 ' - 8 " 3 ' - 5 " 3 ' - 4 " 7 0 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 3 ' - 4 " 7 0 ' - 1 " 3 ' - 1 1 " 3' - 6 1/2"65' - 0 1/2"3' - 11 1/2"31' - 6 1/2"192' - 2 1/2"34' - 6"31' - 7 1/2"33' - 5"65' - 0 1/2"25' - 1" RO O F O V E R H A N G ROOF OVERHANG ROOF OVERHANG RO O F O V E R H A N G C L 3 9 ' - 8 3 / 4 " 66 ' - 4 " 66' - 4" 66 ' - 3 " 1' - 10 1/2"2' - 0"8' - 6 1/2" 1 ' - 1 1 1 /2 " 2 2 5 ' - 1 1 1 /2 " 1 ' - 1 1 " 25' - 3"2 BED ? ? STAIR 01STAIR 02 ME C H A N I C A L EN C L O S U R E BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 2:27:07 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt 1/16" = 1'-0"FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 716036 A 15DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD 8'16'32'64'48'005.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL 02.09.18ENT RESUMITTAL 2 DNSLOPESLOPESLOPE S L O P E S L O P E S L O P E S L O P E SLOPE SL O P E SL O P E SLOPE SL O P E S L O P E SL O P E SLOPE SL O P E SL O P E SL O P E SL O P E S L O P E SL O P E S L O P E SL O P E SLOPE SL O P E SL O P E SLOPE SL O P E SLOPE SL O P E S L O P E S L O P E SL O P E SLOPE SL O P E S L O P E SLOPE S L O P E SLOPE S L O P E SL O P E SLOPE SLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE S L O P E SL O P E S L O P E S L O P E S L O P E 1 A 2 0 OPEN TO BELOW 2 A 1 9 1 A 1 9 2 A 2 0 DA S H E D L I N E I N D I C A T E S A R E A DE S I G N A T E D F O R F U T U R E S O L A R PA N E L S ( 1 0 % O F R O O F A R E A M I N . ) ME C H A N I C A L EN C L O S U R E M E T A L SC R E E N ME C H A N I C A L EN C L O S U R E ME C H A N I C A L EN C L O S U R E M E T A L SC R E E N DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS B E L O W DS DSDSDSDS DS DS B E L O W DSDS DS BR I D G E B E L O W ME C H A N I C A L EN C L O S U R E M E T A L SC R E E N ME C H A N I C A L EN C L O S U R E M E T A L SC R E E N 83' - 2"76' - 9" DS DS DS DS DSDSDSDSDS 76 ' - 9 " 83 ' - 7 " 66 ' - 3 " 33 ' - 7 " 6' - 4" 2 9 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 7 ' - 7 " 73 ' - 5 " 12 3 ' - 1 1 " 73' - 1" 37 8 ' - 9 " 21' - 3 1/2" 2' - 4 1 / 2 " 37 6 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 21' - 4 1/2" 43 ' - 2 1 / 2 " 1 4 1 ' - 5 1 / 2 " 73 ' - 5 " 4 5 ' - 2 1 / 2 " 7 3 ' - 1 " 20' - 11"204' - 8 1/2"32' - 7 1/2" 255' - 11"2' - 4" 10' - 11 1/2"23' - 2 1/2" 7 8 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 1 9 ' - 5 " BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 12:33:34 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt 1/16" = 1'-0"FLOOR PLAN - ROOF16036 A 16DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD 8'16'32'64'48'005.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL LEVEL 1 334' - 0"LEVEL 2 347' - 0"LEVEL 3 359' - 0"LEVEL 4 369' - 4"LEVEL 5 379' - 8"LEVEL 6 390' - 0"LEVEL 7 400' - 4"ROOF 410' - 8"14' - 8"10' - 4"10' - 4"10' - 4"10' - 4"12' - 0"13' - 0" 1 6 2 15 13 7 1 7 3 2 PENTHOUSE ROOF 418' - 8" EN C R O A C H M E N T S A R E A L L O W E D U N D E R C H A P T E R 3 2 O F TH E 2 0 1 6 C B C 20 1 6 C B C 3 2 0 2 . 3 . 3 E N C R O A C H M E N T S 1 5 O R M O R E F E E T AB O V E G R A D E . EN C R O A C H M E N T S 1 5 F E E T ( 4 5 7 2 M M ) O R MO R E A B O V E G R A D E S H A L L N O T B E L I M I T E D . 23' - 9" 4' - 4"MEASURED TO THE MIDPOINT OF SLOPED ROOF 56' - 0"25' - 0"81' - 0" 3 8 7156 1 LEVEL 1 334' - 0"LEVEL 2 347' - 0"LEVEL 3 359' - 0"LEVEL 4 369' - 4"LEVEL 5 379' - 8"LEVEL 6 390' - 0"LEVEL 7 400' - 4"ROOF 410' - 8"2 6 1 14' - 8"10' - 4"10' - 4"10' - 4"10' - 4"12' - 0"13' - 0"PENTHOUSE ROOF 418' - 8"MEASURED TO THE MIDPOINT OF SLOPED ROOF 56' - 0"25' - 0"81' - 0" 7 8 3 3 1 8 A 2 5 1 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " A 1 7 2 SO U T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " A 1 7 1 WE S T E L E V A T I O N BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 8/28/2017 4:29:15 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt 1/16" = 1'-0"EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - SOUTH & WEST16036 A 17DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD 8'16'32'64'48'0 MA T E R I A L S L E G E N D NO . M A T E R I A L 1 C E M E N T P L A S T E R 2F I B E R C E M E N T P A N E L 3 T I L E O R T H I N S E T M A S O N R Y P R O D U C T 4 F I B E R C E M E N T A C C E N T P A N E L 5 M E C H A N C I A L S C R E E N 6 P E R F O R A T E D M E T A L S C R E E N 7G L A Z I N G 8 P E R F O R A T E D M E TA L B A L U S T R A D E 9 M E T A L P A N E L 10 G L A Z E D B A L C O N Y D O O R 11 S T O R E F R O N T W I N D O W S Y S T E M 12 M T L P A N E L 13 D E C O R T I V E M E T A L F I N 14 C A N O P Y 15 F I B E R C E M E N T L A P S I D I N G 16 M E T A L S U N S H A D E 17 V I N Y L W I N D O W 18 B A L C O N Y 19 J U L I E T B A L C O N Y 20 S T E E L B R I D G E 05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL LEVEL 1 334' - 0"LEVEL 2 347' - 0"LEVEL 3 359' - 0"LEVEL 4 369' - 4"LEVEL 5 379' - 8"LEVEL 6 390' - 0"LEVEL 7 400' - 4" 15 2 2 8 15 7 2 7 8 6 14' - 8"10' - 4"10' - 4"10' - 4"10' - 4"12' - 0"13' - 0"MEASURED TO THE MIDPOINT OF SLOPED ROOF 56' - 0"25' - 0"81' - 0"6 LEVEL 1 334' - 0"LEVEL 2 347' - 0"LEVEL 3 359' - 0"LEVEL 4 369' - 4"LEVEL 5 379' - 8"LEVEL 6 390' - 0"LEVEL 7 400' - 4"ROOF 410' - 8"18 5 3 7 15 2 7 8 7 8 8 7 2 8 15 3 PENTHOUSE ROOF 418' - 8"MEASURED TO THE MIDPOINT OF SLOPED ROOF 13' - 0"12' - 0"10' - 4"10' - 4"10' - 4"10' - 4"14' - 8"25' - 0"56' - 0"81' - 0" 2 5 5 A 2 5 2 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " A 1 8 2 EA S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " A 1 8 1 NO R T H E L E V A T I O N BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 8/28/2017 4:29:24 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt 1/16" = 1'-0"EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - NORTH & EAST16036 A 18DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD 8'16'32'64'48'0 MA T E R I A L S L E G E N D NO . M A T E R I A L 1 C E M E N T P L A S T E R 2 F I B E R C E M E N T P A N E L 3 T I L E O R T H I N S E T M A S O N R Y P R O D U C T 4 F I B E R C E M E N T A C C E N T P A N E L 5 M E C H A N C I A L S C R E E N 6 P E R F O R A T E D M E T A L S C R E E N 7G L A Z I N G 8 P E R F O R A T E D M E T A L B A L U S T R A D E 9 M E T A L P A N E L 10 G L A Z E D B A L C O N Y D O O R 11 S T O R E F R O N T W I N D O W S Y S T E M 12 M T L P A N E L 13 D E C O R T I V E M E T A L F I N 14 C A N O P Y 15 F I B E R C E M E N T L A P S I D I N G 16 M E T A L S U N S H A D E 17 V I N Y L W I N D O W 18 B A L C O N Y 19 J U L I E T B A L C O N Y 20 S T E E L B R I D G E 05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL LEVEL 1 334' - 0"LEVEL 2 347' - 0"LEVEL 3 359' - 0"LEVEL 4 369' - 4"LEVEL 5 379' - 8"LEVEL 6 390' - 0"LEVEL 7 400' - 4" 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 BED 2 BED GA R A G E GA R A G E 14' - 8"10' - 4"10' - 4"10' - 4"10' - 4"12' - 0"13' - 0"PROPERTY LINE CAMPBELL LN PROPERTY LINE SHARED PRIVATE DRIVE MEASURED TO THE MIDPOINT OF SLOPED ROOF 56' - 0"25' - 0"81' - 0"LEVEL 1 334' - 0"LEVEL 2 347' - 0"LEVEL 3 359' - 0"LEVEL 4 369' - 4"LEVEL 5 379' - 8"LEVEL 6 390' - 0"LEVEL 7 400' - 4" 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D GA R A G E GA R A G E ME C H A N I C A L EN C L O S U R E PROPERTY LINE CAMPBELL LN PROPERTY LINE SHARED PRIVATE DRIVE 14' - 8"10' - 4"10' - 4"10' - 4"10' - 4"12' - 0"13' - 0"MEASURED TO THE MIDPOINT OF SLOPED ROOF 56' - 0"25' - 0"81' - 0"BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 8/28/2017 4:29:31 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt 1/16" = 1'-0"BUILDING SECTIONS -NORTH/SOUTH16036 A 19DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " A 1 9 2 BU I L D I N G S E C T I O N - N O R T H / S O U T H 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " A 1 9 1 BU I L D I N G S E C T I O N - N O R T H / S O U T H 8'16'32'64'48'005.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL LEVEL 1 334' - 0"LEVEL 2 347' - 0"LEVEL 3 359' - 0"LEVEL 4 369' - 4"LEVEL 5 379' - 8"LEVEL 6 390' - 0"LEVEL 7 400' - 4" GA R A G E GA R A G E 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 3 B E D 3 B E D 3 B E D 1+ B E D 1+ B E D 1+ B E D 1 B E D J R 1 B E D J R 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 14' - 8"10' - 4"10' - 4"10' - 4"10' - 4"12' - 0"13' - 0"RESIDENT LOUNGE 3 BED 3 BEDCOMMUNITY / CLUB /REC ROOM LOBBY1 BEDPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE DE MARCUS BVLD CAMPBELL LN MEASURED TO THE MIDPOINT OF SLOPED ROOF 56' - 0"25' - 0"81' - 0"3 BED LEVEL 1 334' - 0"LEVEL 2 347' - 0"LEVEL 3 359' - 0"LEVEL 4 369' - 4"LEVEL 5 379' - 8"LEVEL 6 390' - 0"LEVEL 7 400' - 4" BO I L E R RO O M BI K E ST O R A G E GARAGE GARAGE GA R A G E GA R A G E S T O R A G E FITNESS2 BED2 BED2 BED2 BED2 BED3 BED1 BED 1 BED 1 BED 1 BED 1 BED 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 1 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 2 B E D 14' - 8"10' - 4"10' - 4"10' - 4"10' - 4"12' - 0"13' - 0"PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE DE MARCUS BVLD CAMPBELL LN 1 B E D J R 1 B E D J R 1 B E D J R 1 B E D J R 1 B E D J R 10' - 4"7' - 10"10" 59' - 0" 56' - 0"25' - 0"81' - 0"MEASURED TO THE MIDPOINT OF SLOPED ROOFBARarchitects901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 8/28/2017 4:29:36 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt 1/16" = 1'-0"BUILDING SECTIONS -EAST/WEST16036 A 20DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " A 2 0 2 BU I L D I N G S E C T I O N - E A S T / W E S T 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " A 2 0 1 BU I L D I N G S E C T I O N - E A S T / W E S T 8'16'32'64'48'005.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL A1 3 70 7 S F BEDROOM LI V I N G DI N I N G KITCHEN EN T R Y BATHROOMCLOSET B1 2 99 0 S F LI V I N G DI N I N G KITCHEN EN T R Y CL O S E T BE D R O O M 1 MA S T E R BE D R O O M CL O S E T BA T H R O O M BA T H R O O M C0 1 11 8 0 S F LI V I N G KITCHEN DI N I N G DE N / O F F I C E BE D R O O M 2 MA S T E R BE D R O O M BA T H R O O M BA T H R O O M CLOSET CL O S E T EN T R Y CL O S E T S0 1 56 0 S F KITCHEN ENTRY DI N I N G BATHROOMBEDROOMLIVINGBARarchitects901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 12:34:30 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt 1/4" = 1'-0"ENLARGED TYPICAL UNIT PLANS16036 A 21DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " A 2 1 2 TY P . 1 B E D R O O M U N I T 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " A 2 1 3 TY P . 2 B E D R O O M U N I T 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " A 2 1 4 TY P . 3 B E D R O O M U N I T 2'4'8'16'12'0 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " A 2 1 1 TY P . J R . 1 B E D R O O M U N I T 05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 12:34:35 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt GREENPOINT CHECKLIST16036 A 22DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD 05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 12:34:41 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt GREENPOINT CHECKLIST16036 A 23DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD 05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 12:34:45 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt GREENPOINT CHECKLIST16036 A 24DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD 05.24.17ENTITLEMENTS 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL F.O.S. F.O.S. FD B - c c - 0 0 6 ST U C C O R E T U R N NA I L F I N W I N D O W WD . F R A M I N G , S S D . DR A I N A G E M A T SE A L A N T & B A C K E R R O D SI L L B E L O W ST U C C O LEVEL 1 334' - 0"LEVEL 2 346' - 0"LEVEL 3 359' - 0"LEVEL 4 369' - 4"LEVEL 5 379' - 8"LEVEL 6 390' - 0"4 A 25SIM.THINSET TILE CEMENT PLASTER COLOR O2WIN FRAME COLOR O1 PERFORATED METAL BALUSTRADE PERFORATED METAL SCREEN CEMENT PLASTER COLOR O2 LE V E L 1 33 4 ' - 0 " LE V E L 2 34 6 ' - 0 " LE V E L 3 35 9 ' - 0 " LE V E L 4 36 9 ' - 4 " LE V E L 5 37 9 ' - 8 " LE V E L 6 39 0 ' - 0 " LE V E L 7 40 0 ' - 4 " FI B E R C E M E N T LA P S I D I N G WI N F R A M E CO L O R O 2 BARarchitects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 12:34:55 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt As indicatedAPPENDIX16036 A 25AuthorCheckerDUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD 3 " = 1 ' - 0 " A 2 5 4 TY P I C A L R E C E S S E D W I N D O W J A M B 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " A 2 5 1 EN L A R G E D W E S T E L E V A T I O N 0 2 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " A 2 5 2 EN L A R G E D N O R T H E L E V A T I O N 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL COLOR 04 CO L O R 0 2 C O L O R 0 3 COLOR 05 CO L O R 0 1 W I N C O L O R 0 2 W I N C O L O R 0 2 W I N C O L O R 0 2 WIN COLOR 02 STOREFRONT COLORBARarchitects901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 293 5700 www.bararch.com cBAR C O P Y R I G H T architects DRAWNBY C PHECKEDBYROJECTNO DATEISSUEDRACPHERODA SCALE:DUBLIN, CA SITE A-3 2/9/2018 12:39:08 PM BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt As indicatedBUILDING MATERIALS16036 P 01RV/MS PCDUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARD MA T E R I A L S CO L O R S FIBER CEMENT PANEL CE M E N T P L A S T E R FI B E R C E M E N T S I D I N G 08.29.17ENT RESUBMITTAL Page 1 of 11 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: November 14, 2017 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A -3) Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit, and Tentative Map 8437 (PLPA 2017- 00036) Prepared by: Martha Battaglia, Associate Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Applicant, Ashton at Dublin Station, is proposing to construct a residential project comprised of 220 apartment units, and related amenities including a fitness center, pool, roof top lounge, and 331 spaces of structured parking on an approximately 2.36 -acre site located within the Dublin Transit Center. The proposed mix of residential units includes 122 one-bedroom units, 79 two-bedroom units and 19 three-bedroom units. The site has a land use designation of High Density Residential (25.1 or greater units per acre). The application includes a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit, and Tentative Map 8437 for condominium purposes. The Planning Commission will review the proposed project and make a recommendation to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Disclose ex-parte contacts, conduct the public hearing, deliberate and adopt the following Resolutions: a) Recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance rezoning the Dublin Transit Center Site A-3 project site to PD-Planned Development and approving a Stage 2 Development Plan; and b) Recommending that the City Council approve the Site Development Review Permit and Tentative Map 8437 for the Dublin Transit Center Site A-3 project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Background The Dublin Transit Center area generally is bounded on the north by Dublin Boulevard, on the south by Interstate 580 and the existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, on the east by Arnold Road, and on the west by the Iron Horse Trail (Figure 1). Page 2 of 11 In December 2002, the City Council adopted entitlements establishing the Transit Center. This included General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments (Resolution 216-02) to incorporate this area into the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and establishing land uses. The project included Planned Development Zoning with a Stage 1 Development Plan (Ordinance 21-02) which established the permitted uses; site areas and proposed densities; maximum number of residential units and non - residential square footage; and a Master Landscaping Plan. The approval also included a Master Development Agreement (Ordinance 5-03) approved in May 2003. The Dublin Transit Center project area allows for the development of 1,500 residential units on Sites A, B and C; two million square feet of campus office and up to 300 residential units on Sites D and E; and 70,000 square feet of retail uses at street level on Sites B through E, and a 1-acre Village Green located between Sites B and C. Sites A, B and C have been developed with the exception of Site A -3, which is the subject of this Staff Report. Project Site Site A-3 is the last remaining site with a residential land use designation in the Transit Center. The 2.36 acre site is located south of a private street, east and north of Campbell Lane, and west of DeMarcus Boulevard as shown in Figure 1. The site has a General Plan and EDSP land use designation of High Density Residential and Planned Development Zoning with a Stage 1 Development Plan. Figure 1. Vicinity Map The project site is rectangular in shape and has a relatively flat topography. The project site is paved and has previously been used as a parking lot and a construction staging area. There are no permanent structures, existing drainage courses, or native vegetation located on the site. Surrounding street improvements are limited to curb s and gutters along DeMarcus Boulevard and Campbell Lane. This vacant site is surrounded by existing developments (Table 1). Page 3 of 11 Table 1. Surrounding Land Uses LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY Building Height North PD High Density Residential Camellia Place – 112 units 53 feet 3 stories over 1 level of parking South PD Public/Semi-Public PG&E Substation N/A East PD High Density Residential Elan – 257 multi- family townhomes & condominiums 65 feet 5 stories over parking West PD Medium-High Density Residential Tribeca – 52 townhomes 40 feet 3 stories Current Request Ashton at Dublin Station is requesting approval of a 220 -unit apartment building, which includes residential amenities consisting of a fitness center, pool, roof top lounge, and 331 spaces of structured parking. The proposed mix of residential units includes 122 one-bedroom units, 79 two-bedroom units and 19 three-bedroom units. The current request for the proposed project includes:  Planned Development Zoning - Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 2 Development Plan.  Site Development Review Permit - Site Development Review Permit for 220 apartment units, with related amenities and structured parking with 331 spaces.  Subdivision - Tentative Map 8437 for condominium purposes. ANALYSIS: Planned Development Zoning The application includes a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 2 Development Plan. The existing Planned Development Zoning Stage 1 Development Plan established a maximum building height for high density residential of 5 stories over parking and a parking standard of 1.5 spaces per unit for residential land uses. The project site is part of Site A, an 8.29 net acre area delineated as Sites A -1, A-2 and A-3. The Planned Development Zoning originally anticipated up to 530 units across all of Site A. The number was later reduced to 430 units when 100 units were transferred to Site C. The total number of units constructed in the Dublin Transit Center project area, including the proposed project, would be 1,451 units. This is 46 units less than Page 4 of 11 anticipated for Site A, and 49 units less than the total allocation of 1,500 units for the overall Transit Center, as shown in Table 2. Table 2. Transit Center Residential Development Site Project Name Units Constructed/Proposed Units Permitted Difference A-1 Tribeca (52 Units) 384 430 46 A-2 Camellia Place (112 Units) A-3 Ashton @ Dublin Station (220 units) B-1 Elan (257 Units) 562 565 3 B-2 Eclipse (305 units) C-1 Avalon (505 units) 505 505 --- Total 1,451 1,500 49 The proposed Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning is in compliance with the requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and will establish the detailed development plan for the site. This includes a preliminary site plan, development standards, architectural standards, and a preliminary landscape. The project is compatible with the land use concept to maximize transit opp ortunities presented by the adjacent Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station; conforms to the development standards adopted for the Dublin Transit Center; and contributes to a vibrant, pedestrian friendly environment. A Resolution recommending that the City Coun cil adopt an Ordinance approving the Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 2 Development Plan for the Dublin Transit Center Site A-3 is included as Attachment 1, with the draft City Council Ordinance included as Exhibit A. Site Development Review Site Plan The primary entry lobby is located near the northwest corner of DeMarcus Boulevard and Campbell Lane. The primary entry lobby that fronts on this corner has a two story volume and is set back to accommodate a pedestrian plaza. A secondary entr y lobby is located mid-block on the north side of the building along the private street that is shared with Camellia Place. Similar to the primary entry, the building is set back creating a smaller pedestrian plaza with landscaping. Vehicle access to the structured parking will be through a garage entry located on Campbell Lane. The project includes frontage improvements and landscaping consistent with the improvements throughout the Transit Center. Page 5 of 11 Residential amenities including a lobby, fitness center and a leasing office (approximately 6,200 square feet) are proposed along DeMarcus Boulevard. Ground - floor residential units with front stoops are proposed on the north elevation, which enhance the residential scale and character established by the Camelli a Place residential project across the street. Architecture The project architecture has a contemporary aesthetic with angular lines and includes a variety of high quality exterior materials and colors. Façade treatments include stucco, fiber cement and metal accent, metal window surrounds, limited areas of storefront glazing and metal and translucent entry canopies. Balconies and screening inserts used within the garage include translucent perforated metal screening. The proposed project includes unique architectural features and massing elements to provide visual interest as well as open space for the occupants. The design includes two opposing yet complementary tilted overhanging roof forms which accentuate the taller massing elements of the building. The roof design allows the top-level units to have generous windows and optimized views of the surrounding area. The project’s design provides visual interest as viewed from Interstate 580 to the south and the pedestrian pathways along DeMarcus Boulevard and Campbell Lane. The design of the east podium courtyard allows glimpse in from the surrounding area and also provides a strong pedestrian visual scale for the project. The two-story parking podium façades face Campbell Lane to the west and south. The parking garage has been designed to include architectural elements that provide functional screening as well as visual interest. The façade of the parking structure is comprised of framed openings which provide articulation and depth along the ground floor. Infill surfaces fill the frames and angle inward in varying directions. The architecture elements described can be seen in the renderings below. Aerial at SE corner – Campbell Lane & DeMarcus Blvd. Page 6 of 11 The massing of the proposed building is consistent with the scale of the adjacen t buildings with the tallest massing located at the east side of the project opposite the adjacent buildings along DeMarcus Boulevard (Elan and Avalon). The lowest massing is located on the west side opposite the lower height townhouses across Campbell Lan e (Tribeca). The proposed range of building heights, including 3, 4 and 5 residential stories, over parking podium gives the project a sense of visual interest and variation in roof profile, and it enables the building to respond contextually to the preexi sting massing variation within the Transit Center. A feature of the building projects over a portion of the sidewalk adjacent to Campbell Lane. The total projection area is approximately 300 square feet as shown in Figure 2 below. The projection into the right-of-way includes living space, balconies and roof overhang. The projection starts on the third floor at 23 feet above grade so as not to conflict with use of the sidewalk. SE corner – Campbell Lane & DeMarcus Blvd. NE corner – DeMarcus Blvd. SW corner – Campbell Lane NW corner – Campbell Lane Page 7 of 11 Figure 2. Right Of Way Projection The City will quitclaim fee title ownership of the area with the proposed building projection, while reserving a public access easement and a utility easement over the area. These easements will allow for continued use of this area by the public and utility companies. Landscaping The landscaping has been designed to be consistent with and completes the streetscape as identified in the Design Guidelines for the overall Dublin Transit Center. Similar to other higher density residential developments, landscaping and recreational amenities are used to provide quality open areas and visual relief. Plantings and hardscape elements are used to create neighborhood identification and an attractive community entry. Colored concrete unit pavers connect the project site with the rest of the Dublin Transit Center, while helping to define the main entries and gathering spaces. The landscape plan includes trees, along with flowering shrubs and groundcover, which line and define the project entry. Perimeter areas are proposed to be landscaped wit h a variety of drought tolerant plant materials that are low maintenance and encourage water conservation. Please refer to Sheets L2.00-L5.00 of the attached plans (Exhibit A to the City Council Resolution) for the proposed plant palette. Page 8 of 11 The project includes two podium level roof courtyards and a swimming pool on the third floor. Amphitheater stair seating is proposed near the project’s southeast corner within the pedestrian plaza. Benches and raised planters are located throughout the landscape public spaces. There is a 20’ storm drain easement located along the eastern property boundary along DeMarcus Boulevard. This easement area is planted with a variety of taller flowering shrubs and succulents that delineate the space without using fences or walls . In compliance with water quality requirements, flow through planters are located on the northern portion of the project site and within the open courtyard areas. The plantings within these areas include grasses and flowering plants. Private sidewalks with public access are proposed on all four frontages. The project includes a variety of site lighting, including tree uplight, pool & spa lighting, stake mounted LED lights along pathways, recessed planter wall lights and decorative string lights. The conceptual lighting plan is shown on Sheet L6.00 of the attached plans. Floor Plans The project includes a mix of studio, one, two and three -bedroom flats that vary in size and layout. The floor plans are shown on Sheet A21 of the attached plans. Access to the units would be primarily from interior corridors with exception to the stoop units along the private street facing Camellia Place to the north. An open -air bridge comprised primarily of perforated metal screen is visible from the south elevation and provides a connection across the eastern podium. Table 3 below details the square footage of the individual units as well as the percentage of each unit type within the project. TABLE 3. Floor Plans Unit Type Square Footage # of Units % of Project Jr. 1 Bedroom 640 SF 22 10.0% 1 Bedroom 800 SF 92 41.8% 1+ Bedroom 975 SF 8 3.6% 2 Bedroom 1,120 SF 79 35.9% 3 Bedroom 1,280 SF 19 8.6% Total 100% Parking The Development Regulations for the Dublin Transit Center require 1.5 parking spaces per unit, which includes guest parking. Based on this standard, a total of 330 spaces would be required. The proposed project provides 331 spaces located within a two – Page 9 of 11 story podium parking garage. Fifteen percent (15%) of the required parking spaces (50 spaces) are unassigned guest parking spaces. Additionally, surface stalls will be located on the public streets along the project frontage, which are not included in the parking requirement for the project. Bicycle storage parking is provided on the first floor of the parking garage. A total of 130 bicycle parking stalls are provided. Affordable Housing/Inclusionary Zoning The Dublin Transit Center requires 15% of the residential units be affordable units. The Camellia Place apartment project on Site A-2 has been used to satisfy the very low and low portion of the inclusionary housing requirement for the project. Ten percent (10%) of the units in the proposed project are required to be affordable to moderate income household earning between 80% and 120% of the area median income adjusted for actual household size. The affordable units are required to reflect the range of numbers of bedrooms provided in the project. The applicant proposes to provide the required number of moderate income units (22) which will include a range of one, two and three - bedroom units. A Condition of Approval has been placed on the project that requires the applicant to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement. Public Art Compliance The project is part of a comprehensive plan to provide public art as part of the Dublin Transit Center project. The public art requirement has already bene satisfied. Tentative Map Although the project is proposed for occupancy as apartments, the Applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Map for condominium purposes as is common with other recent apartment projects. A Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Site Development Review Permit and Tentative Map is included as Attachment 2, with the dra ft City Council Resolution included as Exhibit A. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE: The project site has a current General Plan and EDSP land use designation of High Density Residential and consistent Planned Development Zoning. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation and zoning. The project will contribute to housing opportunities and diversity of product type and complement the surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed project has been reviewed for conformance with the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan. The project has been designed to be compatible with adjacent and surrounding development. Pedestrian circulation and Page 10 of 11 gathering spaces have all been linked together with sidewal ks and public and private streets. In general, the proposed project furthers the goals of the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan by providing a high quality of life and preserving resources and opportunities for future generations. REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES: The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, and Dublin San Ramon Services District reviewed the project and provided Conditions of Approval where appropriate to ensure that the Project is established in compliance with all local Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments and agencies have been included in the attached Resolution pertaining to the Site Development Review Permit and Tentative Map (Exhibit A to Attachment 2). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City has determined that the project qualifies for a statutory exemption from CEQA under Government Code section 65457. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation for Site A-3 and does not exceed the units allowed by the Dublin Transit Center Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning. An EIR has been certified for the Dublin Transit Center Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning. The CEQA document in Support of a Specific Plan E xemption finds that no event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code has occurred since the certification of the Dublin Transit Specific Plan EIR that requires preparation of a supplemental CEQA document. Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identify the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review. After a review of these conditions, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required for this project. The CEQA Analysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemption is included as Attachment 3. The 2002 Dublin Transit Center EIR, upon which the exemption relies, is available for review at the Planning Division in City Hall during normal business hours. PUBLIC NOTICING: In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project to advertise the project and the and posted at several locations throughout the City. A copy of this Staff Report has b een provided to the Applicant. ATTACHMENTS: 1. PC Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance Rezoning the Dublin Transit Center Site A-3 1a. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 Page 11 of 11 2. PC Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the SDR & Tentative Map for site A-3 2a. Exhibit A to Attachment 2 2b. Exhibit A to City Council Resolution approving the SDR & Tentative Map 3. Ashton at Dublin Station_CEQA Analysis PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, November 14, 2017 IC A Regular Meeting of the Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 14, 2017, in the City Council Chamber. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM., by Commission Chair Mittan. 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance Attendee Name Title Status Scott Mittan _ Commission Chair Present Tara Bhuthimethee Commission Vice Chair Present Am it Kothari Planning Commissioner Present Samir Qureshi Planning Commissioner Present Stephen Wright I Planning Commissioner Present 2. Oral Communications 2.1. Public Comment No public comments were made. 3. Consent Calendar 3.1. Approve the Minutes of the October 24, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVED BY: Stephen Wright, Planning Commissioner SECOND: Scott Mittan, Commission Chair AYES: Bhuthimethee, Kothari, Qureshi 3. Written Communication - None. 4. Public Hearing 5.1. Transit Center Site A -3 Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit, and Tentative Map 8437 (PLPA 2017 - 00036) Planning Commission October 24, 2017 Rsgular-qteeting (11 a gi e � t Martha Battaglia, Associate Planner, made a presentation and responded to questions posed by the Commission. Commission Chair Mittan opened the public hearing. David Israel, Architect with BAR Architects, made a presentation on behalf of the Applicant and responded to questions posed by the Commission. David Fletcher, Landscape Architect with Fletcher Studio, made a presentation on behalf of the Applicant and responded to questions posed by the Commission. Erik Steiner, Senior Development Associate with UDR, INC., responded to questions posed by the Commission on behalf of the Applicant. Stuart Cook, Alameda County Surplus Authority, provided public comment. Savinder Juneja, Dublin Resident, provided public comment. Marie Marshall, Dublin Resident, provided public comment. Marlene Massetti, Dublin Resident, provided public comment. Yash Kunaraswamy, Dublin Resident, provided public comment. Anthony Cataldo, Dublin Resident, provided public comment. Megan Jennings, Attorney for the Applicant, made a presentation and responded to public comments and questions posed by the Commission. David Israel, Architect from BAR Architects, responded to Public comments and questions posed by the Commission. Martha Battaglia, Associate Planner, responded to questions posed by the Commission. Tim Cremin, Assistant City Attorney, responded to questions posed by the Commission. The Planning Commission provided comments on the project. On motion of Commissioner Kothari, seconded by Commissioner Bhuthimethee, and by unanimous vote, the Commission adopted: Tfanning Commission October24, 2017 Wygurar5feeting (Page 12 RESOLUTION NO. 17 -12 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE AND RELATED STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TRANSIT CENTER SITE A -3 APN: 986 - 0034 - 009 -00 PLPA 2017 -00036 On motion of Commissioner Kothari, Seconded by Commissioner Bhuthimethee, and by unanimous vote, the Commission Adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 17 -13 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE TRANSIT CENTER SITE A -3 PROJECT APN: 986- 0034 - 009 -00 (PLPA- 2017 - 00036) On Motion of Commissioner Quereshi, Seconded by Commissioner Bhuthimethee, and by a 4 -1 vote (Commissioner Wright voting No), and the Commission Adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 17 -14 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TENTATIVE MAP 8437 FOR THE TRANSIT CENTER SITE A -3 PROJECT APN: 986- 0034 - 009 -00 (PLPA- 2017- 00036) 5. Unfinished Business - None. 6. New Business -None. 8. Other Business — Brief information only reports from City Council and /or Staff, including committee reports and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expense (AB1234). Commissioner Wright and Commission Chair Mittan requested Staff provide higher quality drawings and three - dimensional drawings on development projects. Pfanning Commission October 24, 2017 fgufarlffeeting (;11 a fj e .3 Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, clarified that the applicant, not the City, produces the documents. Mr. Baker stated that applicants are presenting based on industry standard and that could vary depending on the software programs and various formats utilized by Applicants. Mr. Baker stated that Staff will work with applicants on the quality of their submittal package to ensure the best practices, tools and resources are being utilized for future submissions. 9. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by Commission Chair Mittan at 9:46 p.m. Re4ectfyll submitted, ( �I i Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: (---) I �� — Jeff Bak r Assistant Community Development Director (Planning Commission Octo6er24, 2017 ftidar W eeting Page 1 4 RESOLUTION NO. 17 - 12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE AND RELATED STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TRANSIT CENTER SITE A -3 APN: 986- 0034 - 009 -00 PLPA 2017 -00036 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Ashton at Dublin Station, is proposing to construct a residential project comprised of 220 units, residential amenities including a fitness center, pool, roof top lounge, and 331 spaces of structured parking on an approximately 2.36 -acre site located on Site A -3 in the Dublin Transit Center. The proposed development and applications are collectively known as the "Project "; and WHEREAS, the applications include Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit, and Tentative Map 8437; and WHEREAS, the project Site is located at the northwest corner of Campbell Lane and DeMarcus Boulevard within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, and more specifically within the Dublin Transit Center; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State CEQA Guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. To comply with CEQA, the City prepared a CEQA Analysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemption; and WHEREAS, Staff recommends that the project be found exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code 65457 for residential projects that are consistent with a specific plan. The project is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Dublin Transit Center General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning, Tentative Parcel Map, and Development Agreement (SCH 2001120395) which was certified by the City Council Resolution No. 215 -02 dated November 19, 2002. The CEQA analysis prepared for the project determined that no event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Recourses Code has occurred since the certification of the Dublin Transit Specific Plan EIR that requires preparation of a Supplemental CEQA document; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated November 14, 2017 was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending City Council approval of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the project on November 14, 2017, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use its independent judgement and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth prior to making its recommendation on the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find the project exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code 65457 and adopt the Ordinance attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, which Ordinance Rezones the Transit Center Site A -3 project site to Planned Development and approves a related Stage 2 Development Plan. The Planning Commission recommendation is based on the Staff Report analysis and recommendation and on the findings set forth in the attached draft Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14th day of November 2017, by the following votes: AYES: Mittan, Bhuthimethee, Kothari, Qureshi, Wright NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATT T: Assist nt C munity Development Director G:IPM20171PLPA- 2017 -00036 Parcel A -3 Stage 2 PD Zoning, SDR, TMAPICC Hearing 12.51717. PC Reso 17 -12 recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance Rezoning the Dublin Transit Center Site A -3.DOC RESOLUTION NO. 17 - 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE TRANSIT CENTER SITE A -3 PROJECT APN: 986- 0034 - 009 -00 (PLPA- 2017 - 00036) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Ashton at Dublin Station, is proposing to construct a residential project comprised of 220 units, residential amenities including a fitness center, pool, roof top lounge, and 331 spaces of structured parking on an approximately 2.36 -acre site located on Site A -3 in the Dublin Transit Center. The proposed development and applications are collectively known as the "Project "; and WHEREAS, the applications include a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Tentative Map 8437; and WHEREAS, the project Site is located at the northwest corner of Campbell Lane and DeMarcus Boulevard within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, and more specifically within the Dublin Transit Center; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. To comply with CEQA, the City prepared a CEQA Analysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemption; and WHEREAS, Staff recommends that the project be found exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code 65457 for residential projects that are consistent with a specific plan. The project is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Dublin Transit Center General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning, Tentative Parcel Map, and Development Agreement (SCH 2001120395) which was certified by the City Council Resolution No. 215 -02 dated November 19, 2002. The CEQA analysis prepared for the project determined that no event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Recourses Code has occurred since the certification of the Dublin Transit Specific Plan EIR that requires preparation of a Supplemental CEQA document; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated November 14, 2017, was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending City Council approval of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on November 14, 2017, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use its independent judgement and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth prior to making its recommendation on the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin, based on the findings in the attached Resolution, recommends that the City Council find the project exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code 65457 and adopt the Resolution attached as Exhibit A, which Resolution approves the Site Development Review Permit. vote: PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of November 2017 by the following AYES: Mittan, Bhuthimethee, Kothari, Qureshi, Wright NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ( r Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Co nity Development Director G: IPA120171PLPA- 2017 -00036 Parcel A -3 Stage 2 PD Zoning, SDR, TMAPICCHearing 12.5.171CCAttachmentsl8. PC Resolution 17 -13 recommending that the City Council approve the SDR for Site A -3.doc 2 RESOLUTION NO. 17 - 14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TENTATIVE MAP 8437 FOR THE TRANSIT CENTER SITE A -3 PROJECT APN: 986- 0034 - 009 -00 (PLPA- 2017- 00036) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Ashton at Dublin Station, is proposing to construct a residential project comprised of 220 units, residential amenities including a fitness center, pool, roof top lounge, and 331 spaces of structured parking on an approximately 2.36 -acre site located on Site A -3 in the Dublin Transit Center. The proposed development and applications are collectively known as the "Project "; and WHEREAS, the applications include Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Tentative Map 8437; and WHEREAS, the project Site is located at the northwest corner of Campbell Lane and DeMarcus Boulevard within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, and more specifically within the Dublin Transit Center; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. To comply with CEQA, the City prepared a CEQA Analysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemption; and WHEREAS, Staff recommends that the project be found exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code 65457 for residential projects that are consistent with a specific plan. The project is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Dublin Transit Center General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning, Tentative Parcel Map, and Development Agreement (SCH 2001120395) which was certified by the City Council Resolution No. 215 -02 dated November 19, 2002. The CEQA analysis prepared for the project determined that no event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Recourses Code has occurred since the certification of the Dublin Transit Specific Plan EIR that requires preparation of a Supplemental CEQA document; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated November 14, 2017, was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending City Council approval of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on November 14, 2017, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use its independent judgement and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth prior to making its recommendation on the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin, based on the findings in the attached Resolution, recommends that the City Council find the project exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code 65457 and adopt the Resolution attached as Exhibit A, which Resolution approves the Tentative Map 8437. vote: PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of November 2017 by the following AYES: Mittan, Bhuthimethee, Kothari, Qureshi, NOES: Wright ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant C unity Development Director G: IPA12017IPLPA -2017 -00036 Parcel A -3 Stage 2 PD Zoning, SDR, TMAPI CC Hearing 12.5.171 CC Attachments 19. PC Reso 17 -17 recommending that the City Council approve theTentative Map for Site A -3.doc 2 sti..-KI)rfl,. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL br( 4jj tiix OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN REGULAR MEETING — DECEMBER 5, 2017 c . Closed Session CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: 1 case 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance — The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The pledge of allegiance was recited by the City Council, Staff, and those present at the meeting. Attendee Name Title Status David Haubert Mayor Present Don Biddle Vice Mayor Present Arun Goel Councilmember Present Abe Gupta Councilmember Present Melissa Hernandez Councilmember Present N./ 2. Report on Closed Session —There was no reportable action out of Closed Session. 3. Oral Communications 3.1. Recognition of Girl Scout Troop 32415 The City Council recognized Girl Scout Troop 32415 for its award. 3.2. Employee Introductions: Jenny Wiseman and Janet Coles The City Council welcomed the new Dublin staff members. 3.3. Recognition of Dublin Police Services Chief, Dennis Houghtelling Mike Grant, Dublin resident, provided public comment. The City Council recognized Chief Dennis Houghtelling for his service. 3.4. Public Comment Lisa Yang, Dublin resident, provided public comment. Ramya Ramakrishnan, Dublin resident, provided public comment. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING t "" DECEMBER 5, 2017 A Rosel Tholan, Dublin resident, provided public comment. Jeff Gebel, Dublin resident, provided public comment. Heinz Schumacher, Dublin resident, provided public comment. 4. Consent Calendar 4.1. Approved the minutes of the November 21, 2017 Special and Regular City Council meetings. 4.2. Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 147 — 17 APPROVING CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FRANCISCO & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR ACQUISITION AUDIT AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 4.3. Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 148 — 17 CONSENTING TO INCLUSION OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN'S JURISDICTION IN THE GOLDEN STATE FINANCE AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2014-1 (CLEAN ENERGY) TO FINANCE RENEWABLE ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS, ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND WATER CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENTS, ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS; AND APPROVING ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP IN THE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AUTHORITY RELATED THERETO RESOLUTION NO. 149 — 17 CONSENTING TO INCLUSION OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN'S JURISDICTION IN THE GOLDEN STATE FINANCE AUTHORITY PROGRAM TO FINANCE RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION, ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS, ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP IN THE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AUTHORITY RELATED THERETO RESOLUTION NO. 150 — 17 CONSENTING TO THE INCLUSION OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE CITY IN THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY OPEN PACE PROGRAMS; AUTHORIZING THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT APPLICATIONS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS, CONDUCT CONTRACTUAL DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2 REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 5, 2017 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND LEVY CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE CITY; AND AUTHORIZING RELATED ACTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 151 — 17 AUTHORIZING APPROVAL OF PROPERTY ASSESSED CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAMS RESOLUTION NO. 152 — 17 ACKNOWLEDGING THE ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS' REGIONAL COLLABORATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT 4.4. Received the City Treasurer's Informational Report. 4.5. Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 153 — 17 AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PURCHASE FIVE POLICE VEHICLES FROM JEEP CHRYSLER DODGE RAM OF SALINAS AND ONE POLICE VEHICLE FROM HUBBARD CHEVROLET AND DECLARING REPLACED VEHICLES AS SURPLUS PROPERTY 4.6. Authorized the City Manager to approve computer related software and supplies purchases annually through CDW-G and MNJ. RESULT:ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVED BY: Don Biddle, Vice Mayor SECOND: Abe Gupta, Councilmember AYES: Haubert, Biddle, Goel, Gupta, Hernandez L 5. Written Communication — None. 6. Public Hearing 6.1. Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3) Planned Development Rezone with a Related Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit, and Tentative Map 8437 (PLPA 2017-00036) Erick Steiner, Senior Development Associate at UDR, made a presentation. David Israel, Principal at BAR Architects, made a presentation. Mayor Haubert opened the public hearing. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3 REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 5, 2017 Valerie, Dublin resident, provided public comment. Marlene Massetti, Dublin resident, provided public comment. Lisa Yang, Dublin resident, provided public comment. Mayor Haubert closed the public hearing The City Council directed Staff to bring back a resolution denying the Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3) Planned Development Rezone project. RESULT:ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVED BY: David Haubert, Mayor SECOND: Arun Goel, Councilmember AYES: Haubert, Goel, Gupta, Hernandez NOES: Biddle 6.2. Amendments to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.04 (Encroachments), Chapter 8.92 (Wireless Communication Facilities), Chapter 8.36 Development Regulations) and Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review) Pertaining to Wireless Communication Facilities Effective Citywide Cm. Goel recused himself to avoid a common law conflict of interest. Mayor Haubert opened the public hearing. No public comments were made. Mayor Haubert closed the public hearing. The City Council waived the reading and introduced and Ordinance Amending Chapter 7.04 of the Dublin Municipal Code Relating to Development and Encroachment Permits for Wireless Communications Facilities, and an Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.92, 8.36, and 8.104 of the Dublin Municipal Code Relating to Development of Wireless Communications Facilities. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVED BY: Don Biddle, Vice Mayor SECOND:Melissa Hernandez, Councilmember AYES: David Haubert, Don Biddle, Abe Gupta, Melissa Hernandez RECUSED: Arun Goel DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4 REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 5, 2017 7. Unfinished Business — None. 8. New Business 8.1. Fallon 55 General Plan Amendment Study Initiation Request (PLPA-2017- 00062) Item 8.1 was removed at the request of the Applicant. 8.2. Discussion of Term Limits Stephen Wright, Dublin resident, provided public comment. By consensus, the City Council directed Staff to bring back three proposals for a term limits ballot measure, which would include 12 years of service combined measure; 8 year as councilmember and 8 years as mayor measure; and increase of mayoral terms to 4-year terms measure. 8.3. Designate Two Councilmembers to Dublin Pride Week Committee By consensus, the City Council named Mayor Haubert and Cm. Hernandez as its members to the 2018 Dublin Pride Week Committee. 8.4. Selection of Vice Mayor Jean Josey, Dublin resident, provided public comment. The City Council selected Vm. Biddle to remain as Vice Mayor for the year 2018. RESULT:ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVED BY: Abe Gupta, Councilmember SECOND: David Haubert, Mayor AYES: Haubert, Biddle, Goel, Gupta, Hernandez 9. Other Business — Brief information only reports from City Council and/or Staff, including committee reports and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expense (AB1234). By consensus, the City Council directed Staff to look at naming a bench at the Heritage Park and Museums in honor of Edy Coleman. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5 REGULAR MEETING. DECEMBER 5, 2017 41" 10.Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. eV ice, \ Mayor ATTEST: Avvt2 (' -C-d City Clerk DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6 REGULAR MEETING 41-0• 6 DECEMBER 5, 2017 1 ORDINANCE NO. XX – 18 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TRANSIT CENTER SITE A-3 APN: 986-0034-009-00 PLPA 2017-00036 The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. RECITALS A. The Applicant, Ashton at Dublin Station, proposes to construct a residential project comprised of 220 apartment units, residential amenities including a fitness center, pool, roof top lounge, and 331 spaces of structured parking on an approximately 2.36-acre site. The applications include a Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit, and Tentative Map 8437 for condominium purposes. The proposed development and applications are collectively known as the “Project”. B. The project site is approximately 2.36 acres located at the northwest corner of Campbell Lane and DeMarcus Boulevard (APN 986-0034-009-00). C. To comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, the City prepared a CEQA Analysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemption. D. Following a public hearing on November 14, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 17-12, recommending approval of the Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours. E. A Staff Report, dated December 5, 2017 and February 20, 2018 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the project, including the Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan, for the City Council. F. On December 5, 2017, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the project, including the proposed Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard . The City Council continued the item. The City Council held a Study Session on February 6, 2018 and took action on the project on February 20, 2018. H. The City Council considered the CEQA Analysis and related prior CEQA documents and all above referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony prior to taking action on the project. 2 SECTION 2: FINDINGS A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The Transit Center Site A-3 Project Planned Development zoning meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a comprehensive development plan that creates a desirable use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the lay out and design of the site plan. 2. Development of the project under the Planned Development zoning and the related Stage 2 Development Plan will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area in that the site will provide residential development consistent with the surrounding development. The proposed project maintains the urban character anticipated by the existing approvals for the Transit Center including the existing Planned Development Zoning and Stage 1 Development Plan. The proposed project will contribute to housing opportunities and diversity of product type as a complement to the surrounding neighborhoods. B. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The Planned Development zoning for the project and the related Stage 2 Development Plan will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding area in that the proposed site plan has taken into account a land use type and density that is compatible with the adjacent areas and densities. In addition, the massing of the proposed building is consistent with the scale of the adjacent buildings with the tallest masses located at the east side opposite the adjacent buildings along DeMarcus Boulevard (Elan and Avalon), and the lowest masses located on the west side opposite the lower townhouses across Campbell Lane (Tribeca). 2. The project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the zoning district being proposed in that the project site is flat with improved streets on four sides and served by existing public utilities. The project site conditions are documented in the CEQA Analysis for this project and prior certified Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), and the project will implement all adopted mitigation measures, as applicable. There are no site conditions that were identified in the CEQA Analysis that will present an impediment to development of the site for the proposed residential development. There are no major physical or topographic constraints and thus the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the residential development approved through the Planned Development zoning. 3. The Planned Development zoning will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that the project will comply with all applicable development regulations and standards and will implement all adopted mitigation measures, as applicable. The project uses are compatible with surrounding uses. 4. The Planned Development zoning is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, in that the proposed residential density and uses are consistent with the High Density Residential land use designation for the site. 3 Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council finds as follows: 1. The project is found to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code section 65457 for residential projects that are consistent with a Specific Plan. The project is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Dublin Transit Center General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning, Tentative Parcel Map, and Development Agreement (SCH 2001120395) which was certified by the City Council Resolution No. 215-02 dated November 19, 2002. The CEQA Analysis prepared for the project is incorporated herein by this reference and determined that no event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Recourses Code has occurred since the certification of the Dublin Transit Specific Plan EIR that requires preparation of a Supplemental CEQA document. SECTION 3: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning Map is amended to rezone the property described below to include the Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan: 2.36 acres at the northwest corner of Campbell Lane and DeMarcus Boulevard (APN 986-0034-009-00).) (“Project site”, or “Property”). A map of the zoning area is shown below: SECTION 4. APPROVAL OF STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the project site are set forth in the following Stage 2 Development Plan for the project area, which is hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 2 Development Plan shall be in accordance with section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors. 4 Stage 2 Development Plan for the Transit Center Site A-3 Project This is a Stage 2 Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. This Development Plan meets all the requirements for the Stage 2 Development Plan set forth in Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance and is adopted as part of the Planned De velopment Zoning for the Transit Center Site A-3 project, PLPA-2017-00036. The Planned Development District allows flexibility needed to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies and action programs of the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and provisions of Chapter 8.32, Planned Development Zoning District of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied. 1. Statement of Compatibility with Stage 1 Development Plan. The Ashton at Dublin Station Stage 2 Development Plan is consi stent with the Stage 1 Development Plan for Site A of the Dublin Transit Center, in that it provides for High Density Residential uses as approved in Ordinance 21-02. 2. Statement of Uses. Permitted, Conditional and Accessory Uses shall be as adopted by Or dinance 21-02, the Dublin Transit Center Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning Development Plan (PA00 -013). 3. Stage 2 Site Plan. The site plan shall generally be as shown in the conceptual site plan below. 4. Site area, proposed densities.  Site Area: 2.36 acres  Density: 25+ dwelling units/acre 5 5. Development Regulations. The following development regulations are in addition to those identified in the Planned Development Zoning Stage 1 Development Plan (Ordinance 21-02). DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Maximum Number of Units 220 Maximum Number of 3 Bedroom Units 2% Maximum Building Height 85 feet Minimum Common Outdoor Space 15%(1) (1) Percentage of total site acreage. 6. Preliminary/Master Neighborhood Landscape Plan. The street level landscape shall be as generally depicted below and shall comply with the Transit Center Stage 1 Development Plan and Design Guidelines and reflect the following standards:  Create comfortable outdoor spaces for residents and visitors, which include amenities such as planting areas, seat walls with stone blocks that serve as outdoor seating, and podium courtyards.  Create a visual buffer and soften the edge between the public realm and the site.  Treat stormwater runoff on the site through the utilization of flow through planters and mechanical devices.  Utilize plants that provide a year round vegetated landscape with seasonality, color, and interest for an attractive visual environment. 7. Architectural Standards. The architectural design of the project shall reflect the following standards:  Utilize a contemporary architecture style.  Employ high quality materials to provide visual interest in the project and to complement its surroundings.  Incorporate features such as different wall planes, heights, wall textures, roof elements, light fixtures and landscaping to contribute layers of detail at the pedestrian level. 6  Provide functional outdoor plazas where people can gather and socialize, with landscaping, outdoor seating, enhanced paving treatment, and other features to provide an appropriate urban scale for the development. Illustrative examples of architectural style: 8. Aerial Photo. 7 9. Applicable Requirements of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Except as specifically provided in the Dublin Transit Center Stage 1 Planned Devel opment Zoning Development Plan (Ordinance 21-02) and this Stage 2 Development Plan, the use, development, improvements and maintenance of the property shall be governed by the provisions of the closest comparable Zoning District as determined by the Commun ity Development Director and of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance pursuant to Section 8.32.060.C. No development shall occur on this property until a Site Development Review Permit has been approved for the property. SECTION 5. POSTING OF ORDINANCE The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public spaces in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this _________ day of _____________ 2018, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _____________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk G:\PA\2017\PLPA-2017-00036 Parcel A-3 Stage 2 PD Zoning, SDR, TMAP\CC Meeting 2.20.18\CC Attachments\6. Ordinance rezoning the Dublin Transit Center Site A-3 project site to PD-Planned Development and approving a Stage 2.DOC RESOLUTION NO. xx-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ************ APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND TENTATIVE MAP 8437 FOR THE TRANSIT CENTER SITE A-3 PROJECT APN: 986-0034-009-00 PLPA-2017-00036 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Ashton at Dublin Station, is proposing to construct a residential project comprised of 220 units, residential amenities including a fitness center, pool, roof top lounge, and 331 spaces of structured parking on an approximately 2.36 -acre site located on Site A-3 in the Dublin Transit Center. The proposed development and applications are collectively known as the “Project”; and WHEREAS, the applications include Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Tentative Map 8437; and WHEREAS, the Project Site is located at the northwest corner of Campbell Lane and DeMarcus Boulevard within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, and more specifically within the Dublin Transit Center Village area; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. To comply with CEQA, the City prepared a CEQA Analysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemption; and WHEREAS, Staff recommends that the project be found exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code 65457 for residential projects that are consistent with a specific plan. The project is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Dublin Transi t Center General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning, Tentative Parcel Map, and Development Agreement (SCH 2001120395) which was certified by the City Council Resolution No. 215 -02 dated November 19, 2002. The CEQA analysis prepared for the project is incorporated herein by this reference and determined that no event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Recourses Code has occurred since the certification of the Dublin Transit Specific Plan EIR th at requires preparation of a Supplemental CEQA document; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated November 14, 2017 was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending City Council approval of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the project on November 14, 2017, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolutio n 17-12 recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving the Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Pan; and 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolutions 17 -13 and 17-14 recommending the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Site Development Review Permit and Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard ; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 2017, the City Council did not take action on the project and continued the item; and WHEREAS, on February 6, 2018, the City Council held a Study Session on the Project; and WHEREAS, Staff Reports dated December 5, 2017, and February 20, 2018, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgement and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth before approving the Project; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the City Council adopted Ordinance xx-18 approving the Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan, which is incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby makes the following findings and determinations regarding the proposed Site Development Review Permit for Site A-3 of the Dublin Transit Center. A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 of the Zoning Ordinance, with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines because: 1) The project is compatible with the architectural character and scale of development in the immediate area in which the proposed project is to be located; 2) the project is utilizing contemporary, high-quality materials and finishes; 3) the project will provide a needed and attractive housing opportunity adjacent to the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station; 4) the project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation of High Density Residential; and 5) the project is consistent with the Transit Center Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning in that it provides additional housing opportunities in close proximity to the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because: 1) the project contributes to the orderly, attractive, and harmonious site and architectural development that is compatible with the architectural style, intensity of development, and context of surrounding and adjacent properties; and 2) the project complies with the development standards established in the Planned Development Ordinance for the project site. 3 C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties, and the lot(s) in which the project is proposed because: 1) the size and mass of the proposed buildings are consistent with other residential development in the immediate vicinity and in compliance with the permitted development density/intensity; 2) the project will contribute to housing opportunities as a complement to the surrounding neighborhoods; and 3) the project includes landscaping and recreational amenities that provide high quality open areas and visual relief. D. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development because: 1) the project site is flat and contains no physical impediments to the proposed residential development; 2) the project will implement all applicable prior adopted mitigation measures; 3) the project site is fully served by public services and existing roadways; and 4) the project design and inten sity complements the major public investment in transit. E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because : 1) the project site is already urbanized and relatively flat; 2) the roadway and utility infrastructure to serve the site already exists, and 3) the project site has been previously graded and is relatively flat. F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings , screening of unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other developments in the vicinity because: 1) the architectural style and materials will be consistent and compatible with the contemporary architectural style, colors, and materials being utilized on other multi-family projects in the immediate vicinity; 2) the project is utilizing contemporary, high-quality materials and finishes; 3) the project’s design provides visual interest as viewed from Interstate 580 to the south and the pedestrian pathways along DeMarcus Boulevard and Campbell Lane; and 4) the size and scale of the development will be similar to multi-family projects already constructed in the immediate project vicinity. G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public because: 1) landscaping is proposed to provide visual relief within an urban development; 2) the landscaping has been designed to be consistent with the Design Guidelines for the overall Dublin Transit Center; 3) the project’s landscaping provides open space and visual relief; and 4) the project will conform to the requirements of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure the proper circulation for b icyclist, pedestrians, and automobiles because: 1) all infrastructure including driveways, pathways, sidewalks, and street lighting have been reviewed for conformance with City policies, regulations, and best practices and have been designed with multi - modal travel in mind; 2) the project site provides opportunities for pedestrian and 4 bicycle circulation; and 3) the project will provide links to transit oriented systems and regional trails. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby makes the following findings and determinations regarding Tentative Map 8437: Tentative Map 8437 A. The proposed Tentative Map 8437 together with the provisions for its design and improvements is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin Transit Center. B. The project site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development as it is consistent with the Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning and the adjacent residential developments. C. The proposed Tentative Map 8437 is consistent with the intent of applicable improvements of the Tentative Tract Map and Planned Development zoning approved for Project and therefore consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan and Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning. D. The proposed Tentative Map 8437 will not result in environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat or cause public health concerns subject to existing adopted Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval. E. The project design will not cause serious public health concerns as it has been conditioned to comply with all building codes and ordinances in effec t at the time of permit issuance. F. The design of the project will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, or access through or use of property within the proposed project site. The City Engineer has reviewed the map and title report and has not found any conflicting easements of this nature G. The design or improvements of the tentative map are consistent with the City’s General Plan and the Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council hereby approves the Site Development Review Permit for Transit Center Site A-3 as shown on plans prepared by BAR Architects, BKF and Fletcher Studio dated received February 9, 2018, attached as Exhibit A and subject to the conditions included below. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council hereby approves Tentative Map 8437 prepared by BKF dated received February 9, 2018, attached as Exhibit A and subject to the conditions included below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and 5 approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL.] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police, [PW] Public Works [P&CS] Parks & Community Services, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney, [FIN] Finance, [F] Alameda County Fire Department, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, [Z7] Zone 7. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: 1. Approval. This Site Development Review and Tentative Map 8467 approval is for the Transit Center Site A-3 (PLPA- 2017-00036). This approval shall be as generally depicted and indicated on the project plans prepared by BAR Architects, BKF, and Fletcher Studio dated received February 9, 2018, attached as Exhibit A, and other plans, text, and diagrams relating to this Site Development Review, and as specified as the following Conditions of Approval for this project. This approval is subject to approval of a companion Planned Development Zoning (Stage 2). PL On-going 2. Permit Expiration – Site Development Review. Approval of this Site Development Review shall be valid until the later of one (1) year from the effective date, or the term for this approval established in the Development Agreement, if any, for the project. This approval shall be null and void in the event the approved use fails to be established within the prescribed time. Commencement of the use means the establishment of use pursuant to the Permit approval or, demonstrating substantial progress toward commencing such use. If there is a dispute as to whether the Permit has expired, the City may hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. Such a determination may be processed concurrently with revocation proceedings in appropriate circumstances. If a Permit expires, a new application must be made and processed according to the requirements of this Ordinance. PL One year after Effective Date or per terms outlined in the DA 3. Permit Expiration – Tentative Map. Approval of the Tentative Map shall be valid for 36 months from the effective date as set forth in Section 9.08.130.A of the Dublin Municipal Code. PW 36 months after Effective Date 4. Time Extension. The original approving decision-maker may, upon the Applicant’s written request for an extension of approval prior to expiration, upon the determination that all Conditions of Approval remain adequate and all applicable findings of approval will continue to be met, grant an extension of the approval for a period not to exceed six (6) months. All time extension requests shall be noticed and a public hearing shall be held before the original hearing body. PL One Year Following Expiration Date or per terms outlined in the DA 5. Compliance. Developer shall comply with the Subdivision Map Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, City of Dublin Title 7 Public Works Ordinance, which includes the Grading Ordinance, the City of Dublin Public Works Standards and Policies, the most current requirements of the State Code Title 24 and the Americans with Disabilities Act with regard to accessibility, and all building and fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. All public improvements constructed by Developer and to be dedicated to the City are PL, PW On-going 6 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: hereby identified as “public works” under Labor Code section 1771. Accordingly, Developer, in constructing such improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor Code. Sects. 1720 and following). 6. Revocation of Permit. The Site Development Review approval shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.I of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subject to citation. PL On-going 7. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Applicant/ Developer shall comply with applicable City of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services District and the California Department of Health Services requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building permits or the installation of any improvements related to this project, the Applicant/Developer shall supply written statements from each such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met. Various Building Permit Issuance 8. Required Permits. The Applicant/Developer shall obtain all permits required by other agencies which may include, but are not limited to Alameda County Environmental Health, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans, or other regional/state agencies as required by law, as applicable. Copies of the permits shall be provided to the Public Works Department. PW Building Permit Issuance 9. Fees. The Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance, including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Traffic Impact Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Fire Facilities Impact fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; or any other fee that may be adopted and applicable, as provided by the Development Agreement, if any. Various Building Permit Issuance 10. Indemnification. The Applicant/Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that the Applicant’s/Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to ADM On-going 7 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: the City's promptly notifying the Applicant/Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. 11. Clarification of Conditions. In the event that there needs to be clarification to the Conditions of Approval, the Director of Community Development and the City Engineer have the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developer without going to a public hearing. The Director of Community Development and the City Engineer also have the authority to make minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in order for the Applicant/Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts of this project. PW On-going 12. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for clean-up and disposal of project related trash to maintain a safe, clean, and litter-free site. PL On-going 13. Modifications. Modifications or changes to this Site Development Review approval may be considered by the Community Development Director in compliance with Chapter 8.104 of the Zoning Ordinance. PL On-going 14. Controlling Activities. The Applicant/Developer shall control all activities on the project site so as not to create a nuisance to the existing or surrounding businesses and residences. PL On-going 15. Accessory/Temporary Structures. The use of any accessory or temporary structures, such as storage sheds or trailer/containers used for storage or for any other purposes, shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. PL On-going PROJECT SPECIFIC 16. Equipment Screening. All electrical, fire risers and/or mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view. Any roof-mounted equipment shall be completely screened from view by materials architecturally compatible with the building and to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The Building Permit plans shall show the location of all equipment and screening for review and approval by the Director of Community Development. PL Building Permit Issuance and Through Completion/ On-going 17. Colors. The exterior paint colors of the building shall be in compliance with the Color and Material Board approved with the project plans. The Applicant shall paint small portions of the building the approved colors for review and approval by the Director of Community Development prior to painting the entire building, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. PL Occupancy 18. Master Sign Program. A Master Sign Program shall be applied for and approved for all project related signage including, but not limited to, community identification signage, address signage, directional signage, parking signage, speed limit signage, & other signage deemed necessary by the City. PL Installation of Signs 19. Development Agreement. To the extent it remains in effect, the Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable sections of the Master Development Agreement for the Dublin Transit Center adopted as Ordinance No. 5-03. PL Building Permit Issuance 8 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: 20. Affordable Housing Agreement. The Applicant/Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to ensure that the affordable units described below remain affordable for 55 years and that other provisions of Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Inclusionary Zoning Regulations) are satisfied. The agreement shall also include provisions to ensure that the units remain affordable in the event that the affordable units are sold as condominium units. Such agreement shall be recorded to ensure it has priority over and is not subordinate to any other recorded document affecting the property. ADM, PL Building Permit Issuance 21. Inclusionary Zoning Requirements. The Applicant/Developer shall provide a minimum of 10% moderate income units. Unit affordability shall be between 80% and 120% of the area median income. Affordable unit types (i.e. 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, 3 bedroom, etc.) shall be equally dispersed with the same ratio as the market rate units in accordance with the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. Any changes to the affordable units must first be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. PL Through Completion & On-going 22. Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with the Dublin Transit Center EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program including all mitigation measures, action programs, and implementation measures on file with the Community Development Department. PL Dublin Transit Center EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 23. Sound Attenuation. The Applicant/Developer shall submit a site specific acoustic report to be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant. The acoustic report shall include detailed identification of noise exposure levels on the individual project site and a listing of specific measures to reduce both interior and exterior noise levels to normally acceptable levels including but not limited to glazing and ventilation systems, construction of noise barriers and use of buildings to shield noise. PL Building Permit Issuance 24. Final building and site development plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. All such plans shall insure: a. That standard residential security requirements as established by the Dublin Police Department are provided. b. That ramps, special parking spaces, signing, and other appropriate physical features for the disabled, are provided throughout the site for all publicly used facilities. c. That exterior lighting of the building and site is not directed onto adjacent properties and the light source is shielded from direct offsite viewing. d. That all mechanical equipment, including air conditioning condensers, electrical and gas meters, are architecturally screened from view, and that electrical transformers are either underground or architecturally PL Building Permit Issuance 9 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: screened. e. That all vents, gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc., are painted to match the color of adjacent surface. f. That all materials and colors are to be as approved by the Dublin Community Development Department. Once constructed or installed, all improvements are to be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. Any changes, which affect the exterior character, shall be resubmitted to the Dublin Community Development Department for approval. g. That all exterior architectural elements not detailed on the plans be finished in a style and in materials in harmony with the exterior of the building. All materials shall wrap to the inside corners and terminate at a perpendicular wall plane. h. That all other public agencies that require review of the project are supplied with copies of the final building and site plans and that compliance is obtained with at least their minimum Code requirements. 25. Parking Structure. The parking structure shall be secure and controlled by electronically controlled gates. The parking structure shall be well lit, with the ceiling painted white to enhance brightness. Blind corners in the parking structure shall be provided with shatterproof convex mirrors to improve visibility for both operators of vehicles and pedestrians. PL, PO Occupancy & On-going LANDSCAPING 26. Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans. Final landscape plans, irrigation system plans, tree preservation techniques, and guarantees, shall be reviewed and approved by the Dublin Planning Division prior to the issuance of the building permit. All such submittals shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. Plans shall be generally consistent with the Preliminary Landscape drawings included in the Project Plan Set prepared by Fletcher Studio received by the Planning Division on February 9, 2018, except as modified by the Conditions listed below or as required by the Community Development Director to address specific site constraints or conditions. The Final Landscape Plans shall insure: a. That plant material is utilized which will be capable of healthy growth within the given range of soil and climate. b. That proposed landscape screening is of a height and density so that it provides a positive visual impact within three years from the time of planting. c. That unless unusual circumstances prevail, all trees on the site shall be a minimum of 15 gallons in size. All trees that are on the exterior building perimeter shall be 24” box minimum, with at least 30% at 36” box or greater. All shrubs shall be 5 gallon minimum. d. That a plan for an automatic irrigation system be PL Landscape plan approval and installation 10 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: provided which assures that all plants get adequate water. In unusual circumstances, and if approved by Staff, a manual or quick coupler system may be used. e. That concrete curbing is to be used at the edges of all planters and paving surfaces where applicable. f. That all cut and fill slopes conform to the conditions detailed in the Site Development Review packet. g. That a guarantee from the owners or contractors shall be required guaranteeing all shrubs and ground cover, all trees, and the irrigation system for one year. h. That a permanent maintenance agreement on all landscaping will be required from the owner insuring regular irrigation, fertilization and weed abatement, if applicable. 27. Landscaping at Street/Drive Aisle Intersections. Landscaping shall not obstruct the sight distance of motorists, pedestrians or bicyclists. Except for trees, landscaping (and/or landscape structures such as walls) at drive aisle intersections shall not be taller than 30 inches above the curb. Landscaping shall be kept at a minimum height and fullness giving patrol officers and the general public surveillance capabilities of the area. PL Ongoing 28. Plant Clearances. All trees planted shall meet the following clearances: a. 6’ from the face of building walls or roof eaves. b. 7’ from fire hydrants, storm drains, sanitary sewers and/or gas lines. c. 5’ from top of wing of driveways, mailboxes, water, telephone and/or electrical mains d. 15’ from stop signs, street or curb sign returns. e. 15’ from either side of street lights. PL Landscape plan approval and installation 29. Landscaping. Applicant/Developer shall construct all landscaping within the site and along the project frontage. PL, PW Landscape plan approval and installation 30. Backflow Prevention Devices. The Landscape Plan shall show the location of all backflow prevention devises. The location and screening of the backflow prevention devices shall be reviewed and approved by City staff. PL, PW, F Landscape plan approval and installation 31. Root Barriers and Tree Staking. The landscape plans shall provide details showing root barriers and tree staking will be installed which meet current City specifications. PL, PW Landscape plan approval and installation 32. Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The Applicant/ Developer shall submit written documentation to the Public Works Department (in the form of a Landscape Documentation Package and other required documents) that the development conforms to the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. PL Landscape plan approval and installation BUILDING – PROJECT SPECIFIC 33. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project construction shall conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. B Through Completion 34. Phased Occupancy Plan. If occupancy is requested to B Occupancy of 11 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: occur in phases, then all physical improvements within each phase shall be required to be completed prior to occupancy of any unit within that phase except for items specifically excluded in an approved Phased Occupancy Plan, or minor handwork items, approved by the Department of Community Development. The Phased Occupancy Plan shall be submitted to the Directors of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval a minimum of 60 days prior to the request for any occupancy the building. No individual space shall be occupied until the adjoining area is finished, safe, accessible, and provided with all reasonable expected services and amenities, and separated from remaining additional construction activity. Subject to approval of the Director of Community Development, the completion of landscaping may be deferred due to inclement weather with the posting of a bond for the value of the deferred landscaping and associated improvements. any affected building 35. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, Applicant/Developer shall submit electronic plans and specs and the number of hard copies as determined by the Building Official for plan check. Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will be or have been complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the annotated resolutions attached to each set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participating non-City agencies prior to the issuance of building permits. B Building Permit Issuance 36. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be fully dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. All structural calculations shall be prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent with each other. B Building Permit Issuance 37. Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units and ventilation ducts shall be screened from public view with materials compatible to the main building. Units shall be permanently installed on concrete pads or other non-movable materials approved by the Chief Building Official and Director of Community Development. Air conditioning units shall be located in accordance with the PD text. B Occupancy 38. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of all work under construction. B Through Completion 39. Addressing a. Provide a site plan with the City of Dublin’s address grid overlaid on the plans (1” to 30’ scale). Highlight all exterior door openings on plans (front, rear, garage, etc.). 3 copies on full size sheets and 3 copies reduced sheets. (Prior to release of addresses) b. Provide plan for display of addresses. The Building Official shall approve plan prior to issuance of the building B Various 12 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: permit. (Prior to permitting) c. Provide floor plans detailing each unit for addressing to the Building Official. The Applicant/Developer has the option of providing apartment number layout at the time of submittal. 3 copies on full size sheets and 3 copies reduced sheets. If the Applicant/Developer provides a draft of the apartment numbers, the copies shall include the draft and blank pages. (Prior to permitting) d. Address signage shall be provided as per the Dublin Residential Security Code. (Occupancy of any Unit) e. Exterior address numbers shall be backlit and be posted in such a way that they may be seen from the street. (Prior to occupancy) 40. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record shall be retained to provide observation services for all components of the lateral and vertical design of the building, including nailing, hold-downs, straps, shear, roof diaphragm and structural frame of building. A written report shall be submitted to the City Inspector prior to scheduling the final frame inspection. B Scheduling the Final Frame Inspection 41. Foundation. Geotechnical Engineer for the soils report shall review and approve the foundation design. A letter shall be submitted to the Building Division on the approval. B Building Permit Issuance 42. Green Building. Green Building measures as detailed in the SDR package may be adjusted prior to master plan check application submittal with prior approval from the City’s Green Building Official provided that the design of the project complies with the City of Dublin’s Green Building Ordinance and State Law as applicable. In addition, all changes shall be reflected in the Master Plans. (Through Completion) The Green Building checklist shall be included in the master plans. The checklist shall detail what Green Points are being obtained and where the information is found within the master plans. (Prior to first permit). Prior to final, the project shall submit a completed checklist with appropriate verification that all Green Points required by 7.94 of the Dublin Municipal Code have been incorporated. (Through Completion) Developer may choose self-certification or certification by a third party as permitted by the Dublin Municipal Code. Applicant shall inform the Green Building Official of method of certification prior to release of the first permit in each subdivision / neighborhood. B Various 43. Copies of Approved Plans. Applicant shall provide City with 2 reduced (1/2 size) copies of the City of Dublin stamped approved plan. B 30 days after permit & each revision issuance 44. Cool Roofs. Flat roof areas shall have their roofing material coated with light colored gravel or painted with light colored or reflective material designed for Cool Roofs. B Through Completion 13 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: 45. Solar Zone – CA Energy Code. Show the location of the Solar Zone on the site plan. Detail the orientation of the Solar Zone. This information shall be shown in the master plan check on the overall site plan. This condition of approval will be waived if the project meets the exceptions provided in the CA Energy Code. B Through Completion 46. Accessible Parking. The required number of parking stalls, the design and location of the accessible parking stalls shall be as required by the CA Building Code. B Through Completion 47. Emergency Access Vehicle Gates. Private roads and parking areas or structures controlled by unmanned mechanical parking type gates shall be provided with police emergency access by Opticom LED Emitter and providing the gate access code for distribution to Emergency responders. The control box for the code device shall be mounted on a control pedestal consisting of a metal post/pipe, which shall be installed at a height of 36 to 42 inches to the center of the keypad and a minimum of 15 feet (4.6m) from the entry / exit gate. It shall be located on the driver’s side of the road or driveway and accessible in such a manner as to not require a person to exit their vehicle to reach it, nor to drive on the wrong side of the road or driveway, not to require any back- up movements in order to enter / exit the gate. The gates accesses devices shall be designed and installed to allow for entry through the vehicular gate under three different and unique situations: a. The system in services and under normal operations. b. A power failure has occurred and battery powered convenience open systems are employed. c. A power failure has occurred and the convenience open system has failed (dead or low charged battery). B Prior to Occupancy an d through the life of the project 48. 60-Foot No Build Covenant. Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Section 7.32.130, the owner shall file with the Building Official a Covenant and Agreement Regarding Maintenance of Yards for an Oversized Building binding such owner, his heirs, and assignees, to set aside a 60-foot required yard as unobstructed space having no improvements. After execution by the owner and Building Official, such covenant shall be recorded in the Alameda County Recorder’s Office, and shall continue in effect so long as an oversized building remains or unless otherwise released by authority of the Building Official. B Permitting 49. Emergency Responder Radio Coverage Requirement. Installation of an emergency responder radio coverage equipment shall be determined by the Fire Code Official and the Chief of Police. If installation of equipment is required, the equipment shall be operation prior to any occupancy. B, PO, F First Occupancy FIRE 50. Fire Apparatus Roadways. Fire apparatus roadways shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 F Occupancy 14 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: inches. Roadways under 36 feet wide shall be posted with signs or shall have red curbs painted with labels on one side; roadways under 28 feet wide shall be posted with signs or shall have red curbs painted with labels on both sides of the street as follows: “NO STOPPING FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1”. 51. Gate Approvals. Fencing and gates that cross pedestrian access and exit paths as well as vehicle entrance and exit roads need to be approved for fire department access and egress as well as exiting provisions where such is applicable. Plans need to be submitted that clearly show the fencing and gates and details of such. This should be clearly incorporated as part of the site plan with details provided as necessary. Automatic Gates. All electrically controlled gates shall be provided with an emergency gate over-ride key switch for fire department access. Provide Public Safety radio repeater in parking garage. F Building Permit Issuance & On- going 52. b Key Box / Switch Order Information. A Fire Department Key Box shall be installed at the main entrance to the Building. Note these locations on the plans. The key box should be installed approximately 5 1/2 feet above grade. The box shall be sized to hold the master key to the facility as well as keys for rooms not accessible by the master key. Key boxes and switches may be ordered directly from the Knox Company at www.knoxbox.com F Occupancy 53. Fire Alarm (detection) System Required. A Fire Alarm- Detection System shall be installed throughout the building so as to provide full property protection, including combustible concealed spaces, as required by NFPA 72. The system shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 72, CA Fire, Building, Electrical, and Mechanical Codes. If the system is intended to serve as an evacuation system, compliance with the horn/strobe requirements for the entire building must also be met. All automatic fire extinguishing systems shall be interconnected to the fire alarm system so as to activate an alarm if activated and to monitor control valves. Delayed egress locks shall meet requirements of C.F. F Occupancy 54. New Fire Sprinkler System & Monitoring Requirements. In accordance with the Dublin Fire Code, fire sprinklers shall be installed in the building. The system shall be in accordance with the NFPA 13, the CA Fire Code and CA Building Code. Plans and specifications showing detailed mechanical design, cut sheets, listing sheets and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval and permit prior to installation. Compliance with 2016 CFC section 905 for Standpipe and Section 913 for Fire Pumps are required. F Occupancy 55. Fire Extinguishers. Extinguishers shall be visible and unobstructed. Signage shall be provided to indicate fire extinguisher locations. The number and location of extinguishers shall be shown on the plans. F Building Permit Issuance & Occupancy 15 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: 56. Site Plan. The site plan needs to show sufficient detail to reflect an accurate and detailed layout of the site for review and record purposes. The site plan will need a scale that will allow sufficient details for review purposes and include, but not be limited to the following: a. The site parking and circulation layout including fences, gates, fire lane locations and turnarounds. b. Location of all fire appliances including fire hydrants, fire connections, fire sprinkler risers, and fire control valves. c. The location of all building openings including the exit discharge pathway for building exits. Note the location of exit lighting for these pathways as well. d. The location of any overhead obstructions and their clearances e. The location of property lines and assumed property lines between buildings on the same property as well as any easements. The site plan will also need to note the location and distance of fire hydrants that are along the property frontage as well as the closest hydrants to each side of the property that are located along the access roads that serves the property. In addition, the improved face of curb to face of curb or edge of pavement width of the access road that serves the property will need to be noted. F Building Permit Issuance 57. Fire Access. Fire access is required to be approved all- weather access. Show on the plans the location of the all- weather access and a description of the construction. Access road must be designed to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus. F Building Permit Issuance & Occupancy 58. Hydrants & Fire Flows. Show the location of any on-site fire hydrants and any fire hydrants that are along the property frontage as well as the closest hydrants to each side of the property that are located along the access roads that serves this property. Provide a letter from the Dublin San Ramon Services District indicating what the available fire flow is to this property. F Building Permit Issuance 59. Addressing. Addressing shall be illuminated or in an illuminated area. The address characters shall be contrasting to their background. If address is placed on glass, the numbers shall be on the exterior of the glass and a contrasting background placed behind the numbers. F Occupancy 60. Building Address. The building shall be provided with all addresses or the assigned address range so as to be clearly visible from either direction of travel on the street the address references. The address characters shall not be less than 5 inches in height by 1-inch stroke. Larger sizes may be necessary depending on the setbacks and visibility. F Occupancy & On-going 61. Fire Service Access Elevator. At least one elevator shall comply with size and weight requirements in 2016 CBC Chapter 30 and 2016 CFC section 607. F Occupancy & On-going 16 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: 62. Automatic Shutoffs For Ducts. Air moving systems supplying air in excess of 2,000 cubic feet per minute to enclosed spaces within buildings shall be equipped with an automatic shutoff. Automatic shutoff shall be accomplished by interrupting the power source of the air moving equipment upon detection of smoke in the main supply air duct served by such equipment. Smoke detectors shall be labeled by an approved agency approved and listed by California State Fire Marshal for air duct installation and shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s approved installation instructions. Duct detectors shall be accessible for cleaning by providing access doors. Duct detector location shall be permanently and clearly identified. F Occupancy 63. Stationary Storage Battery Systems. Stationary storage battery systems having an electrolyte capacity of more than 50 gallons for flooded lead acid, nickel cadmium and valve- regulated lead acid, or 1,000 pounds for lithium-ion, used for facility standby power, emergency power or uninterrupted power supplies, shall comply with this section. a. VRLA battery systems shall be provided with a listed device or other approved method to preclude, detect and control thermal runaway. b. An approved method and materials for the control and neutralization of a spill of electrolyte shall be provided in areas containing lead acid, nickel-cadmium or other types of batteries with free-flowing liquid electrolyte. c. Ventilation of stationary storage battery systems shall comply with the California Mechanical Code as cabinet and room rate required per cubic foot per minute. d. Equipment room and building signage shall be provided indicating that the room has energized battery systems or circuits and that corrosive liquids are present. e. Cabinets shall have exterior labels that identify the manufacturer and model number of the system and electrical rating of the contained battery system. f. The battery systems shall be seismically braced in accordance with the California Building Code. g. An approved automatic smoke detection system shall be installed in accordance with CFC section in rooms containing stationary battery systems. F Occupancy & On-going 64. Generators. a. Stationary generators for emergency and standby power systems shall be listed in accordance with UL 2200. b. Generators shall be installed according to Article of the California Electrical Code. F Occupancy & On-going 17 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: c. Portable and vehicle mounted generators shall be bonded and grounded in accord with Article of the California Electrical Code. d. Code required Standby Power Systems shall be according to the California Electrical Code. e. Non-code required optional standby power systems shall be according to Article 702 of the California Electrical Code. f. Life safety branch circuits shall be in accordance with Article of the California Electrical Code. g. All electrical wiring, devices, appliances and other equipment shall be in accord with the California Electrical Code. 65. Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition. a. Clearance to combustibles from temporary heating devices shall be maintained. Devices shall be fixed in place and protected from damage, dislodgement or overturning in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. b. Smoking shall be prohibited except in approved areas. Signs shall be posted “NO SMOKING” in a conspicuous location in each structure or location in which smoking is prohibited. c. Combustible debris, rubbish and waste material shall be removed from buildings at the end of each shift of work. d. Flammable and combustible liquid storage areas shall be maintained clear of combustible vegetation and waste materials. F During Construction PUBLIC WORKS – GENERAL CONDITIONS 66. Conditions of Approval. Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval contained below (“Standard Condition”) unless specifically modified by Project Specific Conditions of Approval below. PW On-going 67. Zone 7 Impervious Surface Fees. The Applicant shall complete a “Zone 7 Impervious Surface Fee Application” and submit an accompanying exhibit for review by the Public Works Department. Fees generated by this application will be due at issuance of Building Permit. PW Building Permit Issuance PUBLIC WORKS – AGREEMENTS & BONDS 68. Tract Improvement Agreement. Developer shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City for all public improvements including any required offsite storm drainage or roadway improvements that are needed to serve the development, as determined by the City Engineer. PW Final Map Approval or Grading Permit Issuance 69. Security. Developer shall provide faithful performance security to guarantee the improvements, as determined by the City Engineer (Note: The performance security shall remain in effect until one year after final inspection). PW Final Map Approval or Grading Permit Issuance 70. O&M Agreement. The requirements of Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2015-0049, require the property owner to enter into an Agreement with the City of Dublin to provide verification and PW Final Map Approval 18 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: assurance that all treatment devices will be properly operated and maintained and to guarantee the owner’s perpetual maintenance obligation for all storm drain inlet filters installed as part of the project. The Agreement shall be recorded against the property and shall run with the land. PUBLIC WORKS - PERMITS 71. Encroachment Permit. Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for all construction activity within the public right-of-way of any street where the City has accepted the street right of way. The encroachment permit may require surety for slurry seal and restriping. At the discretion of the City Engineer an encroachment permit for work specifically included in an Improvement Agreement may not be required. PW Start of Work 72. Grading Permit. Developer shall obtain a Grading Permit from the Public Works Department for all grading. PW Start of Work PUBLIC WORKS – SUBMITTALS 73. Plan Submittals. All submittals of plans shall comply with the requirements of the “City of Dublin Public Works Department Improvement Plan Submittal Requirements”, the “City of Dublin Improvement Plan Review Check List,” and current Public Works and industry standards. A complete submittal of improvement plans shall include all civil improvements, joint trench, street lighting and on-site safety lighting, landscape plans, and all associated documents as required. The Developer shall not piecemeal the submittal by submitting various components separately. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 74. Submittals to non-City Agencies. Developer will be responsible for submittals and reviews to obtain the approvals of all participating non-City agencies. The Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin San Ramon Services District shall approve and sign the Improvement Plans. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 75. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). A Homeowners Association(s) shall be formed by recordation of a declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to govern use and maintenance of common areas and facilities. Said declaration shall set forth the Association name, bylaws, rules and regulations. The CC&Rs shall also contain a provision that prohibits the amendment of those provisions of the CC&Rs without City’s approval. The CC&Rs shall ensure that there is adequate provision for maintenance, in good repair and on a regular basis, the landscaping & irrigation, decorative pavements, fences, walls, drainage, lighting, signs, building exteriors, parking areas and other related improvements. The Developer shall submit a copy of the CC&R document to the City for review and approval relative to these conditions of approval. PL, PW Final Map Approval 76. Geotechnical Report. Developer shall submit a Design Level Geotechnical Report, which includes street pavement sections and grading recommendations. PW Approval of Improvement Plans, and Grading Plans 77. Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements. Applicant shall submit an Ownership and Maintenance Exhibit for review and approval by Planning Division and Public Works PL, PW Final Map Approval or Grading Permit 19 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: Department. Maintenance shall include but not be limited to, street cleaning of parking areas within Campbell Lane along project frontage. Terms of maintenance are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Issuance 78. Approved Plan Files. Developer shall provide the Public Works Department a PDF format file of approved site plans, including grading, improvement, landscaping & irrigation, joint trench and lighting. PW Approval of Site Plans 79. Master Files. Developer shall provide the Public Works Department a digital vectorized file of the “master” files for the project, in a format acceptable to the City Engineer. Digital raster copies are not acceptable. The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing format. All objects and entities in layers shall be colored by layer and named in English. All submitted drawings shall use the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot. PW Acceptance of Improvements PUBLIC WORKS – EASEMENTS AND ACCESS RIGHTS 80. Abandonment of Easements. Developer shall obtain abandonment from all applicable public agencies of existing easements and rights of way within the development that will no longer be used. PW Final Map Approval or Approval of Improvement Plans 81. Acquisition of Easements. Developer shall acquire easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent property owners for any improvements not located on their property. The easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in writing and copies furnished to the Public Works Department. PW Final Map Approval or Approval of Improvement Plans PUBLIC WORKS - GRADING 82. Grading Plan. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with the recommendation of the Geotechnical Report, the approved Tentative Map and Site Development Review, and the City design standards & ordinances. In case of conflict between the soil engineer’s recommendation and the City ordinances, the City Engineer shall determine which shall apply. PW Approval of Grading Plans 83. Erosion Control Plan. A detailed Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be included with the Grading Plan submittal. The plan shall include detailed design, location, and maintenance criteria of all erosion and sedimentation control measures. PW Issuance of Grading Permit 84. Retaining Walls. Tiebacks or structural fabric for retaining walls shall not cross property lines, or shall be located a minimum of 2’ below the finished grade of the upper lot. PW Approval of Grading Plans PUBLIC WORKS - IMPROVEMENTS 85. Public Improvements. The public improvements shall be constructed generally as shown on the Tentative Map and Site Development Review. However, the approval of the Tentative Map and Site Development Review is not an approval of the specific design of the drainage, sanitary sewer, water, traffic circulation, parking, stormwater treatment, sidewalks and street improvements. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 86. Public Improvement Conformance. All public PW Approval of 20 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: improvements shall conform to the City of Dublin Standard Plans, current practices, and design requirements and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement Plans 87. Public Street Slopes. Public streets shall be a minimum 1% slope with minimum gutter flow of 0.7% around bumpouts. Private streets and alleys shall be a minimum 0.5% slope. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 88. Curb Returns. Curb Returns on arterial and collector streets shall be 40-foot radius, all internal public streets curb returns shall be minimum 30-foot radius (36-foot with bump outs) and private streets/alleys shall be a minimum 20-foot radius, or as approved by the City Engineer. Curb ramp locations and design shall conform to the most current Title 24 and Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and as approved by the Public Works Traffic Engineer. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 89. Decorative Pavement. Any decorative pavers/paving installed within City right-of-way shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Where decorative paving is installed at signalized intersections, pre-formed traffic signal loops shall be put under the decorative pavement. Decorative pavements shall not interfere with placement of traffic control devices, including pavement markings. All turn lane stripes, stop bars & crosswalks shall be delineated with concrete bands or color pavers to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Maintenance costs of the decorative paving shall be the responsibility of the developer or future property owner. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 90. Traffic Signing and Striping. Developer shall install all traffic signage, striping, and pavement markings as required by the Public Works Department. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 91. Street Lighting. Street light standards and luminaries shall be designed and installed or relocated as determined by the City Engineer. The maximum voltage drop for streetlights is 5%. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 92. Water and Sewer Facilities. Developer shall construct all potable and recycled water and sanitary sewer facilities required to serve the project in accordance with DSRSD master plans, standards, specifications and requirements. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 93. Fire Hydrants. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the Alameda County Fire Department. A raised reflector blue traffic marker shall be installed in the street opposite each hydrant. PW Approval of Grading/Improv ement Plans 94. Storm Drain Inlet Markers. All on-site storm drain inlets must be marked with storm drain markers that read: “No dumping, drains to creek.” The stencils may be purchased from the Public Work Department. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 95. Utilities. Developer shall construct gas, electric, telephone, cable TV, and communication improvements within the fronting streets and as necessary to serve the project and the future adjacent parcels as approved by the City Engineer and the various Public Utility agencies. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 96. Utility Locations. All electric, telephone, cable TV, and communications utilities, shall be placed underground in accordance with the City policies and ordinances. All utilities shall be located and provided within public utility easements PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 21 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: or public services easements and sized to meet utility company standards. 97. Utility Vaults and Boxes. All utility vaults, boxes, and structures, unless specifically approved otherwise by the City Engineer, shall be underground and placed in landscaped areas and screened from public view. Prior to Joint Trench Plan approval, landscape drawings shall be submitted to the City showing the location of all utility vaults, boxes, and structures and adjacent landscape features and plantings. The Joint Trench Plans shall be signed by the City Engineer prior to construction of the joint trench improvements. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 98. Street Signs. Developer shall furnish and install street name signs, traffic signs and markings for the project as required by the City Engineer. PUBLIC WORKS - CONSTRUCTION 99. Erosion Control Implementation. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be implemented between October 1st and April 30th unless otherwise allowed in writing by the City Engineer. The Developer will be responsible for maintaining erosion and sediment control measures for one year following the City’s acceptance of the improvements. PW On-going as needed 100. Archaeological Finds. If archaeological materials are encountered during construction, construction within 100 feet of these materials shall be halted until a professional Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. PW On-going as needed 101. Construction Activities. Construction activities, including the idling, maintenance, and warming up of equipment, shall be limited to Monday through Friday, and non-City holidays, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Extended hours or Saturday work will be considered by the City Engineer on a case-by-case basis. To request Saturday work, Owner shall submit the request to City Engineer by 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Tuesday and receive a response by 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time on Thursday. Note that the construction hours of operation within the public right of way are more restrictive. PW On-going as needed 102. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of all work under construction to separate the construction operation from the public. All construction activities shall be confined within the fenced area. Construction materials and/or equipment shall not be operated or stored outside of the fenced area or within the public right-of-way unless approved in advance by the City Engineer. PW Start of Construction and On-going 103. Construction Noise Management Plan. Developer shall prepare a construction noise management plan that identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding developed properties. The plan shall include hours of construction operation, use of mufflers on construction equipment, speed limit for construction traffic, PW Start of Construction Implementation, and On-going as needed 22 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: haul routes and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be provided prior to project construction. 104. Traffic Control Plan. Closing of any existing pedestrian pathway and/or sidewalk during construction shall be implemented through a City approved Traffic Control Plan and shall be done with the goal of minimizing the impact on pedestrian circulation. PW Start of Construction and On-going as needed 105. Construction Traffic Interface Plan. Developer shall prepare a plan for construction traffic interface with public traffic on any existing public street. Construction traffic and parking may be subject to specific req uirements by the City Engineer. PW Start of Construction; Implementation, and On-going as needed 106. Pest Control. Developer shall be responsible for controlling any rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due to construction activities. PW On-going 107. Dust Control Measures. Developer shall be responsible for watering or other dust-palliative measures to control dust as conditions warrant or as directed by the City Engineer. PW Start of Construction; Implementation On-going as needed 108. Construction Traffic and Parking. All construction related parking shall be off street in an area provided by the Developer and will be in the garage of the structure once the podium concrete is complete. Construction traffic and parking shall be provided in a manner approved by the City Engineer to minimize impact on BART patrons. PW On-going PUBLIC WORKS – NPDES 109. Stormwater Treatment. The project qualifies as a Category C Special Project – Transit-Oriented Development as defined in the NPDES Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) with a maximum Low Impact Development (LID) treatment reduction credit of ninety percent (90%). The project shall treat a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the total project impervious area with LID treatment measures as defined in the MRP. Planting within all bioretention areas or similar LID landscape-based stormwater treatment measures shall adhere to the guidelines summarized in the most current version of Appendix B to the C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance Handbook published by the Alameda County Clean Water Program. PW Building Permit Issuance and Grading Permit Issuance 110. Media Filters. All media filters used for stormwater treatment shall have been certified under the Washington State Department of Ecology Technical Assessment Protocol – Ecology (TAPE) General Use Level Designation (GULD) for Basic Treatment. All media filters shall be hydraulically sized based on the criteria specified in the Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3.d and the design operation rate for which the product received TAPE GULD certification for Basic Treatment. PW Building Permit Issuance and Grading Permit Issuance 111. NOI and SWPPP. Prior to any clearing or grading, Developer shall provide the City evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been sent to the California State Water Resources Control Board per the requirements of the NPDES PW Start of Any Construction Activities 23 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: Permit. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works Department and be kept at the construction site. 112. SWPPP. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project construction activities. The SWPPP shall include the erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with the regulations outlined in the most current version of the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or State Construction Best Management Practices Handbook. The Developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors implement all storm water pollution prevention measures in the SWPPP. PW SWPPP to be Prepared Prior to Approval of Improvement Plans; Implementation Prior to Start of Construction and On-going as needed 113. Stormwater Management Plan. Construction Plans shall include a Stormwater Management Plan subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. PW Approval of Improvement Plans and Building Permit Issuance 114. Trash Capture. Specific information is required on the construction plan set demonstrating how MRP Provision C.10 (trash capture) requirements are met. Trash capture devices to be used shall be listed and details shown on plans. PW Approval of Improvement Plans and Building Permit Issuance PUBLIC WORKS – SPECIAL CONDITIONS 115. Approval. The Tentative Map approval for Tract 8437, for Condominium Purposes, PLPA 2017-00036, establishes the design concepts and expectations for the Tentative Tract Map. The Tentative Tract Map shall generally conform to the SDR and Tentative Map plans submitted by BKF Engineers, submitted February 9, 2018, on file with the Community Development Department, and other plans, text, and diagrams relating to this Tentative Tract Map, unless modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein. PL, PW On-going 116. Final Map Recordation. Final Map 8437 shall record prior to the issuance of a building permit. PW Building Permit Issuance 117. Wells or Exploratory Boring. Any water well, cathodic protection well, or exploratory boring on the project property must be properly abandoned, backfilled, or maintained in accordance with applicable groundwater protection ordinances. For additional information contact Alameda County Flood Control, Zone 7. PW Through Completion 118. Stormwater Requirements Checklist. Applicant shall submit an updated “Stormwater Requirements Checklist” and accompanying required documentation. PW Approval of Grading Plans 119. Sidewalks. All public sidewalks must be within City right-of- way or in a pedestrian access easement unless approved by the City Engineer. PW Final Map Approval or Issuance of Grading Permit 120. Ownership of Campbell Lane Public Right-of-way. Applicant shall accept ownership of a portion of Campbell Lane public right-of-way, as generally shown on the exhibit submitted to the Community Development Department on October 2, 2017, to the property owner, reserving a public PW Building Permit Issuance or Approval of 24 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: access easement and utility easement over the area and allowing for public and utility agencies to continue their current use of the street right-of-way. The exact dimensions and location of this portion of land and the terms of the quitclaim deed and easement shall be as reasonably agreed upon by the City and the Applicant. Applicant shall cooperate in the preparation of all necessary documentation to process and effectuate the property transfer and easement dedication. The Applicant shall construct a physical improvement at street level delineating the area quitclaimed. Delineation is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Grading Plans 121. Parking Structure Access Gates and Security Fencing. The geometric configuration and circulation for the gated entrance in the parking structure shall be designed as follows to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.  Provide details on design and function of the fence and gates within the parking structure.  Provide a pedestrian access at the security gate meeting accessibility requirements. PW Building Permit Issuance 122. Guest Parking. The Developer shall operate the parking structure in a manner that allows guests to obtain access and park inside. PW Building Permit Issuance 123. Parking Structure. The parking structure shall comply with the parking structure requirements of the Off-street Parking Ordinance, unless otherwise specified in these conditions of approval, and shall meet the following requirements:  Minimum Parking Stall Dimensions shall be as listed below: o Standard Stalls: 9’ x 18’ o Compact Stalls: 8.5’ x 17’ o Additional 2.5’ width adjacent to walls or other obstructions o Parking space width of 9’ will be measured from the edge of columns. o Accessible stalls shall conform to current accessibility requirements with no reduction granted  Provide hose bibs as needed for periodic wash down of within the parking structure.  Inside the parking garage, provide a turnaround space for vehicles at the interior gate and fence that restricts through vehicle access. Vehicles approaching the gate and fence need an area to turn around if no parking is available.  Indicate guest parking and leasing office parking stalls within the structure. PW Building Permit Issuance 124. Lighting.  The Applicant/Developer shall prepare a photometric plan to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer, Director of Community Development, the City’s Consulting Landscape Architect and Dublin Police Services. PL, PW, PO Building Permit Issuance 25 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to:  The photometric plan shall show lighting levels which take into consideration, poles, low walls and other obstructions.  Exterior lighting shall be provided within the parking structure and on the building, and shall be of a design and placement so as not to cause glare onto adjoining properties, businesses or to vehicular traffic.  Lighting used after daylight hours shall be adequate to provide for security needs.  The plan shall show measurements for the parking structure, connecting paths, pedestrian bridges, common areas and outside of residential areas.  Lighting inside of the parking structure shall be of a level which is high enough to promote safety within the structure, and at no point should the lighting level be below 1.0 foot-candle.  The parking lot lights shall also be designed to eliminate any pockets of high & low illuminated areas.  Prior to Occupancy, the applicant shall request an inspection of the lighting levels in the structure to determine if lighting is sufficient. If additional lights are required to be installed to meet the 1.0 foot- candle requirement, the Applicant shall do so prior to Occupancy. 125. Parking Structure Drainage. Construction drawings shall include information to demonstrate how runoff within the parking structure will be captured. All runoff from within the parking structure shall be collected prior to exiting the structure, and discharged to a connection to the sanitary sewer system per DSRSD requirements. PW Building Permit Issuance or Approval of Grading/Improv ement Plans 126. On-Street Parking Removal. Remove 20 feet of parallel parking (one space) adjacent to the parking structure entrance along the north side of Campbell Lane. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 127. Sidewalk and Frontage Grading. Sidewalks within the public right-of-way shall have a maximum cross slope of below 2.0%. The cross slope shall be maintained for a minimum distance of one foot behind the frontage sidewalks where there is adjacent landscaping, stairs or pathway. PW Approval of Grading/Improv ement Plans 128. Existing Crosswalks on Campbell Lane. Additional safety and warning static and/or electronic signs shall be added at the existing crosswalk at the southwest corner of Campbell Lane that connects to the proposed development. Design is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 129. Common Area Improvements. Common area improvements owned or maintained by the Homeowners Association or Property Manager are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval and shall be included in the Tract Improvement Agreement. Such improvements include, but are not limited to: curb & gutter, pavement areas, sidewalks, access ramps and driveways; parking spaces; street lights and appurtenances, drainage facilities, utilities, landscape and irrigation facilities, common area landscaping, stormwater treatment facilities, striping and PW Building Permit Issuance or Approval of Improvement Plans 26 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: signage, and fire hydrants. 130. Signing and Striping Plan. Construction drawings shall include signing and striping plans, subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. PW Building Permit Issuance and Improvement Plan Approval 131. Curb Ramps. All pedestrian ramps shall be unidirectional ramps, providing access to a single crosswalk, including the intersection of Campbell Lane and DeMarcus Boulevard. The design shown on the submitted Site Plan shall be revised to meet the unidirectional ramp requirement. PW Improvement Plan Approval 132. Existing Curb and Gutter. Existing curb and gutter along the project frontages of the public rights-of-way shall be evaluated for condition and compliance with current Public Works standards, and shall be repaired or replaced with the development of the site, as determined by the City Engineer. Construction drawings shall show repair or replacement required. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 133. Existing Pavement at Private Drive. Existing pavement within the private drive along the north side of the project shall be evaluated for condition and compliance with current Public Works standards, and shall be repaired or replaced with the development of the site, as determined by the City Engineer. Construction drawings shall show repair or replacement required. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 134. Remediation of Adjacent Public Streets. The Applicant shall be responsible for remediation of the adjacent public streets, damaged by any construction activity (including utility trench cuts), as determined by the City Engineer. Remediation may include pavement treatment such as a slurry seal or a grind and overlay. PW Acceptance of Improvements 135. Existing Storm Drainage System. The Applicant shall verify all downstream storm drain facilities are adequately sized prior to discharging to any off-site storm drainage system. If the downstream system is not adequately sized, the Applicant shall be responsible for improving the downstream system to accommodate the project runoff. PW Approval of Grading/Improv ement Plans 136. Standard General Notes. Standard General Notes and project specific notes shall be shown on the construction drawing set in accordance with current Public Works standards. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 137. Existing Condition Information. The construction drawing set shall provide all existing information along project perimeter and public street frontage, including existing curb elevations and gutter slopes along adjacent streets. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 138. Proposed Design Information. The construction drawing set shall provide all proposed information, typical slopes at walkways and parking structure, overland release from site, and show how runoff from site will be collected and conveyed upstream of public sidewalks. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 139. Sections and Details. Construction drawings shall include necessary sections and details to clarify construction, as determined by the Public Works Department. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 140. Grading and Drainage. Construction drawings shall include necessary information to clarify grading, drainage and PW Approval of Grading/Improv 27 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: overland release of runoff within open air areas such as plazas, lounges, bridge, and landscape areas. ement Plans DUBLIN SAN RAMOM SERVICES DISTRICT 141. d Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that conform to the requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District Code, the DSRSD “Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities”, all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. DSRSD Issuance of Building Permits 142. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate future flow demands in addition to each development project’s demand. Layout and sizing of mains shall be in conformance with DSRSD utility master planning. DSRSD Issuance of Improvement Plans 143. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD’s existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the applicant for any project that requires a pumping station. DSRSD Issuance of Improvement Plans 144. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound engineering practice. DSRSD Issuance of Improvement Plans 145. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines to be located in public streets rather than in off-street locations to the fullest extent possible. If unavoidable, then public sewer or water easements must be established over the alignment of each public sewer or water line in an off-street or private street location to provide access for future maintenance and/or replacement. DSRSD Issuance of Improvement Plans 146. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or a site development permit, the locations and widths of all proposed easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD. DSRSD Issuance of Improvement Plans 147. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by separate instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on the Final Map. DSRSD Issuance of Improvement Plans 148. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever comes first, all utility connection fees including DSRSD and Zone 7, plan checking fees, inspection fees, connection fees, and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code. DSRSD Issuance of Building Permits 149. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever comes first, all improvement plans for DSRSD Issuance of Building Permits 28 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: DSRSD facilities shall be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer’s estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a one-year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawings reviewed by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer. 150. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be permitted unless the proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be issued after all of the items in the condition immediately above have been satisfied. DSRSD Issuance of Improvement Plans 151. The applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of Directors, commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the same from any litigation, claims, or fines resulting from the construction and completion of the project. DSRSD Issuance of Building Permits 152. Improvement plans shall include recycled water improvements as required by DSRSD. Services for landscape irrigation shall connect to recycled water mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of the DSRSD Recycled Water Use Guidelines and conform to the requirements therein. DSRSD Issuance of Improvement Plans 153. Above ground backflow prevention devices/double detector check valves shall be installed on fire protection systems connected to the DSRSD water main. The applicant shall collaborate with the Fire Department and with DSRSD to size and configure its fire system. The applicant shall minimize the number of backflow prevention devices /double detector check valves installed on its fire protection system. The applicant shall minimize the visual impact of the backflow prevention devices/double detector check valves through strategic placement and landscaping. DSRSD Issuance of Improvement Plans 154. Development plans will not be approved until landscape plans are submitted and approved. DSRSD Issuance of Building Permits 155. Grading for construction shall be done with recycled water. DSRSD During Construction 156. Temporary portable irrigation meters in areas with recycled water service shall be allowed for cross-connection and coverage testing for a maximum of 14 days. DSRSD On-going 157. The project is located within the District Recycled Water Use Zone, which calls for installation of recycled water irrigation systems to allow for the future use of recycled water for approved landscape irrigation demands. Recycled water will be available as described in DSRSD Water System Master Plan, March 2016. Unless specifically exempted by the District Engineer, compliance with Ordinance 301, as may be amended or suspended, is required. The applicant must submit landscape irrigation plans to DSRSD. All irrigation DSRSD Issuance of Building Permits 29 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: facilities shall be in compliance with District’s “Recycled Water Use Guidelines” and the Department of Health Services requirements for recycled water irrigation. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 20th day of February 2018, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _____________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk G:\PA\2017\PLPA-2017-00036 Parcel A-3 Stage 2 PD Zoning, SDR, TMAP\CC Meeting 2.20.18\CC Attachments\7. Resolution approving a Site Development Review Permit and Tentative Map 8437 for the Dublin Transit Center Si.docx RESOLUTION NO. xx-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ************ DISAPPROVING A STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN, A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND TENTATIVE MAP 8437 FOR THE TRANSIT CENTER SITE A-3 PROJECT APN: 986-0034-009-00 PLPA-2017-00036 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Ashton at Dublin Station, is proposing to construct a residential project comprised of 220 units, residential amenities including a fitness center, pool, roof top lounge, and 331 spaces of structured parking on an approximately 2.36-acre site located on Site A-3 in the Dublin Transit Center. The proposed development and applications are collectively known as the “Project”; and WHEREAS, the applications include Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Tentative Map 8437; and WHEREAS, the Project Site is located at the northwest corner of Campbell Lane and DeMarcus Boulevard within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, and more specifically within the Dublin Transit Center Village area; and WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan and the City’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designate the Project Site for “High Density Residential” development, which provide s for residential development of 25.1 units and above per gross residential acre; and WHEREAS, the Planned Development Zoning and Stage 1 Planned Development Plan for the Dublin Transit Center Project, adopted by the City Council pursuant to Ordinance No. 21–02, adopted December 3, 2002 (“the Original Stage 1 PD”), established the uses, density, and other development standards and requirements for development of the Project Site among other properties within the 90.65-acre Dublin Transit Center; and WHEREAS, the Stage 1 PD established the maximum residential density of 49 units per gross acre, 64 units per net acre, and a maximum of 530 units for the 10.92 gross and 8.29 net acre Site A, of which the Project Site is a part; and WHEREAS, the City Council amended the Stage 1 PD in 2011, by Ordinance No. 6–11 (“the Later Stage 1 PD”), to reduce the net density on Site A to 52 units per net acres and a maximum of 430 units; and WHEREAS, projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves are statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(5); and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated November 14, 2017 was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending City Council approval of the proposed Project; and 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the project on November 14, 2017, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolutio n 17-12 recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving the Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 2 Development Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolutions 17 -13 and 17-14 recommending the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the S ite Development Review Permit and Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard ; and WHEREAS, on January 9, 2018 and February 6, 2018, the City Council discussed the Project; and WHEREAS, Staff Reports dated December 5, 2017, January 9, 2018, February 6, 2018 and February 20, 2018 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth before adopting this resolution; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby disapproves the proposed Stage 2 Development Plan for the Transit Center Site A-3 Project based on the following findings and determinations: 1. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 and 8.120.050 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows: a. The Project, which the proposed Stage 2 Development Plan anticipates, would be unharmonious and incompatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area because: i. The proposed Project is inconsistent and incompatible with the Stage 1 Development Plan applicable to the site, despite the requirement of Section 8.32.040.B.1 to demonstrate compatibility with the Stage 1 Development Plan. The density of the proposed project (92 units per net acre) greatly exceeds the maximum density of 64 units per net acre established in the Original Stage 1 PD (a 43.75% increase) and the 52 units per net residential acre established in the amended Stage 1 PD (a 78.85% increase). Since Sites A-1 and A-2 were developed at lower densities (18.18 and 56 net units per acre), the density on Site A as a whole would remain less than the maximum density allowed in the aggregate. 3 Nonetheless, the City Council concludes that the proposed project density, being substantially greater than that allowed by the Original Stage 1 PD, is not consistent or compatible with the Stage 1 PD. Specifically, the proposed density on the Project site is beyond the scope of the development that was anticipated for the Project site when the City Council adopted the Original Stage 1 PD in 2002. ii. The proposed Project’s height, massing and density is out of scale with the adjacent buildings and the proposed Project’s architectural style is incompatible with adjacent sites. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin, pursuant to Section 8.104.090 of the Dublin Municipal Code, hereby disapproves the proposed Site Development Review Permit for the Transit Center Site A-3 Project based on the following findings and determinations: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 of the Zoning Ordinance because: 1) The Project’s mass, height, and scale is incompatible with the architectural character and scale of development in the immediate area in which the proposed project is to be located; and 2) the Project does not comply with the intent and purpose of the Transit Center Planned Development District in which it is located, for the reasons stated above. 2. The proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because: the Project, as described above, is not consistent with the Stage 1 Development Plan, the proposed Stage 2 Development Plan is being disapproved on that basis, and therefore the proposed Project is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance because Section 8.32.030.B prohibits the City from issuing permits within a Planned Development District unless a Stage 2 Development Plan has been adopted. 3. The design of the project is inappropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties, and the lot(s) in which the project is proposed because: the size and mass of the proposed buildings are inconsistent with other residential development in the immediate vicinity and, as noted above, not in compliance with the development density/intensity allowed under the Stage 1 Development Plan . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the that the Dublin City Council hereby disapproves Tentative Map 8437 prepared by BKF dated received August 30, 2017 based on the following finding: The proposed Tentative Map 8437 together with the provisions for its design and improvements is not in compliance with all the applicable provisions and requirem ents of the zoning ordinance because Section 8.32.030.B prohibits the City from issuing permits within a Planned Development District unless a Stage 2 Development Plan has been adopted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby makes the following findings and determinations regarding Government Code section 65589.5(j) (the Housing Accountability Act): Based upon the above findings and determinations, the proposed housing development project does not comply with applicable, objective zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that Project’s application was determined to be complete. In particular, the Project cannot be developed witho ut the City’s discretionary approval of a Stage 2 Planned Development Plan, and the City has determined 4 that it cannot make the findings necessary to approve the proposed Stage 2 Planned Development Plan pursuant to its Zoning Ordinance requirements for the reasons set forth above. Thus, the Project does not comply with the City’s applicable zoning criteria in effect at the time the Project’s application was determined to be complete. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 20th day of February 2018, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _____________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 2925510.2 Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis in Support of Specific Plan Exemption November 8, 2017 Planning Application Number: PLPA-2017-00036 City of Dublin Ashton at Dublin Station Addendum | Page 1 11/8/17 Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis in Support of Specific Plan Exemption PLPA-2017-00036 November 8, 2017 The proposed project (Ashton at Dublin Station) includes the construction of a 220-unit multi- family residential development on a 2.36-acre (net) site located on the northwest of the corner of DeMarcus Boulevard and Campbell Lane in the City of Dublin (commonly referred to as Site A-3). At its tallest point, the building is five stories over two levels of parking (seven stories total). The proposed project meets the parking requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit as it proposes to provide 331 parking spaces on-site within a parking garage. The project site is located in the Dublin Transit Center, as well as the Transit Village Center subarea of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area. The proposed project is part of the pre-existing entitlements defined in the 2002 Dublin Transit Center Stage 1 Planned Development (PD) Rezone and General Plan/Specific Plan amendment. The project requires approval of a Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning, a Tentative Tract Map, and a Site Development Review Permit. The Dublin Transit Center requires 15% of the residential units be affordable units. The Camellia Place apartment project on Site A-2 has been used to satisfy the very low and low portion of the inclusionary housing requirement for the project. Ten percent (10%) of the units in the proposed project are required to be affordable to moderate income households earning between 80% and 120% of the area median income adjusted for actual household size. The project proposes to set aside 10% of the 220 units (22 units) for moderate income households. Prior CEQA Analysis Dublin Transit Center EIR The Dublin Transit Center Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified by the City Council on November 19, 2002, by City Council Resolution No. 215-02. This EIR analyzed amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), a Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning, a Parcel Map and a Development Agreement. The EIR contains mitigation measures that will be applied to any development within the project area, including the proposed project. Specific mitigation measures are noted in the Initial Study for the proposed project. The EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to project exceedances of Bay Area Air Quality Management District air quality standards on a project and cumulative level, cumulative traffic impacts , and impacts to mainline freeway segments. City of Dublin Ashton at Dublin Station Addendum | Page 2 11/8/17 The project qualifies for a statutory exemption from CEQA under Gov’t Code section 65457 for residential projects that are consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR has been certified (Exemption). The Exemption states: “(a) Any residential development project, including any subdivision, or any zoning change that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report has been certified after January 1, 1980, is exempt from the requirements of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. However, if after adoption of the specific plan, an event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code occurs, the exemption provided by this subdivision does not apply unless and unt il a supplemental environmental impact report for the specific plan is prepared and certified in accordance with the provisions of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. After a supplemental environmental impact report is certified, the exemption specified in this subdivision applies to projects undertaken pursuant to the specific plan.” The City has relied on this Exemption for CEQA compliance for all other residential projects within the Transit Specific Plan area. This document addresses the component of the Exemption of whether an event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code has occurred since the certification of the Dublin Transit Center EIR that requires preparation of a supplemental CEQA document (EIR or MND). Existing Entitlements Sites A, B and C comprise the portion of area of the Dublin Transit Center designated as residential. They all have the GP/EDSP land use designation of High Density Residential except for Site A-1, which is designated Medium-High Density Residential. A total of 1,500 units are allocated to sites A, B and C and the proposed project represents the last residential development project within these sites of the Dublin Transit Center project area. As shown in Table A-1: Dublin Transit Center Development & Entitlements, the total number of units constructed in Site A, including the proposed project, would be 384 units, 46 units less than the 430 units allocated . Per the Dublin Transit Center EIR, the total number of residential units constructed in Site A, B and C, including the proposed project, would be 1,451 units, 49 units less than the total allocation of 1,500 units. City of Dublin Ashton at Dublin Station Addendum | Page 3 11/8/17 Table A-1: Dublin Transit Center Development & Entitlem ents Site Units Constructed/Proposed Units Permitted 1 Difference Site A 2 384 430 (46) Site B 562 565 (3) Site C 505 505 0 Total 1,451 1,500 (49) Notes: 1. Per Dublin Transit Center Stage 1 Development Plan, as amended. 2. Includes proposed project. The proposed project would not exceed the allocation of residential units envisioned for Site A, nor the overall units allocated to Site A, B and C under the Dublin Transit Center project (1500), and is therefore consistent with the development plans as analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Proposed CEQA Analysis in this Document As stated above, the City of Dublin has determined that the project qualifies for a statutory exemption from CEQA under Gov’t Code section 65457. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan land use designation for Site A-3 and is similar in unit count to the Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan. An EIR has been certified for the Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan. This document finds that no event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code has occurred since the certification of the Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan EIR that requires preparation of a supplemental CEQA document (EIR or MND). Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identify the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review. After a review of these conditions, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or negat ive declaration is required for this project. This is based on the following analysis: a) Are there substantial changes to the project requiring major revisions to the EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified? There are no substantial changes to the project analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. As demonstrated in the attached document, the proposed land uses on the project site are not a substantial change to those previously proposed and analyzed, and will not result in additional significant impacts, and no additional or different mitigation measures are required. This is documented in the attached analysis. City of Dublin Ashton at Dublin Station Addendum | Page 4 11/8/17 b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the project is undertaken requiring major revisions to the EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified? There are no substantial changes in the conditions assumed in previous CEQA analysis involving new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified. This is documented in the attached analysis. c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the previous EIR was complete that shows the project will have a significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe; or, previously infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives are now feasible but the Applicant declined to adopt them; or mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those in the previous EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the Applicant declines to adopt them? As documented in the attached analysis, there is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the prior CEQA document . Similarly, there are no new or different feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to reduce significant effects of the project which the Applicant declines to adopt. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the project. The CEQA document adequately describes the impacts and mitigations associated with the proposed project. d) Should a subsequent EIR or negative declaration be prepared? No subsequent EIR, Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is required because there are no impacts, significant or otherwise, of the project beyond those identified in the previous CEQA analysis, as documented in the attached analysis. Conclusion The attached document determines that the proposed Project and its impacts were previously analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan EIR and none of the standards for a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration under CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 are met. Therefore, the CEQA exemption under Government Code section 665457 applies to the project. The attached document, the Dublin Transit Center EIR, and all resolutions cited above are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review during normal business hours in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin , CA. Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis in Support of Specific Plan Exemption November 8, 2017 Planning Application Number: PLPA-2017-00036 City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page i Table of Contents Background & Project Description 1 Environmental Analysis 7 List of Figures Figure 1: Project Vicinity and Location Figure 2: Dublin Transit Center Land Use Plan Figure 3: Aerial Perspective Figure 4a: Level 1 Floor Plan Figure 4b: Level 3 Floor Plan Figure 4c: Level 6 Floor Plan Figure 5a: View From Southeast Corner – Campbell Lane and DeMarcus Boulevard Figure 5b: View From Southwest Corner – Campbell Lane Figure 5c: View From Northwest Corner – Campbell Lane Figure 5d: View From Northeast Corner – DeMarcus Boulevard Figure 6: Preliminary Landscape Plan Figure 7: Preliminary Grading Plan Figure 8: Preliminary Utility Plan Figure 9: Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan Figure 10: Preliminary Erosion Control Plan Figure 11: Fault Trench Locations Figure 12: Flood Hazard Area Note: All figures are included at the end of the document. List of Tables Table 1: Dublin Transit Center Development & Entitlements City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 1 Ashton at Dublin Station Background & Project Description Project Title Ashton at Dublin Station Lead Agency City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Contact Martha Battaglia Associate Planner Phone: 925-452-2152 martha.battaglia@dublin.ca.gov Project Location & Setting The project site (APN 986-0034-009-00) is located in eastern Dublin, bounded by Campbell Lane to the west and south, DeMarcus Boulevard to the east, and a proposed shared private drive to the north (just south of Dublin Boulevard). See Figure 1: Project Vicinity and Location. The project site is paved and has previously been used as a parking lot and a construction staging site. Project Applicant Ashton at Dublin Station, LLC 1745 Shea Center Drive, Suite 200 Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 General Plan Designation High Density Residential City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 2 Zoning PD Planned Development (PA 00-013/ORD. 21-02) Project Description The project Applicant has applied for a Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan Site Development Review Permit (SDR), and Tentative Map. Figures illustrating the proposed project are shown at the end of this document and are referenced therein. The 2.36-acre project site is bounded by DeMarcus Boulevard to the east, Campbell Lane to the south and west, and a private through-block drive to the north. The Iron Horse Regional Trail runs northwest to southeast next to the project site's southwest corner. Currently, the project site is paved with minimal topographical change other than slight slopes for drainage . Residential developments surround the project site to the west, north and east. A BART surface parking lot and a PG&E electrical power substation is located across Campbell Lane to the south. As shown in Figure 2: Dublin Transit Center Land Use Plan , the project site is located within the 91-acre district known as the Dublin Transit Center. The Transit Center project includes the development of a high-density mixed-use, transit and pedestrian-oriented development adjacent to the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. On-going development has included removing most of the existing BART surface parking lots. Future construction of new land uses includes up to two million square feet of office space, a maximum of 1,500 medium-high and high-density residential dwellings, and up to 70,000 square feet of ancillary retail commercial uses. A five-story BART parking garage containing 1,700 spaces has been constructed adjacent to Interstate 580 (I-580). The proposed project would add a new 220-unit residential development project with associated streetscape improvements to the Transit Center. The project site is located five minutes’ walk from BART, with the main entry and entry plaza located at the project site's southeast corner to encourage direct pedestrian circulation to both public transit and the nearby Campbell Green park. As shown in Table 1: Dublin Transit Center Development & Entitlements , the total number of units constructed in Site A, including the proposed project, would be 384 units, 46 units less than the 430 units allocated . The total number of units constructed within Sites A, B and C of the Dublin Transit Center project area, including the proposed project, would be 1,451 units, 49 units less than the total allocation of 1,500 units. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 3 Table 1: Dublin Transit Center Development & Entitlements Site Units Constructed/Proposed Units Permitted 1 Difference Site A 2 384 430 (46) Site B 562 565 (3) Site C 505 505 0 Total 1,451 1,500 (49) Notes: 1. Per Dublin Transit Center Stage 1 Development Plan, as amended. 2. Includes proposed project. As shown in Table 1, the proposed project would not exceed the allocation of residential units envisioned for Site A, nor the greater Dublin Transit Center project, and is therefore consistent with the development plans as analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Building Program and Design As shown in Figure 3: Aerial Perspective, the proposed gross building area is 404,765 square feet, with +/- 80% lot coverage. It includes 220 residential units and a two-level podium parking garage. Residential units will be constructed on five floors over the garage. Residential units will also be constructed on the north and east sides of the first two levels, surrounding the internal parking structure. In addition to residential units and associated support areas, the project includes private amenity spaces; including two building lobbies, two podium level roof courtyards and a swimming pool, and a level six private community room and outdoor roof terrace. Figure 4a, b, and c show the floor plans for levels 1, 3 and 6. The parking garage will accommodate 331 cars. The parking ratio will equal or exceed the City required 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit . Fifty spaces are designated as visitor spaces. Six ADA compliant accessible car spaces and one ADA van space are located on the ground floor. The Dublin Transit Center requires 15% of the residential units be affordable units. The Camellia Place apartment project on Site A-2 has been used to satisfy the very low and low portion of the inclusionary housing requirement for the project. Ten percent (10%) of the units in the proposed project are required to be set aside for moderate income households. The project proposes to set aside 10% of the 220 units (22 units) for moderate income households. A moderate-income household is defined by the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance as households earning between 80% and 120% of the area median income. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 4 As shown in Figure 2: Dublin Transit Center Land Use Plan, the project site is surrounded on three sides by medium-high and high-density housing projects at a range of heights. These include: ▪ Site A-1 (Tribeca) – a three-story 52-unit medium-density residential project to the west of Campbell Lane ▪ Site A-2 (Camellia Place) – a four-story (three-story over one level of parking) 112-unit high-density residential project to the north . ▪ Site B-1 (Elan at Dublin Station) – a seven story (five-story over two levels of parking) 257- unit high-density residential project located east DeMarcus Boulevard. ▪ Site B-2 (Eclipse at Dublin Station) – a five story 305-unit high-density residential project located on Dublin Boulevard. ▪ Site C-1 (Avalon Dublin Station) – a five-story 505-unit high-density residential project located east DeMarcus Boulevard and south of Campbell Green Park. These residential buildings include a variety of façade materials and colors, and include roof forms ranging from shallow hipped to flat . The developments to the north and west of the project site include stoops and direct street entries to some ground floor units. The proposed project massing is consistent with the scale of the adjacent buildings, with the tallest masses located at the east side of the project site opposite the adjacent buildings along the east side of DeMarcus Boulevard (Elan and Avalon projects), and the lowest masses located on the west side of the project site opposite the lower height townhouses across Campbell Lane (Tribeca). The proposed building height range from three- to five-stories over a two-story podium for a maximum of seven stories, and 81-feet in height. The project's two story parking podium is wrapped on the north and east sides by residential units and other functional sp aces. To the south, the two parking levels are visually integrated with three levels of residential units above. To the west, in response to the low-scale residential buildings west across Campbell Lane, most of the residential mass above parking is set back five feet. Along the project's north side, there are residential units at the ground level with unit entries and stoops to enhance the residential scale and character established by the Camellia Place project across the street. The project includes a variety of windows, exterior materials, and colors. Facade treatments include stucco, fiber cement and metal accent and infill panels, painted metal window surrounds, limited areas of storefront glazing, and metal and translucent glass entry canopies . Balconies and garage screening inserts include translucent perforated metal screening. Simulated renderings of the proposed project are shown in Figure 5 from the four corners surrounding the project site. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 5 Landscape Design As shown in Figure 6: Preliminary Landscape Plan, a 20-foot building setback is required at the project's east side along De Marcus Boulevard due to an existing stormwater easement. This easement area is planted with a variety of taller flowering shrubs and succulents that delineate the space while avoiding the use of fences or walls. Colored concrete unit pavers and integral colored concrete connect the project site with the rest of the Dublin Transit Center, while helping to define the main entries and pedestrian promenade along DeMarcus Boulevard. Benches and raised planters are located throughout the landscape public spaces. Bio-retention planters are used to define the private entries along the north side. A three-foot landscape strip separates the garage from the side walk along Campbell Lane. The landscape strip is planted with a variety of drought tolerant flowering shrubs and succulents and a variety of aromatic plants. Flowering vines are proposed along the garage facade. Pedestrian and Vehicular Access As shown in Figure 4a: Level 1 Floor Plan, to facilitate pedestrian connectivity between the project and nearby pedestrian destinations to the south and southwest (i.e. the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and Campbell Green Park), the primary entry is located near the project's southeast corner at the intersection of DeMarcus Boulevard and Campbell Lane. The primary entry lobby is open to two floors and is setback to accommodate a pedestrian plaza, which includes landscaped terraces that function as stepped planters and provide public seating. A second entry lobby is located mid-block on the north side of the building. Similar to the primary entry, the building is setback creating a second smaller pedestrian plaza with similar landscaping. Vehicular entry to the parking garage is from Campbell Lane on the project's south side, near the primary entry plaza. Project Engineering Grading The project site is essentially flat. Earthwork would include minimal grading and contouring to accommodate drainage and elevation requirements. Regrading would result in elevations contours changing from 334 feet (above mean sea level) along the southern boundary, to 337 feet along the northern boundary. The project will require the cut of 600 cubic yards of soil, and the fill of 1,700 cubic yards of soil; for a net import of 1,100 cubic yards. See Figure 7: Preliminary Grading Plan. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 6 The project site is located within a 500-year flood hazard area, as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Water and Sewer Existing domestic water mains available for connection adjacent to the project site include a 12- inch main in DeMarcus Boulevard, and an eight-inch main on Campbell Lane. As part of the proposed project, a new domestic water service lateral will connect to the eight-inch main on Campbell Lane at the northwest corner of the project site . The proposed project will utilize an existing six-inch recycled water main on Campbell Lane. The project would use recycled water for landscape irrigation. A new proposed sanitary sewer lateral would connect with the existing eight-inch sewer main on Campbell Lane. See Figure 8: Preliminary Utility Plan. Stormwater The project site is currently paved with asphalt . Essentially all of the stormwater falling on to the project site sheet flows untreated into the City’s storm drain system. As shown in Figure 9: Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan, stormwater from the roof (64,671 square feet) will be collected and passed through several flow-through planter boxes that contain plants, treatment soil, and gravel. Once treated, this stormwater will flow into the existing 18-inch storm drain on Campbell Lane. Stormwater from the ground level runoff (19,870 square feet) will flow into an underground stormwater treatment vault, and then into the existing 18-inch storm drain on Campbell Lane. Essentially, the volume of stormwater flowing into the City’s storm drainage system will remain unchanged; however, the rate of flow will be slower by the use of the flow-through planter boxes and the stormwater treatment vault. Erosion Control During construction, a construction fence and fiber roll will be installed around the entire perimeter of the project site. Inlet sediment barriers, per City standards, will be installed on all existing storm drain structures until the project site is stabilized (see Figure 10: Preliminary Erosion Control Plan). Project Approvals The proposed project includes a Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone, a Tentative Tract Map, and Site Development Review Permit for the construction of a 220-unit residential building. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the approvals required for the proposed project. City Council action will include adoption of the Exemption for CEQA review and approval of the Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone, the Tentative Tract Map and Site Development Review Permit. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 7 Environmental Analysis The discussion below analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project per the criteria as described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. For convenience, this analysis uses the Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as a framework for analysis. As such, the check-boxes in the column labeled “No Impact/No New Impact” in the tables below indicates that no new environmental review is required because none of the standards under Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are met. There are no project changes, new information or change circumstances that result in a new or substantially increase in severity of a significant impact from those identified in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. No standards for requiring supplemental environmental review under CEQA are met. Aesthetics ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☒ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ☒ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ☒ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ☒ Previous CEQA documents Dublin Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 for Impact 4.4-1 encouraged the inclusion of breaks in building designs and view corridors to provide views of Mt. Diablo to the north, considering the need for noise control and the intent of the Dublin Transit Center to provide a compact transit- oriented design. Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 requires that a condition of Site Development Review for individual projects, the City of Dublin shall require submittal of lighting plans for all non -residential City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 8 projects along Iron Horse Parkway to ensure that all exterior light fixtures will either be oriented downward or equipped with cut-off lenses to ensure that no spill-over of unwanted light onto adjacent residential areas shall occur. The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures related to aesthetics set forth in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Scenic vistas, views No New Impact. The Dublin Transit Center EIR found that the greatest impact to scenic vistas and views would on existing background views to Mount Diablo and surrounding ridgelines. Existing views of the project site are surrounded by residential developments to the west, north, and east. A BART surface parking lot and an electrical power substation is located across Campbell Lane to the south. Because obstruction of distant ridgeline views would be similar to the view obstructions caused by the surrounding developments and analyzed in the EIR, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to scenic vistas and views beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b) Scenic resources No New Impact. The project site is located north of the I- 580 freeway, which is a local scenic highway, but is located on the northern portion of the Dublin Transit Center and is not highly visible from the freeway due to intervening buildings between the project site and the Interstate 580 freeway. A view corridor would be preserved along the western property line for views from the Interstate 580 freeway to the northwest, as required by Dublin Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.1-1. No scenic resources exist on the project site, including but not limited to significant stands of tree, rock outcroppings or bodies of water, so there would be no impact with respect to damage to scenic resources. No public parks, playgrounds or other public gathering places exist on the project site so that scenic vistas could be viewed. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to scenic res ources beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore, no further environmental review is required. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 9 (c) Substantially degrade the visual character of the site or surrounding area No New Impact. Simulated renderings of the proposed project are shown in Figure 5 from the four corners surrounding the project site. The proposed land uses and their building height s and scale, are consistent with those land uses in the surrounding area. The proposed building heights are also consistent with height limits as identified in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. The proposed project includes constructing a multi-family residential development with parking, landscaping and other improvements where none now exist. Because the proposed project is consistent in building height, massing, and scale analyzed in the EIR, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to the visual character of the project site or surrounding area beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare No New Impact. Implementation of the proposed project result in a slight increase in daytime and nighttime light and glare. The main sources of daytime glare would be from sunlight reflecting from structures with reflective surfaces, such as windows . The main sources of nighttime light and glare would be from additional lighting, including, but not limited to, internal and external building lights from proposed residential uses, street lighting, site lighting, and lights associated with vehicular travel (i.e., vehicle headlights). The Dublin Transit Center EIR found that there is a potential for lighting from non -residential uses to spill over into residential areas, creating a nuisance to Transit Center residents. Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 requires that a cond ition of Site Development Review for individual projects, the City of Dublin shall require submittal of lighting plans for all non -residential projects along Iron Horse Parkway to ensure that all exterior light fixtures will either be oriented downward or equipped with cut-off lenses to ensure that no spill-over of unwanted light onto adjacent residential areas shall occur. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to light and glare beyond what has been analyzed the Dublin Transit Center EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 10 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact 2. AGRICULTURE 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 Con servation 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? ☒ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☒ 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? ☒ Previous CEQA documents Dublin Transit Center EIR No significant impacts to agricultural or forestry resources were identified in this document. Project Impacts (a-c) Convert farmland or conflict with zoning No New Impact. No significant impacts were identified with respect to agricultural resources in previous CEQA document listed above. No new conditions have been identified in this document with respect to conversion of prime farmland to a non•agricultural use. No new or more severe significant impacts would result than were analyzed in previous CEQA document for this site. The City of Dublin has previously zoned the project site for residential uses. No agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts presently exist on the project site nor are any agricultural operations on-going. Therefore, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to farmland beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 11 Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Air Quality ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management 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? ☒ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ☒ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ☒ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ☒ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ☒ Previous CEQA Documents Dublin Transit Center EIR The Dublin Transit Center EIR identified the following significant air quality impacts and mitigation measures: ▪ Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 reduced impacts related to construction emission from construction equipment (see Impact 4.2-1) to a less-than-significant level. Specific items listed in this measure required contractors to water construction area and stockpiled material and other items based on BAAQMD standards. ▪ Impact 4.2-3 noted that project air emissions of ozone would exceed the BAAQMD threshold of significance for regional impacts. No mitigation is available to reduce this impact to a less-than significant level and this impact remained significant and unavoidable. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 12 The proposed project will be required to adhere to these applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Consistent with air quality plans No New Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would represent fewer dwelling units assumed as the basis for the regional Clean Air Plan. The proposed project would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), since the proposed amount of development has been included in Dublin's planned growth as part of the City’s General Plan, which is the basis of the Clean Air Plan. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air quality plans beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b, c) Violate air quality standards or cause cumulatively considerable air pollutants No New Impact. The Dublin Transit Center EIR found that proposed development would result in a significant and unavoidable emission of air emissions exceeding the applicable BAAQMD standards. Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 was recommended to reduce construction impacts to a less than significant level. T he proposed project is a high-density mixed-use, transit and pedestrian-oriented development. These characteristics provide for much higher internal and non-auto travel mode percentages compared to suburban residential or commercial development. With adherence to previous mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air quality standards or cause cumulatively considerable air pollutants beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (d) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors No New Impact. The health risk of diesel exhaust from roadway traffic was known in 2002 although it was not analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. The 1999 BAAQMD CBQA Guidelines (1999 Guidelines) identified diesel engine particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant based on California Air Resources Board (CARB) findings. There were several studies published prior to 2002 that demonstrated potential health impacts to residences living close to freeways. (See, studies cited in CARB's 2005 “Air Quality and Land Use Handbook".) The 1999 Guidelines encourage Lead Agencies to address impacts to sensitive receptors (such as residences) to exposure of high levels of diesel exhaust from sources such as a high-volume freeway (1999 BAAQMD CBQA Guidelines, p. 47). City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 13 BAAQMD recommends that these impacts should be analyzed based on best available information. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines in effect in 2002 also listed exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants as a potentially significant impact. This significance threshold was included in the Dublin Transit Center EIR (p. 48). Since potential health impacts due to exposure to diesel exhaust was known or could have been known in 2002, the risks of toxic air contaminants from diesel exhaust is not new information that requires additional analysis under CEQA. Similarly, recently updated information from CARB and BAAQMD on health impacts of diesel exhaust and the BAAQMD CEQA significan ce standards do not trigger the requirement for supplemental environmental review under CEQA section 21166. These new standards do not identify Toxic Air Contaminants as a "new significant impact." This adverse health impact was already known and recent n ew information only refined the type and level of analysis. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to sensitive receptors from pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Biological Resources ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact 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? ☒ 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? ☒ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water ☒ City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 14 ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 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 th e use of native wildlife nursery sites? ☒ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ☒ 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? ☒ Previous CEQA Documents Dublin Transit Center EIR This Dublin Transit Center EIR identified the following significant biological impacts. ▪ Impact 4.3-1 noted an impact with loss of Congdon's spikeweed and potentially four other special-status plants on the project site. This impact was reduced to a less• than- significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 that requires project Applicants to avoid populations of spikeweed or, if not feasible, an off-site mitigation program is to be created. Measures to avoid, preserve or mitigate other special-status plants identified and required to be implemented. ▪ Impact 4.3-2 found a significant impact with respect to California red-legged frogs (CRLF) or their habitat. This impact was reduced to a less-than-significant level through adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.3-2. This mitigation measure required a CRLF preconstruction survey consultation with the USFWS. If populations of CRLF are identified appropriate protection plans were required to be prepared with necessary permits from appropriate regulatory agencies. ▪ Impact 4.3-3 noted an impact regarding burrowing owls. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring a preconstruction survey on a development site no more than 30 days prior to grading. If owls are found, a biologist shall establish an exclusion zone around occupied burrow until it is confirmed that the burrow is unoccupied. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 15 The proposed project will be required to adhere to these applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive, or special status species No New Impact. No changes have occurred to the project site since certification of the Dublin Transit Center in 2002. Mitigation measures contained in the Dublin Transit Center EIR will continue to apply to the project site. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b, c) Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat , natural community, or wetlands No New Impact. As described in the Dublin Transit Center EIR, there are no wetlands or riparian features on or adjacent to the project site. There would therefore be no impacts to wetlands or riparian habitats. Since there are no streams on the project site, the project site is not subject to the City's Stream Preservation Plan. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to riparian habitat, natural community or wetlands beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (d) Interfere or impede the movement of migratory fish or wildlife No New Impact. The project site is located in a substantially urbanized area and surrounded by paved roads or parcels of land that have been developed that would preclude significant wildlife migration. There are no creeks or streams on the project site that would allow for migration of fish species. The Dublin Transit Center EIR identified this impact as less than significant (Impact 4.3-4). There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to migratory fish or wildlife beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (e) Conflict with local policies or ordinance include tree preservation or any adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans. No New Impact. No trees are present on the project site, and there are no impacts regarding local tree preservation ordinances or policies. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 16 The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private development proj ects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource as well. The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to permitting and mitigation for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land development, infrastructure, and other activities. The Conservation Strategy 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. Because no HCP or NCCP was identified in the prior EIRs and none applies at present, there would be no new or significantly more severe impacts to tree preservation or any adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Cultural Resources ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact 5. CULTURAL R ESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a sub stantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5? ☒ b) Cause a sub stantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5? ☒ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic featur e? ☒ d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? ☒ City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 17 Previous CEQA Documents Dublin Transit Center EIR Impact 4.4-1 contained in the Dublin Transit Center EIR found a potentially significant impact with respect to historical, archeological and Native American resources on the project site. This impact was reduced by Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 that required, if archeological, archeological or Native American artifacts are encountered during construction, work on the project shall cease until compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 is demonstrated. Work on the project may commence under the guidance of an approved resource protection plan . The County Coroner is to be contacted if human remains are uncovered. The proposed project will be required to adhere to th is applicable mitigation measure as set forth in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Historic resources No New Impact. The site is vacant and contains no built structures. As a result, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to historic resources beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b, c) Archaeological or paleontological resources No New Impact. The Dublin Transit Center EIR identified a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and/or paleontological resources on development sites. None of these pre-historic sites were identified by the Dublin Transit Center EIR within or near the project site. The Dublin Transit Center EIR noted a potentially significant cultural resource impact regarding unidentified historic, archeological and Native American resources and the project remains subject to Mitigation Measure 4.4-1. The Dublin Transit Center EIR identified no known cultural resources for the project site. However, mitigation for potential but currently un identified resources should they be discovered during construction is provided in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. The project remains subject to these prior adopted mitigations. With adherence to previous mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to archaeological or paleontological resources beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 18 (d) Human remains No New Impact. The project is subject to existing cultural resource mitigation measures contained in the Dublin Transit Center EIR regarding potential impacts to human remains. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements , there would be no new or more severe significant impacts to cultural impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Geology and Soils ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 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? ☒ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☒ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ☒ iv) Landslides? ☒ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☒ 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? ☒ d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code ☒ City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 19 ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ☒ Previous CEQA Documents Dublin Transit Center EIR The Dublin Transit Center EIR identified two mitigation measures for the project. ▪ Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 reduced the impact related to seismic hazards (Impact 4.5-2) to a less-than-significant level. This measure required completion of a site-specific geotechnical investigation prior to development of individual projects. Future projects are required to be consistent with current building codes. ▪ Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 reduced the impact related to expansive soils to a less• than- significant level (Impact 4.5-3). This measure required site-specific geotechnical reports to address expansive soils and provide appropriate engineering and construction techniques to reduce damage from expansive soils. The proposed project will be required to adhere to these applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Seismic hazards No New Impact. During a major earthquake on a segment of one of the nearby faults, moderate to strong ground shaking can be expected to occur at the project site. Strong shaking during an earthquake could result in ground failure such as that associated with soil liquefaction and differential compaction. Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 will require completion of a site-specific geotechnical investigation prior to development of individual projects. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to seismic hazards beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 20 (b) Erosion/topsoil loss No New Impact. Construction of the proposed project improvements on the project site would slightly modify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration and could result in a short-term increase in erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities. The project will also be required to implement the erosion controls from the RWQCB measures as enforced by the City of Dublin. The City's requirement to implement site-specific erosion and other controls will reduce erosion from the project site to a less-than-specific level. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to erosion/topsoil loss beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (c-d) Soil stability No New Impact. Consistent with Dublin Transit Center EIR Mitigations Measures 4.5-2 and 4.5- 3, and standard City development procedures, the report contains methods to minimize impacts from liquefaction and other soil hazards for future site improvements on the project site. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts related to lateral spreading, liquefaction and other soil hazards beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (e) Soil capability to support waste water disposal, includ ing septic No New Impact. As assumed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR, proposed residences on the project site would be connected to e x i s t i n g sanitary sewers on the adjacent roadways. Because the project site would be connected to existing sanitary sewers, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to soil capability to support waste water disposal, including septic beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 21 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emission s, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? ☒ b) Conflict with applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission s of greenhouse gases? ☒ Since certification of the Dublin Transit Center EIR in 2002, the issue of the contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006. Because these previous EIRs have been certified, the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and climate change needs 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). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIRs were certified as complete” (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3)). Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts were not analyzed in the prior 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. In the early and mid-2000s, GHGs and climate change were extensively discussed and analyzed in California. In 2000, SB 1771 established the California Climate Action Registry for the recordation of greenhouse gas emissions to provide information about potential environmental impacts. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the Dublin Transit Center EIR in 2002. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 22 supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. Even if the impact of the project's greenhouse gas emissions was required to be considered under CEQA, it would be less than significant sin ce the project is consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan. In October 2010, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan in accordance with CEQA requirements and BAAQMD's CEQA Guidance. The City’s Climate Action Plan was subsequently updated in October 2013. The GHG emissions from the Dublin Transit Center project were included in the Climate Action Plan. The City adopted a Negative Declaration for the Climate Action Plan finding the impacts of the Climate Action Plan would be less than significant. The Climate Action Plan serves as the City's qualified GHG Reduction Plan and programmatic tiering document for the purposes of CEQA for analysis of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The City has determined that the reduction target under the Climate Action Plan will reduce the impact from activities under the Climate Action Plan to less than significant under CEQA (i.e., the project will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact). Therefore, CEQA allows the Climate Action Plan to be used for the cumulative impact analysis for future projects and development in the City covered by the Climate Action Plan. As such, it satisfies CEQA review requirements for the p roject. Since the project emissions were included in the Climate Action Plan and the project is consistent with the applicable emission reduction measures identified in the Specific Plan and included in the Climate Action Plan, the project would be considered to have a less than significant impact (i.e. less than cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impact) due to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change consistent with Public Resources Code 21083.3, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183.5, 15064 and 15130 and BAAQMD adopted CEQA Guidelines and GHG Significance Thresholds. In fact, the project is exactly the type of project which reduces greenhouse gas emissions- an infill, transit-oriented, high-density residential project as part of an overall mixed use development. Previous CEQA Documents There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (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) None. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 23 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact 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? ☒ 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? ☒ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school? ☒ 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 h azard to the public or the environment? ☒ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ☒ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ☒ g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☒ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ☒ City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 24 Previous CEQA Documents Dublin Transit Center EIR The Dublin Transit Center EIR identified two mitigation measures related to hazards and hazardous materials. ▪ Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 reduced the impact related to release of hazardous materials on the project site remaining from past military uses (Impact 4.1-1) to a less• than- significant level. This measure required completion of additional environmental analysis (Phase I and/or Phase II reports) and completion of any clean-up of recognized hazardous materials on the project site. ▪ Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 reduced the impact related to risk of upset from a nearby petroleum pipeline adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail to a less-than• significant level (Impact 4.6-2). This measure required future developers on Sites A and C within the Dublin Transit Center to identify the presence of the petroleum pipeline to avoid damage by construction equipment . Future residences on Sites A and C are also required to maintain a minimum 50-foot setback from the pipeline to the nearest habitable structure. The proposed project will be required to adhere to these applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials No New Impact. There would be no impact to the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, since the proposed project involves construction of a residential development on the project site. Proposed land uses on the project site would not use, store or transport significant quantities of hazardous materials. To the extent there are potentially hazardous materials used in construction, the impacts would be less than significant due to compliance with regulatory requirements. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b) Potential release of hazardous materials into the environment No New Impact. The Phase I ESA report prepared for the project prepared pursuant to Dublin Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 did not identify any significant hazards to the public or the environment as a result of release of hazardous materials . Adherence to Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 and 4.6-2 contained in the Dublin Transit Center EIR will ensure that release of hazardous materials would be less than significant. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 25 Pursuant to the Dublin Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-2, development on the project site is required to maintain a minimum 50-foot wide structural setback from the Kinder• Morgan oil pipeline that runs adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail. This requirement has been met as shown on Figure 2: Project Aerial Diagram. The project includes residential development as assumed in the Transit Center EIR and through the Phase I ESA, project design and conditions of approval, has complied or will comply with t he adopted mitigation measures. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to the potential release of hazardous materials beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (c) Emit hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school No New Impact. No schools exist or are planned within one quarter mile of the project area . Because no schools exist or are planned within one quarter mile of the project area, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to emitting hazardous materials within an existing or proposed school beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (d) Listed as a hazardous materials site No New Impact. The Dublin Transit Center EIR examined the potential for hazardous materials extensively and the project site is not listed on the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as an identified hazardous site as of February 26, 2012 (last update). There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to listed hazardous materials sites beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (e-f) Proximity to a public or private airport No New Impact. The project site lies north of the Airport Influence Area of Livermore Municipal Airport and is not included in the Airport Influence Area. Because the project site is not within proximity to a public or private airport, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to public or private airports beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (g) Impair implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan No New Impact. The proposed project would include the construction of a residential project on private land. No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways would be City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 26 blocked. Therefore, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (h) Expose people or structures to wildland fires No New Impact. The project site is in an urbanized area of Eastern Dublin and contains no flammable structures or vegetation, as identified in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Properties east, west, and north are developed and there is no possible exposure from wildland fires. As a result, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to exposing people or structures to wildland fires beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2012. Hydrology and Water Quality ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ☒ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (for example, the production rate of pre-existin g nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ☒ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. ☒ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the ☒ City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 27 ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. e) 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? ☒ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ☒ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood-hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ☒ h) Place within a 100-year flood -hazard area structures which would imped e or redirect flood flows? ☒ i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ☒ j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ☒ Previous CEQA Documents Dublin Transit Center EIR The following impacts and mitigation measures related to hydrology and water quality were identified in this EIR. ▪ Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 reduced the impact related to non-point source pollution (Impact 4.7-3) to a less-than-significant level. This measure required future individual site developers to prepare and implement erosion control plans. If needed, additional provisions may be required for the proper handling and disposal of hazardous materials . Associated Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 required each developer to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to Regional Water Board standards. ▪ Mitigation Measure 4.7-3 reduced the construction impact related to short-term increases of soil erosion from wind and water (Impact 4.7-4) to a less-than• significant level. This mitigation required individual project Applicants to prepare and implement erosion control plans for the project construction period, consistent with Regional Water Board standards. Measures included but were not limited to revegetation of City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 28 graded areas, protection of stockpiled material, constructing sediment ponds and related items. The proposed project will be required to adhere to these applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Violate water quality or waste discharge requirements No New Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed development project would alter impervious surfaces to the undeveloped site that would decrease the net amount of stormwater runoff and potentially degrade water quality. The City of Dublin requires new development proposals to adhere to the most recent surface water quality standards adopted by the RWQCB. The Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3.g requires that stormwater discharges not cause and increase in erosion potential of the receiving stream over the existing condition. For this project, the project is proposing to install flow-through planter boxes that contain plants, treatment soil and gravel. The planters are located in the open courtyard areas and the perimeter areas at the building. Once treated, this stormwater will flow into the existing 18- inch storm drain on Campbell Lane. Stormwater from the ground level runoff will flow into an underground stormwater treatment vault, and then into the existing 18-inch storm drain on Campbell Lane. These stormwater systems, as required by the RWQCB, will help to ensure that water quality and waste discharge standards are met . With adherence to applicable mitigation measures and regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to water quality or waste discharge requirements beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b) Substantially deplete or interfere with groundwater supplies No New Impact. The existing site provide minimal groundwater recharge. Although the currently vacant site would be converted to an urban use, a small portion of the project site would remain as open space, which would allow some recharge of the underground aquifer. The proposed water source for this project would rely on surf ace water supplies from the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and not local groundwater supplies. The project is required to support Zone 7’s groundwater recharge program. Zone 7’s policy is to only pump groundwater it artificially recharges usin g its imported surface water or locally-stored runoff from Arroyo del Valley. Compliance with this would maintain groundwater at a no net loss for City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 29 the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. As a result, the proposed project would not result in a net increase in groundwater extraction from Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to groundwater supplies beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (c) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns re: erosion/siltation No New Impact. New impervious surfaces would be constructed on the project site to accommodate new dwellings, roadways, driveways and similar surfaces, consistent with the development assumptions in the prior EIRs. The project Applicant is subject to comply with the Dublin Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-3, which requires project Applicants to implement an erosion control plan to minimize polluted runoff reduced impacts related to changed drainage patterns to a less -than- significant level (see Figure 10: Preliminary Erosion Control Plan). With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to erosion/siltation beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (d) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns re: flooding No New Impact. Construction of the project would not significantly change drainage patterns and proposed storm drain facilities will be adequately sized for project runoff (see item "e" below). There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to flooding beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (e) Runoff exceed drainage capacity, or add pollution No New Impact. The amount of stormwater flowing into the City’s storm drainage system will remain unchanged; however, the rate of flow will be slower using flow-through planter boxes and the stormwater treatment vault. Furthermore, the proposed project is subject to adopted Dublin Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-3. This mitigation measure requires individual project Applicants to prepare and implement erosion control plans. In compliance with existing EIR mitigation measures, the project Applicant proposes the construction of both bio-retention flow-through planter boxes and a stormwater treatment vault to comply with both City requirements and previous EIR mitigation measures. The proposed storm drain facilities are adequately sized for project runoff and designed to filter out pollutants. In addition, the project Applicant proposes to install full trash capture devices to meet the MRP Trash Reduction requirements. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 30 With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to drainage capacity, or additional pollution beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (g, h, i) 100-year flood hazard, dam/levee failure No New Impact. The project site is located within a 500-year flood hazard area, but outside of a 100-year flood hazard area. Compliance with the City of Dublin's Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan will ensure that hazards to visitors and residents on the project site as a result of dam failure will be reduced to a less-than• significant level by providing an emergency evacuation plan in the event of a dam failure. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to 100-year flood hazard and to dam or levee failure beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow No New Impact. The site is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche. The risk of potential mudflow is considered low since no historic landslides or mudflows have been identified on the project site. There would be no impact with implementation of the proposed project. Since the project site and surrounding properties are relatively flat (less than 2 percent cross slope), no impacts are anticipated with respect to landslide hazard. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Land Use and Planning ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 31 ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ☒ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ☒ c) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan? ☒ Previous CEQA Documents There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Physically divide an established community No New Impact. The project site is located in the Eastern Dublin planning area . The project reflects the type and location of development assumed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. As noted in the land use discussion in the Dublin Transit Center EIR (see, e.g., Impact 4.8-2), the project site is consistent with existing land uses and would not divide an established community. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to an established community beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b) Conflict with general plan No New Impact. The proposed project would be consistent with environmental goals and policies contained in the City’s General Plan. As shown in Table 1: Dublin Transit Center Development & Entitlements (in the Project Description), the total number of units constructed in Site A, including the proposed project, would be 384 units, 46 units less than total 430 units allocated . The total number of units constructed within Site A, B and C of the Dublin Transit Center project area, including the proposed project, would be 1,451 units, 49 units less than the total allocation of 1,500 units . City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 32 The proposed project would not exceed the allocation of residential units envisioned for Site A, nor the greater Dublin Transit Center project, and is therefore consistent with the development plans as analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts due to conflict with environmental protection policies in the General Plan beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan o r natural community conservation plan No New Impact. The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource as well. The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to permitting and mitigation for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land development, infrastructure, and other activities. The Conservation Strategy is neither a Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), 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. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to an HCP or NCCP beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Mineral Resources ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact 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? ☒ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource reco very site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? ☒ City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 33 Previous CEQA Documents There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a-b) Loss of known or identified mineral resource No New Impact. The Dublin Transit Center EIR indicated that significant deposits of minerals do not exist on the project site, so there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to mineral resources that would occur beyond what has been previously analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplementa l review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Noise ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? ☒ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? ☒ c) Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ☒ d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ☒ 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ☒ City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 34 ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ☒ Previous CEQA Documents Dublin Transit Center EIR The Dublin Transit Center EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures. ▪ Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 reduced short-term construction noise (Impact 4.9-1) to a less-than-significant level by requiring individual project Applicants to prepare Construction Noise Management Plans and to have these approved by the Dublin Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Each plan shall identify specific noise reduction measures, including listing of construction hours, use of mufflers on construction equipment, on-site speed limits for construction equipment and similar measures. ▪ Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 reduced impacts related to permanent noise on residential uses (Impact 4.9-2) to a less-than-significant level by requiring individual residential developers to prepare acoustic reports that lists specific measures to be taken to reduce noise to City exposure limits, including but not limited to window glazing, ventilation systems and noise barriers. ▪ Mitigation Measure 4.9-3 reduced impacts related to helicopter overflights from Camp Parks RFTA (Impact 4.9-3) to a less-than-significant level by requiring notification of such overflights to future residents. The proposed project will be required to adhere to these applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Exposure to or generate noise exceeding standards No New Impact. As analyzed in previous EIR, development of proposed residential land uses on the project site would increase noise on the project site and future residences would be sub ject to traffic noise from vehicles surrounding roadway, in particular Dublin Boulevard to the north and Interstate 580 to the south. Consistent with the Dublin Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.9 -2, the Applicant is required to complete a site-specific acoustic report prior to issuance of a building permit. The report will include any specific measures that are necessary to reduce noise to City standards. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 35 Adherence to these previous noise mitigation measures, noise standards in the Dublin General Plan, and the City Noise Ordinance, will reduce noise to a less-than-significant level. No new or more significant noise impacts have been identified beyond what has been previously analyzed. The Dublin Transit Center EIR found exposure of proposed residential development to noise from future military training activities at Camp Parks RFTA to be less than significant after mitigation to the Transit Center project area. The mitigation requires providing written notice to future residents will be implemented through conditions of approval on the project. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to exposure from noise exceeding standards beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b) Exposure to ground borne vibration or ground borne noise No New Impact. The proposed project would not include construction or operational elements that would result in significant groundborne vibration levels to nearby residents. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to ground borne vibration or ground borne noise beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (c) Permanently increasing ambient noise levels No New Impact. The Dublin Transit Center EIR found that future exposure of housing nearest to Dublin Boulevard and I-580 would be subject to potentially significant noise levels. Future traffic generated by the proposed project would contribute to future exposure of housing to future roadway noise. However, the impacts of the proposed project with respect to increases in permanent noise levels are within the scope of the impacts associated with the project analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. The type and intensity of development proposed as part of the proposed project, and the noise generated and associated impacts on residential uses, have been identified and analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. The project Applicant would be required to comply with Dublin Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.9 -2, requiring individual residential developers to prepare acoustic reports to reduce noise to City expos ure limits. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to permanently increasing ambient noise levels beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 36 (d) Substantial temporary noise increase No New Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in short-term construction noise. The project Applicant would be required to comply with the Dublin Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.9-1, requiring individual project Applicants to prepare Construction Noise Management Plans that identify specific construction noise reduction measures to minimize noise to existing and future housing, as well as adhere to construction hour limitations. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with a substantial temporary noise increase beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (e, f) Excessive noise level near a public or private airport No New Impact. Based on Exhibit 3-2 contained in the Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2012), the project site lies north of the noise compatibility zone for this airport. The project site would therefore not be subjected to substantial aircraft noise from this airport. However, the Dublin Transit Center EIR notes that the project site could be subject to potential noise from helicopter operations from Camp Parks RFTA and the project Applicant's adherence to Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.9-3 by requiring notification of such overflights to future residents. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts from aviation noise beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2012. Population and Housing ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ☒ City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 37 ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ☒ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ☒ Previous CEQA Documents There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Population growth No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would not induce substantial additional population growth in the Eastern Dublin area, since development on the affected properties has long been envisioned in the Dublin General Plan and the Dublin Transit Center Stage 1 Zoning, as described in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Approval of the proposed project would result in fewer dwellings being constructed than currently approved in the Dublin Transit Center project area for Sites A, B and C (1,451 units, 49 units less than the total allocation of 1,500 units). There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to population growth beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b-c) Housing and resident displacement No New Impact. Since the project site is vacant, no housing units or people would be displaced should the project be approved and implemented. No houses were on the project site when the prior EIRs were certified. Because the project site is vacant, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to housing displacement beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 38 Source(s) City of Dublin Web site. Accessed September 12, 2017. Available at http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/238/Community-and-Economic-Profile City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Public Services ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact 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 ? ☒ b) Police protection ? ☒ c) Schools? ☒ d) Parks? ☒ e) Other public facilities? ☒ Previous CEQA Documents There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Fire No New Impact. Construction of the proposed project would increase demand for fire and emergency services by increasing the amount of permanent daytime population on the project site. Features will be incorporated into the project as part of existing City ordinances and development requirements, which assist in reducing impacts. These features include installation of on-site fire protection measures such as fire sprinklers, installation of new fire hydrants that meet the minimum fire flow requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 39 As part of the City’s Development Fee Program, the project Applicant will be required to pay an impact fee for fire facilities to serve new development in the City. This impact fee relates to funding new fire facilities in Eastern Dublin, ensuring adequate water supplies and pressure for fire suppression, and minimizing wildland fire hazards. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to fire services beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b) Police No New Impact. Incremental increases in the demand for police service could be expected should the project be approved and constructed . This increase in calls for service would be off- set through adherence to City of Dublin safety requirements from the Dublin Police Services, including the Non-Residential Security Ordinance. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to police services beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (c) Schools No New Impact. No new impacts to school service are anticipated since payment of mandated statutory impact fees at the time of issuance of building permits will provide mitigation of educational impacts of the proposed project pursuant to State law. The currently proposed project would result in fewer school• aged children to be accommodated in DUSD school facilities than was assumed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR (1,451 units, 49 units less than the total allocation of 1,500 units) and mitigation of impacts is limited by statute to payment of impact fees to the School District by the project Applicant. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to schools beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (d, e) Other public facilities No New Impact. Approval and construction of the project would incrementally increase the long-term maintenance demand for roads and other public facilities . However, such additional maintenance demands will be off-set by additional City fees and property tax revenues accruing to the City of Dublin and therefore impacts would be less-than-significant. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, including payment of fees, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to other public facilities beyond City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 40 what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. 2017. Fire Services and Prevention. Accessed September 13, 2017. Available at http://dublinca.gov/22/Fire-Services-Prevention. City of Dublin. 2017. Police Services. Accessed September 13, 2017. Available at http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/91/Police-Services. City of Dublin. 2017. Schools. Accessed September 13, 2017. Available at http://www.dublin.ca.gov/401/Schools. City of Dublin. 2017. Parks and Community Services. Accessed September 13, 2017. Available at http://www.dublin.ca.gov/90/Parks-Community-Services. City of Dublin. 2017. Fire Facilities Impact Fee Study Update. Accessed October 23, 2017. Available at http://dublinca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16547. City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Recreation ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact 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? ☒ b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ☒ Previous CEQA Documents Dublin Transit Center EIR Impacts to parks and recreational facilities were found to be less• than-significant and no mitigation measures were contained in this EIR. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 41 Project Impacts (a, b) Increase the use of existing recreation facilities causing deterioration or require new recreation facilities No New Impact. As envisioned in the Dublin Transit Center EIR for the project site, approval and construction of the proposed project would increase the use of nearby City or regional recreational facilities, since it would include increasing the on -site permanent population currently on the project site. However, there would be fewer residents at build-out as previously envisioned in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Consistent with City Zoning requirements, the Applicant proposes to provide private recreation amenities on the project site and will be required to pay City of Dublin Community Facility Fees to assist in providing off- site parks. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to parks beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Transportation/Traffic ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? ☒ b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ☒ City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 42 ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ☒ d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (for example, sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (for example, farm equipment)? ☒ e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☒ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ☒ Previous CEQA Documents Transit Center EIR The Dublin Transit Center EIR identified the following significant supplemental impacts and mitigation measures related to traffic and transportation: ▪ Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 required roadway improvements for the Scarlett Drive extension, the Dublin Boulevard / Dougherty Road intersection and the Hacienda Drive/Interstate 580 westbound off-ramp to reduce impacts related to project traffic on external roadway intersections to a less-than-significant level (Impact 4.11-1). ▪ Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 reduced the impact of parking on the Transit Center site with respect to future BART parking (Impact 4.11-4). This measure required the City to post all on-street parking within the Transit Center for limited parking hours (2-4 hours). Individual development projects are to be designed to limit BART parking. ▪ Mitigation Measure 4.11-3 partially but not fully reduced impacts related to cumulative traffic (Impact 4.11-5). This mitigation measure required additional roadway improvements to the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection which was found to be infeasible. ▪ Mitigation Measure 4.11-4 reduced local roadway segments impacts (Impact 4.11-6) to a less-than-significant level by requiring the widening of Hacienda Drive between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive from three to four lanes and the Scarlett Drive extension should be constructed between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. No feasible mitigation was found to reduce impacts to mainline freeway operations in the year 2025 (Impact 4.11-7) and this impact was found to be significant and unavoidable. City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 43 The proposed project will be required to adhere to these applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a-b, f) Conflict with applicable transportation plans standards, including congestion management plans No new impact. The Dublin Transit Center EIR considered the development of the project site with residential land uses on the local and regional roadway and freeway networks and adopted mitigation measures to address transportation impacts. The total number of units constructed within Sites A, B and C of the Dublin Transit Center project area, including the proposed project would be 1,451 units, 49 units less than the total allocation of 1,500 units as analyzed in the previous CEQA document. Therefore, the proposed project, in context to the greater Dublin Transit Center project would generate fewer daily and AM and PM peak hour trips than previously analyzed. Furthermore, the City of Dublin has adopted a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program which requires developers to contribute their 'fair-share' of sub-regional traffic improvements required for new development within the Eastern Dublin area, which includes the Dublin Transit Center project area. The project is within the scope and level of development and impacts and is required to participate in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, including payment of fees, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to applicable transportation plans standards, including congestion management plans, beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (c) Change in air traffic patterns No New Impact. The proposed project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves residential development and is located outside of the Livermore Airport general referral area. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air traffic patterns beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would add sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none currently exist . The proposed project would be required to comply with current City engineering design standards and other safety standards to ensure that no safety hazards would be created or exacerbated. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to mobility design features beyond what has been analyzed in City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 44 the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (e) Result in inadequate emergency access No New Impact. Fire access to the building will be along the southern property boundary (Campbell Lane). No impacts would result with respect to emergency access. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to emergency access beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (f) Conflict with adopted alternative transportation plans No New Impact. The proposed project would include on-site bicycle parking and sidewalks providing connections between proposed buildings and nearby streets. No conflicts to plans, policies or programs that promote public transit, ped estrian use or similar features were identified in previous CEQA reviews for the subject property . Furthermore, the project proposes to implement/construct the following items consistent with the City’s Complete Streets Policy: ▪ Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant parking spaces ▪ ADA compliant sidewalks and curb ramps ▪ Emergency vehicle access to the project site With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to adopted alternative transportation plans beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Complete Streets Principals adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin Resolution No. 199-12, December 4, 2013. City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Tribal Cultural Resources ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 45 ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact 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 a s defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ☒ 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. ☒ Previous CEQA Documents There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources No New Impact. The site is vacant and contains no historically significant resources . There would therefore be no impacts to historical resources. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to historical resources beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b) Significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 No New Impact. The project is subject to existing cultural resource mitigation measures contained in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. There are no known significant Tribal Cultural Resources on the Project site. Impact 4.4-1 contained in the Dublin Transit Center EIR found a potentially significant impact with respect to unknown Native American resources on the project site. This impact was reduced by Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 that required, if archeological, archeological or Native American artifacts are encountered during construction, work on the project shall cease until compliance with CEQA City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 46 Guidelines Section 15064.5 is demonstrated. Work on the project may commence under the guidance of an approved resource protection plan. The County Coroner is to be contacted if human remains are uncovered. The proposed project will be required to adhere to this applicable mitigation measure as set forth in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources beyond those previously analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Utilities and Service Systems ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact 18. UTILITIES AN D SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ☒ b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction or which could cause significant environmental effects? ☒ c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (V.4) ☒ d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ☒ e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? ☒ City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 47 ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact /No New Impact f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? ☒ g) Comply with federal, state, an d local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ☒ Previous CEQA Documents Dublin Transit Center EIR The following utility services impacts and mitigation measures were noted in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. ▪ Mitigation Measure 4.12-4 reduced impacts to provision of electrical service to the Transit Center site (Impact 4.12-8) to a less-than-significant level by requiring Applicants for individual projects to submit a will-serve letters to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. The proposed project will be required to adhere to these applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a, e) Wastewater treatment requirements and facilities No New Impact. The total number of units constructed within Sites A, B and C of the Dublin Transit Center project area, including the proposed project would be 1,451 units, 49 units less than the total allocation of 1,500 units as analyzed in the previous CEQA document . The addition of wastewater flows from the proposed project would not cause the plant to exceed local, state, and federal water quality standards. The proposed project would not change the urban scale of development anticipated . There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to wastewater treatment requirements beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b) Require construction of new water and wastewater facilities No New Impact. Water, recycled water and wastewater extensions to existing mains that currently exist within the Dublin Transit Center would need to be constructed to serve the project site. Treatment and disposal facilities from the construction of the proposed project City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 48 would not result in a new or more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR, which assumed residential development on Site A at a higher density than now proposed. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to water or wastewater treatment facilities beyond what has been analyzed in previous CEQA documents, and n o additional analysis is required. (c) Stormwater drainage No New Impact. As shown in Figure 9: Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan, new on• site drainage facilities would be constructed as part of project construction . The proposed project would require new and or upgraded drainage facilities to support the proposed development. Consistent with the City requirements, the project Applicant will be required to install new or upgraded on and off-site (if required) storm drain systems that comply with City of Dublin and Zone 7 standards. The current project would include flow-through planter boxes and a stormwater treatment vault to ensure consistency with regional C.3 stormwater treatment and hydromodification requirements. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to stormwater drainage beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (d) Sufficient water supply No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would result in an increased demand for water for domestic and irrigation purposes, similar to water use projections previously analyzed, as identified in the previous CEQA document. The increased water demand could be accommodated by DSRSD and Zone 7 facilities and long-term supplies. Recycled water would be supplied to the project site for landscape irrigation by DSRSD. The project Applicant would be required to provide any local extensions and connections to the existing recycled water lines. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to water supply beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (f, g) Solid waste disposal and regulatory compliance No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would incrementally increase the generation of solid waste. Over the long term, the amount of solid waste reaching the landfill would decrease as statewide regulations mandating increased recycling take effect . The Dublin Transit Center EIR found that there would be adequate capacity within the local landfill to accommodate increases in the amount of solid waste. Information contained in the Dublin Transit Center EIR indicates that additional equipment and personnel would be needed to City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 49 collect the increased amount of solid waste. However, increased fees and user charges would offset any increased capital and/or personnel costs. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to solid waste disposal beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2017. “Solid Waste Information System.” Website: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/Default.htm . Accessed September 7, 2017. City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Dublin San Ramon Services District. 2017. “Fact Sheet.” Website: http://www.dsrsd.com/home/showdocument?id=811. Accessed September 7, 2017. Figure 1: Project Vicinity and Loca�on Dublin Sta�on CEQA Analysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemp�on Not to scale LEGEND Project Site Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, 2017 Figure 2: Dublin Transit Center Land Use Plan Dublin Sta�on CEQA Analysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemp�on Not to scale De Marcu s Bl vd Iron Ho r s e Pkwy Arno l d Bl vd LEGEND Project Site Dublin Transit Center Project Area Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Public/Semi-Public Campus Office Dublin Blvd A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1/2 E-1 E-2 Campbell Ln C-1 D-1 D-2 East Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station Interstate 580 Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, 2017 Ccpect More. Experience 8e11er. CEQA Analysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemption Source:BAR Architects,2017 Figure 3: Aerial Perspective Dublin Station Site Kimley>>>Horn Figure 4a: Level 1 Floor Plan Dublin Station CEQA Analysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemption Kimley>>>Horn Expect Mora. Expariaooe Battar. b =.W- :Oor =:=-fl"""'l l. 1' &II' CD £NC If'SAJtM.lCJotiiEOlit«JJCfW1! sz --- 04 U6(81;. 8' ---------------------- c:J== --- -- - -- --- -- - - _n_I_M_ft-=c:J== ------------------ c:J ---------------------' Source: BAR Architects, 2017 Figure 4b: Level 3 Floor Plan Dublin Station CEQA Analysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemption Kimley>>>Horn Expect Mora. Expariaooe Battar. Source: BAR Architects, 2017 Kimley >>>Horn Expect More. Experience Better. Dublin Station CEQA Analysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemption taa ·T II' !r _ -- --. .---- ------ ! ------------------- --- - - --..!. ZD · • Vl' _! ------ - --------- - lr·.r' S ; n t;r ll ·T , "' .. -l I lifO A A20 b i b ' l ' t $-\(C·'.:. '-- -,. -, _j Source: BAR Architects, 2017 I)()' 01/:T I.M'• lt /2" n· -r Q) Figure 4c: Level 6 Floor Plan Figure Sa: View From Southeast Corner- Campbell Lane and De Marcus Boulevard Dublin Station CEQA Analysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemption Kimley>>>Horn Ccpect More. Experience 8e11er. Source:BAR Architects,2017 Figure Sb: View From Southwest Corner- Campbell Lane Dublin Station CEQA Analysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemption Kimley>>>Horn Expect Mont. Experience Better. Source: BAR Architects, 2017 Figure Sc: View From Northwest Corner- Campbell Lane Dublin Station CEQA Analysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemption Kimley>>>Horn Expect Mont. Experience Better. Source: BAR Architects, 2017 Kimley>>>Horn Ccpect More. Experience 8e11er. Dublin Station CEQA Analysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemption Source:BAR Architects,2017 Figure Sd: View From Northeast Corner- DeMarcus Boulevard CEQA Analysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemption CA M P B E L L LA N E WE S T DE M A R C U S B O U L E VAR D CA M P B E L L LN PERCENT LANDSCAPING LEGEND GENERAL NOTES: GROUND LEVEL: 69.9% HARDSCAPE, 18,850 SF 25.5% PLANTING AREA, 6,881 SF 3.9% BIORETENTION PLANTER, 1,042 SF 0.7% ARTIFICAL TURF, 185 SF LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN PODIUM: 52.2% HARDSCAPE, 12,778 SF 25.8% RAISED PLANTER, 6,308 SF 11.5% BIORETENTION PLANTER, 2,809 SF 5.5% ARTIFICIAL TURF, 1,355 SF 5.0% POOL, 1,210 SF CAMELLIA PLACE PROPERTY LINE LIMIT OF WORK 1. ALL IRRIGATION AT SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTINGS TO BE DRIP IRRIGATION. INDIVIDUAL BUBBLERS WILL BE PROVIDED AT TREE PLANTINGS. 2. ALL PLANTING AREAS TO INCLUDE 3” LAYER OF 3/8” BLACK MINI-CHIP MULCH 3. SOIL ANALYSIS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN WITH BUILDING PERMIT/IMPROVEMENT PLANS 4. MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FALLS TO OWNER FOR SITE AND SIDEWALK DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING. THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STREET AND ANY MEDIAN ISLANDS L2.00 SHARED PRIVATE DRIVE L5.00 PL L3.00 WEST PL PODIUM COURTYARD EAST PODIUM PL COURTYARD KEY PLAN SHARED PRIVATE PL CAMPBELL LANE SOUTH L4.00 scale: 1” = 20’ N Source: Fletcher Studio, 2017 Figure 6: Preliminary Landscape Plan Dublin Sta�on Figure 7: Preliminary Grading Plan Dublin Station CEQA Analysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemption Kimley>>>Horn Expect More. Experience Beller, ---- ).m=_,- =mA _, .---- 1 ,.",, r 'C' (J.J j r 3 ;,0 1 -Ir w z <( _J _J _J w aJ (l_ :;; <( 0 1-,i:'" r..J, 3.;o ' •.L------.- 0 0:: _J ::::l - I ! (f) ::::l 0 0:: <( :;; w 0 ,_ } CAMPBELL LANE LEGEND: GRADING NOTES: I .,.!-..3.4.o .JJo -..q I t - -----21ll , POIEN14L I LUW-IHRU f'LAr-.1" (SEE: Of: T AIL 1 /C.'> D) 1 hl GRffi r,G \'10111. SHALl Bf IN Cll:;FOR"'ANCE Wl l'1 THE PR O.£Cl lJo ci'iE:},P;s. 0>1' J C VAriUI, RLUUI"'lMlNlS. Ex CONroUR DRIVEWAY DETAIL 1M 10' ?0 0 Source: BKF,2017 Figure 8: Preliminary Utility Plan Dublin Station CEQA Ana lysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemptio n Kimley>>>Horn Expect More.Experience Better. I co·11rcr a f( g• w _!!:_ _ _ COI II[CT fO 6" PW ·1 ...++--·u7l··.·P... I'-·++··- ··-··· '-·-- 1· ..........."' :tl5 U" TRENH: o;;;rr ---.., (r · 001 J!l2.5t) w z <( ---' ---' -w--' m Q_ ::;;; <( 0 0 cr <( GJ -=->-' g UJ => 0 cr <( I ::;;; w 0 I· PR SA fJITAR ( SEWER UfJE -··· ··· ··· ·- ··· PR Oct t_TIC 'NA fER W•E -------- PP "PE WATER LINE fLO ft-.-THPU PLANIEfo' (SEE DETAIL 1/C5 0) FRE WA.TEP BAC-FLO'N PRE\'EfHEf> (BFP) W lH fiRE OEPARfM DH COr<r,LCnON (fDC) MA fjH()L( (MH) POST INDICATOR V.I..L VE (PrV) 1 riOSE 8185 J.!Ll!3E PR0v10ED •N CARAGE fOR PlR00 C 'I.'ASH 0001'1 20 -0 - Source: BKF,2017 Kimley>>>Horn Expect More.Experience Bener. Dublin Station CEQA Analysis in S upport of a Specifi c Plan E x emption f 1"-:UJ' It ---,---- ------ - - ; - -- - ------ - ) w z :5 j j w CD 0.. ::;: (] 0 0:: CAMPBELL LANE t NO TES: ------ - '..,., I I I 'I I I 11 I I I I I I I I !.... j ::::> 0 CD (f) ::::> 0 0:: <( ::;: w 0 L I I PROPERf'r' UNC l ThiS PRO.f:Cf OOALIFIC::S f 90 TRANSI T- DF'IEIHE:O OE ,.'ELOPMEIH {TOO) . Cf;l(OTS U"IDER THE MCATEG001 C SPECIAL PROJECT CRIT[RIA f>R STOP r.1 Dfl:ALJIll - - - - DR >'.IrJtiGE /,REA BOUNDARY POl[N II AL rLOW ll i RU Pl..ANl[R (<;E_[ (lllA I L 1, SHEET 5.1) J:ll!LOlllilll5 -.-sor. - LOCATION ..-20)1'; - OENSI TJ +2tr.":- PA •NG +91):'; - TOTAl CREDI TS ,.11Tt11N 0.25 IW .£5 OF tX:ST'NG TR.ti.NSIT rlUB j > 60 DU j.o\.C] [0AT-GRADE PAR II-.:Gl l IMPERVIOUS RODr AR£1-. ORMI NG TO Fl ()W-lRU PI...AIHFR PIIERVIO,JS PAVEMErJT ORA INI'>JG TO LANDSCPE \\HH 2:1 RATIO OR AJW<GE. DIPECTH.X\/ASl LOPE 2 i-LOW TH"'U Pt..A.NTERS f..ND BIORE ilNTI ON A.RE.AS ARE SIZED FOR: ,.; OF IH I I?[RVIOUS AR(A DRAINING TO TH[I f"(R TH[ FLO'N TR(AiM(NT SI;:INC t_fHOO """"- -0- 20 , Source:BKF, 2017 Figure 9: Preliminary Storm Water Control Plan Figure 10: Preliminary Erosion Control Plan Dublin Station CEQA Analysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemption Kimley >>>Horn Expect More. Experience Better. :; C AMPBELL LANE EROSION CONTROL LEGEND EROSION CONTROL NOTES: 0 0:: w -' ::J 0co ({) ::J () 0:: <>: ::2 w 0 ...... FIBLRf-<OLLPmCITYSllJ. PLAN C0-702 INLf_f '>EDI M E>.,JT [jAF<RIEf< PH< PLAN CD-703 1 >'I,UI'O LO IMI'IWVLMLNIS AJ-(L ':iHU Wr>< WITHIN IHl Llf./1 Ul WOi<K_ CUNTI<AC:lUT< ';HALL IN':>TALL AN:J MUUI ' 'T' EIW::>UN CONHWL Mc_A:::.L-Rl':i M':i NLCLS:::.AI'Y UNTIL l'f<UJLCl CLOSL OUT CONSrRuCTION FE'NCING WITH PR IVACY (GREE) SCREEN 3 CONIRAC!OR SIIALL PLACE STABILillO CONSTRUCTION lNlRAr\C[ AS NE.EDED f-'[R DETAIL 3/C6' UNTIL BUILDING SLAEJ HAS BEEt-. POURED SIAl:RILIU CUNSIIWCIIU"' LNIIIANCc f'LR CIIY SIU I'LAN CU-/CJ1 4 ALL NEW ONSITE STOR ORAIN STRuCTURES SHALL BE CAPPED OR PLUGGED UNTIL SITE IS STAB,LIZED OR FITTED W1Trl APPROPRIATE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES 20 0 !"""..=- 1"=20' Source: BKF, 2017 Figure 11: Fault Trench Locations Dublin Station CEQA Analysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemption Kimley>>>Horn Expect More. Experience Better. EXPLANATION Pleaoant fauR aoe. c!a'hed where inferred. [J.Jer1ed \ldlere UlCef1ain Fault trench a gnment and locations. Bertogar. S<Mms & Associates, 2013 Note· Fault 1rench locailons as clepicted on Plato 2 (Berlogar, Slovens & Associates.March 20 13) and Plate 4 (Berlogar, Stevens & Associates, March 2012). Appro>cimate scale UOR DUBLIN STATION Dublin, Cali fornia FAULT TRENCH LOCATIONS BY OTHERS FOR DUBLIN STATION AND VICINITY Source: Langan, 2017 Source: FEMA, 2017 Figure 12: Flood Hazard Area LEGEND Project Site 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard (500 Year Flood Hazard) 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard (100 Year Flood Hazard) Dublin Sta�on CEQA Analysis in Support of a Specific Plan Exemption