HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 - 1713 Ashton at Dublin Station Transit Center Si
Page 1 of 4
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: December 5, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
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 proje ct
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. 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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct the public hearing, deliberate and a take the following actions: a) Waive the
reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance Approving a Planned Development Rezone
District and Related Stage 2 Development Plan for the Transit Center Site A-3, APN:
986-0034-009-00, PLPA 2017-00036; and, b) Adopt the Resolution 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.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No financial impact to the City. All costs associated with this request are borne by the
Applicant.
Page 2 of 4
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 e xisting Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, on the
east by Arnold Road, and on the west by the Iron Horse Trail (Figure 1).
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), a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 Development Plan
(Ordinance 21-02), and subsequently, a Master Development Agreement (Ordinance 5 -
03) adopted in 2003. Together, these entitlements allow development of up to 1,500
residential units on Sites A, B and C of the Transit Center. 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 residentia l 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
Current Request
The property owner, Ashton at Dublin Station is requesting approval of a 220 -unit
apartment building, with residential amenities including 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 following is a brief overview of the requested entitlements. Please refer to the
Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 1) for a complete analysis of the project.
Page 3 of 4
Planned Development Zoning - Planned Development Rezone with a related
Stage 2 Development Plan (Attachment 2).
Site Development Review Permit - To construct a 220-unit apartment project,
with related amenities and structured parking with 331 spaces (Attachment 3 and
4).
Tentative Map 8437 - For condominium purposes (Attachment 3 and 4).
The City Council is being requested to take action on the Ashton at Dublin Station
project because it includes an approval for which the City Council is the decision maker
(i.e. the Planned Development Zoning). Consistent with past practice, the Planning
Commission is the reviewing body and the City Council is the decision making body for
this entire project application.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on November 14, 2017 to review the
proposed project (Attachment 5). Six members of the public spoke in opposition to the
project. The City also received thirteen comment letters regarding the proposed project
(Attachment 6). After conducting the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended that the City Council approve the proposed project (Attachments 7, 8 and
9).
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 posted at
several locations throughout the City. A copy of this Staff Report has been provided to
the Applicant.
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 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 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
10. 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.
Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 14, 2017 without attachments
2. Ordinance Rezoning the Dublin Transit Center Site A-3 Project Site to PD-Planned
Development and Approving a Stage 2 Development Plan
3. Resolution Approving a Site Development Review Permit and Tentative Map 8437 for
the Dublin Transit Center Site A-3 Project
4. Exhibit A to City Council Resolution - Site Development Review and Tentative Map
5. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated November 14, 2017
6. Public Comment Letters
7. Planning Commission Resolution 17-12 Recommending that the City Council Adopt
an Ordinance Rezoning the Dublin Transit Center Site A -3
8. Planning Commission Resolution 17-13 Recommending that the City Council
Approve the Site Development Review for Site A-3
9. Planning Commission Resolution 17-14 Recommending that the City Council
Approve the Tentative Map for Site A-3
10. Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis Update
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
1
ORDINANCE NO. XX – 17
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE DISTRICT AND RELATED 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 rezoning with a related Stage 2 Development Plan,
Site Development Review Permit, and Tentative Map 8437 for condominium purposes. The
proposed development and applications are collecti vely 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 Rezone and related
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 incorporated herein by reference, described
and analyzed the project, including the Planned Development Rezone and related 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 Rezone and related Stage 2 Development Plan,
at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard .
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.
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
2
a desirable use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land u ses by virtue of the layout
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 o f 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.
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
3
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 a Planned Development Zoning
District:
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 rezoning 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.
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 require ments for the Stage 2 Development Plan set forth
in Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance and is adopted as part of the Planned Development
Rezone for the Transit Center Site A-3 project, PLPA-2017-00036.
4
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 consistent 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 Ordinance 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 12%
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 Development
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 Community
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 _____________ 2017, 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 Hearing 12.5.17\CC Attachments\2. City Council Ordinance rezoning the Dublin Transit Center A-3
project site to PD-Planned Development.DOC
RESOLUTION NO. xx-17
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 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 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 Rezone with a related Stage 2
Development Pan; and
2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolutions 17 -13 and 17-14
recommending the City Council adopt a Resolution a pproving 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, a Staff Report dated December 5, 2017 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-17
approving the Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 2 Development Plan. The
above Ordinance is incorporated herein by reference and is available for review at City Hall
during normal business hours.
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.
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
3
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 intensity 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 bicyclist,
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
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:
4
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 effect 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 August 30, 2017, 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 August 30, 2017, 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
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.
5
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 August
30, 2017, 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
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).
PL, PW On-going
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
PL On-going
6
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be
subject to citation.
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
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.
ADM On-going
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
PW On-going
7
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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.
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
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
ADM, PL Building Permit
Issuance
8
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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.
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
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
PL Building Permit
Issuance
9
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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 August 30, 2017, 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
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.
PL Landscape plan
approval and
installation
10
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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
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
B Occupancy of
any affected
building
11
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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.
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
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
B Various
12
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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
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
13
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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
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”.
F Occupancy
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
F Building Permit
Issuance & On-
going
14
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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.
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
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.
F Building Permit
Issuance
15
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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.
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
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
F Occupancy
16
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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.
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.
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
F Occupancy &
On-going
17
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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
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.
PW Final Map
Approval
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
PW Start of Work
18
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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.
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
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.
PL, PW
Final Map
Approval or
Grading Permit
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
19
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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
improvements shall conform to the City of Dublin Standard
Plans, current practices, and design requirements and as
approved by the City Engineer.
PW
Approval of
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 PW Approval of
Improvement
20
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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.
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
or public services easements and sized to meet utility
company standards.
PW
Certificate of
Occupancy or
Acceptance of
Improvements
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
PW
Certificate of
Occupancy or
Acceptance of
Improvements
21
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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.
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,
haul routes and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise
management measures shall be provided prior to project
construction.
PW
Start of
Construction
Implementation,
and On-going
as needed
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
22
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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 requirements 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
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.
PW
Start of Any
Construction
Activities
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
PW
SWPPP to be
Prepared Prior
to Approval of
Improvement
Plans;
23
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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.
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 August 30, 2017, 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
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
PW
Building Permit
Issuance or
Approval of
Grading Plans
24
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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.
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.
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.
PL, PW,
PO
Building Permit
Issuance
25
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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 Crosswalk Relocation on Campbell Lane. The
existing marked crosswalk at the curved section of Campbell
Lane (uncontrolled corner) shall be relocated outside the
horizontal curve, subject to review and approval of 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
signage, and fire hydrants.
PW
Building Permit
Issuance or
Approval of
Improvement
Plans
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
PW
Improvement
26
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
intersection of Campbell Lane and DeMarcus Boulevard.
The design shown on the submitted Site Plan shall be
revised to meet the unidirectional ramp requirement.
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
overland release of runoff within open air areas such as
plazas, lounges, bridge, and landscape areas.
PW Approval of
Grading/Improv
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
DSRSD Issuance of
Building Permits
27
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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.
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 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
DSRSD Issuance of
Building Permits
28
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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
facilities shall be in compliance with District’s “Recycled
Water Use Guidelines” and the Department of Health
Services requirements for recycled water irrigation.
DSRSD Issuance of
Building Permits
29
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 5th day of
December 2017, 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 Hearing 12.5.17\CC Attachments\3. City Council Resolution approving a Site
Development Review Permit and Tentative Map 8437 for Site A-3.docx
c
BA
R
C
O
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
8/28/2017 4:25:53
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
AU
G
U
S
T
2
9
T
H
,
2
0
1
7
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
8/29/2017 8:44:04
AM
BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt
PROJECT DATA / SHEET LIST16036 A 01DUBLIN STATION DEMARCUS BOULEVARDSHEET LIST VICINITY MAP DUBLIN BLVD IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL DE MARCUS BLVD CAMPBELL LN.SITECAMP PARKS MILITARY BASE CAMPBELL GREENCAMPBELL LN.HAMLET LN.IRON HORSE PKWYIRON HORSE PKWY DUBLIN/PLEASANTON BART STATIONARTHUR H. BREED, JR. FWY
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
A
T
A
SHT NOENTITLEMENTS05/24/17 ENT RESUB 08/28/17 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 7XXA 14FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 6XXA 13FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 5XXA 12FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4XXA 11FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3XXA 10FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2XXA 09FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL1XXA 08PERSPECTIVE VIEWXXA 07PERSPECTIVE VIEWXXA 06PERSPECTIVE VIEWXXA 05PERSPECTIVE VIEWXXA 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
DU
B
L
I
N
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
wt
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
%
7
.
3
%
2
4
.
2
%
6
2
.
5
%
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
24
8
0
2
0
7
1
1
9
33
1
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
115
4
1
8
3
1
1
9
15
9
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
2
9
3
9
1
2
4
0
0
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
S
T
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
44
.
5
5
%
%
T
w
o
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
s
o
r
L
a
r
g
e
r
%
1
0
.
0
%
4
1
.
8
%
3
.
6
%
3
5
.
9
%
8
.
6
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
TO
T
A
L
22
9
2
8
7
9
1
9
22
0
12
6
-
1
-
9
22
7
-
3
-
12
3
42
0
2
1
8
4
4
8
4
32
0
2
2
0
4
4
9
5
42
1
2
2
0
4
5
1
6
41
2
1
1
0
3
3
0
7
36
1
7
4
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
1
1
2
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
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 INDEXXXA 00COVER SHEETXXGENERAL 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
V
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
,
V
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
5
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
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
8/28/2017 4:26:16
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
UP
UPDN
DN
UP
DN
DN
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
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
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
14
9
'
-
6
"
12
5
'
-
5
"
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
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.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 4:30:49
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
DN
DN
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 8 ' - 9 "H.E.
H.
E
.
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.
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
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 4:31:10
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
8/28/2017 4:26:23
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
8/28/2017 4:26:27
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
UP
1
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
2
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
FI
R
E
RO
O
M
TRASH FITNESS YOGA/STRETCH LOBBY
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
VE
H
I
C
U
L
A
R
E
N
T
R
Y
24
'
-
0
"
18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"22' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0"
33
5
.
6
5
± 333.7
LO
B
B
Y
ENTRY PLAZA
SH
A
R
E
D
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
5'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
2'
-
7
"
5'
-
6
"
20' - 4"6' - 0 1/2"2' - 4 1/2"
15' - 0"
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
'
-
7
"
17
'
-
0
"
24
'
-
0
"
1' - 6"
GA
S
ME
T
E
R
CL
O
S
E
T
1
B
E
D
J
R
PA
C
K
A
G
E
S
1 BED JR 1 BED JR MAIL LEASINGCONFCONF
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 02ELEVSTAIR 03
ST
A
I
R
ST
A
I
R
0
4
STAIR 01
33
5
.
5
EL
E
V
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 4:26:47
PM
BIM 360://004-17009 Dublin CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvt
1" = 20'-0"SITE PLAN16036 A 04DUBLIN 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
8/28/2017 4:26:51
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
8/28/2017 4:26:56
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
8/28/2017 4:27:01
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
8/28/2017 4:27:10
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
UP
6%
12
%
1
A
2
0
22' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"17' - 0"2' - 6"
21' - 0"
18' - 0"24' - 2"17' - 0"
18
'
-
0
"
2
4
'
-
0
"
1
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
2
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
FI
R
E
RO
O
M
TRASH 1956 SFFITNESS 284 SF YOGA/STRETCH 2028 SFLOBBY
TR
A
S
H
GA
R
A
G
E
ELECTRICAL ROOM
24
'
-
0
"
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
8' - 5"
8'
-
6
"
CL
TYP
2' - 0"
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
CC
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
CC
CC
CL
TYP
3' - 0"
R
2
2' - 0
"
CL
TYP
3' - 0"CL
TYP
3' - 0"
CL TYP
3' - 10"
R 24' - 0"
2
A
1
9
1
A
1
9
2
A
2
0
8%
3'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
1' - 6"1' - 6"
1'
-
6
"
3' - 0"
3'
-
0
"
1'
-
6
"
1' - 6"RESIDENT LOADING ZONE
ID
F
6%
1'
-
0
"
1'
-
6
"
9' - 0"14' - 0"
5'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
12
7
7
S
F
LO
B
B
Y
9' - 0"9' - 0"
4' - 4"
5'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
24' - 0"
9'
-
0
"
3'
-
1
1
/
2
"
9'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
4'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
4'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
9
'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
4'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
4'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
SH
E
A
R
W
A
L
L
2'
-
6
"
8%
37
1
'
-
7
1
/
2
"
28' - 2"170' - 4"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
2' - 10"
PA
C
K
A
G
E
S
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
CC
C
1'
-
7
"
0' - 8"
1'
-
0
"
0'
-
9
"
C
CC
VA
N
GU
E
S
T
G
U
E
S
T
CC
C
C
C
C
C
GU
E
S
T
826 SFLEASING119 SFCONF135 SFCONF422 SFMAIL1 BED JR 1 BED JR
CCCCCC
REMOVE EXISTING MEDIAN
FH
9'
-
0
"
9
'
-
0
"
9
'
-
0
"
1'
-
1
0
"
0'-0"
8'
-
1
"
73
'
-
7
1
/
2
"
2
0
'
-
4
1
/
2
"
1
0
0
'
-
3
"
1
1
'
-
5
"
3
1
'
-
4
"
6
'
-
0
1
/
2
"
3
2
'
-
1
"
2' - 4 1/2"232' - 8"23' - 2 1/2"
27' - 4 1/2"203' - 2"27' - 8 1/2"
2'
-
7
"
4
1
'
-
0
"
27
5
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
23' - 6"5' - 1"32' - 1"20' - 4"
1'
-
6
"
1'
-
6
"
1
B
E
D
J
R
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
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
CO
R
R
I
D
O
R
CO
R
R
I
D
O
R
STAIR 02ELEVSTAIR 03
ST
A
I
R
EL
E
V
ST
A
I
R
0
4
STAIR 01BARarchitects901 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 4:27:32
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
UPDN
DN
UP
1
A
2
0
12
%
1
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
2
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
1 BED1 BED JR 1 BED JR
ST
O
.
STORAGE 2 BED 2 BED 1 BED STORAGE
TR
A
S
H
ST
O
R
A
G
E
2' - 4 1/2"
OPEN TO LOBBY BELOW
2'
-
7
"
R
2
2' - 0
"
6%
4'
-
4
1
/
2
"
9'
-
0
"
C CCCCC C
C
C
C
CCC
C
C
CC CC
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
R 24' - 0"
2
A
1
9
1
A
1
9
2
A
2
0
ID
F
TRASH
8'
-
1
"
37
1
'
-
7
1
/
2
"
20' - 4"
2' - 4 1/2"232' - 8"23' - 2 1/2"
9'
-
0
"
5
'
-
4
1
/
2
"
9'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
4'
-
4
1
/
2
"
9'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
5'
-
4
1
/
2
"
9'
-
0
"
5
'
-
0
"
4'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
4'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
4'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
9
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
4'
-
0
"
24' - 0"18' - 0"4' - 7"
18
'
-
0
"
2
4
'
-
0
"
18' - 0"24' - 2"17' - 0"22' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"17' - 0"
9' - 0"5' - 0"9' - 0"5' - 0"9' - 0"
9'
-
0
"
5
'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
9' - 0"
9' - 0"
4' - 4"5'
-
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"
13
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
5
"
13
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
34
7
'
-
0
"
13' - 0"13' - 0"
13
'
-
0
"
73
'
-
7
"
2
0
'
-
4
1
/
2
"
1
0
0
'
-
3
"
4
2
'
-
9
1
/
2
"
6
'
-
0
1
/
2
"
3
2
'
-
1
"
27' - 8 1/2"203' - 2"27' - 4 1/2"
2'
-
7
"
4
1
'
-
0
"
27
5
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
23' - 6"5' - 1"32' - 1"20' - 4"
28' - 2"
96
'
-
6
"
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
ST
A
I
R
0
4
EL
E
V
OV
E
R
S
I
Z
E
D
PA
C
K
A
G
E
S
LO
B
B
Y
LOBBYCONFCONFSTAIR 02ELEVSTAIR 03
ST
A
I
R
STAIRSTAIR 01
CO
R
R
I
D
O
R
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 4:27:42
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
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
3
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
3
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 3 BED 1 BED 1 BED 1 BED2 BED2 BED COMMUNITY / CLUB /REC ROOM
TR
A
S
H
TRASH
AM
E
N
I
T
Y
2
A
1
9
1
A
1
9
2
A
2
0
ID
F
5'
-
6
"
9
6
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
7
3
'
-
7
1
/
2
"
2
0
'
-
4
1
/
2
"
1
4
3
'
-
0
"
5
'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
3
2
'
-
3
"
37
1
'
-
7
1
/
2
"
136' - 3"14' - 3"16' - 1"
3 8 ' - 2 1 /2 "
1 1 4 ' - 6 1 /2 "
1 0 ' - 0 "
6
6
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
2
'
-
1
0
1
/
2
"
1 8 ' - 1 1 /2 "
17
'
-
1
"
1
1
9
'
-
7
1
/
2
"
2
6
'
-
1
1
"
1
2
0
'
-
1
"
3
7
'
-
5
"
3
2
'
-
1
1
/
2
"
20' - 5 1/2"158' - 6"
232' - 6"
6
9
'
-
4
"
13' - 10 1/2"75' - 1"12' - 10 1/2"
14
'
-
7
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
)
6
9
'
-
6
"
9
'
-
1
1
/
2
"
BRIDGE ABOVE
9'
-
4
"
CL39' - 11"
C
L
4
0
'
-
0
"
35
9
'
-
0
"
25
'
-
0
"
35
9
'
-
0
"
359' - 0"
35
9
'
-
0
"
35
9
'
-
0
"
25
'
-
0
"
25
'
-
0
"
8
'
-
9
1
/
2
"
3 ' - 2 1 /2 "
3' - 0"
2'
-
5
"
37
7
'
-
3
1
/
2
"
20' - 4"3 BED1 BED
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
1
B
E
D
J
R
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
STAIR 02ELEVSTAIR 03
ST
A
I
R
EL
E
V
ST
A
I
R
0
4
STAIR 01BARarchitects901 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 4:28:00
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
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 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
1
B
E
D
J
R
1
B
E
D
J
R
3
B
E
D
3 BED 3 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
3
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' - 8"203' - 2"27' - 4 1/2"136' - 3"14' - 3"16' - 1"
3 8 ' - 2 1 /2 "
1 1 4 ' - 6 1 /2 "
1 0 ' - 0 "
6
6
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
2
'
-
1
0
1
/
2
"
1 8 ' - 1 1 /2 "
6
9
'
-
4
"
13' - 10 1/2"75' - 1"12' - 10 1/2"
14
'
-
7
1
/
2
"
14
'
-
7
1
/
2
"
UN
I
T
A
B
O
V
E
B
R
E
E
Z
E
W
A
Y
9
'
-
1
1
/
2
"
C
L
4
0
'
-
0
"
35
'
-
4
"
35' - 4"
35
'
-
4
"
35
'
-
4
"
49' - 0"10' - 4"
20
'
-
4
1
/
2
"
1
0
0
'
-
3
"
1
1
'
-
5
"
3
1
'
-
4
"
5
'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
3
2
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
7'
-
1
1
"
37
1
'
-
9
1
/
2
"
20' - 4"
158' - 6"40' - 2"34' - 2"
2' - 3"34' - 2"198' - 7 1/2"23' - 2 1/2"
2'
-
5
"
4
1
'
-
0
"
33
6
'
-
3
1
/
2
"
20' - 4"
21
'
-
4
"
1
9
'
-
8
"
1
1
9
'
-
9
"
2
7
'
-
0
"
1
2
0
'
-
0
1
/
2
"
6
9
'
-
6
"
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
1 BED COMMUNITY / CLUB /REC ROOMSTAIR 02ELEVSTAIR 03
ST
A
I
R
EL
E
V
ST
A
I
R
0
4
STAIR 01BARarchitects901 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 4:28:13
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
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
3
B
E
D
3 BED 3 BED1 BED2 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
3
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' - 2 1/2"4' - 5 1/2"203' - 2"27' - 4 1/2"136' - 3"14' - 3"
75
'
-
6
"
16' - 1"
3 8 ' - 2 1 /2 "
1 1 4 ' - 6 1 /2 "
1 0 ' - 0 "
6
6
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
2
'
-
1
0
1
/
2
"
1 8 ' - 1 1 /2 "
6
9
'
-
4
"
13' - 10 1/2"75' - 1"12' - 10 1/2"
14
'
-
7
1
/
2
"
14
'
-
7
1
/
2
"
1
B
E
D
J
R
2
3
'
-
1
1
"
9
'
-
0
"
C
L
4
0
'
-
0
"
45' - 8"
94
'
-
4
"
7
5
'
-
1
0
1
/
2
"
2
0
'
-
5
"
1
0
0
'
-
2
"
1
1
'
-
5
"
3
1
'
-
4
"
5
'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
3
2
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
7'
-
1
1
"
37
1
'
-
9
1
/
2
"
20' - 4"
23' - 2 1/2"198' - 7 1/2"34' - 2"2' - 3"
158' - 6"40' - 2"34' - 2"
21
'
-
4
"
1
9
'
-
8
"
1
1
9
'
-
9
"
2
7
'
-
0
"
1
2
0
'
-
0
1
/
2
"
6
9
'
-
6
"
2'
-
5
"
37
7
'
-
3
1
/
2
"
20' - 4"49' - 0"10' - 4"1 BED
ST
O
R
A
G
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
1+
B
E
D
STAIR 02ELEVSTAIR 03
ST
A
I
R
EL
E
V
ST
A
I
R
0
4
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 4:28:26
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
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
1 BED2 BED2 BED
1
B
E
D
J
R
1+
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
J
R
1
B
E
D
J
R
3 BED 2 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
3
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' - 8"196' - 0"34' - 6 1/2"109' - 8"14' - 3"16' - 1"
3 8 ' - 2 1 /2 "
1 1 4 ' - 6 1 /2 "
1 0 ' - 0 "
6
6
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
2
'
-
1
0
1
/
2
"
6
9
'
-
4
"
OUTDOOR LOUNGE
1
B
E
D
J
R
2
3
'
-
1
1
"
9
'
-
0
"
PR
I
V
A
T
E
R
O
O
F
TE
R
R
A
C
E
56' - 0"56' - 0"
56
'
-
0
"
56' - 0"20' - 4"
20
'
-
4
1
/
2
"
1
0
0
'
-
3
"
1
1
'
-
5
"
3
1
'
-
4
"
5
'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
3
2
'
-
3
"
7' - 2"41' - 10"10' - 0"144' - 2"
18
4
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
25' - 8"
12
0
'
-
0
1
/
2
"
3
1
'
-
4
"
3
2
'
-
1
0
1
/
2
"
5
'
-
4
"
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
ELEV STAIR 02STAIR
ST
A
I
R
EL
E
V
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 4:28:38
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
1
A
2
0
OPEN TO RESIDENT LOUNGE BELOW1 BED 1 BED 1 BED 2 BED1 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
3
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
J
R
1
B
E
D
TR
A
S
H
TRASH
2
A
1
9
1
A
1
9
2
A
2
0
DS
DS
ID
F
PR
I
V
A
T
E
R
O
O
F
TE
R
R
A
C
E
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
4
'
-
0
"
6
6
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
2
'
-
1
0
1
/
2
"
4
'
-
0
"
6
9
'
-
4
"
4
'
-
0
"
6
9
'
-
4
"
4
'
-
0
"
4' - 0"64' - 2"4' - 1"31' - 10"191' - 10"34' - 6 1/2"31' - 4"32' - 10 1/2"64' - 2"26' - 7"
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
PR
I
V
A
T
E
R
O
O
F
TE
R
R
A
C
E
C
L
4
0
'
-
0
"
66
'
-
4
"
66' - 4"56' - 0"
66
'
-
4
"
2' - 1"2' - 0"8' - 7 1/2"
2 ' - 0 "
2 2 5 ' - 1 0 "
2 ' - 0 "
18
4
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
25' - 8"1+ BED
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
EL
E
V
S
T
A
I
R
ELEV STAIR 02STAIR 03BARarchitects901 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 4:28:49
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
DN
SLOPESLOPE SLOPE
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
77' - 8"78' - 0"83' - 4"77' - 1"
DS
DS
DS
DS
DSDSDSDSDS
77
'
-
8
"
84
'
-
5
"
66
'
-
4
"
33
'
-
7
"
6' - 3"
2
9
'
-
7
"
7 ' - 6 "
94
'
-
4
"
6
'
-
1
1
/
2
"
7
2
'
-
9
"
1
7
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
1
0
7
'
-
6
1
/
2
"
7
2
'
-
4
"
7'
-
1
1
"
37
0
'
-
6
1
/
2
"
21' - 7"
2'
-
5
"
37
5
'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
21' - 8"
41
'
-
0
"
1
1
9
'
-
9
"
2
3
'
-
1
0
"
7
2
'
-
9
1
/
2
"
4
6
'
-
3
1
/
2
"
7
2
'
-
4
"
21' - 1 1/2"204' - 7 1/2"32' - 5 1/2"
23' - 2 1/2"232' - 9 1/2"2' - 3"
11' - 1 1/2"23' - 0 1/2"40' - 2"158' - 6"
7
7
'
-
5
"
1
9
'
-
6
"
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 4:29:04
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
K W/D
WS
DW REF
VL
K
L
K
W/D
WS
DW REF
V
L
L
K
L L
W/
D
V
WS
Q
DW REF
W/D
Q V
DW REF
L
1
B
E
D
70
7
S
F
BEDROOM
LI
V
I
N
G
DI
N
I
N
G
KITCHEN
EN
T
R
Y
BATHROOMCLOSET
2
B
E
D
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
3
B
E
D
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
1
B
E
D
J
R
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
8/28/2017 4:29:43
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
8/28/2017 4:29:47
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
8/28/2017 4:29:50
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
8/28/2017 4:29:53
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 2 347' - 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
7
'
-
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
8/28/2017 4:30:01
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
1
W
I
N
C
O
L
O
R
0
1
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
8/28/2017 4:31:18
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
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
Planning Commission October 24, 2017
Regular Meeting Page | 1
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
At tendee Name Title Status
Scott Mittan Commission Chair Present
T ara Bhuthim ethee Commission Vice Chair Present
Am it Kothari Planning Comm issioner Present
Sam ir Qureshi Planning Comm issioner Present
Stephen W right Planning Comm issioner 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
Regular Meeting Page | 2
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:
Planning Commission October 24, 2017
Regular Meeting Page | 3
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.
Planning Commission October 24, 2017
Regular Meeting Page | 4
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 pack age 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.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Jeff Baker
Assistant Community Development Director
Martha Battaglia
From: g- architect @comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 7:17 PM
To: Martha Battaglia
Subject: Ashton @ Dublin Station public comment: please review & forward re tonights Planning
Commission mtg.
Dear Ms Battaglia,
Am writing you to express concern with various aspects of the proposed Ashton -at- Dublin- Station
project. I believe Dublin deserves a proposal more suitable to maintaining a desirable quality of
life while enhancing our city. Kindly share these comments with the entire Planning Commission
during tonight's meeting.
1) Placing housing in such close proximity to the heavily congested 580 freeway poses a negative
health risk for any future resident, be they adult or child, ..due to the higher levels of air -born exhaust
particulates generated by vehicular traffic on 580. There is information, at the federal level, that
points to high level of pollutants in areas surrounding major roadways being generated by routine
stop & go traffic, particularly that of diesel -fuel trucks (580 in Dublin could be THE poster
child). Poor air quality creates higher instances of pulmonary- related health issues (ex:bronchial &
sinus irritation, asthma). Therefore in the interest providing healthy places for living, no housing
proposals should be considered south of Dublin Boulevard.
2) The proposed scale of the project seems excessive given the height (85ft) and massing of adjacent
construction. The proposed project is massive, dark, & looming. The lack of a deeper sidewalk and
pedestrian -scale set - backs, coupled with its looming 85' height is truly antithetical to creating a
pedestrian friendly presence on Dublin Boulevard. Typically a 20 -25' deep sidewalk peppered with
seating and landscaping would be employed along the full frontage of a tall structure to help mask its
largess along a street. The project turns its back on Dublin Blvd with a long screened frontage &
token corner plaza. The aerial image is deceptive... masks the issue with sunlight being prevented
from reaching the sidewalk due to the project's massing. This will create a dark pedestrian route
along a narrow sidewalk. Much like Trumark's development further west on Dublin Blvd, the
streetscape at Ashton feels uninviting, cold and not particularly safe. The proposal is clearly
not interested in the pedestrian experience, nor in enhancing the design and feel of Dublin's main
thoroughfare.
3) The addition of the landscaped upper level is a nice amenity for residents, but unless accessible to
the public (& for good reason, like a retail destination), this upper space provides no benefit to the
city. The token corner plaza is, well..a token gesture. Without the connectivity to an inviting
pedestrian experience, no one will ever use the corner plaza. If a developer wants to provide a benefit
to the city, the benefit proposed should have a meaningful impact on improving the quality of life in
our city.
4) Lastly, our city is experiencing a dramatic population growth. Unfortunately infrastructure is not
keeping up. Our roads are jammed and our schools are overcrowded. Adding more housing without
providing a thorough plan to effectively meet the growth- related infrastructure needs of our current
residents, never mind future ones, is unconscionable. Civic leaders can no longer ignore the perils of
approving development willy -nilly without ensuring Dublin schools can house the students generated
by these developments, as well as resolving the additional vehicular traffic generated by new
f � i
proposals. Ignorance is bliss, put its still ignorance. Until a thorough and well- funded plan for
addressing Dublin's infrastructure woes is enacted, no more homes should be built.
In summary, the project is "too big for its britches ", does little to enhance the civic appeal of our city,
ignores air - quality issues, and would burden Dublin's already inadequate infrastructure. So
just because you can build it, doesn't mean you should. I kindly ask the commission to reconsider this
project in light of these issues. I ask that the commission put the health and well being of its residents,
current and future, ahead of enticing eye -wash and promises. Your decisions make this city what it is,
and what it can be. Please reject the Ashton @ Dublin Station proposal.
Sincerely,
Gabrielle Blackman
Dublin Resident
2
Martha Battaolia
From: Jegadheesa Murugesan <mjpandian @gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 5:43 PM
To: Martha Battaglia; City Council
Subject: Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A -3)
Rezoning and adding more homes is not the need of this town right now.
It needs infrastructure (Roads, Schools, congestion relief)>
Schools are overcrowded, traffic is a mess and adding more homes doesn't solve this problem.
Please consider not approving this.
Thanks
Jega
1
Martha Battaalia
From: W Liu <I_wf @hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 4 :57 PM
To: City Council; Martha Battaglia
Subject: Vote NO to this housing project
Dear City Mayor and Council members
Please vote NO to this new housing project. Furthermore, I would strongly urge you to vote NO to any new
housing projects in the future, unless DUSD and the city find a solution to address the school overcrowding
issue.
Best regards,
Dublin resident
Commission Hearing this Tuesday on 220 MORE Housing Units Proposed Project on
2.36 acres, 7 stories, 85 ft Fligh!
COMMUNITY RESPONSE NEEDED 'fell Commissioners & Council to "VOTE NO on 'Ashton at Dublin Station' Project." E-
mail Commission by 3:00 p.m.Tues. to Planner: martha .battagliaLa)dubiin.ca.gov E -mail City Council at:
council (dublin.ca.gov ATTEND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING: Tuesday, November 14th, 7:00 p.m. at City Hall,
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin. Below: "ASHTON AT DUBLIN STATION" PROJECT (TRANSIT CENTER SITE A -3): Staff
Report: http: / /dubIinca.igm2,com /Citizens /FilcOpen.aspx ?Type =1 &ID= 1208 &lnline =Trnue Project Location: Northwest corner
of Campbell Lane & DeMarcus Boulevard
1
Martha Battaglia
From: Betty Hudak <bettboop12 @yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 2:49 PM
To: Martha Battaglia; City Council
Subject: housing
Please vote NO on the "Ashton at Dublin Station" project. As long time residents of
Dublin, we are tired of all the building., housing, traffic, and congestion. It is so sad that
Dublin has lost its small town appeal and charm. We would ask that you reconsider
other housing /building projects as well. Let's leave some open space for the next
generation to enjoy!
Sincerely,
Betty and Norb Hudak
i
Martha Ba tta2iia
From: Chris <chris_p2 @earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 12:38 PM
To: Martha Battaglia
Subject: Transit Center Site A -3 (PLPA -2017- 00036) Project Description: The property owner,
Ashton at Dublin Station
Dear Martha,
Please allow me to present to you some issues regarding the above project which I would request be
taken into account prior to approval to start construction. We would request that this email be
included in the documents /agenda regarding the Planning Commitee meeting to be held today.
1) Dust and debris caused by construction that will inevitably effect our complex at Elan. This is a
severe health problem and present during earthmoving and at other stages of a construction. Please
detail the measures that will be applied to minimize this impact on the adjacent communities City of
Dublin Construction Approval Documents and verify implementation of the mitigations.
2) Noise issues. Restrictions requested to limit noise outside normal working hours due to the effects
on the adjacent communities where many children are present.
3) Traffic issues. During the construction of the Avalon Ii & III, construction traffic related to
earthworks stopped traffic on DeMarcus Blvd. Please ensure that an adequate Traffic Management.
Flan and severe construction traffic restrictions on DeMarcus Blvd are incorporated into the binding
City of Dublin Construction Approval Documents. We would request that these issues /mitigations be
monitored closely during construction by the City of Dublin building staff..
4) Rodent Issues. With the start of construction in Camp Parks for the Boulevard Development, our
Elan community was invaded by rodents which is very dangerous to health and in the adjacent
communities there are many children. Rodents penetrated dwellings in the Elan community and apart
from potentially suffering bites from rodents we have faeces left by them with the attached risk of
serious illness. Please request that mitigation measures be instigated to stop this occurring. We
would request that these measures be published for public knowledge and their implementation
monitored prior to and during construction by the City of Dublin building staff.
Thank you,
Chris Page
5501 DeMarcus Blvd Apt 203
Martha Battaglia
From: Val <gereva @yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2017 12:55 PM
To: Martha Battaglia
Subject: Nov. 14th town meeting
Martha,
As one of many concerned citizens in the area in direct proximity to the development under
discussion at the town meeting on November 14th, I have listed a number of issues I and many
others would appreciate attention to; with a plan of action to mitigate the issues that have arisen with
past new developments in the area.
1) Dust and debris caused by construction that will inevitably affect our freshly painted complex at
Elan. It would be greatly appreciated and appropriate to have the developer arrange, coordinate, and
pay for window washing and building pressure washing for Elan once the development is completed.
2) Nose issues: ways to mitigate, and attention in respect to the early hours & weekends
3) Traffic issues: ways to mitigate in consideration to Elan residents
4) Field mice /rodent displacement from construction causing them to run to Elan garage spaces. The
most recent nearby development brought over 350 field mice (counting only the ones caught in
common area traps) with hundreds of man hours required to lay traps, collect, and dispose. In
addition, many individual owners' garages were infested, requiring cleaning out droppings, urination,
destroyed property, and traps full of dozens and dozens more field mice. Individual garage cleaning
required removing all items in garage(s) at least 6 times due to continued and reoccurring
infestations over many months.
5) Dog feces increased on Campbell Green grounds and around the nearby communities of Elan
and Avalon: Hundreds of pet owners visit daily this communal space for their dogs to utilize for
elimination. However, and unfortunately, numerous dog owners refuse to pick up after their dogs. A
company has been hired named "White Magic" to pick up the dog waste which has helped at some
level, but only covers certain areas for limited days per week. There are 3 complexes that pay for
this, but would be widely appropriate for the new development to contribute to this regular fee, with
an increase of territory widening, and with increased visits to handle the inevitable increase of dog
waste. Clearly, it intensifies in quantity with each new development utilizing the same small areas for
dog elimination.
Possible solutions that may be more effective than weekly attempts for dog waste pick up: Some
communities are having great success with requiring all dog owners in the community to have their
dog feces sampled and identified for its DNA sequencing. If owners do not pick up their pet waste,
then they are identified and fined, increasing with each discovery. Of course all communities in the
area would have to sign on and cooperate, enforcing samples submission by pet owners as part of
their lease requirement, for lab analysis and its enforcement of pet owners failure to comply.
These past nearby new developments have shown a significant increase with the above mentioned
problems. We would like to not only bring awareness to these factors, but more importantly, to set a
plan of action in place to prL.ant and at the least, inhibit the prolI ns associated with these points
as much as possible.
Thank you,
Elan resident
2
Martha Battaalia
From: kerriechabot @comcast.net
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 4:31 PM
To: Martha Battaglia
Subject: upcoming project Transit center
Hello Martha,
I am writing to you regarding Transit Center Site A -3 (PLPA- 2017 - 00036). Please pass my concerns to the planning
commission.
This project is not good for our city. The height and the layout do not in any way complement the area. This is not what
Dublin needs. Additionally, the schools and roads around that area will not hold any more residents until better
infrastructure has been planned. Please do what is right for Dublin.
Sincerely,
Kerrie Chabot 18 year resident of Dublin.
1
Martha Battaglia
From: David Bewley <davidbewley @comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:38 PM
To: Martha Battaglia
Subject: Transit Center Site A -3 (PLPA -2017- 00036)
Hi Martha,
I am unable to attend the upcoming meeting regarding Transit Center Site A -3 (PLPA- 2017- 00036).
Please forward my comment that Residential Development in this retail area that is 7 stories tall on 2.36 acres it too
dense and will not result in a public benefit for the Dublin Community as a whole. Although I assume it is not designed
as family oriented, it will also impact our congested school system which should be at least mentioned as a possible
adverse impact.
I fully understand that the Planning Commission is not the School Board. However, to use the procedural differentiation
of "separation" of "powers" or agencies as an excuse to plan for additional development without any consideration of
its impacts on the City of Dublin as a whole which should include a respect for the impacts of all known areas such as
school crowing, is in my opinion an abuse of process.
There should be a coordination between the different agencies in our local government in order to have effective
planning.
Please forward my comments to all parties.
Thank you,
David Bewley
11166 Brittany Lane
Dublin, CA
Martha Battaalia
From: Karen <kagonzl @comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 3:25 PM
To: Martha Battaglia
Cc: City Council; Arun Goel
Subject: VOTE NO on 'Ashton at Dublin Station' Project
Martha and Dublin City Council — Please vote NOT on the Ashton at Dublin Station Project. As a long -time West Dublin
homeowner, I'm appalled at the out of control growth in our area. Also, the city planning's focus appears to be on East
Dublin rather than refreshing or paying attention to the West side (we pay taxes as welll)
Over the weekend, there was strong participation on the NextDoor application as many of us expressed our concern and
frustration over Dublin's crowded and ugly conditions. We're urging citizens to get involved and vote for council
members that follow- through on their promises.
Thank you.
Karen Gonzales
925 640 -2740
1
Martha Battaalia
From: ingrid register <I.Crackers @hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 5:45 PM
To: Martha Battaglia
Subject: Fw: ashton project
Ingrid Register a.k.a. Crackers the Clown
From: ingrid register
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 5:43 PM
io: council dubiin.ca -gov; marthabattaglia@dublin.ca.gov
Subject: ashton project
Der Council members and Martha,
I am asking you to vote NO on the ashton at Dublin project. Our town is so congested, so overcrowded
. Please listen to what the residents want as you said you would do when you were elected.
Thank you
Ingrid register
I
Martha Battaalia
From: Susan Rinetti <sue @rinettiandassociates.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 6:24 PM
To: Martha Battaglia
Subject: Vote No at Ashton, Dublin Station please
We don't need anymore houses.... have you seen the traffic? Schools are a mess and we don't need more housing here
Please vote no. Dublin used to be a cute little town. Now it looks like Orange County.
have lived here 10 years and can't believe the amount of change ... and not for the good. Just overcrowding ... greedy
developers.
Please!
Sue Rinetti
11422 Winding Trail Lane
Dublin, CA 94568
1
Martha Battaglia
From: Mike Heim <mitynerp @yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 3:08 PM
To: Martha Battaglia
Subject: Ashton at Dublin Station Project
Please vote "no" on 'Ashton at Dublin Station' Project. This once quiet and nice town is already becoming severely
overcrowded. It takes 20 min just to drive across town now. Each new residence adds at least one car (often 2 or more)
to our crowded streets. Please vote no on this and all future additions.
Thank you,
Michael Helm
Sent from my Wad
1
Commissioners Mittan, Bhutimethee, Kothari, Wright & Qureshi:
Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A -3) should summarily be rejected by the Planning
Commission this evening absent any recommended changes. The project does not meet the goals
and objectives set forth under the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) in its
architectural design, quality of materials or compatibility within the Transit Center.
The 220 units proposed are not vested. There is no legal requirement for the Commission (or
Council) to recommend or approve the construction of the residential project; vesting the project.
ASHTON PROJECT ISN'T COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES IN THE
TRANSIT CENTER.
The proposed project: 85' tall, 220 units on 2.36 acres is more dense and taller than other projects
in the Transit Center. It's height is NOT consistent with surrounding buildings. Comparing
Ashton project's lowest point roof lines disregards the fact that the development (at its center)
reaches a height of 85' towering above the Elan and Avalon projects. The Ashton project is also
NOT similar in "scale and size" to other residential projects in the Transit Center with fewer
stories and less density.
If approved, the Ashton Project would be the HIGHEST DENSITY in the Transit with 93.2 units
per acre! The current zoning allows for a minimum of 25.1 units per acre. The number of units
proposed far exceeds the current, minimum zoning.
The Commission should reject the project. It's height, density and architectural design is NOT
consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
ASHTON PROJECT DOES NOT REFLECT EDSP HIGH QUALITY
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OR MATERIALS:
The Ashton Project does not reflect a "high quality" of materials or architectural design for
Dublin's future. The architectural design does NOT enhance the Transit Center nor does the
building complement the surrounding town homes and condominiums in the Transit Center.
The design with two overhanging roofs and "access to the units primarily from interior corridors
with the exception of the stoop units along the private street facing Camellia Place..." is an
enclave. The materials of the project are primarily stucco and metal; not reflective of higher
quality material or design in the EDSP and General Plan.
Arguably the "character, scale and quality of the design and architectural relationship with other
buildings" is not "harmonious" to this site or the surrounding projects.
ASHTON AT DUBLIN STATION DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO A PEDESTRIAN
FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT:
The project is an apartment complex, 7 stories high with two story parking on the bottom two
floors. The project's exterior does not contribute to a pedestrian friendly environment with metal
screening on the ground floor.
THE PROJECT WILL CONTRIBUTE TO MORE OVERCROWDING & UNITS THAT
ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE:
An additional 220 units on 2.36 units will further negatively impact our schools, traffic and
quality of life. Higher densities result in more "Community Benefits" (money or other benefits
from developers for Dublin) but at what cost?
The Planning Commission should reject Ashton at Dublin Station. It does not contribute ANY
units for low income level households under RIINA; allowing only 22 units for moderate income
levels; for family of four, 80 -117k. It does not meet the level of excellence set forth in our
General Plan or Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. It is not compatible with surrounding projects and
will further burden our City's infrastructure.
Marlene Massetti
Dublin Resident
1
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 specificall y 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
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Assistant Community Development Director
G:\PA\2017\PLPA-2017-00036 Parcel A-3 Stage 2 PD Zoning, SDR, TMAP\CC Hearing 12.5.17\7. 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 wi thin
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 Tra nsit 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
2
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, recommend s 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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of November 2017 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mittan, Bhuthimethee, Kothari, Qureshi, Wright
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
________
Assistant Community Development Director
G:\PA\2017\PLPA-2017-00036 Parcel A-3 Stage 2 PD Zoning, SDR, TMAP\CC Hearing 12.5.17\CC Attachments\8. PC Resolution 17-13 recommending that the
City Council approve the SDR for Site A-3.doc
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 Stat ion, 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 wi thin
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
2
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, recommend s 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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of November 2017 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mittan, Bhuthimethee, Kothari, Qureshi,
NOES: Wright
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
________
Assistant Community Development Director
G:\PA\2017\PLPA-2017-00036 Parcel A-3 Stage 2 PD Zoning, SDR, TMAP\CC Hearing 12.5.17\CC Attachments\9. PC Reso 17-17 recommending that the City
Council approve theTentative Map for Site A-3.doc
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